The theory of structuration, proposed by Anthony Giddens (1984) in The Constitution of Society, (mentioned also in Central Problems of Social Theory, 1979) is
an attempt to reconcile theoretical dichotomies of social
systems such as agency/structure, subjective/objective, and micro/macro perspectives. The approach does not focus on the
individual actor or societal totality "but social practices ordered across space and time" (p. 2). Its proponents adopt this
balanced position, attempting to treat influences of structure (which inherently includes culture) and agency equally. See structure and agency.
Basic assumptions
- Social life is not the sum of all micro-level activity, but social activity cannot be completely explained from a
macro perspective.
- The repetition of the acts of individual agents reproduce the structure.
- Social structures are neither inviolable nor permanent.
The duality of structure
Structuration theory aims to avoid extremes of structural or agent determinism. The
balancing of agency and structure is referred to as the duality of structure: social structures make social action
possible, and at the same time that social action creates those very structures.
For Giddens, structures are rules and resources (sets of transformation relations) organized as properties of social systems.
Rules are patterns people may follow in social life. Resources relate to what is created by human action; they are not given by
nature (explained further below) The theory employs a recursive notion of actions constrained
and enabled by structures which are produced and reproduced by that action. Consequently, this theory has been adopted by those
with structuralist inclinations, but who wish to situate such structures in human practice
rather than reify them as an ideal
type or material property. (This is different, for example, from Actor-network
theory which grants a certain autonomy to technical artifacts.) Additionally, the theory
of structuration distinguishes between discursive and practical knowledge, recognizes actors as knowledgeable, such knowledge is
reflexive and situated, and that habitual use becomes institutionalized.
A social system can be understood by its structure, modality, and interaction. Structure is constituted by rules and
resources governing and available to agents. (Authoritative resources control persons, whereas allocative resources
control material objects.) The modality of a structural system is the means by which structures are translated into
action. Interaction is the activity instantiated by the agent acting within the social system. There has been some attempt
by various theorists to link structuration theory to systems theory (with its emphasis on
recursive loops) or the complexity theory of organizational
structure (which emphasizes the adaptabililty that simple structures provide). Thus social systems have patterns of social
relation that exist over time; the changing nature of space and time will thus determine the interaction of social relations and
therefore structure. 19th century Britain - (time)- had a geographically defined space and there were certain rules set out by
the time and space, therefore this effects the action thus determining structure and the structure is upheld in so far as it is
reproduced in action. Hitherto social structures or 'model's of society' were taken to be beyond the realm of human control - the
positivistic approach; the other social theory would be that of action creating society - the interpretivist approach. The
duality of structure would argue that, in the most basic assumption, that they are one and the same--different sides to the coin
of a similar problem of order.
Agency, as Giddens calls it, is human action. To be human is to be an agent, albeit not all agents are human beings. Agency is
closely tied to social structures in so far as they interact and produce society together. Agents have knowledge of their society
and this mutual knowledge that therein produces structures. The everyday, mundane life agents lead is part of the reproduction in
society, thus caused by action and upheld in structure. Giddens refers to 'ontological security' in the trust people have in
social structure and that everyday actions have some degree of predicablity thus ensuring social stability.
Agency, apart from reproduction of society, also can lead to the transformation of society. One way to explain this concept is
by, what Giddens calls, the 'reflexive monitoring of actions' - Giddens has referred to reflexive monitoring a lot in his
academic literature. Reflexive monitoring looks at the ability to look at actions to judge their effectivness in achieving their
objectives: if agents can reproduce structure through action, they can also transform it.
Types of structures
Giddens identifies three types of structures in social systems, those of signification, legitimation, and
domination. These are analytical distinctions, rather than distinct ideal types, that mobilize and reinforce one
another.
- Signification: produces meaning through organized webs of language (semantic codes,
interpretive schemes and discursive practices).
- Domination: produces (and is an exercise of) power, originating from the 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.
Change
Sewell (1992) provides a useful summary of the theory as well as taking on one of its underspecified aspects: the question
"Why are structural changes possible?" He argues changes arises from (p. 16-19):
- "The multiplicity of structures -- societies are based on practices that derived from many distinct structures, which exist
at different levels, operate in different modalities, and are themselves based on widely varying types and quantities of
resources."
- the transposability of rules: they can be "applied to a wide and not fully predictable range of cases outside the context in
which they were initially learned."
- the unpredictability of resource accumulation (e.g. investment, military tactics, or a comedian's repertoire).
- the polysemy of resources (e.g., to what should success in resource accumulation be attributed?).
- the intersection of structures: they interact (e.g. in the structure of capitalist society there are both the modes of
production based on private property and profit, as well as the mode of labor organization based on worker solidarity).
Technology
This theory has been adapted and augmented by researchers interested in the relationship between technology and social structures (see Theories of
technology), such as information technology in organizations. 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. In particular, they use Giddens' notion of "modalities of structuration," how social
structures are appropriated into concrete situations, to consider how 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 be faithful or unfaithful,
be used instrumentally, and be used with various attitudes (1992:129).
Orlikowski (1992) borrows Giddens' structuration theory and applies her critique of
the duality of structure to technology: "The duality of technology identifies prior views of technology - as either objective
force or as socially constructed product - as a false dichotomy" (p. 406). She compares this to previous models (the
technological imperative, strategic choice, and technology as a trigger) and considers the importance of meaning, power, norms,
and interpretive flexibility within the theory of structuration. Orlikowski (2000) revisits the theory of structuration so as to
replace the notion of embedded properties (DeSanctis and Poole 1990, 1992, Orlikowski 1992) for enactment (use). The 'practice
lens' permits one to examine how people, as they interact with a technology in their ongoing practices, enact structures which
shape their emergent and situated use of that technology. While Orlikowski's work has been focussed on multinationals and
corporates, it is equally applicable to the technology cultures which have emerged in smaller community-based organizations, and
can be further adapted through the lens of sensitivity to gendered differences in approaches to the governance of technology
(Stillman, 2006).
References
- Giddens, Anthony: The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, University of California Press;
Reprint edition (January 1, 1986) ISBN 0-520-05728-7
- Desanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: the theory of adaptive
structuration. In J. Fulk, C. S., editor, Organizations and Communication Technology, pages 173-193. Sage, Newbury Park,
CA.
- Gauntlett, David (2002), Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction, Routledge, London and New York. (Extracts available at
www.theory.org.uk)
- Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization
Science, 3(3):398-427. Earlier version at the URI http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/2300
- Desanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory.
Organization Science, 5(2):121-147.
- Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in
organizations. Organization Science, 11(4):404-428.
- Sewell, W. F. (1992). A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation. The American Journal of Sociology,
98(1):1-29.
- Stillman, L. (2006) Understandings of
Technology in Community-Based Organisations: A Structurational Analysis (PhD Thesis, Monash University, Australia)
Related
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
