Structuralism
From Geography
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | |||
'''Structuralism (Assignment 7)''' | '''Structuralism (Assignment 7)''' | ||
| - | + | In Aitken and Valentine (2006, p. 342) structuralism is defined as: | |
| - | + | ||
''“A theoretical approach to human geography which is characterized by a belief that in order to understand the surface patterns of human behavior it is necessary to understand the structures underlying them which produce or shape human actions.”'' | ''“A theoretical approach to human geography which is characterized by a belief that in order to understand the surface patterns of human behavior it is necessary to understand the structures underlying them which produce or shape human actions.”'' | ||
| - | Structuration theory views society not as existing independent of human activity but also not as a product of human activity | + | Structuralism assumes that there are social and cultural structures within society and that those shape individual acting, thinking and talking (Lippuner & Werlen, 2009, p. 2). So structuralism doesn’t focus on the individual motive and interpretation of things, but on material and symbolic structures which function as a mold for social praxis. Structures are a crucial part of the social world and are attributed with generative or causal power (Lippuner & Werlen, 2009, p. 4). |
| + | |||
| + | The structuration theory, who’s main proponents are the Britisch sociologist Anthony Giddens and the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, finds it’s origin in this approach, but differs from it in the sense that it wants to overcome the dichotomy of agency and structure (Lippuner & Werlen, 2009, p. 2). Structuration theory views society not as existing independent of human activity but also not as a product of human activity. This ‘duality of structure’ is a central point in Gidden’s structuration theory. You could say: “structure is both medium and outcome of the reproduction of practices” (Dyck and Kearns, in Aitken and Valentine, 2006, p. 87). So in structuration theory, it is also important how structures come into being through a dynamic process (Bryant & Jary, 1991, p.7). Another difference is that from the view of structuration theory, structures don’t have power themselves; the main constitutive power is assigned to the agency of human individuals (Lippuner & Werlen, p. 4). | ||
| + | Werlen (2009, abstract) puts it as follows: | ||
''“[…] the relation of structure and social practice is dual, meaning that social practices refer to social structures and that social structures are the result of previously performed practices and social actions.”'' | ''“[…] the relation of structure and social practice is dual, meaning that social practices refer to social structures and that social structures are the result of previously performed practices and social actions.”'' | ||
| Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
- Aitken, S., Valentine, G. (2006). Approaches to Human Geography. Sage: London. | - Aitken, S., Valentine, G. (2006). Approaches to Human Geography. Sage: London. | ||
| + | |||
| + | - Bryant, C.G.A., Jary, D. (1991). Giddens’ theory of structuration: A critical appreciation. Routledge: London. | ||
| + | |||
| + | - Lippuner, R., Werlen, B. (2009). Structuration theory. Elsevier. | ||
- Werlen, B. (2009). Structurationist geography. Elsevier. | - Werlen, B. (2009). Structurationist geography. Elsevier. | ||
Revision as of 07:30, 1 October 2010
Structuralism (Assignment 7)
In Aitken and Valentine (2006, p. 342) structuralism is defined as:
“A theoretical approach to human geography which is characterized by a belief that in order to understand the surface patterns of human behavior it is necessary to understand the structures underlying them which produce or shape human actions.”
Structuralism assumes that there are social and cultural structures within society and that those shape individual acting, thinking and talking (Lippuner & Werlen, 2009, p. 2). So structuralism doesn’t focus on the individual motive and interpretation of things, but on material and symbolic structures which function as a mold for social praxis. Structures are a crucial part of the social world and are attributed with generative or causal power (Lippuner & Werlen, 2009, p. 4).
The structuration theory, who’s main proponents are the Britisch sociologist Anthony Giddens and the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, finds it’s origin in this approach, but differs from it in the sense that it wants to overcome the dichotomy of agency and structure (Lippuner & Werlen, 2009, p. 2). Structuration theory views society not as existing independent of human activity but also not as a product of human activity. This ‘duality of structure’ is a central point in Gidden’s structuration theory. You could say: “structure is both medium and outcome of the reproduction of practices” (Dyck and Kearns, in Aitken and Valentine, 2006, p. 87). So in structuration theory, it is also important how structures come into being through a dynamic process (Bryant & Jary, 1991, p.7). Another difference is that from the view of structuration theory, structures don’t have power themselves; the main constitutive power is assigned to the agency of human individuals (Lippuner & Werlen, p. 4). Werlen (2009, abstract) puts it as follows:
“[…] the relation of structure and social practice is dual, meaning that social practices refer to social structures and that social structures are the result of previously performed practices and social actions.”
Sources:
- Aitken, S., Valentine, G. (2006). Approaches to Human Geography. Sage: London.
- Bryant, C.G.A., Jary, D. (1991). Giddens’ theory of structuration: A critical appreciation. Routledge: London.
- Lippuner, R., Werlen, B. (2009). Structuration theory. Elsevier.
- Werlen, B. (2009). Structurationist geography. Elsevier.
