A Reappraisal of Agency–Structure Theories to Understand Social Change (original) (raw)

SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks, 2014

Abstract

‘A Reappraisal of Agency–Structure Theories to Understand Social Change’, presents, discusses and reappraises sociological theories focused on movement rather than on order, on structuration processes rather than on social reproduction, so as to shed light on the permanent transformation of social life triggered by human action. These theories categorized by Joas as the ‘theories of the constitution of society’ (Joas, 1992/1996: 6, 230) seek to clarify the question of the traditionally contradictory relationship between human agency and structure. They have loosened the deterministic grip structures were said to have on the behaviors and practices of social agents. Their contribution through the many proposed interpretations has been considerable. But the literature review raised a series of questions, which I have tried to address in this chapter. The first is related to the concept of social actor, particularly the active status we assign to individual and institutional actors. One of the main questions is to determine whether organizations can be recognized as actors with a capacity for action and structuration. The implications for the analysis are quite significant. The second question addresses the conceptualization of structures and how they impact on the behaviors of social agents. Proponents of constitution theories do not always agree on the usefulness of the concept of structure, and define it differently. Should we follow Giddens, who defines structure as rules and resources, or Archer, who defines it as reproducible/transformable systemic anteriorities pre-dating action or Sztompka, who defines it as entities such as societies and civilizations? Are structures simply internalized by human agents in the form of ‘memory traces’ as Giddens suggests? Or do we need to assign them some anteriority and exteriority? How do large-scale transformations occur and what constraints are imposed by such transformations? In the light of the complexity of social life, we have to acknowledge that its structural features can only be conceptualized from a multidimensional and multilevel perspective and must constantly be related to human actors and their praxis. In this re-examination of the concept of structure, we need to recognize the effects of socialization and experience on individuals, and hence the internalization of certain structural features as part of a ‘habitus’ (Bourdieu, 1972), defined as an individual structural ‘matrix’. We also have to recognize the anteriority and exteriority of our heritage in the form of works of civilization defined here as structural referents for practices and creativity selectively mediatized through specialized knowledge. This reference to anterior productions is not static, but in many cases is reinterpreted, hybridized or ignored through creative action aimed at finding new solutions to problems, dilemmas or projects. We also have to discuss the role of rules, norms and laws. Against the revival of the deterministic approach by some neo-institutionalist theories, we need to acknowledge the far freer view social agents have of rules in ‘de-traditionalized’ societies. This implies an ambivalent approach to the rapport agents have with rules, which will be defined herein as structural procedural elements for framing, stabilizing and predicting action, knowing that one can, to a point, escape from or even transform them. As structural procedural elements or referents, repertoires of rules or works of civilization never do anything on their own. The question thatremains then is: Can specific networked configurations be interpreted as ‘active’ structures? In response, I would like to introduce the concept of Active Reticular Structure, which I define as a network of human actors and corporate actors that succeeds – within the context of complex, large-scale structuration and change processes – in imposing a model that then locks in the path of change. Beyond the initial active network, a new structural configuration emerges, which, by limiting available choices, renders the model increasingly constraining under the action of actors and agents.

Arnaud Sales hasn't uploaded this paper.

Let Arnaud know you want this paper to be uploaded.

Ask for this paper to be uploaded.