if a man and a woman meet for the first time on a desert island, they create their relationship and give it meaning. However, their children are born into the society made by their parents; for them it is a given which constrains their actions to a great extent.
(Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B.S. 1994:10).
In an effort to elucidate the desired, theoretical outcome combining both ‘structure’ and ‘agency’, Anthony Giddens strives to accommodate both of these spheres of social life within his ‘Theory of Structuration’ (Giddens, A. 1984). Giddens sees Structuration as a way of analysing society where both the influence of structures and the actions of individuals and groups are taken into account simultaneously. Although the details of his argument are complex, his basic point is simple: Giddens claims [that]
"The constitution of agents and structures are not two independently given sets of phenomena, a dualism, but represent a duality. According to the notion of the duality of structure, the structural properties of social systems are both medium and outcomes of the practices they recursively organize. Structure [therefore] is not external to individuals."
(Giddens, A. 1984:25).
In simple terms, the crux of Giddens’s Theory of Structuration is the fact that not only does he see the link between structure and agency as a fundamental, unbreakable bond:
That is, they cannot be separated from one another: agency is implicated in structure and structure is involved in agency. Giddens refuses to see structure as simply constraining (as, for example, does Durkheim), but sees structure as both constraining and enabling. (Ritzer, R. 2000:220)
He believes that the core of his Structuration theory, underpinned by the concepts of ‘structure’, ‘system’ then form a ‘duality of structure’. In other words, structure and agency are two sides of the same coin: neither structure nor action (agency) can exist independently for both are intimately related. Therefore, social agency creates structures, and it is through social agency that structures are produced and, more to the point, reproduced, so that they survive over time (Haralambos and Holborn 1997:904). In Giddens’s formulation, ‘structure’ is defined as
rules and resources recursively implicated in social reproduction; institutionalized features of social systems have structural properties in the sense that relationships are stablilized across time and space … [structure] can be conceptualized abstractly as two aspects of rules – normative elements and codes of signification
(Giddens, A. 1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
In Rose, J. Structuration Theory and Information System Development – Frameworks for Practice, Manchester Metropolitan University.
At http://www.business.mmu.ac.uk/research/wps/notes/Rose.pdf).
To put this in more simple terms, the rules, referred to by Giddens, are the procedures we may follow. These may be written down for all to see, such as laws, or be more hidden, such as how to behave in public. Resources, on the other hand, can be ‘allocative’ or ‘authoritative’: allocative resources are generally the things we work with, land, technology etc., although we must note that Giddens believes these only become allocative resources through human agency. Land and technology for example are not a resource until we do something with them (Haralambos and Holborn 1997:904). Authoritative resources are non-material resources, based on individual power and how we, as agents, use that power, be it persuasively, or through coercion, to dominate others and have them do our bidding. As with allocative resources, authoritative resources are not in fact a resource until someone actually uses it on another. Furthermore, [structure(s)] exist only as memory traces, the organic basis of human knowledgeability, and is instanciated in action (Giddens, A. 1984:377). It is the minutiae of every-day activities – those which go unnoticed, that allow the binding of time and space in social systems and so it is you, I, and every other individual that creates structures (Haralambos and Holborn 1997:904).
Agency, whilst being closely bound to structure through the ‘duality of structure’, is defined by Giddens as being the mutual knowledge of the agents involved. He argues we know how to act in public, we know what is expected of us as workers, friends, enemies, mothers and fathers etc. The routine minutiae of every-day activities, as mentioned above, is carried out with little or no thought; this is because, we, as agents, call upon our mutual knowledge of the rules of our surrounding
society. Giddens further argues that whilst agents also make use of the resources that are also part of the structure of society (ibid. 905) they have an essential need for what he terms ‘ontological security’. This ontological security, according to Giddens, is the individuals basic desire for some degree of predictability within social life. When put together, Giddens claims the existence of mutual knowledge and the need for ontological security goes on to produce regulations in social life. These patterns of behaviour are repeated, and in this way, the structure of society, the social system and the institutions are all reproduced. Whilst adhering to, and repeating these patterns of behaviour, Giddens claims, we are all able to operate ‘reflexive monitoring of skills’. That is, we are able to think about what we are doing and we are all able to behave in new ways, therefore patterns of interaction may change, and with them the social structures (ibid.905). The extract below highlights how Giddens, using his own analogy, attempts to clarify his position:
… ’competent’ members of society know how to go to a bar and order a round of drinks, just as other competent members know how to serve the customer ordering the drinks … They make use of the material commodities, like money, drinks and glasses, and of authoritative resources, such as the right of the bar staff to demand payment; a right which is recognized by the customers … Thus it would be unsettling if people did not know whether they were expected to have to give money to, or take money from, bar staff, and even more unsettling if they were to worry that the bar staff were not what they seemed, and were a group of mass murderers intent upon poisoning their customers. (ibid.).
Having discussed Giddens’s use of ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ within his Theory of Structuration, this may be a good point at which we can annotate how he came to draw these conclusions. Before constructing his own Theory of Structuration, Giddens reviewed a wide range of theories from both within the society/structure (functionalist) and the individual/agent (symbolic interactionist) perspectives. Indeed, Ian Craib (1992. Anthony Giddens. London: Routledge. In Ritzer, R. 2000:52), is quoted as identifying nine major inputs into Giddens’s thinking. Having reviewed such a vast array of work, he decided that neither perspective complied with his view of the true relationship between ‘structure’ and ‘agency’. He argued that we must begin with "recurrent social practices" (Giddens, A. 1989:252 A Reply to My Critics. In D. Held and J.B. Thompson (Eds.) Social Theory of Modern Society: Anthony Giddens and His Critics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 249-301. In Ritzer, R. 2000:523). We, at times, acknowledge Giddens’s Theory of Structuration tends to fall into somewhat abstract detail; with that in mind we present one final extract that we believe, conceptualises Giddens’s train of thought quite nicely. In their study of gender and work, published
in 1990, Rosemary Crompton and Kay Sanderson argue that gender inequalities in the labour market must be explained in different ways for different types of job:
"According to this [Giddens] view, ‘what people do always presupposes some kind of structure (rules of behaviour, resources etc.) but in what
they do people simultaneously create the structure anew … for example,
men who choose to follow traditional masculine careers and women who choose to follow traditional feminine careers reinforce structural features of the labour market which produce gender differences. They help to make it difficult for other individuals to pursue careers, which are not normally thought appropriate for their gender. The structure of the labour market shapes people’s choices but does not entirely determine them. Individuals can and do choose non-conventional career paths and employers sometimes choose to fill jobs with personnel who are not normally recruited to them. The actions of individuals may, then, help to transform the labour market over a period of time so that structural limitations on actions are weakened or the structure of the labour market
changes.”
(Crompton, R & Sanderson, K. Gendered Jobs and Social Change.
In Haralambos & Holborn 1997:624-5).
As with most sociological perspectives and theories, Giddens and his Theory of Structuration are not without their critics: Derek Layder (1994. Understanding Social Theory. Sage:UK. In Johnston. J. The Structure-Agency Debate and its Historiographical Utility. Extracts available from Political Studies Association At http://www.psa.ac.uk/cps/1998/johnston.pdf) argues that Giddens [simply] redefines [emphasis added] structures as ‘rules and resources’ which actors draw upon as they produce and reproduce society in their activities. Having done this, the ‘structure’ in Giddens’s theory, does not mean anything like the same thing as it does in conventional approaches. Layder further argues that Giddens emphasises the enabling properties of rules and resources rather than the constraining elements of structures. As such, he claims, Giddens tends towards an intentionalist view of human behaviour which denies any existence of structures which are external to activity and distinct from actors’ reasons and motivations. Margaret Archer (1988 Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In Ritzer, R. 2000: 528) also appears to be quite scathing in her critique of Giddens’s Theory of Structuration. As opposed to Giddens, Archer argues that, although interconnected in social life, structure and agency form very distinct areas for investigation. She continues, obviously with Giddens in her sight [that]
too many have concluded too quickly that the task is therefore how to
look at both faces of the same medallion once … [This] foregoes the possibility of examining the interplay between them over time … Any form of conceptualization which prevents examination of this interplay should therefore be resisted.
(Archer. M. 1988. In Ritzer. R. 2000:528).
Having established the major differences between other sociological writers and Giddens’s definitions of ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ we can certainly understand why there should be such a wide-ranging debate. The main problem, as far as I understand, apart from the obvious "definitions" standpoint, is that of Giddens’s point-blank refusal to move from his position that structure and agency are fundamentally locked. Perhaps he did not want to be seen to do the same as his predecessors and place more emphasis on ‘structure over agency’ or vice versa. Unfortunately, we will only have the clarification we desire when Giddens produces follow-up theory. If he does produce a more detailed theory that can be applied to social life, then maybe we will have a clearer understanding of, not only the ‘definition’, but also the true ‘relationship’ between social ‘structure’ and social ‘action’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B.S. (1994) New Edition Dictionary of
Sociology [3rd Ed.], St. Ives: Penguin Books Ltd.
Abercrombie, N. and Warde, A. [et al.] (2000) Contemporary British Society [3rd
Ed.], Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fulcher, J. and Scott, J. (1999) Sociology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, A., (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of
Structuration, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gubbay, J., Middleton, C. and Ballard, C. [Eds.] (1997)
The Student’s Companion to Sociology, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Haralambos and Holborn (1995) Sociology Themes and Perspectives (4th Ed.),
London: Collins Educational.
Ritzer, R. (2000) Sociological Theory [5th Ed.],
University of Maryland: McGraw-Hill International Editions.
