STRUCTURATION THEORY
After completing his study of 19th
century sociological theory, Giddens developed his own theory of structuration
sometime in 1980s. To introduce his theory, he says that THE ACTIONS OF AN ACTOR ARE TAKEN IN THE CONTINUITY WITH PAST. But,
in fresh action, he also reproduces his existing structure. The continuity of
the past and the reproduction of the present structure is what he calls
‘structuration'.
Giddens’ definition of structure
inherently involves structuration. The actor always does some activity, and
while doing the activity he is actually doing structuration, i.e., reproducing
structure. Thus, reproduction of structure is structuration. In his book, Central Problems in Social Theory (1979),
Giddens has defined structuration. Structuration actually describes an action:
‘to structurate’ or “to do or produce structure".
Giddens has placed great emphasis
on individual action:
As a leading theorem of the theory
of structuration, I advance the following: every social actor knows a great
deal about the conditions of reproduction of the society of which he or she is
a member. Action has two things:
a) actor
and
b) Social
structure.
Classical theorists have argued
all through their works that the social structure subordinates the activities
of actor. For these classical thinkers actor or individual is always given a
rear seat. This problem has been raised by Giddens. It is dualism. We shall
discuss dualism with some elaboration at a later stale.
Definition
of Peter Kivisto (1998) on Structuration
The theory of structuration is an
attempt to overcome the dualism that he sees as plaguing other theories a
dualism that gives priority either to actors or to social structures. Structures are created by humans, but
they in turn constrain and enable human action.
Actually, the dominance of
functionalism and system theory in U.S. has put the individual or the actor in
background. This was not acceptable to Giddens. He tried to bring the
individual back into social theory.
Calling his theory a non-functionalist manifesto, Giddens
argued that any theory that treats
social systems as ends in themselves is invalid, and he claimed he was
trying to recover the subject or actor without lapsing into subjectivism. He
further argues that both subject and object, that is, individual and system,
exist.
What Giddens has argued in
propounding the theory of structuration is that it is necessary for modem
social sciences to re-read the classical sociologists to gather inspiration for
a modern and more contemporary sociological theory. Through this theory, he
makes a break with structural functionalism and Parsons’ action sociology. He
also rejects interactionism of Herbert Blumer and Harold Garfinkel.
At the same time, Giddens
emphasizes that it takes more than Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim to
create a foundation for a theory that wants to highlight the special character
of modem society. It takes a different and new type of sociological theory'
that goes beyond the foundational problems in classical sociology.
According to Giddens, classical
and modern contributions to the social sciences share a number of problems.
They all contain seemingly incompatible conceptions of society.
a) Is
society made up of the sum of individual's actions? Or,
b) Is society
more than the sum of these actions and is there a social structure that is
independent of each individual's actions?
Major
features of Structuration Theory:
Giddens’ theory of structuration
is spread over to several sources. In a broader way, he has emphasized on:
1) Human
agency, i.e., agent – structure dualism,
3) Reflexivity,
and
4) Structure.
Key
features which make structuration an ongoing process of social life
1.
Agent
– structure dualism:
Sociological
theory, in a broader way, is divided into two groups.
a) One
group of theories views society from the perspective of system, structure or
production relations and advocates that society or social structure determines
the actions of the actor or agent. In this ease, individual is a mere puppet who is constantly constrained by the
social structure.
b) The
second group of theory consists of micro-theories.
These theories put an emphasis on the
individual or agent. The actors and the sum of their actions make up
society and there are no structures or systems that are independent of the
actors.
The
strong emphasis on the individual and its actions in action sociological
theories leads to a neglect of adequate understanding of social institutions.
Giddens is very much critical of Max Weber and Emile Durkheim on one hand, and
George Herbert Mead, Erving Goffman, Harold Garfinkel, Alfred Schulz and other
micro-sociologists, on the other hand. Giddens raises some important questions:
a) To
what degree can we as individuals create our own lives and frames for our
lives, and
b) To
what degree are we already constrained by society and its structures when we
are born?
The
two groups of sociological theories answer these questions differently.
Obviously, there is a dualism between
agent or actor and structure of
society. It is this dualism that provides logic for building the theory of
structuration.
2.
Social
Practice: The Concept of Agent:
Social
practice is an important part of the theory' of structuration. Our society, in
fact, consists of social practices. These social practices are produced and
reproduced by the agent or actor. Giddens does not explain social practices in
terms of the subordination or super-ordination of actor or social structure.
He
gives definition of social practice with the concept of agent. It is the agent or the actor who is knowledgeable
about most of his action. This knowledge about social practice comes through
Practical
Consciousness. In order to board the city bus, I stand in a queue to
the ticket window, purchase the ticket and wait for the bus of my route.
I occupy
my seat and get alight when I reach my place of destination. This wealth of
knowledge, which is primarily expressed by me, is the result of my practical
consciousness. Giddens says that we possess enough knowledge to carry out our
day-to-day activities. But, this knowledge is not based on logic or it is not
formulated discursively.
For
instance, I cannot explain the scarce frequency of the buses of my route; I
cannot likewise give an explanation of the amount charges for my journey. All
this falls within the realm of the managers who conduct the city bus journey.
Discursive means proceeding on logical arguments. Normally, the agents perform
their social practices in a routinized
way. This performance stems from practical consciousness.
3.
Reflexivity:
It is
an unconscious self which determines the activity of a person. All other things
of the life are either done logically or in a practical way but some of the
activities which are inner part of the self they get their reflection in the
activities of the actor. The reflexivity is the inner design of the actor and
in the known routine behaviour; he allows his reflexivity to come out.
Discursive
consciousness or logical consciousness is different from practical level of consciousness,
which includes knowledge we cannot immediately account for. A discursive
explanation implies that we explicitly express how we travel in a city bus. By
highlighting the knowledge of the agent, Giddens emphasizes that systems and structures do not act ‘behind
the actor’.
"Actually,
the discursive reflexivity in an action gives us the opportunity to change our
patterns of action. Not all motives for action are found at a ‘conscious’
level." So, in contrast to many action sociologists, Giddens employs an
unconscious level which comprises actions spurred by unconscious motives.
The
unconscious comprises repressed or distorted knowledge. Giddens further
provides an explanation to the three levels of knowledge: “The transition from
discursive (logical) to practical knowledge may be diffuse, but there is a
‘bar' between these two types of knowledge and unconscious motives which, for
example, because of repression, cannot immediately turn into conscious
knowledge." All the three levels are:
·
Unconscious level.
·
Practical conscious level and
·
Discursive level of knowledge
Are
important But, out of the three levels, practical knowledge seems to be most
decisive for an understanding of social life.
4.
What is
Structure?
Giddens
gives his theory of structuration with the firm argument that sociology' should
give either actor or structure as its point of departure. He claims that the actor – structure relationship must be seen as a
duality of structure. By this, he means that a coherent relation goes a
long way in establishing that structure is both a medium and an outcome of the
actor's actions.
After
having redefined the concepts of agent and action, Giddens takes up the task of
redefining social structure. He distinguishes between structure and system. Social systems consist of relations between
actors or collectivities that are reproduced across time and space, that
is, actions that are repeated and therefore extend beyond one single action.
Social systems are social practice produced, thus creating a pattern of social
relations.
Giddens
defines structure in the context of his theory of structuration. A structure is characterized by the absence
of acting subjects and exists only ‘virtually’. Accordingly, structures are
present only as options that have not manifested themselves actively.
This
indicates that Giddens' concept of structure is to a large extent inspired by
structuration.
Giddens
further qualifies his definition of structure:
Structures exist only in practice
itself and in our human memory,
which we use when we act. Structure is not
an external frame. Structures emerge
in our memory, traces only when we reflect discursively on a previous
action. In other words, structure does
not exist, it is continuously produced via agents who draw on this very
structure (or rather structural properties) when they act.
Thus, the key features of structure
given by Giddens are:
1)
Structures exist only in human
memory.
2)
Structures exist only in practice.
They are produced by agents, i.e., actors.
3)
Structures enable us to do
actions. They also exercise control on the actor.
4)
Structures consist of rules and resources
which agents or actors draw upon in the production and reproduction of social
life.
Lars
Bo Kaspersen has summarized Giddens’ concept of structure as under:
Thus, agent, action and structure
are connected, and therefore structure in Giddens’ terms cannot be conceived as
something external or outside of the agent. The traditional concept of
structure is dissolved and simultaneously becomes the medium for and outcome of
the social practice of the agent.
Giddens makes a bold observation:
Structure – actor relationship is no longer conceived as a dualism. Neither the actor determines the structure
nor does the structure determine the actor. He advances the theory of
duality of structure. The concept of duality of structure connects the
production of social interaction performed by knowledgeable agents, with the
reproduction of social systems across time and space.
Thus Giddens' theory of
structuration has been a part of a big project over which he worked for about
thirty years. He established his dialogue with the classical and modem social
theory. Structuration theory thus is the outcome of his prolonged debate with
foundational theorists.
His theory has not gone unnoticed
by the sociologists of U.S. and Europe. His major critics include C.G. A.
Bryant, D. Jary, Clark et al., I. J. Cohen, I. Craib, J.B. Thompson, K.H.
Trucker and Stephan Mestrovic.
Two major criticisms come out of
structuration. One group of critics comprising Thompson, Archer, Layder and
Livesay, points out that
a) Giddens
puts too much emphasis on the actor and the enabling side of the agent at the
expense of the constraining element, that is, structural frames.
b) Giddens
does not specify how enabling or constraining structures are.
The other side of the criticism
concerns the applicability of the theory in relation to empirical analyses.
Gregson, Bertilsson and Thrift claim that
a) Although
structuration theory is interesting and perhaps transcends some dualistic
problems at a theoretic level, it is less fruitful in empirical research. The
abstract level of the theory weakens its fruitfulness.
No comments:
Post a Comment