Socioanalysis is an analytical approach that draws on various theories and perspectives within sociology to construct a holistic picture of a person and their situation, from the micro level to the macro level. The various components could include discourses encountered by the subject (Foucault, 1972; Fairclough, 2010), structures (e.g., Weber, 1978, Friere, 2000), habitus (Bourdieu, 1977, Friedman, 2016), actants (Latour, 2005), culture (Swidler, 1986), interaction (Goffman, 1959, Collins, 2004), intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989), emotions (Collins, 2004; Kemper, 2011; Wettergren, 2013), biosocialities, technosocialities, “socio, dynamic” (compare with psychodynamic) (e.g., Turner, 2006, Fromm, 1993), care (Tronto, 1993), and/or the states of balance and attempts at eudaimonic balancing that individuals pursue based on Aristotelian balance theory (Berglund, 2026). Later in this chapter, ideas regarding Aristotelian balance theory will be developed, along with how they can form a fruitful framework for systematizing various sociological diagnoses that may be made.
What is included in the socioanalysis may depend on the purpose and the problems the client has encountered. If a person has problems with various discourses and is very entrenched in them, more focus can be placed on discourse analysis. If the client has problems with certain emotions, the emphasis in the analysis is on socio, emotional analysis. Socioanalysis can also incorporate different levels, from micro to macro, of what influences the individual. What is new about this form of socioanalysis is the combination of multiple layers and perspectives to create a holistic picture.
Socioanalyses used in the past often have a specific focus; for example, Scheff has used an emotional focus and an interaction focus in his analyses as the basis for the interventions he has conducted with families (Scheff, 1999). There are analyses that focus on the meso-level as the basis for “social interventions” (Anderson, 1980), with an emphasis on mediation between different parties and community interventions. Some socioanalyses are highly psychologized and actually draw on behaviorist ideas (Buhrn & Rebach, 1996). This approach is to be avoided here in order to distinguish socioanalysis from psychotherapy.
Socioanalysis could focus on making sociological diagnoses or identifying the social difficulties the subject is facing. Sociological diagnoses exist as an alternative to psychiatric diagnoses but remain relatively underdeveloped. These sociological diagnoses are elaborated upon later in this text, where the strengths and weaknesses of sociological diagnoses are also discussed, along with potential alternatives, such as using psychiatric diagnoses as well, but in a sociologized form.
This framework for a socio, analysis would be a very comprehensive analysis if all perspectives were to be used. The scope depends on how thorough and detailed the analysis needs to be. The various components could be viewed as a heuristic guide for the sociotherapist to gain an overview, should they later wish to conduct a more in, depth analysis. These are important trade, offs that have been studied in psychotherapy, where there is always a balance between the scope of the analytical tool and its ease of use. There is a risk that this could become too cumbersome a tool.
Motivational interviewing, as used in social work, provides a light and simple foundation for the analytical process, with the focus on the client’s own insights. Miller argues that there must be an equal relationship between the client and the therapist, in which the therapist is an expert in sociology and the client is an expert on themselves (Miller, 2018). In a sociotherapeutic context, one might add that the client has the potential to quickly adopt a sociological attitude, imagination, or consciousness with guidance, for example, by participating in groups with others facing similar problems, as pioneered by Freire and action group therapy (Freire, 2000). However, an analysis that is overly simplistic can lead to overoptimism, which becomes the basis for a cruel optimism (Berlant, 2011).
Socioanalysis must be culturally sensitive without getting lost in cultural relativism (Berglund, 2026). A sociotherapist can gain cultural sensitivity from having personally participated in the culture, combined with sociological expertise that enables the sociotherapist to defamiliarize taken, for, granted ideas for both themselves and the client. There are cultural differences but also similarities, where the dynamics that generate emotional energy and feelings of happiness are the same, though with variations in the sources of these explanations, whether they stem from the collective or the individual. Aristotelian balance theory is a theory that supports a potentially culturally sensitive yet universal view of morality (Berglund, 2026; Nussbaum, 2003).