The Agency-Structure Relationship Review - Essay Example

? The Agency-Structure Relationship Review (Anthony Giddens) (04.01.12) Introduction According to Anthony Giddens (1984, p.236), social life comprises of more than just individual random actions although it is not solely influenced by social forces. Putting it differently, social life is not just a sum of micro level activities and can be studied by searching for and analyzing macro level explanations. Giddens suggested that human agency and social structure are in relationships with one another and that repeating actions by individual agents produces the social structure. He held that social structure comprises of moral codes, institutions, conventions and traditional methods of doing things. Additionally, he also implied that such elements can be altered whenever people start ignoring them. This paper will examine the different opinions relative to the agency-structure relationship as put forth by Anthony Giddens. His theory will be compared with the views of other theorists and scholars and attempts will be made to come out with solutions relative to the contradictions and problems that emerge in regard to the practicability of the given proposals. Context Giddens broke down the structure agency divide and challenged the dualism in the agency structure in referring to the epistemological problems in society. He held that the duality amongst agency and structure is an incorrect dichotomy. He wanted to remain away from reductionism, which is understood as the recognition that social actions result primarily from agency or as a direct impact of structure. In saying this he meant that people can avoid determination. Dual structuration leads to filling the gaps in analysis that seeks to analyze the entrenched divisions in conventional societies amongst agency and structure. Giddens integrated such forces as explanatory frameworks for providing links amongst human activities and the evolving of social structures. It thus appears there is a continuous relationship between social structures and human agency because they tend to be reciprocal and interactive. In this perspective, it can be said that analytical focus ought to be made on the mutuality of procedures relative to human interactions and social development. In a nut shell, it can be said that society has a single form that effects people as far as structure is a result of people’s actions. In terms of the constitution of society, Giddens (1976, p.127) held that agency and structure are linked because people are inherently occupied with society and keenly get involved in its constitution because they are not external to social structures, nor are social structures external to people. Social life comprises of many things other than just individual actions but social structures cannot be said to be the outcome of social forces. Social structure is not a collection of micro level activities but it is possible to study it by analyzing macro level explanations. That is why social structure and human agency are in direct relationships with one another. The pattern of repetitive actions by individual actors creates the structure. The conventional dichotomy was broken down by Giddens in terms of relating the structure with a strong holistic paradigm that incorporated social rules and systems, social reproduction and social order. This meant that humans are consistently involved in reproducing and forecasting society, thus leading to the production of structures. Society essentially has only form, which impacts people to the extent that structures are created and recreated by their respective actions. In terms of the intellectual context, it can be interpreted from Gidden’s work that humans are not programmed individuals so that they act unintentionally. Modernity is characteristic of humans being actively engaged in creating their identities and positions relative to agency. It is understood that this is primarily because humans are reflexive agents. It is evident that in modern societies or post traditional orders, self identity is construed as a reflexive development. Therefore, self identity cannot be said to be a group of observable characteristics or qualities, but is the individual’s unique perceptions of understanding his or her biography. Self identity is characterized with continuity, implying that it cannot be altered entirely as and when required. In fact, such continuity is the result of the individual’s reflexive belief relative to his or her own biography (Giddens, 1976, p.103). Having understood Gidden’s concepts, the issue arises whether humans are self creative and free floating. That may not be entirely true because people’s social actions influence others as well as society, much beyond what is intended. Therefore, people are always involved in social actions and such circumstances have led sociologists to have a wider basis to examine the meaning of social agency, further than what was intended. This is in conformity with Gidden’s concept relative to the stability of social production and reproduction. It is also understood that structural power is also evolving on a constant basis because authority cannot be said to have a fixed form in terms of absolute power and is constantly engaged in dialectics of control, which is the shift happening in the balance of power relationships consequent to efforts being made by secondary groups to change the balance of power. This implies that all social actors contribute in the development of power structures. It is pertinent to note in this regard that Giddens’ notion of power is in some ways reflective of the concept of power as put forth by Foucalt. It is known that Giddens borrowed several ideas from Foucalt but did not match his empirical strength. Giddens (1984, p.163) defined structure as a group of resources and rules that are drawn upon by actors while producing and reproducing society as they go about in their actions. In this context, rules are considered as “the generalisable procedures, implemented in enactment or reproduction of social practices” (Gidens, 1984, p.22). Some of these rules are formally codified and quite specific, while others are implied social rules that are applicable to areas of the informal; such as linguistic abilities, linguistic expressions, body postures etc. Such social rules are the outlines that enable people to get along within social circumstances. It is not possible to always account consciously for the acquirement of such knowledge or skills; instead they tend to be embedded. Evaluation/Discussion Upon analyzing whether rules can be taken as a sanctioning conduct and whether social rules can be acknowledged, it is evident that Giddens (1976) made use of analogies with the language of people, who tend to respond intensely against individuals that do not give value to rules and traditions. Similarly, it is apparent that the rules pertaining to social order cannot be said to be known only by specific individuals because they are observed even when trivial social expectations are not met. This aspect of Giddens’ concept resembles that of Harold Garfinkel’s studies relative to ethnography (Garfinkel, 1984, p.244). In referring to resources that are frames of reference in coming fort with social rules, Gidens held that society enables the provision of resources that allow people to attain the understanding of social rules. Through her contributions to the concept of critical realism, Margaret Archer (1995, p.213) has added to the debate on structure and agency in substantiating the morphogenetic approach. Relative to Giddens’ approach, Archer has come out with different conclusions in arguing that there is an iterative and interactive dialectical link between agency and structure. However, she has developed her concept of agency on the assumption of notions relative to agency consciousness and reflexivity. But she has neglected the agent’s ability of pre conscious and pre reflexive actions, which leads to making excessive focus on agency that in turn ignores the ideas pertaining to facilitation and structural constraints, thus destabilizing the ideas of dialectical relations amongst agency and structure. In having critically analyzed Giddens’ concept of acknowledging pre conscious actions, it is suggested that if the unconscious is incorporated, a better understanding can be achieved about dialectical relations amongst agency and structure. Mouzelis (1996, p.107) provided an integral reconstruction relative to Giddens’ agency structure relationship theory and although this represents an advance over Giddens’ positions, he has not succeeded in coming out with something entirely new because he has relied on Giddens’ theory and definitions relative to structure. He assumed that structure comprises of the given rules and resources. Similarly, Archer has not provided any solutions to the problem because her definition of activity dependence amongst agency and structure is not clear. Reflexivity  In comparison with the concepts of other scholars such as Archer and Mouzelis, Giddens work helps us to understand the involved issues more clearly. Giddens is absolutely clear in making us aware of the reflexive individual who possesses varied levels of understanding and knowledge that influences the manner in which he acts in the world, which is why people keep switching between them in varying contexts. His practical consciousness relates to the knowledge and practical skills that are used by people, while his discursive consciousness relates to the capability of people to contemplate and rationally comment on behaviors. The reading is interesting because one realizes that by shifting from one mode of consciousness to the other he makes use of a different agency characteristic, in terms of the human ability to monitor and reflect upon behaviors. It is perhaps because of this trait that humans can be considered as reflexive agents. Analyzing the modality through which resources and rules impact interactions, the patterns through which institutions conceptualize the pertinent parts of functional analysis have been found to have a strong bearing on the process of creating and maintaining relative stability in social relations. This focus on institutionalization and institutions removes the shortcomings in almost all forms of inter-actionism and structuralism. Some forms of structural analysis relative to structural idealism followed by many organizations do not give value to the ontological eminence of institutions because they view them as only derivatives of more essential codes. Conclusion The central issues in the concepts of British sociologist Anthony Giddens pertain to the relationships amongst social structure and agency, which is the ability of people to involve n social actions. Giddens held that the social structure includes systems relative to meaning and classification and patterns of distributing material resources. He provides the insight that social structure does not actually have any reality except the creation of instances, mainly through human actions. In aggregate, these actions develop and redevelop structures that are ingrained with actions. Giddens’ work is not difficult to understand because of his logical conceptualization of structure relative to resources and rules. It is understandable that they inherently generate several assorted combinations in the context of his concept that society reveals a set of general structural principles. Some of Giddens concepts appear to have been borrowed from other scholars such as Foucalt. It cannot be said that structure is something that is inherent in terms of human biology because it is a system in which ideals and ideas flow freely. Instead, structure is produced actively and then reproduced and changed through the actions and potential of different agents. Therefore, structural analysis can be said to be attached with the continuing procedure of interactions. References Archer, M., 1995, Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Garfinkel, H., 1984. Studies in Ethnomethodology, Blackwell Publishing. Giddens, A., 1976. New Rules of Sociological Method: a Positive Critique of interpretative Sociologies. Hutchinson Giddens, A., 1984, The Constitution of Society, Polity Press: Cambridge. Mouzelis, N., 1995, Sociological Theory: What Went Wrong?, Routledge: London and New York. Read More