Abstract
One of the central attempts in contemporary sociology in the direction of a synthesis is Anthony Giddens’ ‘theory of structuration’. His work today shows great complexity, including substantive research in important areas and very general theoretical formulations, He has been an assiduous student of the history of the social sciences, especially with regard to sociology. From the beginning one of his main concerns has been with the need to surpass the problems and concepts bequeathed to contemporary thinking by the social scientists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, although the incorporation of their contribution has also been a goal. This was already manifest in his study of Marx, Weber and Durkheim, and has been henceforth repeatedly reiterated.1 After a consistent discussion about the origins of capitalism and its subsequent development, as well as that of ‘state socialism’, he changed the focus of his interests, turning to a highly general level of theorising – thereby becoming one of the major exponents of a redirection of English sociology during the last twenty years.2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
A. Giddens, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971) pp. vii, 276; ‘A Reply to my Critics’, in David Held and John B. Thompson (eds), Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and his Critics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Perry Anderson, ‘A Culture in Contraflow – I’, New Left Review, no. 180, 1990. p. 52. In that work on class structures the first sparks of the theory of structuration can be seen. What led to the development of the theory was the shift in a ‘methodological direction’. See A. Giddens, The Class Structure of Advanced Societies (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1973), and ‘Structuration Theory and Sociological Analysis’, in Jon Clark, Celia Modgil and Sohan Modgil (eds), Anthony Giddens. Consensus and Controversy (Basingstoke: The Falmer Press, 1990) p. 298.
Ira J. Cohen, Structuration Theory. Anthony Giddens and the Constitution of Society (London: Macmillan, 1989) pp. 11, 17–18, 233ff. For the theoretical/empirical role of the ‘duality of structure’, see especially A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society pp. 339–40.
A. Giddens, New Rules of Sociological Method (London: Hutchinson & Co., [1976] 1988) p. 121.
In any case, the extent to which structures should be regarded as enabling or constraining, according to what we shall see shortly, demands the consideration of differentials of power positioning. See N. Mouzelis, Back to Sociological Theory. Bridging the Micro-Macro Gap (London: Macmillan, 1991) ch. 2.
See Christopher G. A. Bryant and David Jary, ‘Introduction: Coming to Terms with Anthony Giddens’, in Bryant and Jary (eds), Giddens’ Theory of Structuration: a Critical Appreciation (London: Routledge, 1991).
His more recent publications dive into this problematic: A. Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, Modernity and Self-Identity (Cambridge: Polity, 1991), and The Transformation of Intimacy (Cambridge: Polity, 1992).
J. Habermas, ‘Reply to my Critics’, in David Held and John B. Thompson (eds), Habermas. Critical Debates (London: Macmillan. 1982) p. 268.
Giddens was also criticised for an oscillation between an attempt at superseding the dichotomy subject/object and the perception of daily conduct as ‘activity’ or ‘doing’, whereby the pole of the subject would regain preeminence. See Fred D. Dallmayr, ‘The Theory of Structuration: a Critique’, in A. Giddens, Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory (London: Macmillan, 1982) p. 22.
A. Giddens, ‘Functionalism: après la Lutte’, in Studies in Social and Political Theory (London: Hutchinson, 1977) p. 96. His general account of structuralism and post-structuralism appears in his Central Problems in Social Theory, ch. 1.
Margaret S. Archer. ‘Morphogenesis versus Structuration: on Combining Structure and Action’, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 33, 1982, p. 472.
Giddens, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism (London: Macmillan, 1981) pp. 35, 54–5; The Constitution of Society, pp. 16–24.
A. Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory, pp. 62–3. His concept of structure is, to an extent, more rigid than that of Levi-Strauss, who refers only to the systematic features of reality – upon which our model should be built, and correspond directly to – and recognises accidental, non-systematic aspects of social relations. See Claude Lévi-Strauss, ‘Social Structure’ , Structural Anthropology (London: Allen Lane, [1958] 1968).
Bernd Kießling, Kritik des Giddensschen Sozialtheorie (Frankfurt: Peterlang, 1988), particularly pp. 197–8.
Giddens, The Nation-State and Violence (Cambridge: Polity, 1985) pp. 219ff; The Consequences of Modernity, ch. 5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1995 José Maurício Domingues
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dọmingues, J.M. (1995). Individuals, Structures and Systems in Giddens’ Structuration Theory. In: Sociological Theory and Collective Subjectivity. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230376342_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230376342_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-39414-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37634-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)