Anthony Giddens' Contention on Contemporary Social Conditions - Essay Example

ANTHONY GIDDENS’ CONTENTION ON CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL CONDITIONS Introduction In the contemporary world, people have found themselves between capitalism and socialism in two diverse senses and any discussion involving normative political theory has to be concerned with both (Jones, 2008). In the shape of existing socialists societies indeed, socialism is a reality a part of the power bloc system that controls the anarchy of the world nation state order. However, it has no longer been plausible as it had been (Zastrow, 2010). On the other hand, if a socialist feeling or ideas remain valid, people are between capitalism and the socialist in the sense that the particular ideals seem more profound development than it had ever achieved any society to the current (Giddens, 2010). Assessment of Antony Giddens’ Contention on Contemporary Social Conditions Antony Giddens, Baron Giddens a British sociologist enough known for his theory of the structuration and incomparable holistic view of the modern societies, is considered as one of the most prominent contemporary sociologists (Johnson, 2008). He has grappled with all significant sociological movement inclusive of the varieties of structuralism, system theory, ethno methodology, functionalism, symbolic interaction and the phenomenological sociology (Jones, 2008). He expanded the domain of sociology in thinking by showing the great need of themes as diverse as Heideggers reflection on temporality, as well as the importance of time –space studies within human geography. He has always been seeking to explore the dialectical interplay between the theory and the research where he has been faced with many questions that have been neglected by many other social theorists such as the destructive character and the role of the nationalism of the state in the contemporary societies (Giddens A. D., 2013). Giddens combined flair in the judicious sympathetic exposition in an uncanny capability to locate as well as specifying problems, strengths as well as the weaknesses in the level of thinkers he examined (Giddens A. a., 2010). The most impressive and important feature of his writing has been the systematic impulse so evident and not his intellectual virtuosity. Anthony Goddens concept of structuration explain that structure as well as action is mainly related in that societies have structure insofar as people behave in standard regular ways, while action is only possible since each have self socially structured knowledge. However, the other controversy comes in consensus against conflict (Received, 2008). Such people as Durkheim, and other functionalists who came after him had an emphasis on integration as well as harmony within the society. Mostly those influenced by Marx view organizations inherently filled with tension in that conflict is formalized rather than a pathological aberration (Giddens A., 2013). In addition, these positions are not totally irreconcilable. Further debates within the classical sociology involve the shaping of the current world. Marx explained the capitalism as a force intended behind social fluctuations – its dynamism, along with its global tendency, is its distinctive feature. In discussions concerning structuration theory as related to the Information System research, it should be emphasized at the outset meaning it is a general theory concerning social organization and not a theory so particular in the Information Systems (Jones, 2008). Nevertheless, apart from a few comments about the knowledge society as well as the digital economy in his recent research work, Giddens has made almost no reference to the IS writing or even to the specifics of the social and organizational variations for which IS could be implicated (Appelrouth, 2008). A primary objective of the structuration stated by Giddens has been established of ontology within the human society. In that, as he puts it structuration aims at telling what sort of things is in the world, not even what is happening to, or between. Therefore, it deals with a sort of social phenomena at a very high level of abstraction and not their particular instantiation in a particular, particular context. It indeed offers a way of viewing the world rather than just explanation of the mechanisms. Combines with the dense as well as occasionally elliptical, style of his writing means that it cannot be easy to grasp the significance of the structuration theory in the context of IS (Jones, 2008). Therefore, it implies that it is important to sketch some of the prominent features of the theory, as well as their possible implications, before considering the ways in which it is used in the IS researchers. Structuration theory has occasionally been seen as an attempt at resolving a fundamental division in the social sciences between those that consider social phenomena as determined by the influence of the so-called objective, however the exogenous social structures and others who see them as products of the action of human agent in the view of their subjective interpretation of the real world. Giddens attempts to square the circle by proposing that the structure, as well as agency, be viewed not necessarily as the independent and conflicting elements but though as mutually interacting duality. The social structure is therefore found and seen as being drawn on by the actions of the human agents while the human actions in the social point of view serve to produce as well as reproduce the social structure. Thus, structure is not simply an exogenous sort of restraining force but a resource to be developed by the humans in their actions. Indeed, it is enabling as well as disabling. More specifically, he identified three dimensions of the structure, drawing, signification, legitimation and the domination. All these are linked to their corresponding dimensions of agency; they are as well described as communication, power and sanctions through modalities of interpretive procedures, facilities and the norms. Modalities could, therefore, be seen as the locus of the interaction between knowledge abilities of the actors and the structural features of the social system setting (Ritzer, 2014). It is important to stress that the splitting of the duality of the structure of the three dimensions is simply an analytical strategy, which practically are inextricably interlinked. For instance, the operation of the norms is dependent on power relationships for their efficiency and effectiveness, which are deployed symbolically with linguistic devices. An everyday example could be used to illustrate the exact concept of the structuration theory, albeit on the cost of presenting it in a more mechanistic manner not much desirable. Thus, the dress that people wear in order to work usually reflects the influence of the social structures that are reproduced by individual’s conformance with accepted practice (Calhoun, 2012). It is expected for example that people in an office working typically will wear formal, business attire such as suits or even smart casual clothing. Encountering somebody in a work setting one draws on structures of signification that informs understanding of a person’s role. For example meeting someone in a white coat in a hospital, it is occasionally assumed that they are a doctor. Clothes do not only indicate who a person is but also convey key messages about the powers that they hold. There are also various structures of legitimation that define an appropriate dress code in particular settings, the transgression of which could invoke sanctions. As it is evident from the examples of the structures underlying dressing codes, they are not implacable or even immutable (Seidler, 2008). Indeed, they are sustained by their progressing reproduction by the social actors although they can be altered. Therefore, as long as the employees continually follow the dress codes then its influence on the behavior of a recruit is more likely to be maintained. Giddens emphasized that the social structures do not exist independent of the human action. This led to a view of people as beings in a constant state of the reflexive monitoring of their situations as well as the omnipresent capable of change (Smith, 2010). That people may not be aware of the monitoring or of the continuous opportunities for alteration as was described by Giddens to the existence of majorly two types of consciousness that include; practical and discursive. Practical type relates to the ability of people to act in a knowledgeable way while the discursive type relates to peoples incomplete explanations for the actions (Appelrouth, 2008). In addition, humans could not precisely determine the way in which the structures are produced and reproduced (Dillon, 2010). Giddens in turn drew attention to the unacknowledged situations and the unintended consequences of the intentional action. Considering the outlined brief Giddens ideas, a number of major issues could be identified that give structuration its distinctive character. A precise examination on these issues might help in clarifying the underlying assumptions in the structuration theory as well serve a basis for the assessment of the way in which it had been used in IS research and its future potential (Robertson, 2009). In comparing the most essential a character of the structuration, however, has not been a simple matter as it could be illustrated by the identification by different authors. The density of his writing comes from two particular aspects which are; the diversity of his sources and his fluency of expression (Parsons, 2014). Indeed, his discussion frequently engages with a broad range of detailed debates often providing a concise and telling a summary of others contributions (Johnson, 2008). After setting out these ideas, he then presented a rich elaboration on his position with considerable awareness of the subtlety of possible criticisms. On tracing the argument on his sort of complex and allusive text could, therefore, be a challenge as well as a concise exposition, even in Giddings’s words, it has not easily been arrived at. Adding on the difficult, he often adopted deliberately idiosyncratic explanations of certain key terms to enable differentiation of his position. The elusiveness of Giddenss piece has not escaped the notice of his critics. For instance, Bernstein described him as fox-like and noted his tendency in the face of difficult problems to introduce a plethora of differences and schemas that while illuminating often failed to be sufficiently explicit on the criteria of their applicability (Parsons, 2014). In this regard, the review will make perhaps more than the usual usage of quotations from both Giddens as well as those others who had drawn on his investigative work. Reflecting some of the difficulties while using the structuration theory in an IS context mentioned above considerable attempts have been connected to the structuration theory with other theoretical approaches (Isherwood, 2014). Analysis has clearly shown that Giddens work and especially in his structuration theory has supported a wide range of IS research. Again, contrary to the claims of the critics like Gregson (1980) and Archer (1990), the alleged obscurity and complexity and non-propositional character of the work had not prevented it use in many empirical studies in the IS field (Calhoun, 2012). However, the analysis highlighted a number of factors in the way in which Giddens‘s ideas had been used in the IS field to date that suggested chances for the future development of the structuration IS research. Modernity has been dynamic which intrudes into the personal and global dimension. It has been both a self-determined as well as determining movement. If features reflexivity in its maximum attached to a substantial development in social science with the growth of lifestyle manuals and guides (Giddens A. a., 2010). The process involved of disembedding leads to time and space transformations, which has produced a widespread doubt and relativism. Trust could be generic to the personality and again it offers a way to screen out uncertainties although it is as well a media of interaction that has abstract systems requiring a necessary leap of faith in order to engage in practice. Risks, however, take a distinctive modern form since projects cannot easily be closed or even finished. There have been new significant risks like nuclear war or even the international economic collapse (Johnson, 2008). Self-identity should, therefore, be reflexively organized and that it cannot be assumed natural. Conclusion Giddens has significantly contributed in three main areas. First being the concept of duality of the structure, which has been drawn on many of his findings and reports (Dillon, 2010). Second has been the great influence on the emergent constructive accounts of the IS where structuration’s emphasis on the progressive production and the reproduction of structure through situated practices in the social affairs which has informed the range of the interpretive IS studies (Giddens A. , 2013). Finally, he has been a more selective input of specific concepts that range from structuration theory as well as his later writings; in making IS researcher aware of phenomena like operation constraints or the disembedding of the social relationships (Isherwood, 2014). Personal Development Plan (PDP) Reviewing the development of my academic skills over the course of this year based on the feedback given to the previously written essays especially in the second semester of my first year and the first session of my second year, I have been able to improve on the clarity of expression, enhanced on the grammar as well as the sentence structure, I have been able to prepare effectively and adequately research carefully on the written work. Indeed, I have been able to improve creatively on the interpretation of assignments instructions. In addition, I have acquired clarity and enough confidence in verbal presentations both formal as well as contributions to seminars. In addition, I have increased confidence in accessing and criticizing any course reading material. I have been able to increase my confidence in seeking advice from the appropriate staff. On my weakness, I have learned to consult with relevant personnel, for instance, my personal tutor or even students in improving my area of weakness like in obtaining study aids for an effective essay and in Harvard referencing. Again, on learning some specific rules of grammar, punctuation as well as issues concerning subject-verb agreement and even improvements in writing a conclusion in an essay. Concerning all the above weaknesses, I have spent time with my personal tutor in improving. Personally, I stand a position of building on my strengths by identifying some of the academic skills I have acquired at level four and perfecting on them. I would identify such academic skills and consider them as my strengths, which I should reflect on how to enhance the area or even employ it more effectively during the assessment tasks. This would be made possible by visiting the library frequently and effectively making use of the books or even available materials that would guide me accordingly within the university. Reflecting on the benefits of the academic study of my personal development and future, it gives me confidence, raises my self-esteem for I acquire knowledge adequately and assures me of an organized tomorrow and sort of certain jobs as I consider myself an expert in particular fields. Studying sociology, for instance, might enhance my future employability since it provides me with knowledge and skills which personally I find academically rigorous, having a meaning in the society and vocationally relevant. People with sociology backgrounds and know how hold jobs in relatively a wide range of areas such as government and public policy, social work and social policy, social planning and social impact analysis not forgetting the industrial relations. Other areas include the management and the human resource management as well as activity in unions and nongovernmental fields. I would even proceed to postgraduate research in sociology and eventually end up teaching or researching in the sociology field. References Zastrow, C. 2010. Introduction to social work and social welfare. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Giddens, A. and Sutton, P. 2010. Sociology. Cambridge: Polity. Giddens, A., Duneier, M., Appelbaum, R. and Carr, D. 2013. Introduction to sociology. Books Received. 2008. Sociology, 42(3), pp.584-590. Jones, G. 2008. The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Seidler, V. 2013. Remembering 9/11. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Isherwood, L. and Harris, D. 2014. Radical Otherness. London: Routledge. Appelrouth, S. and Edles, L. 2008. Classical and contemporary sociological theory. Los Angeles, Calif.: Pine Forge Press. Smith, E. 2010. Sociology of sport and social theory. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Dillon, M. 2010. Introduction to sociological theory. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. Ritzer, G. 2014. Sociological theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Robertson, R. 2009. Sociological Theories in Progress. Sociology, 3(2), pp.258-259. Calhoun, C. 2012. Contemporary sociological theory. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Johnson, D. 2008. Contemporary sociological theory. New York: Springer. Parsons, T. 2014. Essays in Sociological theory. [S.l.]: Free Press. Read More