8/14/2019 SunrisePaper8

1/1

The middle-ground theory of GiddensAlvin Concha | Sociology of Development | MASOR Gender Studies | Ateneo de Davao University

Submitted to Dr Mae Ursos | 4 March 2006

So far, we have been reviewing sociological theories that take a macro perspective. The

theories of Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Parsons are good examples of theories that show

how society and culture determine, at least to some extent, the behavior of the people. On

the other hand, it is convenient to think that the perspective in the opposite end of thespectrum, 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 human agency and are more concerned with human activity at theindividual or small group level.

Yet, it is perhaps not difficult to imagine that, by virtue of an individuals being situatedin a larger societal context, human activity and structures in the society 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, maintainor reproduce in the structure.

Such is the basis of a promising theory as proposed by Anthony Giddens. The theory ofstructuration posits that [h]uman agency (micro level activity) and social structure

(macro level forces) continuously feed into each other. The social structure is reproduced

through repetition of acts by individual people (and therefore can change).1 It is atheoretical middle-ground between sociological and anthropological theories. It connects

both 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 isconcerned, 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 too much 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 seenas 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 theoristsfor the longest time, is indeed unstable, at the very least.

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