931148

research-article2020
CSI0010.1177/0011392120931148Current SociologyAraujo

Article CS

Current Sociology

Social theory anew: From

1­–18
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
contesting modernity to sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0011392120931148
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392120931148
revisiting our conceptual journals.sagepub.com/home/csi

toolbox – the case of

individualization

Kathya Araujo
Institute for Advanced Studies, University of Santiago de Chile; Millennium Nucleus Center Authority and
Power Asymmetries, Chile

Abstract
This article argues why core classical sociological notions that are still extremely
influential in global sociological thinking need to be reviewed and reconceptualized,
as well as to present an example of how this might be done. The discussion is in two
parts. First, the article outlines what the author suggests is a major problem of social
and sociological theory: the common articulation between modernity, social theory
and sociological research, and its negative effects for the production of knowledge in
other regions, such as Latin America. The author considers some of the contemporary
strategies devised to deal with the difficulties arising from this articulation and proposes
a complementary way of overcoming the problem posed. Second, the author backs her
argument with a critical analysis of the concept of individualization, one of the earliest
and central notions of social theory, based on the results of three empirical studies
carried out in Chile over the past decade.

Keywords
Individualization, knowledge production, non-central societies, social theory,
sociological research

The main objective of the sociologist is to contribute to the understanding of societies.

By participating critically in the forms that social life acquires, sociology serves

Corresponding author:
Kathya Araujo, Instituto de Estudios Avanzados, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Román Díaz 89,
Providencia, Santiago de Chile, 7500618, Chile.
Email: kathya.araujo@gmail.com
2 Current Sociology 00(0)

individuals in sustaining themselves collectively or personally, whether by adapting to

such forms or seeking to transform them. From this perspective, sociological theory is
primarily a source of tools (concepts, notions, theories) with which to perform the tasks
we are responsible for as sociologists.
Therefore, social theory – its validity and relevance – must be judged not only by its
coherence but also by its capacity to allow us insight into the phenomena that confront
us as social scientists. Its value depends considerably on the tools it provides us and on
their power to generate knowledge that has acuity and is pertinent to our scientific
objectives.
However high its level of abstraction and generalizing power, as various scholars
have rightly emphasized social and sociological theory starts from the basic work of
systematizing information, evidence, observations, and controlled experiences about the
forms of organization, ways of life, and production of meaning that emerge in a specific
space and time (Alexander, 1987a; Giddens, 1987; Joas and Knöbl, 2009; Swedberg,
2015). An important consequence of this understanding – as many social scientists have
insisted, including those from a historicist tradition, from Marx to Touraine – is this:
although social theory is often seen as a product of conceptual elaboration leading to
increasing levels of abstraction and generalization, such theoretical tools originate in
situated social realities that are produced by groups or collectives in their search for par-
ticular solutions as they shape social life. Seen from another perspective, which social
reality has been the source of information, evidence or observations is hardly a matter of
no consequence. As pointed out in recent epistemological debate, if there can be no
knowledge without concepts or theories, neither can we dispense with reality in estab-
lishing their limits and limitations (Dreyfus and Taylor, 2015).
Nonetheless, mainstream social and sociological theory (that is, the set of tools con-
sidered to possess a high degree of scientific legitimation sufficient to explain their wide
diffusion) has been mainly, if not exclusively, produced in so-called North-central socie-
ties, as different scholars and especially those representing postcolonial and decolonial
thought have vigorously pointed out (Connell; 2007; Costa and Boatcă, 2010; de Sousa
Santos, 2016; Lander, 2004; Patel, 2006; Quijano, 2000), as have others from different
perspectives (Ramos, 2014). Consequently, mainstream social and sociological theory
– that we, sociologists from the South or non-central societies use (and are expected to
use) and that we mobilize in our analysis due to their supposed scientific legitimacy – are
tools produced to comprehend the specific socio-historical challenges faced by central
Western societies.
Taking account of these facts, we social scientists or sociologists working in or from
peripheral or Southern societies face a real problem: how fitting are the notions and theo-
ries available in mainstream social or sociological theories for our study objectives?
Those social scientists working in and from North-central societies also have a problem:
how generalizable can knowledge be that is produced with the use of these concepts and
theories? Indeed, a real problem arises for us all: how reliable is the toolbox offered by
mainstream social and sociological theory for grasping societies and their relations in a
plural and diverse world (Arjomand and Reis, 2013)?
This article is intended as a contribution to this discussion. It seeks to argue why core
classical sociological notions that are still extremely influential in global sociological
Araujo 3

thinking need to be reviewed and reconceptualized, as well as to present an example of

how this might be done. To achieve this, I propose, first, to underscore the importance of
putting to the test core social theory concepts, i.e. those that have gained weight histori-
cally as its undisputed and foundational basis; second, to offer a way of achieving this
task by prioritizing a form of reconceptualization based on empirical research and induc-
tive procedures developed at the national level; and, third, to exemplify this argument by
presenting the results of a research program that over the last decade has focused on the
empirical study and theoretical review (in the case of Chile) of one of these core classical
sociological notions, that of individualization.
The discussion is in two parts. First, I outline what I suggest is a major problem of
social and sociological theory: the common articulation between modernity, social theory
and sociological research, and its negative effects for the production of knowledge in
other regions, such as Latin America. I consider some of the contemporary strategies
devised to deal with the difficulties arising from this articulation, the scope and the limits
of such strategies, and I propose what I consider a complementary way of overcoming the
problem posed. Second, I back my argument with a critical analysis of the concept of
individualization, one of the earliest and central notions of social theory (Schroer, 2000),
based on the results of three empirical studies carried out in Chile over the past decade.1

Social theory and sociological research: A research

program
The hegemony of knowledge output and theory from Europe and the United States can
be observed from the fact that scientific scholars in Latin America make 90.1% of their
references to authors from Europe or the United States, while the latter countries make
less than 1% of their citations to Latin American authors (Ramos, 2014: 708). It may also
be seen in the fact that the sociological field has until now been deeply influenced by the
work of the so-called classical authors of sociology (Alexander, 1987b), all of whom are
from Europe or the US. Their influence is both indirect and direct. These authors are still
a mandatory reference in current theory building (Joas and Knöbl, 2009). Their works
are typically considered compulsory reading in the academic formation of young soci-
ologists. Finally, most of the so-called ‘trend concepts’ (Domingues, 2014) which
emerged from their contributions (secularization, differentiation, or individualization)
have remained undisputed core notions for sociological thought globally (Curato, 2013).
The so-called classical sociological authors were driven by the transformations their
societies were experiencing. Faced with rapid social change, or a ‘whirlwind’ as Berman,
following Rousseau, called it (Berman, 1983), they understood that their duty was to
provide an interpretation of this new historical condition (Martuccelli, 2005; Nisbet,
2004), of the new bases of social organization (modes of production, social reproduction,
etc.) that were emerging, of the new meanings and senses about the world and the self,
and the reconfiguration of forms of social coexistence. These classical works had two
simultaneous and mutually reinforcing effects. First, they produced the basis for sociol-
ogy, at that time a discipline in formation. A set of concepts and theories were developed
that arose out of the observations, information and evidence collected when scholars
4 Current Sociology 00(0)

sought to understand the changes occurring. In addition, as a result of these authors’

claims to a universalistic science and their blindness to other social realities, the theoreti-
cal frameworks and conceptual tools they created became a hegemonic model (Boatcă,
2016). Connell (2007), for example, has discussed how Australia, which had been a data-
mine for the ‘Metropole’ (a ‘site of difference’) in the nineteenth century, became a field
for the application of theories and methods provided by the latter (a ‘site of similarities’)
in the second half of the century that followed. As the author stresses in a historical
description that is valid for many peripheral or semi-peripheral countries, local realities
were understood through the lens of central-global categories.
Furthermore, the so-called classical authors of sociology contributed to the creation
of a canonical narrative for the emerging era, one that became widely accepted via the
notion of modernity. In the process, what was the contingent outcome of a very specific
historical path was exported and generalized as having a universal scope. Through the
dissemination of concepts and theories built upon the historical subsoil of North-central
societies, modernity (as a diagnosis of a historical era as well as a theoretical model of
social life) assumed a normative character. It ended up being made, first, into a reference
for comparison; second, into an ideal measure for value judgments; and third, into a
hegemonic analytical model (Araujo, 2017). As a result, as critics of modernization the-
ory have clearly shown (Knöbl, 2007), the normative and interactive solutions to the
problem of coexistence based on these societies’ experience have worked frequently as
definitions of what should be ‘expected’ or even ‘desirable’ in other societies.
Several critical approaches have been developed to deal with this fact. One of the
most important has been to treat the scrutiny and renewal of the notion of modernity as
one of the basic priority tasks for social theory and current sociological research. Multiple
modernities (Arjomand, 2010; Arnason, 2003; Eisenstadt, 2000, 2002) and postcolonial
and decolonial studies (inter alia, Bhambra, 2007; Boatcă, 2013; Chakrabarty, 2000;
Mignolo, 2000, 2007; Randeria, 2009), in spite of their differences,2 have all enriched
this discussion. But postcolonial and decolonial studies in particular have contributed to
denouncing and examining the epistemic consequences of the relationship between the
so-called North-central and peripheral societies.
Following this argument, both problems – the universalistic/hegemonic notion of
modernity and the theoretical monopoly of the theories and categories promoted from
central Western societies – have been analytically linked. Whether using the term
‘Eurocentrism’ (Bhambra, 2007; Costa and Boatcă, 2010; Mignolo, 2000, 2007; Quijano,
2000) or ‘Northernness’ (Connell, 2007), many authors have critically exposed the role
played by knowledge in maintaining Northern hegemony and colonial power (Patel,
2006). From this point of view, the Eurocentric character of knowledge was achieved by
assigning distinct values to differences (Mignolo, 2000), but also by reinforcing belief in
the universality of the tools or methods of knowledge production developed in this region
(Boatcă, 2016; Chakrabarty, 2000). Thus, studies on the consequences of coloniality,
critical studies on the history of ideas or disciplines, or different but complementary
strategies to confront the geopolitics of knowledge have been implemented to counteract
the consequences of Eurocentrism (Boatcă, 2013: 389).
Some limitations of these studies have been pointed out. Among them, critics main-
tain that their proposals are still too vague or insufficient in specifying, and especially
Araujo 5

influencing social sciences, as well as in identifying concrete problems of theory produc-

tion (Domingues, 2009, 2014; Knöbl, 2007). Of course, there are some very important
recent contributions which contest the aforementioned criticism,3 but as Julian Go has
underscored they must still be seen as exceptions (2016: 12).
Thus, a review of these decolonial and postcolonial postulates, but also of their limits,
suggests the need for an added commitment to review and challenge the basic categories,
concepts, and theories that have functioned until now as the legitimate tools we deploy
in our sociological tasks. Specifically, it challenges us to carry out a critical research
program aimed at constructing or re-constructing those undisputed core classical notions
that are cornerstones of social and sociological theory, and continue to provide the foun-
dations for the production of sociological knowledge globally.
The latter is especially important given the serious consequences of the hegemony
discussed above, which are linked to the potential of such tools to distort the understand-
ing and interpretation of other societies.
A perception of Latin America that is based on a deficit narrative is a good example
of the negative consequences of this hegemony. A common feature of this sociological
tradition is to emphasize analytically the gap between how these societies are seen to
function and how they should function according to the tradition’s theory-generated nor-
mative expectations. As different authors have noted (inter alia, Araujo, 2012; Martuccelli,
2010; Mascareño, 2010), frequently Latin Americans are not considered to be true indi-
viduals at all because they do not possess the traits that the Northern-central discourse
considers they should have; Latin American societies are considered problematic because
they lack the expected degrees of differentiation and complexity modern societies should
possess; or they are seen as transgressive and severely deficient with respect to individu-
als’ relationship with the norms, because their dynamics and social logic do not mesh
with a theory of society in which the introjection of norms is held to play the central role
in defining and making social life possible.
Hence, how to conceive a critical research program? In my view it entails develop-
ing exploratory empirical research programs, which should be strongly informed theo-
retically: programs aimed ultimately at comparing the capacity of backbone hegemonic
theoretical notions to account for the realities under study. Above all, they should
contribute to a theoretical reconstruction of these skeletal notions in a conversation
that must inevitably go beyond one specific region, and should therefore involve a
three-step path. First, is to identify by means of empirical research the contingent and
specific ways in which socio-historical groups face the tasks they are confronted with
(modes of production and reproduction, sociabilities, etc.). Attendant on its indispen-
sable exploratory character, such research must follow a bottom-up strategy and
observe inductive procedures. Second, and based on this information, the pertinence
and acuity of hegemonic concepts or analytical categories theoretically central to soci-
ology (e.g. individualization, secularization, or differentiation) in interpreting these
social realities must be evaluated. Third, and finally, is the need to undertake the re-
construction of such concepts, categories and theories in a broader dialogue between
different regions.
In what follows I will try to illustrate these points by discussing a particular case, that
of the concept of individualization.
6 Current Sociology 00(0)

Crossroads and divergent paths: Individualization,

individuation and the individual
The concept of individualization has long been part of the sociological tradition. The inter-
pretations of the so-called sociological classics, as well as the hegemonic historical narrative
of modernity, placed this process at the heart of our understanding of modern societies
(Kron, 2000). Nevertheless, the notion has some important conceptual and heuristic limits.
To begin with the concept has been, and is still, deeply ambivalent. On the one hand,
the concept of individualization has been used to designate a historical process, one char-
acterized by the increasing adoption by institutions or modes of organization in which
individuals occupy the central axis. At the same time, real world actors would be more
and more compelled to accentuate the construction of their individuality. Yet, individu-
alization has also been used as a concept that provides an account of how actual subjects
are produced in a historical society and the core characteristics they are driven or encour-
aged to acquire – that is, strictly speaking, processes of individuation. This semantic
entanglement lies behind a confusion between the generalization of a historical trend and
the simultaneous generalization of one particular version of how individuation processes
are achieved. If this lack of clarity is already problematic because it obscures debate in
this field of studies, it is even more so as it has helped cloak and conceal other modalities
of individuation, such as the one I will discuss in what follows. That is, the notion of
individualization installed a specific modality of individuation as integral to the hegem-
onic theoretical model of individualization processes. Therefore, to approach our subject
it is important to keep this distinction in mind. In what follows the focus of the analysis
will be on individuation processes.

A hegemonic model of individuation processes

To start with, classic sociology described the emergence of the individual in Western
civilization associated with different structural factors (social differentiation, seculariza-
tion, urbanization, rationalism, industrialization, and so on). Nevertheless, it must be
recognized that from the beginning social differentiation has been regarded as having
played a central role.
Differentiation and individualization are two trend concepts, to use the notion coined
by Domingues (2014), that are closely related to the aim of explaining core processes in
the ongoing formation of modern societies. However, their relationship is a hierarchical
one. Differentiation has been identified since the so-called sociological classics
(Durkheim, Weber or Simmel) as one of the most important structural features of the
emergence of modern societies and at the same time of the modern individual. Thus,
theoretically, individualization appears from the start to be a consequence of differentia-
tion. This means that, on the one hand, the relationship between the structural features of
a society and the production of individuals was always at the heart of sociological
thought, to the point of establishing a general interpretative model. But, it also means,
and this is more problematic, that the conception of this relationship was reduced to the
very specific way in which not only structural change processes but structural features
themselves were conceptualized. In this way, a spurious generalization of a very specific
Araujo 7

historical path took place. This, as we will see, had three important and interrelated con-
sequences for the study of non-central Western societies.
First, based upon social morphology, meaning strictly speaking society’s level of
differentiation, classical sociology determined whether individuals existed or not in a
society. There were to be no individuals in societies in which differentiation processes
had not taken place and even in those in which they had not fully taken place. This
underlies Durkheim’s distinction between organic and mechanical solidarity (1996), as
well as Dumont’s conception of holistic and individualistic societies (Dumont, 1983,
1985), to give just two examples. This is also precisely what can be found as an under-
lying premise of a long discussion in Latin America about whether individuals exist or
not in Latin societies – a premise that gave birth to different versions of the notion that
individuals are deficient in such non-central societies (i.e. a moral deficit to be found,
for example, in ‘the transgressive Latin American individual’ thesis; see García
Villegas, 2009; Nino, 2005).
Second, from the structural morphology point of view, this interpretation associated
differentiation with complexity. As we know, this sociological account argues that dif-
ferentiation is linked to the specialization of societies, finding expression in increasing
heterogeneity and consequently leading to greater social complexity. Complexity and
differentiation became intertwined concepts, but furthermore, complexity was held to
derive solely from differentiation. At a stroke, other forms of social complexity (such as
kinship bonds, cultural and ethnical diversity, the relationship with invisible entities, the
relevance of sociability and informal networks, etc.) were dismissed. Thus, empirical
actors from other societies or from the same societies before they became modern were
not perceived to be individuals. This status-denial contributed also to obliviousness of
the fact that in these undifferentiated societies actors had always recognized their irre-
ducible individuality, and that there also existed truly individual role models (heroic,
exemplary, eccentric, etc.) (Lozerand, 2014).
Third, and especially due to evolutionary and functionalist theory’s embrace of the
notion of differentiation (Knöbl, 2007), and more specifically to the contributions of
Parsons, the structural features of a society were linked too closely to its institutional
design. Therefore, following this author, the most important factor for individualization
was held to be institutional action: institutions were the obligatory explanatory reference
for individualization (as a historical trend) but at the same time for individuation pro-
cesses. Thus, institutional individualism came to be the key concept when conceptual-
izing how individuals are produced in societies transforming their traditional social
architecture. It also became a core concept when approaching the social production of
the individual (Bourricaud, 1977; Parsons, 1951, 1964). According to this thesis, as we
know, in modern societies the most important institutions (work, school, family, etc.)
were specifically and explicitly geared to the production of individuals. Thanks to the
implementation of a recognizable institutional program instituted in the eighteenth cen-
tury, the individual became the essential subject model that actors were supposed to
embody (Dumont, 1983, 1985; Le Bart, 2009). Thus, the individuation process in mod-
ern Western societies was related to a set of social representations – to the active pres-
ence of an ideology of individualism – and the central role of institutions and the
mechanism of interpellation. The interpellation of actors as subjects is an essential
8 Current Sociology 00(0)

component of this model. This can be seen in contributions on the consequences of the
institutional subjection mechanisms, as discussed by Foucault (Fassin and Memmi,
2004; Memmi, 2003), or, from a very different theoretical perspective, on subject models
and individualism (Bellah et al., 1985). Institutions were supposed to produce them
through interpellations or prescriptions, but also to provide them the necessary support
to incarnate this model. This can be seen, for example, in discussions about the impor-
tance of the Welfare State in individualization and individuation processes (Esping-
Andersen, 1990; Therborn, 2009) and the role it plays in support of the individual (Castel,
1995), but also in the relationship between the degree of support and the capacity to
respond to institutional prescriptions (Ehrenberg, 2008).
Briefly, based on the theoretical equivalence chain (differentiation = social complex-
ity = institutional diversification) and the central role given to differentiation in the
production of individuals, three theoretical assumptions attached individualization and
individuation to central-Western societies. Appealing to this conceptualization, and con-
tingent on the diagnosis of semi-peripheral or peripheral societies as not, or at least not
fully, differentiated (from modernization theory to Luhmannians’ recent approaches, see
Mascareño, 2010), for a long time the social sciences affirmed the non-existence or
insufficiencies of individuals in these societies (Araujo, 2009a; Martuccelli, 2010).
Therefore, any analytical and critical work on individualization or individuation pro-
cesses must test these assumptions. For space reasons I choose to focus in this article on
addressing the third assumption, the central role of institutions and interpellation within
individuation processes. Based on the results of empirical studies on individuation pro-
cesses carried out as part of my research over the last 15 years in Chile as a non-central
society, I question the centrality of institutions4 and the mechanisms of institutional inter-
pellation or prescription in understanding individuation processes (a brief warning before
proceeding: while several studies will be referenced, I will not use fragments of empiri-
cal material to support my argument, as is customary. Instead, I will refer in each case to
the publications in which these studies were presented and their results discussed).

Counter-evidence
Chilean society is historically characterized by three important traits. The first of these is
the hierarchical nature of the social bond (Bengoa, 1996): that is, the pre-eminence of a
conception of the social bond in which what articulates the relationship between indi-
viduals, groups and social domains has been marked by top-down hierarchical formulas.
This hierarchy has been historically reproduced in very different ways: for example, until
the 1960s with the promise of protection and personal favors, as in the case of the tradi-
tional figure of the landowner (Morandé, 1984); since the nineteenth century and still
today, as an indispensable requirement for the maintenance of social, political or moral
order in imagined response to the fear of social chaos (Araujo, 2016; Jocelyn Holt, 1999).
The second trait is a strict segmentation and segregation supported by the naturaliza-
tion of superiority. A naturalization that was attached, and still is, to ascribed traits such
as surnames, physical appearance, or skin color, for example (PNUD, 2017).
Third is the tutelary character of pillar institutions over individuals. A capacity for
decision and action, and the autonomy of the governed, was never considered a decisive
Araujo 9

element by the elites. The self-established tutelary role of central institutions, such as the
church or the army, persisted in these societies until very late in the twentieth century
(Nugent, 2001).
These traits were often related to the absence of a cultural tradition of individualism
anchored in a strong institutional program of individualization, such as is found in mod-
ern central-Western societies. The former fed the conviction held by the social sciences,
but also by politics or public opinion, that the individual in Chile and in Latin America
as a whole was nonexistent or insufficient: to be recognized as an individual implied pos-
sessing the traits the sociological notion created in Europe or the United States attributed
to the individual. One of these was autonomy. Obviously, it was very hard to find such
individuals in a society where tutelary institutional imaginaries are ever-present, and
personal interdependence is so deeply interwoven and so very explicitly recognized
(Lomnitz, 1994), where family or informal supports have played such a fundamental role
in social life (Barozet, 2002; PNUD, 2017) and continue to do so. Consequently, the
study of the individual in this region was obliterated or, worse, most of our diagnosed
social or political challenges (populism, poverty, underdevelopment) were (and continue
to be) explained precisely in terms of the absence of ‘true’ autonomous (empowered)
individuals or people’s incapacity to embody ‘true’ individuals.5 It was precisely in order
to interrogate this conviction and tackle the absence of studies on the question of the
individual in the region that we developed a research program in Chile comprising a
series of empirical studies.
The results of a preliminary study allowed us to cast doubt on the alleged nonexist-
ence of individuals or their defective character, as well as on the theoretical importance
attributed classically to institutions in the process of individuation. This qualitative and
strongly inductive research was carried out in Chile between 2007 and 2010 (Araujo and
Martuccelli, 2012). Instead of asking comparatively to what extent the actors could be
considered ‘individuals’ (how great was the gap between these actors and the central-
Western ideal model of an individual), we wanted to understand how individuation pro-
cesses took place in this society’s specific historical conditions. The question, in other
words, was: how can we describe the modalities assumed by real-life actors in response
to the constant and ordinary challenges they have to meet due to the structural traits of
the society in which they live (Martuccelli, 2006). Hence, the theoretical assumption was
that a study of the specific path taken by the individuation process was inseparable from
the specificity of the structural traits. But, unlike other perspectives in the study of indi-
viduation processes, firstly, we did not conceive the type of individual produced by a
historical society to be the direct outcome of the action of structures, but rather the result
of interaction between structural demands and how individuals face them. Secondly, our
interest was not in identifying the impact of the macrostructural upon individual experi-
ences, character or personality (Gerth and Mills, 1953): what interested us was to describe
the main shared traits that characterized these individuals when facing social life. Thirdly,
instead of defining in a pre-established way the structural traits (culture, politics, econ-
omy, etc.), as is the custom, the empirical work was to allow us to reconstruct inductively
which structural traits defined social organization, forms of life and modalities of indi-
viduals in the case studied.
10 Current Sociology 00(0)

Our results revealed that Chile’s current historical condition was a product of the
intersection of the so-called neoliberal economic and social model (i.e. the privatization
of social protections; the flexibilization and precarization of the labor market; the expan-
sion of the ideal of competition and merit; the valorization of social actors as ‘owners’ or
‘proprietors’, among others) and a very important drive for the expansion of democratic
principles (equality, the human rights paradigm, etc.) to very different social domains
and relations (among them gender, intergenerational relationships and the family). These
social changes present new demands in facing social life, to which actors have reacted
partly by deepening historical strategies (for example, with the intensive use of family
and informal networks), as we shall see, as well as by reinforcing old and new abilities
and resources. These social changes have also acted as a very strong drive for the recon-
figuration of the traditional principles that once governed social relationships, and that,
as discussed above, are still active in social life. What emerges is a tense, contradictory
and febrile social scenario.
In this context, our study showed empirically that the individual in Latin America
does exist, and of course is not inadequate as an individual. It is just that we have another
type of individual (a relational hyper-actor).6 These results revealed that institutions had
a much weaker role in setting up individuals and in giving them support to embody and
present themselves as individuals.
The findings of this research led to a new conceptualization of individuation pro-
cesses. As has already been discussed, the institutional individualism thesis (Beck and
Beck-Gernsheim, 2002; Parsons, 1951), based on European and North American experi-
ence, had long suggested that individuals set themselves up based on their capacity to
adhere to a prescriptive institutional program. What we found is that in our case study,
individuals set themselves up based more on their capacity for ‘doing’ and their interper-
sonal relationships (as relational hyper-actors) than on their capacity for embodying an
institutional model, as expected in the theory.
Being an individual is not understood to be the result of incarnating the traits of an
institutional subject model, but follows instead from the traces of their ‘doing’ in the
social world. Each is impelled to face social life, and in doing so is sustained as an indi-
vidual: for example, by giving consistency to the social position occupied (when con-
tinuously threatened by different contingent factors), by using strategies such as those of
simultaneous multi-employment; trying to articulate social ideals about partner relation-
ships that are particularly dissimilar; defining in isolation legitimate boundaries and lim-
its for consumption and indebtedness in the absence of a collective normative construction
and given the lack of clear institutional safeguards; or, as Robles (2000) has pointed out,
doing temporary work, subcontracting, working at home or engaging in clandestine work
as a forced means of subsistence due to the inadequacies of the formal labor market.
Being an individual in Chile, then, is measured by the capacity to confront the trials
of social life successfully by relying on one’s abilities (to seize opportunities, to avoid
institutional obstacles, etc.), but also by the strength of informal and family networks and
the abilities needed to maintain and use them. The individual is a hyper-actor but a rela-
tional one, as evidenced by the centrality of networks of influence in their image of
society and in their practical ways of facing social life (to get a job, to access privileged
information) or by the basic role of family support (in solving problems of housing,
Araujo 11

health, or even support in bringing up children). The individual might be seen as a rela-
tional vortex and a weaver of relationships. The idea of an individual sustained from
within and independent of their surroundings is not a hegemonic figure here unlike the
case of many countries of the North (Araujo, 2009a; Martuccelli, 2010). Individuals in
Chile never manage to completely ignore either relevant others or collectives. They
receive. They give. They mobilize support. They cultivate networks or regret not doing
so when they see them as necessary. They accept, for example, the statutory require-
ments of the family in exchange for support.
In this context, support is not found mainly in institutions but must be produced (or at least
sustained and recreated) by the individual. The actor, while ‘dependent’ on institutions, is
conceived at a ‘distance’ from them. Actors not only perceive themselves to be unprotected
by institutions, they often believe that they have to protect themselves from their abuses, such
as, for example, being encouraged to consume and face the serious consequences of getting
into debt;7 their expectations of having to work-without-end;8 the failure to recognize indi-
vidual merits while maintaining privileges associated with family, class and social networks
in the labor market. This explains, at least partially, why Chilean individualism should not be
understood as institutional individualism but rather as an agentic individualism.
Two further studies allowed us to probe the second grand affirmation of classical
sociological theory on individuation processes: the pivotal role of the mechanism of
interpellation. Within the classical theoretical framework, the production of individuals
as subjects is essential, and, as already pointed out, mechanisms of interpellation are how
this is achieved. Whether these interpellations are thought of as being normative, as
defining attributes or modalities (Foucault, 1995; Parsons, 1951) or, as discussed by
Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2002), they are open mandates that oblige one to choose
between a set of attributes, each member of society must adapt themselves to a model
proposed by institutions. The individual as a subject is, thus, always a consequence of
institutional models or disciplinary principles or mechanisms. Within this framework, an
individual is somebody who is compelled by institutions to successfully incarnate the
subject model of ‘individual’.
On the one hand, this conception attributes to institutions the capacity to influence
individuals’ conduct without exercising explicit and persistent coercion, an attribution
bound up since Weber (1978) with the problem of authority and legitimacy. On the other
hand, it supposes the capacity of institutions to influence individuals effectively, and
individuals’ willingness to adhere to institutional prescriptions due to the functions of
institutions in assuring or sustaining individuals in their social lives. This is clearly
shown for example, in Castel’s work on social supports, and his reduction of social sup-
ports to institutional supports (2009).
These two assertions are far from accurate for our case study.
First, as the results of a study of the exercise of authority showed,9 relationships with
institutions are conceived as being mediated by a large number of direct constraints and
coercions. This is an expression of a modality of the exercise of authority that is transversal
and widespread in Chilean society, one that makes the exhibition of real or virtual strength
and power of the exerciser crucial to its exercise. Punishments, penalties or rewards are
real and concrete elements that decide conducts in everyday social life, but also conducts
toward institutions. This is linked to the fact that mistrust and distance are central
12 Current Sociology 00(0)

components of people’s relationship with institutions. Exposure to different forms of abuse

and excessive or even irrational demands are what people frequently expect of institutions,
thereby diminishing the latter’s power to influence individuals’ actions in a non-coercive
manner. Obedience or compliance is normally based on unreconciled consent. Hence,
more than a stable belief in the authority of institutions (Weber, 1978), what is at stake in
the relationship with institutions is a constant, contingent, rational and emotional evalua-
tion of each situation. This evidently involves normative principles but is mostly guided by
a pragmatic evaluation based on criteria of effectiveness.
Second, from a recent study on how actors deal with their social lives and constitute
themselves as subjects in the process,10 we can affirm that institutions in Chilean soci-
ety hardly exist in actors’ narratives; rarely are they seen to be effective social and
existential supports. As this research showed, they are of course seen as a resource that
can be mobilized to achieve goals, but for the most part – except in one case, that of
the family – institutions are not seen as playing a very important role as supports for
helping people manage their social lives. Actors do perceive themselves to be unpro-
tected by institutions (and are extremely critical about it), but this fact is not read as a
dramatic threat. Whether it is an accurate perception or not, institutions are not seen as
the main support and emotional backup for individuals, compared to family relation-
ships, close friends, or spirituality. Far from Robert Castel’s or Sennett’s (Castel, 1995;
Sennett, 1998) conceptualizations of the weakening of individuals due to institutional
abandonment, on the contrary, in Chile institutional weakness is linked to individual
strength by stimulating the development of a capacity to act on one’s own, as well as
the active handling of one’s personal networks. As earlier studies had found and this
study confirmed, individuals receive more guidance in their attitudes and actions in the
social world by what their social experience has taught them than by normative ideals
(Araujo, 2009b). What this means is that, while institutions in Chile evidently mobilize
normative mandates, individuals tend to generate mechanisms to distance themselves
from them, while adopting forms of adherence that are always partial and often purely
instrumental.
Individuals are not, therefore, primarily a product of institutional interpellation.
Thus, they are not to be found reflected in their efforts, failures or frustrations in incar-
nating the ideal model. Individuals can be traced in the narration of what has been
faced and especially how it has been faced while inhabiting the social world in which
they must live. Facts, anecdotes, analogies, detailed concrete accounts are some of the
narrative tools that give an account of individuals and they can only be made visible by
tracking their steps.

Conclusions
Our findings show that two essential premises of the understanding of individuation
processes in classical social theory are not confirmed in the case study. On the one hand,
they suggest that the conception of the individual mainly as a result of institutional work
(as suggested by the institutional individualism thesis) must be thoroughly revised. At a
general theoretical level, they also suggest that the idea that structural traits of a society
are mainly absorbed and accompanied by institutional forms may be mistaken. Our
Araujo 13

results show that in some societies the effects of structural dimensions are not primarily
or even mainly absorbed by institutional programs. Moreover, institutional programs
may contradict the concrete structural challenges actors face. On the other hand, they
invite us to question a model in which interpellation or prescription are held to be the
main mechanisms for the production of individuals.
Hence, empirical research conducted in a particular societal setting has provided evi-
dence that supports our view that the institutional individualism thesis is not broad
enough to account for the diversity of individuation processes.
Our findings show that the individual was never the problem, as the Latin American
and Chilean debate had presumed. The problem was that researchers were paying too
much attention to the models embedded in hegemonic theories and concepts. Their inter-
pretations were over-influenced by these theoretical assumptions, a problem that has
distorted an understanding of these societies in very different ways (Martuccelli, 2010).
By questioning the institutional individualism thesis based on empirical evidence, I
wanted to stress that the challenge of renewing social theory in a plural world involves
the essential task of questioning the cornerstone concepts of social theory. This entails
testing their pertinence and acuity for the study of societies different from those in which
they were created.
Such a task, as I have suggested, should be undertaken based on empirical research,
not only mainly in historical sociology but especially from a synchronic/diachronic com-
parative perspective. This research must be essentially inductive. By questioning and
reshaping our analytical concepts, and by using inductive empirical methodologies to
study non-central societies, we can avoid hegemonic concepts and theories establishing
by default the frames from which we build and interpret our data. In their place we can
allow concepts and theories – until now mainly derived from the global North – to spring
from the rich and diverse realities we encounter.
But this task entails a further step. As proposed in this article, after a critical review
that needs to be both empirical and theoretical, these cornerstone sociological concepts
and theories must be re-evaluated and/or reconstructed in a broad, collegial and horizon-
tal dialogue between scholars from different world regions. With the article I hope to
stimulate and contribute to this indispensable shared endeavor.

Funding
The author acknowledges partial support from FONDECYT through grant 1180338 Project
Problematizaciones del Individualismo en América Latina, as well as partial support from the
Millennium Scientific Initiative of the Ministry of Economy, Development and Tourism of Chile,
grant ‘Millennium Nucleus Center Authority and Power Asymmetries’.

ORCID iD
Kathya Araujo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7314-3577

Notes
  1. Each study will be briefly presented later when recalled for the deployment of our argument.
  2. For a thorough discussion of Indian and Latin American postcolonialism, see Pinedo (2015).
14 Current Sociology 00(0)

  3. See for example, Boatcă (2016) and Costa (2018), and their proposal to reconceptualize the
concept of inequalities from a global and transnational perspective.
  4. Institutions is used in a restricted sense: it defines a reduced number of legitimate principles
incarnated in specific social organizations under the form of a recognizable program (Dubet,
2002).
  5. One example regarding Latin America as a whole are the debates around the deficient rela-
tionship between subjects, norms and institutions. See among others, García Villegas (2009),
Méndez et al. (2002), Nino (2005), Portocarrero (2004).
  6. Ninety-six interviews of men and women of two socioeconomic sectors (upper-middle class
and popular sectors) were carried out in three major Chilean cities, Santiago, Valparaíso
and Concepción. This work was developed in collaboration with Danilo Martuccelli. For
an exhaustive presentation of the empirical research and results, see Araujo and Martuccelli
(2012). For a thorough discussion of agentic and institutional individualism, see Araujo and
Martuccelli (2014).
  7. In the third trimester of 2018 the average percentage of indebtedness of Chilean households
was around 73.3% of disposable income (Banco Central de Chile, 2018).
  8. Chile ranks fifth highest among OECD countries in average annual hours worked (OECD,
2020).
  9. These reflections are based on the results of an empirical study on the exercise of authority
which was carried out from 2011 to 2014. Interviews (32) and conversation-drama groups
(12) were conducted. The sample included men and women (30–55 years), from upper-mid-
dle and popular sectors. The results of the study were presented and discussed in Araujo
(2016).
10. A qualitative research project on subject constitution in Chile, carried out from 2014 to
2017. In-depth interviews (48) were conducted in the three largest Chilean cities. The sample
included men and women (30–55 years), from middle and popular sectors. For a detailed
presentation of the methodology and some of its findings, see Araujo (2018).

References
Alexander J (1987a) Sociological Theory since 1945. London: Routledge.
Alexander J (1987b) The centrality of the classics. In: Giddens A and Turner J (eds) Social Theory
Today. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 11–57.
Araujo K (2009a) Dignos de su arte. Sujeto y lazo social en el Perú de las tres primeras décadas
del siglo XX. Frankfurt and Madrid: Iberoamericana Vervuert Verlag.
Araujo K (2009b) Habitar lo social. Usos y abusos en la vida cotidiana en el Chile actual.
Santiago: LOM Ediciones.
Araujo K (2012) La relación con las normas en América Latina y el ordinario trabajo moral del
sujeto. In: Kron S, Costa S and Braig M (eds) Democracia y reconfiguraciones contem-
poráneas del Derecho en América Latina. Madrid: Iberoamericana, pp. 19–41.
Araujo K (2016) El miedo a los subordinados. Una teoría de la autoridad. Santiago: LOM
Ediciones.
Araujo K (2017) Forget modernity? Remarks on difference, social theory and sociological research.
Revue Internationale de Philosophie 2017/3(281): 331–347.
Araujo K (2018) Los anclajes socio-existenciales: El caso de las expectativas de futuro. DADOS
– Revista de Ciências Sociais 61(2): 341–371.
Araujo K and Martuccelli D (2012) Desafíos comunes: Retrato de la sociedad chilena y sus indi-
viduos, 2 vols. Santiago: LOM Ediciones.
Araujo 15

Araujo K and Martuccelli D (2014) Beyond institutional individualism: Agentic individualism and
the individuation process in Chilean society. Current Sociology 64(1): 24–40.
Arjomand S (2010) Three generations of comparative sociologies. European Journal of Sociology
51(3): 363–399.
Arjomand S and Reis E (2013) Worlds of Difference. New Delhi: Sage.
Arnason JP (2003) Civilizations in Dispute: Historical Questions and Theoretical Traditions.
Leiden: Brill.
Banco Central de Chile (2018) Informe de cuentas nacionales por sector institucional. Available
at: www.bcentral.cl/cuentas-nacionales-por-sector-institucional (accessed 29 March 2019).
Barozet E (2002) L’Échange des faveurs au sein des couches moyennes chiliennes:de l’entradide
informelle à la regulation sociale. PhD Thesis, EHESS, France.
Beck U and Beck-Gernsheim E (2002) Individualization. London: Sage.
Bellah N, Madsen R, Sullivan W et al. (1985) Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment
in American Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Bengoa J (1996) La comunidad perdida, ensayos sobre identidad y cultura: Los desafíos de la
modernización en Chile. Santiago de Chile: SUR.
Berman M (1983) All that is Solid Melts into Air. The Experience of Modernity. London: Verso.
Bhambra G (2007) Rethinking Modernity: Post Colonialism and the Sociological Imagination.
London: Palgrave.
Boatcă M (2013) Two-way street. Moderne(n), Verwobenheit und Kolonialität. Osterreichische
Zeitschrift für Soziologie 38: 375–394.
Boatcă M (2016) Global Inequalities beyond Occidentalism. London: Routledge.
Bourricaud F (1977) L’Individualisme institutionnel. Paris: PUF.
Castel R (1995) Les Métamorfoses de la question sociale. Paris: Fayard.
Castel R (2009) La Montée des incertitudes. Paris: Seuil.
Chakrabarty D (2000) Provincializing Europe: Post Colonial Thought and Historical Difference.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Connell R (2007) Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science.
Sydney: Allen & Unwin Australia/Cambridge: Polity Press.
Costa S (2018) Entangled Inequalities, state, and social policies in contemporary Brazil. In: Ystanes
M and Strønen I (eds) The Social Life of Economic Inequalities in Contemporary Latin
America: Approaches to Social Inequality and Difference. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Costa S and Boatcă M (2010) La sociología poscolonial. El estado del arte y las perspectivas.
Estudios Sociológicos XXVIII(83): 335–358.
Curato N (2013) A sociological reading of classical sociological theory. Philipinne Sociological
Review 61(2): 265–287.
De Sousa Santos B (2016) Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. New York:
Routledge.
Domingues JM (2009) A América Latina e a modernidade contemporânea. Uma interpretação
sociológica. Belo Horizonte: UFMG.
Domingues JM (2014) Global modernity: Levels of analysis and conceptual strategies. Social
Science Information 53(2): 180–196.
Dreyfus H and Taylor CH (2015) Retrieving Realism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dubet F (2002) Le Déclin de l’institution. Paris: Seuil.
Dumont L (1983) Essais sur l’individualisme. Paris: Seuil.
Dumont L (1985) Homo Aequalis I. Paris: Gallimard.
Durkheim E (1996) The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.
Ehrenberg A (2008) La Fatigue d’être soi. Depression et societé. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Eisenstadt SN (2000) Multiple modernities. Daedalus 129(1): 1–29.
16 Current Sociology 00(0)

Eisenstadt SN (2002) Some observations in multiple modernities. In: Sachsenmeier D, Riedel J

and Eisenstadt SN (eds) Reflections on Multiple Modernities: European Chinese and other
Interpretations. Leiden: Brill, pp. 27–41.
Esping-Andersen G (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fassin D and Memmi D (eds) (2004) Le Gouvernement des corps. Paris: Editions de l’EHESS.
Foucault M (1995) Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books.
García Villegas M (2009) Normas de papel. La cultura del incumplimiento de reglas. Medellin:
Siglo del Hombre.
Gerth HJ and Mills CW (1953) Character and Social Structure. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
World
Giddens A (1987) Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press.
Go J (2016) Postcolonial Thought and Social Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Joas H and Knöbl W (2009) Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lessons. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jocelyn Holt A (1999) El peso de la noche. Santiago: Planeta/Ariel.
Knöbl W (2007) Kontingenz der Moderne. Wege in Europa, Asien und Amerika. Frankfurt and
New York: Campus.
Kron T (ed.) (2000) Individualisierung und soziologische Theorie. Wiesbaden: Opladen- Leske
und Budrich.
Lander E (2004) Universidad y producción de conocimiento: Reflexiones sobre la colonialidad del
saber en América Latina. In: Sánchez I and Sosa R (eds) América Latina: Los desafíos del
pensamiento crítico. México: Siglo XXI Editores, pp. 167–179.
Le Bart C (2009) L’Individualisation. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Lomnitz L (1994) Redes sociales, cultura y poder. Ensayos de antropología latinoamericana.
México: FLACSO.
Lozerand E (ed.) (2014) Drôle d’individus. De l’individu dans les societés holistes. Paris:
Klincksieck.
Martuccelli D (2005) Sociologies de la modernité. Paris: Gallimard.
Martuccelli D (2006) Forgé para l’épreuve. Paris: Armand Colin.
Martuccelli D (2010) Existen individuos en el sur. Santiago: LOM Ediciones.
Mascareño A (2010) Diferenciación y contingencia en América Latina. Santiago: Ediciones
Alberto Hurtado.
Memmi D (2003) Faire vivre et laisser mourir. Paris: La Découverte.
Méndez J, O’Donnell G and Pinheiro PS (eds) (2002) La (in)efectividad de la ley y la exclusión en
América Latina. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Mignolo W (2000) Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges and
Border Thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mignolo W (2007) La idea de América Latina. La herida colonial y la opción decolonial.
Barcelona: Gedisa.
Morandé P (1984) Cultura y modernidad en América Latina. Santiago: PUC.
Nino C (2005) Un país al margen de la ley. Buenos Aires: Emecé.
Nisbet R (2004) The Sociological Tradition. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Nugent G (2001) ¿Cómo pensar en público? Un debate pragmatista con el tutelaje castrense y
clerical. In: López S et al. (eds) Estudios culturales. Lima: Red para el Desarrollo de las
Ciencias Sociales en el Perú, pp. 121–143.
OECD (2020) Hours worked: Average annual hours actually worked. OECD Employment and
Labour Market Statistics (database). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/data-00303-en
(accessed 18 May 2020).
Parsons T (1951) The Social System. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Araujo 17

Parsons T (1964) Social Structure and Personality. New York: The Free Press.
Patel S (2006) Beyond binaries: A case for self-reflexive sociologies. Current Sociology 54(3):
381–395.
Pinedo J (2015) Apuntes sobre el concepto postcolonialidad: Semejanzas y diferencias en su con-
cepción y uso entre los intelectuales indios y latinamericanistas. Universum (Talca) 30(1):
189–216.
PNUD (United Nations Development Program) (2017) Desiguales. Santiago: Uqbar.
Portocarrero G (2004) Los rostros criollos del mal. Lima: Red para el desarrollo de las ciencias
sociales en el Perú.
Quijano A (2000) Coloniality of power, Eurocentrism and Latin America. Neplanta: Views from
South 1(3): 533–574.
Ramos Zincke C (2014) Local and global communications in Chilean social science: Inequality
and relative autonomy. Current Sociology 62(5): 704–722.
Randeria S (2009) Entangled histories of uneven modernities: Civil society, caste councils,
and legal pluralism in postcolonial India. In: Heinz G and Kocka J (eds) Comparative and
Transnational History: Central European Approaches and New Perspectives. New York and
Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 77–104.
Robles F (2000) El desaliento inesperado de la modernidad. Santiago: RIL Editores.
Schroer M (2000) Das Individuum der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Sennett R (1998) The Corrosion of Character. New York: W.W. Norton
Swedberg R (2015) The Art of Social Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Therborn G (2009) Les Sociétés d’Europe au XX et au XXI siècle. Paris: Armand Colin.
Weber M (1978) Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Author biography
Kathya Araujo (PhD in American Studies) is Professor at the Institute of Advanced Studies (IDEA)
of the Universidad de Santiago de Chile and Director of the Millennium Nucleus Center Authority
and Power Asymmetries. Her main research fields are individuation and subject configuration; the
relationship of individuals with norms; social theory; and psychoanalysis. She is the author of 17
books, among them Desafíos Comunes. Retrato de la sociedad chilena y sus individuos (with D
Martuccelli, 2 vols, LOM, 2012). Her last published book is El miedo a los subordinados. Una
teoría de la autoridad (LOM, 2016).

Résumé
Dans cet article, j’explique pourquoi les notions fondamentales de la sociologie classique
qui sont encore extrêmement influentes dans la pensée sociologique mondiale doivent
être revues et reconceptualisées, et apporte un exemple de la manière dont cela pourrait
être fait. L’article s’articule en deux parties. Tout d’abord, j’expose ce qui constitue
à mon avis un problème majeur de la théorie sociale et sociologique : l’articulation
commune entre modernité, théorie sociale et recherche sociologique, et ses effets
négatifs sur la production de connaissances dans d’autres régions, comme par exemple
l’Amérique latine. J’examine certaines des stratégies contemporaines conçues pour faire
face aux problèmes découlant de cette articulation et propose ce que je considère
comme une manière complémentaire de surmonter le problème posé. En second lieu,
j’étaye mon argumentation à l’aide d’une analyse critique du concept d’individualisation
(l’une des notions centrales et les plus anciennes de la théorie sociale), à partir des
résultats de trois études empiriques réalisées au Chili au cours de la dernière décennie.
18 Current Sociology 00(0)

Mots-clés
Individualisation, production de connaissances, recherche sociologique, sociétés non
centrales, théorie sociale

Resumen
Este artículo desarrolla las razones por las que las nociones fundamentales de la
sociología clásica que son todavía extremadamente influyentes en el pensamiento
sociológico global deben revisarse y reconceptualizarse, y también presenta un ejemplo
de cómo se podría hacer esto. El texto se articula en dos partes. Primero, se describe
lo que entiendo como un problema importante de la teoría social y sociológica: la
articulación común entre la modernidad, la teoría social y la investigación sociológica, y
sus efectos negativos para la producción de conocimiento en otras regiones tales como
América Latina. Se consideran algunas de las estrategias contemporáneas diseñadas para
tratar los problemas que surgen de esta articulación y se proponen lo que considero
una forma complementaria de superar el problema planteado. En segundo lugar, se
respalda el argumento con un análisis crítico del concepto de individualización, una de
las nociones más tempranas y centrales de la teoría social, basado en los resultados de
tres estudios empíricos realizados en Chile durante la última década.

Palabras clave
Individualización, investigación sociológica, producción de conocimiento, sociedades
no centrales, teoría social