The Practical Consciousness as the Constitution of Society - Literature review Example

Critical Review on the Practical Consciousness as the Constitution of Society Introduction Sociology is a study that deals with the society and itscomponents. It inspects behaviors, norms, and principles that constitute a society. People’s actions are also examined that lead to the development of classical theories. The classical theories are argued by Anthony Giddens because of their conventionality, which are distant from his modern principles. This paper aims to critically analyse the book of Giddens entitled The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. It will further examine the main argument of the text, the purpose of the author in proposing a concept, and the critical evaluation and reflection of the book’s content. Summary Practical Consciousness Giddens highlighted in his book the relevance of practical consciousness. Practical consciousness is one of the three levels of consciousness that refer to the actors’ silent understanding of the consequences of their own action. The purpose of the writer is to identify the difference of practical consciousness from the other two consciousness: discursive and unconscious. Giddens argument is centered on the role of motivation and cognition in influencing the practical level of consciousness. Giddens acknowledges routinisation as the principal approach in his structuration theory and asserts the relation of motivation in Goffman’s assumption of co-presence. Furthermore, Goffman’s positioning of the body is related to the theory of Giddens, which is supported by the time-space concept of Hagerstrand that focuses on the constraint imposed to the agent’s body and the environment where action takes place. The spatial approach seemed important in the social theory of Giddens, especially the regionalisation wherein the local setting is intended for communication among agents. The social institution and its practices examined by Willis have an impact on Giddens’ study. The author analyses the relation of the educational system to the actions and consequences of the actors (Giddens, 1984, pp.xxiii-xxv). Context Reconceptualisation of Social Theory Practical consciousness, as the central theme of Giddens reconceptualisation of social theory grounded with the formulation of structuration theory, corresponds to the idea that human actors are knowledgeable of the rules that drive them to perform actions. In his book, The Constitution of Society, Giddens attenuates of breaking the normative method of constructing theory, but objectivity and subjectivity are necessary in the interpretation of structuration theory. Ritzer (2005, p.322) states that the “dissatisfaction on the divide of objectivist and subjectivist explanations of social phenomena” prompted Giddens in structuring an approach. Objectivism treats human agents as controlled subject or puppets that are under the creativity of the theorist, while subjectivism annihilates actors from the framework of their social life. This has been the observation of Giddens from the previous works of the classical theorist, which affects his judgment on the macro and micro sociological theories. The dissatisfaction of Giddens leads to the duality of structure wherein he iterates that despite the “transformation into structural principles, sets, and properties -- rules and resources are produced and reproduced by agents” who rationalize their communication (Turner, 1986, p.973). Thus, the human actors tacitly monitor their actions, which construe the assertion of Sica (1986, p.345) on the comprehension of human actors on the environment that molds their action and of others. The introduction explains Giddens’ (1984, p.xxii) conception of the ideas converge from different sources in honing the “established views” so that their significance is manifested. This explains of the case study and theorist present in the body of his argument such as Heidegger, Bettelheim, and Goffmann. He extracts and criticises the content of the argument by detailing the limitation of the study; afterwards, Giddens emphasises the need for reconstruction. He affirms that motivation is relevant in his study that other theorists mishap. Furthermore, the structuration theory was constantly developed and expounded in Giddens’ books that aim to defeat the antithesis on functionalism and structuralism theories. The fundamental concept of structuration theory is practical consciousness as expressed by Giddens that links the actors in society, which is the “generic principle” that constitutes social life (Mills, et al., 2010, p.901). Evaluation/ Discussion Structure-Agency Relation Giddens claims that structure and agency are not different entities; instead, they are linked with each other. Human agency is part of the society, while society can be penetrated by actors. The product of human action is referred to as structure. Structure is defined as “rules and resources, or sets of transformation relations, organized as properties of social systems” (Giddens, 1984, p.25). The rules are the sets of procedures that human actors enforce in their social practices. The author believes that agents produce and reproduce certain conditions in response to their environment. Moreover, structure is an implicit occurrence of time-space in the creation and re-creation of the social systems. Giddens denotes social systems as “reproduced relations between actors or collectivities, organized as regular social practices.” This principle results to his criticism on the dualism of structure agency. According to Baber (2007, p.222), Giddens contends that dualism does not exist in the relationship of structure and agency; hence, he proposes the duality of structure wherein structure is reconceptualised as the custom’s consequences, which aggregate social systems. This is supported by the theory of Goffman about the spatial existence of the body. He observed that the body differs from material objects in occupying time and space. Thus, the body is an agent that forms the consciousness of men through the experienced bodily movements, which unified their “actions and awareness” (Giddens, 1984, p.65). A case study of Goldstein was utilised to emphasise Giddens’ points that normal being can easily identify certain actions that brain-damaged individuals cannot. Moreover, this approach points out that ‘touching’ is dissimilar from ‘pointing’ because a person can execute movements when a part of the body is touched. Hence, he wants to indicate the importance of practical knowledge to aid human actors in their polarise tasks. Giddens wants to defy the constraining elements of the body; hence, he establishes the body as constraining and enabling. Shilling (1993, p.174) agrees in the author’s perspective of the structure-agency relationship because “bodies … the medium and outcome of human (reproductive) labour.” Indeed, the body restrains human action, but it also enables individuals to change the course of its practices. However, Shilling mentions that the author fails to provide the precise information on certain circumstances that a body can constrain and enable human actions. Central to Giddens’ argument is the distinction of practical consciousness from discursive and unconscious consciousness. The practical consciousness is the outcome of routinisation wherein individuals know what they are doing, but they cannot express. The author asserts that motivation is a fundamental aspect that must be embedded to improve the study of Goffman. Motivation involves trust and security that individuals feel when they are situated in a familiar environment. Routinisation and the Unconscious Routine is part of human actors’ everyday lives. They repeat certain actions that render a sense of trust and security because of the practical knowledge involved while performing the task. Giddens (1984 cited in Johnson, 2007, p.116) describes routine as “integral both to the continuity of the personality of the agent, as he or she moves along the paths of daily activities, and to the institutions of society, which are such only through their continued reproduction.” When the environment has changed, or the routine has altered, the human actors produce a high level of anxiety. The feeling of security has replaced by the fear of the unknown; hence, the environment is no longer predictable and stable. Turner (1986, p.974) explains that routinisation are the consequences of the changes in “structural principles, sets, and properties” that comfort human agents. Individuals review their own actions in the interactive environment so as to form a daily routine. During the interactive mode such as conversation or tact, the human agents generate the principle of interaction through their practical consciousness or stock knowledge, which develops their social relations. Giddens uses the discussion of Bettelheim about the experience of prisoners in the camp. Bettelheim observed that the prisoners have lost contact with what they are used to. The new environment results in the changes of prisoners’ personality and behaviour. They have detached psychologically due to the pressure in the camp life, so prisoners try to associate with their previous lives. The constant changes in the policies enforced by the guards render prisoners the feeling of insecurity. Thus, they lack hope and motivation to continue and adapt the new social order. The study of Bettelheim recorded suicide that transpired inside the camp. Prisoners can survive if they have garnered a sense of autonomy with their own lives. However, the declaration of Giddens gathered criticism from Sica. The “routinized subject is disturbingly ungrounded in sociostructural or moral-normative concerns,” which contradicts the perspective of the author (Elliott, 2003, p.56). The definition of Giddens on routinisation is not a sociological declaration or political affirmation, so it does not need acceptance on the accustomed actions that constitute the social order. Furthermore, the theory of Giddens accentuates the repressed unconscious that disrupts the ontological security when it is released. Giddens utilises the psychoanalytic theory of Freud, yet, it contradicts with his notion that human actors monitor their action. Subjectivity and fantasy constitute Freud’s theory, which clash with Giddens’ idea that the success of social life lies on trust and security developed in routine. On the contrary, Freud has unbelief that this approach can lead to a successful social life of humans. Institutional Analysis Giddens accounted the study of Willis on the working-class children situated in a poor society. These children rebel against the institution where the supposed values and knowledge are nurtured. The study of Willis is linked to the discursive and practical consciousness of ‘the lads’ as their feedback to the social setting. The discursive attitude is a method of infiltrating to the culture of the school system. They enacted based on their knowledge about the education system, but they do not know the consequences of their own action (Kim, 2004, p.29). Furthermore, school’s setting reflects the constraint and strict imposition of disciplinary actions. The restriction imposed by the authority of the teacher was questioned by the children. They employ discursive consciousness such as humor and sarcasm to convey a message that they understand their situation. Giddens stressed that children comprehend the school environment that may affect their future in the capitalist industry. Giddens (1984, p.3000) acknowledges the relevance of Willis’ study in classroom management. It serves as a background for teachers and institutions in handling the rebellious children. However, Held and Thompson (1989, p.71) emphasise the incompatibility of institutional analysis to the “original concept of structure.” The concept of ‘methodological bracketing’ is unnecessary in conceptualising the features of a structural set so that human agents can reproduce similar pattern of actions when communicating with other people. Thus, the restriction posed at the interaction analysis is not significant. Conclusion The concept of structure-agency relation proposed by Giddens has a fault because of the contradicting principles applied in the structuration theory. Although the use of eclecticism has implied evidence and aimed to retract from the conventional argument in social theory, the formulation of ideas relies from the functionalist and structuralist views. Moreover, the author wishes to escape the constraint in society, but it is composed of rules that govern and restrain human agents. Reflexivity The complexity of issues presented in Giddens’ study hurdles the understanding and comprehension of the student because he uses eclecticism. Furthermore, it requires the reader an in-depth understanding and knowledge on different sources used by Giddens. Extensive research on the background of the issue and commentaries help the reader in comprehending the central theme of Giddens’ book. Moreover, the reading was enjoyable because it enables the reader to be reflexive in investigating the limitations and significance of the study. Theory enables readers to understand certain phenomenon that happens in the society. It explains the relationship of the structure and agency, which expands the researcher’s knowledge. Conclusion The main theme of Giddens’ book is practical consciousness. It connects with the fundamental concept on routinisation that requires security and trust from the human agents to avoid the disruption of social order, but this contradicts the psychoanalytic theory of Freud. Furthermore, the analysis on social institution is incompatible with the conception of structure due to the methodological bracketing. References Baber, Z., 2007. Beyond the structure/agency dualism: an evaluation of Giddens’ theory of structuration. Sociological Inquiry, 61 (2), pp.219-230. Elliott, A., 2003. Critical visions: new directions in social theory. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Giddens, A., 1984. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. USA: University of California Press. Held, D. & Thompson, J.B. eds., 1989. Social theory of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics. USA: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, D.P., 2007. Security versus autonomy motivation in Anthony Giddens’ concept of agency. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20 (2), pp.111-130. Kim, K.M., 2004. Critical theory criticized: Giddens’s double hermeneutic and the problem of language game change. Cultural Studies: Critical Methodologies, 4 (1), pp.28-44. Mills, A.J. Eurepos, G. & Wiebe, E. eds., 2010. Encyclopedia of case study research, Volume 2. UK: SAGE Publications. Ritzer, G. ed., 2005. Encyclopedia of social theory, Volume 1. UK: SAGE Publications. Shilling, C., 1993. The body and social theory. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications. Sica, A., 1986. Locating the 17th book of Giddens. Contemporary Sociology, 15 (3), pp.344-346. Turner, J.H., 1986. Review essay: the theory of Structuration. American Journal of Sociology, 91 (4), pp.969-977. Read More