A Critical Comparison of Anthony Giddens and Jurgen Habermas - Term Paper Example

? A Critical Comparison of Contemporary Theorists: Anthony Giddens and Jurgen Habermas A Critical Comparison of Contemporary Theorists: Anthony Giddens and Jurgen Habermas Introduction Sociology theories have evolved greatly since the days of classical theorists Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx. However, present day sociologists have not been critically analyzed. This paper shall give an in depth analysis of two important theorists in this day and age. It shall compare their theorists and how they can be related to world as is known today. In the end, the paper shall choose the preferred theorist between the two. Antony Giddens He remains the most celebrated social theorist of his time. He one of is the most cited theorist in social works. Additionally, he is at the forefront of debates in modern sociology especially those involving the nature of modernity and globalization. Antony Giddens is a British sociologist born in Edmonton, London. He attended the University of Hull where he studied a B.A in Psychology and Sociology (Parker, 2000). Later, he went to the London School of Economics where he successfully completed his M.A. Afterwards, he became a lecturer at the University of Leicester and later a professor of Sociology at King’s College Cambridge at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences. He was the Director of the London School of Economics where he is a professor to date. He is a fellow of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the American Academy of Science. He has been awarded 15 honorary degrees from 15 universities. His famous books have been translated into almost forty languages. In May, 2004, he was awarded Life peerage and today, he sits in the House of Lords. Antony Giddens works cover a range of topics. He is renowned for his interdisciplinary approach that involves anthropology, psychology, archeology, philosophy, linguistics, history, sociology, economics and political science. He continues to bring many concepts and ideas into the sociology as a field. It is important to note that his main works have been globalization, structuration theory, the Third Way and reflexivity. Reflexivity This is the idea that individuals are defined not only by their own selves but also through their relations with each other (Parker, 2000). Therefore, in this respect, they should continue to define themselves with new information and in reaction to other individuals. In more ways than one ways, this is related to the structuration as shall be explained in detail in this paper. Globalization Giddens defines globalization as way beyond the scope of Economics (Parker, 2000). He says it is the intensifying of world-wide social relationships. In this way, local happenings are shaped by events that take place in distant places and vice versa. He argues that globalization is an obvious and natural result of modernization and shall eventually pilot the reconstruction of institutions in the modern world. The Third Way This is Gidden’s political philosophy which is aimed at redefining social democracy (Parker, 2000). The third way looks at the globalization and post-Cold war era politically. According to him, the ‘left’ and ‘right’ political concepts are no longer applicable due to many factors. He argues that the main reason for breakdown of these political concepts is the lack of an alternative to capitalism. He argues that there is a third way to deal with political matters known as the progressive centre-left. Structuration Theory This is probably his most famous theory in sociology (Elliott, 2009). It explains that social structure and human agency can be viewd as one and the same thing. In this case, they are not two distinct concepts but instead together they are ways to consider social action. In essence, he explains that there is duality of structure. The central concern in this theory is the inherent relationship between the society and the individual (Parker, 2000). Social structures are defined by the characteristics of the society as a whole while independent human agents are defined by the characteristics of the individual. One side is made up of actors who take on social action as well as their activities in various situations. Simultaneously, on the other side there are the resources, rules and social relationships produced and reproduced during social interaction. Therefore, in a nutshell, structuration refers to the way in which social systems are produced during social interaction. The two main aspects of Giddens theoretical perspectives are time and space (Elliott, 2009). Time and space had been often been ignored in early theories. Giddens firmly believed that time and space is central to social life among human beings. Gidden noted that everybody lives a local life. It is because of body limitations that human beings are defined in time and space. He then notes that space and time and human’s understanding of the two have changed dramatically in recent times. The relation of people to the two as was in earlier societies is different from how it is now (Parker, 2000). He notes that in earlier societies people were not conscious of these two factors. He defines time as continuity or discontinuity of activities. On the hand, space defines distance or proximity and how they are related to, and mediated by, social structures. That is unlike today when people are aware of the situation as is and are conscious about issues regarding both time and space. Giddens lays particular emphasis on the interrelationship between man and society. He emphasizes that the conditions and material and social environment that constrain as well as enable social action. In this approach, Giddens borrows a leaf from the perspective of the classical theorist Goffman. Additionally, Giddens acknowledges practices and how they are continued and reproduced. This is perhaps reminiscent of the theorist Simmel (Elliott, 2009). He points out that the experience of an individual actor or all forms of social utility is not the basic realm of social sciences. Social activities are recursive like all self-reproducing items in nature. Ideally, they cannot be brought about but social actors but instead by recreating themselves continually. In this way, they use the means whereby they articulate themselves as actors. It is through the agents that reproducing the conditions that ensure these activities are made possible. This way, Giddens integrates social actions of human beings with larger structures, institutions and systems (Elliott, 2009). The repetition of social action and the habitual behaviors are what eventually are interpreted as social forms. However, it is necessary to differentiate the theories of Giddens from those of Durkheim. Whereas Durkheim views the social structure as being external and coercive, Giddens is of the view that structure exists due to social action. Instead his works are inclined more towards the approach of Dewey (Parker, 2000). There is a great emphasis on habits, routines and enduring practices. He mentions that in case of a disruption in these routines whether intrinsically or externally, changes in social action are possible. If these changes are connected to more than one actor, then social change is possible. Therefore, regular patterns are acted out by active agents whose interaction with one another is conscious, habitual and reflexive. Jurgen Habermas Jurgen Habermas is a German-born philosopher and sociologist. He was born in 1929 in Dusseldorf, Germany (Rehg, 2009). He entered into the intellectual realm in the 1950’s when he wrote a critical piece regarding Heidegger Martin's philosophy. He began his studies in universities in Bonn and Gottingen where he pursued philosophy. Later he studied at the Institute for Social Research under Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. Here, he studied Sociology and philosophy. Between the 1960’ and 1970’s, he lectured at different universities, amongst them University of Frankfurt am Main and Heidelberg. He was the director of Max Planck Institute in Starnberg since 1971. Before retiring in 194, he was a professor at the University of Frankfurt. It is important to note that he won the Adorno prize in 1980. Habermas is known for embracing the critical theory that was studied at the Frankfurt School (Rehg, 2009). This position views the contemporary society as one that maintains a conception of rationality that is problematic. This is not to mention that this concept is destructive particularly in its inclination towards domination. He especially cited the inherent domination over natural things by technology as well as science. Although Frankfurt School also condemned the Enlightenment as part of problematic rationalities, Habermas defended it. He said that the Enlightenment was both constructive and emancipator. He said that the period of Enlightenment developed solutions to predicaments by using logic and reason. Additionally, he stated that the period broke away from traditional misconceptions and habits that were of no use at all. Habermas’ critical theory is similar to the Marxist theory. He agrees with Karl Marx in the sense that people must become conscious of how ideologies reflect and distort reality. Additionally, the theory examines the factors that affect and sustain the non true consciousness represented by these ideologies. This is especially so in the reify power of domination. Herbamas however contradicted with Karl Marx in that they did not agree whether this transformed consciousness should translate to an action that is predictable (Rehg, 2009). Although Marx lays emphasis on this result for example the elimination of private property, Habermas hypothesizes no such outcomes. The critical theory takes a rather nuanced approach to the social unrest that was prevalent in the 1960’s. Habermas labeled the militant aspects of student efforts towards social transformation as self delusory. This is irrespective of the fact that he supported the students’ enthusiasm for democratic participation and activism (Rehg, 2009). Habermas work distinguishes two modes of action, in this case work and interaction. According to him work constitutes use of strategic and instrumental action. It is based on rational option for proficient means (Rehg, 2009). On the other hand, interaction is what he calls ‘communication action.’ In this case, actors synchronize their activities on the basis of norms reached by consensus. In this sense therefore, he is similar Aristotle. This is particular the Aristotelian gap between ‘praxis’ and ‘techne’. Herbamas is well known for criticizing science and technology as an ideology. Comparison between Jurgen Habermas and Anthony Giddens Both are contemporary theorists that are respected in the field of sociology. Anthony Giddens appreciates that human beings cannot function in a vacuum. Additionally, he notes that social action is as a result of repetitive action that is habitual and reflexive. In this sense human beings cause social action and not the other way around. This theory is necessary in the sense that it can be applied in the modern society. Through studying the results of actions on interaction, knowledge is generated. This knowledge is applied to creating interventions. These interventions can then applied to inhibit negative behavior and aid creative behavior. This knowledge regarding consequences is valuable in knowing how and what things should be said by particular users (Elliott, 2009). Additionally, this knowledge can be applied in the management of communities. This way, innovative output for communities can be enhanced. Additionally, Antony Giddens notes that structure is important although it is not too rigid. The dimensions of structure according to Giddens are domination, signification and legitimation. These three dimensions can be translated into power, communications and sanctions (Elliott, 2009). The means through which structures are converted into actions are referred to as modalities. These modalities are facilities, norms and interpretive schemes. They explain how and why interaction is affected. Therefore, it is through this theory that one understands how people associate white lab coats with the role of medicinal doctor. Furthermore, Giddens support the idea that an action in one place can influence other people in other places. This is as seen in the world Web and internet. Through the internet many changes have been made in the world. Anthony Giddens understands that two people must not be within close proximity to influence each other (Parker, 2000). This theory of structuration can explain the effect of the web. Through the internet, several missions have been spread through the internet. Many movements have been started by one person somewhere and it touches the lives of many throughout the world. Jurgen Habermas on the other hand was very rigid. He believed that science and technology has been overrated. He goes ahead and disregards the aspect of socializing among each other. Communicative action is neither instrumental nor strategic according to him. This is untrue since it is through socialization that human beings help one another. It is through networking that one gets a job as well as new opportunities. He also criticizes college students who were at the forefront in fighting for the rights of democracy (Rehg, 2009). Although he agrees with the fight for democracy he does not agree with the means used to achieve the democracy. He fails to recognize that at time force must be used if democracy is to be attained. Like most other philosophers he took a radical stand on most issues. He defines the system as predefined situations and modes of communication. Further, these systems as he calls them are limited to specific limits and the demands of communication action. The main examples of coordination of systems as he defines them are bureaucracies and markets. Thus he states that the media is used to coordinate action mainly on the basis of institutional power and money (Rehg, 2009). This is not agreeable with since the coordination in society takes shape through the norms and values that govern it. In essence, the rules that govern societies are not written or controlled by ay powers. Instead, they are governed by the people themselves and their behaviors. Conclusion The two theorists are well known for their theories to date for their theories. They were born in the 20th century and thus are familiar with the situation at hand in this day and time. It is my personal opinion that Anthony Giddens is contemporary theorist impresses me the most. His theories are applicable in our day-to-day lives. On the other hand, Jurgen Habermas is the contemporary theorist impresses me the least. His theories are not only rigid but also extreme. References Elliott, A. (2009). Contemporary social theory: An introduction. Routledge Parker, J. (2000). Structuration. Open University. Rehg, W. (2009). Cogent science in context: The science wars, argumentation theory, and Habermas, Cambridge: MIT Press. Read More