Morphogenesis versus Structuration: On Combining ... - Moodle

Morphogenesis versus structuration 465
Does Giddens's formulation fare any better if we look at it the
other way round, i.e. not focusing on what curtails freedom (tradition
and routinization), but on the conditions under which higher degrees
of freedom prevail Unfortunately this is not the case, the reason
being that the 'transformative capacity' of actors is immediately
conflated with the concept of power. On the contrary I would
maintain that degrees of freedom are logically independent of the
power of agents, the relationship between them being one of contingency.
Systemic patterning determines a given potential for transformation,
but:
(a) this may not be capitalized upon by those with the power to
do so;
(b) its exploitation does not necessarily involve power;
(c) considerable power can be deployed in this context without
producing any transformation.
The example of our decentralized educational system should clarify
points (a) and (b), for this provides considerable structural degrees
of freedom for innovation and change. Sometimes these remain
unexploited, not because teachers lack the power to innovate but
because they do not want transformation: sometimes they are used
for the internal initiation of change without any application of
power. Always to Giddens 'transformative capacity is harnessed to
actors' attempts to get others to comply with their wants'.37This was
not the case with the foundation of experimental schools nor with
the move to progressive schooling, which involved a cumulative
change in educational philosophy38 which could only be termed
compliance by rendering that term vacuous (i.e. to accept anything is
to comply with it). To clinch point (c), degrees of freedom may be
large, but powerful contestants can lock in immobilism, as in cases of
political 'centrism', like Fourth Republic France. In other words
there are even some circumstances under which the use of power and
the achievement of transformation are antithetic.39
Once again the contrast between the structuration approach
and the morphogenetic perspective becomes pointed. In the latter
structural elaboration can arise from three sources of interaction
(besides their unintended consequences): the confluence of desires,
power induced compliance or reciprocal exchange. Therefore in any
given case the relationship between power and morphogenesis remains
to be determined. Structuration, on the other hand, makes transformation
logically dependent on power relations alone.40
Whilst structuration attempts to transcend the voluntarism/determinism
divide by a single conceptual leap (the 'duality of structure'),
morphogenesis tackles the respective weightings of the two aspects
by analysing the stringency of constraints and degrees of freedom in
different structural contexts and for different social groups. The
hare and the tortoise analogy is equally pertinent to the way these
perspectives approach the next 'dualism'.