Giddens: lecture 2, The analysis of strategic conduct
In his discussion of the Willis study Giddens brackets structure so to look at agency (structure recedes into the background, is taken for granted here) and practical/discursive forms of consciousness involved in classroom strategies
Giddens examines the goal-oriented conduct of the Lads; generalised motivations
Negotiation: the Lads change the teaching process- undermine the formal structure, curriculum
Team members or isolated agents: Archer argues that agency is individual agency and hence we can’t understand what the structure does as we are outside it. Hence no knowledgeable agents re structural factors/properties of social life.
Anthony King’s criticism of Archer: her agents are always isolated individuals, not team members (King, A., 2010, 'The odd couple:Margaret Archer, Anthony Giddens and British social theory', British Journal of Sociology )
Archer’s points against Giddens:
1. structures have emergent properties that agents don’t have- e.g. I can’t cure myself but the NHS can
2. structures (following Durkheim) pre-exist agents e.g. institutional roles pre-exist the agents who fill them… a temporal gap, hence structures cause, bring about agency here.
Possible replies Giddens could make:
To point 1: only works if we see agency as individual agency rather than, e.g. team agency that works through individuals
To point 2: roles are created in the anticipation that there are agents who can fill them hence the agents influence the roles. Following Strauss agents always influence, negotiate the way roles are done in reality i.e. not as they appear on formal or contractual documents
Other Criticisms of Giddens
He seems to make the mistake of regarding agents as in some sense outside structure -the reverse of Archer but with the same consequences, reducing duality to dualism. Their very knowedgeability or practical consciousness means they see life as understandable and negotiable….. structure as a resource as well as rules, e.g. for the counter culture’s sabotage of lessons.
A subsequent piece of research showed that the Lads regretted not taking opportunities… hence not so knowledgeable
Merleau-Ponty- all agency has a blind spot and thus the structure operates through us in ways we don’t grasp. If we take it for granted then we go with its flow rather than seeing what it’s doing to us etc. Hence here structure is working through us, so it is not something we act on and therefore it must be a constraint on us i.e. it does something to us, we don't do something to it. Ambiguity of agency…who’s speaking –us or the structure? (Signs). This point about the ambiguity of agency canbe used to criticses Giddens although M-P himself died before Giddens produced structuration theory
The Problem of Ideology- whilst Archer sees structure as an external thing as with Durkheim and Parsons’ functionalism, Giddens argues that in everyday life we do not make this kind of mistake (reification) we always grasp our relation to a situation as we draw on our experiences to understand it, see situations as not separate from us but continuous with our past experiences.. .and therefore familiar
Functionalism: The recursive nature of action means agents always reproduce the situations which are the context of their actions, hence leaving society just as it was- stabilising it, not changing it, despite their improvisations ( negotiated order).
Alternative view of daily life as everyday life (Lefebvre- Everyday Life in the Modern World) threat to the fabric of everyday life, its routine, secure structure etc. leads to revolt. Everyday life and its routines are always on the point of being undermined by processes of modernisation but the modern world also depends on the stability of everyday life as a basis for modernisation….paradox.
E.g. changes to work- deindustrialisation, speed ups, flexible
working. Part time, shift work, zero hours contracts,
casualisation. The Facebook revolt. Poll Tax. Globalisation
and international conflict (Iraq, Afghanistan)
In his discussion of the Willis study Giddens brackets structure so to look at agency (structure recedes into the background, is taken for granted here) and practical/discursive forms of consciousness involved in classroom strategies
Giddens examines the goal-oriented conduct of the Lads; generalised motivations
Negotiation: the Lads change the teaching process- undermine the formal structure, curriculum
Team members or isolated agents: Archer argues that agency is individual agency and hence we can’t understand what the structure does as we are outside it. Hence no knowledgeable agents re structural factors/properties of social life.
Anthony King’s criticism of Archer: her agents are always isolated individuals, not team members (King, A., 2010, 'The odd couple:Margaret Archer, Anthony Giddens and British social theory', British Journal of Sociology )
Archer’s points against Giddens:
1. structures have emergent properties that agents don’t have- e.g. I can’t cure myself but the NHS can
2. structures (following Durkheim) pre-exist agents e.g. institutional roles pre-exist the agents who fill them… a temporal gap, hence structures cause, bring about agency here.
Possible replies Giddens could make:
To point 1: only works if we see agency as individual agency rather than, e.g. team agency that works through individuals
To point 2: roles are created in the anticipation that there are agents who can fill them hence the agents influence the roles. Following Strauss agents always influence, negotiate the way roles are done in reality i.e. not as they appear on formal or contractual documents
Other Criticisms of Giddens
He seems to make the mistake of regarding agents as in some sense outside structure -the reverse of Archer but with the same consequences, reducing duality to dualism. Their very knowedgeability or practical consciousness means they see life as understandable and negotiable….. structure as a resource as well as rules, e.g. for the counter culture’s sabotage of lessons.
A subsequent piece of research showed that the Lads regretted not taking opportunities… hence not so knowledgeable
Merleau-Ponty- all agency has a blind spot and thus the structure operates through us in ways we don’t grasp. If we take it for granted then we go with its flow rather than seeing what it’s doing to us etc. Hence here structure is working through us, so it is not something we act on and therefore it must be a constraint on us i.e. it does something to us, we don't do something to it. Ambiguity of agency…who’s speaking –us or the structure? (Signs). This point about the ambiguity of agency canbe used to criticses Giddens although M-P himself died before Giddens produced structuration theory
The Problem of Ideology- whilst Archer sees structure as an external thing as with Durkheim and Parsons’ functionalism, Giddens argues that in everyday life we do not make this kind of mistake (reification) we always grasp our relation to a situation as we draw on our experiences to understand it, see situations as not separate from us but continuous with our past experiences.. .and therefore familiar
Functionalism: The recursive nature of action means agents always reproduce the situations which are the context of their actions, hence leaving society just as it was- stabilising it, not changing it, despite their improvisations ( negotiated order).
Alternative view of daily life as everyday life (Lefebvre- Everyday Life in the Modern World) threat to the fabric of everyday life, its routine, secure structure etc. leads to revolt. Everyday life and its routines are always on the point of being undermined by processes of modernisation but the modern world also depends on the stability of everyday life as a basis for modernisation….paradox.
E.g. changes to work- deindustrialisation, speed ups, flexible
working. Part time, shift work, zero hours contracts,
casualisation. The Facebook revolt. Poll Tax. Globalisation
and international conflict (Iraq, Afghanistan)
posted by Howard Feather at 11:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home