Realist social theory : the morphogenetic approach
TL;DR: The Morphogenetic Cycle: the basis of the morphogenetic approach 7. Structural and cultural conditioning 8. The morphogenesis of agency 9. Social elaboration.
Abstract: Building on her seminal contribution to social theory in Culture and Agency, in this 1995 book Margaret Archer develops her morphogenetic approach, applying it to the problem of structure and agency. Since structure and agency constitute different levels of stratified social reality, each possesses distinctive emergent properties which are real and causally efficacious but irreducible to one another. The problem, therefore, is shown to be how to link the two rather than conflate them, as has been common theoretical practice. Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach not only rejects methodological individualism and holism, but argues that the debate between them has been replaced by a new one, between elisionary theorising and emergentist theories based on a realist ontology of the social world. The morphogenetic approach is the sociological complement of transcendental realism, and together they provide a basis for non-conflationary theorizing which is also of direct utility to the practising social analyst.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The authors argue for a structural definition of oppression as systematic mistreatment, using the work of Connell and other theorists, and discuss the implications of the proposed definition for the treatment of women.
Abstract: This paper argues for a structural definition of oppression as systematic mistreatment. Using the work of Connell and other theorists, I discuss the implications of the proposed definition for the ...
54 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that Mouzelis's and Archer's approach fails because it relies on the former's definition of structure as comprising rules and resources, and argue that the latter's definition makes the relationship between agents and structures unclear.
Abstract: This paper outlines and evaluates recent contributions by Nicos Mouzelis and Margaret Archer to the structure-agency debate. Mouzelis offers an internal reconstruction of Giddens's structuration theory; Archer an external alternative. I show that, although representing an advance on Giddens's position, Mouzelis's account fails because he relies on the former's definition of structure as comprising rules and resources. I then examine Archer's solution to the problem. I argue that her definition of activity-dependence makes her account of the relationship between agents and structures unclear. I outline an alternative account in terms of super- venience, and argue that it contains the minimum ontological claim necessary for a realist understanding of the structure-agent relationship. This paper evaluates two recent attempts to prune the hardy perennial of structure and agency. In their recent writing, both Nicos Mouzelis and Margaret Archer offer alternatives to Anthony Giddens's structuration theory (Mouzelis 1995, 1996; Archer 1995, 1996b). The renewed attention paid to older writing in this field, and particularly to the work of David Lockwood, has caused McLennan (1995:117) to note 'a loose but noticeable neo- traditionalist revival' in sociological theory. The two authors exemplify this trend in different ways. Mouzelis says we should go 'back to sociological theory,' whereas Archer sees Lockwood as a forebear but explicitly tries to formulate a new research paradigm. I begin by outlining the problem as inherited from Giddens. I then discuss Mouzelis's and Archer's solutions in detail. Mouzelis's work is a careful internal critique and reconstruction of Giddens's theory. Archer's is a distinct, external alternative to it. Both authors try to make a clear distinction between agents and structures in order to make these concepts (and particularly the latter) coherent and useful. In their efforts to give the concept of social structure back its bite, both Archer and Mouzelis draw on Lockwood's (1956, 1964) distinction between social and system integration. Mouzelis attempts to build the distinction into Giddens's account. In doing so, he points to a number of important aspects of structure and agency that Giddens cannot grasp. However, Giddens's key idea that structure should be thought of as rules and resources is left largely untouched. I show that Mouzelis's refinements run into difficulty because of this.
54 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors apply Deacon's (2006) models of first-order, second-order and third-order emergence, and trace through their implications for constructing an emergent perspective in economic geography.
Abstract: Over the past two decades, the notion of ‘emergence’ has attracted increasing attention and controversy across the social science, including economics. Within this context, as economic geographers, our concern in this paper is with the usefulness of the idea of emergence for studying the economic landscape and its evolution. The paper considers in what sense geographical processes and places can legitimately be described as emergent, how such places themselves produce emergent effects, and how we should conceive of and study the ‘emergent’ space economy. To do this, we apply Deacon's (2006) models of first-order, second-order and third-order emergence, and trace through their implications for constructing an ‘emergence perspective’ in economic geography. The notion of third-order emergence is argued to be the most promising, since it focuses explicitly on emergence as an evolutionary process. What is evident, however, is that a notion developed mainly for applications in physical and biological systems requires further elaboration and exploration if it is to provide explanatory leverage in studying the evolution of economic landscapes.
54 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, Kemp and Holmwood argue that the search for regularities, when suitably conceived, provides the best alternative to experiment for the social sciences and suggest that regularities can be used as an alternative to experimental control.
Abstract: Stephen Kemp and John Holmwood, Realism, Regularity and Social Explanation, pp. 165–187.
This article explores the difficulties raised for social scientific investigation by the absence of experiment, critically reviewing realist responses to the problem such as those offered by Bhaskar, Collier and Sayer. It suggests that realist arguments for a shift from prediction to explanation, the use of abstraction, and reliance upon interpretive forms of investigation fail to demonstrate that these approaches compensate for the lack of experimental control. Instead, it is argued that the search for regularities, when suitably conceived, provides the best alternative to experiment for the social sciences.
54 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors show how principles of pragmatism and action research are likely to increase the relevance of management research and education, and make concrete suggestions as to how to bring research and educa...
Abstract: Purpose – Management practice is progressing at unprecedented pace and often academia is lagging behind, if not totally irrelevant, both in management research and in education. This paper strives to show how principles of pragmatism and action research are likely to increase the relevance of management research and education.Design/methodology/approach – A reflection based on a broad review of ontological and epistemological issues leads to a call for philosophical re‐foundation of management academia.Findings – Pragmatism defines truth seeking as reducing doubt, and therefore necessarily includes the notion of a client for the research effort. Action research is a practical embodiment of this approach and deserves a more prominent role.Research limitations/implications – The research limitations and implications are inherent in the chosen methodology/approach: a viewpoint that hopefully stimulates others.Practical implications – This paper makes concrete suggestions as to how to bring research and educa...
53 citations