Internal
Links

Top
 Review Notes on   TM 11:  Agency & Structure
External
Links
Link
 Intro to Agency Structure Integration   
Link
                     Baldwin on Agency & Symbolic Interactionism   
Link
           An Integrated Model of Society & Its Reciprocal, Dynamic Relationships   
Link
 Intro to Giddens  
Link
           Structuration Theory   
Link
                     Agency   
Link
                     Structure   
Link
                     Structuration   
Link
                     Critiques of Structuration Theory   
Link
 Intro to Archer   
Link
           Morphogenesis:  The Relationships Among Culture, Agency, Structure, & Mental Systems   
Link
           Agency & Cultural Systems   
Link
 Intro to Bourdieu   
Link
           Habitus   
Link
                     Practice  
Link
           Field   
Link
                     Field Capital   
Link
                     Conflict in Fields   
Link
                     The Fields   
Link
           Historical Development of Habitus & Field   
Link
           Distinction   
Link
           Professional Habitus & Fields in Academia   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on an Intro to  Agency / Structure Integration
External
Links
  AGENCY INCLUDES INDIVIDUALS & COLLECTIVITIES; & STRUCTURE INCLUDES SOCIAL STRUCTURES AS WELL AS HABITS / THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF EVERYDAY PRACTICES   
  Agency & structure integration is important because it embodies the age old debate, 'do I have free will, or am I just a product of my env' wherein the env may include socialization, social pressure, structural forces, genetics, instincts, etc.   
  In many ways agency structure integration is the 'acid test' of general social theory & the 'central problem' in theory because understanding society necessitates understanding how the individual & larger society interact   
  In our simplest understanding btwn agency & structure, there is a tension btwn the two   
  Agency includes micro level individual human actors as well as macro level collective actors   
  Human agents include individuals & organized grps, orgs, nations, societies, etc.   
  Symbolic interactionists focus on individuals as actors while Marx focuses on classes as actors   
  Structure includes large scale social structures as well as micro structures such as those involved in human action  
  Social structures often include PF REG M CEML as well as culture, justice, pleasure, etc.   
  Micro structures often include Mead's genesis of the self, Cooley's looking glass self, 'ethnomethods,' the social construction of everyday life, & more   
 
 AGENCY STRUCTURE INTEGRATION EXAMINES THE NATURE OF INDIVIDUALISTIC POWER / REFLEXIVITY INTERACTIONS W/ STRUCTURAL FORCES INCLUDING CULTURE, POWER, THE ECON, STRUCTURES OF THE MIND, ETC. 
 
  The agency / structure problem is, in many ways, the European version of the American micro macro problem
 
  Agents are usually micro level actors but may also be collective level actors such as families, churches, businesses, unions, etc.
 
  Structures are usually macro level phenomena, but structures also impact & operate in everyday life
 
  AGENCY STRUCTURE ANALYSIS TENDS TO SEE THIS SPLIT AS A DICHOTOMY WHEREAS MICRO MACRO ANALYSIS IS LIKELY TO VIEW SEVERAL LEVELS OF ANALYSIS   
  Giddens' structuration theory sees agency & structure as a "duality"  
  Giddens' concept of a duality denotes that the parts of the duality cannot be separated from one another if one is to depict an accurate understanding of the phenomenon
 
  Agency is implicated in structure & structure is implicated in agency
 
  Giddens sees structure as both constraining & enabling
 
  Margaret Archer (1982) views agency & structure as a "dualism"  
  In a dualism, the components can & should be separated for examination
 
  Thus, for Archer, agency & structure can & should be separated
 
  Archer is also examines the relationship btwn culture & agency & recently developed a more general agency structure theory (1995)
 
  Pierre Bourdieu differentiates btwn habitus & field  
  Habitus is an internalized mental, or cognitive, structure through which people deal w/ the social world
 
  Habitus both produces, & is produced by the society
 
  The field is a network of relations among objective positions
 
  The structure of the field serves to constrain agents, be they individuals or collectivities
 
  THE RELATIONSHIP BTWN AGENCY & STRUCTURE IS NOT OF INDEPENDENCE BUT RATHER OF MUTUAL INTERACTION, EACH CONSTITUTING THE OTHER  
  The relationship btwn the habitus & the field of one of mutual interaction:
 
 
 Mutual interaction is seen when the field conditions the habitus & the habitus constitutes the field
 
 
 Jurgen Habermas, a critical theorists, & viewed as being sympathetic to the modernist school, examines the agency structure problem in his consideration of the colonization of the life world  
 
 The system arises from the life world but ultimately the system comes to develop its own structural characteristics & colonization of the life world
 
  The life world is a micro world where people interact & communicate  
  The system has its roots in the life world  
  As structures grow in independence & power, they come to exert more & more control over the life world  
  In the modern world, the system is "colonizing, " that is exerting control over the life world  
  Ulrich Beck's The Risk Society:  Towards a New Modernity (1992) discusses the unprecedented risks facing society today  
  THEORETICAL SYNTHESIS BTWN MICRO MACRO ANALYSIS & AGENCY STRUCTURE ANALYSIS IS ON-GOING, BUT THERE IS STILL A WIDE GAP BTWN MICRO ANALYSeS SUCH AS DRAMATURGY, WHICH DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF STRUCTURE, &  MACRO ANALYSES SUCH AS STRUCTURALISM, WHICH SEES MIC RELATIONSHIPS AS CONSTITUTED BY STRUCTURES / SOC FORCES   
  The micro macro & the agency structure problems bring to light the overall problem of fragmentation in sociology  
  Many theorists are attempting to combine theories to come up w/ a general theory of Society  
  Levine (1991a) is synthesizing Simmel & Parsons  
  Alexander is examining neofunctionalism to combine it w/ symbolic interactionism, feminism, exchange theory, etc.  
  Elster, 1985; Mayer, 1994; Roemer, 1996c are post Marxists who are bringing mainstream ideas to Marxism  
  Harvey, 1989; Jameson, 1984; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985 are bringing post modernism ideas to Marxism  
  Crippen, 1994; Maryanski & Turner, 1992 are working w/in sociobiology  
  Coleman, 1990 is working on rational choice theory which combines sociology & economics  
  Systems Theory has its roots in the physical science but Niklas Luhmann, 1982, has applied it to the social world  
  Marcuse develops a social theory based on psychology, esp Freudian psych, thus illuminating the relationship btwn free will & the social structures that limit & empower it  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline an Intro to  John C. Baldwin
External
Links
  BALDWIN HOLDS THAT MEAD DOES COVER MICRO TO MACRO INTERACTIONS & DISCUSSES THE VARIETIES OF INDIVIDUAL & INSTITUTIONAL AGENCY   
  Mead's work is sociologically integrative
 
  Mead covers the full range of micro macro interactions
 
  Mead interweaves contributions from all schools of social science
 
  Mead commits to scientific methods, ensuring all data & theories can be integrated
 
  INDIVIDUAL AGENCY IS THE CAPACITY FOR PEOPLE TO ACT IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS, OUTSIDE OF SOCIAL FORCES   
  A micro macro orientation implies agency whereby the actors act w/ both a subjective & objective component 
 
  Agency, acting w/ both a subjective & objective component, results in interaction & patterns
 
  INSTITUTIONAL AGENCY IS THE CAPACITY FOR PEOPLE, AS ORGL ACTORS, TO ACT IN THE ORG'S INTERESTS, OUTSIDE OF SOCIAL FORCES 
 
  Organizations, etc. can act as agents & use & are subject to symbolic interactionist processes such as gestures, impression management, etc.
 
  Organizations, institutions, social movements, social classes, nations, interest groups, races are characterized by subjective processes, & thus are agents
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on an  Integrated Model of Society & Its Reciprocal, Dynamic Relationships 
External
Links
  -  Project:  Agency / Structure Integrated Model 
Link
 
 AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF SOCIETY GENERALLY INCLUDES THOUGHT, THE ACTOR, STRUCTURE, & CULTURE & THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THEM 
 
  The role & importance of the various components of our understanding of society vary widely both because our knowledge is incomplete, but also because there are three broad paradigms in the social sciences ranging from Marxism / conflict theory, to structuralism / systems theories, to micro / symbolic interactionism theory   
  In constructing a model of the individual & society, it is impossible to embody all the ideas or to represent them accurately   
  The current model has the components of: 
1.  individual thought consciousness 
2.  the actor 
3.  social structure 
4.  culture 
& the 6 possible relationships among these components 		  
 Link
 The Figure on an Integrated Model of Society shows the various interdependent relationships btwn everyday thought, the actor & everyday action, social structure, culture, & demonstrating that they combine to produce our individual experience of life   
 Link
 The Figure on an Integrated Model of Society & Its Reciprocal, Dynamic Relationships demonstrates that the relationships among the components of society are reciprocal & dynamic  
  (1)  Thought / consciousness & the actor / soc beh & are mutually interdependent in that we appear to have mental control over our actions, & how we act does effect what we think & feel   
  (2)  The actor / soc beh & soc structure are mutually interdependent in that structures are merely the patterned behavior of individuals & the patterned behavior of others impacts the individual   
  (3)  Social structure & culture are mutually interdependent in that patterns of behavior reflect shared ideas, & shared ideas pattern our behavior   
  (4)  Culture & thought / consciousness are mutually interdependent in that the shared KBVN of many others influences what the individual thinks, believes, feels, perceives, etc., & individual thought / ideology aggregates when it is shared   
  (5)  Thought / consciousness & soc structure are mutually interdependent in that we each 'know' how to act in particular venues, & these spheres, spheres of life, etc. socialize individuals on how to see them & think in general   
  (6)  The actor / soc beh & culture are mutually interdependent in that as an individual's actions occur, they may be copied & thus become aggregated / shared as culture, & in how culture shapes an individual's behavior   
  1.  THOUGHT / CONSCIOUSNESS INCLUDES WHAT WE RECOGNIZE AS A 'STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS' AS WELL CALL IDEOLOGY,  MENTAL STRUCTURES, HABITUS, PERCEPTIONS, ETC.   
  There are at least three views on concept of individual thought & consciousness, ideology, perception, rationality, etc. which range from 
a.  Consciousness the the beginning, the foundation of all action & society, to
b.  Consciousness is important, but we often act differently than we think we will, & we are not rational, to 
c.  Consciousness is an epi phenomenon in that we need to only understand behavior 		  
  Behaviorists, exchange theorists, et al view the actor as a conscious, creative individual   
  Some theorist see the actor as engaging in mindless behavior, operating almost unconsciously w/ thought being a product of social forces & unconscious forces   
  Rationalists see thought as being important w/ the actor choosing, more or less automatically, the most efficient means to ends   
  2.  THE ACTOR MAY BE AN INDIVIDUAL, GROUP, OR ORG & IS SEEN AS HAVING VARIABLE DEGREES OF FREEDOM IN CARRYING OUT ACTION   
 
 The concept of the agent is one that is relatively new in the social sciences, but has resemblances to the older concept of the actor & others 
 
 
 For some, the agent is only an individual 
 
 
 For some the agent includes individuals & organizations or institutions 
 
 
 For some the agent is either individuals or organizations or institutions 
 
  There are many different views on the development, constitution, genesis of the person, the agent, the actor, the self, etc.   
 
 THE FREEDOM OF THE ACTOR RANGES FROM NONE, TO SOME, TO TOTAL 
 
  There are at least three views on agents, actors, the self, etc., that range from completely mechanical & constrained, to powerful, but not totally free, to totally free & unconstrained   
 
 Some contemporary theorists often consider the agent to be mechanical or highly influenced by social forces 
 
  To say that agents are mechanical is to say they have no free will, agency, autonomy or similar connotation of freedom   
 
 Some contemporary theorists consider the classic theorists of Marx, Durkheim, Weber to have a more mechanical view, but other contemporary theorists deny this 
 
 
 The middle ground of the degree freedom of the agent is to hold that agents make decisions based on the best facts available to them, but they are constrained in that perception, choices, resources, allies, etc. are all limited by social forces 
 
 
 Some extreme micro social scientists hold that the agent is constrained only by his / her own perceptions & that social forces either do not exist or have no influence 
 
 
 Bourdieu's agent dominated by habitus, is more mechanical than Giddens' or Habermas' agent because the habitus is a system of durable, transposable dispositions, structuring structures, that is, as principles of the generation & structuring of practices & representations 
 
 
 The habitus is a source of strategies, w/o being the product of genuine strategic intention
 
 
 The habitus dominated agents lacks complete free will & power to constitute itself or the world 
 
 
 Giddens' agent is depicted as having some intentionality & free will because agents have choice & perceive at least the possibility of acting differently than they do 
 
 
 Giddens' agent has power & they make a difference in their worlds 
 
 
 Giddens' agent constitutes & is constituted by structures 
 
  Giddens' agent is active & creative involved in a continual flow of conduct   
  Archer's agent is reduced to systems, particularly the socio cultural system   
  FREE ACTORS ARE DEPICTED AS HAVING POWER, INTENTIONALITY, CHOICE, & REFLEXIVITY WHILE CONSTRAINED ACTORS LACK ONE OR MORE OF THESE   
  Four criteria must be met for the actor to be an agent / have free will:  
  a.  Agents must have power, be able to make a difference  
  b.  Agents undertake intentional action  
  c.  Agents must have some choice, some free play  
  d.  Agents must be reflexive monitoring the effects of their actions & using that knowledge to modify the bases of action  
  Agency is a continuum; all actors have agency to some degree, & no actor has full, unconstrained agency   
 
 3.  STRUCTURE IS THAT SOCIAL COMPONENT WHICH IS SEEN AS THE OBSERVABLE CONSTRAINTS ON ACTORS' BEHAVIOR & THOUGHTS 
 
  Definitions of the nature of structures are as varied as the labeling what is or is not a structure, system, field, institutions, etc.   
  Social structure is the organization of society, including institutions, social positions, the relationships among social positions, the groups or orgs that make up society, & the distribution of scarce resources w/in the society   
  Some define structures as reproduced social practices   
  Some define structures as shared practices that are capable of being influenced but are fundamentally beyond the control or will of any individual   
  Some define structures as actually non existent as external structures, existing as internalized habits & norms, resulting in a definition that is similar to that of a shared ideology, a culture of practices   
  STRUCTURES ARE SEEN AS BEING VERY, SOMEWHAT, OR NOT AT ALL CONSTRAINING ON THE THOUGHT & ACTION OF THE ACTOR   
 
 Like the examination of agency, there are at least three views on structures, systems, fields, institutions, etc., that range from completely mechanical & constraining, to influential, but not totally controlling, to no control or non existent 
 
  For some, a specific structure is central to understanding & determining or shaping society  
  The central structures most frequently cited are the econ, the govt, & the family by Marxists, functionalists, & feminists respectively, though not exclusively   
  The debate over the centrality or power of structures is, like that over the power of agents, somewhat of a 'straw person' argument in that some theorists will accuse others' theories of being mechanical, while those theorists hold that they are not, thus ending in a game of 'my theory is more dynamic than yours'   
  An example of the 'straw debate' is micro theorists of today accuse Marx of being highly mechanical while Marx clearly recognized both freedom & constraint   
  SOME THEORISTS BELIEVE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS STRUCTURE, WHILE OTHERS SEE A FEW, & OTHERS SEE MANY  
  Another debate surrounding structure examines the nature & number of structures ranging from just a few to many   
  Marx & other classic theorists focused on just a few structures such as the econ, the family, religion, & peers   
  Some see that list growing, but the number & nature of structures is similar to that of the classic theorists including such spheres of life as PF REG M CEML   
  Other theorists focus on an array of structures such as orgs, bureaucracy, the polity, art, literature, the sexuality / pleasure system, the deviance / crime / justice system, & more   
  STRUCTURE OPERATES WHEN ACTORS ARE CONSTRAINED IN THOUGHT, IN ACTIONS, WHEN ACTORS HAVE HIST, LEGITIMATE POWER   
  Euro social science is unlikely to separate the analyses of structure & agency, preferring to see them in a reciprocal relationship   
  Structure is seen to operate if two criteria are met:   
  a.  Structure operates when even if an agent can imagine certain actions they simply may not be possible, given, social, techl, physical, etc. realities   
  b.  Structure operates when certain actions seem necessary while others appear impossible   
  c.  Structure operates when agency is limited by other agents who have sanctioning power, both positive & negative   
  Some theorists, e.g. functionalists, focus on both large scale structures & culture, extending all the way from micro structures of the mind to macro structures of society   
  4.  CULTURE IS THE SHARED, THOUGHT OR CONSCIOUSNESS OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE & THE MATERIAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THAT SHARED CONSCIOUSNESS   
  Theorists see, broadly, three positions on culture & its relationship to structure & the actor ranging from:   
  a.  culture being the central, most powerful component in understanding society, to   
  b.  culture being equally influential w/ other social phenomena such as the actor & structure, & to  
  c.  culture being merely an epi phenomenon in that thoughts & beliefs are often irrelevant to what is actually done  
  Archer, functionalists, cultural Marxists & others deny the positions of those who focus on structure to the exclusion of culture   

 
Top
  
Figure on an Integrated Model of Society 
Objective /
Materialist
Macroscopic
Subjective /
Idealist
3.  Social Structure:
e.g. PF REG M CEML,
society, law, bureaucracy, architecture, tech, language, etc.		 4.  Culture:
e.g. KBVN: shared knowledge, beliefs, values, norms, etc.
2.  Actor / Action:
agents, self, action / behavior:
e.g. patterns of behavior, action, interaction, etc. 		 1.  Thought / Consciousness:
e.g. AOII:  attitudes, opinions, interests, ideology, habitus; 
perceptions, beliefs, social construction of reality, class / false consciousness, etc.
Microscopic
The Figure on an Integrated Model of Society shows the various interdependent relationships btwn everyday thought, the actor & everyday action, social structure, culture, & demonstrating that they combine to produce our individual experience of life 

 
Top
  
Figure on an Integrated Model of Society & Its Reciprocal, Dynamic Relationships 
 
 
 Macro Level
Social
Structures
<----- 3 ----->
Culture
Objective /
Materialistic
Phenomena
/\
 | 
 2 
 | 
\/ 
       5                  6 
 

      6                  5
/\
 | 
 4
 |
\/
 Subjective /
Idealistic
Phenomena
Actor / Action
<----- 1 ----->
Thought /
Consciousness
Micro Level

The Figure on an Integrated Model of Society & Its Reciprocal, Dynamic Relationships demonstrates that the relationships among the components of society are reciprocal & dynamic, i.e. that (1) thought / consciousness & the actor / soc beh are mutually interdependent, (2) the actor / soc beh & soc structure are mutually interdependent, (3) social structure & culture are mutually interdependent, (4) culture & thought / consciousness are mutually interdependent, (5) thought / consciousness & soc structure are mutually interdependent, (6) the actor / soc beh & culture are mutually interdependent i.e. reciprocal & dynamic 


 
Top

Internal
Links
An Overview of  Anthony Giddens    1938  - 
External
Links
  -  Project:  Modernist Institutions 
Link
Link
 - Biography & Major Works 
 
 
 FOR GIDDENS, MODERNITY HAS FOUR STAGES, INCLUDING THE EARLY, INDL, HIGH, & POST STAGES 
 
  How are these four eras different?   
  The modern era in which we live is very different than that of the classical theorists, who also lived in the early modern era   
  And both of those stages are different than the industrial era of the the 1800s & early 1900s  
  Modernity is not taking one path   
  Modernity has conflicting & contradictory parts & thus theories of modernity are not old fashioned, unidirectional grand theories   
  1.  THE EARLY STAGE OF MODERNITY EXPERIENCED THE RATIONALIZATION OF PRODUCTION THE EARLIEST CONFLICT BTWN TRADL RELIGIOUS  BELIEFS & SCIENCE   
 
 The Early Stage of Modernity runs from the 1600s to after Industrial Revolution gained a head of steam circa 1800s 
 
  The first 'factories' were essentially craft wkrs on an assembly line   
  The cultural development which paralleled the rationalization of the econ, saw the devl of religious freedom, conflict btwn religious & scientific paradigms, etc.   
  2.  THE INDL STAGE OF MODERNITY EXPERIENCED THE INDL REV & THE STRUGGLE FOR 'MIDDLE CLASS RIGHTS'   
 
 The Industrial Stage of Modernity runs from the 1800s to circa 1950 
 
  The indl stage resulted in the earliest devl of a middle class which sought the freedoms & rights which we commonly accept today as our birth right such as a living wage, a safe wkplace, ed, freedom, etc.   
 
 The indl stage saw the end slavery, the development of unions & the labor mvmt, increased rights for women, including suffrage, & the devl of democracy as we recognize it today 
 
  3.  HIGH MODERNITY REPRESENTS THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT / RATIONALIZATION OF THE INDL ECON TO POST INDL, & THE DEVL OF CULTURE IN PARALLEL TO THIS, MOVING TOWARD GREATER FREEDOM   
  The Era of High Modernity runs from the circa 1950 to the present   
  High modernity is also know as radical modernity, late modernity, the high tech era, or even the post industrial era   
 
 For Giddens, High Modernity is unique because
-  it is a post scarcity system ( for the West only)
-  there is multilayered democratization
-  there is demilitarization
-  there is the humanization of technology
-  many of its relationships & characteristics are reflexive
 
  For Giddens, there is no guarantee that the world will continue to move toward modernity  
  For Giddens, reflexivity means that a person or a social system can help things, i.e. modernity & other goals, come to pass  
  The modern world may be thought of as a "juggernaut," that is, a runaway engine  
 
 For Giddens the juggernaut: 
-  is a runaway engine of enormous power
-  is capable of being driven or steered only to a limited extent
-  is threatening to rush out of control
-  crushes those who resist
-  sometimes seems to have a steady course
-  sometimes seems to veer erratically
-  has a ride that can be rewarding & even exhilarating
 
  But we can never feel secure because of the qualities of modernity  
 
 4.  GIDDENS DOES NOT BELIEVE WE ARE YET IN A POST MODERN STAGE
 
 
 While Giddens does not directly embrace the concept of the post modernism, his schema of modernity implies that such an era could exist
 
  Giddens is unsure as to whether we are entering a new, "post modern" stage or not   
  Giddens does not agree w/ the tenet of post modernity that systematic knowledge is impossible   
  The denial of systematic knowledge would lead us "...to repudiate intellectual activity altogether."   
  STRUCTURATION THEORY HOLDS THAT AGENCY & STRUCTURE ARE RECIPROCAL, DYNAMIC SOCIAL FORCES & THAT AGENTS HAVE SOME FREEDOM TO ACT & ARE SOMEWHAT CONSTRAINED BY STRUCTURE   
  In Giddens' Structuration theory, there is a disjunction between agency & historical analysis, btwn individualism & the power of society, btwn the micro & macro aspects of society  
  Giddens emphasizes our ability to be active change agents but yet emphasizes the juggernaut & the dominance of system tendencies  
  Review:  Many other social theorists have recognized the tension btwn agency & structure, including Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Parsons, esp C Wright Mills & the Sociological Imagination  

 
Top
  


 

Anthony Giddens
1938  - 
Great Britain's most important contemporary social theorist
Now at Cambridge University
Began as an empirical sociologist
Then focused on cross cultural society
Now a grand theorist
Involved in several publishing firms:
Macmillan & Hutchinson, Polity Press
 
 
 
 

Ritz 0411
Top
  
Major Works of Giddens

The Class Structure of Advanced Societies, 1975
The Constitution of Society:  Outline of the Theory of Structuration, 1985
Sociology, 1987
Modernity and Self Identity, 1991
Transformation of Intimacy, 1992
The Consequences of Modernity

Ritz 0411

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on   Structuration Theory
External
Links
  STRUCTURATION DENOTES THAT AGENCY & STRUCTURE ARE TWO SIDES OF ALL REALITY IN THAT WE CONTINUALLY EXPERIENCE BOTH:  THE 'FREE' ABILITY TO ACT & THE FORCES THAT COMPEL US TO ACT IN A PARTICULAR MANNER 
 
  In understanding agency, social scientists relation action or agency to structure in that structure determines action or vice versa 
 
  For Giddens, individual / agents on the one hand, and society / structure on the other hand must be seen as polar alternative in explaining social action & social forms 
 
  The relationship btwn agency & structure is one of the mutual interaction recurrent social practices
 
  The domain of the social sciences is neither the experience of the individual actor, nor the existence of any form of social totality, but social practices ordered across time & space 
 
  In structuration there is a duality & mutual interaction of agency & structure to such a degree that neither can be conceived w/o the other; they are two sides of the same coin 
 
  All social action involves structure, & all structure involves social action 
 
RECURSION IS THE PROCESS WHEREBY AN OUTCOME OF AGENCY OR STRUCTURE IS DETERMINED BOTH BY ITSELF AS WELL AS BY THE OTHER   
  Giddens characterizes the duality & mutual interaction of agency & structure as being recursive
 
  Activities are not brought into being by social actors but are continually recreated by them via the means they express themselves as actors
 
  Through their activities agents produce the conditions that make these activities possible 
 
  Activities are not produced by consciousness, by the social construction of reality, nor are they produced by social structure
 
  In expressing themselves as actors, people are engaging in practice, & it is through that practice that both consciousness & structure are produced 
 
  Both structure & consciousness are reproduced in & through the succession of situated practices which are organized by it 
 
  In being reflexive, an actors is not only self conscious but also engaged in the env, monitoring & interpreting the env & structural conditions 
 
  Agency is reflexively & recursively implicated in social structures   
  Practice, structure, & consciousness are produced in a mutual interaction w/ each other   
  THE SOCIAL SCIENCES ARE ANOTHER SOCIAL FORCE THAT AFFECTS INDIVIDUAL ACTION   
  There is a double hermeneutic btwn all people in that while we can know each other & understand each other, we can do so only in a less than perfect manner in that we can never totally know each other   
  Despite the barrier of the double hermeneutic, we can & do interact w/ each other, learn from each other, socialize each other, influence each other, etc.  
  Just as people in general interact, learn, socialize, influence, etc. each other, so do people & social scientists relate to each other as the concepts & knowledge of the social sciences impact everyday people, while people impact how social scientists formulate their concepts & knowledge   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Agency
External
Links
  -  Project:  Agency & Degrees of Freedom 
Link
  AGENTS ARE REFLEXIVE TO THEIR SELF & THEIR ENV, BUT ARE OFTEN UNCONSCIOUS ABOUT THEIR MOTIVATIONS 
 
  Agents continuously monitor their own thought & activities as well as their physical & social contexts
 
  Actors rationalize their worlds in that they develop routines that give them security, & enable them to deal efficiently w/ their physical & social lives 
 
  MOTIVATIONS ARE WANTS & DESIRES OF WHICH WE ARE OFTEN UNCONSCIOUS 
 
  Actors have motivations to act & these motivations involve wants & desires that prompt action
 
  While rationalization & reflexivity are continuously involved in action, motivations are a force for potential for action
 
  Motivations provide overall plans for action, but  most action is not directly motivated 
 
  Despite that action often is not motivated & our motivations are generally unconscious, motivations still play a significant role in human conduct & society 
 
  DISCURSIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IS THAT ABILITY TO EXPLAIN OUR MOTIVATIONS WHILE PRACTICAL CONSCIOUSNESS DENOTES THAT WE OFTEN CANNOT EXPLAIN OUR MOTIVATIONS 
 
  Discursive consciousness entails the ability to describe our actions in words 
 
  Practical consciousness involves actions that the actors take for granted, w/o being able to express in worlds what they are doing
 
  Practical consciousness reflects our primary interest in what is done, while discursive consciousness reflects our primary interest in what is said 
 
  For structuration theory, as well as for most people, what we do is more important that what we say or what we think 
 
  The relationship btwn discursive & practical consciousness is permeable in that they may or may not mix / overlap 
 
  EVEN WHEN WE HAVE DISCURSIVE CONSCIOUSNESS, THERE ARE STILL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES  
  Agents act & what they do is called agency  
  Agency includes the events of which an individual or a collective is a perpetrator   
  Agency is a subset of action in that the latter is what the actor intended, but agency is what actually happens   
  Actions often end up being different that what was intended   
  Intentional acts often have unintended consequences   
  FOR THE REFLEXIVE AGENT, POWER IS THE ABILITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE   
  Giddens believes that structuration theory affords the actor more power than other theories such as phenomenology or functionalism   
  Agents have the ability to make a difference in the social world   
  Agents make no sense w/o power in that an actor ceases to be an agent if he / she / it loses the capacity to make a difference   
  While there are constraints on actors, actors can still make a difference   
  Power is logically prior to subjectivity because action involves power or the ability to transform the situation  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Structure
External
Links
  THE CONCEPT OF STRUCTURE OR SOC SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT THAT SOC STRUCTURE IN THAT SOC SYS ARE LARGER, MORE MALLEABLE, MORE SUBJECT TO CONTROL, & ARE REPRODUCED PRACTICES 
 
  Giddens use of the concept structure in structuration theory is not the same as the type use of the concept social structure 
 
  See Also:  Social Structures 
 
  Social structures would be a subset of structures 
 
  Structure is the structuring properties, i.e. rules & resources, the properties which make it possible for discernibly similar social practices to exist across varying spans of time & space & which lend them systemic form 
 
  Structure is made possible because individual or collective actors have rules & resources which they practice or utilize in regular patterns 
 
  Structures themselves do no exist in time & space, but social phenomena have the capacity to become structured 
 
  Structure exists in & through the activities of human agents 
 
  While Durkheim emphasized structures that were external to & coercive of actors, Giddens avoids the impression that structure is outside of human action 
 
  Structure gives form & shape to social life, but it is not itself that form & shape 
 
  Structure is not a framework like the girders of a building or the skeleton of a body, but it serves the same purpose, has the same function as a framework 
 
  STRUCTURES / SOC SYS ARE ARE THE RESULT OF INTENTIONAL & UNINTENTIONAL ACTION, HAVE FEEDBACK LOOPS, ARE INSTANT, ARE SUBSTANTIAL, & ARE MANIFEST AT BOTH THE MACRO & MICRO LEVELS 
 
  Structure constrains action, but it also enables action 
 
  Structures allow agents to act in ways they otherwise would not be able to do 
 
  While Giddens does recognize that actors can lose control over the structural properties of social system, he avoids the Weberian iron cage image   
  While for Weber, the loss of control as the result of the power of social structures, for Giddens the loss of control as the result of the power of social structures is not inevitable   
  The concept of social system is a closer to Giddens' sense of social structure  because soc sys do not have structures, but they do exhibit structural properties   
  Structures do not exist in time & space, but they are manifested in social systems in the form of reproduced practices   
  While some soc sys are the product of  intentional action, they are often the unanticipated consequences of human action & feedback into it   
 
 The unanticipated consequences of soc sys & the feedback into them may may efforts to control them elusive, but never the less actors continue efforts to exert control   
  Structures are instantiated in soc sys in that they are instant & substantial or significant   
  Structures are manifest in the memory traces which orient the conduct of knowledgeable human agents; i.e. the knowledge of how to organize a military campaign, a business project, a sporting event, even a family is carried in the formal & informal ed sys of a society, its culture & soc struc  
  The rules & resources of a society manifest themselves at both the macro level os soc sys, as well as at the micro level of human consciousness   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on   Structuration
External
Links
  STRUCTURATION IS THE SOCIAL PROCESS, WHICH IS RECIPROCAL & DYNAMIC, BTWN ACTIVE AGENTS & MALLEABLE SOC STRUCTURES 
 
  The constitution of agents & structures are not independent of on another   
  The structural properties of social systems are both the medium & outcome of the practices they recursively organize 
 
  The properties of social systems are seen as both medium & outcome of the practices of actors, & those system properties recursively organize the practices of actors   
  The moment of the production of action is also one of reproduction in the contexts of the day to day enactment of social life 
 
  Structuration involves an interdependent, mutual relationship btwn structure & agency 
 
  People & orgs, i.e. agency, create structure, & structure influences where, when & how people & orgs create 
 
  The constitution of agents & structures are two dependent given sets of phenomena that are a duality 
 
  DISTANCING IS THE CHARACTERISTIC OF ALL SOC RELATIONSHIPS THAT THEY ARE STRUCTURALLY & CULTURALLY TRANSMITTED BY AGENTS ACROSS TIME & SPACE, 'GAINING A LIFE OF THEIR OWN' 
 
  The primordial condition is face to face interaction, in which others are present at the same time & in the same space 
 
  Social systems extend farther than agents in time & space & so the agents of creation of a soc sys may no longer be present 
 
  Distancing in terms of time & space is made increasingly possible in the modern world by new forms of communication & transportation 
 
  Historical analysis try to make clear the nature of the influence of how structures have evolved over time & space 
 
  STRUCTURATION & DISTANCING OCCUR AMONG ALL SOC PHENOMENON, SUCH AS IDEOLOGY, AGENTS, STRUCTURE, CULTURE, & MORE 
 
  Structuration theory concentrates on the orderings of instit over time & space, & does not focus on societies 
 
  Instit include the cluster of practices including symbolic orders (religion, & other cultural sys), politics, econ, & law 
 
  Structuration theory examines changes in institutions over time & space   
  Structuration theory explores the role of leaders of various instit & how they alter social patterns   
  Structuration theory monitors the impact of their findings on the social world   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Critiques of Structuration Theory
External
Links
  CRITICISMS OF STRUCTURATION THEORY INCLUDE THAT IT IS NOT GROUNDED, IS NOT COMPLEX ENOUGH, USES THEORIES THAT MAY BE INCOMPATIBLE, MAY EXCLUDE OTHER THEORIES, IGNORES USEFUL IDEAS FROM OTHER THEORIES, HAS NO CRITICAL ANALYSIS, IS FRAGMENTED, VAGUE & DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND 
 
  STRUC TH IS NOT GROUNDED IN THAT IT DOES NOT EXPLORE 'REAL' OR 'DEEP STRUCTURES' THAT ARE THE MOST INFLUENTIAL   
  Craib contents that Gidden's structuration theory fails to get at the soc structures that underlie the social world; i.e. structuration theory lack ontological depth 
 
  Examples? 
 
  STRUC TH IS TOO SIMPLE & THE WORLD IS MUCH MORE COMPLEX   
  Craib contents that Gidden's structuration theory does not mesh well w/ the complexity of the social world 
 
  STRUC TH USES INCOMPATIBLE THEORIES  
  Craib notes that Giddens utilizes a range of theories that might be incompatible 
 
  STRUC TH LIMITS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER THEORIES   
  Giddens' approach, or any grand theory, may limit the contributions that could be derived by employing a full range of sociological theories 
 
  STRUC TH FAILS TO DERIVE USEFUL IDEAS FROM OTHER PARADIGMS & THEORIES   
  According to Ritzer, Giddens' rejection of meta theories such as positivism & theories such as structural functionalism makes him unable to derive any useful ideas from them, but many see that there are connections among structuration, positivism, functionalism, conflict theory, etc. 
 
  STRUC TH OFFERS NO CRITICAL ANALYSIS, IS FRAGMENTED, VAGUE, & DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND  
  Ritzer believes that Giddens offers no critical analysis of modern society 
 
  Ritzer believes that Giddens' theory is fragmented 
 
  Ritzer believes that Giddens' theory is vague & difficult to understand 
 
  STRUCTURATIONS' STRONGEST QUAL IS THAT IT EMPHASIZES THAT STRUCTURES ARE BOTH CONSTRAINING & ENABLING
 
  Craib notes that the idea that structures are both constraining & enabling is an integral part of contemporary sociology 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on an Intro to Archer 
External
Links
  AGENTS ARE IN RECIPROCAL & DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIPS W/ BOTH STRUCTURE & CULTURE
 
  Archer recognizes the theoretical implications of agency / structure interactions & so examines agency / culture interactions 
 
  While Giddens recognized the duality of structure & culture, seeing them as two side of the same phenomena, Archer advocates examining them as analytically distinct, but intertwined in social life 
 
  Archer believes a weakness of Giddens' structuration theory is giving priority to the duality of structure & culture as opposed to examining the interplay btwn them over time 
 
  It is important to view the dualism of the influences among people & social phenomena such as culture & structure 
 
  THEORISTS DEBATE OVER WHETHER SOC PHENOMENON SHOULD BE SEEN AS SEPARATE ENTITIES IN RELATIONSHIPS OR AS ONE PHENOMENON W/ VARYING QUALITIES 
 
  Ritzer believes that both dualities & dualism are useful in analyzing the social world 
 
  In some cases it is useful to separate structure & action, or mic & mac, to look at how they relate to one another 
 
  In other cases it is useful to look at structure & action, or mic & mac as dualities that are inseparable 
 
  STRUCTURATION IMPLIES MORPHOGENESIS:  THE TRANSFORMATION & ELABORATION OF SOC PHENOMENON 
 
  Structuration theory depicts cycles of agency & structure w/o direction while Archer suggests that their is consistent structural elaboration over time via process called morphogenesis 
 
  See Also:  Morphogenesis 
 
  Morphogenesis is the process by which complex interchanges lead no only to changes in the structure of the system, but also to an end product:  structural elaboration 
 
  While morphogenesis implies changer, morphostasis is an absence of change 
 
  Morphogenesis is a process of emergent properties that are separable form the actions & interactions that produced them   
  Once structures have emerged, they react upon & alter action & interaction   
  The morphogenesis perspective looks at this process over time, seeing endless sequences & cycles of structural change, alterations in action & interaction & structural elaboration   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Morphogenesis:  The Relationships Among Mental Systems, Agency, Structure, & Culture 
External
Links
  MORPHOGENESIS IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH COMPLEX INTERCHANGES LEAD NOT ONLY TO CHANGES IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE SYSTEM, BUT ALSO TO AN END PRODUCT:  STRUCTURAL ELABORATION 
 
  The examination of structure & agency overshadows the examination of culture & agency 
 
  Cultural analysis lags behind structural analysis   
  Because structure & culture are intertwined in the real world, the distinction of the priority of structure / agency or culture agency is a conceptual one 
 
  While structure is the realm of material phenomena & interests, culture involves non material phenomena & ideas 
 
  For Archer, because structure & culture are autonomous, the relationships btwn agency, structure, & culture must be examined independently 
 
  MORPHOGENESIS OCCURS IN ALL SOCIAL PHENOMENON INCLUDING IDEOLOGY, AGENTS, STRUCTURE, & CULTURE 
 
  Morphogenetic theory examines how structural conditioning affects social interaction & how this interaction, in turn, leads to structural elaboration 
 
  Morphogenetic theory examines how cultural conditioning affects socio cultural interaction & how this interaction leads to cultural elaboration over time 
 
  Cultural condition refers to the parts or components, of the cultural system
 
  Socio cultural interaction deals w/ the relationships btwn cultural agents
 
  The relationship btwn cultural conditioning & socio cultural interaction is a variant of the cultural / agency issue 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Agency & Cultural Systems
External
Links
  CULTURAL ELABORATION IS THE PROCESS OF TRANSFORMATION, DIFFERENTIATION, & GROWTH OF UNIQUE CULTURAL FORMS THAT, TODAY, GIVE AN APPEARANCE OF 'PROGRESS' 
 
  Cultural systems exhibit socio cultural action, wherever it is situated historically, takes place in the context of innumerable interrelated theories, beliefs & ideas which had developed prior to it, & exert a conditional influence on it 
 
  Culture is on par w/ structure in its relationship w/ action & mental states in that both culture & structure influence agency & mental systems & each other   
  The socio cultural sys logically predates socio cultural action &  interaction, & affects, & is affected by such action
 
  Cultural elaboration comes after socio cultural action & interaction & the changes induced in them by alterations in the socio cultural system
 
  Archer examines cultural elaboration in general but also specific manifestations 
 
  Cultural elaboration is the future which is forged in the present, hammered out of past inheritance by current innovation 
 
  CULTURE HAS CONFLICTUAL & ORDERING INFLUENCES ON THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF SOCIETY & THUS MAY INCITE OR CONSTRAIN SOCIAL CHANGE 
 
  The conflict dimension of culture / agency interaction is seen when parts of the cultural system are contradictory 
 
  The order dimension of culture / agency interaction is seen when parts of the cultural system are complementary 
 
  Whether conflict or order is predominate in a cultural system determines whether agents will engage in conflictual or orderly relationships w/ one another 
 
  The cultural system can impinge on or constrain action just as structure can 
 
  AGENTS RESPOND REFLEXIVELY TO CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES OR CONSTRAINTS 
 
  Agents respond to cultural constraints 
 
  The cultural system thus has a two fold relationship as seen in the cultural system's impact upon the agent, & the agent's impact upon the cultural system 
 
  Agents have the ability to either reinforce or to resist the influence of the cultural system   
  CULTURE FUNCTIONS IN 3 WAYS: 
A.  W/O OUR KNOWING IT 
B.  BY IMPOSITION VIA DOMINATE GRPS
C.  BY SHAPING STRUCTURE 		  
  First, is the downward conflation, where culture is a macro phenomenon that acts on actors behind their backs   
  Second, is the upward conflation, where one group imposes its world view, i.e. mental states, upon others by shaping or estbling cultural hegemony   
  Third, is the central conflation, where culture impacts & is impacted by social structure, i.e. all forms of patterned social interaction   
  CULTURAL SYSTEMS HAVE ELABORATED TO INCLUDE MORE VARIED TYPES OF AGENTS & RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THEM   
  The cultural system consists of components that have a logical relationship to one another   
  The cultural system has a causal impact on structure   
  There is a causal relationship among the individuals & groups that exist at the cultural system level   
  Changes in the cultural system lead to elaboration of the cultural system   
  Through an examination of morphogenesis, Archer creates a unified analysis of the relationship btwn structure, culture, & agency by demonstrating the reciprocal impact of structure & culture, as well as the relative impact of both on agency / soc action   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on an  Intro to Bourdieu
External
Links
  OBJ & SUBJ FACTORS SUCH AS STRUC & CULTURE, OR AGENTS & MENTAL SYS MUST BE VIEW AS ONE SYSTEM
 
  Bourdieu believes the social sciences & phil have estbed a false opposition btwn objectivism & subjectivism, i.e. the absurd opposition btwn individual & society 
 
  Bourdieu believes Durkheim & his delineation of social facts, the structuralism of Marxists, structuralism , etc. are all exclusively w/in the objectivist camp 
 
  Durkheim & his delineation of social facts, the structuralism of Marxists, structuralism , etc. are all ignoring the process of social construction by which actors perceive, think about & construct these structures & then proceed to act on that basis 
 
  Objectivists ignore & construct structures, & ignore agency & the agent 
 
  Bourdieu develops a structuralist analysis w/o losing sight of the agent 
 
  Bourdieu develops a subjectivist position along the lines of many symbolic interactionists 
 
  For Bourdieu there is a reciprocal relationship btwn objective structures & subjective phenomena 
 
  Objective structures form the basis for representations & constitute the structural constraints that bear upon interactions 
 
  Structural representations take into consideration the daily individual & collective struggles which develop, transform, or preserve these structures 
 
  PRACTICES ARE OUR ROUTINES OR PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR THROUGH WHICH WE ESTB MENTAL SYS, OUR SELF, STRUCTURES, CULTURE, ETC.   
  Bourdieu focuses on practice to explore the subjective component related to structures 
 
  Practices are not objectively determined, nor are they the product of free will 
 
  Constructivist structuralism depicts the reciprocal interaction btwn the way people construct social reality & the products of that construction:  the self & social structures 
 
  Constructivist structuralism analyzes different fields & the genesis of these fields 
 
  The reciprocal relationship btwn fields & the genesis of fields is inseparable from the analysis of the genesis, the biological imperatives of agents, & of mental schemas which are to some extent the product of the incorporation of structure  
  The reciprocal relationship btwn fields & the genesis of fields is also inseparable from structures & the genes of structures, the social space, & the groups that occupy it, all of which are the product of histl struggles   
  STRUCTURES EXIST AT ALL LEVELS INCLUDING W/IN THE OUR CONSCIOUSNESS, SELF, CULTURE, & MORE   
  For Bourdieu, 'traditional structuralists' focused on language & culture, but structures also exist in the social world itself   
  Objective structures, as independent of the consciousness & the will of agents are capable of guiding & constraining their practices or their representations   
  These structures have a particular histl genesis or development 
 
  STRUCTURES AT THE MICRO LEVEL 'CONSTRUCT THE SELF' & PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS ON THE SELF   
  Bourdieu analyzes the way people, on the basis of their position in social space, perceive & construct the social world   
  Perception & construction are both animated & constrained by structures   
  The analysis of objective structures is inseparable from the analysis of the genesis of the self w/in the biological agents, & from the structures themselves, & from the mental structures   
  In the examination of structure & construction of the self & structure is an examination of structures & mental structures   
  CRITICS BELIEVE BOURDIEU IS TO STRUCTURAL BUT HE WOULD CONTEND HIS THEORY EMBODIES AN ACTIVE, FREE AGENT   
  While attempting to bridge the divide btwn structure & constructivism, Ritzer feels that there is a bias in the direction of structuralism   
  The bias towards structuralism is Bourdieu's, Foucault's & others' work while embracing constructivism is the reason they are called post structuralists   
  Ritzer believes Bourdieu's constructivism ignores subjectivity & intentionality  
  Symbolic interactionists see constructivist structuralism as little more than a more adequate structuralism   
  Wacquant notes that priority is granted to objectivism over subjectivist understanding   
  Yet the dynamic agent in Bourdieu's work is a dynamic actor capable of intentionality & intentionless intervention of regulated improvisation  

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Habitus
External
Links
  -  Project:  Your Habitus 
Link
  -  Project:  Their Habitus 
Link
  HABITUS ARE MENTAL OR COGNITIVE STRUCTURE THROUGH WHICH PEOPLE DEAL W/ THE SOCIAL WORLD
 
  Habitus are practices in relationship to mental systems, the agent / self, structure, & culture 
 
  Habitus is the system of structured & structuring dispositions which is constituted by practice & constantly aimed at practical functions   
  Habitus exists in the minds of actors 
 
  Habitus in a reciprocal relationship w/ field 
 
  People are endowed w/ a series of internalized schemes through which they
perceive
understand
appreciate
evaluate the social world 
 
  Through habitus people both produce their practices  perceive & evaluate them 
 
  As a result of habitus reciprocal relationship w/ field, it is a product of the internalization of the structures 
 
  Habitus is internalized, embodied social structures 
 
  Habitus is similar to common sense
 
  Habitus reflects the objective divisions in the social structure, such as 
age
groups
genders,
classes
etc. 
 
  HABITUS DEVELOPS AS A RESULT OF OUR POSITION IN THE WORLD, ESP THE ECON SECTOR   
  Habitus is acquired as a result of long term occupation of a position w/in the social world 
 
  Habitus varies depending on the nature of one's position in that world
 
  Not everyone has the same habitus
 
  Those who occupy the same position w/in the social world tend to have similar habitus 
 
  Habitus is shaped, transformed, developed by agent's practice, i.e. the capacity for invention & improvisation   
  HABITUS ARE COLLECTIVE IN THAT SIMILAR PEOPLE HAVE SIMILAR HABITS, ROUTINES, PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR AS A RESULT OF SIMILAR POSITIONS / EXPERIENCES IN THE WORLD   
  Habitus can be a collective phenomenon  
  Habitus allows people to make sense out of the social world, but the existence of a multitude of habitus means that the social world & its structures do not impose themselves uniformly on all actors   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Practice
External
Links
  PRACTICE IS THE HUMAN ACTION, THE SYSTEM OF STRUCTURED & STRUCTURING DISPOSITION WHICH IS CONSTITUTED BY THE CONSTANT EXERCISE OF USEFUL FUNCTIONS 
 
  It is practice that mediates btwn habitus & the social world 
 
  It is through practice that habitus is created 
 
  It is as a result of practice that the social world is created 
 
  While practice shapes habitus, habitus also serves to both unify & generate practice   
  Practice is a subset of habitus; habitus is a person's complete set of practices 
 
  Practice is our individual routine that we form around a position, a context, another person   
  An example of practices would be how I act around my mother & how I act around my best friend; I have a set of language, a set of behavior, jokes, tastes, etc. that are consistent for each relationship, & different for each relationship 
 
  PRACTICES, LIKE HABITS OR ROUTINES, ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD & CULTURAL INFLUENCE & THUS WE MAY NOT HAVE TOTAL FREE WILL IN PERFORMING THEM, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE SOME 
 
  While habitus is an internalized structure that constrains thought & choice of action, it does not determine them 
 
  The lack of determinism is seen as one of the main differences of constructive structuralism as opposed to the structuralism of other theorists, who saw structure as more determinative 
 
  For Withen the real power of a given structure such as the econ is seen statistically & varies depending on the variety of other structures such as govt activity, health care, culture, etc. 
 
  For example, an econ downturn will increase the rate of suicide, but suicide rates are also affected by the social safety net, counseling availability, the rhetoric of individualism, etc. 
 
  For Bourdieu, habitus merely 'suggests' what people should think & what they should choose to do 
 
  People engage in a conscious deliberation of options, although this decision making process reflects the operation of the habitus 
 
  The habitus provides the principles by which people make choices & choose the strategy that they will employ in the social world 
 
  For Bourdieu & Wacquant put it, 'people are not fools' but they are not fully rational either   
  People act in a reasonable manner, they have practical sense   
  There is a logic to what people do; it is the logic of practice   
  SOME PRACTICES MAY BE CONTRADICTORY OR DYSFUNCTIONAL  
  An example of contradictory practices is: exercising for health & eating unhealthy food; loving someone & abusing them; working hard for our money & spending it foolishly   
  Robbins holds that practical logic is 'polythetic, i.e. is capable of sustaining simultaneously a multiplicity of confused & logically contradictory meanings or theses because the over riding context of its operation is practical   
  Bourdieu's practice underscores the difference btwn practical logic & rationality   
  OUR PRACTICES ARE PARTIALLY SHAPED BY OUR FREE WILL & RELATIONALISM AS WE TRANSFORM THEM TO FIT CHANGING CONDITIONS, I.E. NEW RELATIONSHIPS W/ OTHERS & OUR ENV   
  Relationalism connotes that habitus in constantly changing because it is in a relationship w/ other changing factors of field & practice   
  Habitus in not unchanging, fixed structure, but rather is adapted by individuals who are constantly changing in the face of contradictory situations   
  PRACTICES ARE CARRIED OUT 'BELOW CONSCIOUSNESS' BECAUSE WE OFTEN ACT W/O THINKING & BECAUSE RATIONALITY, DECISION MAKING, FEELINGS, ETC. ARE ALSO AT LEAST PARTIALLY BELOW CONSCIOUSNESS   
  Practice, relationalism, habitus, & fields usually function below the level of explicit consciousness & language, beyond the reach of introspective scrutiny & control by the will   
  While we are not conscious of habitus & its operation, it manifests itself in our practices which are our most practical activities, such as the way we eat, walk, talk, & even blow our noses   
  The habitus operates as a structure, but people do not simply respond mechanically to it or to external structures that are operating on them because our practices include a measure of will, rationality, choice, deliberation, etc.   
  Practice in the activity via which we avoid the extremes of unpredictable novelty & total determinism   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Field
External
Links
  FIELD IS SIMILAR TO SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN THAT THEY BOTH REPRESENT PATTERNED SOCIAL BEHAVIORS THAT EXIST BEYOND ANY INDIVIDUAL, & FIELD IS USUALLY CONSIDERED TO BE MORE MICRO CONSTRUCTIVIST THAN TRADL STRUCTURE 
 
  The field is a network of relations among the objective positions w/in it 
 
  Field exists outside the minds of agents 
 
  Field is in a reciprocal relationship w/ habitus 
 
  The field is though of relationally rather than structurally 
 
  The relationships which constitute the field exist apart from the individual consciousness & will
 
  The relationships which constitute the field are not interactions or inter subjective ties among individuals
 
  The occupants of positions may be either agents or institutions, & they are constrained by the structure of the field
 
  There are a number of semi autonomous fields in the social world such as the arts, religions, education, etc. 
 
  Each field has its own specific logic & generates among actors, a belief about the things that are at state in a field 
 
  FIELD IS CONSIDERED TO BE MORE CHANGEABLE & CONSTRUCTED BY PEOPLE IN THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES THAN SOC STRUCTURE 
 
  Bourdieu's concept of the field is similar to that of social structure 
 
  See Also:  Social Structure   
  Social structure is the organization of society, including institutions, social positions, the relationships among social positions, the groups or orgs that make up society, & the distribution of scarce resources w/in the society 
 
  For Bourdieu, social structure is problematic because soc theorists see it as too permanent & immutable   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Field Capital 
External
Links
  -  Project:  Field Capital & Power 
Link
  CAPITAL IS THOSE RESOURCES, OBJ & SUBJ, THAT ALLOW ONE TO EXIST IN, DEVELOP, & TRANSFORM ONE'S HABITUS & FIELD 
 
  The positions of various agents in the field are determined by the amount & relative weight of the capital they possess
 
  Bourdieu uses military imagery to describe the field, calling it an arena of 'strategic emplacements, fortresses to be defended & captured in a field of struggles' 
 
  It is capital that allows one to control one's own fate as well as the fate of others 
 
  Bourdieu discusses FOUR types of capital, including: 
a.  economic capital
b.  cultural capital 
c.  social capital 
d.  symbolic capital 
 
  A.  ECONOMIC CAPITAL IS THE ECONOMIC WEALTH ONE OWNS OR CONTROLS 
 
  Econ cap is the most objective & visible type of capital 
 
  Econ cap is the easiest to save / accumulate & the easiest to transfer   
  B.  CULTURAL CAPITAL IS LEGITIMATE KNOWLEDGE, USUALLY ABOUT SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS & PEOPLE 
 
  Cultural capital can be seen in the understanding that one has on how mkts for products operate, the understanding one has of a group of people such as environmentalists, conservatives, a gang, women, etc. 
 
  Cultural capital can be seen in the understanding one has of institutions such as when former govtl officials become consultants to businesses   
  C.  SOCIAL CAPITAL IS THE VALUED SOCIAL RELATIONS BTWN PEOPLE 
 
  Social capital is network power in that 'its not what you know, but who you know' 
 
  Having a network of people is often more valuable than econ cap   
  The upper class is a relatively closed network of people & institutions   
  D.  SYMBOLIC CAPITAL IS ONE'S HONOR & PRESTIGE 
 
  Symbolic capital is similar to status, & can be traded on in the social world 
 
  Symbolic capital can 'open doors' for one 
 
  FIELD CAPITAL IS SIMILAR TO, OR A ROUTE TO POWER   
  Power is the ability or authority to act or do something, or to have something done, or control something or someone   
  An agent must have power to gain capital   
  An agent must have capital to gain power   
  Power & capital are the forces through which individuals, orgs, institutions, etc., i.e. agents can act in the world   
  Agents individuals, orgs, institutions, etc. can gain, lose, use, or save capital & power   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on   Conflict in Fields
External
Links
  CONFLICT IN FIELDS OCCURS W/IN A FIELD AS AGENTS TRY  TO GAIN CAPITAL & POWER, & AMONG FIELDS AS AGENTS TRY TO GAIN CAPITAL & POWER FOR THEIR FIELD INCREASING ITS EXPANSE 
 
  The field, by definition, is an arena of battle 
 
  The field is a field of struggles 
 
  It is the structure of the field that both' undergirds & guides the strategies whereby the occupants of these positions seek, individually or collectively, to safeguard or improve their position, & to impose the principle of hierarchization most favorable to their own products' 
 
  The field is a competitive marketplace where field capital, i.e. econ, cul, soc, & symbolic capital, are employed & deployed 
 
  It is the field of power, of politics, that is the most important for Bourdieu 
 
  The hierarchy of power relationships w/in the political field structures all the other fields. 
 
  STRATEGIES ARE A PARTICULAR PRACTICES USE TO GAIN CAPITAL, POWER, EXPAND THEIR FIELD, OR EXPAND THEIR HABITUS
 
  Agents in the field use a variety of strategies, indicating that agents have at least some freedom 
 
  The habitus opens the possibility of strategic calculation on the part of agents 
 
  Strategies are not the purposive & pre planned pursuit of calculated goals 
 
  Strategies are the active deployment of objectively oriented 'lines of action' that obey regularities & form coherent & socially intelligible patterns, even though they do not follow conscious rules or aim at the pre meditated goals positioned by a strategist 
 
  Agents use strategies to act in the field to seek, individually or collectively, to safeguard or improve their position
 
  Agents seek to impose the principle of hierarchization most favorable to their own products   
  The strategies of agents depend on their positions in the field   
  SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE & PHYSICAL VIOLENCE ARE PRACTICES & STRATEGIES THAT COERCE OR CONTROL OTHERS   
  Symbolic violence is soft violence which is exercised upon a social agent w/ his or her complicity   
  Symbolic violence is practiced indirectly, largely thorugh cultural mechanisms, & stands in contrast overt or physical violence   
  Bourdieu is interested in the emancipation of people from symbolic violence & from class & political domination   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the  Fields
External
Links
  BOURDIEU'S FIELDS ARE SIMILAR TO / A COMBINATION OF 'CLASSIC' SOC STRUCTURES & 'MODERNIST' SOC STRUCTURES
 
  Bourdieu made no exact list of all the fields, but he discussed several in depth, including the religion, econ, govt, ed, professionals, the arts & more 
 
  Bourdieu's fields parallel that of other social scientists 
 
PF REG M CEML is one formulation of structures   
Structuralists, post structuralists & others also include the structures of crime & the criminal justice system, sex & pleasure, & others   
  THE ECON & GOVT ARE THE MOST INFLUENTIAL / CENTRAL FIELDS 
 
  The econ is the field that is the most central to society, i.e. it has far reaching influence 
 
  The state is the field of the struggle over the monopoly of symbolic violence 
 
  THE ED SYS IS THE PRIMARY FIELD THROUGH WHICH LANGUAGE, MEANINGS, & SYMBOLS ARE IMPOSED ON PEOPLE WHICH LEGITIMIZE THE SYSTEM, ESP THE GOVTL & ECON SYSTEMS 
 
  The ed system is the major institution through which symbolic violence is practiced
 
  Language, the meanings, the symbolic system of those in power are imposed on the rest of the population 
 
  The imposition of language, meanings & symbols via ed & other fields buttresses the positions of those in power by obscuring what they are doing form the rest of society 
 
  The imposition of language, meanings & symbols via ed & other fields by getting the dominated to accepts their condition of domination as legitimate, & thus often not recognizing the existence of that domination 
 
  Bourdieu sees the ed sys as implicated in reproducing existing power & class relations 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on the Histl Dev of Habitus & Field
External
Links
  THE HISTL DEV OF HABITUS & FIELD MEANS THAT COMMON PRACTICES TODAY HAVE CHANGES & BEEN MODIFIED THROUGHOUT HIST & SOME MAY HAVE ANCIENT ASPECTS INTACT TODAY 
 
  The habitus, field, practice, et al, which are available at any given time have been created over the course of collective history
 
  The habitus, the product of history, produces individual & collective practices, & hence history, in accordance w/ the schemes engendered by history 
 
  The habitus manifested in any given individual is acquired over the course of individual history & is a function of the particular point in history 
 
  Habitus is both durable & transposable, that is, transferable from one field to another
 
  It is possible for people to have an inappropriate habitus, to suffer from what Bourdieu called hysteresis
 
  An example of hysteresis is some who who is uprooted from an agrarian existence in contemporary pre capitalist society & put to work on Wall Street 
 
  The habitus of the farm would not allow one to cope well in the life of a financier 
 
  HABITUS & FIELD EVOLVE THROUGH AN INTERPLAY THAT REPRODUCES SOME OF THE PRIOR SOCIAL WORLD & PRODUCES NEW, INNOVATIVE ASPECTS OF THE SOCIAL WORLD THUS RESULTING IN BOTH THE MAINTENANCE & DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY 
 
  Given that the social world has a history, this histl development of habitus both produces & is produced by the social world 
 
  Habitus is a 'structuring structure in that it is a structure that structures the social world 
 
  Habitus is a 'structured structure' in that it is a structure that is structured by the social world
 
  Habitus is the reciprocal of the internalization of externality & the externalization of internality 
 
  Habitus is neither a subjective nor an objective phenomenon 
 
  For Bourdieu, we are both subjects, in that we are subject to social forces, & agent, in that we act in our own interests w/in the context of social forces / structures   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Distinction / Taste 
External
Links
  DISTINCTION IS ONE'S TASTE, I.E. AESTHETIC PREFERENCE OF DIFFERENT GROUPS THROUGHOUT SOCIETY 
 
  Distinction & tastes appear random to most  people, but in fact they are structured by our relationships to our ideology, self, structure, culture, etc. 
 
  Taste is the acquired disposition to differentiate among the various cultural objects of aesthetic enjoyment & to appreciate them differentially   
  Bourdieu recognizes the legitimacy of the categorization of high culture, popular culture, low culture, the anthropological sense of culture, etc. 
 
  THE TASTES & DISTINCTIONS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL, GRP, ORG, ETC. CONSIST OF A RELATIVELY COHERENT SET OF PREFERENCES 
 
  Because of structural forces, esp field & habitus, the cultural preferences of groups, esp classes & sub classes, are a coherent system 
 
  Each agent, group, etc. has a relatively clear & coherent set of tastes, & while tastes seem to be nearly random, marketers, Bourdieu, & other social scientists recognize that tastes the result of our position in structure & culture 
 
  TASTES & DISTINCTIONS 'GROUND' THE SELF IN THEIR POSITION IN PARTICULAR & GENERAL CONTEXTS 
 
  Taste gives an agent & others a sense of his or her place in the social order
 
  Taste unifies those w/ similar preferences & differentiates them from others 
 
  The implication of taste is that we classify objects & thereby ourselves 
 
  We categorize people by the tastes they manifest, by their preferences for music, movies, cars, jewelry, etc. 
 
  HABITUS, FIELD, CLASS, CULTURE, ETC. ARE SOCIAL FORCES WHICH IMPACT TASTES & DISTINCTIONS
 
  Class & its field, the econ, have a major impact on taste
 
  Each class has its own culture consisting of knowledge, beliefs, values, & norms, & thus class structures cultural relationships 
 
  Class & culture are fields which are a series of positions in which a variety of 'game' or conflicts take place   
  The actions of agents who have positions in the structure are governed by the resources available in the structure & the rules or culture of the structure   
  Agents have positions in fields / structures & the interests associated w/ those positions   
  In the game / conflict that agents engage in, the agents utilize a wide range of strategies   
  Taste is an opportunity both to experience & to assert one's position w/in the field
 
 
 Class has an impact on one's ability to play this game in that those is the higher classes are better able to have their tastes accepted & to oppose the tastes of those in the lower classes
 
  Thus culture is related to class in that each class embraces a culture, a set of tastes  
  Culture, sets of tastes, etc. represent the class one occupies & may allow one to build sufficient capital to enter or leave a class   
  Taste is a matchmaker   
  HABITUS IS OUR PERSONAL CULTURE WHICH SHAPES OUR TASTES & DISTINCTION   
  Tastes are shaped by habitus in that tastes shaped are by surface opinions & verbalizations  
  The nature of a particular cultivated habitus are formed, & only function w/in a field, which is a field of possible forces, a dynamic situation   
  There is a correlation btwn positions & the dispositions, tastes, culture of the agents who occupy them  
  Practices, tastes, culture are estbed in the relationship btwn habitus & field   
  CULTURE IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED AS SHAPING TASTES, AS WE RESPOND TO SHARED IDEAS & PRACTICES AROUND US   
  Culture is a kind of market place where field capital, i.e. economic, cultural, social, & symbolic capital are are produced & traded   
  People pursue distinction in a wide range of cultural field from the beverages they drink to the cars they crime to the newspapers they read, & the resorts they visit  
  Relationships of distinction, of power, of capital are inscribed in these products from the Rolex to the mini van   
  The possession or use of certain cultural goods, such as a Mercedes, yields cultural profits that can open doors or allow connections to be made   
  TO SUCCEED IN A GIVEN FIELD, OUR TASTES MUST MATCH THOSE OF OTHER AGENTS IN THE FIELD   
  To occupy a give position, one needs the cultural goods that go w/ it if one is to succeed   
  Changes in position are likely to result in changes in tastes which results in changes in cultural products   
  Changes in taste result from the conflict btwn opposing forces in culture & class   
  The heart of the conflict lies w/in the class systems, thus paralleling the Marxist / cultural Marxist debates, favoring the Marxists  
  The conflict btwn artists & intellectuals is largely w/in the cultural system & ultimately has not transformed the econ class sys   

 
Internal
Links

Top
 Outline on  Professional Habitus & Field in Academia
External
Links
  PROFESSIONS, & ALL OCCUPATIONS, HAVE SETS OF STRATEGIES & PRACTICES THAT, WHEN COMBINED, MAKE UP A HABITUS 
 
  Occupations have cultures & cultures embody tastes & distinctions which give one the capital & power w/ which to rise or fall in that occupation
 
  Bourdieu examines one profession, one w/ which he is familiar, that of the academic, to determine which properties are pertinent, effective & liable to function as capital to as to generate the specific profits guaranteed by the field 
 
  Bourdieu examined the relationship btwn the objective positions of academic fields, their corresponding habitus,  the struggle btwn them 
 
  The ed sys reproduces in specific academic logic the structure of the field of power to which it give access 
 
  Reciprocally, academics through selection & indoctrination contributes to the reproduction of the field of power 
 
  Contrary to Bourdieu, Withen maintains that the ed sys, teachers, profs, & the curriculum is often labeled as liberal because it often does question this reproduction of power 
 
  THE HABITUS OF AN OCCUPATION, IN MOST CASES TODAY, EMBODIES A HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY
 
  All professions, all occupations exist as a hierarchy, which reflects fields of power, as well as the soc strat sys & in which political & econ power reign 
 
  All professions, all occupations have a culture, a cultural hierarchy, & cultural capital derived from scientific authority or intellectual renown 
 
  THE HABITUS OF AN OCCUPATION, IN MOST CASES TODAY, IS THE TERRAIN OF CONFLICT, INCLUDING CLASS CONFLICT, RACE CONFLICT, GENDER CONFLICT, ETC. 
 
  Conflict is waged not only btwn occupations & professions but also w/in occupations occupations & professions 
 
  Whatever type of capital a wkr or professional has take time to accumulate 
 
  Capital must be gained w/in an occupation, but then can be expended in other fields as when Joe the plumber or Jim Hansen (climatologist) become national figures 
 
  In most occupations one must conform rather than be innovative because of the risk that innovation poses to other's capital w/in that occupation   
 
'LIGHT VERSION' OF NOTES:  MORE INFO IN BOOK
  

The End
 
Top