**2. From the wild life until institutions**

144 Sociological Landscape – Theories, Realities and Trends

sceptical thesis of the post-Popper ones, so as Feyerabend). Nevertheless there are, I think, good reasons to suspect that all these theories involve some metaphysic assumptions, generally not made explicit. The only basic feature we can assume as a solid ground to build our discourses is that both modern science and sociology are someway kinds of critical knowledge: that means, according with the most philosophers, a knowledge involving

In my opinion, we should first of all go back to the starting point of the so called modern science: when scholars decided to put apart from their field of research the *end*, the *aim* of the nature, and to pay attention only to the *causes* of natural phenomena. But refusing *teleology* involves to give no relevance to the *sense* of nature taken as a whole, as well as seen in its particular features. It seems to me that such a refuse should be maintained, in general, for the science, but on the other hand one should also deal with some consequences, that we

First of all, people can hardly survive without giving sense to their *world of life* (the little section of the universe they live in, then the persons, animals and things they find during their everyday life, as well as the set of ideas, beliefs, information they have at hand for managing their life). People know very well that behind their own world of life there is a big world, the very universe, within which their own one has to make *sense*. Therefore they cannot be satisfied only with a science taking for irrelevant the problem of the sense of the whole: then, facing such a state of things, some ones shut their eyes and carry on their lives in apnoea. Some other ones (particularly within secularized societies) are in quest of satisfaction by living from hand to mouth, enjoying as much as possible every single moment: in other words, by living an *aesthetic life* (according to Kierkegaard). Finally there are some other ones who are in quest of sense by asking for it from religion. Only a few persons indeed are able to make sense by their own for their life, and that happens mostly by making a personal use of religious convictions. Then, generally speaking, we could point

A second question concerns the difference between *nature* and *human world*, as to the relevance of the *sense* for scientific research. Questing for the sense of human world (taken as a whole) means obviously to search for the place of such a whole within the universe: that's exactly the same as to search for the sense of the universe itself (that modern science refused to do). But usually social sciences don't pursue such an aim: they generally pay attention to specific features of human world, namely to human behaviour (individual, collective or institutional). That's namely the same as Weber pointed out by speaking about a sociology concerned with *human behaviour provided with a sense given by the actor himself.* 

Then sociologists not only cannot put away the problem of the sense in the same way as physicists or chemists: on the contrary, they have to do namely with the sense, in some way. And moreover (so as philosophers and historians) they usually *speak about* science: in other words they make a *meta-discourse* where science and scientists are the object (and maybe this is the reason why such other members are so suspicious of sociologists: they could feel not

Indeed we are just now choosing an approach like that: we are going to *speak about*  sociology, as well as about science (then taking the former as it would share the same nature

reflexive thinking about its foundations and methods as well.

could resume by speaking about the following three points.

out that in the quest for sense religion plays a very important role.

so happy for being taken as an object).

as the latter).

Knowledge is indeed a social practice, and science (together with sociology) is included within knowledge. But what means to be a *social practice*?

A *practice* indeed is whatever (human) activity aiming to manage the world of life, to satisfy some need by changing something, by solving some problem. Of course, we know that all along the Western philosophical tradition people have distinguished the practical activity from the theoretical one: and knowledge has been considered as pertaining to the latter. But such a view, albeit very influential (have we to remind the two "reasons", the theoretical and the practical one, separately examined by Kant?), implies many metaphysical presuppositions which are not only indemonstrable, but finally contrasting with a phenomenological overview of the process of building human knowledge. That we are going to show here below.

Human life (something namely practical) flows always and overall within a social dimension. Never human beings lived all alone, running prairies and forests so as other wild beasts do: because they need to meet each other and share the efforts to gain what is necessary for collective surviving and to avert dangers coming from natural forces. In other words, they have to share social practices: i.e. making tools, hunting, caring kids and the elders, defending the group from enemies, etc. So as Durkheim pointed out, sharing working practices made societies consistent, that's giving the ground of human solidarity.

At this point we have to take note that no one, individual as well as human group, could survive without interpreting the events arriving all around: that's giving them a meaning as a sign of somewhat likely to arrive in a future, immediate as well as far. Animals too do

Can Sociology Help Us to Live a Better Life ? A Phenomenological Approach to Clinical Sociology 147

called *reflexivity principle*, which many sociologists (as well as philosophers of science) so as

I propose two ways to get off, phenomenologically, from this paradox: the one philogenetic

Primitive men saw the natural phenomena and gave them a sense, aiming to forecast what consequences these ones could involve for them. We don't name this kind of knowing "science", because of its very distance from the rules and the criteria of modern science. But it was something very different from the forecasting attitude of animals: events and phenomena related with the *thing* we are speaking about, and composing the picture giving it a sense, are

Concepts are actually something not existing in nature: they exist only by a human mental working. But no work would be done having no real function for satisfying a need: otherwise, why should someone accomplish such a heavy task? Indeed what a need could be satisfied by building concepts? That of drawing up one's strategies for living. Human natural instincts are not enough to make such strategies safe, so as it happens with animals; but humans can employ their mind as a tool for gaining the same (or maybe a better)

Mind is a very particular tool: it makes it possible, to keep as present something that is past, or could be future, or is far from our eyes, but also something abstract, that could never become perceivable by our senses. By keeping present such things, we are enabled to compare different experiences (real or virtual), and then to build *empirical* concepts. On the other hand, by employing *abstract* concepts (categories), we can establish relations between empirical concepts, and by this way we can build theories. The system of theories built by human beings and shared within a human group represents their outlook over the world as

As a matter of fact, such an outlook does in no way represent a *mirror* of the world, but rather an *interpretation* of it, a conceptual structure built within the community. The whole world we think to *know*, or we think *existing* independently on us, is finally no other thing but such system of theories, such outlook, such interpretation: and we can in no way go beyond it. Moreover it does not hold sheer descriptions of its single features, but on the contrary it involves a lot of value judgements, of rules for using better the opportunities offered by that world. In other words, such an outlook represents the *culture* of the group.

Single theories held within a culture are neither true absolutely, nor false: each one comes from repeated experiences compared with each other, and keeps its validity until a new experience could not confirm it. Tarski and Popper (and many other philosophers) speak at this concern of crashing with "facts", but this involves having solved the metaphysical problem of the nature of such *facts* as well as that of our relation with such facts. On the contrary, phenomenologically we can say that single human beings living within groups make only *experiences*, they compare these ones with those of other members, and together with them they try to build socially shared theories over their common world of life. This is finally the *social building of reality*. That can also overcome the paradox of reflexivity, by this coming and going from new and old experiences, from concepts and theories keeping their

Garfinkel and the ethnomethodologists have very much spoken about.

not specific events and phenomena but abstract models of them, that's *concepts*.

a whole. This is true not only for primitive men, but for the overall mankind.

validity and the necessity of building more suitable ones.

and the other ontogenetic. Let us begin with the first one.

outcome.

something like that: they can interpret signs of a coming tempest, as well as of an earthquake etc. But human beings don't rely only upon their instincts (anyway not so strong as those of animals), but their interpretation of events needs *fitting these ones within their context* : in other words, giving them a *sense*.

*Sense* is actually, indeed, the *meaning of an event (considered as a message) within its own context*. The same event, when it arrives in different contexts, has indeed different meanings: it could involve different consequences and give rise to different reactions from the part of the interpreter.

The last sentence should be emphasized, because it can really help us to understand the sense of knowledge. Let we explain such a statement as it follows.


Then finally, knowledge has a very big role within our strategy of living: this is its specific, very practical sense. But such a sense could in no way be given individually, that's by each individual independently from the other members of his (her) social context. Otherwise people could whenever disagree about managing what's necessary to collective surviving. And that makes the difference with the usual idea of knowledge as a "mirror of the reality".

Someone could feel a scent of pragmatism in such a statement. Actually, it is not so far from pragmatism: which, from its part, flourished in the same Chicagoan context where American sociology was born. But I think that the following difference from pragmatism ought to be emphasized. Pragmatism was coming directly from an Anglo-Saxon utilitarian outlook, with its materialistic taste, but anyway it was a philosophical theory, stating how to understand what happens in the world, from its point of view. Our statement, on the contrary, comes from a sheer observation of what happens within a specific field of experience, without drawing from it a general theory on the world.

On the other hand, drawing the picture we spoke about involves a previous conceptual building where the things Aristotle and Kant named *categories* are methodically employed. Such conceptual buildings are systems of meanings, rules, social roles having the function of explaining what happens in the practical experience, at the same time as they are ruling it. In other words, such conceptual buildings are what sociologists usually name *institutions*.

To understand what happens in our world of life, we need to know previously the institutions governing such a world: otherwise, how could we give sense to what happens? But at this point one could ask: how could people build institutions without having previously understood particular events of their world? This question deals with the so

something like that: they can interpret signs of a coming tempest, as well as of an earthquake etc. But human beings don't rely only upon their instincts (anyway not so strong as those of animals), but their interpretation of events needs *fitting these ones within their* 

*Sense* is actually, indeed, the *meaning of an event (considered as a message) within its own context*. The same event, when it arrives in different contexts, has indeed different meanings: it could involve different consequences and give rise to different reactions from the part of the

The last sentence should be emphasized, because it can really help us to understand the





On the other hand, drawing the picture we spoke about involves a previous conceptual building where the things Aristotle and Kant named *categories* are methodically employed. Such conceptual buildings are systems of meanings, rules, social roles having the function of explaining what happens in the practical experience, at the same time as they are ruling it. In other words, such conceptual buildings are what sociologists usually name *institutions*.

To understand what happens in our world of life, we need to know previously the institutions governing such a world: otherwise, how could we give sense to what happens? But at this point one could ask: how could people build institutions without having previously understood particular events of their world? This question deals with the so

sense of knowledge. Let we explain such a statement as it follows.

meaning: that coming from its relationships with its own context).

picture where the object we are interpreting takes a specific role.

experience, without drawing from it a general theory on the world.

*context* : in other words, giving them a *sense*.

consequences could arrive from it.

interpreter.

called *reflexivity principle*, which many sociologists (as well as philosophers of science) so as Garfinkel and the ethnomethodologists have very much spoken about.

I propose two ways to get off, phenomenologically, from this paradox: the one philogenetic and the other ontogenetic. Let us begin with the first one.

Primitive men saw the natural phenomena and gave them a sense, aiming to forecast what consequences these ones could involve for them. We don't name this kind of knowing "science", because of its very distance from the rules and the criteria of modern science. But it was something very different from the forecasting attitude of animals: events and phenomena related with the *thing* we are speaking about, and composing the picture giving it a sense, are not specific events and phenomena but abstract models of them, that's *concepts*.

Concepts are actually something not existing in nature: they exist only by a human mental working. But no work would be done having no real function for satisfying a need: otherwise, why should someone accomplish such a heavy task? Indeed what a need could be satisfied by building concepts? That of drawing up one's strategies for living. Human natural instincts are not enough to make such strategies safe, so as it happens with animals; but humans can employ their mind as a tool for gaining the same (or maybe a better) outcome.

Mind is a very particular tool: it makes it possible, to keep as present something that is past, or could be future, or is far from our eyes, but also something abstract, that could never become perceivable by our senses. By keeping present such things, we are enabled to compare different experiences (real or virtual), and then to build *empirical* concepts. On the other hand, by employing *abstract* concepts (categories), we can establish relations between empirical concepts, and by this way we can build theories. The system of theories built by human beings and shared within a human group represents their outlook over the world as a whole. This is true not only for primitive men, but for the overall mankind.

As a matter of fact, such an outlook does in no way represent a *mirror* of the world, but rather an *interpretation* of it, a conceptual structure built within the community. The whole world we think to *know*, or we think *existing* independently on us, is finally no other thing but such system of theories, such outlook, such interpretation: and we can in no way go beyond it. Moreover it does not hold sheer descriptions of its single features, but on the contrary it involves a lot of value judgements, of rules for using better the opportunities offered by that world. In other words, such an outlook represents the *culture* of the group.

Single theories held within a culture are neither true absolutely, nor false: each one comes from repeated experiences compared with each other, and keeps its validity until a new experience could not confirm it. Tarski and Popper (and many other philosophers) speak at this concern of crashing with "facts", but this involves having solved the metaphysical problem of the nature of such *facts* as well as that of our relation with such facts. On the contrary, phenomenologically we can say that single human beings living within groups make only *experiences*, they compare these ones with those of other members, and together with them they try to build socially shared theories over their common world of life. This is finally the *social building of reality*. That can also overcome the paradox of reflexivity, by this coming and going from new and old experiences, from concepts and theories keeping their validity and the necessity of building more suitable ones.

Can Sociology Help Us to Live a Better Life ? A Phenomenological Approach to Clinical Sociology 149

*Need* is a key concept in behavioural sciences. Usually it is considered a psychological one, as needs are studied as elements making up the structure of human mind. But the concept of need can also be grounded on common sense as a starting point for all behavioural sciences. We know very well indeed how much this makes sense for economics. Then, why couldn't

As a matter of fact, human life as a whole is an acting process: *we are what we do*, also when it seems that we are doing nothing at all. Whatever action is anyway an answer to some need: but needs, as manifold as they appear, can at any rate be assembled in two big categories: those aiming to survival (of the individual as well as of the species), on the one hand, and those aiming to get recognition from the part of other members of society, to gain more and more implementation of his (her) own personal identity, on the other hand. People don't need simply eating, sleeping or making love; they also strongly need to see their *Me* well appreciated by the *Generalized Other* (Mead). A good appreciation from the part of members of our social group can reassure us that our life is going on the right way, and that we could

Emphasizing such second category of needs is something of great moment. The most widespread opinion (among laymen, but among scholars too, beginning with Weber) about the dynamic of social action is that it is moved by reason and/or social rules in the better cases, or by passions in the worse ones. On the one hand, maybe laymen are right when they put a rigid opposition between "good action" (that inspired by reason and/or social rules) and "bad action": communities hardly could survive without widely shared convictions

But, in my opinion, scholars and especially social scientists have to penetrate somewhat more inside the question. Coming back once again to little kids, we have yet stated they learn the meanings concerning their world of life not only from a semantic, but also from a pragmatic point of view. This means that they don't learn only the names of objects (things, events and situations, humans and animals, etc.) but also how to manage them: in other words, the meanings are so closely related with the rules for using objects denoted, that the former ones could also be identified with the latter. All socialization processes finally consist of learning meanings with rules: "this has to be made so and so", "this other in not so good

By *socialization practices* new generations are informed about the *culture* shared within their community, that's the whole of institutions, meanings and rules in use therein. But at this point I suggest to pay attention to the fact that *information* doesn't mean the same as *interiorization*. According with Parsons, *socialization*, the only social practice assuring social order (in opposition to the Hobbes's Leviathan), consists of *interiorization*, from the part of members, of *all values shared within the community*: otherwise people may be considered at risk of deviance, and society at risk of trouble. "Interiorization of values" indeed means that people not only know their existence, but share them so far as they get ready to inspire their

The inconvenience of this theory is that such an hyper-socialized member (Granovetter) doesn't exist at all. While, on the other hand, it would be not so welcome, as it would be only consistent with a "plastered" society. But fortunately it is actually impossible, because

to be done", "It is better to go to sleep and to awake pretty earl", and so on.

it be the same for sociology?

get protection in case of need.

behaviour.

of the following reasons.

about what is right and what is wrong for public welfare.

The ontogenetic way to overcome the reflexivity paradox deals, on the other hand, with the steps a single individual moves during his (her) biological and cultural development. Little kids need not only to be fed but also to understand what happens all around them in order to organize their reaction to it, first of all by applying to parents for protection. The most effective protection adults can supply consists of showing them the meaning of their world of life (common to adults and kids), beginning from that of each single object therein. "Meaning" is generally employed to signify the relation between a word and an object; but by that proceeding kids don't learn only their mother-tongue: they learn mainly how to consider those objects (positive or negative, good or bad) and how to refer to them in case of need. So *meaning* becomes something relevant not only from a semantic, but also from a pragmatic point of view: it is closely related with the world of life, by the means of *institutions*.

So as we saw shortly before, institutions are systems of meanings, rules, social roles having the function of explaining theoretically what could happen in the practical experience. Then they are first of all systems of meanings: *politics*, *economy*, *religion*, *market*, *family* are all examples of institutions able to give a specific meaning to behaviours connected with each of them.

Little kids cannot understand immediately such systems, nor the system of these systems. As they go on by learning the meaning of single specific objects (things, events, behaviours etc.) they compare such meanings with each other and then they build concepts. Some years ago I had the occasion to observe a little boy one year old, having had prior experience of dogs named collectively "bau"; such boy, paying attention to a picture representing a bird, stated it was a "bau": so he had built the concept of "animal", by setting together birds and dogs at least.

Could we consider such a concept, built by this way, as "right" or "true"? I think this is a really misleading question. Actually humans (including the kids) build their concepts each one by himself, and each one tests the "rightness" of his (her) work by making use of it to understand messages coming from the world of life. "Understanding" means giving a meaning to the message, rather a specific meaning connected with the actual circumstances where the message is given out: in other words, "understanding" means giving a *sense* to a message. People consider "right" the sense given to a message when, by relying on it, the outcome of their behaviour is not deceiving. In case of deception, indeed, they have to amend their mental building in order to implement its fitness. And so on: to understand messages (that's all kinds of information coming from outside), people employ reflexively concepts they have at their disposal, but new experiences compel them to amend and implement again and again their conceptual patrimony. That is by no way "true" or "false": it is (considered by the actor) fit or unfit to understand successfully the world of life. But the same road is covered also by scholars, who by this way contribute to make up the complex building of science: we will come back later to this specific concern.

From all this discourse comes, evidently, that concepts are not built only to reproduce the external world inside one's own mind: why indeed should we make such a duplication of the world? This process of building comes, on the contrary, from our need of *organizing* (Weick). Organizing means to single out an aim to reach and to arrange suitable means in order to pursue it. Singling out as well as arranging some means involves a prior typification (Schutz) of single experiences: then building empirical concepts. But organizing is not an accidental behaviour: people (both adults and kids) organize something in order to satisfy some needs; so concepts too depend on needs.

The ontogenetic way to overcome the reflexivity paradox deals, on the other hand, with the steps a single individual moves during his (her) biological and cultural development. Little kids need not only to be fed but also to understand what happens all around them in order to organize their reaction to it, first of all by applying to parents for protection. The most effective protection adults can supply consists of showing them the meaning of their world of life (common to adults and kids), beginning from that of each single object therein. "Meaning" is generally employed to signify the relation between a word and an object; but by that proceeding kids don't learn only their mother-tongue: they learn mainly how to consider those objects (positive or negative, good or bad) and how to refer to them in case of need. So *meaning* becomes something relevant not only from a semantic, but also from a pragmatic point of

So as we saw shortly before, institutions are systems of meanings, rules, social roles having the function of explaining theoretically what could happen in the practical experience. Then they are first of all systems of meanings: *politics*, *economy*, *religion*, *market*, *family* are all examples of

Little kids cannot understand immediately such systems, nor the system of these systems. As they go on by learning the meaning of single specific objects (things, events, behaviours etc.) they compare such meanings with each other and then they build concepts. Some years ago I had the occasion to observe a little boy one year old, having had prior experience of dogs named collectively "bau"; such boy, paying attention to a picture representing a bird, stated it was a "bau": so he had built the concept of "animal", by setting together birds and

Could we consider such a concept, built by this way, as "right" or "true"? I think this is a really misleading question. Actually humans (including the kids) build their concepts each one by himself, and each one tests the "rightness" of his (her) work by making use of it to understand messages coming from the world of life. "Understanding" means giving a meaning to the message, rather a specific meaning connected with the actual circumstances where the message is given out: in other words, "understanding" means giving a *sense* to a message. People consider "right" the sense given to a message when, by relying on it, the outcome of their behaviour is not deceiving. In case of deception, indeed, they have to amend their mental building in order to implement its fitness. And so on: to understand messages (that's all kinds of information coming from outside), people employ reflexively concepts they have at their disposal, but new experiences compel them to amend and implement again and again their conceptual patrimony. That is by no way "true" or "false": it is (considered by the actor) fit or unfit to understand successfully the world of life. But the same road is covered also by scholars, who by this way contribute to make up the complex

From all this discourse comes, evidently, that concepts are not built only to reproduce the external world inside one's own mind: why indeed should we make such a duplication of the world? This process of building comes, on the contrary, from our need of *organizing* (Weick). Organizing means to single out an aim to reach and to arrange suitable means in order to pursue it. Singling out as well as arranging some means involves a prior typification (Schutz) of single experiences: then building empirical concepts. But organizing is not an accidental behaviour: people (both adults and kids) organize something in order to

institutions able to give a specific meaning to behaviours connected with each of them.

view: it is closely related with the world of life, by the means of *institutions*.

building of science: we will come back later to this specific concern.

satisfy some needs; so concepts too depend on needs.

dogs at least.

*Need* is a key concept in behavioural sciences. Usually it is considered a psychological one, as needs are studied as elements making up the structure of human mind. But the concept of need can also be grounded on common sense as a starting point for all behavioural sciences. We know very well indeed how much this makes sense for economics. Then, why couldn't it be the same for sociology?

As a matter of fact, human life as a whole is an acting process: *we are what we do*, also when it seems that we are doing nothing at all. Whatever action is anyway an answer to some need: but needs, as manifold as they appear, can at any rate be assembled in two big categories: those aiming to survival (of the individual as well as of the species), on the one hand, and those aiming to get recognition from the part of other members of society, to gain more and more implementation of his (her) own personal identity, on the other hand. People don't need simply eating, sleeping or making love; they also strongly need to see their *Me* well appreciated by the *Generalized Other* (Mead). A good appreciation from the part of members of our social group can reassure us that our life is going on the right way, and that we could get protection in case of need.

Emphasizing such second category of needs is something of great moment. The most widespread opinion (among laymen, but among scholars too, beginning with Weber) about the dynamic of social action is that it is moved by reason and/or social rules in the better cases, or by passions in the worse ones. On the one hand, maybe laymen are right when they put a rigid opposition between "good action" (that inspired by reason and/or social rules) and "bad action": communities hardly could survive without widely shared convictions about what is right and what is wrong for public welfare.

But, in my opinion, scholars and especially social scientists have to penetrate somewhat more inside the question. Coming back once again to little kids, we have yet stated they learn the meanings concerning their world of life not only from a semantic, but also from a pragmatic point of view. This means that they don't learn only the names of objects (things, events and situations, humans and animals, etc.) but also how to manage them: in other words, the meanings are so closely related with the rules for using objects denoted, that the former ones could also be identified with the latter. All socialization processes finally consist of learning meanings with rules: "this has to be made so and so", "this other in not so good to be done", "It is better to go to sleep and to awake pretty earl", and so on.

By *socialization practices* new generations are informed about the *culture* shared within their community, that's the whole of institutions, meanings and rules in use therein. But at this point I suggest to pay attention to the fact that *information* doesn't mean the same as *interiorization*. According with Parsons, *socialization*, the only social practice assuring social order (in opposition to the Hobbes's Leviathan), consists of *interiorization*, from the part of members, of *all values shared within the community*: otherwise people may be considered at risk of deviance, and society at risk of trouble. "Interiorization of values" indeed means that people not only know their existence, but share them so far as they get ready to inspire their behaviour.

The inconvenience of this theory is that such an hyper-socialized member (Granovetter) doesn't exist at all. While, on the other hand, it would be not so welcome, as it would be only consistent with a "plastered" society. But fortunately it is actually impossible, because of the following reasons.

Can Sociology Help Us to Live a Better Life ? A Phenomenological Approach to Clinical Sociology 151

solving problems connected with their everyday life. While, at the same time, they keep in mind that the other ones too have some bad consequences in case of infringement. So inside the mind of each single kid (as a paradigm of what happens also within grown-up people) the proposals coming from the "teachers" grow to form two groups. The first one includes the cultural patterns which have not (yet) been considered useful to solve problems interesting the subject. Who hence gets ready to decide case by case whether to enforce the rule there embodied, in order to avoid the bad consequences of non-conforming to it, or on the contrary, to face (the risk of) such bad consequences as a price for pursuing anyway some ends more important for the subject. But in any case we must emphasize that this group of cultural patterns has not been interiorized by the subject, so that they don't become for him (her) a stimulus to act. Conforming to them or not, is the outcome of an opportunistic choice, so that when there are chances enough to escape their bad

In the second group of cultural patterns everyone sets up those that he (she) has had the chance of testing positively: he (she) has tried that such patterns supply good ways to get ends he (she) was searching for. By repeating the experience, such patterns can become something which the subject refers to as good and dutiful: at first, dutiful as necessary in order to get wanted ends, but in the long run, right dutiful. At this point they have been

During the early childhood such patterns are concerned mainly with biological life: eating, sleeping, controlling sphincters, etc. But as the subject grows up he (she) does more and more feel new needs of self-recognition, especially from the part of parents and of close relations. Then enforcing the proposed cultural patterns becomes for him (her) a way to get

Transactional analysts, so as Berne, have spoken about two main kinds of childish attitudes (often kept up also by grown people): the one characterizing a type named *adapted kid*, and the other one the type of *rebellious kid*. The both are searching for recognition from the part of members of their reference group (parents and relations, playmates, etc.), but the adapted ones make it by confirming explicitly the rules coming from the grown-up people, while the rebellious ones aim to be recognized as more independent individuals both by grown-up

Taking for granted that people are usually inclined to keep their childish choice also when they grow up, we can point out that the choice between the above attitudes depends on a prior attitude pertaining to the subject: indeed somebody prefers getting recognition first of all through an immediate approval from the part of grown-up members of their family and of their milieu as well; whilst somebody else prefers getting it indirectly, by imposing on the

In any case, the both types can attain to a good standard of socialization when the interiorized cultural patterns become for the subject a source of moral suasion impelling to

It is worth emphasizing this last statement: interiorized cultural patterns can perform as needs, in order to stimulate action, because of their close relationships with the actor's aim of being positively recognized. By whom? First of all by the *Generalized Other* (Mead):

whole milieu their personality as playing a relevant role within the context.

action in the same way as needs: indeed they become a sort of needs.

consequences, infringement would become very likely.

interiorized.

the favourite kind of recognition.

people and by their playmates.

Coming back once again to the little kids, we said that they learn the *meaning* of objects composing their world of life, in order to become able to manage them conveniently. To this end such meanings have to incorporate rules concerning the management of the related objects. Rules are indeed prescriptions implying value judgements. Parsons and the most sociologists after him have employed the term "value" to mean the good principles inspiring human societies and permitting them to reduce social conflict in order to live in peace. In my opinion, according with the most philosophers, it would be more exact to mean by the term "value" only a particular kind of concepts: those related with "positive/negative" or "better/worse" criterion, instead of that of "true/false"; so that value judgements actually involve a choice concerning a behaviour (actual or virtual), otherwise than factual ones. Then, a meaning involving a value judgement could be better named *cultural pattern*: as a matter of fact, the concept of pattern involves a favour, an attitude fair to choice, while meanings theoretically are indifferent to choice (though practically they are usually embodied within cultural patterns).

Socialization finally consists of conveying the culture of old generations to younger ones, beginning by a lot of cultural patterns: "this behaviour is allowed", "this other one is forbidden", "this can be made this way", "in such situations well educated people do so…", etc. But phenomenologically it would be better to distinguish socialization from the point of view of "teachers" on the one hand, and of "pupils" on the other. The first one consists of giving "pupils" the fittest information about the world of life shared by the both (teachers and pupils): that involves giving rules for managing it "conveniently" (from the point of view of the teachers); and it is supported by the hope that pupils will make a good use of such information. One could suppose that Parsons's theories about the matter started from this point of view.

But in my opinion the more interesting point of view is that of pupils. As far as they get ready to pay attention, they will *keep* information they are receiving; but this doesn't mean that they would like to *interiorize* it. In any case, at first they likely feel troubled by the new things they should memorize, mostly because of the new obligations there involved, but generally by becoming less free. We have not to bypass too quickly such children's reactions, because adults too have just the same reaction when they face some new information. Everyone would like to avoid any complication of his (her) outlook on the world; then as they cannot anyway reject such new information, they get engaged to demonstrate that there is no new matter: they still knew it since a long time, and had always behaved consistently with it (they think).

Actually there is no fault in this defence mechanism: indeed it is very important, in order to diminish the complexity of the world, and to allow an easier management of it. Otherwise we would be overwhelmed by a redundant complexity. Even the basic philosophical principle "*entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem*" is grounded on the same logic. Anyway what is important to mind is to keep a good balance between such a disposition to simplification, on the one hand, and the necessity to improve more and more our outlook on the world, in order to better understand it, on the other one.

As a matter of fact, fortunately kids are anyway pretty well balanced between these two attitudes: idleness on the one hand, and curiosity on the other, both stress them to take the right way, that consists of making a selection. In order to get over their first rejecting attitude, they indeed take into consideration the usefulness of the proposals they receive for

Coming back once again to the little kids, we said that they learn the *meaning* of objects composing their world of life, in order to become able to manage them conveniently. To this end such meanings have to incorporate rules concerning the management of the related objects. Rules are indeed prescriptions implying value judgements. Parsons and the most sociologists after him have employed the term "value" to mean the good principles inspiring human societies and permitting them to reduce social conflict in order to live in peace. In my opinion, according with the most philosophers, it would be more exact to mean by the term "value" only a particular kind of concepts: those related with "positive/negative" or "better/worse" criterion, instead of that of "true/false"; so that value judgements actually involve a choice concerning a behaviour (actual or virtual), otherwise than factual ones. Then, a meaning involving a value judgement could be better named *cultural pattern*: as a matter of fact, the concept of pattern involves a favour, an attitude fair to choice, while meanings theoretically are indifferent to choice (though

Socialization finally consists of conveying the culture of old generations to younger ones, beginning by a lot of cultural patterns: "this behaviour is allowed", "this other one is forbidden", "this can be made this way", "in such situations well educated people do so…", etc. But phenomenologically it would be better to distinguish socialization from the point of view of "teachers" on the one hand, and of "pupils" on the other. The first one consists of giving "pupils" the fittest information about the world of life shared by the both (teachers and pupils): that involves giving rules for managing it "conveniently" (from the point of view of the teachers); and it is supported by the hope that pupils will make a good use of such information. One could suppose that Parsons's theories about the matter started from

But in my opinion the more interesting point of view is that of pupils. As far as they get ready to pay attention, they will *keep* information they are receiving; but this doesn't mean that they would like to *interiorize* it. In any case, at first they likely feel troubled by the new things they should memorize, mostly because of the new obligations there involved, but generally by becoming less free. We have not to bypass too quickly such children's reactions, because adults too have just the same reaction when they face some new information. Everyone would like to avoid any complication of his (her) outlook on the world; then as they cannot anyway reject such new information, they get engaged to demonstrate that there is no new matter: they still knew it since a long time, and had

Actually there is no fault in this defence mechanism: indeed it is very important, in order to diminish the complexity of the world, and to allow an easier management of it. Otherwise we would be overwhelmed by a redundant complexity. Even the basic philosophical principle "*entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem*" is grounded on the same logic. Anyway what is important to mind is to keep a good balance between such a disposition to simplification, on the one hand, and the necessity to improve more and more our outlook on

As a matter of fact, fortunately kids are anyway pretty well balanced between these two attitudes: idleness on the one hand, and curiosity on the other, both stress them to take the right way, that consists of making a selection. In order to get over their first rejecting attitude, they indeed take into consideration the usefulness of the proposals they receive for

practically they are usually embodied within cultural patterns).

always behaved consistently with it (they think).

the world, in order to better understand it, on the other one.

this point of view.

solving problems connected with their everyday life. While, at the same time, they keep in mind that the other ones too have some bad consequences in case of infringement. So inside the mind of each single kid (as a paradigm of what happens also within grown-up people) the proposals coming from the "teachers" grow to form two groups. The first one includes the cultural patterns which have not (yet) been considered useful to solve problems interesting the subject. Who hence gets ready to decide case by case whether to enforce the rule there embodied, in order to avoid the bad consequences of non-conforming to it, or on the contrary, to face (the risk of) such bad consequences as a price for pursuing anyway some ends more important for the subject. But in any case we must emphasize that this group of cultural patterns has not been interiorized by the subject, so that they don't become for him (her) a stimulus to act. Conforming to them or not, is the outcome of an opportunistic choice, so that when there are chances enough to escape their bad consequences, infringement would become very likely.

In the second group of cultural patterns everyone sets up those that he (she) has had the chance of testing positively: he (she) has tried that such patterns supply good ways to get ends he (she) was searching for. By repeating the experience, such patterns can become something which the subject refers to as good and dutiful: at first, dutiful as necessary in order to get wanted ends, but in the long run, right dutiful. At this point they have been interiorized.

During the early childhood such patterns are concerned mainly with biological life: eating, sleeping, controlling sphincters, etc. But as the subject grows up he (she) does more and more feel new needs of self-recognition, especially from the part of parents and of close relations. Then enforcing the proposed cultural patterns becomes for him (her) a way to get the favourite kind of recognition.

Transactional analysts, so as Berne, have spoken about two main kinds of childish attitudes (often kept up also by grown people): the one characterizing a type named *adapted kid*, and the other one the type of *rebellious kid*. The both are searching for recognition from the part of members of their reference group (parents and relations, playmates, etc.), but the adapted ones make it by confirming explicitly the rules coming from the grown-up people, while the rebellious ones aim to be recognized as more independent individuals both by grown-up people and by their playmates.

Taking for granted that people are usually inclined to keep their childish choice also when they grow up, we can point out that the choice between the above attitudes depends on a prior attitude pertaining to the subject: indeed somebody prefers getting recognition first of all through an immediate approval from the part of grown-up members of their family and of their milieu as well; whilst somebody else prefers getting it indirectly, by imposing on the whole milieu their personality as playing a relevant role within the context.

In any case, the both types can attain to a good standard of socialization when the interiorized cultural patterns become for the subject a source of moral suasion impelling to action in the same way as needs: indeed they become a sort of needs.

It is worth emphasizing this last statement: interiorized cultural patterns can perform as needs, in order to stimulate action, because of their close relationships with the actor's aim of being positively recognized. By whom? First of all by the *Generalized Other* (Mead):

Can Sociology Help Us to Live a Better Life ? A Phenomenological Approach to Clinical Sociology 153

(their *world of life*). The place of an event indeed may be "right" if people know what normally precedes such kind of events and what follows, as well as what consequences it might make for the people themselves, and how far they could control the whole process. In other words, to understand is to give a *meaning*: where one could suggest to employ the word "meaning" to denote the "right place" of a *whole kind of events*, while it would be much better to employ the word "sense" to denote the particular meaning of a *specific event* within its own context. Since a specific context could influence very deeply the real meaning of an event, as we all could see very well, looking at our everyday life: it would be enough to put our mind to the difference between an event so as a kiss in general, and that given Jesus by

In order to organize any kind of strategic behaviour, we need to know as much meanings and senses of events likely to happen in our world of life. So we need culture: a culture that we have built by ourselves, by our own experiences, but much more by putting together the information coming from people around as well as from books and other media. In other words, we need a personal culture, but something that is mostly shared by the members of our milieu, with a little part specific to each different subject. In the most cases such a personal dimension of culture is not so noteworthy: people share with the other members of their milieu almost all cultural patterns really relevant for the everyday life (the only one interesting such members). There are indeed some cases (usually those of scholars or of other persons intellectually creative) where that personal dimension of culture is so relevant that it influences their whole outlook on the world: from here comes the ongoing

Such a process is in no way typical of modern societies; on the contrary, it characterizes all phases of human history. Primitive men too, facing events influencing their survival, needed to *understand the sense* of them: where did they come from, and what consequences could they produce for themselves. The first kind of explication and understanding of events (natural as well as human) was religious: religion was the first *institution* created by

That of *institution* is maybe the basic concept in sociology; certainly it is the most cited, but often not so well definitely. First of all, *an institution is a system of meanings carrying out (at least) a function relevant in order to influence positively or negatively the steadiness of the social system as a whole*. Where it would be better to remind *that a system is a set of elements (material* 

Maybe someone could be astonished by finding some explicit references to concepts as *system* and *function* within a discourse inspired by a phenomenological approach. But we have to remember that sociology is in no way a philosophical system: it consists of a set of theories (the so called *social theory*) having the *function* to support the understanding of social phenomena with their mutual relationships. And in order to pursue such an aim sociologists can employ all useful concepts, which are mere instruments, no metaphysical

On the other hand, as we observe our definition at close, we have to emphasize that a function doesn't necessarily play a positive role for the steadiness of the system (so as functionalist sociologists generally take for granted). On the contrary it could also play a negative one, so as it happens for example in the case of gangs of offenders: they too being

implementation of collective culture (the progress of science etc.).

*or immaterial) each one of which carries out a function relevant for the whole set*.

Jude.

primitive communities.

realities.

members of the actor's milieu so as the actor himself could think at them. But at the same time, a positive recognition must come from the actor himself, as far as he (she) could feel his (her) own identity empowered by enforcing such patterns.

The theory here outlined could actually account for the Weber's twofold rationality, especially for the one related with values: which indeed has been only enunciated without any explanation, from the part of Weber, about the logic that should inspire human nonutilitarian behaviour.

The same theory could however also account for the relationships between the two dimensions of culture: the individual and the collective one. Some pages before we have still spoken about culture, but without specifying which dimension we were referring to: since it is well known that people in their everyday life often speak about "enriching one's own culture", where "culture" is identified with the whole "knowledge" of a single person. While scholars, on the other hand, usually speak about culture as an inheritance of a whole community.

Actually however, there is no inconsistency between the two points of view. As a matter of fact, culture is something mental, it consists of some contents of mind: then it couldn't stay outside of the mind of single persons. And we have yet indirectly analyzed the process of building a culture inside of a single's mind. At first a kid, but later a grown-up too, they constantly receive messages from the world outside; messages consisting of some information about the state of things, including also cultural patterns. This means that he (she) gets informed not only about the objective situation of things, but also about opinions and preferences of the *Generalized Other*, that's of the people living within the same milieu: opinions and preferences that people have set up formerly by having made experiences, and tried reactions together with their consequences, and having compared all this with experiences of other members. In other words, by this way our subject gets informed about the actual *culture* of the whole community where he (she) lives and grows up.

So culture becomes a collective inheritance of a community, that's the outcome of experiences of all members, shared and compared with one another, and related with needs individually as well as collectively felt. Whereas collective needs are needs individually felt by the most of members of a community, and then considered "right": so that behaviours aiming to satisfy them give place to shared cultural patterns. Whilst individual needs can have the same outcome only if they are consistent with the satisfaction of collective ones: otherwise they give place to negative cultural patterns.

Of course we yet know that culture is no mirror of a (supposed) pre-existing reality; now we see that it's rather a knowledge oriented to the action: information about the state of things in the world, but also patterns of action; and then it may be described not only by assertions, but also by prescriptions.

Why do we need just such kind of knowledge? Because the world is not something similar to a (traditional) classroom, where pupils ought to put in their mind some information without realizing its usefulness. On the contrary, since the beginnings of mankind people, thrown in their *world of life,* have been obliged to essay to survive, and in order to achieve such an end people have tried to *understand* what happened all around them: that means to give each event the "right" place within the whole image people had of the world around

members of the actor's milieu so as the actor himself could think at them. But at the same time, a positive recognition must come from the actor himself, as far as he (she) could feel

The theory here outlined could actually account for the Weber's twofold rationality, especially for the one related with values: which indeed has been only enunciated without any explanation, from the part of Weber, about the logic that should inspire human non-

The same theory could however also account for the relationships between the two dimensions of culture: the individual and the collective one. Some pages before we have still spoken about culture, but without specifying which dimension we were referring to: since it is well known that people in their everyday life often speak about "enriching one's own culture", where "culture" is identified with the whole "knowledge" of a single person. While scholars, on the other hand, usually speak about culture as an inheritance of a whole

Actually however, there is no inconsistency between the two points of view. As a matter of fact, culture is something mental, it consists of some contents of mind: then it couldn't stay outside of the mind of single persons. And we have yet indirectly analyzed the process of building a culture inside of a single's mind. At first a kid, but later a grown-up too, they constantly receive messages from the world outside; messages consisting of some information about the state of things, including also cultural patterns. This means that he (she) gets informed not only about the objective situation of things, but also about opinions and preferences of the *Generalized Other*, that's of the people living within the same milieu: opinions and preferences that people have set up formerly by having made experiences, and tried reactions together with their consequences, and having compared all this with experiences of other members. In other words, by this way our subject gets informed about

So culture becomes a collective inheritance of a community, that's the outcome of experiences of all members, shared and compared with one another, and related with needs individually as well as collectively felt. Whereas collective needs are needs individually felt by the most of members of a community, and then considered "right": so that behaviours aiming to satisfy them give place to shared cultural patterns. Whilst individual needs can have the same outcome only if they are consistent with the satisfaction of collective ones:

Of course we yet know that culture is no mirror of a (supposed) pre-existing reality; now we see that it's rather a knowledge oriented to the action: information about the state of things in the world, but also patterns of action; and then it may be described not only by assertions,

Why do we need just such kind of knowledge? Because the world is not something similar to a (traditional) classroom, where pupils ought to put in their mind some information without realizing its usefulness. On the contrary, since the beginnings of mankind people, thrown in their *world of life,* have been obliged to essay to survive, and in order to achieve such an end people have tried to *understand* what happened all around them: that means to give each event the "right" place within the whole image people had of the world around

the actual *culture* of the whole community where he (she) lives and grows up.

otherwise they give place to negative cultural patterns.

but also by prescriptions.

his (her) own identity empowered by enforcing such patterns.

utilitarian behaviour.

community.

(their *world of life*). The place of an event indeed may be "right" if people know what normally precedes such kind of events and what follows, as well as what consequences it might make for the people themselves, and how far they could control the whole process. In other words, to understand is to give a *meaning*: where one could suggest to employ the word "meaning" to denote the "right place" of a *whole kind of events*, while it would be much better to employ the word "sense" to denote the particular meaning of a *specific event* within its own context. Since a specific context could influence very deeply the real meaning of an event, as we all could see very well, looking at our everyday life: it would be enough to put our mind to the difference between an event so as a kiss in general, and that given Jesus by Jude.

In order to organize any kind of strategic behaviour, we need to know as much meanings and senses of events likely to happen in our world of life. So we need culture: a culture that we have built by ourselves, by our own experiences, but much more by putting together the information coming from people around as well as from books and other media. In other words, we need a personal culture, but something that is mostly shared by the members of our milieu, with a little part specific to each different subject. In the most cases such a personal dimension of culture is not so noteworthy: people share with the other members of their milieu almost all cultural patterns really relevant for the everyday life (the only one interesting such members). There are indeed some cases (usually those of scholars or of other persons intellectually creative) where that personal dimension of culture is so relevant that it influences their whole outlook on the world: from here comes the ongoing implementation of collective culture (the progress of science etc.).

Such a process is in no way typical of modern societies; on the contrary, it characterizes all phases of human history. Primitive men too, facing events influencing their survival, needed to *understand the sense* of them: where did they come from, and what consequences could they produce for themselves. The first kind of explication and understanding of events (natural as well as human) was religious: religion was the first *institution* created by primitive communities.

That of *institution* is maybe the basic concept in sociology; certainly it is the most cited, but often not so well definitely. First of all, *an institution is a system of meanings carrying out (at least) a function relevant in order to influence positively or negatively the steadiness of the social system as a whole*. Where it would be better to remind *that a system is a set of elements (material or immaterial) each one of which carries out a function relevant for the whole set*.

Maybe someone could be astonished by finding some explicit references to concepts as *system* and *function* within a discourse inspired by a phenomenological approach. But we have to remember that sociology is in no way a philosophical system: it consists of a set of theories (the so called *social theory*) having the *function* to support the understanding of social phenomena with their mutual relationships. And in order to pursue such an aim sociologists can employ all useful concepts, which are mere instruments, no metaphysical realities.

On the other hand, as we observe our definition at close, we have to emphasize that a function doesn't necessarily play a positive role for the steadiness of the system (so as functionalist sociologists generally take for granted). On the contrary it could also play a negative one, so as it happens for example in the case of gangs of offenders: they too being

Can Sociology Help Us to Live a Better Life ? A Phenomenological Approach to Clinical Sociology 155

pertaining to different institutions. Then, to sum up, creationism could be rejected from a scientific point of view, but accepted from a religious one (the one legitimated to make a quest

Institutions indeed are not only that macro-systems of meanings about which we have spoken so far. They are also smaller systems produced inside of each macro-system, and then smaller and smaller ones, as a set of Chinese boxes. For example, education is an institution inside of *knowledge*, universities and schools are institutions inside of education, etc. Market is an institution inside of economics, banks and stock exchange are institutions inside of market, etc. The whole of our world of life is enveloped by a thick net of institutions, but this is in no way a restriction of our freedom: on the contrary, it allows us to give a meaning to all our behaviours and to inform others that we are doing so. Sometimes maybe we would prefer not to inform others about our behaviour, and then we try to do it secretly; but generally social interaction needs an effective circulation of such information, mediated by institutions. Sociologists pertaining to the school of *symbolic interactionism* think at the society as grounded on interaction mediated by symbols; but symbols are meanings, that need to be integrated within a system: in other words, within an institution. Without institutions we would be unable to give sense to our behaviour, or more or less to our everyday life, as far as they supply the best ways to realize all kinds of good social practices,

Now it should be better to come back to our first question: can sociology help us to live a better life? But in order to answer such a question we should at first solve some preliminary

Pointing out that institutions supply the best ways to realize all kinds of social practices, it's evident that to live a better life depends on which social practices we have to realize: for example, legal or criminal ones. And it depends as well on which relationships we have with such social practices: for example, whether we are gangsters or good citizens. But generally speaking and adopting in this case a relativistic attitude, we can say that they can

But then, is sociology an institution? If so, is it a good or a bad one? And in any case, in which way could sociology help us to live a better life? But at last, what means "to live a

We can start from the fact that knowledge is an institution. "Knowledge" corresponds to the Greek term *Sophia,* the friends of which have been named philosophers. In ancient Greece during the classic period (since the VI century b.C.) for the first time someone tried to detect the nature in order to give sense to the world around without referring to religion. Formerly in Greece, so as by all other known civilizations, only religion gave sense to the world, and only the priests were authorized to interpret it. Among the first philosophers, all laymen, some ones were also mathematicians (Thales, Pythagoras), while Chaldean mathematicians were priests. So in Greece mathematics and philosophy were for the first time considered features of a laïc knowledge. Until it circulated within a closed social milieu, this kind of knowledge was considered not so dangerous. But when Socrates began to spread this new critical attitude, he was convicted for corrupting Athenian youth: actually he was showing

for sense of the universe).

or to avoid all kinds of dangerous ones.

help us, some way, to live a better life.

problems.

**3. The institution sociology within the institution knowledge** 

better life"? As we could see, the question is manifold and not plain.

institutions, in their way. But at last we couldn't forget that many scholars so as Foucault, Erikson and most labelling theorists, have emphasized the role of deviance for strengthening the social cohesion: where the boundaries between positive and negative role are put seriously in doubt (fortunately).

In our perspective, institutions are neither coercive, nor super-individual subjects compelling humans to behave in some ways fixed in advance: as a system of meanings, they are instruments created by the humans themselves to support their understanding of states of things in order to allow them to better organize their strategic behaviour.

First of all, institutions supply humans with meanings denoting classes of events: then, generic meanings. But in second and more realistic place, a combination of different classes of events coinciding in the same situation supply the specific meaning of a particular event, its *sense*. At this point, we ought to pay attention to the fact that among such events coinciding in the named situation there is also the Self of the actor interpreting the same situation, a Self with its image of the world, its personal culture, its specific ends to pursue. Then it contributes to form the context, the *frame* (to employ the term fortunately introduced by Goffman). So the sense given to the named situation is somewhat personalized, and by this way the institution itself is really influenced: another way to contest a functionalistic, coercive conception of institutions.

We still told that primitive humans tended to interpret (that's: to give sense) the most events by referring to the religious institution: for them, all the meanings of natural events, as well as human ones, were connected with religion, as far as humans are not able to control natural ones (and then they have to be controlled by much stronger forces). While human behaviour have to be not contradictory with such stronger forces.

During the following phases of human development, different institutions became independent on religion: politics, economics, law, art, knowledge (formerly philosophical, later scientific). Such process is named *laïcization*, that means reciprocal independence of the different systems of meaning. While by *secularization* (a process that we ought not to mistake for the former one) the religious outlook over the world tends to loose importance, until becoming irrelevant.

When we put laïcization in relationship with the constructivist perspective before illustrated (where knowledge isn't mirroring an external "reality", but interpreting experiences by building theories for giving sense to them), then we could infer some relevant consequences. Berger and Kellner have very well analyzed the modern mind as "homeless", while formerly Max Weber had spoken about a "values polytheism" referring to modernity. The real reason of such lack of firmness, much more than the cultural relativism connected with the present trend to globalization, is the (unavoidable) pluralism of different systems of meaning (institutions), each one of which involving a specific outlook on the whole world. For example, the religious quest for sense of the universe cannot be confronted and made consistent with the scientific perspective: none of them is "right" nor "wrong", each one must be considered within its own institutional context. Philosophers of the Middle Ages spoke about a theory of "double truth": that's really inconsistent only when we think at the truth as an external reality existent independently on us. But it becomes plainly consistent when the truth is considered only as "consistency with facts" (Tarski) or better (as we have pointed out) with experiences. Where experiences (the same experiences) could be interpreted within different contexts (frames)

institutions, in their way. But at last we couldn't forget that many scholars so as Foucault, Erikson and most labelling theorists, have emphasized the role of deviance for strengthening the social cohesion: where the boundaries between positive and negative role

In our perspective, institutions are neither coercive, nor super-individual subjects compelling humans to behave in some ways fixed in advance: as a system of meanings, they are instruments created by the humans themselves to support their understanding of states

First of all, institutions supply humans with meanings denoting classes of events: then, generic meanings. But in second and more realistic place, a combination of different classes of events coinciding in the same situation supply the specific meaning of a particular event, its *sense*. At this point, we ought to pay attention to the fact that among such events coinciding in the named situation there is also the Self of the actor interpreting the same situation, a Self with its image of the world, its personal culture, its specific ends to pursue. Then it contributes to form the context, the *frame* (to employ the term fortunately introduced by Goffman). So the sense given to the named situation is somewhat personalized, and by this way the institution itself is really influenced: another way to contest a functionalistic,

We still told that primitive humans tended to interpret (that's: to give sense) the most events by referring to the religious institution: for them, all the meanings of natural events, as well as human ones, were connected with religion, as far as humans are not able to control natural ones (and then they have to be controlled by much stronger forces). While human

During the following phases of human development, different institutions became independent on religion: politics, economics, law, art, knowledge (formerly philosophical, later scientific). Such process is named *laïcization*, that means reciprocal independence of the different systems of meaning. While by *secularization* (a process that we ought not to mistake for the former one) the religious outlook over the world tends to loose importance, until

When we put laïcization in relationship with the constructivist perspective before illustrated (where knowledge isn't mirroring an external "reality", but interpreting experiences by building theories for giving sense to them), then we could infer some relevant consequences. Berger and Kellner have very well analyzed the modern mind as "homeless", while formerly Max Weber had spoken about a "values polytheism" referring to modernity. The real reason of such lack of firmness, much more than the cultural relativism connected with the present trend to globalization, is the (unavoidable) pluralism of different systems of meaning (institutions), each one of which involving a specific outlook on the whole world. For example, the religious quest for sense of the universe cannot be confronted and made consistent with the scientific perspective: none of them is "right" nor "wrong", each one must be considered within its own institutional context. Philosophers of the Middle Ages spoke about a theory of "double truth": that's really inconsistent only when we think at the truth as an external reality existent independently on us. But it becomes plainly consistent when the truth is considered only as "consistency with facts" (Tarski) or better (as we have pointed out) with experiences. Where experiences (the same experiences) could be interpreted within different contexts (frames)

of things in order to allow them to better organize their strategic behaviour.

behaviour have to be not contradictory with such stronger forces.

are put seriously in doubt (fortunately).

coercive conception of institutions.

becoming irrelevant.

pertaining to different institutions. Then, to sum up, creationism could be rejected from a scientific point of view, but accepted from a religious one (the one legitimated to make a quest for sense of the universe).

Institutions indeed are not only that macro-systems of meanings about which we have spoken so far. They are also smaller systems produced inside of each macro-system, and then smaller and smaller ones, as a set of Chinese boxes. For example, education is an institution inside of *knowledge*, universities and schools are institutions inside of education, etc. Market is an institution inside of economics, banks and stock exchange are institutions inside of market, etc. The whole of our world of life is enveloped by a thick net of institutions, but this is in no way a restriction of our freedom: on the contrary, it allows us to give a meaning to all our behaviours and to inform others that we are doing so. Sometimes maybe we would prefer not to inform others about our behaviour, and then we try to do it secretly; but generally social interaction needs an effective circulation of such information, mediated by institutions. Sociologists pertaining to the school of *symbolic interactionism* think at the society as grounded on interaction mediated by symbols; but symbols are meanings, that need to be integrated within a system: in other words, within an institution. Without institutions we would be unable to give sense to our behaviour, or more or less to our everyday life, as far as they supply the best ways to realize all kinds of good social practices, or to avoid all kinds of dangerous ones.
