The basic premises behind Anthony Giddens’ theory of structuration
Sociology is one of the most complex disciplines due to the various perspectives scholars have provided to understand some human concepts. Most scholars have come up with different theories to try and explain why certain events happen in the lives of people and often try to prove their views. One such theory is structuration, which was formulated by Anthony Giddens. Structuration theory was a sociological concept meant to provide perspectives regarding human behavior based on how structures and agency affect individuals’ actions. The duality of the structure was formulated based on these two factors and how they collectively impacted the behaviors of the people studied. Structuration theory does not focus on the understanding that humans behave the way they do because of their political, religious, or educational backgrounds. Instead, it is a belief that humans act the way they do due to their values, standards, and creation of meaning from issues. It posits a dynamic link between various societal facets as contributing factors to one’s actions.
The relationship between agency and structure has been a vital concept in sociology since the beginning of the discipline. Pro-preeminence theories, also known as objectivist views, argue that individuals’ behaviors primarily depend on their social surroundings. According to Segre (2014), structures have predominant effects on different levels, the highest level being society, which is mainly affected by socioeconomic stratification, resulting in different social classes among people living and interacting in the same community. At the middle scale, most social networks, such as family structures and religious affiliation, and institutions, become dominant, thus affecting how different people behave in such systems. On the lowest scale, it is evident based on how professionalism and community norms affect agency (Segre, 2014). Giddens further posits that stability and permanence have positive roles in a social structure, even though he notes that it can also have demerits when it only protects a few people and fails to meet the needs of the majority in society. There have been debates on these conflicting views, though no conclusion has been reached, which has consequently resulted in more need for in-depth study.
Giddens proposed the structuration theory to try to explain human behaviors based on the effects of the agency. However, some sociologists have questioned Giddens’s views because of their polarized nature. Giddens argued that structure greatly influences one’s autonomy because structures are maintained and adapted constantly when individuals exercise their agency from time to time. Therefore, he mentioned that structurization is the interface where one meets their structure. In this view, he revealed that the theory tries to understand an individual’s behavior by resolving their competing perspectives regarding structure-agency and macro-micro aspects. This is possible by consistently examining the different processes happening at the interface linking structures and actors. Consequently, gives the understanding that structuration theory does not claim self-sufficiency in explaining the link between structure and agency theories. In contrast, it agrees that people operate within a certain set of rules that social structures produce, hence individuals must act in compliance with such rules to reinforce the structures. This reveals that social structures are unstable when they are not subjected to human actions since they require people to be reinforced. Conversely, they can be modified by exercising reflexivity, acting outside their constraints.
Giddens’s structuration theory differs from classic ones due to the approach given by various scholars. This prompted him to propose more structures to help understand social systems. For instance, he considered understanding meaning to be a result of decoding language and discourse. He also proposed legitimation, which consists of the normative aspects that are embedded to comprise values and norms held by various societies. Finally, he gave the understanding of domination, which is mainly related to power used to control various resources. With these alternative perspectives, Giddens provided ways for other sociologists to further explore the concept of structuration.
Michel Foucault’s Views Comparing to Giddens’ Structuration Theory
Foucault concentrates on giving the perspective of capital, which can be transferred from one place or person to another. Social is an aspect of culture, especially in its power to affect relations, which influence power and hierarchy. He posits that society is deeply engrafted in people’s minds because of various cultural products, which include education, values, language, and judgment. Drawing from the understanding of socialism, Foucault gives the perspective that capital and society are two aspects that cannot be separated easily (Segre, 2014). The sociologist posits that accumulating people and accumulating capital go together in that humans are naturally inclined to accumulate various capital. It would have been easier had it been possible to separate the two entities, especially in accumulating people, without desiring them to be apparatus of more production. On the contrary, the techniques used to multiply humans are those useful in accumulating capital, showing that each of them accelerates the other.
Foucault also has a broader perspective of fields, which embodies various institutional and social arenas where people interact and often reproduce their beliefs and compete to be understood and accepted. The concept of field relates to various aspects such as religion, education, culture, and intellect, which provide broader ways to understand human behavior (Segre, 2014). Fields also give an understanding of the roles played by power in various social settings. To a broader extent, such powers are applied in governments and organizations. Giddens limited such views of structuration theory, which made it possible for more sociologists to give a broader understanding of the concepts. Therefore, Foucault’s perspective differs from that of Giddens in that the former socialist narrowed the understanding of structuration, which classical scholars have broadened and given better and more refined understanding.
What Could Be Improved in Giddens’ Structuration Theory
Structuration theory is one of the most applied concepts in understanding mental models, especially in organizational management. It encourages people to consider aspects that surpass rituals, routines, and behaviors. It helps leaders understand how people respond to different situations in the organization. Moreover, some managers consider how to find ways through which practices within their organizations can reproduce structures. It is crucial noting the importance of practice and structure in realizing effective change interventions. While Giddens’ structuration theory focuses on these two aspects, it does not address the importance of incorporating organizational mission, vision, and strategy. In most cases, these are found within company documents, presentations, and graphics, which give the structure of the company, which everyone in the firm must follow. Therefore, for an organization to succeed, all these structures must be used daily to ensure a successful business. The structuration theory is also crucial in increasing the organizational momentum and speed of turning raw materials into services resulting in more output. When momentum is high, the pressure on structures within the organization also changes proportionately, resulting in higher value to the company.
Reference
Segre, S. (2014). Contemporary sociological thinkers and theories. Taylor and Francis.