Morphogenesis versus Structuration: On Combining ... - Moodle

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Margaret S. Archer Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and actionl The fundamental problem of linking human agency and social structure stalks through the history of sociological theory. Basically it concerns how to develop an adequate theoretical account which deals simultaneously with men constituting society and the social formation of human agents. For any theorist, except the holist, social structure is ultimately a human product, but for any theorist, except advocates of psychologism, this product in turn shapes individuals and influences their interaction. However successive theoretical developments have tilted either towards structure or towards action, a slippage which has gathered in momentum over time. Initially this meant that one element became dominant and the other subordinate: human agency had become pale and ghostly in mid-century functionalism, whilst structure betook an evanescent fragility in the re-flowering of phenomenology. Eventually certain schools of thought repressed the second element almost completely. On the one hand structuralist Marxism and normative functionalism virtually snuffed-out agency-the acting subject became increasingly lifeless whilst the structural or cultural components enjoyed a life of their own, self-propelling or self-maintaining. On the other hand interpretative sociology busily banished the structural to the realm of objectification and facticity-human agency became sovereign whilst social structure was reduced to supine plasticity because of its constructed nature. Although proponents of these divergent views were extremely vociferous, they were also extensively criticized and precisely on the grounds that both structure and action were indispensable in sociological explanation.2 Moreover serious efforts to re-address the problem and to re-unite structure and action had already begun from inside 'the two Sociologies',3 when they were characterized in this manichean way. These attempts emerged after the early sixties from 'general' functionalists,4 'humanistic' marxists5 and from inter- actionists confronting the existence of strongly patterned conduct.6 Furthermore they were joined in the same decade by a bold attempt The British Journal of Sociology Volume 33 Number 4 December 1982 OR.K.P. 1982 0007 1315/823304-0455 $1.50 455
456 Margaret S. Archer to undercut the problem by disclosing 'hidden structures' which simultaneously governed overt structural organization and observable action patterns.7 Building on these bases in a very eclectic manner, two new perspectives have since begun to mature which directly tackle the relationship between structure and action and seek to unite them. One is the 'morphogenetic approach',8 advanced within general systems theory, whose best known exponent is Walter Buckley.9 Its sociological roots go back to the three kinds of theoretical revisionism mentioned in the last paragraph, but the other part of its pedigree is cybernetics. The second perspective is 'structuration', recently spelt-out by Anthony Giddens. Whilst integrating some of the same revisionist material, this approach leans much more heavily on the newer linguistic structuralism, semiotic studies and hermeneutics. Both the 'morphogenetic' and 'structuration' approaches concur that 'action' and 'structure' presuppose one another: structural patterning is inextricably grounded in practical interaction. Simultaneously both acknowledge that social practice is ineluctably shaped by the unacknowledged conditions of action and generates unintended consequences which form the context of subsequent interaction. The two perspectives thus endorse the credo that the 'escape of human history from human intentions, and the return of the consequences of that escape as causal influences upon human action, is a chronic feature of social life'.10 Where they differ profoundly is in how they conceptualize it, and how, on that basis, they theorize about the structuring (and re-structuring) of social systems. STRUCTURATION AND MORPHOGENESIS Structuration In dealing with 'structuration' this paper concentrates exclusively upon Anthony Giddens's book Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis,1l since its density and range require close textual attention. Giddens's whole approach hinges on overcoming three dichotomies and it is these dualisms which he strips away from a variety of sources, then recombining their residues: (a) First he insists on an account of human agency which is intrinsically related to the subject acting in society, thus seeking to transcend the dualism between voluntarism and determinism. Hence both deterministic attempts to get behind the 'backs of actors' (as in organic functionalism and orthodox Marxism) and the excessive voluntarism which neglects the structural context (as in contemporary action theories) are equally condemned. (b) Second he seeks to mediate the dichotomy between subject and object by assigning a prime role to the knowledgeability of
Page 1: Morphogenesis versus Structuration:
Page 5 and 6: 458 Margaret S. Archer systemic eme
Page 7 and 8: 460 Margaret S. Archer counterfactu
Page 9 and 10: 462 Margaret S. Archer Less obvious
Page 11 and 12: 464 Margaret S. Archer overall theo
Page 13 and 14: 466 Margaret S. Archer II 'STRUCTUR
Page 15 and 16: 468 Margaret S. Archer on the struc
Page 17 and 18: 470 Margaret S. Archer (b) Action O
Page 19 and 20: 472 Margaret S. Archer On the one h
Page 21 and 22: * t 474 Margaret S. Archer instead,
Page 23 and 24: 476 Margaret S. Archer implication
Page 25 and 26: 478 Margaret S. Archer of structure
Page 27 and 28: 480 Margaret S. Archer NOTES 1. I a
Page 29 and 30: 482 its relation to social determin

Morphogenesis versus Structuration: On Combining ... - Moodle

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?