Structuration Theory by Giddens - Coursework Example

Living theory Introduction According to Giddens, we are living in high modernity which is quite different from high modernity itself but just a continuity of modernity. As we can observe, this tendency to attempt to identify a middle-way between opposing positions is typical of both Giddens’ social theory, his analysis of contemporary society and his political programme. Thus, Giddens claims to have developed a distinctive form of sociological theory, structuration theory, which combines elements of two typically opposed theoretical traditions. These are the interpretivist approach which focuses majorly on sociology as the study of voluntary action (Weber, Goffman, Schutz, that Garfinkel ) and the second one is the structuralist approach that focuses on sociology as the study of persisting patterns or structures of relationships that seem to exist independently of the will of actors (Marx, Durkheim, Foucault, Bourdieu ) (Giddens, 1991) The theorist and the theory Born in London to a lower middle class family, Anthony Giddens is best known for his theory of structuration which has explored the connection between individual and their social systems. He is the most prominent contributor to the field of sociology and has published almost thirty four books in almost twenty eight languages. He has also developed the third way political philosophy which seeks to redefine social democracy for the globalized era (Giddens, 1991) Anthony Giddens was born on the day of January 18th, 1938. He completed his Bachelor degree in sociology and psychology in 1959 at the University of Hull. He attained his master degree at the London School of Economics in Economics degree and his PhD at Cambridge University. Structuration refers to the claim that action and structure are not opposed but mutually dependant to Parsons. The purpose of sociology is to show how structured settings both maintain and is maintained by particular sets of actions. However, it is important to note that Giddens rarely refers to action, preferring instead the term agency meaning, the continuous flow of conduct. The emphasis on flow of conducts indicates that agency is not to be equated with the activities of particular individuals but with the developing totality of activities over both time and space. What we call 'structure' is the "objectification", the institutionalisation, of past agency; again social reality is located in history (re Marx on the power of dead (past) labour; also Berger & Luckman on society as ‘objective reality’) (Durkhein, 2006) Application of structuration theory to the everyday situation Giddens seems to be drawing significantly on the work of Schutz (phenomenology), who argued that social action is, actually, interaction at one and the same time with Predecessors, Contemporaries and Successors. We 'inherit' a socially organised world from Predecessors which, together with our Contemporaries, we reproduce and modify and then hand on to our Successors as their received world "Men make their own history but not in situations of their own choosing" - Marx. Therefore, social reality is a process; it is neither a fixed institutional structure nor a set of discrete actions but the ongoing interaction between these elements. Thus we are the agents of society; we act on its behalf, freely but within its constraints. We are not the puppets of the social structure nor are social reality whatever we wish it to be (Giddens, 1991). Therefore Giddens' synthesis achieves its goals insofar as it avoids a) prioritising either structure or action, b) the individualism of action theories (action is collective) and c) the determinism of structuralist theories (structure is negotiated and modified through agency). However, at one point, (I think it’s in ‘The Constitution of Society’) Giddens states that sociological research can be conducted from either the ‘agency’ or the ‘structure’ side of the process. This may be just a slip of the pen but, if not, it would seem to undermine the claim that structuration theory synthesises these twin aspects of social reality. That is, we can study society as either ‘subjective’ or ‘objective’ reality. This leaves us where Berger &Luckman finished over 40 years ago. (Possibly, the paper by Goss is a particular application of this approach). Giddens needs to show us how we can account for society as both objective and subjective reality at the same time (Giddens, 1990). Giddens also develops the implications of structuration as a means of understanding high modernity. In particular (drawing on Durkheim?) the process of structuration in modern societies synthesises the agency of a great many agents who are increasingly dispersed over time and space (which are themselves becoming compressed). A consequence of this is that the denial of the authority of the past is typical of high modernity. This compression of time and place and loss of shared, authoritative procedures entails, he claims, that contemporary modern society generates increasing levels of risk at both interpersonal (absence of trust) and systemic (weakness of control) levels –(Durkheim on ‘anomie?) (Giddens, 1991). Giddens has particularly explored these issues in relation to problems of intimacy and the construction of self and also, together with Ulrich Beck, in relation to environmental degradation among others. It was, in part, through these studies that Giddens argued that neither socialism nor capitalism were capable of addressing adequately these issues and developed his political theory of the ‘third way’, based on the idea of the citizen as an active and knowledgeable participant in the political process, which became particularly associated with the first term of the Blair-led Labour government (Giddens, 1984). Therefore the theory can be said to be successful because it has been claimed that: Giddens has merely expressed familiar problems in new or invented words. Giddens effectively re-defines structure in interactionist terms that is, the Synthesis is one-sided. Power is, arguably, the central concept for structuralist theories but, it is claimed that, within structuration theory, there is no account of the origin and distribution of power. Structuration theory and the third way suffer the same weakness of advancing bland ideas in impressive language (Giddens, 1991) The reification rejects of the social systems does not have any particular set of needs that is, adaptation, equilibrium and integration as in independent functionalism of the social actors’ needs. Through their daily activities, people produce social forms; however, the social institutions were inexistence before individual people. Social world is practically contained in the segments of the social rules such as school, monastery, class positions and neighbourhoods (Giddens, 1990). The theory rejects dualism but accepts a duality of structure. Structure has a dual nature. Therefore it is essentially in relation to the actions, and the reverse is also true. Actions and structure are through the social practices united together. This is because practices consist of action and structure. Similarly, structure is not exterior to the actions, but instead interior to the action flow that is constituted in the social practice (Giddens, 1991). On the same note as the approach of the interpretivist, Giddens acknowledges social life as something which is produced and re-produced through action. Where re-production refers to the way that social life becomes patterned and routinized and explains the ways that social order and continuity persists. The approaches of interpretivist have abandoned the social institutions influence and other social life durable patterns. On the other hand, structural approaches overplay the issue of re-production. Therefore Giddens concept of practices illustrates the relationship between production and reproduction (Giddens, 1990). There is also Critiques about Foucaldian notions of discourse and practice and Critique of impersonal nature of social constructionism. Therefore individuals draw on resources or interactional skills such as taken for granted knowledge and skills picked up (Ulrick, 1992) throughout the life course in order to conduct social activities. Giddens also interpret rules of conduct, context among others and modify the circumstances in which various individuals find themselves. In recursive nature of social life, individuals have intensions; however, by through attempts to make our intensions known, people reproduce social fabric unintentionally (Giddens, 1991). That is social norms, courtship rules and social etiquette among others. Inter leaving of the actions that are both unintentional and intentional at the centre of the theory of structuration. People have unique and diverse consciousness levels representing their own deep seated emotions and desires. These affect the manner in which people engage and switch between activities and actions. People are not driven in the sense of Freudian these emotions and desires, but instead offer directions and action guidelines. Therefore, there exist two types of knowledge: Practical consciousness. This is the knowledge of how to go about the business of social life. Secondly, we have automatic discursive consciousness. This is the ability to tell rational stories about our activities. Therefore people are reflexive, self-monitoring beings which enable us to respond to changing situations. According to Giddens, existential security or ontological security is vital for human beings. So there exist a sense of belonging, personal continuity, security and well being. Childhood development has a significant role in adult being and nature of life. This is because the adult life is developed by the social routines. Sense of security may be undermined where social routines are broken. This can be compared with the anomie functionalist notion (Durkhein, 2006). Locale, space and time inform social action. These are particularly transformed in late-modernity. According to the Giddens relational power, people are not particularly helpless dupes, passive or spawns, however, power is not about the individual will either. Power in this particular sense is an exercise that individuals draw on personal resources to alter balance of power (Ulrick, 1992). How living theory of structuration helps us explain freedom and the key concepts employed by Giddens According to Giddens, resources are generally below the powers, and hence power is over resources. Therefore, social groupings are organized so as to have resources flow and accrue in certain ways. The following two categories of resources are very critical for him: authoritative resource allocation and allocative resources. Allocative resources are referred to as the abilities which command control over goods, objects, or material life. While authoritative resources refer to control over people (Garfinkel & Sacks, 1986). As it follows, power can have many forms. These are economic, political, social, cultural, and symbolic. And actors rarely dominate them all. Therefore no actor is powerless: for example, everyone has the capability to mirror the relationships between agency and structure so as to learn, and to organize collective action or take individual. The other result of the thinking by Gidden is that power is not in particular necessarily a game of zero-sum. Where a particular social actor has power, it does not necessarily mean that the other social actors do not have, nor does the loss of power or accumulation of power by particular social actor infer obviously that some other social actor lost or gained the same amount of power. “Power” in itself is something that is constructed socially in a category, something that does not have similar social signification necessarily, for example power cannot have a similar signification in Kandahar, Afghanistan as it is in Harlem, New York (Goffman, 2005). Finally, the theory of structuration by Giddens directs people to the varying where there is operation by power and shows that this same power is present simultaneously and acts in numerous dimensions as follows: Personal: this is power within individuals. It shows abilities of individuals to pursue and understand and achieve their interests in some cases. This kind of power is founded on skills, motivations, resources, and self image. Interpersonal: this is ability of an individual to influence other structures and agents around him or her so as to achieve their interests it can either be cooperative or controlling interpersonal power has significant implications when used in the structural domain, especially when applied in invisible, hidden and visible forms. Visible form: this is derived from the formal or public forms, rules, and processes governing the interpersonal processes. That is membership in collectives, budgets and electoral laws. Hidden form: this determines the agendas and/ or agents that are put as part of the ability to control the settings where the agents interact and the interpersonal process. Invisible form: this defines, through the acculturation process, the logical or the reasonable field. For examples, capitalism, kinship in some societies, religion, education, and science. This form of power entails the macro political economy as well as maintains the political economy and defines the field of action of others (Goffman & Helmreich, 2007). In the case of an individual woman, the powerlessness and power experiences will be probably different based on class, race, or age, and may be contradictory in various distinct realms of her life. For example, a female politician who seems to be confident in the public accepts and performs a subordinate role in her house and family; she may even cope and survive the domestic abuse in her family and private relationships, but at the same time keeps the demands and image of her public duties high (Ulrick & Scott, 1994). Conclusion In summary, Giddens distinguishes between system and institution. Social systems- refer to reproduced practices while institutions- refer to reproduced rules and resources. Therefore Systems and institutions do not exist independently of individual activity rather they only exist in so far as they are produced continuously and reproduced through the structure duality (Moritz, 2013). He also rejects ratification of the social system. This is where social systems do not have sets of needs that are adaptation, equilibrium, and integration as in functionalism which are independent of the social actors’ needs. So individuals produce social forms through daily activity however, social institutions pre-exist individuals and Social rules contain segments of the social world such as School, monastery, class positions and neighbourhoods (Helmt, 1970). Bibliography Durkhein, M. 2006. Formation of Modern Social Thoughts, London: Sage Publishers. Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. 1986.Formal structures of practical actions, London: Routledge. Giddens, A. 1984.The constitution of society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Giddens, A. 1990.The consequences of modernity, Cambrdge: Cambridge University Giddens, A. 1991.Modernity and Self identity.London: Stanford University Press. Goffman, E & Helmreich, W. 2007.Asylum: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates, Boston: Aldine Transaction Publishers. Goffman, E. & Manning P.1992.Goffman and modern sociology, London: Stanford University Press. Goffman, E. 2005.Interaction Rituals: Essays in face to face behaviour, New York: Aldine Transaction Publishers. Helmt R., W. 1970.Social Relations, Chicago: University of Chicago. Moritz F. 2013.Individuality and Modernity. London, Cambridge University Press. Ulrick, B. & Scott L. 1994.Reflexive Modernization, Stanford University Press. Ulrick, B. 1992. Risk society towards new modernity, London: Sage Publishers. Read More