|
The Constitution of Society by Anthony Giddens
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984 ~ Extracts and
Annotations
European social theory was, and is, not only alive but
kicking
very vigorously. But what is the outcome of these stirrings? For
the loss of the centre ground formerly occupied by the orthodox
consensus has seemingly left social theory in a hopeless disarray.
Notwithstanding the babble of rival theoretical voices, schools of
thought in question -- with notable exceptions, such as
structuralism
and 'post-structuralism' -- emphasize the active, reflexive
character
of human conduct. That is to say, they are unified in their
rejection of the tendency of the orthodox consensus to see human
behavior as the result of forces that actors neither control nor
comprehend. In addition (and this does include both structuralism
and 'post-structuralism'), they accord a fundamental role to
language, and to cognitive faculties in the explication of social
life. Language use is embedded in the concrete activities of
day-to-day life and is in some sense partly constitutive of those
activities. Finally, the declining importance of empiricist
philosophies of natural science is recognized to have profound
implications for the social sciences also. It is not just the case
that social and natural science are further apart than advocates of
the orthodox consensus believed. We now see that a philosophy of
natural science must take account of just those phenomena in which
the new schools of social theory are interested -- in particular,
language and the interpretation of meaning.
It is with these three core sets of issues, and their mutual
connections, that the theory of structuration, as I represent it in
this book, is concerned. 'Structuration' is an unlovely term at
best, although it is less inelegant in the Gallic context from
which it came. I have not been able to think of a more engaging
word for the views I want to convey. In elaborating the concepts
of structuration theory, I do not intend to put forward a
potentially new orthodoxy to replace the old one. But
structuration theory is sensitive to the shortcomings of the
orthodox consensus and to the significance of the convergent
developments noted above.[1]
In case there is any doubt about terminology here, let me
emphasize that I use the term 'social theory' to encompass issues
that I hold to be the concern of all the social sciences. These
issues are to do with the nature of human action and the acting
self; with how interaction should be conceptualized and its
relation to institutions; and with grasping the practical
connotations of social analysis. I understand 'sociology', by
contrast, to be not a generic discipline to do with the study of
human societies as a whole, but that branch of social science which
focuses particularly upon the 'advanced' or modern societies. . .
. This book is written with a definite sociological bias, in the
sense that I tend to concentrate upon material particularly
relevant to modern societies. But as an introduction to
structuration theory it is also intended in substantial degree as
a formulation of the tasks of social theory in general and is
'theory' in the same sense. That is to say, the focus is upon the
understanding of human agency and of social institutions.[2]
'Social theory' is not a term which has any precision, but it is
a very useful one for all that. As I represent it, 'social theory'
involves the analysis of issues which spill over into philosophy,
but it is not primarily a philosophical endeavour. The social
sciences are lost if they are not directly related to philosophical
problems by those who practise them. To demand that social
scientists be alive to philosophical issues is not the same as
driving social science into the arms of those who might claim that
it is inherently speculative rather than empirical. Social theory
has the task of providing conceptions of the nature of human social
activity and of the human agent which can be placed in the service
of empirical work. The main concern of social theory is the same
as that of the social sciences in general: the illumination of
concrete processes of social life. To hold that philosophical
debates can contribute to this concern is not to suppose that such
debates need to be resolved conclusively before worthwhile social
research can be initiated. On the contrary, the prosecution of
social research can in principle cast light on philosophical
controversies just as much as the reverse. In particular, I think
it wrong to slant social theory too unequivocally towards abstract
and highly generalized questions of epistemology, as if any
significant developments in social science had to await a clear-cut
solution to these.
A few remarks are necessary about the 'theory' in social theory.
There are certain senses often attributed to 'theory' in the social
sciences from which I want to maintain some considerable distance.
One conception used to be popular among some of those associated
with the orthodox consensus, although it is no longer widely held
today. This is the view -- influenced by certain versions of the
logical empiricist philosophy of natural science -- that the only
form of 'theory' worthy of the name is that expressible as a set of
deductively related laws or generalizations. This sort of notion
has turned out to be of quite limited application even within the
natural sciences. If it can be sustained at all, it is only in
respect of certain areas of natural science. Anyone who would seek
to apply it to social science must recognize that (as yet) there is
no theory at all; its construction is an aspiration deferred to a
remote future, a goal to be striven for rather than an actual part
of the current pursuits of the social sciences.
Although this view does have some adherents even now, it is far
removed from anything to which I would hold that social theory
could or should aspire -- for reasons which will emerge clearly
enough in the body of the book which follows. But there is a
weaker version of it which still commands a very large following
and which invites rather longer discussion even in this prefatory
context. This is the idea that the 'theory' in social theory must
consist essentially of generalizations if it is to have explanatory
content. According to such a standpoint, much of what passes for
'social theory' consists of conceptual schemes rather than (as
should be the case) 'explanatory propositions' of a generalizing
type. {pp. xvi-xviii}
Most of the controversies stimulated by the so-called
'linguistic turn' in social theory, and by the emergence of
post-empiricist philosophies of science, have been strongly
epistemological in character. They have been concerned, in other
words, with questions of relativism, problems of verification and
falsification and so on. Significant as these may be,
concentration upon epistemological issues draws attention away from
the more 'ontological' concerns of social theory, and it is these
upon which structuration theory primarily concentrates. Rather
than becoming preoccupied with epistemological disputes and with
the question of whether or not anything like 'epistemology' in its
time-honoured sense can be formulated at all, those working in
social theory, I suggest, should be concerned first and foremost
with reworking conceptions of human being and human doing, social
reproduction and social transformation. Of prime importance in
this respect is a dualism that is deeply entrenched in social
theory, a division between objectivism and subjectivism.
Objectivism was a third -ism characterizing the orthodox consensus,
together with naturalism and functionalism. In spite of Parsons'
terminology of 'the action frame of reference', there is no doubt
that in his theoretical scheme the object (society) predominates
over the subject (the knowledgeable human agent). Others whose
views could be associated with that consensus were very much less
sophisticated in this respect than was Parsons. By attacking
objectivism -- and structural sociology -- those influenced by
hermeneutics or by phenomenology were able to lay bare major
shortcomings of those views. But they in turn veered sharply
towards subjectivism. The conceptual divide between subject and
social object yawned as widely as ever.[3]
Structuration theory is based on the premise that this dualism
has to be reconceptualized as a duality -- the duality of
structure.
Although recognizing the significance of the 'linguistic turn', it
is not a version of hermeneutics or interpretive sociology. While
acknowledging that society is not the creation of individual
subjects, it is distant from any conception of structural
sociology. The attempt to formulate a coherent account of human
agency and of structure demands, however, a very considerable
conceptual effort. An exposition of these views is offered in the
opening chapter and is further developed throughout the book. It
leads on directly to other main themes, especially that of the
study of space-time relations. The structural properties of social
systems exist only in so far as forms of social conduct are
reproduced chronically across time and space. The structuration of
institutions can be understood in terms of how it comes about that
social activities become 'stretched' across wide spans of
time-space. Incorporating time-space in the heart of social theory
means thinking again about some of the disciplinary divisions which
separate sociology from history and from geography. The concept
and analysis of history is particularly problematic. This book,
indeed, might be accurately described as an extended reflection
upon a celebrated and oft-quoted phrase to be found in Marx. Marx
comments that 'Men [let us immediately say human beings] make
history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing'. Well, so
they do. But what a diversity of complex problems of social
analysis this apparently innocuous pronouncement turns out to
disclose! {pp. xx-xxi}
Thus, for example, I acknowledge the call for a decentring of
the subject and regard this as basic to structuration theory. But
I do not accept that this implies the evaporation of subjectivity
into an empty universe of signs. Rather, social practices, biting
into space and time, are considered to be at the root of the
constitution of both subject and social object. I admit the
central significance of the 'linguistic turn', introduced
especially by hermeneutical phenomenology and ordinary language
philosophy. At the same time, however, I hold this term to be in
some part a misleading one. The most important developments as
regards social theory concern not so much a turn towards language
as an altered view of the intersection between saying (or
signifying) and doing, offering a novel conception of
praxis. The radical transmutation of hermeneutics and
phenomenology initiated by Heidegger, together with the innovations
of the later Wittgenstein, are the two main signal markers of the
new path. But to pursue the path further means precisely to shake
off any temptation to become a full-blown disciple of either of
these thinkers.[4]
Let me offer here a short summary of the organization of the
book. Having given in the first chapter an outline of the chief
concepts involved in structuration theory, in the second I begin
the more substantive part of the volume with a discussion of
consciousness, the unconscious and the constitution of day-to-day
life. Human agents or actors -- I used these terms
interchangeably -- have, as an inherent aspect of what they do, the
capacity to understand what they do while they do it. The
reflexive capacities of the human actor are characteristically
involved in a continuous manner with the flow of day-to-day conduct
in the contexts of social activity. But reflexivity operates only
partly on a discursive level. What agents know about what they do,
and why they do it -- their knowledgeability as agents --
is largely carried in practical consciousness. Practical
consciousness consists of all the things which actors know tacitly
about how to 'go on' in the contexts of social life without being
able to give them direct discursive expression. The significance
of practical consciousness is a leading theme of the book, and it
has to be distinguished from both consciousness (discursive
consciousness) and the unconscious. While accepting the importance
of unconscious aspects of cognition and motivation, I do not think
we can be content with some of the more conventionally established
views of these. I adopt a modified version of ego psychology but
endeavour to relate this directly to what, I suggest, is a
fundamental concept of structuration theory -- that of
routinization.
The routine (whatever is done habitually) is a basic element of
day-to-day social activity. I use the phrase 'day-to-day social
activity' in a very literal sense, not in the more complex, and I
think more ambiguous, way which has become familiar through
phenomenology. The term 'day-to-day' encapsulates exactly the
routinized character which social life has as it stretches across
time-space. The repetitiveness of activities which are undertaken
in like manner day after day is the material grounding of what I
call the recursive nature of social life. (By its recursive nature
I mean that the structured properties of social activity -- via the
duality of structure -- are constantly recreated out of the very
resources which constitute them.) Routinization is vital to the
psychological mechanisms whereby a sense of trust or ontological
security is sustained in the daily activities of social life.
Carried primarily in practical consciousness, routine drives a
wedge between the potentially explosive content of the unconscious
and the reflexive monitoring of action which agents display. Why
did Garfinkel's 'experiments with trust' stimulate such a very
strong reaction of anxiety on the part of those involved, seemingly
out of all proportion to the trivial nature of the circumstances of
their origin? Because, I think, the apparently minor conventions
of daily social life are of essential significance in curbing the
sources of unconscious tension that would otherwise preoccupy most
of our waking lives.[5]
The situated character of action in time-space, the
routinization of activity and the repetitive nature of day-to-day
life -- these are phenomena which connect discussion of the
unconscious with Goffman's analyses of co-presence.[6]
{pp. xxii-xxiv}
Goffman's emphasis on trust and tact strikingly echoes themes
found in ego psychology and generates an analytically powerful
understanding of the reflexive monitoring of the flux of encounters
involved in daily life.
Fundamental to social life is the positioning of the body in
social encounters. 'Positioning' here is a rich term. The body is
positioned in the immediate circumstances of co-presence in
relation to others: Goffman provides an extraordinarily subtle but
telling set of observations about face work, about gesture and
reflexive control of bodily movement as inherent in the continuity
of social life. Positioning is, however, also to be understood in
relation to the seriality of encounters across time-space. Every
individual is at once positioned in the flow of day-to-day life; in
the life-span which is the duration of his or her existence; and in
the duration of 'institutional time', the 'supra-individual'
structuration of social institutions. Finally, each person is
positioned, in a 'multiple' way, within social relations conferred
by specific social identities; this is the main sphere of
application of the concept of social role. The modalities of
co-presence, mediated directly by the sensory properties of the
body, are clearly different from social ties and forms of social
interaction established with others absent in time or in space.[7]
{pp. xxiv-xxv}
Locales are not just places but settings of
interaction; as Garfinkel has demonstrated particularly
persuasively, settings are used chronically -- and largely in a
tacit way -- by social actors to sustain meaning in communicative
acts. But settings are also regionalized in ways that heavily
influence, and are influenced by, the serial character of
encounters.
Time-space 'fixity' also normally means social fixity; the
substantially 'given' character of the physical milieux of
day-to-day life interlaces with routine and is deeply influenced in
the contours of institutional reproduction. Regionalization also
has strong psychological and social resonance in respect of the
'enclosure' from view of some types of activities and some types of
people and the 'disclosure' of others.[8] {pp. xxv-xxvi}
The points of connection of structuration theory with empirical
research are to do with working out the logical implications of
studying a 'subject matter' of which the researcher is already a
part and with elucidating the substantive connotations of the core
notions of action and structure. Some of the points I have made on
the abstract level of theory apply directly on the level of
research. A good deal of social theory, especially that associated
with structural sociology, has treated agents as much less
knowledgeable than they really are. The results of this can be
very easily discerned in empirical work, in respect of a failure to
gain information that allows access to the full range of agents'
knowledgeability in at least two ways. What actors are able to say
about the conditions of their action and that of others is
foreshortened if researchers do not recognize the possible
significance of a range of discursive phenomena to which, as social
actors themselves, they would certainly pay close attention but
which in social research are often simply discounted. These are
aspects of discourse which in form are refractory to being rendered
as statements of propositional belief or which, like humour or
irony, derive their meaning not so much from the content of what is
said but from the style, mode of expression or context of
utterance. But to this we must add a second factor of greater
importance: the need to acknowledge the significance of practical
consciousness. Where what agents know about what they do is
restricted to what they can say about it, in whatever discursive
style, a very wide area of knowledgeability is simply occluded from
view. The study of practical consciousness must be incorporated
into research work. It would be an error to suppose that non-
discursive components of consciousness are necessarily more
difficult to study empirically than the discursive, even though
agents themselves, by definition, cannot comment directly on them.
The unconscious, on the other hand, poses altogether a different
order of problem, certainly demanding techniques of interrogation
distinct from those involved in descriptive social research.[9]
{pp. xxx-xxxi}
In structuration theory 'structure' is regarded as rules and
resources recursively implicated in social reproduction;
institutionalized features of social systems have structural
properties in the sense that relationships are stabilized across
time and space. 'Structure' can be conceptualized abstractly as
two aspects of rules -- normative elements and codes of
signification. Resources are also of two kinds: authoritative
resources, which derive from the co-ordination of the activity of
human agents, and allocative resources, which stem from control of
material products or of aspects of the material world. {p.
xxxi}
If the social sciences are understood as they were during the
period of dominance of the orthodox consensus, their attainments do
not look impressive, and the relevance of social research to
practical issues seems fairly slight. . . . Both cognitively and
practically, the social sciences seem distinctly inferior to the
natural sciences. But if we accept that social science should no
longer be some sort of replica of natural science and is in some
respects a quite divergent enterprise, a very different view of
their relative achievements and influence can be defended. There
are no universal laws in the social sciences, and there will not be
any -- not, first and foremost, because methods of empirical
testing and validation are somehow inadequate but because, as I
have pointed out, the causal conditions involved in generalizations
about human social conduct are inherently unstable in respect of
the very knowledge (or beliefs) that actors have about the
circumstances of their own action. The so-called 'self-fulfilling
prophecy', of which Merton and others have written, is a special
case of a much more generic phenomenon in the social sciences.
This is a mutual interpretive interplay between social science and
those whose activities compose its subject matter -- a 'double
hermeneutic'. The theories and findings of the social sciences
cannot be kept wholly separate from the universe of meaning and
action which they are about. But, for their part, lay actors are
social theorists, whose theories help to constitute the activities
and institutions that are the object of study of specialized social
observers or social scientists. There is no clear dividing line
between informed sociological reflection carried on by lay actors
and similar endeavours on the part of specialists. I do not want
to deny that there are dividing lines, but they are
inevitably fuzzy, and social scientists have no absolute monopoly
either upon innovative theories or upon empirical investigations of
what they study. {pp. xxxii-xxxiii}
The point is that reflection on social processes (theories, and
observations about them) continually enter into, become
disentangled with, and re-enter the universe of events that they
describe. {p. xxxiii}
The best and most interesting ideas in the social sciences (a)
participate in fostering the climate of opinion and the social
processes which give rise to them, (b) are in greater or lesser
degree entwined with theories-in-use which help to constitute those
processes and (c) are thus unlikely to be clearly distinct from
considered reflection which lay actors may bring to bear in so far
as they discursively articulate, or improve upon, theories-in-use.
{p. xxxiv}
Theories in natural science are original, innovative and so on
to the degree to which they place in question what either lay
actors or professional scientists previously believed about the
objects or events to which they refer. But theories in the social
sciences have to be in some part based upon ideas which (although
not necessarily discursively formulated by them) are already held
by the agents to whom they refer. Once reincorporated within
action, their original quality may become lost; they may become all
too familiar. {p. xxxiv}
If they are correct, these ruminations lead on in a direct way
to a consideration of social science as critique -- as involved in
a practical fashion with social life. . . . The formulation of
critical theory is not an option; theories and findings in
the social sciences are likely to have practical (and political)
consequences regardless of whether or not the sociological observer
or policy-maker decides that they can be 'applied' to a given
practical issue. {p. xxxv}
It might be useful at this point to recapitulate some of the
basic ideas contained in the preceding chapters. I shall summarize
these as a number of points: taken together, they represent the
aspects of structuration theory which impinge most generally upon
problems of empirical research in the social sciences.
(1) All human beings are knowledgeable agents. That is to say,
all social actors know a great deal about the conditions and
consequences of what they do in their day-to-day lives. Such
knowledge is not wholly propositional in character, nor is it
incidental to their activities. Knowledgeability embedded in
practical consciousness exhibits an extraordinary complexity -- a
complexity that often remains completely unexplored in orthodox
sociological approaches, especially those associated with
objectivsm. Actors are also ordinarily able discursively to
describe what they do and their reasons for doing it. However, for
the most part these faculties are geared to the flow of day-to-day
conduct. The rationalization of conduct becomes the discursive
offering of reasons only if individuals are asked by others why
they acted as they did. Such questions are normally posed, of
course, only if the activity concerned is in some way puzzling --
if it appears either to flout convention or to depart from the
habitual modes of conduct of a particular person.
(2) The knowledgeability of human actors is always bounded on
the one hand by the unconscious and on the other by unacknowledged
conditions/unintended consequences of action. Some of the most
important tasks of social science are to be found in the
investigation of these boundaries, the significance of unintended
consequences for system reproduction and the ideological
connotations which such boundaries have.
(3) The study of day-to-day life is integral to analysis of the
reproduction of institutionalized practices. Day-to-day life is
bound up with the repetitive character of reversable time -- with
paths traced through time-space and associated with the
constraining and enabling features of the body. However,
day-to-day life should not be treated as the 'foundation' upon
which the more ramified connections should be understood in terms
of an interpretation of social and system integration.
(4) Routine, psychologically linked to the minimizing of
unconscious sources of anxiety, is the predominant form of
day-to-day social activity. Most daily practices are not directly
motivated. Routinized practices are the prime expression of the
duality of structure in respect of the continuity of social life.
In the enactment of routines agents sustain a sense of ontological
security.
(5) The study of context, or of the contextualities of
interaction, is inherent in the investigation of social
reproduction. 'Context' involves the following: (a) the
time-space boundaries (usually having symbolic or physical markers)
around interaction strips; (b) the co-presence of actors, making
possible the visibility of a diversity of facial expressions,
bodily gestures, linguistic and other media of communication; (c)
awareness and use of these phenomena reflexively to influence or
control the flow of interaction.
(6) Social identities, and the position-practice relations
associated with them, are 'markers' in the virtual time-space of
structure. They are associated with normative rights, obligations
and sanctions which, within specific collectivities, form roles.
The use of standardized markers, especially to do with the
attributes of age and gender, is fundamental in all societies,
notwithstanding large cross-cultural variations which can be
noted.
(7) No unitary meaning can be given to 'constraint' in social
analysis. Constraints associated with the structural properties of
social systems are only one type among several others
characteristic of human life.
(8) Among the structural properties of social systems,
structural principles are particularly important, since they
specify overall types of society. It is one of the main emphases
of structuration theory that the degree of closure of societal
totalities -- and of social systems in general -- is widely
variable. There are degrees of 'systemness' in societal
totalities, as in other less or more inclusive forms of social
system. It is essential to avoid the assumption that what a
'society' is can be easily defined, a notion which comes from an
era dominated by nation-states with clear-cut boundaries that
usually conform in a very close way to the administrative purview
of centralized governments. Even in nation-states, of course,
there are a variety of social forms which cross-cut societal
boundaries.[10]
(9) The study of power cannot be regarded as a second-order
consideration in the social sciences. Power cannot be tacked on,
as it were, after the more basic concepts of social science have
been formulated. There is no more elemental concept than that of
power. However, this does not mean that the concept of power is
more essential than any other, as is supposed in those versions of
social science which have come under a Nietzschean influence.
Power is one of several primary concepts of social science, all
clustered around the relations of action and structure. Power is
the means of getting things done and, as such, directly implied in
human action. It is a mistake to treat power as inherently
divisive, but there is no doubt that some of the most bitter
conflicts in social life are accurately seen as 'power struggles'.
Such struggles can be regarded as to do with efforts to subdivide
resources which yield modalities of control in social systems. By
'control' I mean the capability that some actors, groups or types
of actors have of influencing the circumstances of action of
others. In power struggles the dialectic of control always
operates, although what use agents in subordinate positions can
make of the resources open to them differs very substantially
between different social contexts.[11]
(10) There is no mechanism of social organization or social
reproduction identified by social analysts which lay actors cannot
also get to know about and actively incorporate into what they do.
In very many instances the 'findings' of sociologists are such only
to those not in the contexts of activity of the actors studied.
Since actors do what they do for reasons, they are naturally likely
to be disconcerted if told by sociological observers that what they
do derives from factors that somehow act externally to them. Lay
objections to such 'findings' may thus have a very sound basis.
Reification is by no means purely characteristic of lay
thought.
These points suggest a number of guidelines for the overall
orientation of social research. First, all social research has a
necessarily cultural, ethnographic or 'anthropological' aspect to
it. This is an expression of what I call the double hermeneutic
which characterizes social science. The sociologist has as a field
of study phenomena which are already constituted as meaningful.
The condition of 'entry' to this field is getting to know what
actors already know, and have to know, to 'go on' in the daily
activities of social life. The concepts that sociological
observers invent are 'second-order' concepts in so far as they
presume certain conceptual capabilities on the part of the actors
to whose conduct they refer. But it is in the nature of social
science that these can become 'first-order' concepts by being
appropriated within social life itself.[12] What is 'hermeneutic'
about the double hermeneutic? The appropriateness of the term
derives from the double process of translation or interpretation
which is involved. Sociological descriptions are interpretive
categories which also demand an effort of translation in and out of
the frames of meaning involved in sociological theories. Various
considerations concerning social analysis are connected with
this:
(1) Literary style is not irrelevant to the accuracy of social
descriptions. This is more or less important according to how far
a particular piece of social research is ethnographic -- that is,
is written with the aim of describing a given cultural
milieu to others who are unfamiliar with it.
(2) The social scientist is a communicator, introducing frames
of meaning associated with certain contexts of social life to those
in others. Thus the social sciences draw upon the same sources of
description (mutual knowledge) as novelists or others who write
fictional accounts of social life. Goffman is able quite easily to
intersperse fictional illustrations with descriptions taken from
social science research because he seeks very often to 'display'
the tacit forms of mutual knowledge whereby practical activities
are ordered, rather than trying to chart the actual distribution of
those activities.
(3) 'Thick description' will be called for in some types of
research (especially that of a more ethnographic kind) but not in
others. It is usually unnecessary where the activities studied
have generalized characteristics familiar to those to whom the
'findings' are made available, and where the main concern of the
research is with institutional analysis, in which actors are
treated in large aggregates or as 'typical' in certain respects
defined as such for the purposes of the study.
Second, it is important in social research to be sensitive to
the complex skills which actors have in co-ordinating the contexts
of their day-to-day behaviour. In institutional analyses these
skills may be more or less bracketed out, but it is essential to
remember that such bracketing is wholly methodological. Those who
take institutional analysis to comprise the field of sociology
in toto mistake a methodological procedure for an
ontological reality. Social life may very often be predictable in
its course, as such authors are prone to emphasize. But its
predictability is in many of its aspects 'made to happen' by social
actors; it does not happen in spite of the reasons they have for
conduct. If the study of unintended consequences and
unacknowledged conditions of action is a major part of social
research, we should none the less stress that such consequences and
conditions are always to be interpreted within the flow of
intentional conduct. We have to include here the relation between
reflexively monitored and unintended aspects of the reproduction of
social systems, and the 'longitudinal' aspect of unintended
consequences of contingent acts in historically significant
circumstances of one kind or another.
Third, the social analyst must also be sensitive to the
time-space constitution of social life. In part this is a plea for
a disciplinary identity, which, if it is not an exclusive concern
with structural constraint, is bound up with a conceptual focus
upon 'society'. Historians and geographers, for their part, have
been willing enough to connive at this disciplinary dissection of
social science. The practitioners of a discipline, apparently, do
not feel secure unless they can point to a sharp conceptual
delimitation between their concerns and those of others. Thus
'history' may be seen as about sequences of events set out
chronologically in time or perhaps, even more ambiguously, about
'the past'. Geography, many of its representatives like to claim,
finds its distinctive character in the study of spatial forms. But
if, as I have emphasized, time-space relations cannot be 'pulled
out' of social analysis without undermining the whole enterprise,
such disciplinary divisions actively inhibit the tackling of
questions of social theory significant for the social sciences as
a whole. Analyzing the time-space coordination of social
activities means studying the contextual features of locales
through which actors move in their daily paths and the
regionalization of locales stretching away across time-space. As
I have accentuated frequently, such analysis in inherent in the
explanation of time-space distanciation and hence in the
examination of the heterogeneous and complex nature assumed by
larger societal totalities and intersocietal systems in general.
{pp. 281-86}
All social interaction is expressed at some point in and through
the contextualities of bodily presence. In moving from the
analysis of strategic conduct to a recognition of the duality of
structure, we have to begin to 'thread outwards' in time and space.
That is to say, we have to try to see how the practices followed in
a given range of contexts are embedded in wider reaches of time and
space -- in brief, we have to attempt to discover their relation to
institutionalized practices. {pp. 297-98}
I said earlier that I do not propose to analyse the relevance
that structuration theory may or may not have for evaluating
specific types of research methods -- participant observation,
survey research, and so on. It is, however, both possible and
worth while to look more generically at the tasks of social
research informed by structuration theory and at the consequences
of the foregoing discussion of research work for the traditional
debate between 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods in social
research.
Hermeneutic Elucidation of Frames of Meaning --
(1)
Investigation of Context and Form of Practical
Consciousness -- (2)
(The Unconscious)
Identification of Bounds of Knowledgeability --
(3)
Specification of Institutional Orders -- (4)
The methodological 'insertion' of the research investigator
into whatever material is the object of study can be made at any of
the four levels indicated above. All social research presumes a
hermeneutical moment, but the presumption may remain latent where
research draws upon mutual knowledge that is unexplicated because
researcher and research inhabit a common cultural milieu.
The more vociferous advocates of quantitative research repress the
essential significance of (1) in two ways. They either take (1) to
be purely descriptive rather than explanatory, or else they fail to
see that it enters into the formulation of their research work at
all. But research concerned with (1) may be both explanatory and
generalizing. It has to do with answering why-questions that stem
from the mutual unintelligibility of divergent frames of meaning.
Naturally, such questions arise across the varying contexts of
single societies as well as between societies. Research which is
geared primarily to hermeneutic problems may be of generalized
importance in so far as it serves to elucidate the nature of
agents' knowledgeability and thereby their reasons for action,
across a wide range of action-contexts. Pieces of ethnographic
research . . . like, say, the traditional small-scale community
research of fieldwork anthropology -- are not in themselves
generalizing studies. But they can easily become such if carried
out in some numbers, so that judgements of their typicality can
justifiably be made.
Hermeneutic aspects of social research are not necessarily
illuminating to those who are the subjects of that research, since
their main outcome is the elucidation of settings of action
considered as 'alien milieux'. Such is not the case with
the investigation of practical consciousness. Studying practical
consciousness means investigating what agents already know, but by
definition it is normally illuminating to them if this is expressed
discursively, in the metalanguage of social science. Only for
ethnomethodology is the analysis of practical consciousness a
circumscribed 'field' of study. For all other types of research
the interpretation of practical consciousness is a necessary
element, implicitly understood or explicitly stated, of broader
features of social conduct.
As I have consistently stressed, identifying the bounds of
agents' knowledgeability in the shifting contexts of time and space
is fundamental to social science. The investigation of (3),
however, presumes some considerable knowledge of levels (1), (2),
and (4). Without them we are back with an untutored form of
structural sociology. The study of the unintended consequences and
unacknowledged conditions of action . . . can and should be carried
on without using functionalist terminology. What is 'unintended'
and 'unacknowledged', in any context or range of contexts of
action, is usually by no means a simple matter to discover. No
study of the structural properties of social systems can be
successfully carried on, or its results interpreted, without
reference to the knowledgeability of the relevant agents --
although many proponents of structural sociology imagine that this
is exactly what defines the province of 'sociological
method'.[13]
Level (4), the specifying of institutional orders, involves
analysing the conditions of social and system integration via
identification of the main institutional components of social
systems. Those institutional forms are most important which, in
terms of designated structural properties, can be specified as
overall 'societies'. Once more, however, I have been at some pains
to stress that it is only with many reservations that the main unit
of analysis in social science can be said to be a 'society'.
Institutional orders frequently cross-cut whatever decisions can be
recognized between overall societies.
It is in the relation between (1) and (2) on the one hand and
between (3) and (4) on the other that a division between
'qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods is often located. A
fondness for quantitative methods has, of course, long been a trait
of those attracted to objectivism and structural sociology.
According to this type of standpoint, analysing conditions of
social life that stretch well beyond any immediate contexts of
interaction is the prime objective of social science, and grasping
the 'hardened' nature of the institutional components of social
life can best be accomplished through classification, measurement
and statistical methods. Obviously the idea that the overriding
concern of the social sciences is with uncovering law-like
generalizations about social conduct is closely related to this
proclivity. There is a strong, and often deliberate, echoing of
the 'macro'/'micro' division here. Those who favour quantitative
methods as the main basis of what makes social science 'science'
are prone to emphasize the primacy of so-called macrosociological
analysis. Those who advocate qualitative methods as the foundation
of empirical research in the social sciences, on the other hand,
emphasize (1) and (2) in order to point up the necessarily situated
and meaningful character of social interaction. They tend often to
be directly hostile to the use of quantitative methods in social
science, on the grounds that quantification and the use of
statistical method impose a fixity on social life that it does not
in fact have. It is not difficult to see in the conflict between
these positions a methodological residue of the dualism of
structure and action, and showing such a dualism to be spurious
will allow us to tease out further some of the empirical
implications of the duality of structure. {pp. 327-30}
Once the point of this is fully understood, the idea that there
is either a clear-cut division or a necessary opposition between
qualitative and quantitative methods disappears. Quantitative
techniques are likely to be demanded when a large number of 'cases'
of a phenomenon are to be investigated, in respect of a restricted
variety of designated characteristics. But both the collection and
interpretation of quantitative materials depends upon procedures
methodologically identical to the gathering of data of a more
intensive, 'qualitative' sort. {p. 333}
(1) and (2) are thus as essential for understanding (3) and (4)
as vice versa, and qualitative and quantitative methods should be
seen as complementary rather than antagonistic aspects of social
research. Each is necessary to the other if the substantive nature
of the duality of structure is to be 'charted' in terms of the
forms of institutional articulation whereby contexts of interaction
are co-ordinated within more embracing social systems. {p.
334}
Mutual Knowledge versus Common Sense
Empirical research self-evidently has no rationale if it does
not somehow generate new knowledge which was not available before.
Since all social actors exist in situated contexts within larger
spans of time-space, what is novel to some such actors is not to
others -- including, among those others, social scientists. It is,
of course, in these 'information gaps' that ethnographic research
has its specific importance. In a broad sense of the term this
sort of research is explanatory, since it serves to clarify puzzles
presented when those from one cultural setting encounter
individuals from another which is in some respects quite different.
The query 'Why do they act (think) as they do?' is an invitation to
enter the culturally alien milieu and to make sense of it.
To those already within that milieu, as Winch and many
others have pointed out, such an enterprise may be inherently
unenlightening. However, much social research, in terms of both
the empirical material it generates and the theoretical
interpretations which may be linked to it, has critical
connotations for beliefs which agents hold. To investigate what
such connotations might be we have to consider the question of
exactly in what sense the social sciences reveal new knowledge and
how such knowledge might connect with the critique of false belief.
These matters are complex, and I shall not attempt to deal here
with more than certain aspects of them.
The critical endeavours of the social sciences, like those of
natural science, are bound up with the logical and empirical
adequacy of reported observations and theories associated with
them. As Schutz and many others have quite rightly emphasized, the
critical character of social science in this respect normally
departs quite sharply from the beliefs and theories-in-use
incorporated within the conduct of day-to-day social life. All
social actors, it can properly be said, are social theorists, who
alter their theories in the light of their experiences and are
receptive to incoming information which they may acquire in doing
so. Social theory is by no means the special and insulated
province of academic thinkers. However, lay actors are generally
concerned above all with the practical utility of the 'knowledge'
that they apply in their daily activities, and there may be basic
features of the institutional organization of society (including,
but not limited to, ideology) which confine or distort what they
take to be knowledge.
It is surely plain that the 'revelatory model' of natural
science cannot be directly transferred to the social sciences.
Common-sense beliefs about the natural world are corrigible in the
light of the findings of the natural sciences. There are no
particular logical difficulties in understanding what is going on
in such circumstances, even though there may be social barriers to
the reception of scientific ideas. That is to say, lay beliefs are
open to correction, in so far as this is necessary, by the input of
novel scientific theories and observations. The natural sciences
can in principle demonstrate that some of the things that the lay
member of society believes about the object world are false, while
others are valid. It is more complicated, for better or for worse,
in the social sciences. The 'findings' of the social sciences, as
I have emphasized, are not necessarily news to those whom those
findings are about.
The issues involved here have become very murky indeed as a
result of the push and pull between objectivist and interpretive
formulations of social sciences. The former have tended to apply
the revelatory model in an uninhibited way to the social sciences.
That is to say, they have regarded common-sense beliefs involved in
social life to be unproblematically corrigible in terms of the
enlightenment which the social sciences can deliver. Those
influenced by hermeneutics and ordinary-language philosophy,
however, have established powerful objections to this naive
standpoint. Common-sense beliefs, as incorporated in day-to-day
language use and action, cannot be treated as mere impediments to
a valid or veridical characterization of social life. For we
cannot describe social activity at all without knowing what its
constituent actors know, tacitly as well as discursively.
Empiricism and objectivism simply suppress the whole issue of the
generation of social descriptions via the mutual knowledge which
sociological observers and lay members of society hold in common.
The trouble is, having reached this conclusion, those advocating
interpretive forms for social science find it difficult or
impossible to maintain that critical edge which the opposite type
of tradition has rightly insisted upon in juxtaposing social
science and common sense. The tasks of social science then seem
precisely limited to ethnography -- to the hermeneutic endeavour of
the 'fusion of horizons'. Such a paralysis of the critical will is
as logically unsatisfactory as the untutored use of the revelatory
model.[14]
A way out of this impasse can be found by distinguishing mutual
knowledge from 'common sense'. The first refers to the necessary
respect which the social analyst must have for the authenticity of
belief or the hermeneutic entree into the description of
social life. 'Necessary' in this statement has logical force to
it. The reason why it characteristically makes more sense to speak
about 'knowledge' rather than 'belief' when speaking of how actors
find their way around in the contexts of social life is that the
generation of descriptions demands the bracketing of scepticism.
Beliefs, tacit and discursive, have to be treated as 'knowledge'
when the observer is operating on the methodological plane of
characterizing action. Mutual knowledge, regarded as the necessary
mode of gaining access to the 'subject matter' of social science,
is not corrigible in the light of its findings; on the contrary, it
is the condition of being able to come up with 'findings' at
all.
It is because mutual knowledge is largely tacit -- carried on
the level of practical consciousness -- that it is not obvious that
respect for the authenticity of belief is a necessary part of all
ethnographic work in the social sciences. The attacks led by those
influenced by phenomenology and ethnomethodology upon more orthodox
conceptions of social science have undoubtedly been of major
importance in elucidating the nature of mutual knowledge. But in
speaking of 'common sense' I mean to reserve the latter concept to
refer to the propositional beliefs implicated in the conduct of
day-to-day activities. The distinction is largely an analytical
one; that is to say, common sense is mutual knowledge treated not
as knowledge but as fallible belief. However, not all mutual
knowledge can be expressed as propositional beliefs -- beliefs that
some states of affairs or others are the case. Moreover, not all
such beliefs are capable of being formulated discursively by those
who hold them.
Distinguishing between mutual knowledge and common sense does
not imply that these are always easily separable phases of study in
actual social research. For one thing, the descriptive language
used by sociological observers is always more or less different
from that used by lay actors. The introduction of social
scientific terminology may (but does not necessarily) call in
question discursively formulated beliefs (or, where connected in an
ensemble, 'theories-in-use') which actors hold. Where contested
descriptions are already employed by the agents studied, any
description given by observers, even using actors' categories, is
directly critical of other available terminologies that could have
been used. What is a 'liberation movement' from one perspective
might be a 'terrorist organization' from another. The choice of
one term rather than the other, of course, implies a definite
stance on the part of the observer. It is less immediately
apparent that the choice of a more 'neutral' term does as well; its
use, however, also indicates a critical distance which the observer
takes from the concepts applied by the actors directly
involved.
In any research situation there may be beliefs accepted by
participants which so grate upon those held by the observer that
the observer expresses critical distance from them, even in what is
otherwise a purely ethnographic study. An anthropologist may feel
no qualms about asserting, 'The X grow their crops by planting
seeds every autumn', since it is mutually held as knowledge between
him or her and the members of culture X that the planting of seeds
at an appropriate time of the year eventuates in a particular crop.
But that anthropologist is likely to say, 'The X believe their
ceremonial dance will bring rain' indicating a gap between what he
or she and those in culture X believe to be the case about the
conditions under which rainfall occurs.
The examples mentioned in the above paragraph indicate that even
purely ethnographic social research -- that is, research which
follows the confined goal of descriptive reportage -- tends to have
a critical moment. While this does not comprise the logical
distinction between mutual knowledge and common sense, it does mean
specifying more directly what is involved in that moment of
critique, which in other types of research is usually more directly
developed.
I have to emphasize at this point the modest dimensions of the
discussion which follows. Analysing logically what is involved in
the garnering of mutual knowledge, as well as what is involved in
the critique of common-sense belief, raises questions of
epistemology which it would be out of the question to discuss
exhaustively here. The ideas I shall develop in what follows are
intended to supply no more than an outline format, which presumes
a definite epistemological view without supporting it in detail.
There are two senses, I want to claim, in which social science is
relevant to the critique of lay beliefs construed as common sense
(which includes, but does not give any special priority to, the
critique of ideology). The critical activities in which social
scientists engage as the core of what they do have direct
implications for the beliefs which agents hold, in so far as those
beliefs can be shown to be invalid or inadequately grounded. But
such implications are especially important where the beliefs in
question are incorporated into the reasons actors have for what
they do. Only some of the beliefs which actors hold or profess
form part of the reasons they have for their conduct. When these
are subjected to critique in the light of claims or findings of
social science, the social observer is seeking to demonstrate that
those reasons are not good reasons.
The identification of agents' reasons is normally intimately
bound up with the hermeneutic problems posed by the generating of
mutual knowledge. Given that this is so, we should distinguish
what I shall call 'credibility criteria' from the 'validity
criteria' relevant to the critique of reasons as good reasons.
Credibility criteria refer to criteria, hermeneutic in character,
used to indicate how the grasping of actors' reasons illuminates
what exactly they are doing in light of those reasons. Validity
criteria concern criteria of factual evidence and theoretical
understanding employed by the social sciences in the assessment of
reasons as good reasons. Consider the famous case of the red
macaws, much discussed in the anthropological literature. The
Bororo of Central Brazil say, 'We are red macaws.' Debated by Von
den Steinem, Durkheim and Mauss, among others, the statement has
seemed to many to be either nonsensical or hermeneutically
impenetrable. The issue was, however, recently taken up by an
anthropologist who had the chance to reinvestigate the matter at
source, among the Bororo. He found that the statement is made only
by men; that Bororo women tend to own red macaws as pets; that in
various ways in Bororo society men are peculiarly dependent upon
women; and that contact with the spirits is made by men and red
macaws independently of women. It seems plausible to infer that
'We are red macaws' is a statement in which men ironically comment
upon their indebtedness to women and at the same time assert their
own spiritual superiority to them. Investigation of why the
statement is made helps to clarify the nature of the statement.
The investigation of credibility criteria, in respect of
discursively formulated beliefs at any rate, usually depends upon
making clear the following items: who expresses them, in what
circumstances, in what discursive style (literal description,
metaphor, irony, etc.) and with what motives.
Assessment of validity criteria is governed solely by the
conjunction of 'internal' and 'external' critique generated by
social science. That is to say, validity criteria are the criteria
of internal critique which I hold to be substantially constitutive
of what social science is. The main role of the social sciences in
respect of the critique of common sense is the assessment of
reasons as good reasons in terms of knowledge either simply
unavailable to lay agents or construed by them in a fashion
different from that formulated in the metalanguages of social
theory. I see no basis for doubting that the standards of internal
critique in the social sciences carry over directly to external
critique in this respect. This statement is a strong one, and it
is particularly at this juncture that a specific epistemological
standpoint is presupposed. It presumes, and I presume, that it is
possible to demonstrate that some belief claims are false, while
others are true, although what 'demonstrate' means here would need
to be examined as closely as would 'false' and 'true'. It
presumes, and I presume, that internal critique -- the critical
examinations to which social scientists submit their ideas and
claimed findings -- is inherent in what social science is as a
collective endeavour. I intend to risk the disfavour of the
philosophically sophisticated by asserting, without further ado,
that I hold these things to be the case. In a different context,
however, it would clearly be necessary to defend such contentions
at some considerable length.[15]
It can be shown, I think, that there is a non-contingent
relation between demonstrating a social belief to be false, and
practical implications for the transformation of action linked to
that belief. Criticizing a belief means (logically) criticizing
whatever activity or practice is carried on in terms of that
belief, and has compelling force (motivationally) in so far as it
is a reason for action. Where the belief in question informs a
segment or aspect of conduct in relation to the natural world,
showing it to be false will (ceteris paribus) cause the
agent to change his or her behaviour in whatever respects are
relevant. If this does not happen, the presumption is that other
considerations are overriding in the agent's mind, that the
implications of the falsity of the belief are misunderstood, or
that the actor does not in fact accept that its falsity has been
convincingly shown. Now social beliefs, unlike those to do with
nature, are constitutive elements of what it is they are about.
From this it follows that criticism of false belief (ceteris
paribus) is a practical intervention in society, a
political phenomenon in a broad sense of that term.[16]
{pp. 334-40}
Glossary of Terms for Structuration Theory
Allocative resources -- Material resources involved in
the generation of power, including the natural environment and
physical artifacts; allocative resouorces derive from human
domination over nature.
Analysis of strategic conduct -- Social analysis which
places in suspension institutions as socially reproduced,
concentrating upon how actors reflexively monitor what they do; how
actors draw upon rules and resources in the constitution of
interaction.
Contextuality -- The situated character of interaction in
time-space, involving the setting of interaction,actors co-present,
and communication between them.
Credibility criteria -- The criteria used by agents to
provide reasons for what they do, grasped in such a way as to help
to describe validly what it is that they do.
Discursive consciousness -- What actors are able to say,
or to give verbal expression to, about social conditions, including
expecially the conditions of their own action; awareness which has
a discursive form.
Double hermeneutic -- The intersection of two frames of
meaning as a logically necessary part of social science, the
meaningful social world as constituted by lay actors and the
metalanguages invented by social scientists; there is a constant
'slippage' from one to the other involved in the practice of the
social sciences.
Duality of structure -- Structure as the medium and
outcome of the conduct it recursively organizes; the structural
properties of social systems do not exist outside of action but are
chronically implicated in its production and reproduction.
External critique -- Critique of lay agents' beliefs and
practices, derived from the theories and findings of the social
sciences.
Homeostatic loops -- Causal factors which have a feedback
effect in system reproduction, where that feedback is largely the
outcome of unintended consequences.
Institutional analysis -- Social analysis which places in
suspension the skills and awareness of actors, treating
institutions as chronically reproduced rules and resources.
Internal critique -- The critical apparatus of social
science, whereby theories and findings are subjected to evaluation
in the light of logical argument and the provision of evidence.
Knowledgeability -- Everything which actors know (believe)
about the circumstances of their action and that of others, drawn
upon in the production and reproduction of that action, including
tacit as well as discursively available knowledge.
Mutual knowledge -- Knowledge of 'how to go on' in forms
of life, shared by lay actors and sociological observers; the
necessary condition of gaining access to vaild descriptions of
social activity.
Ontological security -- Confidence or trust that the
natural and social worlds are as they appear to be, including the
basic existential parameters of self and social identity.
Practical consciousness -- What actors know (believe)
about social conditions, including especially the conditions of
their own action, but cannot express discursively; no bar of
repression, however, protects practical consciousness as is the
case with the unconscious.
Rationalization of action -- The capability competent
actors have of 'keeping in touch' with the grounds of what they do,
as they do it, such that if asked by others, they can supply
reasons for their activities.
Reflexive Monitoring of action -- The purposive, or
intentional, character of human behaviour, considered within the
flow of activity of the agent; action is not a string of discrete
acts, involving an aggregate of intentions, but a continuous
process.[17]
Reflexive Self-regulation -- Causal loops which have a
feedback effect in system reproduction, where that feedback is
substantially influenced by knowledge which agents have of the
mechanisms of system reproduction and employ to control it.
Reproduction circuit -- An institutionalized series of
reproduction relations, governed either by homeostatic causal loops
or by reflexive self-regulation.
Routinization -- The habitual, taken-for-granted character
of the vast bulk of the activities of day-to-day social life; the
prevalence of familiar styles and forms of conduct, both supporting
and supported by a sense of ontological security.
Stratification model -- An interpretation of the human
agent, stressing three 'layers' of cognition/motivation: discursive
consciousness, practical consciousness, and the unconscious.
Structuration -- The structuring of social relations
across time and space, in virtue of the duality of structure.
Structural properties -- Structured features of social
systems, especially institutionalized features, stretching across
time and space.
Structure -- Rules and resources, recursively implicated
in the institutional articulation of social systems. To study
structures, including structural principles, is to study major
aspects of the transformation/mediation relations which influence
social and system integration.
System -- The patterning of social relations across
time-space, understood as reproduced practices. Social systems
should be regarded as widely variable in terms of the degree of
'systemness' they display and rarely have the sort of internal
unity which may be found in physical and biological systems.
System integration -- Reciprocity between actors or
collectivities across extended time-space, outside conditions of
co-presence.
Validity criteria -- The criteria appealed to by social
scientists to justify their theories and findings and assess those
of others. {pp. 373-77}
Annotations by G. R. Thursby
[1] The survey by Randall Collins, Three Sociological
Traditions (Oxford, 1985), helps to put Giddens' critique of
the "orthodox consensus" into a historical framework. The
considerable and continuing influence of several types of social
theory on the academic study of religion is suggested by Brian
Morris, Anthropological Studies of Religion (Cambridge,
1987), John Skorupski, Symbol and Theory (Cambridge,
1976), Reinhard Bendix, Max Weber: An Intellectual
Portrait (Doubleday, 1960), Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative
Religion: A History (2nd edn., Open Court, 1986), and portions
of J. Samuel Preus, Explaining Religion (Yale, 1987).
[2] In his lectures on The Consequences of Modernity
(Stanford, 1990), Giddens extends his analysis of modern society,
warns of the dangers of the inherently "juggernaut" character of
modernity, and advocates "a critical theory without guarantees"
that will foster "models of utopian realism" into order to make
modernity once again an "empancipatory" project. Similarly
Promethean or prophetic concerns long have been one strand of
social theory. An interesting predecessor of Giddens in the
previous generation was Ernest Becker. Although near the end of
his life Becker's writing seems to have become increasingly
pessimistic, culminating in the incomplete, posthumously published
Escape from Evil (Free Press, 1975), in his "middle
period" Becker put forward an expansive vision in his trilogy
The Birth and Death of Meaning: A Perspective in Psychiatry and
Anthropology (1st edn., Free Press, 1962), The Revolution
in Psychiatry: The New Understanding of Man (Free Press,
1964), and The Structure of Evil: An Essay on the Unification
of the Science of Man (Braziller, 1968). Both Giddens and
Becker represent an important aspect of Enlightenment humanism.
The "middle" Becker, who was perhaps more expansive and integrative
than Giddens, ended The Structure of Evil with an epilogue
titled "The Merger of Science, Philosophy, and Religion."
[3] Talcott Parsons was a very influential teacher in the
Department of Social Relations at Harvard. His former students
include Clifford Geertz in anthropology at Princeton, Robert Bellah
in sociology at Berkeley, Edward Shils in social thought at
Chicago, and Joseph Elder in Indian Studies at Wisconsin. The
entry of the hermeneutical and "linguistic turn" into what
approximates an "orthodox consensus" in more recent social theory
was marked by Paul Rabinow and William M. Sullivan, eds.,
Interpretive Social Science: A Reader (1st edn.,
California, 1979).
[4] Most of the range of theories and anti-theories that may be
lumped under the label 'post-modern' or 'postmodern' take for
granted "the evaporation of subjectivity into an empty universe of
signs." A newly available guide is Post-Modernism and the
Social Sciences (Princeton, 1992) by Pauline Marie Rosenau.
Also relevant, entertaining, and troubling is Walker Percy's
semiotic modest proposal Lost in the Cosmos (FS&G, 1983),
which can be brought down to earth by reading Walker Percy and
the Old Modern World (LSU, 1985) by Patricia Poteat.
[5] Harold Garfinkel was a founder of ethnomethodology. Two
existential-psychological thrillers, that propose to disclose what
may happen when routine fails, are Ernest Becker's The Denial
of Death (Free Press, 1973) and Robert Jay Lifton's The
Broken Connection (Simon & Schuster, 1979). A more positive
version of what may happen when one experiences a "rupture" of
mundane reality is offered in two phenomenological-theological
studies by Peter Berger, The Heretical Imperative
(Doubleday, 1979) and A Rumor of Angels (expanded edn.;
Doubleday, 1990).
[6] Like Peter Berger, the late Erving Goffman was one of this
century's best-selling sociological writers. Arguably his most
important book is Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization
of Experience (Harvard, 1974). Among his others are
Asylums, Stigma, Interaction Ritual, and
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
[7] Among the many works on the theme of the body, two that have
some affinities with structuration theory are Bryan S. Turner,
The Body and Society: Explorations in Social Theory
(Blackwell, 1984) and John O'Neill, Five Bodies: The Human
Shape of Society (Cornell, 1985).
[8] See, e.g., E. V. Walter, Placeways: A Theory of the Human
Environment (North Carolina, 1988).
[9] An analysis that complements the one offered by Giddens, and
runs circles around it stylistically, is The Social
Construction of Reality by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann
(Doubleday, 1966). It is a dangerous and deeply subversive book,
replete with dialectical reversals, paradoxes, and high ironies.
Berger followed a similar interpretive pattern, which he applied to
religion and termed "methodological atheism," in The Sacred
Canopy (Doubleday, 1967).
[10] However, Mary Douglas makes some interesting generalizations
about 'systemness' in her book Natural Symbols (1st edn.,
Pantheon, 1970). Later editions have been revised and read more
clearly.
[11] For a "classical" example of the use of the category of power
in the interpretation of religion, see G. van der Leeuw,
Religion in Essence and Manifestation (2nd edn., Harper,
1964).
[12] The distinction between the three intersubjectivities that
Gananath Obeyesekere makes in his The Work of Culture
(Chicago, 1990) further enriches the model of the circulation of
knowledge. Obeyesekere seeks to deal with the unconscious, too.
[13] These observations may help to account for (a) the possible
relevance of An Interpretation of Religion (Yale, 1989) by
John Hick to professionals engaged in comparative study of religion
and (b) resistance to or criticism of his interpretation
from the point of view of the day-to-day "practical consciousness"
of some religious persons.
[14] An example of an ethnography with hermeneutical intent that
may or may not represent "a paralysis of the critical will," is G.
R. Thursby, "Siddha Yoga: Swami Muktananda and the Seat of Power,"
in T. Miller, ed., When Prophets Die (SUNY, 1991). A
similar kind of study, but with prominent references to 'second
order' scholarly debates while maintaining its commitment to the
hermeneutical-phenomenological level of discourse, is G. R.
Thursby, The Sikhs (Brill, 1992). Compare James L.
Peacock and Ruel W. Tyson, Jr., Pilgrims of Paradox: Calvinism
and Experience among the Primitive Baptists of the Blue Ridge
(Smithsonian, 1989).
[15] Telling exemplifications of these critiques, posed in terms of
the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities, are
found in recent feminist literature: Sandra Harding, The
Science Question in Feminism (Cornell, 1986); Sandra Harding,
ed., Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues
(Indiana, 1987); Christie Farnham, ed., The Impact of Feminist
Research in the Academy (Indiana, 1987); Mary McCanney Gergen,
ed., Feminist Thought and the Structure of Knowledge (New
York University, 1988); and Louise Levesque-Lopman, Claiming
Reality: Phenomenology and Women's Experience (Rowman &
Littlefield, 1988).
[16] This characterization as 'political' would apply to much of
the literature cited in Elizabeth Castelli & James McBride, "Beyond
the Language and Memory of the Fathers: Feminist Perspectives in
Religious Studies," in P. Frese & J. Coggeshall, eds.,
Transcending Boundaries: Multi-disciplinary Approaches to the
Study of Gender (Bergin & Garvey, 1991). A like interest in
the political implications of religious studies is evidenced in
Ninian Smart, Religion and the Western Mind (SUNY, 1987).
[17] A similar interpretation of action is presupposed by the
notion of "action chains" which anthropologist E. T. Hall proposed
in his book Beyond Culture (Doubleday, 1976).
To the Modernity
Resources Page
|