Critical on the Agency-Structure Relationship - Literature review Example

Critical Review on the Agency-Structure Relationship (Giddens) Critical Review on the Agency-Structure Relationship (Giddens) Summary Society is a group of people interacting with each other through persistent communication efforts among them. The actions of one of the individuals in a society not only affect the individual, but also the society as a whole. In this respect, therefore, there have been many attempts to explain the concepts governing the intentions and actions of an individual. For instance, sociologists have postulated numerous theories in an attempt to define an individual’s actions in relation to the society. All sociologists agree that a person cannot claim to be completely independent of the society around them though there have been contrasting views on how best to study an individual’s behaviour. In this respect, there is a central debate in sociology over the primacy of human behaviour; the options being structure or agency. Agency is the ability of individuals, who are the basic units of a society, to make decisions and act in accordance to those decisions. On the other hand, structure defines accepted routines in society that dictate how things should be done, effectively limiting the choices and opportunities available for an individual during decision-making. The structure against agency debate is an issue of socialisation against an autonomy where an individual choses either to act in such a way that promotes social ties, or in such a way as to fully express their individuality (Layder, 2005). Context Antony Giddens postulated the structuration theory as an alternative to other widely used theories of sociology that emphasised on agent and structure determinism. These theories include social system dichotomies like subjective-objective, agency-structure, and micro-macro perspectives that give the impression that society is made up of extremes, which are always going against each other to maintain balance. Structuration does not view society in terms of agency or structure but takes a more holistic approach, preferring to consider the practises that hold society together as opposed to society components that do the actions. This way, structuration aims at balancing society and the individual: a concept known as structural dualism, actions result in the social structure and social structure makes these actions possible. By so doing, Giddens proposed that structure and action are dependent on each other and none can exist alone (Baert and Carreira, 2010). The structuration theory has five basic assumptions that Giddens made when giving the postulates for his theory. First, the theory assumes that social activity is not a sum of individual actions and cannot be explained from a totality perspective either. The second assumption states that structure is a sum of all repetitive acts of individual agents. Third, Giddens assumed that social structures are temporary and can always be violated by any agent. The fourth assumption is that social structures are a limiting factor to the actions of individuals within the society. Finally, from all the other assumptions, the theory concludes that the result of the constraint between structure and action is positive evolution. These assumptions may not have been in Giddens mind when he proposed the theory of structuration. However, they do go well with his views and perspective on life, especially as regards the concept of structural dualism (Finlay and Gough, 2003). Discussion Giddens Position on Structure/ Agency Relationship The author stated that for there to be a structure, there must be an agency. Therefore, the idea of society and individual existing as separate entities is not conceivable. A society facilitates the very existence of an individual and natural laws show that a society cannot exist without the individual as explained by the expression duality of structure. The interdependence of the two variables formed the basis upon which Giddens based his theory. Giddens states that societal structures guide an individual’s actions and those very actions are what make up the structure. This means that even though an individual’s actions are not free of constrains of social structure, these actions help to shape the very structure that limits or encourages them. Structure has two components that limit or encourage action namely; rules and resources, respectively. Rules act to prevent an individual from taking actions that may be destructive to them or the society. On the other hand, resources act as incentives to encourage an individual to take actions that are good for the structure. Giddens proposes the existence of three structures that are complementary. These components of structure are signification, legitimization, and domination structures that serve to identify, offer moral value and leadership over others, respectively. However, Giddens postulated that though people are the principle agents in the structure, they are not the only agents. With the adoption of technology in fields that were exclusively handled by people, machines are programed to take actions that further the good of the society as perceived by the individual who wrote the specific algorithm (Elder-Vass, 2010). Evidence to the Theory Giddens used real life situations in postulating his theory. Therefore, though the theory is not conclusive in explaining structure and agency relationship, it cannot be dismissed completely as it can be applied in society, though to a limited extent. Human beings as a species are always in the process of self and societal improvement, a process known as evolution. In this context, Giddens sought to expand and modify pre-existing theories to reflect the change in perception that comes with increase in knowledge. As society develops, people tend to take different lines of thought and attempt to combine them into concepts they refer to as theories and laws. Structuralism is evident in society in that if specific opportunities and limitations are found in one society, it does not mean that all societies have the same. The conclusion derived from this is that there is no overall law that governs structure and agency, each community has its own rules since the rules are derived from the way agency interacts with structure, which is unique for all societies. The other factor indicative of societal duality is the changes that occur in social structures. If individual interests or societal expectations were the only factors, there would be changes that result in advancement and development of individuals as well as societies. Giddens also referred to theories of other sociologists including Pierre who postulated about the habits that result from what an individual is accustomed. These habits result in the actions that Giddens said are one with structure. In addition, Giddens theory is derived from Garfinkel’s theory of routine, which states that an individual’s actions are the result of the routine one is used to following (Ehrenhard, 2009). Limitations In defining society and individual actions as one, Giddens goes against the principles of individualism that state that an individual is free to be a separate entity within a society. Though individuals’ actions make the structure in society, the agent performs each of the actions for the sole purpose of furthering their own personal interests and not those of the society. This means that though structure is the sum of all actions of individuals in it, each of the individuals has the ability to act in ways that do not reflect the interests of the society in any way. Bourdieu views structure and agency as separate entities and explains that this is the reason why there are various social classes in the same society. If society had an influence on individual actions as Giddens stated, then all individuals in the same society would remain in the same social, political and economic classes. However, this is not the case as individuals who think differently from others in their class change class to a higher or lower one in the society hierarchy. Though structuration is one way of explaining social phenomena, there are too many exceptions and assumptions for the theory to be considered conclusive (Lock and Strong, 2010). Conclusion The structuration theory, as described by Anthony Giddens is a valid explanation of the society-individual relationship. However, this theory has several shortcomings that limit its use as a dualism theory. To enable its application in society, the theory should be modified to take into account factors that it does not cover in its present state. For instance, the theory points at communism being the most sustainable form of human interaction. On the other hand, it fails to explain fully the differences in class in a society and the proliferation of capitalism as the accepted way of life. Giddens does not explain why it is that the will of the individual dominates that of the society if the two are as intertwined as he states. When Giddens postulated the theory in 1984, the world was still recovering from the effects of socialism especially in Middle and Far East. This affected his thinking and perhaps the theory was his way of supporting his life philosophy of choice (Dragos, 2006). Reflexivity The first time went through the text I did not think I would ever understand the subject matter. First, I had no prior knowledge on the works of Anthony Giddens. Though the name has come up severally in my studies, his take on society has never been clear to me. Though I understand English pretty well, Giddens used technical language that requires reading and rereading before one can grasp the core message. Personally, I had to refer to a number of references to understand fully his text, though I am still not sure I can explain his concepts flawlessly. Though Giddens is a master of his art, his text could have included versions for ordinary people, his work is only useful as research material and not for use in leisure reading (Stones, 2005). The reading helped me to understand the subject matter; now I know different viewpoints of various sociologists who are for or against society dualism. In addition I have come to understand that, as Giddens said, knowledge from one sector in life can be applied directly or indirectly in other sectors; all one has to do is to take the knowledge and use accumulated wisdom to make the necessary modifications. Another conclusion made after reading the text is that though one may claim to be free, the environment that one lives in almost always has a way of changing ones perceptions, and society has a way of imposing its will on individuals. The final lesson is that though many fields under study are claimed to be separate and independent of each other, there is no this or that field; all are one and the same thing. For instance, if Giddens theory can be proved by physical scientific means, would the emerging law still be a social science law or a physical science law? The answer obviously would depend on the person offering the answer. My example shows that though I have not mastered the technical language, with more dedication and passion I could also learn to think like a true sociologist (May and Perry, 2011). The text was enjoyable in its own way, though I would never have chosen to read it over the vacation. The questions asked in the guide provided a basis for study and aided comprehension of content that I would have, otherwise, skimmed. This shows that papers like the one written by Giddens on structure and agency should be studied with a guide, as main points made by the writer may not always be as obvious as in other scholarly papers. After becoming used to, I believe that I will read and comprehend this type of papers easily without using guides (Smith, 2010). I have always believed and lived on the maxim that one is all and all is one. However, after reading Giddens work, my view, which was the same as his, has been altered. Even though I did not combine society and individual the way Giddens did, his explanation has made me see there is difference between individual and society. Not that I disagree with him, but the way he explains it is as if he was trying to disapprove other theories, which he would not have done unless the other theories too had merit. References Baert, P., and Carreira, F. S. (2010). Social theory in the twentieth century and beyond. Cambridge: Polity. Dragos, P. (2006). The structure of global capitalism: The stakeholder/shareholder relationship and corporate governance from the viewpoint of Anthony Giddens structuration theory. Wachstumstrend. Ehrenhard, M. L. (2009). The structuration of managing for results: A practice perspective on middle managers in the Dutch central government. Netherlands: Michel Ehrenhard. Elder-Vass, D. (2010). The causal power of social structures: Emergence, structure and agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finlay, L., and Gough, B. (2003). Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Layder, D. (2005). Understanding social theory. (2nd ed., revised). New York: SAGE. Lock, A., and Strong, T. (2010). Social constructionism: Sources and stirrings in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. May,T., and Perry, B. (2011). Social research and reflexivity. New York: SAGE. Smith, E. (2010). Sociology of sport and social theory. Illinois: Human Kinetics. Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Read More