Social figures as elements of sociological theorizing

ABSTRACT

Social figures are an inherently important but largely unnoticed element of sociological theorizing. Like other elements (such as metaphors, analogies, or diagrams), social figures have their own characteristics and their own epistemic possibilities and limitations. In order to elaborate their characteristics, in the first part of the article I will show how social figures appear in sociological theories, such as the ‘flexible self’ in Richard Sennett’s ‘The Corrosion of Character’ and Siegfried Kracauer’s ‘employees’ in his book ‘The Salaried Masses’. I will then outline the main features of social figures and the functions they perform within these texts. In the second part of the article, I will address how to use social figures in sociological theorizing. Following Jean-François Lyotard as well as Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, I will outline the theoretical starting points which form the basis for taking social figures seriously as essential elements of theorizing. On this basis, I will discuss the practical dimension of working with social figures. This involves describing the social figures and theorizing with such figures. The latter means either unfolding new ways of thinking or analyzing the social figure as an indicator of the burning issues of the time.

KEYWORDS:

• Sociological theorizing
• social figures
• figurations
• social change
• Siegfried Kracauer
• Richard Sennett
• Jean-François Lyotard
• Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari

From working with ready-made theories to the practice of sociological theorizing

Traditionally, sociological theory is understood as a system of well-defined concepts (cf. Abend 2008, 177; Stinchcombe 1968). Within this system, the elements – usually concepts – are logically related and for themselves defined in a clear and fixed manner – ‘clare et distincte’ in René Descartes’ words. Thus, the concepts are mutually dependent: for example, Émile Durkheim’s concept of the social division of labour is connected with the concepts of specialization and individualization (1984). These theories are presented to us in the form of already completed articles or books. For students, it is then a matter of accessing these ready-made theories and comprehending them. According to this understanding, theories then appear in a fixed form.

On the other hand, authors such as Richard Swedberg deviced a supposedly new understanding of sociological theory (cf. Abbott 2004; Swedberg 2012, 2014a, 2014b, 2016; Weick 1989). However, Swedberg’s understanding is less an invention and more a change of focus. The focus is no longer on the result, where sociological theories are presented in a fixed form. Instead, the focus is on the process of sociological theorizing, which precedes the fixed form (Guggenheim 2023; Krause 2016; Swedberg 2016). Sociological theorizing is then seen as a practice. This practice of theorizing, in turn, involves a variety of actors. Various actors, in Bruno Latour’s sense (2005, 43–86), struggle with each other: ideas, paper, laptop, writing-program, empirical data, metaphors, etc. According to this new understanding, it is not only about ready-made theories, but also about the preceding process of theorizing – and this involves not only concepts, but also various actors.¹

In my paper I would like to analyze the actions of one particular actor: ‘social figures’. These social figures function as an inherently important element in the process of sociological theorizing. They have gone largely unnoticed until now and can be considered part of the ‘silent knowledge’ Swedberg points to (2016, 12). The aim of my paper is therefore to draw attention to this element of sociological theorizing. As with other elements (such as metaphors, analogies, or diagrams), social figures are characterized by their own features and their own epistemological options and limitations. Accordingly, doing sociological theory implies dealing with these figurative options and their horizontal translation (cf. Guggenheim 2023). And it also means that sociological theorizing takes on a different form at this point: a figurative form.²

In order to first clarify what characterizes social figures as elements of sociological theorizing, I will discuss two examples of social figures from already completed sociological theories and outline their main features: their human form, their interfigurative references and prefigurations, their societal implications, the way they link public and scientific discourse, the way they affect people, and their different medial forms. I then discuss the different functions which social figures perform in these sociological texts: how they visualize the sociological concern; how they contribute to the plausibility of the sociological argument; how they help to create the unity and coherence of the text; and how they function as an interface between scientific and public discourse as well as between different sciences. I then address what this means with regard to working with them in sociological theorizing and how the figurative form of theorizing works. In order to do this, I will first discuss some basic theoretical starting points. I will draw them from the French philosophers Jean-François Lyotard, Gilles Deleuze, and Félix Guattari, all of whom deal extensively with the role of figures and figurations in theorizing. Analogous to Swedberg’s analysis of the use and treatment of metaphors (2020), I will then discuss the demands which social figures make on sociological theorizing. The two main tasks here are to describe the figure and to involve this figure in the process of theorizing: with new options for thinking or to gain initial access to the burning issues of the time. I then discuss the advantages and disadvantages of social figures as elements of sociological theorizing. Finally, I derive what this in turn means for a changed understanding of sociological theorizing.

How do social figures appear within ready-made theories?

Before analyzing the role social figures play within the process of sociological theorizing, I want to show how they appear within ready-made theories. Thus, I am analyzing sociological texts as end products of theorizing. How and where do social figures appear in the texts? What are the main features of these? And which functions do they perform to support the argument and generate evidence? I have chosen two examples from different historical and social-cultural backgrounds – but both from a Western context – and they both deal with changes in the field of work: Richard Sennett’s social figure of the ‘flexible self’ and Siegfried Kracauer’s social figure of the ‘employees’ in his book on ‘salaried masses’.

The social figure of the flexible self in Sennett’s ‘The Corrosion of Character’

Social figures are human figures, exemplary individuals who appear in sociological descriptions. In particular, they animate those parts of a theory which aim to characterize contemporary society. The social figure in question embodies with its features the typical characteristics of this society or of a particular social context. Thus, it is not surprising that Sennett describes in ‘The Corrosion of Character’ (1998) the characteristics of the contemporary world of work by means of such an exemplary figure.³ Right at the beginning of his book, Sennett introduces his social figure of the flexible self:

Recently I met someone in an airport whom I hadn’t seen for fifteen years. I had interviewed the father of Rico (as I shall call him) a quarter century ago when I wrote a book about blue-collar workers in America, The Hidden Injuries of Class. Enrico, his father, then worked as a janitor, and had high hopes for this boy, who was just entering adolescence, a bright kid good at sports. […] In the airline lounge, Rico looked as if he had fulfilled his father’s dreams. He carried a computer in a smart leather case, dressed in a suit I couldn’t afford, and sported a signet ring with a crest. (1998, 15)

In this evocative scene, Sennett introduces his social figure of the flexible self, embodied by the young entrepreneur Rico.⁴ But Sennett not only portrays Rico with his story and appearance, he also makes himself appear in the scene. At first, he describes himself as an observer, and later he describes how he enters into a conversation with Rico. In addition, Sennett writes about his previous interviews with Rico’s father and what strikes him about Rico now. With the insertion, ‘as I shall call him’, Sennett suggests that Rico is a real person, interviewed by himself, but whose identity should remain anonymous. This is striking, because Sennett is well aware of the constructive character of his social figure, as a remark in the preface shows (cf. 1998, 11).

Sennett portrays Rico throughout the first chapter and contrasts him with his father, Enrico. Long-term goals, work routines, and lasting relationships characterize the father’s life. Rico’s career, on the other hand, is characterized by constant changes of jobs and homes. Rico defends flexibility and risk as entrepreneurial necessities, and sees them as professional challenges to be taken ‘in a sporting manner’. He is concerned, however, that flexibility and ephemerality have a negative effect on his character, and that he cannot be a role model for his children:

It is the time dimension of the new capitalism, rather than high-tech data transmission, global stock markets, or free trade, which most directly affects people’s emotional lives outside the workplace. Transposed to the family realm, ‘No long term’ means keep moving, don’t commit yourself, and don’t sacrifice. Rico suddenly erupted on the plane, ‘You can’t imagine how stupid I feel when I talk to my kids about commitment. It’s an abstract virtue to them; they don’t see it anywhere.’ (Sennett 1998, 25)

The direct speech at the end, and also the depiction of the emotions, reinforces the vividness of the scene. In this way Sennett puts his main character in front of the eyes of the reader. Throughout the book he regularly comes back to Rico and his story to illustrate the new working conditions because, in his view, they are exemplary in character. ‘I’ve described this encounter because Rico’s experiences with time, place, and work are not unique; neither is his emotional response. […] he is an Everyman for our times’ (Sennett 1998, 31). By juxtaposing the two figures, Rico and Enrico, Sennett also addresses the changes in the world of work that he wants to explore.

Sennett could have written his book about changing working conditions in abstract terms and along essential conceptualizations. Instead, he opens his book directly with the appearance of a vivid social figure who we then meet again and again throughout the book. This character, Rico, vividly embodies the effects of the new working conditions. Sennett is able to portray Rico’s attitudes, as well as his challenges and doubts, in a very lifelike manner.

As already mentioned above, Sennett’s insertion ‘as I shall call him’ suggests that it is a real interviewed person. However, he later explains that Rico is a compilation of empirical material. He, Sennett, has ‘disguised individual identities rather more heavily than one would when reporting formal interviews; this has meant changing places and times and occasionally compounding several voices into one or splitting one voice into many’ (Sennett 1998, 11). His social figure is thus the result of a bundling or concentrated compilation of characteristics relevant to the present. In this respect, Rico is not a concrete case study or a concrete historical person, but a figurative typification which moves between reality and fiction, concrete case study and type.

Siegfried Kracauer’s social figure of the employees

Siegfried Kracauer, too, has a relevant scene at the beginning of his study of employees, in which he introduces his social figure⁵:

‘But you can already find all that in novels’, one private employee replied, when I asked her to tell me something about her life in the office. I got to know her one Sunday on the train journey to a Berlin suburb. She was returning from a wedding banquet which had lasted the whole day and, as she herself admitted, she was a bit tipsy. Without prompting, she divulged her boss, who was a soap manufacturer; she had already been working for three years as his private secretary. He was a bachelor and admired her lovely dark eyes. ‘Your eyes really are very lovely’, I said. (Kracauer 1998, 28)

The opening scene, in which the social figure is introduced, points directly to some of the characteristics of the employees which will be elaborated on in more detail later in the book, to Berlin, to the factory, and so on. The young woman’s relationship with her boss suggests the ambiguity which, according to Kracauer, pervades the entire world of the employees. On the one hand she is his secretary, on the other she is having an affair with him, but this does not call her future plans with her fiancé into question. And it already shows a typical configuration: that between a female employee and her male boss.

In addition, the author himself is shown here at the very beginning in his role as a sociologist who personally encounters those whose situation he wants to investigate. By addressing the employee, he becomes part of the situation. Kracauer quotes her, and his direct speech – ‘Your eyes really are very lovely’ – breaks down the objectifying distance and at the same time confirms the male gaze of the lover. The author presents himself as someone who questions and observes, who reveals how he came to his conclusions, or at least encourages us to think about them.

Above all, however, it is here that we get to know the first employee, and Kracauer goes on to introduce several others. Because the employees appear as a collective figure. There are many of them, and the collective figure is mainly female. The ‘salaried type’ also includes ‘[s]peech, clothes, gestures and countenances’ (Kracauer 1998, 39), but also such concrete physical accessories and characteristics as ‘pens; Kohinoor pencils; haemorrhoids; hair loss; beds; crêpe soles; white teeth; rejuvenation elixirs; selling coffee to friends; dictaphones; writer’s cramp; trembling, especially in the presence of others; quality pianos on weekly instalments; and so on’ (Kracauer 1998, 88). Thus, concrete things, circumstances, and behaviours come into play, representing a sensual-aesthetic dimension of experience.

Moreover, this social figure has a clear setting in which it appears. The setting of the employees is the city of Berlin and within it the large company or its office. For Kracauer, Berlin is the city of employees par excellence. ‘Only in Berlin […] may the reality of salaried employees be grasped’ (Kracauer 1998, 111). At the end of the 1920s, it was there in particular, but also in other large cities, that a stratum of employees ‘increasingly assumes a standard character’ (Kracauer 1998, 68). This makes it clear when and where the social figure of the employees appeared.

And even the activities of the employees are presented. Everyday work is determined by the processes of rationalization in large companies. Monotonous work steps, such as punching cards, are integrated into a meticulously planned, mechanized process, which in many places has been transformed into ‘machine processing’ (Kracauer 1998, 41). Although it is routine work in anonymous organizational structures and there are no opportunities for advancement for the workers themselves, the appearance is maintained that it is ‘something better’ and only those with ‘personality’ (Kracauer 1998, 35) are employed. At the same time, appearance plays an important role.

The evening and leisure time are characterized by ‘narcotics and distractions of every kind’ (Kracauer 1998, 52). As already mentioned in the opening scene, there is a lot of dancing, people distract themselves with films, magazines, or in the ‘pleasure barracks’ (Kracauer 1998, 113). Kracauer sees a close connection between the everyday world and the distractions of leisure:

The more monotony holds sway over the working day, the further away you must be transported once work ends – assuming that attention is to be diverted from the process of production in the background. The true counterstroke against the office machine, however, is the world vibrant with colour. The world not as it is, but as it appears in popular hits. A world every last corner of which is cleansed, as though with a vacuum cleaner, of the dust of everyday existence. (Kracauer 1998, 92–3)

Kracauer’s descriptions of employees make it clear that social figures have not only general characteristics, such as gender and age, but also character traits, typical behaviour, references to other figures, a setting in which they appear, and a temporal framework.

And Kracauer uses his own method to evoke his social figure of the employees: he juxtaposes individual scenes and representations, which then evoke the social figure in their interplay. This approach is important to him in order to distance himself from the image of the employees as it is conjured up in magazines and the cinema (cf. Kracauer 1998, 68). Kracauer also distances himself from journalistic reportage, which he accuses of merely reproducing what is observed. ‘But existence is not captured by being at best duplicated in reportage’ (Kracauer 1998, 32). For him, reality is a ‘construction’ and lies ‘solely in the mosaic which is assembled from single observations on the basis of comprehension of their meaning’ (Kracauer 1998, 32). It is the complex interplay of individual descriptions which gives the social figure its contour.

For Kracauer, this montage of figures and scenes has a political function. He understands his study as a ‘diagnosis’ (Kracauer 1998, 25), which does not aim at concrete proposals for therapy, but at a change of consciousness: ‘for once the situation in question is thoroughly known, it must be acted upon on the basis of this new awareness’ (Kracauer 1998, 25). Through his social-figurative descriptions, Kracauer wants to give workers a self-awareness which will enable them to act differently.

The main features of social figures

Based on their appearance in Sennett’s and Kracauer’s sociological theories, some essential characteristics of social figures can already be distinguished.⁶ Firstly, they are human figures. They have a human form, often a name, a gender, an age, certain behaviours, etc.⁷ In other words, they potentially have all the characteristics which would be considered character description in literary studies (cf. Jannidis 2004, 127; Koch 1991, 278). In addition, there is the setting – or according to David Alworth, the ‘sites’ (cf. 2016) – in which the figure moves and the temporal framework of his or her appearance.

Secondly, the human figure is related to other figures. There are interfigurative references between adjacent and secondary figures, but also between contrasting figures. Rico, as shown, is contrasted with his father, Enrico. In addition, Sennett invokes the entrepreneurial role model Bill Gates. For Rico and his generation, ‘he is a heroic figure’ and ‘the very epitome of a flexible magnate’ (Sennett 1998, 61). From Rico’s perspective, the contrasting figure is the irresponsible single mother: ‘Like most of his peers, he loathes social parasites, embodied for him in the figure of the welfare mother who spends her government checks on booze and drugs.’ (Sennett 1998, 27)⁸ Last but not least, the male white Western sociologist himself is called upon here as part of the constellation of figures.⁹

Thirdly, just as there are synchronous interfigurative references, there are often antecedent figures for a social figure: their prefigurations (cf. Blumenberg 2014; Moser and Schlechtriemen 2018, 170). Even if a social figure does not necessarily refer to it explicitly, there are precursor figures in many cases with similar characteristics to a social figure. The current social figure can then be understood as an update of older social figures. In this sense, Sennett’s descriptions of flexibilized working conditions implicitly refer to earlier social figures of the worker, which include, not least, Kracauer’s employees.

The crucial fourth point is that social figures are not just random individuals, but embody something typical of their contemporary society in their characteristics and behaviour. This is why they are called social figures. They reflect the typical experiences and problems of their time. This is what makes them so interesting from a sociological point of view. In the two sociological descriptions, they serve to illustrate the typical characteristics and challenges of the world of work being described.

Fifthly, what is not immediately apparent from these two examples is that social figures do not only appear in sociological theories. This is also a central feature with important methodological consequences. For, unlike ideal types, for example, which are written with a clear heuristic goal in a scientific context, social figures can also appear in public debate or be described in literary texts (cf. Moser and Schlechtriemen 2018, 167). Hans Fallada, for example, also describes the life of an employee in his novel ‘Little Man – What Now?’ at the same time as Kracauer – Fallada’s novel was published in 1932 (2011). Consequently, social figures can appear in different places – and not only in science. In this way, they open up their own close connections between science and the public sphere – which I will come to later – but they do not meet the strict requirements of methodological control because they are not a purely scientific tool.

Sixthly, social figures emerge in the public context especially in times of crisis and societal change. It is precisely when there are no routines of action – with regard to essential aspects of everyday life, but when behaviour has to be renegotiated – that this is done through social figures. But this also means that they must be well known. A figure who is known only to a few cannot become the occasion for the public to discuss the burning issues of the day. Accordingly, social figures have a societal reach. In public communication, they serve to socially negotiate how to deal with the respective social change. Conversely, this also means that they express current societal issues. Accordingly, their characteristics reflect the societal issues that are currently being discussed. They then function as indicators of processes of social change.

Seventhly, social figures do not leave contemporaries cold, because they are a pictorial articulation of new challenges and unresolved problems. Social figures affect people in a special way, because they deal with open, unresolved questions which arise in the course of social change. Strongly negative or strongly positive affects are often concentrated in these figures (Dawney 2022, 31–4). At this point, the dynamic is reminiscent of what the Moral Panic Theory formulated with regard to the folk devil or the folk hero (Flinders and Wood 2015; Le Grand 2019, 416–7). In any case, the affects are signs of the negotiation processes associated with the figure, the ‘classificatory struggles’ (Le Grand 2019, 419) which are fought out on the basis of the social figure.

Eighthly, there is also the fact that social figures can take very different medial forms. In sociological theories they are described in text form. At most, they appear as drawings or photographs on the outside of book covers, such as a photograph which shows employees in an office of the cigarette company ‘Makedon’ in 1932 on the cover of the English version of Kracauer’s book (1998). In public debate, however, they can appear in various mass-media forms, and there are also variants of social figures which appear in films or comics.

Functions of social figures within ready-made theories

Based on how social figures appear in ready-made sociological theories, we can identify some basic functions which they perform within these texts.

First, social figures visualize the sociological concern. Unlike abstract concepts or categories, they describe what the sociological text is about in a vivid and comprehensible way. The figurative form is also easy to understand, because the social figures not only resemble us as human figures, but also because they show a closeness to our everyday world. Rico is not only concerned with the business aspects of his profession, but also with how this affects his family life. And who is not familiar with the connection between the one-sidedness of working life and the way we organize our leisure time – something Kracauer addresses in his descriptions of the employees. Last but not least, the social figure can also be used to tell a story, and thus narrative aspects can be used to present sociological content and we as readers can identify more or less with the protagonist (cf. Czarniawska 2004).

The second function of social figures is to contribute to the plausibility of what is written. A sociological argument is convincing if it is based on a solid empirical foundation and presents ‘logical deduction[s]’ in the text (Stinchcombe 1968, 16). Social figures add their own evidence to this kind of plausibility. They are presented to the reader as vivid figures – putting in front of the eyes of the reader; this is how evidentia is conceived in the rhetorical tradition (cf. Campe 2006; Innocenti 1994). What is convincing then is less the rational conclusion but the plausibility of the figurative description. Is the figure itself plausibly described? Do the figure’s traits match the topic of the text, e.g. the changes in the world of work?

Third, a social figure is usually invoked in the text not just once, but again and again. Rico is with us throughout the book, as are the employees in Kracauer’s study. In this way, social figures contribute to the coherence and unity of a text. It is also not unusual to find the social figure in the title of a work: in Kracauer’s case, the employees form the title and can be seen in the photo on the cover of the book. Then social figures also create a unity of the work through the paratexts (cf. Genette 1992).

The three functions mentioned above refer to the sociological text and its internal economy – supplemented by the paratext of the title. The fourth function refers to the way in which sociological theory is communicated externally. On the one hand, social figures facilitate interdisciplinary connections, because they are easy to understand and illustrate. On the other hand, social figures represent an interface between science and the public – as explained in the characteristics above. They ‘assure readers that abstract and general sociological concerns have real world, tangible outcomes’, as Jonathan R. Wynn puts it (2011, 535). Accordingly, they are often the first to be taken up in public discussion. This is what Weingart and Maasen call ‘their linkage function’ (2000, 37) – they refer to metaphors, but we can easily transfer this aspect to social figures.¹⁰ Again, it is important that they represent easily understandable and descriptive elements of a sociological theory.

Working with social figures as elements of sociological theorizing

Having examined the appearance of social figures in ready-made sociological theories, we now turn to how one can practically use social figures in sociological theorizing as an open process which is not yet fixed. To do this, I will first clarify some theoretical starting points. I will draw them from the French philosophers Jean-François Lyotard, Gilles Deleuze, and Félix Guattari, all of whom discuss the role of figures and figurations in theorizing and have been formative in this respect for many subsequent authors.¹¹ Building on these theoretical starting points, the second part then examines the practical use of social figures in sociological theorizing: What tasks and work steps can be identified in working with social figures? And how can the advantages and disadvantages of social figures as elements of sociological theorizing be taken into account?

Starting points from French philosophy: Theorizing as expression and figures first

The first starting point can be clarified with the help of the French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard and his understanding of theorizing. Lyotard assumes that thoughts must be expressed – ‘expression’ in French (1971, 14). They are formed in a discursive and figurative field. Therefore, they also have a sensually tangible side. Consequently, ideas and the form of their articulation cannot be separated from each other. Together they form what Lyotard calls ‘articulated meaning’ (2011a, 211). Theorizing – as well as the reception of theories – then consists of engaging with different ‘articulations of thought’. For Lyotard, theorizing is therefore understood as a creative activity in which different levels of meaning and forms of expression are interrelated and shaped. Expression and sensuality play as much a role as definitions and logical conclusions.

This point is not as self-evident as it may seem today. For it has been common in philosophy since Plato to clearly separate ideas from their sensual expression. The latter was secondary and had to be ignored as such in order to arrive at the abstract and timeless ideas. At best, the text was considered a medium of knowledge. The form of the text is associated with the claim to produce, transport, and process unambiguous knowledge (cf. Guggenheim 2015, 2023).¹² In contrast, all other forms of expression were devalued by this traditional philosophical understanding: ‘The aim now is to largely eradicate anything figurative from discursive semantics and syntax: metaphor (as a figure of speech) is replaced by definition, while rhetoric (as a figure of style) is replaced by combinatory rules’ (Lyotard 2011b, 141; my translation).

In sociology, which was initially strongly oriented towards this understanding of philosophical theories (and towards the natural sciences on the other hand), an understanding of theory has developed that is usually understood as historically and socially bound – and not time- and contextless – and with a heuristic function to open up empirical phenomena (cf. Abend 2008; Krause 2016).¹³ The fact that the sensual expression or the form of theories is still relatively little reflected upon and also rarely taken seriously in epistemological terms can nevertheless be seen as a relic of this traditional philosophical understanding of theory.¹⁴ But if one does not separate thought and its expression, the form in which something is articulated is crucial. Only then do the form and, in our case, the figuration of theory become relevant. In consequence, however, this also means: ‘When a theorist takes the seemingly innocuous step of choosing a specific type of figure, it is not a neutral act; the figure encourages certain forms of thinking and discourages others.’ (Silver 2020, 869)

As far as figures are concerned, Lyotard locates figuration at the heart of the formation of a theory.¹⁵ To think is always already to find an expression, in short: what Daniel Silver refers to as ‘figuring out’ (2020, 869). At this point, Lyotard’s intention coincides with the etymological meaning of figura. For this means a sensually tangible, plastic form which has clear contours (cf. Lury, Viney, and Wark 2022, 1–5; Porter 2017, 84). Lyotard’s understanding of figures is very broad here and basically means any form of expressive shape. In contrast, what we understand by social figures is much narrower. But his starting point, that thinking and theorizing need an expression and cannot be separated from it, lays the foundation for taking the different forms of expression – also epistemically – seriously.

Deleuze and Guattari outline an understanding of theorizing as figuration which follows directly on from Lyotard, but sets its own focus. They share the basic assumption with Lyotard that theorizing is a creative process. But there is another starting point with them; moreover, they develop a concept of figures that I would like to use for the analysis of social figures. The starting point here concerns the role and epistemic potential of images and figures. For these are often still understood – in the context of theorizing – as mere illustrations or redundant duplications of conceptualisations that precede them (cf. Guggenheim 2023; Schlechtriemen 2014, 22). In contrast, Deleuze and Guattari reverse the order. For them, images – and, as we shall see, figures as well – offer the possibility of opening up new questions and ways of thinking: ‘A thinker may therefore decisively modify what thinking means, draw up a new image of thought, and institute a new plane of immanence’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 66). These images of thought form the basis, the framework of philosophical or theoretical concepts. Consequently, they position them in the first place. They are the implicit and pre-conceptual presuppositions of theorizing (cf. Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 61).

For our context, it is particularly interesting that Deleuze and Guattari also encounter figurative representations. According to them, a new image of thinking can be developed by creating a conceptual persona.¹⁶ Although a conceptual persona primarily represents possibilities of thought, it is also a human figure which exhibits ‘personalized features’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 69). In short, for Deleuze and Guattari too, theorizing and figuration are closely linked. What is new here, however, is that figuration is conceived more specifically as a human figure than in Lyotard’s work, which helps us to understand more precisely how social figures function within theorizing.

Conceptual personae are figures of thought.¹⁷ They outline the philosophical or theoretical possibilities of thought; and they do so in a vivid way because they possess human traits. However, they are not historical persons, but personified possibilities of thought, or more precisely, the thought movements which the conceptual personae perform (cf. Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 63). ‘The ‘doing’ of the conceptual persona means that the thinker him/herself becomes the conceptual persona by reproducing thinking in the movement of the conceptual persona, or the conceptual persona only comes into being within this movement.’ (Mertlitsch 2016, 183; my translation). An example is the ‘idiot’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 61). In contrast to the public professor or scholar, who refers to institutionally anchored knowledge, the idiot represents a private thinker who wants to think for himself and relies on his own judgement.¹⁸ This example makes it clear that what is at stake is a specific understanding of philosophy and the corresponding possibilities of thinking (in this case, thinking that thinks for itself and explains itself independently of other instances), but which is designed on the basis of a concrete human person.

Donna J. Haraway has further developed this approach of theorizing based on concrete figures as the core task of her work in the theory of science (Dawney 2022, 29–31; 1991, 1997, 2000). This may also explain the multitude of figures in her work.¹⁹ In this sense, Haraway speaks of her ‘menagerie of figurations’ (Haraway 2000, 135), ‘this menagerie I live with and in’ (Haraway 2000, 141). This, then, includes figures such as the cyborg, the primate, the OncoMouse™, the vampire, etc. In contrast to the social figures, these are non-human figures.²⁰ And both Haraway and other posthuman theories, such as that of Rosi Braidotti (2011), are concerned with undermining common understandings of what it means to be human. Like Deleuze and Guattari, Haraway sees the possibility of developing entirely new ways of thinking and doing science in them: They ‘stand in for new ways of imagining and doing technoscience’ (2000, 158). In her ‘A Cyborg Manifesto’, published as early as 1985, she names the fundamental dichotomies at which her refigurations aim: ‘mind and body, animal and human, organism and machine, public and private, nature and culture, men and women, primitive and civilized’ (1991, 163).²¹ With the help of her figures – some of which she also takes from literature – she questions these common dichotomies.

The crucial point here is that the figures or conceptual personae do not illustrate a particular theoretical understanding, but rather shape it: ‘figures are not only vehicles of thought; they also shape and guide it’ (Silver 2020, 869). In this sense, conceptual personae provide the figurative ground on which further conceptualisations take place.²² Figuration is thus part of the constitutive process of theorizing – and not merely a secondary illustration. As with Lyotard, the figure does not perform a representative function, but rather generates meaning in its own way.

These starting points, taking seriously the forms of expression to which figures belong, as well as the possibility of taking figures not only as secondary illustrations of theorizing but as primary elements of it, lay the foundations for the concrete treatment of figures in sociological theorizing.

How to work with social figures within sociological theorizing: tasks, advantages and disadvantages

The first part of this article showed that and how social figures appear in ready-made sociological theories. However, they have hardly been considered as an element of sociological theorizing. But if theorizing, according to the theoretical starting points just developed, needs an expression and if figures are regarded as an equal element of theorizing, then it is important to include them – also in sociology – in the process of theorizing from the very beginning. Similar to Swedberg’s observation about metaphors or Guggenheim’s about diagrams (2020), social figures can thus be understood as a thoroughly productive element, with a ‘strong heuristic or suggestive power’, but also with the potential to ‘lead you wrong’ (Swedberg 2020, 240). In order to unfold their potential, but also to keep an eye on the problematic sides, the first prerequisite is to pay attention to their characteristics and to work with them consciously within a ‘self-observation of the social sciences’ (Krause 2021, 3). Accordingly, when outlining the following work steps, I am guided by the main features of social figures in order to keep their peculiarities in view.

Social figures, however, do not operate in the realm of philosophy, as is the case with conceptual personae, but in sociology and must be conceptualized accordingly with regard to sociological theorizing and its specific requirements. Metaphors such as ‘organism’ or ‘network’ represent the sociological object (cf. Schlechtriemen 2014; Swedberg 2020). Social figures also refer to the sociological object. However, they do not capture the sociological object – society – as a whole, as metaphors often do – such as the social organism or the network society – but represent something like exemplary individuals. As human figures – the first feature in the list above – they embody characteristics typical of their epoch or a given social context (cf. Osrecki 2015). They articulate the questions, experiences, and problems of their time and with regard to a specific social context – close to what Deleuze and Guattari call psychosocial types. The social context can be a sub-area of society, such as the world of work, or a specific social group, or it can be an aspect which affects the entire nation state, or it can also concern global dynamics. The social and temporal scope of what the social figure is referring to must therefore be determined here.

In contrast to concrete individual case studies from qualitative research (cf. Ragin and Becker 1992; Wynn 2011), which can also be identified as exemplary in typification, social figures represent something like a ‘compilation’ of characteristics, as Sennett calls it.²³ And, accordingly, an ‘artificial’ figure is created.²⁴ This is further complicated by the fact that, sometimes, it actually is a concrete historical person who then assumes an independent existence as a public figure in the public sphere – I will come back to this aspect later. In any case, social figures are closely related to the sociological subject area and to empirical phenomena that receive a concrete shape through them. Accordingly, an adequate description of the figures is crucial.

Step one: the description of the figure

The core of working with social figures is the accurate description of the figure and then the identification of the societal implications.²⁵ For the first step of the description of the figure, it makes a crucial difference whether such a description already exists in some form or whether it has to be written from scratch as part of the sociological description. For example, the social figure of the climate activist, prominently embodied by Greta Thunberg, is currently circulating in public discourse with a global reach (cf. Safaian 2022). The description of the figure is then a matter of compiling the concise characteristics of the social figure (from an ethnographical perspective cf. Wynn 2011, 526–8). Greta Thunberg is also an example of the above-mentioned case where a concrete historical person is the starting point for the formation of a social figure, which then leads its own existence as a public figure. The defining characteristics of the social figure of the climate activist would certainly include the fact that she is a white young woman and that she is actively engaged in environmental protection in the context of a global protest movement.

The template for a figure description can also be found in films or novels – what Deleuze and Guattari call ‘aesthetic figures’. For example, the authors of the book ‘The Imposter as Social Theory. Thinking with Gatecrashers, Cheats and Charlatans’ speak of the social figure of the imposter: ‘Imposters are everywhere’ (Woolgar et al. 2021, 3) and then list a whole series of films, literature, and drama series in which the figure plays a prominent role (cf. Woolgar et al, 5-7). With such templates, too, it is then a matter of deriving a concise figure description from them in which the essential features are aptly compiled (Wynn 2011, 523–4).²⁶

But there is also the situation where the social figure as such does not yet exist. Then it is a matter of shaping a description of the figure. This is certainly true of Sennett’s social figure of the flexible self. Another example would be the social figure of the entrepreneurial self, as described by Ulrich Bröckling in his book of the same title (cf. 2016). In their descriptions of the social figures, both concisely describe new developments in the world of work. Their social figures have also been taken up in the public debate far beyond the professional sphere.

Whether a social figure emerges in public discourse, in literature, or within a sociological description, the central question here is: what features characterize the figure and its actions and do these characteristics concisely articulate the characteristics of the social context in question?²⁷ It also applies to the figure descriptions in the sense that they should not only aptly compile the characteristic features, but that they should also be coherent as figures (cf. Jannidis 2004, 221–9). At this point, it is not about a definition, but about a vivid and lifelike figure who should also be convincing as such. This then concerns the ‘stage of writing up the results’ (Swedberg 2020, 244).²⁸ This is where sociological criteria and literary qualities come together.

The description of the figure also includes the configuration with other figures and their setting, as is impressively described in Kracauer’s work, for example, with the company offices and the ‘pleasure barracks’ in which the employees move. And the social and temporal scope of the social figure must be determined: When does the social figure appear? When does it achieve the societal reach and public awareness which characterize social figures? Does it have predecessors (prefigurations) which it updates? When does he or she lose his or her appeal? And in which social contexts does he or she operate? Is it a nationally known or internationally circulating figure?

Step two: theorizing with the figure – new ways of thinking and identifying the societal implications of the social figure

Once the description of the figure is available, there are two ways in which it can be linked to sociological theorizing: firstly, new ways of thinking can be developed on the basis of the figure; secondly, the social figure can be used to gain initial access to the burning issues of the time.

The first possibility follows on from what Deleuze and Guattari grasp with conceptual personae: starting from a figure, new options for thinking are designed. An example of this is the volume on the social figure of the imposter (cf. Woolgar et al. 2021). The authors note that impostering has always been understood as a deviation from social order. In this sense, social order was established as an unquestioned foundation. Instead, they ask: ‘What insights can these troublesome figures provide into the social relations and cultural forms in the communities and social settings in which they emerge? And how might ‘thinking with imposters’ be a useful tool of analysis in the social sciences and humanities? In this volume, we argue that the figure of the imposter can help reset the agenda for mainstream social theory’ (Woolgar et al. 2021, 3–4).

This means that with the social figure of the imposter, social practices of deception, of cheating, etc., and with them the phenomena of friction, uncertainty, disorder, and disruption, are no longer conceived as exceptional, but are now seen as playing an essential role in shaping social relations. With the help of the social figure of the imposter, the view and understanding of the social in sociological theorizing are shifted. In this sense their book ‘explores the value of bringing the figure of the imposter, as well as the dramas, disruptions, reactions, and questions they engender, to centre stage’ (Woolgar et al. 2021, 4).

The second way in which social figures can be used in sociological theorizing is as indicators of the burning issues of the time. Here we focus more on the social and historical situatedness of the social figure as described with Deleuze and Guattari’s psychosocial types. As they articulate the experiences, challenges, and problems, but also the desires and aspirations of a time or a relevant social context, these can be derived from the characteristics of the social figure. In this sense, the social figure of the climate activist articulates not only the burning questions of how to deal with climate change, but also raises the questions of how to motivate people to treat the environment differently, how collective global action is possible, as well as questions of intergenerational justice and of the changed role for young women in shaping politics. Accordingly, environmental sociological research could follow up on individual aspects of the social figure, but also generational sociological studies, etc.

Dealing with social figures within sociological theorizing then has a time-diagnostic and exploratory function. Social figures have a heuristic function, as Swedberg calls it with regard to metaphors, ‘the power to set off your imagination’ (2020, 245). And the inspirations which can come from social figures are very diverse, as social figures are precisely the kind of ‘material-semiotic entities’ which Haraway writes about (2000, 137). Additionally, like Deleuze and Guattari’s psycho-social types, social figures can be used to derive societal phenomena which are typical of the time and then be linked to further sociological research. In this way, David Riesman’s social figure of the outside-oriented character which he prominently described in his 1950 bestseller ‘The Lonely Crowd’ has subsequently inspired a whole series of sociological studies (cf. Lipset and Löwenthal 1961).

Conclusion

This article begins with an understanding of theory based on authors such as Richard Swedberg and focuses on theorizing as an open process. One could then continue to describe this process as mere conceptual work. In contrast, I develop an understanding of theorizing based on Lyotard as well as Deleuze and Guattari that also sees this process as a sensual-aesthetic figuration. Theory is expressed not only in concepts, but also in metaphors, figures, diagrams, etc. In Latour’s terms, the actors in theorizing include not only concepts but also a variety of heterogeneous actors, such as social figures. But these actors, like the social figures here, have their own characteristics. These need to be included in theorizing accordingly.

This means that their possibilities as well as their limitations must be taken into account. The advantages of social figures as elements of sociological theorizing are thus: firstly, they can open up new ways of thinking, and new ways of looking at the social, as we have seen with the social figure of the imposter; secondly, they can serve to explore the burning societal issues of the present time, i.e. problems, desires, aspirations, etc. And, thirdly, they represent a vivid means of sociological presentation which is accessible and comprehensible to a wider public, and which – as already explained above – can in its own way contribute to the plausibility of sociological findings and the coherence of a sociological text.

However, social figures can also ‘lead you wrong’, if one does not consider their disadvantages. Sociological work with social figures is clearly limited by their intersection with public discourse because social figures are not only sociological research tools but also societal self-descriptions. Therefore, it is not possible to study aspects and the corresponding figures which are precisely not the subject of public discourse. In this sense, we don’t study ‘neglected cases’ (Krause 2021, 32; Krause 2023). In addition, the focus on social figures tends to ignore structural or societal aspects, because social figures are associated with an ethnographic or micro-sociological view rather than a macro-sociological perspective.²⁹ This is the case even if discourse formations or historical dispositives can be taken into account as a supplement – for example, how a social figure ‘is tied to contestations, power and hierarchies between groups in society’ (Le Grand 2019, 414).³⁰ Thus we should not expect a structural perspective to necessarily result from the focus on social figures.

Last but not least, working with social figures in sociological theorizing requires a supplement to the traditional understanding of theory. For with them an element comes into play which behaves differently from concepts. These generate their evidence through definitions which are as unambiguous as possible, and they can be linked to each other in a chain of arguments through logical conclusions. Moreover, they refer to each other, as the concept of social function refers to the concept of the social division of labour. Figures, on the other hand, are elements which generate their plausibility through their vividness and figurative coherence. Furthermore, they are related to other figures, which, on the one hand, form a chronological series as predecessor figures and, on the other hand, show interfigurative references to other figures, as analyzed above on the basis of Sennett’s constellation of figures.

For theorizing, this means that the criterion of unambiguous definition and logical consistency cannot be applied to the figurative elements. Instead, attention must be paid to a good figurative description: Is the figurative description vivid, descriptive and, as a figure, internally consistent? Does it accurately reflect the social context to which it refers? Therefore, the criteria to assess quality in theorizing must be complemented by literary criteria.

Moreover, sociological theorizing claims to control all elements within the framework of its own theorizing – to integrate them as logical elements in a system or to link them plausibly to empirical data. And it is a common goal that one should ‘not reproduce the categories which people use in their everyday lives in your analysis, but go beyond these’ (Swedberg 2016, 10). Social figures can be designed in a sociological description, but they can also emerge outside sociology in literary works or in public discourse. In both cases, there is a clear proximity and many overlaps between everyday descriptions and scientific terminology can be observed. When social figures are transferred from another field into science, they bring with them – via their context of origin – ‘implications’ in the sense of Max Black (1955, 288), which then have to be dealt with in sociological theorizing (Wynn 2011, 535–6). It is therefore a particular challenge of sociological theorizing to deal not only with one’s own conceptualisations but also with social figures, i.e. to combine conceptual and figurative elements in theorizing. The figures can be taken from public discourse. However, the depiction of the constellation of figures (including prefigurations) is different from their everyday perception, in which one usually identifies with a single social figure. The elaboration of the societal implications also goes beyond the mere adoption of the figures.

Here I have examined how social figures act as heuristic tools in sociological theorizing. However, it also became clear that their radius of circulation far exceeds the boundaries of sociology. It would be interesting to further investigate in which fields social figures appear and how their appearance differs in different areas. It would also be interesting to ask whether there are such things as typical figures or ‘iconic figures’ (Wynn 2011, 519) of a scientific discipline. For example, the figure of the stranger in sociology, which appears as early as Georg Simmel (1971; first published in 1908) and Alfred Schuetz (1944) and has been taken up again and again since then.

Accordingly, I see great potential in social figures as a means of sociological research and as elements of sociological theorizing. However, their special potential only becomes apparent when the traditional understanding of sociological theory is changed to a view of theorizing as a creative and open process involving a multitude of actors.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the other participants of the discussions around the session on ‘Theorizing’ at the annual meetings of the German Sociological Association in 2020, Sina Farzin, Julian Go, Michael Guggenheim, Monika Krause, Isaac Reed, and Tobias Werron, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their very thoughtful and engaging reviews.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tobias Schlechtriemen

Tobias Schlechtriemen is a cultural sociologist at the Institute of Sociology at the Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg in Germany. His research focuses on the analysis of cultural artefacts and practices, as well as sociological theorizing, and the history of sociology.

Notes

1 The heterogeneous actors may also include other people with whom collaborative theorizing takes place (cf. Werron, Brankovic, and Ringel 2023).

2 In English ‘figure’ has several meanings: ‘The word ‘figure’ refers to many things: numbers, characters in texts, representations of persons or other entities in images; turns of phrase; abstractions and personifications; movement or series of movements; a diagram or a short succession of notes’ (Lury, Viney, and Wark 2022, 1). I refer mainly to figurative representations of persons or personifications in the following.

3 On Sennett’s social figure of the flexible self, see Schlechtriemen (2019, 156–8) and Opitz (2010).

4 The name of the figure in the book is ‘Rico’. But the characterization focuses on the aspect of flexibility. Thus Sennett writes of the ‘flexible individual’ (1998, 59), of ‘flexible work’ (1998, 58), and of ‘flexible behaviour’ (1998, 28).

5 On Kracauer’s social figure of the employees, see Schlechtriemen (2019, 153–5).

6 On the main features of social figures, see Moser and Schlechtriemen (2018, 170–3; forthcoming).

7 The notion of what counts as human involves constitutive exclusions, such as when it is taken for granted that the person is a white, Western male (Lury, Viney, and Wark 2022, 4).

8 In the interfigurative constellation there is a polar evaluation of the role model to be aspired to (Gates) and the counter-figure to be negated (the welfare mother) with its gender assignments. These are not Sennett’s evaluations. Rather, he invokes the interfigurative constellation from the perspective of his protagonist and his values of a world of work that Sennett criticizes.

9 This self-thematization of the scientist could also lead to a reflection on her or his own standpoint (Go 2023) and thus on the conditions of knowledge – but Sennett does not take this up further here.

10 If we look at the transfer between the different societal spheres, the question of the circulation of social figures is raised: ‘one would want to ask as to how bodies of knowledge circulate in the course of transfer between science and other societal discourses, such as politics, media, arts, as well as everyday communications, and how they change in the process’ (Weingart and Maasen 2000, 19). On circulation see also Keim (2016).

11 Sebastian J. Moser and I discuss sociological theories – such as Norbert Elias's theory of social figurations – that also address the role of figures elsewhere (cf. 2018, 166–9; forthcoming).

12 Theory is then understood as ‘a web of interlinked texts’ (Reed 2023).

13 Julian Go explains how theories are socially situated via social standpoints – and how perspectival shifts can lead to theoretical innovations (2023). It is an interesting question whether a social figure can represent a standpoint. Descriptions by Jonathan R. Wynn of William F. Whyte’s Doc could be interpreted in this sense: ‘Doc became the cipher through which Whyte saw the community and he is, in turn, how the reader ‘sees’ the workings of the corner.’ (2011, 519)

14 The view that it is only about passing on information also only takes into account what is communicated, but not how. Images, diagrams, figures and so forth then only serve as pedagogic device (cf. Guggenheim 2023).

15 Hardly any other author has linked theorizing and figuration as closely as the French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard. The essential assumptions can be found in his dissertation ‘Discours, Figure’, published in 1971. The English translation of the book is published as Lyotard 2011a. His study, like the question of figures it addresses, has received little attention so far. In sociology, too, Lyotard is read for his concept of postmodern knowledge conditions in the few places where he appears – and not for his concept of figures (Farganis 2014, 16).

16 On the relationship between conceptual personae, plane of immanence and concepts (cf. Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 75–7).

17 On the concept of the conceptual persona in Deleuze and Guattari see Schweitzer (2011, 118–21; Mertlitsch 2016, 18–22).

18 According to Deleuze and Guattari, this conceptual persona has had various manifestations. Born as a reaction to the authoritarian organisation of the Church, it is conceived in different ways by Nicholas of Cusa and René Descartes, and then transferred to the Russian context by Dostoyevsky: ‘In becoming a Slav, the idiot is still the singular individual or private thinker, but with a different singularity.’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 62). A more current interpretation of the figure of the idiot is provided by Horst and Michael (2011).

19 In her concept of the figure, she refers to the tradition of Western Christian realism as reviewed by Erich Auerbach in his famous study on figures (Haraway 1997, 8–11).

20 Here it would be necessary to examine more closely how the modes of operation of human and non-human figures differ.

21 Like Lyotard and Deleuze/Guattari, she understands theorizing accordingly as a creative process, which in her case, however, also has a clear science-political orientation. And this process is not limited to a purely cognitive activity, but also includes sensual-aesthetic forms. That is why she is interested – like Deleuze and Guattari – in artistic figurations.

22 Deleuze and Guattari distinguish conceptual personae from aesthetic figures, psychosocial types, and partial observers in science. Just as conceptual personae create new possibilities in the field of thinking, aesthetic figures are directed towards the field of perceptions and affects (cf. Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 65). The psychosocial types act in their own field – the social field – but still interact with other figures. In this way, they anchor the conceptual personae in a specific historical-social context (cf. Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 70). In contrast to the other two figures, the psychosocial types do not have a creative effect, but represent the ‘movements that affect the Socius’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 67). The field of action of the partial observers is science (cf. Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 117–33).

23 On the question of representativeness see Krause (2021, 28–29).

24 Ethnographic research can also focus on figures. The question is then: what meanings are attributed to the figures by their environment? ‘Ethnographic analysis does not adopt these attributions, but shifts the perspective by observing the attributions. It interprets people and their attributions as ‘figures’ in the play of social practice. Figures that are produced and used in specific ways in that practice.’ (Breidenstein et al. 2015, 152; my translation) In sociological research, social figures can also be derived in this way from empirical observation. However, they can also be taken from other fields – such as literature. And they can also serve to develop new ways of thinking, as will be discussed below.

25 On the following see also Moser and Schlechtriemen forthcoming.

26 Jérôme David traces very precisely how literary procedures of exemplariness and generalization of types of contemporary society take shape, especially in the wake of Balzac’s ‘La Comédie humaine’ (2010).

27 I concentrate here on the textual description of the figure. Especially on the book cover, the social figures sometimes also appear in visual form, as is the case with the cover of Kracauer’s book.

28 It should be noted, however, that Swedberg ascribes a heuristic function to metaphors in the first, exploratory phase of theorizing. According to him, these must then be empirically tested and conceptually defined in the second phase. ‘Once its heuristic power has been exploited, you need to translate the metaphor into ordinary prose in order to save off errors.’ (Swedberg 2020, 252). The aim here is also to test social figures in sociological theorizing, to deepen individual aspects in empirical research, and so on. However, unlike Swedberg, the description of social figures should remain an essential part of sociological theories and texts.

29 Closer to what Isaac Reed calls minimal interpretation than what he calls maximal or overinterpretation (2023).

30 Wynn includes institutional connections (2011, 530) and social forces (533); Dawney sees figures as ‘technologies of power’ because they ‘mediate power and authority and personify mythologies, generating cultural and political forms of life’ (2022, 22).