If structures are nothing but the result of conscious agents' reiteration of social practices then what are the psychological and sociological mechanisms by means of which they are shared by the society?
I would advise reading 'The Capitalist Schema' by Christian Lotz on this question, and avoid Giddens (who will just lead you into a dead end). For Lotz, the capitalist schema is both 'out there' (in the money form, and in other capitalist social forms such as time, abstract labour and the state), but also internalised in our psyches in the forms presented to us as forms of capitalist existence. Lotz dissolves Giddens' debilitating agency / structure duality. He works with real abstractions. Giddens' structuration theory leads you into posing questions in the form that you have posed your question - and which can only ever be unanswerable.
Dear Ashkan Latifi, The structural theory of agent - the structure that Giddens proposes in principle is similar to the individual and society. That individuals and society assume each other, as well as agents and structures. The only difference lies in the mention (agent = individual and structure = society). Psychology tends to be an individual issue, while sociology tends to be a community issue. Archer criticized Giddens for locking his agency and structure so tightly. He asserted that the concepts have different implications. Structural ideas tend to emphasize restrictions on human action; the agency's ideas emphasize restrictions on free will; and both can never be reconciled. In his view, Giddens emphasizes so much on the agency's ability to change structures simply by changing their behavior. So my opinion, may develop into a constructive discussion. Thankyou
Hello Ashkan
You could revise an article signed by John Mohr and Harrison White, "how to model an institution", where the Giddens' theory is commented as a good way to put the question but not a sufficient way to construct empirical answers on stability and social order. The generative structuralism, or social network analysis, is overcoming the old dichotomy betwen structure and agency. You should read also
Advances in generative structuralism: Structured
agency and multilevel dynamics
Thomas J. Fararo & Carter T. Butts
Cheers and good readings
Silvio Salej Higgins
Both sides of the arguments are correct depending on the relational contexts in which you want to ground your argument. It is let for you to justify which position who are aligning with and why. Certain argument of Giddens may be right but there are other scholars like Sewell (1992), Emirbayer & Mischle (1998) who stripped Giddens' notion of 'rules and resources' naked in relational contexts. You can also read Shilling (1996, 1999) works on the notion of 'embodied agency' to understand how agency and structure are both constitutive as set of practices and rules, especially gender.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology