Structuration - Premises and Origins of Structuration Theory

Premises and Origins of Structuration Theory

Sociologist Anthony Giddens adopted a post-empiricist frame for his theory, as he was concerned with the abstract characteristics of social relations. This leaves each level more accessible to analysis via the ontologies which constitute the human social experience: space and time ("and thus, in one sense, 'history'." His aim was to build a broad social theory which viewed "he basic domain of study of the social sciences... neither the experience of the individual actor, not the existence of any form of societal totality, but social practices ordered across space and time." His focus on abstract ontology accompanied a general and purposeful neglect of epistemology or detailed research methodology.

Giddens used concepts from objectivist and subjectivist social theories, discarding objectivism's focus on detached structures, which lacked regard for humanist elements and subjectivism's exclusive attention to individual or group agency without consideration for socio-structural context. He critically engaged classical nineteenth and early twentieth century social theorists such as Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, Alfred Schutz, Robert K. Merton, Erving Goffman, and Jürgen Habermas. Thus, in many ways, structuration was "...an exercise in clarification of logical issues." Structuration drew on other fields, as well: "He also wanted to bring in from other disciplines novel aspects of ontology that he felt had been neglected by social theorists working in the domains that most interested him. Thus, for example, he enlisted the aid of geographers, historians and philosophers in bringing notions of time and space into the central heartlands of social theory." Giddens hoped that a subject-wide "coming together" might occur which would involve greater cross-disciplinary dialogue and cooperation, especially between anthropologists, social scientists and sociologists of all types, historians, geographers, and even novelists (believing, as he did, that "literary style matters". He held that social scientists are communicators who share frames of meaning across cultural contexts through their work by utilising "the same sources of description (mutual knowledge) as novelists or others who write fictional accounts of social life.")

Structuration differs from its historical sources. Unlike structuralism it sees the reproduction of social systems not "as a mechanical outcome, rather... as an active constituting process, accomplished by, and consisting in, the doings of active subjects." Unlike Althusser's concept of agents as "bearers" of structures, structuration theory sees them as active participants. Unlike the philosophy of action and other forms of interpretative sociology, structuration focuses on structure rather than production exclusively. Unlike Saussure's production of an utterance, structuration sees language as a tool from which to view society, not as the constitution of society–parting with structural linguists such as Claude Levi-Strauss and Noam Chomsky. Unlike post-structuralist theory, which put similar focus on the effects of time and space, structuration does not recognise only movement, change and transition. Unlike functionalism, in which structures and their virtual synonyms, "systems," comprise organisations, structuration sees structures and systems as separate concepts. Unlike Marxism structuration avoids an overly restrictive concept of "society" and Marxism's reliance on a universal "motor of history" (i.e., class conflict), its theories of societal "adaptation," and its insistence on the working class as universal class and socialism as the ultimate form of modern society. Finally "...structuration theory cannot be expected to furnish the moral guarantees that critical theorists sometimes purport to offer."