Structuralism
From Geography
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
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). | 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). | + | 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). According to Giddens, structure does not exist at one moment: structure is a continuous flow, a process reproduced by actions. That's why he prefers 'structuration' in stead of 'structuralism'. |
| + | 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). | ||
[[Benno Werlen]] (2009, abstract) puts it as follows: | [[Benno 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.”'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Another structuralist-thinker is [[Jean Piaget]]. He explained his - more psychological - ideas about structuralism, through his theory of cognitive psychological development of children. He said that the process of gathering knowledge consists of different phases (or stages), and therefor structures. Each stage in the development of knowledge has its own characteristics and systems, but also knowledge itself consists of structures, according to Piaget. | ||
Ideas of structuralism can be used in many fields. One of those fields is history. Structuralists believe that throughout history their have been many events that have shaped the history as we know it nowadays. These structural events result in a totalizing history, a history that counts for everyone. They don't make a distinction between diffent contexts. This distinction is typically for [[Post-structuralism]]. | Ideas of structuralism can be used in many fields. One of those fields is history. Structuralists believe that throughout history their have been many events that have shaped the history as we know it nowadays. These structural events result in a totalizing history, a history that counts for everyone. They don't make a distinction between diffent contexts. This distinction is typically for [[Post-structuralism]]. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 34: | ||
Edited by Frank Simons | Edited by Frank Simons | ||
| - | ''Page enhanced by Iris van der Wal - 16: | + | ''Page enhanced by Iris van der Wal - 16:43, October 19th 2012'' |
Revision as of 14:42, 19 October 2012
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). According to Giddens, structure does not exist at one moment: structure is a continuous flow, a process reproduced by actions. That's why he prefers 'structuration' in stead of 'structuralism'. 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). Benno 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.”
Another structuralist-thinker is Jean Piaget. He explained his - more psychological - ideas about structuralism, through his theory of cognitive psychological development of children. He said that the process of gathering knowledge consists of different phases (or stages), and therefor structures. Each stage in the development of knowledge has its own characteristics and systems, but also knowledge itself consists of structures, according to Piaget.
Ideas of structuralism can be used in many fields. One of those fields is history. Structuralists believe that throughout history their have been many events that have shaped the history as we know it nowadays. These structural events result in a totalizing history, a history that counts for everyone. They don't make a distinction between diffent contexts. This distinction is typically for Post-structuralism.
References:
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.
Contributors
Added an entry --SuzanneBleijenberg--SuzanneBleijenberg 15:54, 12 October 2012 (CEST)
Edited by Frank Simons
Page enhanced by Iris van der Wal - 16:43, October 19th 2012
