Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Gency, ST Cture: Theories of Action Versus Institutional Theories

    Uploaded by

    Pesquisadora Olpef
    The document discusses the relationship between theories of human action and structural explanations in social analysis. It argues that connecting the two requires a theory of the human agent, an account of how social structures influence and are influenced by human action, and an interpretation of structure as embedded in both the conditions and consequences of action. Current approaches that focus on either action or structure are limited because they do not adequately address this connection.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gency, ST Cture: Theories of Action Versus Institutional Theories

    Uploaded by

    Pesquisadora Olpef
    41 views2 pages
    The document discusses the relationship between theories of human action and structural explanations in social analysis. It argues that connecting the two requires a theory of the human agent, an account of how social structures influence and are influenced by human action, and an interpretation of structure as embedded in both the conditions and consequences of action. Current approaches that focus on either action or structure are limited because they do not adequately address this connection.

    Original Title

    Giddens (1979)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the relationship between theories of human action and structural explanations in social analysis. It argues that connecting the two requires a theory of the human agent, an account of how social structures influence and are influenced by human action, and an interpretation of structure as embedded in both the conditions and consequences of action. Current approaches that focus on either action or structure are limited because they do not adequately address this connection.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    41 views2 pages

    Gency, ST Cture: Theories of Action Versus Institutional Theories

    Uploaded by

    Pesquisadora Olpef
    The document discusses the relationship between theories of human action and structural explanations in social analysis. It argues that connecting the two requires a theory of the human agent, an account of how social structures influence and are influenced by human action, and an interpretation of structure as embedded in both the conditions and consequences of action. Current approaches that focus on either action or structure are limited because they do not adequately address this connection.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    2

    ~gency,St~cture

    The principal issue with which I shall be concerned in this paper is


    that of connecting a notion of human action with structural explana-
    tion in social analysis. The making of such a connection, I shall
    argue, demands the following: a theory of the human agent, or of
    the subject; an account of the conditions and consequences of
    action; and an interpretation of 'structure' as somehow embroiled
    in both those conditions and consequences.!

    Theories of action versus institutional theories

    'Action' and 'structure' normally appear in both the sociological


    and philosophical literature as antinomies. Broadly speaking, it
    would be true to say that those schools of thOUght which have been
    preoccupied with action have paid little attention to, or have found
    no way of coping with, conceptions of structural explanation or
    social causation; they have also failed to relate action theory to
    problems of institutional transformation. This is most obviously
    true of the Anglo-Saxon philosophy of action, both in its Wittgens-
    teinian form and in versions less directly influenced by Wittgens-
    tein. Notwithstanding the great interest of Wittgenstein's later
    philosophy for the social sciences in respect of the relations between
    language and Praxis, we rapidly come up against its limits in respect
    of the theorisation of institutions. Institutions certainly appear in
    Wittgensteinian philosophy, and in a rather fundamental way. For
    the transition from the ideas of the earlier Wittgenstein to the later
    is effectively one from nature to society: language and social
    convention are shown in the Philosophical Investigations to be

    A. Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory


    © Anthony Giddens 1979
    50 Central Problems in Social Theory

    inextricably intertwined, so that to explicate one is to explicate the


    other. But as expressed in forms of life, institutions are analysed
    only in so far as they form a consensual backdrop against which
    action is negotiated and its meanings formed. Wittgensteinian
    philosophy has not led towards any sort of concern with social
    change, with power relations, or with conflict in society. Other
    strands in the philosophy of action have operated at an even further
    distance from such issues, focusing attention almost exclusively
    upon the nature of reasons or intentions in human activity. 2
    Within more orthodox sociological traditions, symbolic interac-
    tionism has placed most emphasis upon regarding social life as an
    active accomplishment of purposive, knowledgeable actors; and it
    has also been associated with a definite 'theory of the subject', as
    formulated in Mead's account of the social origins of reflexive
    consciousness. But the 'social' in Mead's formulation is limited to
    familial figures and the 'generalised other'; Mead did not elaborate
    a conception of a differentiated society, nor any interpretation of
    social transformation. Much the same is the case with the subse-
    quent evolution of this tradition, which has not successfully de-
    veloped modes of institutional analysis. One of the results has been
    a partial accommodation between symbolic interactionism and
    functionalism in American sociology: the former is held to be a
    'micro-sociology', dealing with small-scale 'interpersonal' rela-
    tions, while more embracing 'macro-sociological' tasks are left to
    the latter.
    Functionalism and structuralism are alike in according a priority
    to the object over the subject or, in some sense, to structure over
    action. Functionalist authors have normally thought of this in terms
    of 'emergent properties' of the totality, which not only separate its
    characteristics from those of its individual members, but cause it to
    exert a dominant influence over their conduct. The difficulties
    Durkheim experienced with this notion, in so far as his writings
    are regarded from the point of view of their connections with
    functionalism, rather than with structuralism, are well known.
    Durkheim wished to emphasise that the characteristics of the social
    whole are separate from those of individual agents, and accentuated
    various senses in which 'society' is external to its individual mem-
    bers: every person is born into an already constituted society, and
    every person is only one individual in a system of association
    involving many others. But neither in his earlier writings nor in his

    You might also like