scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Locating the 17th Book of Giddens@@@The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.

01 May 1986-Contemporary Sociology-Vol. 15, Iss: 3, pp 344
TL;DR: Giddens as mentioned in this paper has been in the forefront of developments in social theory for the past decade and outlines the distinctive position he has evolved during that period and offers a full statement of a major new perspective in social thought, a synthesis and elaboration of ideas touched on in previous works but described here for the first time in an integrated and comprehensive form.
Abstract: Anthony Giddens has been in the forefront of developments in social theory for the past decade. In "The Constitution of Society" he outlines the distinctive position he has evolved during that period and offers a full statement of a major new perspective in social thought, a synthesis and elaboration of ideas touched on in previous works but described here for the first time in an integrated and comprehensive form. A particular feature is Giddens' concern to connect abstract problems of theory to an interpretation of the nature of empirical method in the social sciences. In presenting his own ideas, Giddens mounts a critical attack on some of the more orthodox sociological views. "The Constitution of Society" is an invaluable reference book for all those concerned with the basic issues in contemporary social theory.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: While the concept of relationship-oriented behavior has been around since the earliest formal studies of leadership in organizations (Stogdill and Coons, 1957), the term relational leadership is surprisingly new (Brower et al., 2000; Drath, 2001; Murrell, 1997; Uhl-Bien, 2003, 2005) as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: While the concept of relationship-oriented behavior has been around since the earliest formal studies of leadership in organizations (Stogdill and Coons, 1957), the term relational leadership is surprisingly new (Brower et al., 2000; Drath, 2001; Murrell, 1997; Uhl-Bien, 2003, 2005). Because of this, its meaning is still uncertain.

1,506 citations


Cites background from "Locating the 17th Book of Giddens@@..."

  • ...In contrast to traditional leadership perspectives that view structure as the prescribed framework of the organization, directed by managerial leaders, research investigating Relational Leadership Theory as a process of structuring (Barley, 1986; Fombrun, 1986; Giddens, 1984; Weick, 2001) or organizing (Dachler and Hosking, 1995; Hosking and Fineman, 1990) would view structure as “patterned regularity of interaction,” in which leadership can result from everyday practices that organizational members participate in to construct the very “rules” of organizing that they follow (Willmott, 1981, p....

    [...]

  • ...…of relationships (not just dyadic and not just “leader–follower” relationships), focuses on relational dynamics (rather than a more static state of relational quality with antecedents and outcomes), and allows us to consider leadership as a process of structuring (Giddens, 1984; Murrell, 1997)....

    [...]

  • ...…directed by managerial leaders, research investigating Relational Leadership Theory as a process of structuring (Barley, 1986; Fombrun, 1986; Giddens, 1984; Weick, 2001) or organizing (Dachler and Hosking, 1995; Hosking and Fineman, 1990) would view structure as “patterned regularity of…...

    [...]

  • ...We need to move beyond a focus on the manager–subordinate dyad or a measure of relationship quality to address the question of, what are the relational dynamics by which leadership is developed throughout the workplace? Such an approach opens up the possibility for relational leadership as moving toward a more “postindustrial” model of leadership (Rost, 1991)—one that is not hierarchical, can address various forms of relationships (not just dyadic and not just “leader–follower” relationships), focuses on relational dynamics (rather than a more static state of relational quality with antecedents and outcomes), and allows us to consider leadership as a process of structuring (Giddens, 1984; Murrell, 1997)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a review describes and critiques some of the many ways agency has been conceptualized in the academy over the past few decades, focusing in particular on practice theorists such as Giddens, Bourdieu, de Certeau, Sahlins, and Ortner.
Abstract: ▪ Abstract This review describes and critiques some of the many ways agency has been conceptualized in the academy over the past few decades, focusing in particular on practice theorists such as Giddens, Bourdieu, de Certeau, Sahlins, and Ortner. For scholars interested in agency, it demonstrates the importance of looking closely at language and argues that the issues surrounding linguistic form and agency are relevant to anthropologists with widely divergent research agendas. Linguistic anthropologists have made significant contributions to the understanding of agency as it emerges in discourse, and the final sections of this essay describe some of the most promising research in the study of language and gender, literacy practices, and the dialogic construction of meaning and agency.

1,495 citations

Book
Jan Blommaert1
01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: This engaging 2005 introduction offers a critical approach to discourse, written by an expert uniquely placed to cover the subject for a variety of disciplines, including linguistics, linguistic anthropology and the sociology of language.
Abstract: This engaging 2005 introduction offers a critical approach to discourse, written by an expert uniquely placed to cover the subject for a variety of disciplines. Organised along thematic lines, the book begins with an outline of the basic principles, moving on to examine the methods and theory of CDA (critical discourse analysis). It covers topics such as text and context, language and inequality, choice and determination, history and process, ideology and identity. Blommaert focuses on how language can offer a crucial understanding of wider aspects of power relations, arguing that critical discourse analysis should specifically be an analysis of the 'effects' of power, what power does to people, groups and societies, and how this impact comes about. Clearly argued, this concise introduction will be welcomed by students and researchers in a variety of disciplines involved in the study of discourse, including linguistics, linguistic anthropology and the sociology of language.

1,477 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, an alternative solution to the agent-structure problem, adapted from "structuration theory" in sociology, can overcome these inadequacies by avoiding both the reduction of system structures to state actors in neorealism and their reification in world-system theory.
Abstract: While neorealism and world-system theory both claim to be “structural” theories of international relations, they embody very different understandings of system structure and structural explanation. Neorealists conceptualize system structures in individualist terms as constraining the choices of preexisting state agents, whereas world-system theorists conceptualize system structures in structuralist terms as generating state agents themselves. These differences stem from what are, in some respects, fundamentally opposed solutions to the “agent-structure” or “micromacro” problem. This opposition, however, itself reflects a deeper failure of each theory to recognize the mutually constitutive nature of human agents and system structures—a failure which leads to deep-seated inadequacies in their respective explanations of state action. An alternative solution to the agent-structure problem, adapted from “structuration theory” in sociology, can overcome these inadequacies by avoiding both the reduction of system structures to state actors in neorealism and their reification in world-system theory. Structuration theory requires a philosophical basis in scientific realism, arguably the “new orthodoxy” in the philosophy of natural science, but as yet largely unrecognized by political scientists. The scientific realist/structuration approach generates an agenda for “structural-historical” research into the properties and dispositions of both state actors and the system structures in which they are embedded.

1,460 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: The debate on migration and development has swung back and forth like a pendulum, from developmentalist optimism in the 1950s and 1960s, to neo-Marxist pessimism over the 1970s and 1980s, towards more optimistic views in the 1990s and 2000s. This paper argues how such discursive shifts in the migration and development debate should be primarily seen as part of more general paradigm shifts in social and development theory. However, the classical opposition between pessimistic and optimistic views is challenged by empirical evidence pointing to the heterogeneity of migration impacts. By integrating and amending insights from the new economics of labor migration, livelihood perspectives in development studies and transnational perspectives in migration studies – which share several though as yet unobserved conceptual parallels – this paper elaborates the contours of a conceptual framework that simultaneously integrates agency and structure perspectives and is therefore able to account for the heterogeneous nature of migration-development interactions. The resulting perspective reveals the naivety of recent views celebrating migration as self-help development “from below”. These views are largely ideologically driven and shift the attention away from structural constraints and the vital role of states in shaping favorable conditions for positive development impacts of migration to occur.

1,428 citations


Cites background from "Locating the 17th Book of Giddens@@..."

  • ...Social scientists, influenced by post-modernist thinking and Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory, sought to harmonize agency and structure-oriented approaches....

    [...]

  • ...Although some individual action is routinized and mainly serves to reproduce structures, rules and institutions, other action has agency, serving to change the system and perhaps, in time, remake new rules (Giddens, 1984)....

    [...]

  • ...Although some individual action is routinized and mainly serves to reproduce structures, rules and institutions, other action has agency, serving to change the system and perhaps, in time, remake new rules (Giddens 1984)....

    [...]

  • ...Social scientists, influenced by post-modernist thinking and Giddens (1984) structuration theory,8 sought to harmonize agency and structure-oriented approaches....

    [...]

References
More filters
Book
01 Jan 1975

98 citations