How to Manage the Future? Mid-level Operators and Experiments
Abstract
This text serves as a commentary on two articles in this issue: Stepan Kozlov’s work, which introduces the concept of “middle-level operators” based on Bourdieu’s texts, and Maria Volkova’s article, which demonstrates the applicability of this concept within a Goffmanian approach to describing group styles. Kozlov describes middle-level operators as tools for managing uncertainty but does not reveal the mechanisms of their impact on the form of uncertainty. Building on this approach, the present text shows how the concept can be extended by drawing on Robert Merton’s ideas and Science and Technology Studies (STS). Examining the experimental nature of middle-level operators enables us to reconceptualize middle-range theories as research tools with both applied and conceptual significance. Drawing on experiments described in STS, the text demonstrates how middle-level operators function under conditions of limited uncertainty and the ways this uncertainty can be constrained during experimentation. The analysis of Russian urban planning reform as a case of complex, long-term experimentation shows how identifying middle-level operators that combine different scales of transformation allows us to recognize the construction of future images as the reform’s primary direction and to identify mechanisms of change restraint that lead to its decline. Thus, the concept of middle-level operators shifts the focus of social research toward empirical cases and serves as a tool for formalizing their conceptual potential.
About the Author
N. A. VolkovaRussian Federation
Natalia A. Volkova — MA in Sociology (University of Manchester);Master of Urban Development (Vysokovsky Graduate School of Urbanism, Higher School of Economics).
Almaty; Moscow
References
1. Aibar E., Bijker W. I. (2017) Constructing the City: Cerdà’s Plan for the Extension of Barcelona. Sociology of Power, 29 (1), pp. 203-232. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2017-1-203-232
2. Alpers S. (2022) The Art of Description. Dutch Painting in the Seventeenth Century. Moscow: V–A–C press. (in Russ.)
3. Bourdieu P. (2018) Homo Academicus. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Instituta Gaidara. (in Russ.)
4. Weber M. (2017) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In: Weber M. Selected Works. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Center for Humanitarian Initiatives; pp. 19–186. (in Russ.)
5. Volkova M. (2025) Group Styles as Middle-Level Operators: Situational Innovations in Shamanic Organizations. (Commentary on Stepan Kozlov’s Article). Sociology of Power, 2025 (2), pp. 32-46. (in Russ.)
6. Volkova N. (2021) Urban Zoning Rules: Legal Variable Technique. Economic Sociology, 22(5), pp. 54–82. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2021-5-55-83
7. Gaaze K., Kolozaridi P. (2020) Social Research After Method. Recording of the regular Research&Write workshop. (https://youtu.be/7lQHJaBoT44). (in Russ.)
8. Gritsenko E. V. (2014) In Search of Lost Ideals: Russian Municipal Reform and German Experience. Comparative Constitutional Review, 6 (103), pp. 17–43. (in Russ.)
9. Kozlov S. V. (2025) Middle-range operators: The sociology of uncertainty as a gestalt theorem. Sociology of Power, 2025, (2), pp. 12-31. (in Russ.)
10. Kosareva N. B. (2005) Housing Market in Russia: Today and in Perspective. Property Relations in the Russian Federation, (3), pp. 24–30. (in Russ.)
11. Kosareva N. B., Trutnev E. K. (2003) The Role of the State in the Development of Land and Other Real Estate Markets. Property Relations in the Russian Federation, 7, pp. 89–101. (in Russ.)
12. Kuznetsov A. G., Shaitanova L. A. (2012) Route Taxi at the Crossroads of Justice Regimes. Sociology of Power, (6–7), pp. 137–149. (in Russ.)
13. Latour B. (2017) Visualization and Cognition: Drawing Things Together (trans. from English by M. Maslyukova, M. Rastorgueva, S. Gavrilenko). Logos, 27(2), pp. 95–156. (in Russ.)
14. Law J., Vakhshtayn V. (2006) Objects and Spaces. Russian Sociological Review, 5 (1), pp. 30–42. (in Russ.)
15. Medushevsky A. N. (2002) Power and Property in Modern Russia: Adoption of the Land Code of the Russian Federation. Constitutional Law: Eastern European Review, 1, pp. 1-13. (in Russ.)
16. Mol A., Pisarev A. (2018) Backgrounds and Stories: Interview with Annemarie Mol. In: The Multiple Body. Ontology in Medical Practice /trans. from English by V. Guseinova, D. Kozhemyachenko, G. Konovalov. Perm: Hyle Press, pp. 7–20. (in Russ.)
17. Moskaleva S. M. (2023) Urban Studies in the Context of Social Transformations of Urban Planning Activities (2008–2021). Interaction. Interview. Interpretation, 15(3), pp. 31–48. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.19181/inter.2023.15.3.2
18. Rajan R. G. (2013) Fault Lines: Hidden Fractures Still Governing the World Economy. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Press. (in Russ.)
19. Safarova M. D. (2021) Citizen Participation in Urban Regulation: Theory and Practice of Legislative Support. Urban Studies and Practices, 6(2), pp. 65–83. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/usp62202165-83
20. Semenov A. V., Gileva A. I. (2022) Russian Urban Planning Tools from the Perspective of Sociological Institutionalism. Economic Sociology, 23(4), pp. 73–95. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2022-4-73-95
21. Semenov A. V., Minaeva E. Yu. (2019) Strategic Urban Planning Tools and Civic Participation in Russia. In Global Challenges and Regional Development in the Mirror of Sociological Dimensions (pp. 152–158). Vologda: RAS. (in Russ.)
22. Filippov A. F. (2002) Political Sociology. Fundamental Problems and Basic Concepts. Politeia, 2, pp. 97–117. (in Russ.)
23. Akrich M. (1989) La construction d’un système socio-technique. Esquisse pour une anthropologie des techniques. Anthropologie et sociétés, 13(2), pp. 31–54. https://doi.org/10.7202/015076ar
24. Bijker W. E., Bal R., Hendriks R. (2009) The Paradox of Scientific Authority: The Role of Scientific Advice in Democracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
25. Bourdieu P. (2004) Algerian landing. Ethnography, 5(4), pp. 415-443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138104048826
26. Bogusz T. (2018) Fromcrisis to experiment: Bourdieuand Dewey on researchpractice and cooperation. In Questions ofPractice in Philosophy and Social Theory (pp. 157–175). Routledge.
27. Borch C., Kornberger M. (2015) Urban commons. Rethinking the city. Space, materiality and the normative.
28. De Laet M., Mol A. (2000) The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social studies of science, 30(2), pp. 225–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631200030002002
29. Eliasoph N., & Lichterman P. (2003) Culture in interaction. American Journal of Sociology, 108(4), pp. 735–794. https://doi.org/10.1086/367920
30. Hart P. (1998) Land Use Regulation Memorandum: Structure of Land Use Regulations in Novgorodskii Raion. In M. Miller (Ed.), Novgorod Regional Investment Initiative. Available at: http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~ssfa2/death%20of%20socialism%2013-14.pdf (Accessed 08.03.2023).
31. Lash S. (1998) Being after time: towards a politics of melancholy. Journal for Cultural Research, 2(2-3), pp. 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/14797589809359301
32. Law J. (1984) On the methods of long-distance control: vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India. The Sociological Review, 32(S1), pp. 234–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00114.x
33. Law J. (2009) Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics. In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, ed. by B. S. Turner, (pp. 141–158). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304992.ch7
34. Law J. (2015) What’s wrong with a one-world world? Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 16(1), pp. 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910x.2015.1020066
35. Merton R. K. (1936) Puritanism, pietism, and science. The Sociological Review, 28(1), pp. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1936.tb01317.x
36. Merton R. K., (1938). Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England. New York: Howard Fertig.
37. Merton R. K. (2007) On Sociological Theories of the Middle Range. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Classical Sociological Theory (pp. 448–459). Waltham, MA: Blackwell.
38. Mol A., Law J. (1994) Regions, networks and fluids: Anaemia and social topology. Social studies of science, 24(4), pp. 641–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631279402400402
39. Riley M. W., Merton R. (Ed.) (1963) Sociological Research. Vol. 1. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
40. 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
41. Shapin S. (1984) Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social studies of science, 14(4), pp. 481–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014004001
42. Shapin S. (1988) Understanding the Merton thesis. Isis, 79(4), pp. 594–605. https://doi.org/10.1086/354847
43. Shapin S., Schaffer S. (2011) Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes,Boyle,and the experimental life. Princeton University Press.
44. Wacquant L. (2004) Following Pierre Bourdieu into the field. Ethnography, 5(4), pp. 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138104052259
45. Wacquant L. (1989) Towards a Reflexive Sociology: A Workshop with Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological Theory, 7, pp. 26-63. https://doi.org/10.2307/202061
Review
For citations:
Volkova N.A. How to Manage the Future? Mid-level Operators and Experiments. Sociology of Power. 2025;37(2):47-68. (In Russ.)