Structuration Theory
From Geography
(→References) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
[[File:Structuration Theory.jpeg|thumb|Visualization Structuration Theory]]Structuration Theory was developed by [[Anthony Giddens]]. This theory has become extensive and commonplace in post-positivist social sciences (Warf, 2011). He tries to bridge between theories that focus mainly on [[human agency]] (for instance Humanism) and theories that focus on [[structure]] (for instance Marxism). This is what is called the ‘[[Third Way]]’, which represents a pragmatic renewal of progressive social democracy that seeks to avoid the manifest failures of [[Marxism]] and the excesses of neo-liberalism (Warf, 2011). It examines the complex relationship between human agency and the constraints of structure. | [[File:Structuration Theory.jpeg|thumb|Visualization Structuration Theory]]Structuration Theory was developed by [[Anthony Giddens]]. This theory has become extensive and commonplace in post-positivist social sciences (Warf, 2011). He tries to bridge between theories that focus mainly on [[human agency]] (for instance Humanism) and theories that focus on [[structure]] (for instance Marxism). This is what is called the ‘[[Third Way]]’, which represents a pragmatic renewal of progressive social democracy that seeks to avoid the manifest failures of [[Marxism]] and the excesses of neo-liberalism (Warf, 2011). It examines the complex relationship between human agency and the constraints of structure. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 5: | ||
Culture, in structuration theory, is being portrayed as what people take for granted. Culture defines what is normal and what is not, what is important and what is not. What is acceptable and what is not, within each social context. Social structures, regarding culture, in structuration theory are seen to consist of the rules and resources that are instantiated in social systems (Warf, 2011) | Culture, in structuration theory, is being portrayed as what people take for granted. Culture defines what is normal and what is not, what is important and what is not. What is acceptable and what is not, within each social context. Social structures, regarding culture, in structuration theory are seen to consist of the rules and resources that are instantiated in social systems (Warf, 2011) | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| + | == Key concepts == | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Duality of structure''' | ||
The [[Duality (of structure)|duality of structure]] is a key concept. In opposition to classical social theory, which is characterized by a dichotomy of structure and agency, structuration theory argues that social structures are the medium and the outcome of human agency. Structure is regarded as the outcome of actions and, at the same time, as a means for generating actions. Neither the human agent nor structure is regarded as being more important. Rather they must be received as two diverse aspects of one and the same thing, that is social praxis. However within the theory of structuration, only the acting human is endowed with consciousness. Human are generating actions. Structures have no consciousness and do not act. Giddens' approach tries to dissolve the gap between human agency and structure by emphasising the subjective side of their relation. | The [[Duality (of structure)|duality of structure]] is a key concept. In opposition to classical social theory, which is characterized by a dichotomy of structure and agency, structuration theory argues that social structures are the medium and the outcome of human agency. Structure is regarded as the outcome of actions and, at the same time, as a means for generating actions. Neither the human agent nor structure is regarded as being more important. Rather they must be received as two diverse aspects of one and the same thing, that is social praxis. However within the theory of structuration, only the acting human is endowed with consciousness. Human are generating actions. Structures have no consciousness and do not act. Giddens' approach tries to dissolve the gap between human agency and structure by emphasising the subjective side of their relation. | ||
| - | + | '''Structure''' | |
In Giddens’ theory, structure exists only through human practise, when the structure is ‘presenced’ by actors. Structure is regarded as the ‘rules and resources’ which actors draw upon. These rules are however not static. They can be changed by the negotiable character of meaning. | In Giddens’ theory, structure exists only through human practise, when the structure is ‘presenced’ by actors. Structure is regarded as the ‘rules and resources’ which actors draw upon. These rules are however not static. They can be changed by the negotiable character of meaning. | ||
| - | + | '''Agency''' | |
In Giddens understanding, the individual has a choice and he or she could have acted differently. In this Giddens refers to Weber, with his individual conscious acts. The possibility to change something through our acts, to reach a certain goal. But in order to do so we need structures. | In Giddens understanding, the individual has a choice and he or she could have acted differently. In this Giddens refers to Weber, with his individual conscious acts. The possibility to change something through our acts, to reach a certain goal. But in order to do so we need structures. | ||
| - | + | '''Power and agency''' | |
[[Power]] has also played a central role in Giddens analysis. Power is a transformative capacity, tied to human agency. | [[Power]] has also played a central role in Giddens analysis. Power is a transformative capacity, tied to human agency. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 27: | ||
Giddens distinguishes between discursive consciousness, that what people can put into words, and practical consciousness, what people do in everyday life but may not be able to put into words. Practical consciousness plays a part in constituting and reconstituting social life by routine and reflexive application. | Giddens distinguishes between discursive consciousness, that what people can put into words, and practical consciousness, what people do in everyday life but may not be able to put into words. Practical consciousness plays a part in constituting and reconstituting social life by routine and reflexive application. | ||
| - | + | '''Three spatial concepts''' | |
Giddens develops a specific vocabulary to integrate [[space]] and spatiality into the theory of social practise. The three key spatial concepts are; locale/setting, region and zone. | Giddens develops a specific vocabulary to integrate [[space]] and spatiality into the theory of social practise. The three key spatial concepts are; locale/setting, region and zone. | ||
| Line 35: | Line 33: | ||
Locale can be understood as a material context, or the constellations of actions which acquire a specific social meaning inter-subjectively as well. Occasionally, Giddens uses the term ‘setting’ as a ‘setting’ for interactions to also refer to the term ‘locale’. Secondly, a region should be understood within a ‘locale/setting’ as a social part of the situation or the context of action. This could be seen in a physical and material relations such as walls, lines, and rivers. Thirdly, when talking about zoning you refer to the further differentiation of regions. Meaning, for example, specific rooms are only defined for specific activities. (Werlen, 2009) | Locale can be understood as a material context, or the constellations of actions which acquire a specific social meaning inter-subjectively as well. Occasionally, Giddens uses the term ‘setting’ as a ‘setting’ for interactions to also refer to the term ‘locale’. Secondly, a region should be understood within a ‘locale/setting’ as a social part of the situation or the context of action. This could be seen in a physical and material relations such as walls, lines, and rivers. Thirdly, when talking about zoning you refer to the further differentiation of regions. Meaning, for example, specific rooms are only defined for specific activities. (Werlen, 2009) | ||
| - | ==Criticisms== | + | |
| + | == Criticisms == | ||
First, Gregory and Thrift exposed their criticism on Giddens theory, for inadequately developed sense of space, including lack of attention to matters of spatial scale regarding his view on regionalization. Secondly, | First, Gregory and Thrift exposed their criticism on Giddens theory, for inadequately developed sense of space, including lack of attention to matters of spatial scale regarding his view on regionalization. Secondly, | ||
| Line 43: | Line 42: | ||
Secondly, Thrift continues to criticize Giddens’ by saying; his work is “an unconvincing account of recursivity, an over-emphasis on presence that ‘never fully considers’ the ghost of networked others, an ‘impoverished sense of unconscious’, and an inadequately developed theory of culture.” Thirdly, Gregson argued that structuration theory is essentially useless in guiding empirical research, because it is too vague. | Secondly, Thrift continues to criticize Giddens’ by saying; his work is “an unconvincing account of recursivity, an over-emphasis on presence that ‘never fully considers’ the ghost of networked others, an ‘impoverished sense of unconscious’, and an inadequately developed theory of culture.” Thirdly, Gregson argued that structuration theory is essentially useless in guiding empirical research, because it is too vague. | ||
| - | ==References== | + | |
| + | |||
| + | == References == | ||
* Dyck, I. Kearns, R.A. (2006) Structuration Theory: Agency, Structure and Everyday Life. Chapter 7, in Stuart Aitken & Gill Valentine; Approaches to Human Geography, 2010. | * Dyck, I. Kearns, R.A. (2006) Structuration Theory: Agency, Structure and Everyday Life. Chapter 7, in Stuart Aitken & Gill Valentine; Approaches to Human Geography, 2010. | ||
| Line 53: | Line 54: | ||
* Werlen, B. (2009) Structurationist Geography. In Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Jena, Germany. Elsevier, 2009, p 40. | * Werlen, B. (2009) Structurationist Geography. In Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Jena, Germany. Elsevier, 2009, p 40. | ||
| - | |||
| - | * | + | |
| + | == Contributors == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * ''Page published by Pieter-Jan Schut --[[User:Pieter-Jan Schut|Pieter-Jan Schut]] & Stan Crienen --[[User:StanCrienen|StanCrienen]] - 17:24, 25 October 2011 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | * ''Page added to Category 'Anthony Giddens' by Iris van der Wal - 16:38, October 25th 2012'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category: Anthony Giddens]] | ||
Revision as of 14:38, 25 October 2012
Giddens structuration theory essentially views society as neither existing independently of human activity nor being a product of it (Dyck & Kearns, 2006).
Culture, in structuration theory, is being portrayed as what people take for granted. Culture defines what is normal and what is not, what is important and what is not. What is acceptable and what is not, within each social context. Social structures, regarding culture, in structuration theory are seen to consist of the rules and resources that are instantiated in social systems (Warf, 2011)
Contents |
Key concepts
Duality of structure
The duality of structure is a key concept. In opposition to classical social theory, which is characterized by a dichotomy of structure and agency, structuration theory argues that social structures are the medium and the outcome of human agency. Structure is regarded as the outcome of actions and, at the same time, as a means for generating actions. Neither the human agent nor structure is regarded as being more important. Rather they must be received as two diverse aspects of one and the same thing, that is social praxis. However within the theory of structuration, only the acting human is endowed with consciousness. Human are generating actions. Structures have no consciousness and do not act. Giddens' approach tries to dissolve the gap between human agency and structure by emphasising the subjective side of their relation.
Structure
In Giddens’ theory, structure exists only through human practise, when the structure is ‘presenced’ by actors. Structure is regarded as the ‘rules and resources’ which actors draw upon. These rules are however not static. They can be changed by the negotiable character of meaning.
Agency
In Giddens understanding, the individual has a choice and he or she could have acted differently. In this Giddens refers to Weber, with his individual conscious acts. The possibility to change something through our acts, to reach a certain goal. But in order to do so we need structures.
Power and agency
Power has also played a central role in Giddens analysis. Power is a transformative capacity, tied to human agency. “Power in its relational sense, concerns the capability of actors to secure outcomes where the realisation of these outcomes depends upon the agency of others” (Giddens, in Warf, 2011). Noticable is that this view differs from the traditional Weberian view that implies that power only exists when the boundaries of others is breached.
Giddens distinguishes between discursive consciousness, that what people can put into words, and practical consciousness, what people do in everyday life but may not be able to put into words. Practical consciousness plays a part in constituting and reconstituting social life by routine and reflexive application.
Three spatial concepts
Giddens develops a specific vocabulary to integrate space and spatiality into the theory of social practise. The three key spatial concepts are; locale/setting, region and zone.
Locale can be understood as a material context, or the constellations of actions which acquire a specific social meaning inter-subjectively as well. Occasionally, Giddens uses the term ‘setting’ as a ‘setting’ for interactions to also refer to the term ‘locale’. Secondly, a region should be understood within a ‘locale/setting’ as a social part of the situation or the context of action. This could be seen in a physical and material relations such as walls, lines, and rivers. Thirdly, when talking about zoning you refer to the further differentiation of regions. Meaning, for example, specific rooms are only defined for specific activities. (Werlen, 2009)
Criticisms
First, Gregory and Thrift exposed their criticism on Giddens theory, for inadequately developed sense of space, including lack of attention to matters of spatial scale regarding his view on regionalization. Secondly,
Thrift criticized Giddens in more than one perspective. For instance, on an unconvincing account of recursivity, an over-emphasis on presence that ‘never fully considers’ the ghost of networked others, an impoverished sense of unconscious
Secondly, Thrift continues to criticize Giddens’ by saying; his work is “an unconvincing account of recursivity, an over-emphasis on presence that ‘never fully considers’ the ghost of networked others, an ‘impoverished sense of unconscious’, and an inadequately developed theory of culture.” Thirdly, Gregson argued that structuration theory is essentially useless in guiding empirical research, because it is too vague.
References
- Dyck, I. Kearns, R.A. (2006) Structuration Theory: Agency, Structure and Everyday Life. Chapter 7, in Stuart Aitken & Gill Valentine; Approaches to Human Geography, 2010.
- Warf, B. (2011) Anthony Giddens. Chapter 23, in Phil Hubbard & Rob Kitchen; Key Thinkers on Space and Place, 2011.
- Werlen, B. (2009) Structurationist Geography. In Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Jena, Germany. Elsevier, 2009, p 51.
- Werlen, B. (2009) Structurationist Geography. In Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Jena, Germany. Elsevier, 2009, p 40.
Contributors
- Page published by Pieter-Jan Schut --Pieter-Jan Schut & Stan Crienen --StanCrienen - 17:24, 25 October 2011 (CEST)
- Page added to Category 'Anthony Giddens' by Iris van der Wal - 16:38, October 25th 2012
