Infrastructure as a sociological category: Concept, applications, and paradigmatic turns?

In this essay, we address the increasingly debated question of whether the concept of infrastructure offers a new perspective for understanding processes of reproduction within socio-historical formations, particularly the relationship between agency and structures. How does this research agenda differ from classical sociological approaches that study the foundational elements and developmental logic of social systems? Are claims of an “infrastructural turn” justified? Moreover, if “infrastructuralism” represents an innovative approach, is it also theoretically sound and conceptually valid? The central thesis of this article is that the concept of infrastructure can be interpreted in at least three distinct ways. The first interpretation is a descriptive acknowledgment of the growing significance of infrastructure—whether in terms of arrangements, organization, or construction—in modern and contemporary societies. However, this perspective remains overly vague and lacks sufficient analytical and explanatory depth. The second interpretation, advanced by proponents of an “infrastructural turn” to explain social phenomena, presents a more ambitious approach but risks being overly deterministic and reductionist. The third interpretation, which we advocate, situates the concept of infrastructure within the established framework of sociological theory, rejecting claims of a radical epistemological shift. Instead, it embraces the infrastructural dimension in a broader sense, beyond its technological implications, positioning it as a thematic refinement rather than a fundamental reorientation of social theory. This essay uses platform capitalism as a case study for exploring the contested issue of state maintenance of infrastructural power in an era increasingly shaped by digital platforms and transnational infrastructures. Through this analysis, the discussion highlights the significance of the infrastructural perspective while remaining critically aware of its theoretical limitations.