Morphogenesis versus Structuration: On Combining ... - Moodle

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>Morphogenesis</strong> <strong>versus</strong> structuration 477 organizations and the opposition provoked by the constraints they exert.65 As Blau argues from this, the 'perennial adjustments and counter-adjustments find expression in a dialectical pattern of social change',66 much of which would be lost by unduly restricting analytical focus to certain tensions, hypothetized but not substantiated, as 'primary'.67 CONCLUSION The differences explored between the morphogenetic perspective and the structuration approach stem from an initial parting of the ways over the endorsement of 'analytical dualism' or the adoption of the 'duality of structure'. The following points summarize how 'analytical dualism' tackles the dichotomies which the 'duality of structure' fails to transcend. -the specification of degrees of freedom and stringency of constraints makes it possible to theorize about variations in voluntarism and determinism (and their consequences), whereas conceptual insistence on the simultaneity of transformative capacity and chronic recursiveness inhibits any theoretical formulation of the conditions under which either will predominate. -the analytical separation of structure and interaction over time permits of theorizing about temporal structuring and restructuring which is precluded when the conceptual bonding of the synchronic and the diachronic produces a seamless web of 'instantiations '. -the analytical distinction between subject and object over time allows for theorizing about the influences of men on society and vice versa, avoiding the 'desperate incorporation'68 of society into man or the dubious imputation of 'principles' articulating the two. It should be clear from the foregoing discussion that the 'analytical dualism' advocated is artificial and methodological: it implies no commitment to the philosophical dualisms which Giddens rightly attacks. PO STC RIPT However it would be unfair to conclude without noting Giddens's view that the two approaches are engaged upon different sociological enterprises. To him the 'identification of structures can in no sense be regarded as the only aim of sociological investigation. The instantiation
478 Margaret S. Archer of structure in the reproduction of social systems as its medium and outcome, is the proper focus of sociological analysis'.69 However this distinction is not one of substance as is implied, but harks back to a difference of origins, to potent images of society carried over from analogical starting points, i.e. from cybernetics and linguistics respectively. In view of this the contrast appears particularly inapposite as far as the morphogenetic perspective is concerned. For general systems theory has already shed that part of its cybernetic heritage which led it to focus on the identification of structures. It has abandoned the sterile exercise of terminological redescription in which to translate conceptions of social structure into the language of systems theory was either the end product or was confused with an understanding of the logic or social systems.70 Indeed it is now explicitly recognized that basic cybernetic models are of no help in identifying, much less in theorizing about complex social systems. Essentially a 'simple, cybernetic feedback model of explicit group goal-seeking does not fit most societies of the past and present because of a lack in those societies of informed, centralized direction and widespread, promotively interdependent goal behaviours of individuals and sub groups'.7l Hence the morpho-genetic perspective now concentrates on the socio-cultural system in its o wn right, identztying and explaining the real and variegated structures which have emerged historically and theorizing about their concrete elaboration in the future. It is these italicized features which properly distinguish between the two perspectives. For the structuration approach has shaken-off much less of the linguistic analogy and this means that Giddens still addresses the social system indirectly, hoping that its variatis can be subsumed under the principles governing the analogue which will also provide the key to its transformations. Although Giddens states clearly 'I reject the conception that society is like a language',72 the late Wittgenstein stalks the text-to know a form of life is to know a language.73 Thus the key concepts themselves come direct from linguistics: the 'recursive character of language-and, by generalization, of social systems also'74-is the source of the 'duality of structure': the notion that society, like language, should be regarded as a 'virtual system' with 'recursive properties'75 comes direct from Saussure. Certainly he breaks away from some of these starting points, Saussure in particular, but his ultimate aim is the closer integration of semiotic studies with social theory in order to develop 'a theory of codes, and of code production, grounded in a broader theory of social practice, and reconnected to hermeneutics'.76 As Gellner aptly commented in a wider context, a culture, a form of life, and we can add a code, 'is a problem-never a solution.77 What Giddens has done in shackling sociology to semiotics is in fact to transfer several problems to our domain-insubstantiality, indeterminacy and intractability.
Page 1 and 2: Morphogenesis versus Structuration:
Page 3 and 4: 456 Margaret S. Archer to undercut
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: 476 Margaret S. Archer implication
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?