Hi,

Yes, you are correct in saying that all migrants (regardless of caste) make assessment about their mobility. Giddens suggests that all individuals are knowledgable, reflexive beings: that is to say we all justify and determine action based on our reflexive of the lifecourse. However, if we look further into Giddens' concept of Structuration he talks about two types of knowledgabliity: practical conscious - or things we do but cannot article why we do - and discursive conscious - the things we do and which can be articulated. In relation to migration, therefore, we could perhaps suggest some migrations may be willful migration: that is, the individual knows what they are doing (i.e. economic migrant) - and also practical migration - the individual who migrants but cannot fully justify/understand why.

Thanks Nathan for your inputs;  do you also have any advice on what to read to better link structuration with migration, could we say that the migrant is the agent while the "outside" is the structure

Hi Bruno,

I apologise for my tardy response - from a Giddensian perspective you are correct in saying that the 'migrant' is the agent and the 'outside' is the structure. But it is important to define the 'outside'. The 'outside' could be seen as a macro-level structure - i.e. the erction of borders by governments which reinforce what migrants do at the agency level. But also, the 'outside' could be interpreted at a meso-level structure: that is, the interaction of the migrant (agent) in relation to their wider social group (structure) which co-constitutionally reproduces the norms, values and customs of what the migrant does or does not do.

Thanks very much for your inputs and Ivo no I don't have the books

Dear Ivo, I am doing an investigation on the impact of internal and international migration on the Namibian family structure. Let me start to say however that initially my idea was to address the issue mainly form an economic viewpoint, my background is in fact that of a developmental economist. So the idea was to consider the way economic remittances were used by the migrants and their family and how that would have changed the family structure. However since my supervisor is a sociologist and I am going to discuss the thesis for the faculty of sociology, we have added other elements starting with the issues of social remittances. Later on it has emerged that more literature review was necessary on sociological concepts (which were to be honest mostly alien to me) so the supervisor has suggested to consider the work of Giddens which I am finding interesting and in may aspects can be easily blend in some of the economic literature of the New Labour Economics and the role of family and networking in determining the decision to migrate. If you wont I can send you my initial thesis proposal so you can have a better idea of what I am saying

One crucial component missing in all the answers offered here, as well as in Gidden's concept, which is not at all useful in this respect, is the undeniable fact that migrants are moving into Western nations because Western nations are controlled by elites, both on the left and the right, committed, without democratic consent, to the diversification of white societies. The corporate wants cheaper labour, more consumers, and a docile, mongrelized population, without roots and without any strong sense of national identity; whereas the left wants, among other things, to break any sense of racial European identity, promote non-whites on the grounds that they are "victims". 

Therefore, immigrants have calculated that they will be welcomed to Western societies, since Western societies are committed to diversity. Even if migrants engage in regular and recurring rape of white girls all across Europe, the elites, such as Giddens, will support them, cover up the rapes, or not identify the ethnicity of the perps committing the rapes. 

But it is becoming harder and harder to say that immigration is "enriching" Europeans when the facts point to systematic raping of European girls, massive costs to the host population:

This is the estimated cost to Germany: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3426354/Refugee-crisis-cost-Germany-38BILLION-end-2017-new-study-claims.html

And what do the Germans get in return for these massive costs? This: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/05/ten-year-old-boy-brutally-raped-by-iraqi-migrant-at-pool-in-vienna/

Not just Germany, mass rapes across Europe, hidden from students by leftist academics like Giddens: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that-covers-up-mass-sex-attacks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful/

Rape on industrial scale in England: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5386/british-girls-raped-oxford

Dear Ricardo,

While I do agree with your response to a certain extent, I think you are misrepresenting Giddens' theoretical framework as something structurally deterministic. Yes, I agree with you in that migrants may look to move to West societies due to greater population diversity but Giddens would not say that this is achieved by the elite class who want to mongrelised population: this is too discursive and Giddens would maintain something much more nuanced.

Using Giddens' concept, Western societies have produced population diversification due to people's everyday routines in preferring to eat culturally different things and wanting to travel etc. As a result, a globalisation of social life has arisen where individuals feel less restricted in what they do and eat. Because of such social change, Western societies have unwittingly produced a need for migrant works, therefore reinforcing migrants active decision to migrate. The issue of 'rape' is considered an unanticipated consequence of a globalised late-modern society.

Giddens would not suggest it is due to Western societies wanting greater control - by  suggesting this you are misrepresenting Giddens as potentially Marxist/functionalist in nature, which he is not. Despite this, I do think control (or more precisely power) is important in this situation. Giddensian power is about the structuring of people's actions. Therefore if we take this idea of power/control, we can see it work as a controlling the limits of migration. Remember migration is social change and people do not like change, it causes what Jock Young refers to as 'Social Vertigo'. Therefore, Giddens would say power/control is used as a form of resistance against change as a way to secure national identity and create ontological security And, as a result - this again leads to unanticipated consequences (i.e. racisms/xenophobia).           

Dear Ricardo,

While I do agree with your response to a certain extent, I think you are misrepresenting Giddens' theoretical framework as something structurally deterministic. Yes, I agree with you in that migrants may look to move to West societies due to greater population diversity but Giddens would not say that this is achieved by the elite class who want to mongrelised population: this is too discursive and Giddens would maintain something much more nuanced.

Using Giddens' concept, Western societies have produced population diversification due to people's everyday routines in preferring to eat culturally different things and wanting to travel etc. As a result, a globalisation of social life has arisen where individuals feel less restricted in what they do and eat. Because of such social change, Western societies have unwittingly produced a need for migrant works, therefore reinforcing migrants active decision to migrate. The issue of 'rape' is considered an unanticipated consequence of a globalised late-modern society.

Giddens would not suggest it is due to Western societies wanting greater control - by  suggesting this you are misrepresenting Giddens as potentially Marxist/functionalist in nature, which he is not. Despite this, I do think control (or more precisely power) is important in this situation. Giddensian power is about the structuring of people's actions. Therefore if we take this idea of power/control, we can see it work as a controlling the limits of migration. Remember migration is social change and people do not like change, it causes what Jock Young refers to as 'Social Vertigo'. Therefore, Giddens would say power/control is used as a form of resistance against change as a way to secure national identity and create ontological security And, as a result - this again leads to unanticipated consequences (i.e. racisms/xenophobia).           

Dear Ricardo,

While I do agree with your response to a certain extent, I think you are misrepresenting Giddens' theoretical framework as something structurally deterministic. Yes, I agree with you in that migrants may look to move to West societies due to greater population diversity but Giddens would not say that this is achieved by the elite class who want to mongrelised population: this is too discursive and Giddens would maintain something much more nuanced.

Using Giddens' concept, Western societies have produced population diversification due to people's everyday routines in preferring to eat culturally different things and wanting to travel etc. As a result, a globalisation of social life has arisen where individuals feel less restricted in what they do and eat. Because of such social change, Western societies have unwittingly produced a need for migrant works, therefore reinforcing migrants active decision to migrate. The issue of 'rape' is considered an unanticipated consequence of a globalised late-modern society.

Giddens would not suggest it is due to Western societies wanting greater control - by  suggesting this you are misrepresenting Giddens as potentially Marxist/functionalist in nature, which he is not. Despite this, I do think control (or more precisely power) is important in this situation. Giddensian power is about the structuring of people's actions. Therefore if we take this idea of power/control, we can see it work as a controlling the limits of migration. Remember migration is social change and people do not like change, it causes what Jock Young refers to as 'Social Vertigo'. Therefore, Giddens would say power/control is used as a form of resistance against change as a way to secure national identity and create ontological security And, as a result - this again leads to unanticipated consequences (i.e. racisms/xenophobia).           

Dear Ricardo,

While I do agree with your response to a certain extent, I think you are misrepresenting Giddens' theoretical framework as something structurally deterministic. Yes, I agree with you in that migrants may look to move to West societies due to greater population diversity but Giddens would not say that this is achieved by the elite class who want to mongrelised population: this is too discursive and Giddens would maintain something much more nuanced.

Using Giddens' concept, Western societies have produced population diversification due to people's everyday routines in preferring to eat culturally different things and wanting to travel etc. As a result, a globalisation of social life has arisen where individuals feel less restricted in what they do and eat. Because of such social change, Western societies have unwittingly produced a need for migrant works, therefore reinforcing migrants active decision to migrate. The issue of 'rape' is considered an unanticipated consequence of a globalised late-modern society.

Giddens would not suggest it is due to Western societies wanting greater control - by  suggesting this you are misrepresenting Giddens as potentially Marxist/functionalist in nature, which he is not. Despite this, I do think control (or more precisely power) is important in this situation. Giddensian power is about the structuring of people's actions. Therefore if we take this idea of power/control, we can see it work as a controlling the limits of migration. Remember migration is social change and people do not like change, it causes what Jock Young refers to as 'Social Vertigo'. Therefore, Giddens would say power/control is used as a form of resistance against change as a way to secure national identity and create ontological security And, as a result - this again leads to unanticipated consequences (i.e. racisms/xenophobia).           

Nathan,

I taught Giddens, used his structuration theory, which I now find boring and irrelevant, but you have a point that I extrapolated too fast from Giddens to immigration issues.  Still, what you say about Giddens and immigration reaffirms my sense that he is another typical academic advocating mass immigration and the destruction of any sense of European ethnic identity.

First, he (and/or you) are naive to think that immigration can be framed in terms of individuals "wanting to travel" or wanting to be less restricted in what they eat. This can only be the view of academics living inside a bubble without contact with the white working classes in Britain and elsewhere who are feeling the brunt of the destruction of their communities by mass of immigration and state sanctioned multiculturalism. 

Your claim that "rape is an unanticipated consequence" of a globalized society shows how callous academics have become in their blind imposition of diversity.

Rape is not incidental, but systematic across all of Europe by immigrants and Muslims:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5386/british-girls-raped-oxford

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/250769/hundreds-more-muslim-rape-gang-cases-discovered-uk-robert-spencer

Besides, your argument that we can understand things like this as purely an inevitable aspect of globalization is bogus. Only in European-created countries do we see mass immigration; not in Japan, not in South Korea, nowhere else, and yet all these non-European countries are undergoing globalization. Your argument, and that of Giddens, is gibberish and intended to deceive European students into conforming to diversification. 

It depends what immigration wave we are talking about, there are variations in short term motivations and dynamics, but at the bottom lies the left and right effort to create multiracial identities in all European nations. The left has this delusion that they will create harmonious societies and that white identity is somehow the source of evil and conflict in the world, but the mass raping is countering this idea, and the enormous costs of migrant invasion in welfare and lower wages and destruction of British/German/French/Swedish historic identity. The corporate right enjoys using leftist ideas, about how wonderful diversity is and how racist British whites who disagree are, to promote their concept of a deracinated, rootless shopping mall culture across the West.

Ricardo,

I will admit that Structuration theory does have flaws, especially when used as a epistemological/ontological worldview; however, Giddens' concept is useful as a theoretical frame in which to analyse immigration. Firstly, I am not naive in my thinking that immigration can be framed around 'wanting to travel'. The globalisation of social life (structure) has produced the ability to allow individuals freedom of movement (agency), which in turn was created by agents through the recursiveness of actions. So, in contary to what you argue multiculturalism is not state-sanctioned - it is produced and reproduced by what individyals do. In fact the current British government are wanting to enforce limits on migrants coming into the UK, even within the EU. Thus, the so-called 'destruction of European ethnic identity' is not coming from some 'Muslim other' as you are alluding but rather social change which is constantly happening.  

Secondly, as you may believe I am not some 'typical academic living in a bubble'. There is concern in local communities about immigration. This is why people are taking action and supporting more nationalist political parties; however, I think there is greater concern in doing so because it positions the migrant as a threat (which they are not) and as a consequence brings about this 'drawbridge mentality' of wanting to control borders to protect the domiant nationa;l/social/ethnic identity - which is what you seem to be fearsome of.

Thirdlt, and in response to your issue of 'rape' - 'your claim that  'rape is systematic across Europe' is a mass generalisation. What you have attched is mere articles supporting a centre-right/right stance and they both do not provide credability that rape is systematic by migrants. So, for that it is possibly to suggst that 'rape' is one of the consequences of greater divierification as a result of globalisation.         

Ricardo,

I will admit that Structuration theory does have flaws, especially when used as a epistemological/ontological worldview; however, Giddens' concept is useful as a theoretical frame in which to analyse immigration. Firstly, I am not naive in my thinking that immigration can be framed around 'wanting to travel'. The globalisation of social life (structure) has produced the ability to allow individuals freedom of movement (agency), which in turn was created by agents through the recursiveness of actions. So, in contary to what you argue multiculturalism is not state-sanctioned - it is produced and reproduced by what individyals do. In fact the current British government are wanting to enforce limits on migrants coming into the UK, even within the EU. Thus, the so-called 'destruction of European ethnic identity' is not coming from some 'Muslim other' as you are alluding but rather social change which is constantly happening.  

Secondly, as you may believe I am not some 'typical academic living in a bubble'. There is concern in local communities about immigration. This is why people are taking action and supporting more nationalist political parties; however, I think there is greater concern in doing so because it positions the migrant as a threat (which they are not) and as a consequence brings about this 'drawbridge mentality' of wanting to control borders to protect the domiant nationa;l/social/ethnic identity - which is what you seem to be fearsome of.

Thirdlt, and in response to your issue of 'rape' - 'your claim that  'rape is systematic across Europe' is a mass generalisation. What you have attched is mere articles supporting a centre-right/right stance and they both do not provide credability that rape is systematic by migrants. So, for that it is possibly to suggst that 'rape' is one of the consequences of greater divierification as a result of globalisation.         

Ricardo,

I will admit that Structuration theory does have flaws, especially when used as a epistemological/ontological worldview; however, Giddens' concept is useful as a theoretical frame in which to analyse immigration. Firstly, I am not naive in my thinking that immigration can be framed around 'wanting to travel'. The globalisation of social life (structure) has produced the ability to allow individuals freedom of movement (agency), which in turn was created by agents through the recursiveness of actions. So, in contary to what you argue multiculturalism is not state-sanctioned - it is produced and reproduced by what individyals do. In fact the current British government are wanting to enforce limits on migrants coming into the UK, even within the EU. Thus, the so-called 'destruction of European ethnic identity' is not coming from some 'Muslim other' as you are alluding but rather social change which is constantly happening.  

Secondly, as you may believe I am not some 'typical academic living in a bubble'. There is concern in local communities about immigration. This is why people are taking action and supporting more nationalist political parties; however, I think there is greater concern in doing so because it positions the migrant as a threat (which they are not) and as a consequence brings about this 'drawbridge mentality' of wanting to control borders to protect the domiant nationa;l/social/ethnic identity - which is what you seem to be fearsome of.

Thirdlt, and in response to your issue of 'rape' - 'your claim that  'rape is systematic across Europe' is a mass generalisation. What you have attched is mere articles supporting a centre-right/right stance and they both do not provide credability that rape is systematic by migrants. So, for that it is possibly to suggst that 'rape' is one of the consequences of greater divierification as a result of globalisation.         

Ricardo,

I will admit that Structuration theory does have flaws, especially when used as a epistemological/ontological worldview; however, Giddens' concept is useful as a theoretical frame in which to analyse immigration. Firstly, I am not naive in my thinking that immigration can be framed around 'wanting to travel'. The globalisation of social life (structure) has produced the ability to allow individuals freedom of movement (agency), which in turn was created by agents through the recursiveness of actions. So, in contary to what you argue multiculturalism is not state-sanctioned - it is produced and reproduced by what individyals do. In fact the current British government are wanting to enforce limits on migrants coming into the UK, even within the EU. Thus, the so-called 'destruction of European ethnic identity' is not coming from some 'Muslim other' as you are alluding but rather social change which is constantly happening.  

Secondly, as you may believe I am not some 'typical academic living in a bubble'. There is concern in local communities about immigration. This is why people are taking action and supporting more nationalist political parties; however, I think there is greater concern in doing so because it positions the migrant as a threat (which they are not) and as a consequence brings about this 'drawbridge mentality' of wanting to control borders to protect the domiant nationa;l/social/ethnic identity - which is what you seem to be fearsome of.

Thirdlt, and in response to your issue of 'rape' - 'your claim that  'rape is systematic across Europe' is a mass generalisation. What you have attched is mere articles supporting a centre-right/right stance and they both do not provide credability that rape is systematic by migrants. So, for that it is possibly to suggst that 'rape' is one of the consequences of greater divierification as a result of globalisation.         

Ricardo,

I will admit that Structuration theory does have flaws, especially when used as a epistemological/ontological worldview; however, Giddens' concept is useful as a theoretical frame in which to analyse immigration. Firstly, I am not naive in my thinking that immigration can be framed around 'wanting to travel'. The globalisation of social life (structure) has produced the ability to allow individuals freedom of movement (agency), which in turn was created by agents through the recursiveness of actions. So, in contary to what you argue multiculturalism is not state-sanctioned - it is produced and reproduced by what individyals do. In fact the current British government are wanting to enforce limits on migrants coming into the UK, even within the EU. Thus, the so-called 'destruction of European ethnic identity' is not coming from some 'Muslim other' as you are alluding but rather social change which is constantly happening.  

Secondly, as you may believe I am not some 'typical academic living in a bubble'. There is concern in local communities about immigration. This is why people are taking action and supporting more nationalist political parties; however, I think there is greater concern in doing so because it positions the migrant as a threat (which they are not) and as a consequence brings about this 'drawbridge mentality' of wanting to control borders to protect the domiant nationa;l/social/ethnic identity - which is what you seem to be fearsome of.

Thirdlt, and in response to your issue of 'rape' - 'your claim that  'rape is systematic across Europe' is a mass generalisation. What you have attched is mere articles supporting a centre-right/right stance and they both do not provide credability that rape is systematic by migrants. So, for that it is possibly to suggst that 'rape' is one of the consequences of greater divierification as a result of globalisation.         

Nathan has a bad habit of posting the same comment multiple times so as to monopolize the conversation, which is typical among leftist academics whenever they encounter alternative views not allowed in academia. Nathan, post it one, stop your passive aggression.

You will also note from his publications that he is already working as a servant of the multicultural state supporting mass immigration and expressing standard arguments against any white British who challenges "the other" by accusing him/her of being a racist, while defending outsiders as they occupy Britain.

He says that the links  I sent about rapes cannot be trusted because they come from the centre-right rather than the left. Well, it did take BBC longer to admit that British girls were being systematically raped for over a decade in Rotherham but they finally did: 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28939089

There is also a major Document about these rapes by the Law and Freedom Foundation: http://lawandfreedomfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Easy-Meat-Multiculturalism-Islam-and-Child-Sex-Slavery-05-03-2014.pdf

There has never been in human history a situation in which the males of a society cover up and excuse the raping of their girls by outsiders. But it is now normal in the West. 

One has to be out of touch with Britain to believe that the state does not promote multiculturalism. Both the left and the corporate right promote mass immigration. The right wants cheap labour, break up of national identities, consumers with no roots, a global monoculture. The conservative government in Britain wants diversification and is for the growth of Islam in Britain. There is no difference in this respect between the academic left and the corporate right; both sides reinforce each other; the ideas Nathan has conformed to are intended also to promote a globalist Britain. 

I apologise for multiple-posting - this is more technological glitch rather than a discursive attempt to monopolise a conversation, of which the original question asked has been lost. For that I apologise to Bruno.

Ricardo - I am not a leftist: yes, I am in support of multiculturalism but I also see its weaknesses as a concept (which hardline left-wingers would not see). My research looks at the threats of diversify in rural Britain so as to help promote greater, and better integration rather than live in an in-flux, protean world of fear and risk. By no means is in support of any agenda!    

Furthermore, what is this nonsensical talk of a Western cover-up to excuse the actions of specific groups? Ricardo, I hate to tell you but there is no such thing. People's recursive actions (both discursively or tacitly) have consequences and/or global implications. The migration of specific people to certains parts of the world and the actions they do is just one of them. I do not condone the raping of anyone by anybody - just be careful not to villify specific groups of people because the world does not need to become any more uglier than it already is.    

The cover up has been documented in the media, after years of suppression: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/#b974e9a5a7cf

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/muslim-rape-gang-cover-up-exposed/

Well, whether it was a glitch or not, you can now delete the extra posting every easily.