Middle-Range Operators: The Sociology of Uncertainty as a Gestalt Theorem
Abstract
This article proposes a conceptualization of middle-range operators — a class of social phenomena insufficiently described in contemporary social theory yet playing a central role in enabling sociological theorization of uncertainty. The analysis critically examines reflexive sociology’s limitations in addressing uncertainty, particularly the “dual hysteresis problem” in Pierre Bourdieu’s crisis theory, which obstructs linkages between micro- and macro-level social realities in contexts of change. This impasse necessitates recourse to reflexive sociology’s peripheral conceptual tools: “inventions” or, more broadly, middle-range operators. Through case studies of Gisèle Sapiro’s “axiological operators” and Nathan Marom’s “spatial distinctions”, the text demonstrates how contemporary reflexive sociology identifies concepts and phenomena structurally fulfilling middle-range operator functions in specific contexts, while neglecting broader systemic characterization of this social category. To address this gap, the analysis engages with modern debates on (quasi)institutional preconditions and effects of social network dynamics, drawing particularly on guanxi scholarship. The concluding sectionoutlines defining characteristics of middle-range operators and introduces the concept of modulation — a theoretical lens revealing previously overlooked processes of resource transformation and recalibration enacted by social actors during structural crises and rapid societal transformations.
About the Author
S. V. Kozlov
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Stepan V. Kozlov — MA in Sociology, graduate student at ISS RANEPA; lecturer of the Social Sciences department of MSSES, head of Laboratory of Social Change Research of Shaninka (LSCR).
Moscow
References
1. Bourdieu P. (2018). Homo Academicus. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Instituta Gaidara. In Russ. EDN: HDSZPD. (in Russ.)
2. Volkova M. (2021). Shamans, Bureaucrats, and Their Cosmologies: Local Religious Organisations in Buryatia and the Irkutsk Region. Antropologicheskii forum, 51, pp. 39–71. EDN: AYMZWF. https://doi.org/10.31250/1815-8870-2021-17-51-39-71. (in Russ.)
3. Volkova M. D. (2025) Group Styles as Mid-Level Operators: Situational Innovations in Shamanic Organizations. Sociology of Power, 37 (2), pp. 32-46. (in Russ.)
4. Granovetter M. (2009). The Strength of Weak Ties. Economic Sociology, 10(4), pp. 31–50. EDN: OYNYKJ. (in Russ.)
5. Kozlov S. V. (2025) Bourdieu + Simondon = Chernobyl: Outline of General Theory of (Social) Inventions. Logos (Russian Federation), 35(4) (forthcoming). In Russ.
6. Kozlov S. V. (2024) Fantasy Conditioning Techniques and Euphemization Strategies of Soviet Bureaucracy After the Chernobyl Accident: Sarcophagi, Plays, Conclusions and Reports. Logos, 34(4), pp. 68–80. EDN: JJZEVJ. https://doi.org/10.17323/0869-5377-2024-4-68-80. (in Russ.)
7. Konstantinovskiy D. L., Vakhshtayn V. S., Kurakin D. (2013). Analyzing PreTheoretical Foundations inSociology of Education: Explicationof Basic Metaphors. Voprosy obrazovaniya /Educational Studies Moscow, 4, pp. 22–39. EDN: PVJFPT. (in Russ.)
8. Kurakin D. (2023). Cathectic Mechanisms of Culture. Part 1. Russian Sociological Review, 22(3), pp. 9–52. EDN: YTIUBS. https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2023-3-9-52. (in Russ.)
9. Kurakin D. (2024). Cathectic Mechanisms of Culture. Part 2. Russian Sociological Review, 23(1), pp. 9–39. EDN: CXVVPN. (in Russ.)
10. Latour B. (1996). On Interobjectivity. Russian Sociological Review, 13(2), pp. 113–162. EDN: JWURYH. (in Russ.)
11. Filippov A. F. (2004). The theory of Social Events. Logos, 5, pp. 3–28. EDN: XESKUT. (in Russ.)
12. Alexander J. C. (2018). The societalization of social problems: Church pedophilia, phone hacking, and the financial crisis. American Sociological Review, 83(6), pp. 1049–1078. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418803376
13. Barbalet J. (2023). Conceptualising informal institutions: Drawing on the case of guanxi. The British Journal of Sociology, 74(1), pp. 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12984
14. Bech J. M. (2021). Spinoza’s conatus undoes Bourdieu’s habitus. Conatus — Journal of Philosophy, 6(2), pp. 131–152. https://doi.org/10.12681/cjp.25632
15. Bian Y. (1997). Bringing strong ties back in: Indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. American Sociological Review, 62(3), pp. 366–385. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/2657311
16. Bian Y. (2019). Guanxi: How China works. Polity.
17. Bonnin M. (2013). The lostgeneration: The rustication of China’s educated youth (1968–1980). Chinese University Press.
18. Bourdieu P. (1962). The Algerians. Beacon Press.
19. Bourdieu P. (1996). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Stanford University Press.
20. Bourdieu P. (2000). Pascalian meditations (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford University Press. Bourdieu P., & Passeron J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage Publications.
21. Bourdieu P., & Sayad A. (1964). Le déracinement. La crise de l’agriculture traditionnelle en Algérie. Minuit.
22. Calabretta A. (2022). Transnational fields under change. Investigating the impacts of the Tunisian Revolution on the transnational political field. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 2022(2), pp. 467–491. https://doi.org/10.1423/104936
23. Caselli D. (2022). Heteronomy reloaded. Tensions and transformation in the field of welfare expertise in post-2008 crisis. The case of Milan, Italy. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 2022(2), pp. 407–433. https://doi.org/10.1423/104934
24. Ermakoff I. (2013). Rational choice may take over. In P. S. Gorski (Ed.), Bourdieu and historical analysis (pp. 89–107). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822395430-005
25. Gold T. B. (2017). Normalizing private business in China. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 22(3), pp. 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-017-9509-4
26. Gorski P. S. (2013). Bourdieu as a theorist of change. In P. S. Gorski (Ed.), Bourdieu and historical analysis (pp. 1–15). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822395430-001
27. Granovetter M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), pp. 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
28. Granovetter M. (1995). Getting a job: A study ofcontacts and careers. University of Chicago Press.
29. Hacking I. (1995). The social construction of what? Harvard University Press.
30. Kennedy J. M. (1974). A psychology of picture perception: Images and information. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
31. Lin N. (2001). Guanxi: A conceptual analysis. In A. Y. So, N. Lin, & D. Poston (Eds.), The Chinese triangle of mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (pp. 153–166). Greenwood Press.
32. Marom N. (2014). Relating a city’s history and geography with Bourdieu: One hundred years of spatial distinction in Tel Aviv. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(4), pp. 1344–1362. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12027
33. Rubin E. (1958). Figure and ground. In D. C. Beardslee, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Readings in perception (pp. 194–203). D. Van Nostrand.
34. Sapiro G. (2020). The transnational literary field between (inter)-nationalism and cosmopolitanism. Journal of World Literature, 5(4), pp. 481–504. https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/24056480-00504002
35. Sapiro G (2022). Structural crises vs. situations of (political) crisis. Rassegna italiana di Sociologia, LXIII (2), pp.299-321. https://dx.doi.org/10.1423/104930
36. Sapiro G. (2023). Against self-interest: The codification of „disinterestedness” as an axiological operator in religion, aesthetics, and law. In S. Geroulanos & G. Sapiro (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the history and sociology of ideas (pp. 256–274). Routledge.
37. Simondon G. (2020). Allagmatics. In G. Simondon, Individuation in light of notions of form and information (pp. 661–671). University of Minnesota Press.
38. Strand M., & Lizardo O. (2017). The hysteresis effect: Theorizing mismatch in action. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 47(2), pp. 164–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12117
39. Wang Y. (2016). Homology and isomorphism: Bourdieu in conversation with new institutionalism. The British Journal of Sociology, 67(2), pp. 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12197
40. Yakubovich V. (2005). Weak ties, information, and influence: How workers find jobs in a local Russian labor market. American Sociological Review, 70(3), pp. 408–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000303
Review
For citations:
Kozlov S.V. Middle-Range Operators: The Sociology of Uncertainty as a Gestalt Theorem. Sociology of Power. 2025;37(2):12-31. (In Russ.)
Views:
48
Email this article 