Structuration Theory

Structuration theory is an important part of contemporary social and geographic theory that effectively overcame the long-standing division between micro approaches that focused on individual humans (e.g., phenomenology, other humanistic views) and macro approaches that began and ended with social structures but ignored the dynamics of individual behavior (e.g., structural Marxism). Structuration theory began with and formed an important part of the career of Anthony Giddens, one of the 20th century's leading sociologists.

Giddens argued that orthodox theory lacked an adequate theory of the subject as a conscious actor who possesses the capacity to choose and to exert power. Rather, actors often are portrayed as unwitting dupes, and social change is erroneously held to occur “above their heads” or “behind their backs.” Thus, he argued that the behavioral and structural dimensions of human life, and their corresponding theoretical perspectives, must be seen as mutually complementary. Giddens favored a duality between structure and agency, in which they are simultaneously determinant and mutually recursive, rather than a simplistic dualism of opposing forces.

Structuration begins with the phenomenological recognition that only humans are sentient knowledgeable agents; that is, they have consciousness about themselves and their world, however limited. Everyone, in this sense, is a sociologist. Giddens drew on the rich humanistic and behavioral traditions concerned with perception, cognition, and language. Moving beyond the usual definitions of culture as the sum total of learned behavior or a “way of life,” structuration theory portrays culture as what people take for granted, that is, common sense or the matrix of ideologies that allow actors to[Page 466] negotiate their way through their everyday worlds. Culture defines what is normal and what is not, what is important and what is not, and what is acceptable and what is not within each social context. Culture is acquired through a lifelong process of socialization; individuals never live in a social vacuum but rather are socially produced from cradle to grave.

Structure in this view is seen to consist only of the rules and resources that are instantiated in social systems. In their daily lives, actors draw on these rules and resources, which in turn structure their actions; hence, the structural qualities that generate social action are continually reproduced through these very same actions. The socialization of the individual and the reproduction of society and place are two sides of the same coin; that is, the macrostructures of social relations are interlaced with the microstructures of everyday life. People reproduce the world, largely unintentionally, in their everyday lives, and in turn the world reproduces them through socialization. In forming their biographies every day, people re-create and transform their social worlds primarily without meaning to do so; individuals are both produced by and producers of history and geography. Hence, everyday thought and behavior not only mirror the world but also constitute it. History and geography are produced through the dynamics of everyday life, the routine interactions and transient encounters through which social formations are reproduced. Thus, “time” is not some abstract independent process but rather is synonymous with historical change (but not progress) and the capacity of people to make and transform their worlds. Social change in this light is not lawless in the sense of being anarchical and unpredictable, nor is it so completely subject to laws that the outcomes of action are predictable with confidence; in short, social organization and change are simultaneously structured and contingent.

...