Morphogenesis versus Structuration: On Combining ... - Moodle

Morphogenesis versus structuration 463
centralization as reducible to the exercise of power by determinate
actors.27 The voluntaristic bias means that institutions are what people
produce, not what they confront-and have to grapple with in ways
which are themselves conditioned by the structural features involved.28
For Giddens institutional recursiveness never reflects the durability
of constraint: it always represents the continuity of reproduction.
Social System Only at this level does Giddens concede that
'unintended consequences of action stretch beyond the recursive
effects of the duality of structure',29 producing what others would
term 'emergent properties', but which he calls 'self-regulating properties'.
Immediately and categorically he asserts that it is their facilitating
effects upon which theory should centre-'the self-regulating properties
of social systems must be grasped via a theory of system contradiction
.30 The reason for this one-sidedness is that to Giddens
contradictions represent cracks through which radical change can be
forced by social conflict-'ceterzs paribus, conflict and contradiction
have a tendency to coincide'.3l But is he warranted in concentrating
on systemic contradiction alone and in ignoring systemic compatibilities
altogether
From the morphogenetic perspective contradictions, though very
important, are only one of many deviation-amplifying mechanisms.
To Maruyama the latter
are ubiquitous: accumulation of capital in industry, evolution of
living organisms, the rise of cultures of various types, interpersonal
processes which produce mental illness, international conflicts,
and the processes that are loosely termed as 'vicious circles' and
'compound interests': in short, all processes of mutual causal
relationships that amplify an insignificant or accidental initial
kick, build up deviation and diverge from the initial condition.32
Obviously sc me of the above examples involve conflict, but 'felicitous
circles' and 'compound interests' do not, yet they contribute to
structure-building. The close relationship between conflict and change
belongs more to the history of sociology than to theories of selfregulation
in complex systems.
Giddens's studious neglect of compatibilities-those relations and
exchanges among components which tend to preserve or maintain
a system's given form, organization or state-derives partly from
his valid rejection of functional equilibration but perhaps owes more
to the fact that such morphostatic processes are experienced as constraints
by others in social life. Nevertheless in complex socio-cultural
systems, the positive and negative feedback loops producing morphogenesis
and morphostasis respectively, also circulate simultaneously.
This means that Giddens provides an inherently partial account of
the systemic conditions of change and stability. His attempt to bow
out of this by contesting that there is 'little point in looking for an