Locating the 17th Book of Giddens@@@The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
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
TL;DR: The authors argued that the autonomy of the subject has been conceptualized in discourse and argued in favor of dissolving the self-identical subject into multiple subject positions, and then followed the work of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe to conceptualize discourse not only as language, but also as language and practice.
232 citations
Cites background from "Locating the 17th Book of Giddens@@..."
...Much like Giddens’ (1979, 1984) structuration theory, it understands discourses as rules and resources that condition human action and weave together action and its constraints (e.g. Häkli, 1998: 337; Ó Tuathail, 2002: 605f; Ó Tuathail & Agnew, 1992: 193; Sharp, 1993: 493)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, a "sobjectivist" methodology that is specifically geared toward the constructivist style of reasoning is presented, with the main argument that constructivist inquiries need to develop not only objectified (or experience-distant) but also subjective (experience-near) knowledge about social and international life.
Abstract: This article outlines a “sobjectivist” methodology that is specifically geared toward the constructivist style of reasoning. The main argument is that constructivist inquiries need to develop not only objectified (or experience-distant) but also subjective (experience-near) knowledge about social and international life. This requirement derives from the fact that constructivism is a postfoundationalist style of reasoning which emphasizes the mutually constitutive dialectics between the social construction of knowledge and the construction of social reality. By implication, a constructivist methodology should be inductive, interpretive, and historical. The methodical practice of sobjectivism follows a three-step logic from the recovery of subjective meanings to their objectification thanks to contextualization and historicization. A brief discussion of the security-community research program illustrates what sobjectivism looks like in practice. Overall, not only does the development of a consistent methodology systematize the practice of constructivist research, it also fosters engagement and dialog with other international relations approaches. By clarifying where constructivism falls on issues of validity, falsifiability, and generalizability, this article intends to enhance mutual legibility among competing methodologies.
232 citations
TL;DR: Critical institutionalism as mentioned in this paper is a contemporary body of thought that explores how institutions dynamically mediate relationships between people, natural resources and society, focusing on the complexity of institutions entwined in everyday social life, their historical formation, the interplay between formal and informal, traditional and modern arrangements, and the power relations that animate them.
Abstract: This special issue furthers the study of natural resource management from a critical institutional perspective. Critical institutionalism (CI) is a contemporary body of thought that explores how institutions dynamically mediate relationships between people, natural resources and society. It focuses on the complexity of institutions entwined in everyday social life, their historical formation, the interplay between formal and informal, traditional and modern arrangements, and the power relations that animate them. In such perspectives a social justice lens is often used to scrutinise the outcomes of institutional processes. We argue here that critical institutional approaches have potentially much to offer commons scholarship, particularly through the explanatory power of the concept of bricolage for better understanding institutional change. Critical institutional approaches, gathering momentum over the past 15 years or so, have excited considerable interest but the insights generated from different disciplinary perspectives remain insufficiently synthesised. Analyses emphasising complexity can be relatively illegible to policy-makers, a fact which lessens their reach. This special issue therefore aims to synthesise critical institutional ideas and so to lay the foundation for moving beyond the emergent stage to make meaningful academic and policy impact. In bringing together papers here we define and synthesise key themes of critical institutionalism, outline the concept of institutional bricolage and identity some key challenges facing this school of thought.
231 citations
Cites background from "Locating the 17th Book of Giddens@@..."
...Agency is linked to power through the capacity to deploy material (allocative) and non-material (authoritative) resources (Giddens 1984)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the actor-centred power approach (ACP) is defined as a social relationship in which actor A alters the behaviour of actor B without recognising B's will.
231 citations
TL;DR: The idea of risk as a socio-cultural product was introduced by as discussed by the authors, who argued that risk, like crime, is essentially a society-to-society product and that risk is a projection to the present through the future.
Abstract: After Durkheim and after Foucault the idea of deviance from the community's norms has been the central principle for explaining definitions of crime and justification of punishment. Deviance has become a backwards definition of normality, and culture effectively bans unacceptable behaviour. Deviance is a form of dysfunction, punishment is part of the return route to rationality. In Foucault's conception punishment is not retributive or retaliatory, but the cultural reconstruction of the subject. Though the most modern critique of society does not go beyond Foucault, the processes of late modernity have made this whole approach invalid. The boundary between normal and deviant has largely been erased. Deviance can no longer be treated as marginalized behaviour of marginalized persons. And yet, something recognized as crime' is a live issue, crime endangers the citizens and risk of crime takes centre stage, objectified along with other risks. The scale of necessary rethinking of the relation of crime to society can only be sketched in this article. Risk, not crime, has become the central culture register of social interaction. Connecting later modernity and risk opens new spaces for sociological theory. Media and politicians insist on the advent of a newly dangerous, uncertain world, associated with environmental problems and to technologies which produce them, chemical, nuclear and biotechnical. The analysis is always from inside the culture, the risks are objectified, risk itself is not regarded as a socio-cultural product. The engineer's specialized professional perception of risk as an object-to-object category is now being replaced by a society-to-object notion. The critique brought by cultural theory is that risk, like crime, is essentially a society-to-society product. The idea of dangerization' is useful to introduce the idea that sensibility to threat is built by cultural means. By a circular process of amplification the consciousness of a dangerous society enhances that of a dangerous material world. Risk is a projection to the present through the future. Without a hypothesized future, risk cannot be established. But according to cultural theory such a hypothesis of the future can never be a neutral prediction'. It sees such predictions as attempts to manage collective patterns of fear which follow lines of social stratification. The liberal vision of equality before the law is neutralized by assigning dangerousness to specific social identities. Belonging to a particular social group establishes or excludes the sense of threat and disarms or arms segregating avoidance strategies. Society is more deeply divided than ever on principles of security-seeking. The probability of victimization is at the centre of segregation. Systems, strategies and tactics based on suspicion, backed by probability, produce rearrangements of population on the basis of secure and non-secure areas. Means and times of transport are chosen on the same basis, and there is no later modern space without consciousness of dangerousness. The argument here must turn to the changes in the social bond which have followed from changes in the technology of communication. It helps the case to present a view of society as a system of permissions to access. The turnstile, the credit card and the password can be taken to represent a process which has put all access on to an automated basis. The need to build up relations of trust is reduced, almost eliminated. Either the card giving access to money or information is technically valid, or it is not. Social control is taken out of interpersonal interaction and handed over to an automated basis. No more need for negotiation of personal ties, no need for polished social skills, no need to demonstrate ethical probity, the new social divisions are defined by having or not having the right mechanical means of identification at each level. Automated access replaces personal trust. The effect is to further weaken neighbourhood ties where co-residents do not need to relate to one another at all and atomization of kinship units is complete. In the dangerized society ethical evaluation is irrelevant, or at best deflected on to safety concerns. What can deviance theory do? Deviating from what? Where are the norms? The response to anomie is a danger-aware culture, where all the other classifications have gone and all that is left in the way of structure is in automated systems: instead of social distinction, the much cruder indicators: gender and age give signals of dangerous identities. Deviance can still be defined by exclusion from card-holding. Crime can be divided into fear-provoking and non fear-provoking. Social institutions denuded of moral responsibility are mere distribution systems. The ethics of consumerism take command. The evaluation of objects and persons focuses on safety, and the producer's responsibility for selling safe products is the criterion for good government.
231 citations
References
More filters