Eric says that the duality of structurea nda gency is unproductive when we realize that we cannot do without either pole. But this is the very idea he conceded was old hat, that we cannot doi without either pole. Very few theories insist on structurew ithout agency or vice versa. Certainly not the classic trio of Marx, Weber, or Durkheim. Ceriantly not rational choice theory or marginalist economics. A few superstructuralists of recemt vintage do without agency (perhaps). It's hard to think of someome who does without structure. Somehow I do not think that insistence on the old hat is Gidden's contribution. Nor is the stricture against reification of structure. Marx insists quite early on that, for example, "History fights no battle, makes no profits, etc. It is men, living men who do these things." (Paraphrased from The Holy Family.) This sort of thought is pretty common to most social theories. y ) Giddens objects that Marx is some sort of narrow structuralist who denies agency, but this is manifestyly wrong. Anyway, this sort of thought is pretty common to modern social theory. I mean the anti-reification line. Callinicos objects taht Giddens actually tends the other way, collapsing structure into agency and in effect denying the reality of structure. G is, he thinks, methodologically individualist in an eliminative way. Structure for G, accoirding to C, is nothing but the unintended consequences of individual actions. There may be some merit to the charge that G goes to far against structure. Well, more later. --Justin On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Eric Nilsson wrote: > Justin Schwartz writes, > >Why is this a false duality? > that is, between agency and structure. > > Accepting that people make their own history but not > in conditions of their own making does not imply that > one must understand structure as being "apart from" or > "above" people. > > Maybe "false duality" is not quite the proper phrase; > maybe "a no longer productive duality" is better. We > have incomplete theories of agency (which ignore > structure) and incomplete theories of structure (which > give little room to agency). While these theories might > be instructive, they might have reached deadends. > > A theory based on the perspective that > structure=patterns of interaction > opens up doors that otherwise might not be seen. > As Giddens notes, this approach underlines the > problematic nature of the reproduction of structure > as people can always give up past patterns of interaction. > > It also addresses the complaint that standard structuralist theories > grant to abstract notions (apart from people) the powers > that properly rests with agency. >
