GiddensPaper3

8/14/2019 GiddensPaper3

1/16

A review of the works of Anthony GiddensA paper submitted to Dr May Eleanor B Ursos in partial fulfillment of

the requirements in MASOR 517 Sociology of Development

Alvin Concha, MD

Ateneo de Davao University

MA Applied Social Research Gender StudiesMarch 2006


2/16

This review contains

Why Giddens?a brief rationale for choosing to review the works of Anthony Giddens...page 2

Who is Anthony Giddens?a short account of the highlights of Anthony Giddens life...page 4

Grand sociological synthesisa partial list of the books and articles of Anthony Giddens...page5

Late ModernityGiddens views regarding the characteristics of the contemporary erapage 7

Structuration and duality of structureGiddens important theory that reconciles micro- and macro-level issuespage 8

Agencya description of how Giddens regards human beingspage 12

The self in late modernityan important view on identity corollary to Giddens notion of agencypage 13

Referencesa list of some hardcopy and online sources on Giddens life and workspage 15

2


3/16

Why Giddens?+ + + + + + + + + + +

In our class in Sociology ofDevelopment, we have been

reviewing sociological theories

that take a macro perspective. The

theories of Marx, Durkheim and

Parsons are good examples of

theories that show how society and

culture determine, at least to someextent, the behavior of the people.

On the other hand, it is convenient

to think that the perspective in the

opposite end of the spectrum, the

micro perspective, belongs in the

province of Anthropology. Thus,

the works of many feminists and,

to some extent, those of Foucault,

Baudrillard and Jameson

appropriate notions of humanagency and are more concerned

with human activity at the

individual or small group level.

Yet, it is perhaps not difficult

to imagine that, by virtue of an

individuals being situated in a

larger societal context, human

activity and structures in thesociety influence each other.

Humans can behave, at least to

some extent, according to the

moulds provided by the structures

and culture, yet these same moulds

can be reshaped by humans. The

bounds of structural influence on

people are determined by what

people affirm, maintain or

reproduce in the structure.

Such is the basis of a

promising theory as proposed by

Anthony Giddens. The theory of

structuration posits that [h]uman

agency (micro level activity) and

social structure (macro level

forces) continuously feed into each

other. The social structure isreproduced through repetition of

acts by individual people (and

therefore can change). It is a

theoretical middle-ground between

sociological and anthropological

theories. It connects both

3


4/16

disciplines in an attempt to

produce more than one level of

explanations of certain

phenomena. Many followers of

Giddens would, however,

capitalize on his contribution to the

discourse on human agency. My

take is that, as far as structuration

theory is concerned, human agency

is only half of the picture.

Giddens theory is important

because it acknowledges and

rejects cultural determinism, all at

the same time. It illustrates that toomuch of macro theories misses a

lot of nuances, and too much focus

on the individual equally forgets

significant forces.

What are probably valuable at

this point would be some

principles on how much of micro-

and how much of macro-level

forces figure in a given situation.

However, I dont believe Giddens

intends a formulaic approach to

this problematic. This can even be

seen as an open space for multiple

possible theories around a single

phenomenon. If anything, the

theory of structuration recognizes

that truth, as has been actively

sought by theorists for the longest

time, is indeed unstable, at the

very least.

Giddens is excellent, because

he combines an old-school,

'classical' sociological style with a

very contemporary awareness of

changes in society, and he is happyto mix new theories with more

established sociological

perspectives.1 In the succeeding

pages, I will review the works of

Anthony Giddens. As a

contemporary sociologist, he has

dealt with a wide range of topics

including economics, philosophy

and politics, among others. The

body of his works is undoubtedly a

very important contribution to

contemporary social analysis.

4


5/16

Who is Anthony Giddens?

+ + + + + + + + + +

Anthony Giddens was born inEdmonton, London in January 18,

1938. He is the son of a London

Transport clerk. He grew up in

London and went to college at

Hull University. In 1961, aftercollege, he started teaching Social

Psychology at the University of

Leicester. He began to work on his

sociological theories in Leicester.

He earned his masters degree in

the London School of Economics.2

In 1961, he got a position at the

University of Cambridge, where he

created an academic departmentcalled Social and Political

Sciences. He earned his doctorate

degree in the University of

Cambridge in 1974.

At Cambridge,Giddens worked for

a long time and was

promoted to full

professorship in

1987. He co-

founded Polity

Press, a leading

publisher in the

social sciences, in1985. He became

the director of the London School

of Economics from 1997 to 2003.

He is also a member of the

Advisory Council of the Institute

for Public Policy Research, a think

tank in the United Kingdom, with

close links to its ruling Labour

Party.3

Giddens also became an

adviser to British Prime Minister

Tony Blair. Together with former

US President Bill Clinton, Tony

Blair adopted Giddens principle

of Third Way as his guiding

political idea.

In June 2004, Giddens wasgiven a life peerage as Baron

Giddens and sits in the House of

Lords for Labour.4

5


6/16


7/16

Cambridge : PolityPress

A ContemporaryCritique of HistoricalMaterialism. Vol. 2. The

Nation State andViolence1985Cambridge : PolityPress

Durkheim1986London : FontanaModern Masters

The Consequences ofModernity1990Cambridge: Polity Press

Modernity and Self-Identity. Self andSociety in the LateModern Age1991Cambridge: Polity Press

The Transformation ofIntimacy: Sexuality,Love and Eroticism inModern Societies1992Cambridge: Polity Press

ReflexiveModernization. Politics,Tradition and

Aesthetics in theModern Social Order

1994Cambridge : PolityPress

Beyond Left and Right the Future of Radical

Politics1994Cambridge : PolityPress

Politics, Sociology andSocial Theory:Encounters withClassical andContemporary SocialThought1995Cambridge : PolityPress

In Defence of Sociology1996Cambridge : PolityPress

Durkheim on Politicsand the State1996Cambridge : PolityPress

The Third Way. TheRenewal of SocialDemocracy1998Cambridge : PolityPress

Runaway World: HowGlobalization isReshaping Our Lives1999London : Profile

On The Edge. Livingwith Global Capitalism2000London : Vintage

The Third Way and ItsCritics2000Cambridge : PolityPress

Runaway World2000London : Routledge

Sociology2001Cambridge : PolityPress

The Global Third WayDebate2001Cambridge : PolityPress

Where Now for NewLabour?2002Cambridge : PolityPress

The New Egalitarianism2005Cambridge : PolityPress

7


8/16

Late modernity+ + + + + + + + + +

One part of Giddens work dealswith the characteristics of the

current era. In this age when many

social theorists have invested a lot

of work in describing the present

sociological state as a postmodern

one, a few contemporary

sociologists, including Giddens,

maintain that we havent really

gone beyond modernity. Together

with Ulrich Beck and Scott Lash,

Giddens argue that important

changes have taken place in

societies over the last few decades,

but that such changes are a

continuation of modern

institutional transitions. It is just alate, radicalized and de-

traditionalized modernity that we

are in, but not really

postmodernity.1, 4-5

In this area of his work, Giddens

stresses on the contrast between

pre-modern or tradional culture

and modern or post-traditional

culture. Because choices are

predetermined by customs in

traditional societies, individual

actions are not usually thought

about. On the other hand, in post-

traditional societies, people worry

less about the dictates of customs

and traditions, and options

are wide-ranging and are

limited only by laws and public opinion. People,

therefore are required to be

more aware of their

decisions, and their actions

become more reflexive.1,4

"The reflexivity of modern

8


9/16

social life consists in the fact that

social practices are constantly

examined and reformed in the light

of incoming transformation about

those very practices, thus

constitutively altering their

character."6

Structuration and duality of structure+ + + + + + + + + +

Social theorists before Giddens,notably Marx, Parsons, Simmel

and Durkheim, have always

viewed society in a macro level,

i.e., from the perspective of largesocial structures. Giddens

disapprove of these

generalizations. The works of

these sociologists tend to

constitute grand theories, which,

at best, regard humans as

necessary followers of the forces

of the structure. Giddens also

disapprove of the theories that

place so much regard in micro-level activity, such as human

action, and that tends to forget the

larger structures human beings are

in. He wrote:

... [L]et me first of all expand upon

why I developed the concept of theduality of structure. I did so in order

to contest two main types ofdualism. One is that found amongpre-existing theoretical perspectives.

Interpretative sociologies ... are

'strong on action, but weak on

structure.' They see human beings aspurposive agents, who are aware of

themselves as such and have reasons

for what they do, but they have littlemeans of coping with issues which

quite rightly bulk large in

functionalist and structuralapproaches - problems of constraint,

power and large-scale social

organization. This second group of

Giddens Structuration Theory

is one of his best-known ideas. At its centre is a cyclical relationship betweensocial structure and human action:

social structure (acts on) human action, by enabling and constraining

human action (acts on) social structure, by producing and reproducing

Giddens calls this the duality of structure.

(Basden, 2002)7

9

MACRO

MICRO

STRUCTURATION


10/16

approaches, on the other hand, while

'strong on structure', has been 'weak

on action'. Agents are treated as ifthey were inert and inept - the

playthings of forces larger than

themselves.8

Giddens first mentioned his

theory on structuration in Central

Problems of Social Theory in

1977. He however expounded on

this theory in The Constitution of

Society in 1984. Structuration

theory is very useful because it

attempts to reconcile theoreticaldichotomies of social systems such

as agency/structure,

subjective/objective, and

micro/macro perspectives, which

consider individuals as either acted

upon (as elements within a

structural context) or as

autonomous agents9 The idea is

not to reject both micro and macro perspectives, but to provide a

middle ground that recognizes

structure (including culture) and

agency as two simultaneous and

equally viable forces that influence

peoples actions in a society. As a

result, the approach focuses on the

interaction of structure and agency,

or on social practices ordered

across space and time, and not

really on individual actors or the

large societal structures.9 "Society

only has form, and that form only

has effects on people, in so far as

structure is produced and

reproduced in what people do".1

Giddens argues with a

moderate stance as regards macro

and micro perspectives,

recognizing that, while humans do

not own absolute freedom in

choosing their own actions and

while their knowledge is limited,

they are nevertheless the agency

which reproduce social structures

and initiate social change.

Giddens called the balancing

of agency and structure that avoids

extremes of either structural or

agent determinism as the duality

of structure.9 For him, structure

and agency are a duality that

cannot be conceived of apart fromone another.4 The resulting

synthesis is a set of actions

enabled yet guarded by structures,

which are, in turn, reproduced by

those actions. Human history is

created by intentional activities but

is not an intended project.8 The

theory of structuration also

recognizes people (actors) as

knowledgeable and that their

knowledge is reflexive and

contextualized. Habitual use of this

knowledge to produce actioneventually becomes

institutionalized. Thus, theorists

that tend to favor a structuralist

framework often refer to Giddens

work when they seek to locate the

guiding structures within which

10


11/16

actors produce their actions, but do

not necessarily regard structures as

totally influential to such actions.

There are three types of

structures in social systems,

according to Giddens. The

distinctions among these structures

are analytical and are not meant to

regard each type as distinct from

one another. Rather, the three types

of structure mobilize and reinforce

one another.

The first type of structure isthat of signification. These

structures produce meanings

through organized webs of

language, and include semantic

codes, interpretive schemes and

discursive practices. The second

type of structure is that of

legitimation. Structures of this type

produce a moral order via

naturalization in societal norms,

values and standards. Structures of

domination, the third type of

structure, produce power from

control of resources. To

understand how they work

together, consider how the

signification of a concept (e.g., the

use of the word "patriot" in

political speech) borrows from and

contributes to legitimization (e.g.,

nationalistic norms) and

coordinates forms of domination

(e.g., a police state), from which it

in turn gains further force.9

Structure can indeed constrain

human actions, but it also enables

some actions by generatingcommon frames of meaning. An

example would be language, which

is constrained by rules of syntax.

This constraining effect precludes

particular combinations of words.

Yet language also provides rules

that enable new actions, like

creating new and meaningful

sentences. Thus, structures do not

only constrain human beings, but

enable us, as well.

Structuration theory has been

used by other theorists who

explore the relation between

technology and social structures.

Below are some interesting

examples:

DeSanctis and Poole (1990) borrow

from Giddens in order to propose an"adaptive structuration theory" with

respect to the emergence and use of

group decision support systems. Inparticular, they use Giddens' notion

of "modalities of structuration," how

social structures are appropriated

into concrete situations, to considerhow technology is used with respect

to its "spirit." Appropriations are the

immediate visible actions that

evidence deeper structuration processes and are enacted with

moves (DeSanctis and Poole

1992:128). Appropriations may befaithful or unfaithful, be used

instrumentally, and be used with

various attitudes (1992:129).

11


12/16


13/16

Agency+ + + + + + + + + +

Human beings are alwaysknowledgeable, to some degree,

about what they are doing. Such is

the basic principle in Giddens

assertion on agency. When people

start to reproduce or replace

structures, they know what they

are doing. Actors (people oragents) apply social rules

appropriate to their culture in

trying to reflexively negotiate with

the structures around them.

Sociology, therefore, does not deal

with a given universe of structures,

but with one which is a result of

the actions by knowledgeable and

reflexive subjects. Sociologists,

unlike natural scientists, have to

interpret a social world which is

already interpreted by actors that

inhabit it.4

This reaffirmation of human

agency is important in the works

of Giddens, since it establishes the

role of humans, vis--vis the

greater structures that surround us.

It views humans as independent

movers of change and undermines

the deterministic views of human

action that many theorists beforeGiddens have proposed. It also

brings back responsibility for

social phenomena to humans,

emphasizes on the consequences

of human decision-making and

weakens the notions that people

are at the mercy of socio-economic

and political forces beyond our

control.10

However, human agency has its

limits. Men produce society, but

they do so as historically located

actors, and not under conditions of

their own choosing.4

13


14/16

The self in late modernity+ + + + + + + + + +

Giddens put forward theappropriate questions regarding the

self that everyone faces in this era:

What to do? How to act? Who to

be? These are focal questions for

everyone living in

circumstances of

late modernity -

and ones which,on some level or

another, all of us

answer, either

discursively or

through day-to-day

social

behaviour.11

One of Giddens

more popular ideasis his notion of the

self. For Giddens,

an identity of the

self is very much

related to the characteristics of the

society in general. While the self

in the traditional culture is

contingent on choices

predetermined by customs, itdidnt take much effort foe persons

in the past to construct an identity.

In this period of late modernity or

post-tradition, however, people are

less concerned about the dictates

of customs. Self-identity becomes

a reflexive project, an endeavourthat we continuously work and

reflect on.4 Giddens said it more

clearly in Modernity and Self

Identity11:

The existential

question of self-

identity is bound

up with the fragile

nature of the biography which

the individualsupplies about

herself. A person's

identity is not to be found in

behaviour, nor -

important though

this is - in thereactions of

others, but in thecapacity to keep aparticular

narrative going.

The individual's biography, if she

is to maintain regular interaction

with others in the day-to-day world,cannot be wholly fictive. It must

continually integrate events which

occur in the external world, and sort

them into the ongoing 'story' aboutthe self.

Ones life is an ongoing project of

the self. Everyday, we construct,

maintain and reconstruct

biographical narratives of

14


15/16

ourselves. Therefore, self-identity

is not a set of characteristics, but

ones reflexive understanding of

her biography. A stable self-

identity is based on an account of a

person's life, actions and

influences which makes sense to

themselves, and which can be

explained to other people without

much difficulty. It 'explains' the

past, and is oriented towards an

anticipated future.1

As with his other concepts,

Giddens here continually points

out reflexivity and awareness to be

the important characteristics of

agents. It can be observed in many

works of Giddens that his

examples around reflexivity and

awareness spans from government

affairs to novels, intimate sexual

relationships and the self.

15


16/16

References

1. Gauntlett, D. (2002). Media, gender and identity. Routledge. London.

2. MSSES. (2002). Anthony Giddens. Internet. Accessed 13 March 2006.Available at http://www.msses.ru/win/people/giddens/

3. IPPR. (2006) Institute for Public Policy Research.. Internet. Accessed 13March 2006. Available athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Public_Policy_Research

4. Anthony Giddens. (2006). Internet. Accessed 13 March 2006. Available athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Giddens

5. Liquid modernity. (2006). Internet. Accessed 13 March 2006. Available athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_modernity

6. Ritzer, G. (ed.). (2003). The Blackwell Companion to Major ContemporarySocial Theorists, Blackwell Publishing.

7. Basden, A. (2002). Giddens' Structuration from a Dooyeweerdian Perspective.

Internet. Accessed 13 March 2006. Available athttp://www.isi.salford.ac.uk/dooy/ext/giddens.html

8. Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method. Cambridge: PolityPress.

9. Theory of structuration. (2006). Internet. Accessed 13 March 2006. Available athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_structuration

10. Human agency. (2006). Internet. Accessed 13 March 2006. Available athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_agency

11. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the latemodern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

16

Documents

GiddensPaper3