Central Problems in Social Theory Action, structure and contradiction. in social analysis Anthony Giddens University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeleshdl of aon es Lahn a ese CC ter mei sm 05099506 oe) 179 9 Any Cn Seamer Saranac 3 a Priksopty and sociology have long tive wider 2 segregated sytem whichis nicceedeinconceal- ing. their svalry only. by refusing them any inceting-soundimpeing their prow, making them incomprehensible to one athe, and thes plocng cater ina situation of permanent crs Mertens PoatyContents Preface Inroduction 1 2 6 ‘Strctorlin an the Theory of the Subject, Agency Strctare Jntttions, Reproduction, Sociaisaton Contradiction, Power, Mistrial Materilion cology and Consciousness “Time, Space, Socal Change “The Prospects tor Soda Theory Today [Notes and References Index a 165, 08 24 261 2sPreface 1 fave orginined thi book ay separate papers rather than as hapers Fac paper may be geal as a selecontuned entity, but they ae all concerned withsapecs ota ited range of ses which Take toe of esata importance for socal analysis. Thane who fre unnepintd with the wgumentsTcutlined in New Rear of Sriololce! Method may fine t Help to feud the conching ‘yuheicpaper, The Prospect for Sosa Theory Toy’ ies shout like 1 thank the following peopie, who have been of pntcir hl to me i writing thie hook: David Held, Lesley ower, Rob Shrcove, Jan Thoms a Sam Holick, Camiridge AG December 1978Introduction Some ten years ago, conceived the project of examining the residue of wincteenth-century Barapa socal theory for eons porary problems ofthe seal seiences. Vill all my work since that date has been concerned with developing that project. 1 Sm tome then, and stil seeme to me ow hat social etn n the contemporary world bears the strong print of ideas worked ‘out in the inctecnth sid erly twontie cuntaries in Europe “These idcav must be eadally overated today! any appropriation wwe make Irom sinctecnthecentury social thought his t0 be = thoroughly ertivol one. This judgement must ince the texts of Mary. have not ater the opinion implied i Capitals and ‘Modern Socal Theory ~ sich T thought of es an exexeticl preparation to an extended erigue of inetoenth-centry sci fhomeht that ther are no easy dviding-ins toe dren between ‘Marxism an bourgeoissoial theory” Whatever ailferences night txt betwen these they she eral comanon deficiencies dent Ing fom the context of tei formations no one teday think, can ‘remain te tothe spin of Marx by semaining trust the etter of Marx "This book represent further continuation af the projet refer- red to above; it intended as both emethodelogicl anda substan tive text In New Ruler of Sociological Method, andin some of the Sections of Stes in Social and Political Theory T undertook tritiques of two broad programmatis approaches in social theory, hermeneutic or forms of interpretative rocolog’- and fonction fam In the it paper of he present bank, Teomplement these with 1 rg stay of some main carent a stucturalist thought My ‘ject inthe remainder of the hook i to develop & theoretical2 Cental Poblensin Social Theory Postion high, although informed by ides drawn from each of those three approaches liffrs trot allo them. Utero tis Positiomas the tein of sractration. The book sb aconelsion anil a preface, 1 ampiies the stitement of a methodologic! Standpo he tw book just mentioned, But atthe tame time Tee i as preparation for sud of contemporary Capitals and soit to be published sexe in which | Shaldewelop themes only itl itroduced ere “The theory of structuraton begins fom ah abc: the lack a tcory of ation in the sol selene. have ales discus this isome deta! a New Rules of Soriloieal Method. There ext 0 Lange philesophieal erature ta do with purposes, seasons ant motives of action: but it sto dite made Title impact pon the Socal scenes. I some part this s understandable, becase the plilowpty of action, at developed ty Bits aa! American Philosophers, hs nt paid mich attention tose that are cet To sia science: ses of institu analysis, power and socal change: ot those tions of thought sich have cancententt ‘upon such prublems, partcately fanctonalisn and orton Marais, have deme so from a point of vio sil determi, In their eagerness to “ge behind the backs” of the sci actors winose conduct they seck to understand, these schol of though Taygely anor jst thow phenom that action philosophy enhes ‘ental to man con Ts no use supposing that wich an opposition Between vountar- tum and detrminismean be overcome by simply bringing hese val (ype of approach together, conjoiing one tothe ter. The problems involved ave more deeply buried than that The Pilnopy oF action, T argue fn thi book, has typically ered {rom two sources of tiation ination to failure to theore problems of isttutional analysis, An adequate neount of hora gency must, fis, be connected toa theory of the sting subject, nd second, ust situate action in ie and pace aa continous flow of conduc, rather than treating purposes, reasons, ce As somehow agropated togster The theory of the subject | outing Involves what I all a'saifieation mode of personality, onganised ln terns of thre sets of zlations the snconsiogy, practical con sciousness, and dincunive conslousnens "The motion of practiced fonscowsness I regard as furudamental feature of the they af Innotution 3 ‘Bat ifthe established appronches tothe pikesophy of action have to be substantially modified iy order to lacosparate a nation of gency within soil theory, the same applies tothe conceptions of Stroctare and system which have appeared so prominently in the tociologcal Merature. The characteristic interpretation of trac: tare” among fnetionstst weters fers én basse way from that typical of structrait thought Bustin oth bodies of thought the notions of srcture and sstom are often used more oes ines angeatiy. Tckim that not only fe important distogulsh between structure and aytem, but that each should Be undertod ing rather diferent way from how they are oriaaly taken. A ‘sjor theme ofthe ok that, asin he theory of gene ain frder to show the interdependence of tion and structure We ust prasp theme -space relations inherent inthe consintion fall {lal infraction The rpeesion of tie i socal theory, Lunde fake to show ean inevitable outcome of the maintenance ofthe ‘stnctons betwoen syoshrony and dlichrony, or statics and ‘dynamics which pear throughout the iterate of stuctoralism find fonctions ake. Acconing to the theory of stracteraton, fn understanding of social ynterm tuted in tne space can be ‘ects by regarding structure xs non-temporal andnon-spat, 3s (2 vital order of dffeences produced al reproduced In socal interaction ss medium and outcome. Unser Leben geht hin mit Verwandhung, Rilke sys: Ou ie passes in eansformation. This wat neck to grasp the theory of sretoration “The pont of view I advocate in these papersistrongiintuenced by Heldeyuer's treatment of being ad tne: not so much as an “tology, bets pilosophial suarce or developing. a.cancepal inion of the time-space constitation of socal systems. Wiliam dames cehoos aspects of Heidepuer’s View when he sayy of time "The Ieilypresont moment is purely verbal suppestion, nota postin: the only preset ever reaedconeretely Being the" ‘She moment" n which the dying rearward of tne and ts dawning fature forever mix thet gts" The temporality ofthe imterwea ing of ature and society i expresed, Iwan tossy ia the fiatude tnd contingency of the human being, of Dasern, which isthe only i hotween the continaty of rt and "second nature’. The felenileseners of the “pasing-away” of time i eaplured by the Tings ality with the inevtabe“pusing-way” ofthe Bom bing. Thecontingency of Daseinis not merely he association ot4 Centra Problems in Social Thesry being-in-time with being in-space but, as Hekegger shows, inthe very constitution of existent (i social theory, te eonstituion of Sockety in sructuration). Ashe points out, if time were merely Succession of now, contingentlyasctated with pail prsence it ‘would be imposible to undertand why time does not go back- ‘ward but i time isthe "becoming ofthe possible, the progression of time i clare ‘Heidegger and Wittgenstein are often associated with the so called Tnguistc tur’ in modern philosophy. Sate thos, Think thie leading; I suggents some views a any ratte which Lam ‘oppose. eject the conception that society ike Iangage ‘home which found, various forms, noth retrain stdin ‘most imerpretatvesocologes. I ty to make cea in the opening, paper some’! theullficaes that persistently ppest in structurale [Staocial thought and Thave ete interpretative sigs in this respect in New Ruler of Sociological Method. conser Witt ‘gens’ ater philosophy to be exceptionally important foe eae ent problems of cial theory But aot in the ways which that philsophy has charicteritically een understood by the "pon Wingenstelnians1 take thesigiicnee of Witgenstis writs for social theory to consist inthe asceation of language with definite socal practice I do not find it ptcary lable 10 Undertake the sort of detailed parallels between Marx and Witgen iompted by Roa-Landl anothers: ut Ida wat oops tween Marx and Witigenten in pect of the production and repreduction of society as Praxis. Every form of language philosophy, 1 think implies stance (sally impli) tomar theft language thatwhich cannot bodiredtyexpreeedin lngige, bec txt makes language possible, In Witgenstei’s ater phlosophy "he Hint of ange” fre made expt and made the bss of semantic theory. Lan ue irinscatyinvoved with tha whe has be done the onstittn of langage a "meaningful inseparable rom the ‘onsttution of form of sil fe conting practices, eejaed social rations, tether with racial consciousness as fh approach to linguistics; inthe fox of acl dco, however, tcturaism may be most cogently defined as the application of linguistic models fftacneed by stractral gui tothe exp ‘on of social and cultural phenomens.” “The contrast ashen aconsequential one forthe development of sola theory in the Anglo-Saxon worlds compared with that in France: T full attempt to indice some of the more significant10 Central Problems in Social Theory lvergences In what follows I shall not be concerned with an ‘overall appraisal of stucturatsm ~ which ater al, inerpeted broadly, Brings to mind the contbutions of = dazalingvartty of sifferent authors, incuing Barthes, Foucault, Althusser, Lacan Piaget, Greimas, ee. and shall confine my attention sity to 9 limited numberof sues raised bythe following Sausse'singls= tic theory; Lévi-Strauss acount of myth; andthe esque of the Sign” at the hands of those who fave sought develop 4 novel ‘ory of stracturaton (Det, Kristo). Several of the themes I propose to rise in this paper are not sfscussed herein the degree which they warrant, because they ae further analysed or exempliid ia subsequent papers in his ook, [My clscusion is partial and scestive, Because Twat to we this ‘paper in conjunction with previous published entigues of her Imencutks and action philosophy ofthe one hand, and of functionals on the oer, and becuse tis intended a preface tore papers which compete the lof the Bonk. Moroower, fight atthe end ofthis paper, Fab be concerned mainly with rita analysis rater tha singling oot the vires of traci ‘ought Sense: structna linge (OF the various doetsines of Saussure, those most cents to ater ‘developments ia strtuatitm and semilogy ar: the dsncion of langue (langige) and parole (speech); the arbitrary charter of the sgn; the notion of witference; the constitution of the sin through the conjunction of signifier and sige; sa tho sopra tion of syneiony and disehrony. These have become so fai ‘that hey requteoaly a schematic sommentay Saussure didnot use the term structure’, the ater having Been Jroduced Sato continental linguistics by Trubetskoy; Satseore preferred ‘system. The spstematic character of langue, for Saus- Sure, ib the chief factor distinguishing it from poof, frm the Spoken or walten word, The separation of langue from parle, Saussure held, ifeentates both ‘what i socal from what is individu’ and "what i essential fom what i accesory and more ‘or tess aecidenta’* Language Is 9 cial nation, and 38 sch Wo 8 creation ofthe individual speaker: the speaker “pasiely i Siruetvaiam ae the Dhar ofthe Subject V1 assimilates’ Sauanere puts it the pre-eiting forms hat I= age assumes. By contest to Langu, pale “heterogeneous tant of disparate events ‘The vocal apparatos has become the principal insrament of language amoag human bigs, ba this hs to Bearing upon the most integral characteristics of langue: these Caractere derive from the human faculty of gasping snd ftdering a sjtem of signs. Such a faculty i not confined t0 Tanga since signe can be other than linguistic: hence Satsnure cavisaged the possibilty ofa general aienc of signs, orsemioogy, ‘of whieh lngstes would be ome branes “The arbitrary nature of Hnguise sis, and thelr constitution hough ference, sre the chet notions by mene of which Sa sre attempted to explicate lngue sy system. Eachnotion placer an ‘Empl upon form at the expense of content, or more ascuraely fexpeesed pon the relational ther than the wuantive Saussure plated to the arbitrary character ofthe sign iatwo ways. One was ‘imply by comparing word across languages although they have 2 Similar meaning, the sounds exprenied ie the pronunciation of ox? in England "boca in Pench share nothing in common with one another. In this sense the arbitarines ofthe signs peoved..by te very exislence of iferent languages’ But this secondary the demonstration that the sounds which form words in ange hhave mo fntisie conection with the lysed objets that they sesignate: the uterance "tees no mote les appropiate 1 & luce aan objec Uh “arbre. In view of the controversy that Saussure'sasertion of the aebitary quality of the sgn ~ hich he took to be ‘ndsputable ~ has peewoked, i perhaps worth ‘observing tate sual tin various ways Sipa are not wi rnry, of couse, a he was careful to emphasise in espoct of the Individual speaker. Quite the verse; the speaker has no choice but {o follow whats already etabished inthe langue. Soussre alo Astinguished what he cae ‘radically rbiteary” from "cltvely eitrary signe the Inier are secomi-order words, constricted from the first "Neu? is radialy setae, but “dineut is only relatively so, sine isa composite term “The principle of reltive aritarness clearly only affects the {intemal composition of fingoage language a # whe isaaly friar” inflation to the objector. I follows from this that the tems of language can only be defined sil generic tera oly aguireKlemity or continuity tn So far as they are differentiated12 Central Problems in Socal Theory from one another a oppositions or ferences within the totality thats Jongue, Saussre's Famous Genevacto-Paistrai’ examples ‘worth quoting ee Because, as I shall incite father later on, Ihave dente similarity to fees tht Anglo-Saxon philosophers move dncuse in the context ofthe philwophy of ation. We ay that dhe sme? Geneva-to-Pris rin leaves Geneva every day at 5X25 pam, even i fom one day to another te engine coaches and personnel az different. What gives the train sient, Saussure rpc the ways in which i iferentated rom othe ai its eof departure, rout, ct. Similarly language the idem of linguistic units, whether these be wocalisatons o writen terms, depends upon the ferences or oppositions that separate then) from ne another, not upon ther intinse ontent. A", for example, uy Be writen in various different ways: its dent Is preserved not by aunity of subxtance but by sts demarcation fom fier ler, Execty the same applies to the sounds that comprise linguistic utterances. The lea of diflerence, a Saussure formulates ‘he complete the insulation of fangue a a sll-cantalned ‘tem: the value’ uf the components of language derive sey ftom the demarcation drawn between thom. "language sccor ing to Saas, There ate only ferences ven more important: 2 ‘fferonce generally impos postive terns etween whi the fiference is set wp but i Language thete are only diflerences ‘without postive roms? “The constitution of idemty negatively through ference apoies torcach of the to aspect of lng sgn, spied [But thei combination in thosign transforms the nezative into the postive, The only postive feature that langnge possess ut fea very fundamental one ~ i the articulation Of signitins and Sgnileds inthe proses of speaking oF writing. Language, for Sausoure, easily a vora/auditory system om the level af the igniter, but in both titerances and in writing, the connections Detweon signers and signeds azo organised i terms of line soquenoss, unfolding in me, ARhough Satesure sometimes pro ‘zctded a though each sipifier his 3 definite sind, aconcept or “idea, attached tot heako made i pain tat this sa misleading ‘vay of rapreenting the association Between the 40. Such a view “would imply that concepts were formed prot toad sndependently fof the terms used to express them. The relation between significr ‘and signified much more intimate than this wtbou elngarticu- Sincturalism and the Dhoory ofthe Subject 13 fated via the values created by phomolopica difference, thought ‘would be just an inchoate ux. Linguist signs ony come nto being Uvough the mutual conncetion of signifier and sities i the temporal conjunctions effected in speaking and hesrng, reading and witing. “Time is thus not, ss sometimes suggested absent from Saus~ suriam linguists. The fact tht Sauesre made the sei or linear ‘character of signifies Dai 1 all Language, and related this a ‘ontinuity of signified which meet at definite points of articulation, ean that hs view snot andtantas might appear from thos later Aleveloped by Lacan and Derrida. Sausure dil not so much eli hate time from hie theory, ae dsingush radically betwen two forms of temporality: that whichis involved in the syntagmatie ‘order of language, and thus isthe vey condition of synchrony and thot which rinvolved in the evolution of featares of langue Inthe fist Sense, time is inepea to Sausue's understanding of the ‘sjstematic character of language, because its vita tothe noon of ‘system’ here thatthe whole i only avalsble in its particular articulations. This notion suite dstine from the conception ofthe whole that pertains n functionals in soca theory, based on the 'nalogy of organic or mechanical ystems. Nome theless, Saussure “id accentuate stongly the independence of sypchrony fom “iachrony. The dististion between the synchronie and disbronic ‘viewpoints, according to him, is absolute al allows no comproms- ise's the diachronic perspective coaeeins phegomens "hat are lvelted t syste skhouph they do condition the. To study the states of system we mest abstract completely from changes its elements This related back tothe distinction of langue and parole. Only synchrony allows us to grasp the nature of Tengu” Diachvony operates onthe levetof theven ofthe modkiicationsin Ianguage brought about through speaking. inition of Saosure's views ‘The crea evaluation of Saussure’ vows has a dua intrest: as linguistic theory in itself, and es amodel of language hat asserved {shape some characterise. perspectives. of structural ~ “though, of courte, various of Saumure's Was were rejected by the Prague group and by Lévi-Strauss. The extcal reception of14 Central Problems in Social Dory Saussure’ inguin by now well developed i the Mterature. 1 wish Yo conser bey only certain points Which have some ily rst implications for problems of social theory. There ae Base ticles with each othe five elements of Samure's work which] have distinguished above. 1. Among Saussuian themes, perhaps that most extensively de bated his been the doctrine of the arbitrary characte of the sign Concentration of ere attention upon this element in Saussure doctrines snot unjustified since, shave indicated previously, the torn notions of arbitrariness and ference are the min consti atures tht establish the systematic charactor of lange. The term “arbitrary is a provocative one, and there i mo doubt that ome ofthe consions to which Sausure's doctrine has gven rise derive from the misleading implications it suggests ~ although Saosre attempted to cover hinnel aguost certain ofthese by sometimes subatituting “unmotivated” for "ttateary”“Unmot ‘ated ke “arbitrary, however, fx voluntristic erm, sugsesting {it that factor of choice which Swussure denied thatthe speaker, "he pase prisoner of language, possesses. The notion of arbitra dns, Sauusure crmplayed it, sem to have Been used to make leas tw points, anaitsworth separating these out, One that 9 atin tht languecsts independently oreannotbe explained in tezms of the intentional act inte by speakers onthe level of aro; langue snot in any sense anintended product ofthe atvty ‘ofthe subjects who are the language speakers. shall come to some fof the sues thi ries shortly. The second i to tress the conven tional nature of the sigh 1 the sense ia which “convention” Is ‘rainaily employed by Bish and American pllosophers, nd Stal eos hin We ean se that there are major unesoved ificutas in Sas srs coneepion if we pose the question: what iit about signsthet isheld to be conventional or ‘abiteary"? Init something about the ‘atuze ef the spifer or the ature ofthe sige in someway oF Init the conection between the two? Saussure seme tbe i000 lub: isthe final ene of these: "he bond betwen the sgifier fn the signified is arbiteary" But the examples he oflered 10 focurent the cam da mot concer his bond the concern aly Ue natureof the signifier. The sounds made by a speaker, or he marks Inscribed ona page, have no intrinse’ or homorphic resemblance Suctcaism a the hear of the Subject 15 to phenomena or evens inthe objectworkl. Benveniste, in famous discussion, has expressed the relevant point well. The segument that Saussure makes ‘fase by an unconscious and suneptitiousrecourse toa thi term which was oot ached ia the lll definition. This hid termis the thingitself.the reality Even thouph Saussure ai that the idea of ister isnot connected to the signifier ser he wns hot thinking any the less ofthe realty af he notion, When he ‘poke of the diference between tot ando-k-shewasretering i apite of himvel 4 the fat that these two terms applied 10 the Same realty. Here, then, i the hig, expres excluded at fist fom the definition of the sgn, now ereping into it by a detour ‘What Saussure's argument comes down to thei espeet ofthe ‘examples proffered to suppor his ease at leas, s that the relation between sgnferand object worldis conventional, withthe possible ‘exception of a few anomatopoeie words (das he pointed out Sich wos or expresions are normally styled or conventional Anyway). Since he Toctsed on the signers relation as bltrary, he tended tele the signified’ and the"objectsigifien” (orrofered to) by a word statement 2, This had two consequences, whose implications have een far- caching, even among those sevtuelist authors ony cifsely fnviacnced hy Sse. (9) Sine the thing, t0 eco Benveniste, ‘ros bunishe Grom view by fat sit were, Saveur didnot develop ‘cisoned and extended cae aint oxtensive definitions of mean- Ing, as Wittgenstein was ate todo, Problems of erence, indoed, ‘lsappear almost completly fom Saussure’ ascusion: the whole burden of linge theory x mae totum on the elation Between ‘Spifier andsipifod (b) The status of the sige, which afterall ‘wav ten employed by Saussure a generally equivalent to-mean- ‘ng’, an cam hardly be supposed tbe tangential toa theory of Tanguage, was left reaively obscure. Saussure variously described ‘efi se mental imapes idea" and eoncepts' thus as proper~ ties of mind deavorconceps participate inthe process of emia, bby combing with signers, but how ides or concepts achieves capably of coer objets or eventsinthe world iscompletly16 Conral roblensin Socal Theory unexpicate." It may well be the ease, as vatous inegpreters of Saussure have remarked hat the generation of Saussue's ‘iewpoint that itis not the wor or sentence Which ‘stands for tbjests or events inthe word, but athe thatthe whale system of langue espa treaty isl” However inwhatsene langue right "ie parallel to realty’ isnot at all eared in Saussure's analyses. The lack of clarity about the nature of the sgufied, together with the asocated tendeney to merge signifi! and ig- fled object, have had important residues, [all ague, theater evelopment of structs how 3, Related problems arise in respect of Saussure's attempt to sccentuate the parely formal gunies of language s comsitted ‘hroughlitference- Language all fon, ith no substance ings {evalu stem solely rom afferences. This emphasis undoubtedly ‘abled Sausre to akvance considerably beyond the achieve: iments of his predecesors in linguistics, by concentrating stention ‘on relation between fingusticvaies, rather than pon the terms Tanguage considered individually. But no system can be com pechended as pure form, as defined whol internally: not ven itis fenerally agreed since Godel, 2 sjstem of mathematics. When ‘Ogden and Richards say that Sauesre’s characterisation of ifr lence conceals or suppresses a proces of interpretation inthe sig, ‘they are making an esenal observation ~ done which bears deriving from the uebitrarness ofthe sgn. Sawsre mployed the notion ofthe arbitrary character of the sign 803810 ‘nte gl between sign and rteren, the result of which, how ver, aT have sated, that signified sometimes means ides’, ‘Concept ot thoughty sometimes the referent or object. The con- nection between word and objects not to be found in any featore thot the senfir shares with dhe abject, including ostensive eer tence, Now the ater Witgenstei, of ours, aso reject any notion thatthe nature of nguistie terme can be explicate citer in terms Df “coresponing’ features of the object-wortd, or in terms of36. Cental Poblemsin cial They ‘ostensve reference. ut she Witgeastenian identification of tt which eanpot besa as the pracicalorgansation of ota eens that this ejection doesnot lead inthe diection of stele retreat fm the objeto the dea, Whatever the obscures that May be involved in the acount of reference that is implied in the Ite ‘Wittgenstein’ philosophy, ticle that for Watgersten,toknow a language is te have knowledge ofan objct-workt asa lation of practice” To know a language sto be able To participate i the forms of ie within wich tis expressed, and which # expresses Witgenstein’s discussion of oil spacing” the origin si ‘ation opens ot 1 the conjunction of langue and langage (rath than jst prod) in Way in whic structural docs et oleing, indeed necessitating, a bridging the analysis of Iangage std ‘hetmeneties. For the spacing of language appears in the ona ton of difering sovat practices, ne inthe abstract onder of the signifcrsigifed relation. Hermenestis, or problems the media tion of language-gamer as semantic onder, ave a basic to the ‘Witigenstenian conception as the notion of the constitution of ‘meaning within the elatonal systens owns of ie Hf Quine and Davidson are tight, there may be a cher ie between meaning and reference than Wittgenstein was appatctly prepared to acknowledge but this no really eleva to the ‘angumen at this pint, The retreat fom reference nthe pat sructuralist thought has proved ta hen incapable of tepaiwithin the langunge of stroctrais sll, the recovery of ters lily was for Huse! in the tansendenta phenomenological reduction. Nowhere is this clearer than in Detride, Weng 6 puri siractraton, bereft of any possibility ofthe reconery of ‘context a ofthe xemantie The ‘docotruction’ feats supped fo demonstrate ther chractr es productivity, bat schprodition tums out tbe nothiag more than the play of pure difference” Writing, in Derrida’ formulation, brenke with everything th might rete a text to an objector the horizon of sommonic tion as communication of consciousness; the "semantic or her. imeneutie horizons... ab. hortone of meaning’; andthe concept ff conte This break declared to follow from the spacing hat ‘constitutes the wate sig’ held "tobe ound inal anguage'*" 3. The entity that permits diference sts quite explicitly taken by Derrida to derive from the consititon of cds themselves, oon] preset Siratratism athe Dory ofthe Subject 37 ether series or spoken. The internal ientity odes swat ‘paates them from any connotation of relerence. But tis rele [Nessim anew gusey the problem tht arore in respect of Saussure {tempt to constitteaitference as pure form. Devi seems nto otc, or hoses fo ignore, that ever to mation the identity of se prestmer some component of veference: that whick designates the elements of the code a belonging together, as being "valk tions, mares" cte- The argument that cos or writing are cons tuted by ther internal denty’ used by Derrida to dss the Felevance of reference altogether, The spacing of wetng makes for itcendlss repeatability “dssemination’ "the unity ofthe sp- hitjing form nly constutes elt by wrt oft erably. Byte possibility of ite Being repented fa the absence + of ferent” "This appcars to asimiate the lek ofa referent present” a the time of a utlerance with the absence of any connotation of fefecence alls involved with the signifying fem =The te are Svicusly not the same. Reference stubbornly intervenes even in the met forma entfesion of endes of sacingthermselves His ane forgotten of let oat of sous tsbecas ofthe persistent “Similan which writers inflaenced by Sausurin concepts have made between rlerent and signi, This was presaped, 8 Thave ready noted, By Sassure's own tendency to merge the 160,64 Fesul ofthe iipetus provided by the doctrine the arbitrariness tes 4. Deride's denunciation ofthe presen’of hed asthe essence Oi iin eas ost rom the pied fo ein the ini He docsnntakethe more radical sicpot ‘Rjcting the signers’ tinction altogether. Wie Sine tun of meaning log the He es, However, the Snirfipted dsincton must be corded. Foe the ate of langunge nd of messing more general eanot be exited in {ers of wood motion of thst The problem which as Tove Trico indicate, canbe traced sgh throng rm Saussure — does boteuncern te iter Ono! he mot inportant and mina ing conibtions fom he srt erature us been to d= ‘monte tatony typeof materia fom can particpatein emis thats can cro” meaning Te pel cones te spied The taf he object the iter psy of ie38 Cental Problemsin Social Theary ‘ence, which Saussure inated cannot be accomplished; henes the halure ofthe signified has ether been ktm scart. the term has been used ambiguously 10 include both concept and abject signified, For Witgenstcin, signifier, concept and object sigaied fare to be explcated in terme of thse incorporation within the Practices which compose forms of ie. "Don' lok forthe meaning, took forthe use does ot imply that meaning anduse aesynony ‘os, but thatthe sense of linguist tem can only be sought i the prkties which they express in which they are expressed, “Thede-cenning of the subject Rejection of he signifies distinction hs imme apli- ‘atlons for the eral assessment of Lacats structural reading ‘of psychounalss, which has strongly inflvenced the lateray evelopment of the “theory of the subject within stractralist ‘Philosophies. shall adress these implications directly elsewhere, And shall consider here only yeneral themes related to the "de" centring the subject ‘The ‘tandslous' rejection of humanism characteristic of the structural terature has its origins in a mistrust of comseiousness ‘or subjectivity’ This was preanged in Sausure's formulation ofthe priory of langue over the ndvidual subjective character of pare “To ths we must auld the impact of Mars, Nieusche and Freud 36 ‘ada nts othe cams ofthe Cartesian ogi: each ean be sen ‘questioning, in profound way, the edit of consciousness ax “transpurent to self. The structural demysifeston of the tains of consciousness dominated by the thls that subjectivity isconsitutedin nd through language. Ax Ricoeur puts t the pure ‘ac of the cogio is emply, and remains tobe mediated by the wor ‘of signs and the interpretation of thors sign’ The implications of such a standpoint ate sovera, and important, Instead of taking omciousnes a give, i streses the need for agente account of its production; consciousness snot regarded ea unitary ois De substance, but ava faetured and agile set of processes; andthe ‘onstittion of the ‘Tis acknowledged to come abot only through Ihe discourse of the Other thats through sgniestion, “These notions are developed in an interesting way in Kristeva's work, which departs quite substantial fromthecmphatesofether Strucuraisn aa the hoor ofthe Subject 39 “Lev Strauss or Der, Both nthe ode in which she uses a ‘phenomenologkal treatmeat of intentional consciousness and in fer interpretation of the “potion of the subject, se moves tay fom eater versions of tetas, Buteven n her writings ‘we do not Gnd an adequate ahaysis of human agency inthe sensein Which that_term is normally understood by” Anglo-Saxon philosophers of action. Her 'prdicating subject ill no far Fernoved fom the wnconscnus/eonsious dualism, conceived abave il asa Fingal elation, that dominates stacturalist theories of the subject Soch theories have usualy tended to retain clementeof the Cartesinism they have sought to reject the “think sshown tnpress Linguistic strtares that precede or undenicthe seif- ‘onsiousness or rellenve capacities of the subject At Lacan txprescs the S [signifier] andthe sgn] of the Sussurian gorithm ae nt on the sume level, and mn only delades hinselt wen he believes his tre place I at hee as, which nowhere" [But subjectivity here appears only ne sees of moments brought bout by the intersection of signing structures. The reflexive, Sting sect nut dimly recovered in such an analysis Tnertcsing Soul's theory ofspeech acts, confornty wither eneral standpoim, Krstva pues that speech acts"shoulbe seen Ussing practices’, and interpreted within 'a general theory of Siontving activity’ But replacing the nokon of at” with that of ‘practice is specious if the analis does Wot at the same time Incorporate the emphasis that speech-ct theory shares with Wit senstin’s view. ‘Dhoe are no signifying procces;sgnifeation ‘ou rather be underond as an naga elemento soca practices Ingenera {We must actully repute the cogito ia a more thoroughgoing ‘way than Kristeva does, while acknowledging the vital portance fof the theme that being precedes the sbject~objct relation in ‘onsciouenes. The route to understanding this i not 1 e foun ‘throug sort of reconstitute coi, bu through connection of Dang and action, ti relevant to sketch i at this point the genera outlines of a theory ofthe acting subject thats developed inmmach moredetaitin the following paper. This view depends upon stressing the impor= nce of the"zelexive monitoring of conduct’ asachroniceatureot the enactment of veil ie. In this conception, reasons and inte tions ate not definite "presences whic tk behind human social40 Cental Problems n Social Tery tivity, but are eoutinely al crniclly (in the dunt of ciy-tor thy exltence)instaiatedin that att." The tential hac ter of human aetins I (3) not tbe seen ae an aticlation of dsctete an separate “intentions, but cantina fa of tionality inte and (D)not tobe tweaked save of conscious states that in Some way "aecompan” setinn. Only in the rellesive act Attention are intentions consciously arteaates normaly within Sscourse* The rellexive mentoring of action draws up tact ‘knowedge’ which, however, can cnly partially nd imperirty be expressodindscourse Sushil hic isabove al practical and contextual in character isnot unconscious in any ofthe renses in which that term isusallyemployein the stratalst ieeatare Language ppeary hore a amet of social practic; the practic nate of stocks of knowledges wll emphitised Both by Shite tnd Witgensicin, The stocks of knowledge ppd in the rode. tion and feproduction of socal wile activity are lasly “unconscious 30 far at socal actors ca normaly ony offer 2 Sragrentary account of what they Kaow iealled pmo so but they re not uncon in he em en oh er y The siiticance of the reflexive monitoring of action agaist & ‘background of tack Knowledge ~ phonomens st the sore all slaytonday sock activity, but alontertory to storm ~ 1 ‘wel pointed up by Bourdeu's discussion ofthe gf teatonshi. alladed tearlier. Iisonty i one succumbs to wht might be callsd 4 genetic sociological fallacy that an acento humm ageney Appears ae incompatible with the wnconsci ithe Frew feree. The fallacy i t0 ama that, ovate the subject nd sell-consciousnes, are “constituted through a prose of evelopment ~andthusthat therllexive ctor tno 3gven ether ‘0 philosophy orto socal science they are merely epphencer res The de-centing of the mubjet ite hosous he philnophicr of consleusnesr which ne atacked it ‘merely substitutes astuctural determination fr ab ectvy ‘Tests ‘One of the major emphases that stueturatgn shares with Rer= ‘meneutie phenomenology isthe insistence thats pul vides the Sirusuatam amd she Theory ofthe Subject 41 text ay particular atculation of langage, rom whatever inten ‘ons an author may ave din wring In Lav Stas, tho ‘ony is regarded sx peculiarly apposite to trctural analysis because myths "have no autor a ‘exist only a they ve incarnated in 8 Itai" Decida specially ssoites the autonomy ofthetext With the separation of siting’ ron commumication’ and thereby Troms autor, the supposition that knowledge ofthe uthor can in snysguticant way lumina the meanings generated by thtextis ‘sist ae another example ofthe metapaysiesf presence." The interpretation of a txt the Tel Ouel group emphasises, cannot be treated asthe Hentifiction of core of meaning supplied by is thor wich relates that meaning tothe con txt Is reation. There iso reading of ext, ony readings, the result ofthe Teremtproductity of writing or, in Derala’s words, itsestental “The levine of authors intentions tothe interpretation texts, ui! more aly 1 the inexpeetation of meaning, his of cour theca much dscused in varios dsciptins, ranging rom trary tritici to the history of wens" donot wants consider here the peter of the role authors dtentins may ply i validating Utica interpretations of texts, T want eather to take sue withthe oncepcuatsntion of intentional activity that as been presomsed in Such erature. Mach of ths teature most, from this regard, De tleemed obsolete in the ight of the Witgonstinian critique of ttoitonal notions about dhe purposive character af human ston Ientions of purposes hve eon repaeded, in other words, 3s Aserete mental events that are in some way coretated wi the rention of tots, Is important to ae that Witigensteins rejection Gr ihis view aso extend to another clement ofthe metaphysics of presence’ that Derr ls repute the existence of fitite et [rates of interpretation” governing iterpretatons of meaning. “The ul-fllowing which Witgensteinidenties designates prac: ties which expres the recursive character of seal fife, and which fre constituted ony in and through those peetces; sch rues are therefore never ined or given presences Tis jas through this ecursiveness that wecan grape natwreof social practices sn a continoal proces af production and cepeo~ ‘huetion. Social practies frm thn standpoint donot express the intentions of s0%al sets; nor om the other hand they “deter~ Imine them. Zenons are only constinged withthe reflecie42 Centat Protlensin Social Theary ‘monitoring of action, whi howecer tum only operates in conjunc tion with rnacknowledged conditions and outcomes of action (Pot fuller escusston, sce below, pp. 56-9 ) From this pont of ew we tan begin to recover the edt no just a soln the inherent productivity of language, bat sitet asitanted production, witout ‘onthe other hand denying the autonomy of thetent Sructarligm has nr generated accounts of the interpretative work that ispresumed Inthe exeryay consitaton of iesubectiody. A concentration pon the intel structing the text, sped of referential components replaces the partisptony sl practical iterpation ‘of meaning within the conduct of langaspespames, Hence incr Jectvityisdriwn upon inan unackaotedged way tail peesomed by textual analysis, bat nat theories snout some partsimply ecu ofthe cental place which the text has sumed Instractaratis thought-or rather, particular ype ot conception of tens “con stuctd ay relational forms, separated trom what Hs set called “the maive intersubjetvty which f the nari Iasi the eeworl! Tr should be note thatthe view Ham proposing isnot identical the coneeption of “trary competence’ suggested by Culler kn “rising structural. Culler proposes dat lerarycompotence ‘ean be seen as consisting of tact "nts of conventions for reading Iiterary texts, and an "rule-governed proces of producing meanings» We can certily accep, with Cle, that authors and Fader bring mote to txt than their Knowledge of language ‘They bring knowledge of «variety of soil conventions or, more accirately pay th very knowledge of langage is inseparable {rom the stil pracices inthe context of which langage const tuted and reconntitotd. However knwulelge cannot be prasped simply a5 rule-fike semaotin. Callers propos amounts 0011 Df ethnosemanti of the reaing of itrary texts “ethno Semanties is understood inthe manner of Gooslenough nd Lounsbury" According. to Goodenough, the task of sthno- ‘semantics fo elucidate the content of xan, where‘ sce)" Culare consists of whatever it isonc histo know or believe inorder {operate ina mane aeeptable wo is mombers ast where ths ‘Kowiedge is expt as definite sot of statable rules?” But to complement he typical structural emphasis upon the primacy of the semiotic with an acteotuation ofthe importance of semantic rls ic no saifactory unless we mtenipt aunt comprehend the yas Souctraism an the Theory ofthe Subject 43 meshing fret and practices in day-to-day tie Tis dems Scknowiedng the sgnieance of "ethnormethods’ as the means ‘whereby accounabit sustained cthoo-metheds that ae aetly {elied upon by evry sucturalis theorist ofthe text who, no matter ivnt hor she gb argue about texts tt are subjecttosnalysizor “escostracton’ sll supposes tha he text in which those a7- ments are expresedisitellisbletoan indefinite audience. Tet me suas the main elements of my view: |The production a tot ike the proton of soca practic, Ie vot the outome of am Sntenion’ ran aggregate of intentions Ruther, the Intentional charscter of the activites concerted hast boteoated ae a chron feature of therellxive monitazingo action ‘tests therefre nt tale regan ss fined form’ whichis then Somehow related hloe to particular iterions; ie should be Statied es the conctete medi and outcome of & process of prvlution, reflervely monitored by uthor oe reader. Boa into the proces of production of text has 0 svestigate ie whole ange what Fealanthe following paper the rationals tion of cthon™ not merely Hs intentional component, But the reasons and motives that ae ivelved in that production a skied sccomplishment,The"knowledge' hat thereby drawn upenby an thor wil be tangely tacit and practical in charter: mastery of tan se, aeeness of partir features of an expected oF potential audience, ete: Moreover this leaves lange concepts hace forthe operations ofthe unconscious. Teflon rom my erie argaments thatthe dtncton Kristeva makes between "peno-text a gerio-txt not, itt ‘Nquste basi fr understanding these phenomena, Heridentics: {dom of the chorathat sath origins of smionlsscems valuable, Du fnterveing Between the subtezrancun ‘operations ofthe uncon scious andthe pheno-text are the consti features oF practical SAU thins upon what a “author i as an sting subject. An futhor iv nether & bundle of intentions, nor om the other hand « series of “uaces somehow deposited within the text. Foweaul sa ‘that writing primarily concerned with exeating an opening where the wilting subject endselydappears. Butt stay the prodac- ion ofthe fer the same time indefinite sense tty the production of is author The author not simply subject and the46 Conta Problems in Social Theory {ext ‘objets the ‘author helps constitute him of herself through Whe tex via the very proces of produetion of that text. The Importance or his easy sen we contact the cmergeie ol the ‘personalised’ author of the modern novel or pace with. the “anonyinous’ author of myth or of medioval legend 4:"To argue that texts ean be ituminatingly nuded situated ‘oductons soins that there are connections betwen the two ‘ways in which “meaning is oadimarly employed in English what someone means tos, write or do, ad what that which fs writen or dane mean But this ds mot imply aretutn to or ‘of subjectivis. One ofthe main tanks of the stay ofthe tex, ot ‘Indeed! cultural products of any kind, must be precely to examine the divergences which can become inatitated Between the crs tances of their production, and the meanings sustained by th subsequent escape fom the horizons of thei creator or ceato “These meanings are never “contained in the text uh, but are snmesfed inthe ux of social fe lathe same way a8 iil Dxtution was: Consideration of the autonomy’ of the text othe ‘scape of is meaning from what ts author orginally mean els ‘eunite problems of textual fterpetation with broader kus of sosial theory. For in the enactment of socal practices more inencrally, the conequencer of actions chvontaly escape thelr Initiator ientons in proceses of aijetification ‘The foregoing consitorations allow us 40 take a positon in fespeet of curent storie about se disappeatance ofthe sujet, fr the end ofthe indvidua. The pressing tsk facing sci teary toy isnot to further the conceptual eiminaton ofthe sujet ‘on the contrary to promote « meoaery ofthe suber without lapsing fino subjectvinm Such recovery, 1 wish t0 argu, involves 8 {xsp of "what cannot be said (or thought) as practice. Adwocicy of ne need to complete the solution of theses reas ionaly ‘nen taken pains the background of Anglo-American sociology wih, with Some exceptions (ost notably, symbolic interaction- ism), has hitherto Been dominated by postvim. For posvstic philosophies ek any aecount ofthe elerve subject just 38 they Tack a theorsation of institutions and history. Th of Cartesian ‘Philosophy does not even appear in positives, 3 8 rena of ite _Bhenomenaist premises: one mip pon ou thatthe mot acd fd thorughgoing attempt to erase the abject found, not Siructuralisn ant the Dory of the Suject 48 stractraism, or in Deleuze and Cuattan's Ant-Oedip, at ‘Maci’spostvs, Fallne to se this reinforced by the tendency ‘of stracuraint ators to lamp together the Cartesian cog, the ‘arous formsofideatsm, together wth positivism or empiri, as {ilforms of philosophy founded in thesubject. In telrendenwourto solve the subject, siituratiam and pesitvim thus have an Smmportant clement in common, an inthe context ofthe soa Sciences inthe English-speaking worlditivallthemore necessary 10 nse hat the de-centringof the subst mast not be made equal cnt tts dappearance. Any form of social theory which meyBes the de-coneing of the subject a philosophical tenet with & propadouteof the end ofthe individual as ether a desirable oF Incvitable movement of contemporary sol change, becomes sub ject tothe charge of Moology that exis ate so fond of leveling ‘eninst struturatgm, Te useful hereto contrast Foucault wit ‘Adono snd Hortheimer The end of the indvidea, perhaps, ‘Sinai the final ping of the age of bourgeois Hberalam: not weve a faut histor ranation, but rather ar swamped {apreaing totaltarianion.& rical appraisal of such « phetome- ‘om ishacdly posable sca theory sccumbstothe very processes ‘hich sho he concerned to compreten Structural: arésuméands lorwardlook “The importance of structural thought for contemporary social thcory, Tent to cai, consists primarily incerta major themes ‘which i hashepedto bring int prominence: themes whose further ‘evelopment, however, cannot be satisfactorily pursed from with= in roca premises, 3 [have ientied ther inthis paper “Those are altogether seven respects, Think, fo which sieuetbalst thot of pascal sigicincs, exposaly when considered in th light ofthe psa prevosuptions of Anglo-Saxon sociology. T stall outline these any cursory here: but they inform all ry ‘oaceras in the seeceeding papers in ths book, ist, strcturalist theory pobus 0 the significance of spacing shnongh difference the conaiation of bot language and cits. ‘Thi fe an cinphass Involved, in varying way, in tho work of ‘Sasire, Lev Sinus and Deri. Detrda's conception oir fncetsof great interest to social theory. But Devrdean dfrance's nssciate ow coely with the spcing of writing; the caepsion of46. Conta Problems in Socal Theory spacing that can be discerned in Wittgenstein superior to this in feferring t0 the involvement of language with nosal practices Social practices cost ot jut a tafoumtions of vistal order ‘of itfrences(Wittgenstla's ules), anifrences inte (ep ition) but also in plyicalsce shall argue nthetellowing per Ute theory ofthestructation faecal sytem shoul based ‘pon this threefold connotation of aifirance ‘Second, and closely ascinted with the fis pli, stucturaie thought atempts incorporate a temporal dimension int he very cent of ts analyses In Sams thf ound inthe satanic spect of language, even ifthe pronunce division inroed By the separation of the sypetronc ram the dahon sover th from proceses of ingitc change, The syntagmatsfessocitive ‘ppeston lacking in fuetionasn which incorporates tine on “achrony oF “dynamic (sce pp. 210-14 be). Strait theory has been able o generate concept of sutton va the overcoating ofthe synchronidlacnonic dint in 84 ‘pen to faetionalism! We have to recognise the Unitations of is. Las not fed toa capacity to develop explanatory accounts ‘cl change: andin Dertida, eventos ina form of istricin, that denies the possbity of histor in trv name, tn attempting to escape the “metaphysis of presence’ Derrid, like Hote reaches a view which tends to cxorie historia explanation in the ‘ety acknowledgement that everything x chronic in sate of ‘overeat. In Love Struns, the notion that bistrial understind- ing i only ene code among clber al effectively prevents « recovery of that undetstnding ss > means of explining sol ‘ange. Stacturalst thought hence has not developed "el lundersanding ofthe conditions ofits ow predetion ean tel leetual tition, and i wanrable to the sort of stack it has fequcaly dean fom authors suchast-efcbvre and Goldmann for ‘whom iticmerely an deology of advanced capitals ‘Third, whatever ubjctions might be made paint LEv-Stratas's Incxprtstion of history, i contains some extremely valuable in- sghts. As aguinst historic, which wo radialies sore eta tion that it becomes imposible to expe from t- evenmorder to produce historical analyses ~ and which thus charactristcly ferminates in some or ether frm of veatvsm, Lév- Stats points ‘out that alstance i tine tn some portant respecte sme a “ahnographie distance. Moreover, in crphsising the contests Stractralsn and the Dheory of the Subject 47 benveen those se af society which operate in reversible tee fand which although surrounded by the substance of Ory ry {oremaintnperious tot, ax comparedto those which tara tint themotive power oftheir development:® Levistraus helps olay the round fora theory of soca epredvcton Fourth, srwturalst theory alfers the possibilty ~ ot fay realised is for ~ of fornulting more safety understanding (ft socal tal than that offered by its leading ea, funcional Sim According to the alr, sekety may be portrayed asapattern ‘feltions between parte indivi, ous, instutins). Saas Sve’ sructral Hingis, by contrast, suggests the notion that Sosity like language, should regarded wet vir ptr eth ‘eeursive properties. elaboration of this pout, however (orsoT ‘al elim, demands :'eoncepaldtinton that is found nether ln strata nor in functionals: distinction between sac ttre and syste Fifth, we fin in strutorlism « move of major significance for soit theory am ate to transcend the subjecidjct dua. Although is iv mot unigoe to stoctraist thought, aed sap roched fom variant perspectives by hermeneatie plenonenol- [By and in he poopy ofthe ater Witgensten, dhe stuctrait ‘Rahors have elaborated it most ful. We cam acknostedge the importance ofthis contribution while sill emphasising tha thes nine i we merely eeplce subjective by same srt of objectv tum. The subjectobjct dats can only be satisfactorily re- Pate if we acknowledge that this nota duis Buta day. ‘Sith, the critique of humans aad the theme ofthe de-cening ofthe subject have tobe aproseted wth cation, but nevertheless too exsental importance ost theory. The de-centting ot the Zbjec implies an creape from tho pikopbical standpoints hich have raken comsiouses x lth given, ansarent 9 {sel This should not lead, however, to dhe disappearance ofthe Fefloxive components of umn cond or to tei treatment “Some sortofepipenomenaof deeper strctures, Reflexiity hast be recostnaced within dhe discourse of socal Heory mot jst in Feapect ofthe members of society whose conduct ste object of Sy, but al i spect of socal weience self as frm: of human ‘Seventh snarls heory has made permanent convibutons towards theanalyt ofthe production of extra objets Th ures48. Cental Problems in Social Theory evelopment of these contributions, however and he secompish- iment ofthe tsk of integrating somioie tie more closely with ther areas of social theory, demands abandoning most nate ‘oppesitons that have been taken over fom Snissre: those Iangueparole synchrony sachtony nd signtiersged.addis- «ardingthe conception of the arbitrary charnte ofthese, Inthe Place, We may expect to develop theory of axes and feos Peodcton, proud in broader theory of skal practice, and reconnected to hermencits, 2 Agency, Structure “The priipal se with which [sbll be concerned ia this paperis the of connecting notion ofiuman action with structralexplan tion in socal analysis. The making of such a connection, I shal rue, demands the following: theory ofthe human agent, o of the subject, an account of the conditions sod consequences of ‘ction; and a fterpetation of steetare’ as somehow embroiled {in both thowe conditions and consequence” “Thearisofaclon versus lnatettonaltheotios ‘Acton and ‘structure’ normally appear in both the sociologist 4nd philosophical literatures antinomis. Broadly speaking, i ‘would be tue to uy that thor cols of thought which have bez preoccupied with ston havo paid tle attention to, ar have Found bho say of coping with, coneptions of stuctaral explanation oF octal causation, they have alo fled t relate action theory £0 frablems of intational transformation. This is most obviously {tue of the Anglo-Saxon philosophy of ction, Both ints Witgens: ‘inion form and i versions es directly influenced by Witpens- tein. Notwithstanding the great interest of Wittgenstein’ Iter Dhilsopty forthe socal slencesin respect ofthe relations betwoen guage an Praxis, we apy come up againsitslimitsin respect, ofthe theoristion of Instat, Itations certainly appeae in Witigenstlnian philosophy, and in @rtherfondareatl way. For ‘the transition frogs the kee of the earlier Wittgenstein to the ter fe effectively one from nature to wets: language and social convention are shown in the Philrophical Investigations to be0 Conal Problems i Social Theory inextricably intertind,so that to explete oc to expat the ther. Bot as expressed in forms of fie, insti are analysed ‘only in so far a6 they fost a consensus backdsop apatinet which ation is negotiated and is meanings formed. Wittgestinian philosophy has aot led towards any rt af sonceen wih cil shange, with power relations, or with confit in society. Other strands in the philosophy of action have operated a even farther Sistance from such ses, Focusing attention slmontexchvely "upon the nature of ressne intents san tv ‘Within more orthodox socal! trations, symbolic interac tionism has placed most emphasis upon regarding soeisl Me as an setive accomplishment of purponive, knowledgeable actors nd it Ins also een associated witha definite "theory ofthe subject ay formulated in Mead's acount of the octal rigins of reflexive ‘consciousness. But the “sei” in Meads formalstion i nied Yo Tamia gutes andthe ‘generated ther’ Mead did ot elaborate conception of a eiffeentiatedwsiely, nor any interpretation of Social ansformation. Much the sume fe the ce withthe slse- ‘quent evolution ofthis tradion, which has net sascessflly = ‘eloped modes of institutional analysis. One ofthe eats as been {part accommodation betwces symbotie itersetonism and functionalism in American sociology the former held to be a “micro-sciology”. dealing with small-scale “interpernonal los tions, while mote embracing ‘macrosocalogica task ae Rt 60 thelater. "Functonalism and strcturatism se alike in acoording priority to the object ever the subject in some sense to siactre ove ction. Functional ators have normally thowght of hie a teas ‘of ‘emergent properties’ of th totality, which nt only separate ‘haraceistes fom these of snail members, but cause ‘exert a dominant influence aver thei conduct. The silts Durktvim experienced with this notion, in 30 far as hs writing, fre regarded om the point of lew of thet connections with funtion, rather am with stuturalism, are well known, Durkheim wished to emphasise thatthe characteristics of thesocal whole are separate trom those of indvial agents, and accented ‘arous senses in which ‘wcletyfs external to its indival mem bers: every person is born into an aren constitute soc, nd ‘every person is only one indivdhal in a sytem of soclation involving many others. Bat neither nhs easier writings norin his Agency, Siucue 51 later works id Durkheim manage to conceptualise the extemal or ‘jective character of sucety in a plaibe fasion, Durkheim's ‘urler poston ie exemplified in The Ruler of Sociological Method, Sd anciated externality with contain. Two etors can Beds emed in this standpoint, It was 8 mistake to understand socal constant ss simie to phys constant, anit was a mistake ‘cpa coastrant at allie a eiteron of thes0ca othe ins ‘ona Taken together, these led toa conception f subject and ‘hject which ven Durkicim had to adit as seriou dices. ‘Soviely becomes a Kind of inhibiting enironmeat ia whi actors ove ai hh mass presence Fe teh he reser effects which conition their condoct. The analogies to wh ‘Seuhal spened i odo Msouc the enteral pow of sta facts in i ear work are clearly decent He sometimes ompaed the properties of society, 38 contrasted wit those ofits embers, tothe combination of elements in naure Theassocatan ‘tonygen and hydrogen to form water creates properties which are hot those of x comtitucntclemonts, or derivate ren them the ‘ine Holds tre ofthe relation between sacely and x constituent core.” Bul such an analogy only works for those very types of perspective Durkicim set ott to crite, sch ae attra ‘iui If individual 2 fully formed socal beings, tte to fete to erste ew sci properties bythe fet of their scl ton a i contract theories of Society, the analogy might Bl; 9 support Durkheim's ease it does not Sateen Buti canes may nln oni, sessing the moral nature of social fets, ond thereby separa Pins constaint om the sorts of prsres exerted by sky {ver its members. I this Tater Durkheim’ = stho recognised that ‘moral phenomena are both positively motivating as well a con Staining in his orginal sense who was the main inspiration for Parsons, Parson's “ation frame of reference’ Is much mee f= ‘ehted to Durkheim than t the others whose work he elaimed 40 have sythested in The Siacieof Stal Action * Parsons under~ stands ation in elation to what cls "vohuntar’, ad hae “ought to reconcile the latter with recognition of the “emergent properties" of well systems, The reconaition achieved through the influence of normative values on tw Teves a elements of personality and as core component of soe, As internals in pertonaliy, valves prove the motives or need-dipesitions which52 Cental Probleme in Socal Theory limp the conduct of the actor; while om the lve of the social ‘stem, as institutiontied norms sahies form amoral coment "hat scives to imate the totality, “Voluntarism here thas be- ‘comes largely reduced to making space in soil theory fora ‘sccount of motivation. conneced vinnormsto te characteristics soxlal systems, The edict of actors in society is este a the ‘etcome ofa conjunetion of soil and pascal determinant In which the former dominate the ater through the hey inne !uuibued to normative clement. This effectively eachdes certain stele componentstthe tiny ton asa emcee The ontmony T have just sketched ako figures prominatty ia “Marxist phionophics. In some part this traceable tothe anbigo- ‘ous content of Marn’s own wating. The Hegelin inheritance in Marx, with ts connotation of setive consciousness andthe coming foisll of the subject im history. mingles uneasily and in an ‘enrsotved way in Marts works witha allegiance va determinis tie theory in which actors ee propelled hy historical hws The sistance Between the Lukes of History and Class Consciousness fd the Marnsm of Althusser gives ample evidence ofthe widely Aiscrepontceadinge which Mai’ texts can engender, although a ‘more Spposite comparison, I shall suggest below, perhaps made between Althustes vw and the phenomenological Maris of Paci thas been pointed ou often enough that there atsimilrites between Parsons’ funtionlism snd Althusser's Version of Mark- ism. Such siniariti arent clifiul o dsern: Parsons theory of the internation of values has dnc parallels with Ahuses reworking ofthe notion of ideology and theformersidentifcation ‘ofthe fanetional problems facing social ystems resembles Alhus- S's conception Of the regions thit compose sos foematons {even if Tor one author the ‘deerinatin inthe lat fastance™ cultural for he other eam But the most important sinlarty is surely that, while both systems of ought are concerned {0 ‘overcome the tujest-objct liam = Parson vate action tame ‘freference and Althusser through his Theoretical alanis each reaches position in wih subject x controlled by objet Parsons actors are cultral dopes, bat Althusser’ agents ae stnictural dopes of even more stunting medics, (For futher Aiscusson of Althusser on structural causality. a8 pp. 155-60) ‘The “te mubjects of Altinrs mise en scone a he candy sedis are the "places and fasts that agents oy = Agency, Smucnte $3 Pac's project is diameticlly opposed to that of Althusser nso far ashe nttemtsto prove teading of Mat informed primary by the later writings of Hower.” Pacis theme i precisely the Ienation of urna subjectivity within caplm-Like Lukes he concentrates a good deal of his attention upon problems of reise tion-orobjectliation-asreification, anditrmst be considered one ‘tthe moet important contributions of phenomenological informed types Mra that they pose the fare of efleation as ental to the ertque of ileology somethin which simpossibleto ‘sscompish ip Althusser's scheme” But Pac's work is lage eon- erned with riclsing Hawer's Qin of Europea Sciences as tsitique of the eilying character of technical Teason. is hase position is closely ted to phenomenology, and is open 0 some of fhe objections that Athuserand others infivencedbystuctaralisn ‘have quit lepitimately levelled gins sac ses of thought. "These things having been sad, Mars writings til epresent the most signin single fund of dens that can be drm pon in Seeding illuminate problomsof agency andstracture Mars writes inthe Gnondsse tht every socal item “that has 2 fed form spears ax mercly‘avanishing moment inthemovement of society. “The conitions and objectiistions ofthe proces, he continues, ‘are themselves equally moments of it, and Hs ony sebjects are indvists, bat fndividuats in rout relationships, which they ‘ally reproduce and produce anew...” These commentsexorest ‘vac the standpoint I wish to elaboratein this paper. ‘Tae, ageney practice 1 shall argue here tht, in social theory, the notion of ation and structure presuppose one another but that recognition ofthis epen- ‘ence, which fa dalectical elation, necessitates a reworking both of asenesafconceptsinkedto each ofthese terms, andthe term: themselves. i this section I sal consider some sues concerning the theory ‘of etn, before attempting to connect agency with conception of ‘tractral amis 1 sal draw upon the analytical philosophy of Seton, as developed by British and Ameria philosophersover the past ovo decades But Tall want to say that, a charsctetstially Formulated hy such witers, the pllowapy of ation has number54 Conral Problems in Social Theory of ntble ena, One, which hve remy mention i: my ‘min cone nwt alow the asta pilsopy of sto inks stheorbaton of nstton Tw ter consis sal Chim, ral fomuchathcoation The fst the norton terry int he edertaning ot han ageney te ee ithe nconaton of ower ata othe coms m regard as a fundamental theme of this paper, and of the whole of thx bok, hat oa they mut ake it has de preity, timecspace nrc tently ined ff ‘Sat etic. Alsat ecg (end ie thos psc nye asa doblesemst fern bts efoto se Tv heady nested tna yin the revit pape, Sail tty isatenyaconaiatedinhe tact momento Aiterens tempor parcial Gnvekig strc whi ‘spreset oly ins instantiation) an spall. Aliso paces {re simare wien mea th tenses Tataltake up poems of tne space eaonsnsome etallin ‘sabe paper inthe wok Gf 198-233) Asner ‘No author hesifuminated these problemsasmuch as Heider. In {Mreying tec of Kans meena Heer ots {tat the Kintan «pb mp the mt of tinea el that whieh makes he hin wh peso th ting et he ‘Sesto Kanon etter candice sai py tht what etme adap he ropoaon tat appressed space, Ler w ‘imi respect ore stactoy: Littell tht we not trent time snd gc seeps snaiingepelence,ecse $Ssnp pole toorson tis andape eat o jeas nd eve tme en space se the oes in which bjs ad ents or happen Sma, fr Heldegg aed er fom: every exit Boing tompor As one commen. stor pte apes tm tine, the econ of he Pee. tary ces i our ken inten pobities the action of te tamcndealy the omy of the Donal What Hager spread hhc take rong Rito ondings of wee pole the ‘onaay cron of page nee, pees ‘nh the apron so theory Seep blow a Agency. Smuctre 38 argue that ne, space an vi ioc! (rset) the threcldimersectono irene arcnocesryoticconaiie thon ofthe ea, Or, to expen the pont in other ways the SSutapmate, which beth fers ant dee, necestates the purposes te ater a eurively dependent pon the toner "ALN, Whitehead ap somevtete that What we pereive asthe preset isthe via! tng of memory tinged wit 0 Traiger wrens the i etwonn Anderton emory “then sod denken hind) in hong tht the experience of time ent that of shszon of mows, Butte erpolton of smomory ad stspation nthe presente, Nether hme oe theexpsenc one ate agprepaes of stants Thi empha important for virion reason, One wich Bars ety upon th tTeament of ston by anata pilenophor, onecrns he com {Stuainusionofactsinentons, porpoe retons, ete Inordiary nls sag, wspeak si tne were distinct ani or lements insome way apeepated or stra together nation, Mos ish and Ameria poner of scm have eset th age ceqeslonngy Te x doing ny hive towing sete dency rom cation an tine, rom te temporality 0 day {oc conduct, What tk Morte ignores tho elle tmoment atest, ale intng in scare that esksim the tow of actin which constitutes the day-to-day actly of human sbjeca'” Such 8 roment tole even in dhe com Sito of action oon a from he eo ve trogh Npcton oF agency, as I use it, thus does not refer to a series of ncrtemsscombanedtogter bute scorns fiw of ond We may define setion Tay Bartow a formation to Previous work, ar invaving a sve of tal or comempate tsa inerventons of compres beings inthe ongoing proves of ‘Stemstthemorad" Cava smment ood tobe made aboot {hi Fr the ton of cto aw rerone to the evils of font td canot De examine pat fom a broader try the wings recs to kt pon is apparent tatoloey, ‘Sense in substan pat ofthe piesa! Herre the etre of nin fs dewsed primary elton wo cots with “Towemens the chcttrsie ofthe ator a subject ema explored o inp" Fhe concept of ageney be T advocate itS56 Central Problemsin Social Theory hore, dnvelving “intervention in « potentially malleable objet- ‘worl, relates directly to the more guneraid notion of Pasi. Sha Inter teat regulrised ects as situated practices, and stall Fegard this concept 26 exprosing 4 major mde oF connection Derween action theory and suc analysis. Second, it 6 a socessiy feature of etn tha, at any pol i Ue, the agent "could havesctedotherwie’= either positively in terms of tempted {ntervention lathe process of 'evenein the wold, negatively in terme of forearance. The sense of cou hve done otherwise” ‘bwiously a ffi and complex one Hi aot important th paper to attempt to elaborate» dotiled ustication of 3 Be a Imistake, howeves,tosuppose that theconcept of action canbe aly lucdated in this respect out of the context of hiseically locaned modes of aetiy * conditionsof | setlon 1 [ Rationaisaton of ation | Gfaction \ Motivation ofaction . Unactnowledged ie unintended Prove 24 Figure 2.1 porteays what cou be sepatded a “tation model" of stl: & mode! whose impestions however cannot be properly worked out separately fom the discussion ofthe proper ties of structure that T shall provide in a subsequent section. The ‘eflexive monitoring of conde eer othe inentanal or purp ‘Sve charatterof human behaviour: emphasises intentional” «3 roces. Such intentionality & 2 routine feature of human conde, fd does not imply that actors have definite goss comin hak ‘in mind during the course of their activites. That the later is tuna, i fic, indented in ordinary English wsage by the ‘stncton between meaning ot intending to-do something, and ‘doing something ‘purposeful, the later implying an uncommon ‘egree of mental appication given wo the pursuit of a ann When Jay actors inquire abou each other sitentionsin respect of particu Jaracts, they abstract from continuing processaf routine monitor fing whoreby they relate their activity to one another and to the ‘bject-word, The distinctive feature aout the reflexive monitor ‘ng of human actors, as coapared to the behsviou of anal, ‘ction | consequences ‘Agency, Smuctre ST what Gaafinkl call the accountability of human action. take “fevountabliy’ to mean thatthe agsounte that actors ate able to lfer oftheir cont draw upon the same stock of knowledge 36 fre dawn upon inthe very prodoction and reprodution of thee ston. Ae Hare expresses thi, the very same soil knowledge ind ski Is involved in the genesis of action and accounts. an Individual’ silty todo each depends ypon his stock of soil [nowelge.” But we must make an important emendation tothe paint of view Hare spears to tke. The ang of account ees {othe dscnieecpablites and nsiintions of actors and does 00 ‘ahunet the connections between stocks of knowledge” apd action ‘The factor ising from Harré charsctersation Is practical ‘consciousness: tact knowiedge thats skialy applied nthe ena tment of cours of conduct but which the actor: notable to Fommalat dacuravely “The relesve monitoring of behaviour operates against the back rand of the ratonalistion of action ~ by which T mean the Expabites of human agents explain’ why they act they do by ving reasons for theirconduct—andin the more close’ context Sf practical conscious Like “intentions “seasons only form scree accounts inthe context of queries, whether initiated by bothers ora clements of process of self-examination by the actor Tee very important to emphasie that the reflexive mentoring of sti clades the monitoring of the seting of interaction, and pot Just the hehavioue ofthe purtcular actors taken separately. TRsIs shown by Gatfinkol toe a base featere ofthe ethno-mathde Involved in the day-to-day constitution of social interaction! The rationalisation af atin, set eon feature of daly conduct, a ‘normal characterise ofthe Bebaviout of competent social agents, fu! is indeed the main bass wpon which their ‘competence’ is cjuge by others. This des not mean that reaonscan be inked 4s diretly with norms or conventions ss some philesophers have aimed or implied. Reasons donot ast ineladethe cing of or the fppeal wo norms: to suppose that such she case atl eas the Phileeopty of action back towards the Parsonan ation frame of Teference, ance conduct then becomes driven by “internals” ormative imperatives.” “The reasons actors supply dscarsively for their conduct inthe «couse of racial queie inthe conte of daly soca ie standin ‘elation of some tension to the rationalisation of ation as actualy tmbodied within the steam of comdt ofthe agent ‘The lest Interesting or consequential aspect ofthis concerns the possibilities58. Coal Problems in Socal Theory ‘of deliberate dssimlatin that exist where an actor claimstohave acted for reasons that he Was notin fact guided by. Moe important are the ey areas of practical consciousness that xs intheeation hetween the rationalisation of action and actor’ stock of kno ledge sn between the rationalisation of action and the uncon scious The stocks of knowledge, in Sehut'sterm, or what Teall the mutual knowledge employed by ators inthe production of social ‘counters, are not usually kw to thore actors in an expilly «elie form; the practical character of such knowledge conforms tothe Wittgnsteinian formulation of knowingarule,Theacounts score are ableto provide of ther resons are bounded, orsubjet ‘atious degres of posible aniclation, in respect of tty em loyed muttat knowledge.” The giving of reasons in day-to-day activity whic closely seein withthe moral account of action, is inevitably eaght up in, ad expressive of the demande. and th conflict entailed within social enounters.Butthe art tion of accounts reasons i aso influenced by uncimscks lementsof motivation. Thsievolvespossibtiesof rationalisation inte adn es he ring tel he wets upon conscious proseses of atonal zou Motions components of ation, which aks tele tothe ‘organkstion of an actor's wants, suaudle conscious and uncon ‘cious aspects of cognition and emotion. Tae whole weigh of pstchoanalytic theory suggests that snotvation has an interna Fierarehy of its own. Ishall argue in a sibsequent paper that conception of the unconscious i eset to soil theory. even if the resultant stem T shall develop departs in nome ways fra ‘lassical Freudian views, Bat the unconscious ofcourse canony be ‘explored in relation 1 the conscioae tothe reflexive mentoring and rationalisation of conduct, grounded in practical consciousness. We have to guard against a redotive theory of ition: fn respect of the unconscious: that apast theory which, in ‘seeking to connect the forms of sca ie to mneansiows provenes, fails to allow sufficeat play to autonomous sci forces ~Froud's ‘own soiotogial writings leaves ot tobe sired in ths es But we mas alo avoid a reductive theory of consciousness thts ‘one which i emphasing the rol ofthe unconscious, sabe rasp the reflexive features of ation ony a. pale eat of uncon. Selous process which reslly determine them “The philosophy af ection, a= developed ty Aaglo-Sexon authors, has shintedbstes hat are ndcatedateacnseof igure 2.1 Slat Agency, Sincure 59 as the unconscios is concerned, this neglect express more than Jt an aoceptance of Witgenstein'ssurpicions about the fgieal ‘atu of payehonnalysis Rather ita consequence ofa preocea- Potion with the relations between reasons and intentional cond, nt authors if they reer to "motiver” at al, we the term aS uivalent to ressons A theory of motivation is cracal because t Stpplies the conceptual lnks between the rationalisation of ection fnd the framework of convention 3+ embodied in institutions {Glthogh Tahal segue subsequently (sce pp. 216-19) that large trea of cial bchaviourcanberepardedasnot dicety motivated). Bata theory of motivation ao fast reat to theunacknowledget Conditions faction: in respect of unconscious motives cperating or ‘outside the ringo of the sell-understanding ofthe agent. The unconscis comprises only one set of sch conditions, which have to be connected to thou represented on the other se of the ‘gram: the unintended consequences ston Te scion pilosophy has largely avoided questions of the uncon. seiout, thts leo displayed virtually no intrest inthe unintended Consequences of nena conduct Tisisceraly responsible in Some pt forthe pul thet as separated the philosophy af ecto from institutional Moris in social science. I Tuneionaist wets have teen unable to develop an adequate aecount of intentional ‘onic they have nevertheless ben quite righty concern with the escape of att fom the sop of the purpose ofthe actor. ‘The uniatendo consequence of ation ate of centatzmportnce to seeial theory ins fara they aesytematiallyncomporated within the process of reproduction of snslutions. T shall diets the Jplieatonso thin some detailer, ut tis wore pointing ‘ut ths jonctre that one such mpteation that the unintended consequences of conduct relate dicey to as unacknowledged elton ay specified by theory of motivation. For in so far as ‘ich unintended somequenses are invobved n sell reproduction, tty Become conditions of setion abo. To follow this through further, however we must urn tothe concept of structure. Tie, srt, system In social snc the tnm sructre” app ia two main bodies of literature: that of funconalsm, which soften in contemporary ersons caledSiucturabfuncionaim’ and the tadion of{60 Contra Problems in Socal Theory ‘hough that hasembraced i most comply, storm Sofa 28 the ft ofthese fs angered, arvcie normaly appears Conjunction wth fan. Spencrand ther etch futhors who employed thse tems dd so often inthe comet of {sly bundyexprened schemes flap aig To ty thestrcturofoosey ks saying the atomy ofthe canis {ostudy sanction ike studying the pylon oftheorani, 1 is wo show how the sractre moka Altnugh more cen funcional suthor: have Bosom wary vt employing ct or sealed biol! part The same ot of resumed lation beeen stature and fonction endl parent in hr work Situcturevunderstood an refering toa ate socal eaton sis uncon, to how ach pats aay operates Sper Sirctre here is pm deserve rm, the maa bat of aplnation Being cried ty fonction. Tis perhaps why the inert of srutura-functosaem bothsympathllcanderteal, ts heen overwhelming concerned with the concep of fron, ‘ately eating the noion of strate at ll Tr i any ene Inceative ofthe depeeto which the ens of funcional have {ken over the parameter other oppo. In srctram, by comet, ste spears na more ex pnatory roles inked tothe otonof transformations Suture nal, whether ape wo ingnog, toh lester a oF more generally to sca flat, comiderd to poate Below the level of sace apesrincer, The dion between Src a tn eyo between ode nd Sage. A ft sph, suucure fn te tsagey and oer concepts associated wih cen to avelitl or atigineommon wth ‘ovons employed by fenctonalitsuthors Hey have wed to damorsate i the previous paper aiough ntraly vets ‘raion of thoupht, stata and futons Jo share poor schooling > ho-level employment > material dept ‘ation. A poverty eee fons homeostatic lop i each ofthese Factors participates reciprocal sees of iatluenees, without any fone ating #8 controling iter forthe hers. A homeostatic nop form apserines ofthe flowing patter We might discover such a fonp if we ace out the influence of inary eveton upon the other clements mentioned above. Ti, Fowever.weconsidertheinienccof shldrew overall edvcationl factory it might cmenge that an examination ‘Tike particular example & not iportan.) In sich acircumstanse, the examinitions canbe rpatdod as the equivalent ofan informa tion control apparatis ina mechanical feed-back yer, The feed-back effet here might gover a regularsed process of dire tonal change: such te 8 propeessve transfer of chile trom stoking ans backgrounds into white-calla occupations, incon Junction witha clave expansion of the white-collar sector, Now fet us suppose thi, on the basi of sto the community, shoo! lind work, the Ministry of Ecatlon applies knowledge of the poverty cle toaterven inthe operation ofthat yee: in thiase The retcxive moatoring of ston rejoins the organisation fst tems ane becomes guiding nflence ini "The expansion of attempts at reflexive self-regulation st thetevel ‘of system integration isenigentyone ofthe principal features ofthe Somemporary world. Sach a phenomenon undetis the two most fervasive ypes of stl mobilisation im moder tes: the egal Fatomal stl organisation and the secular social movement. But {a aso highly important to recogni that atempts at reflexive80 Cena Problems in Social Tory self-regulation ako produce farther diftsin eed buck proces: Ss, vin the introduction of “ystems technology. I hve aleady stressed tat reflexive sellsregslation understood preys thn «alcontrol~asissovigorousy argued by Habermas-—may become a potent ieologel force. "have arg tht sstnusonemay be regarded aspractics which are deeply sedimented in time-space: that, which are enduring Sind inctsve laterally inthe sense that hey are widespread among the members ofa eommunity or aacety. At this point Fant to Introduce a tnction tht Tahal referto quite olen subsequenthy inthis book, between dnaiutonal analysis and the analysis of strategic conic. This does not correspond tothe difercitstion hotween social ad system integration, becatse T intend it 8 he methodological rather than substantive. The point the distinction Js to indicate two principal ways in which the stady of sytem properter may be approached nthe soil seences: each of which 's separated out, however, aay by 2 methodological epoché To "examine the onstttion of socal sstems as strategic concoct ody the mode in which actors draw upen strata elements ues and resources in thet scl elation, ‘Stature here Appears as cons’ mobilen of discursive al practical one SSousnes Ia soca encounters. nstational sali, onthe oor than places an epoché pon strategic conde, eating res and resources aschtonialy reproduced features fsoctel systems Tis ‘uiteesentl to ae that this is nly a methodloycel bracketing these are aot to sides fa dualism, they express a dual. ‘lity of structure. No such tracking appeared atustitic Socolopes, Which end to equate social cation and stractral onstain ak synonymous notlons. A casi example Duhoin's ‘Stacie, n which Rida conduct Hy treated as caused by ftors such swe soe iteration’ incombination wth psyehological ‘autes), Durkheim's account lacks any mode of understanding Suki behaviong, and th socal neraction i which te meshed, ‘srelesvely monitored conduct" ‘Contrast the character of Durkheim's sociology with that of Goffman. Goffman implicitly brackets insttatonal analysis in ‘order to concentrate upon sci! interaction s strategie conduc. Much of Goffman’s work may be read a investigating the tact stocks of knowledge that are employe by ay sears inthe produc: tion of sock encounters. Gasforan anclyses knowiedge’ in the Agency, Sucre 81 Wingensteinin sense of “knowing rues; the feeting of sharp jamination hat dhe reader often experiences in reading Gottman ‘derives from hi making expt wha, once e has pointed ther fut, we rexagnise to be ingredients of practical consionsnens, ‘niall employed in sn unacknowledged way in socialite. Onthe ‘other hand, Goffman ecology, like Witigentanian philosophy hes not developed an secpunt of nsttuions of history ostruetral transformation. Instiations appear as unexplained parameters ‘within which ators organise hei practical activities Ti therefore in the end more than s methodological “bracketing i feflt the duaiam of action an srvtase that has been noted ier. Being mitedinthisscose, Gfman ssocioioy also ignores the possibity of reeognising the dal of presenceabsence that ‘Sonnecs acta tothe properties ofthe totality: forthisinvolvesthe fed to generate am intone theory of everyday fe ‘The ually ofstenetoreiniateration Let os ow give more concrete form to the duality of structure in Interaction, following on from what hasbeen eulined shove ‘What I cal here the modalies’ of sructaration represent the central dimensions ofthe duality of stractare nthe constttion of Iteration, The modalies of struturation ar drawn upon By "Setrsin the production of interaction, buat the same time are the tedia ofthe reproduction ofthe structural component of systems fraction. When istitutonal analysis Is bracketed, the mo= “alts ave treated as stocks of knowledge androsoures employed by actors i the constitution of interaction asa skilled and kno Legeable accomplishment, within bounded conditions of the fonof atin, Wherestritepicconductisplaced under an We modalities represent rules and resousces considered at al features of systems of socal interaction. The level of modualty thus provider the coupling elements whoreby the racket~ ing of stratepe or lnsitudonal analy is disolved i favour of a acknowledgement oftheir interrelation. “The clstidcation given in Figure 2-5 dows aot represent a y= pology of interaction or structures, but a portayal of dimensions that are combined in fering ways im socal practices. The oom= ‘munication of meaning interaction doesnot take place separately | |82. Conta Problensin Social Theary INTERACTION. communication power sanction (MODALITY) interpretative faclity norm ‘home STRUCTURE signification domination tagitimation Fount 25 from the operation of relations of power, o¢ outside the context of ments I isimportant however te bear in mind What hasbeen sl previously in respect of ules: no sexi practic expreses oreanbe explicated in terms f, a single rule oF type of resource. Rather, prictices ae situated within oterscting see of les and resources ‘that ultimately expres features of the totality “The distinction between interpretative seems, ax concerning the communication of meaning, and norms, 26 concerning the Sanctioning of condaet, can he snfied by considering Winch's Siscusson of rue-ollowing iis Hea ofa octal Science Accorde Ingo Winch, rle-felfowing’condactean be identified with mean {nfl ation. The citron of behaviour which is rule-fllowing Is torbe found in whether oge can ask ofthat behaviour I there “ght and wrong’ way of doing it" Now thiconflstes to senses ‘ofrate-folowing or rather, wo aspectsof nesta veiled in ‘he production of soekal practices; that eating 10 the conaition of ‘medning, and thot relating to setions invoWed in social conduct “There are right and wrong ways of using words in a Language, 4 matter whic concers those aspects of rues involved inthe eam Sttution of meaning: and there are right and wrong modes of Conduct ia rexpect ofthe normative sanctions implicated in interse= tion, Although i important to separate thm out conceptual, these two senses of ght and rong ways intersect in the sta oostittion of social proctics. Thus 'oreee language se ialvays Sanctioned: while the tevance of eanctions to conduct oer thn ‘Speech is nevitably connected with the Mention of tha com ‘duet on the plane of meaning, The fist sense, to adapt an example ldcussed by MacTnigre fs that in which an expression ike Boing, for a walk” is used righty oF wrongly in relation t 2 particular iy: that is, what to cound a ‘ping fora walk the langage 2 practised i day-to-day ie. The second le the seme ht which Agency, Stature 83 “ine fora wl sia wt me ee “Eppoprat conduct peng for sl log the pavement inthis {Spec diflers fom wrering ong the mile ot te rud in ‘Shepard of the conventons or hws gverang wae Devi Cou persona fe) Te point of dtingushing these two senses Sr rtd eectng the cs tat hase ate two peso ale Consttuive ad ope) implatd n soc procs, pre help inorder tobe able {o examine thir nercomneton. The ‘entitcaton of ety oer word itera in important 95 ‘th norman comierations (and vie ver) hse most ob ov and mos formally coed tn lw where. regard sanctions th ar applies great dea ges on dsintos between mr dh mmtaghter te irinot enough jute tres thenced ins heorytoreatethe constttion ani mmuniation of meaning 10 ormaie sane ons; ec of thes hs treo be ee Yo power tanto. ‘Tiss so i the twofold seme indicate by th tx dat of crate, Power eressed nthe capable to make ‘erin ‘ncouns coun ano caer sancing pros; Bar eae cap "fy interpretative schemes’ I mean standards elements of seeks o kre, ppd by actor the producionotintera “ion lnerretative secs formhecorofthe mutans ‘thereby an countable univers of mesning i susalbe thos) ind proces of incracon. Aesounai,in Carfiak’s stme, dejende upon the mastery ofetinomethods iva in Temauage tse and coon fo grap te poit, made by CGotnet ‘nd rater arent fn by Habermas, cht sh toostery canon be adequately undo monolopia This Itwahcs mae than he popiton (a by Habermas) shat a Satisfaction apptoach ems cant be derived from Chom Sys sync pine to eter of the ration Between lan- uipe and the content of th are of exten Imporiance to Sat ory. nie prodston of scaring in fmteracton, content anno be tess merely the eminent” or beckgound of th gg. comet fer nso dee od and nant on Ie ot eration onancaieeenanmier The efenve montrag of cone incratfonimos the rouine rman opon of sea soca84 Coral Problems in Socal Theory temporal etext in the sustaining of aecountaity i the draw: ing pom of contest atthe same tie rereats these element a ‘context relevanees. The "mutual owledge this empayed and Feconsttued in socal encounters cane reared the mem ‘whereby theinterweavingof lacutionayandillocutonary elements ot language's ordered As ith other aspects of context, the eommancaton of meaning in prozeses of interaction does nat jst ‘oscar ener time. Actors Sstain the meaning of what they say and do through routine incorporating "what west belore’ and antciptins of “what al come next” into the present of an encounter neni features of Jnteraction thus imply ifécance in Derrida’ sense. But the Tagguage-use i aso grounded in other, referential features of contest, which border om “what cannot be sid Ziff’ analyse of context i important here Some linguists have argued that language can in prineipie be separited frm ll feature of conten, because such features can themes be expressed in language’ view which converges wth some he central noionso strustral- ism. This woul! ental hat the uptake of yo uterance such Fhe pen on the desk ix male of gol eed and derstood inn everyday context of communication, could be anaes ito Stem or set of statements desing the contexts elements ‘mutually known by the participate, and necessary tothe desis! properties ofthe uterance. Hence itis tons suchas ‘avoid inking contaminstod water the suction =the ‘kof being poisoned ~ involves consequences that have the oem Of natural events Durkheim ackaowledged this distinction in Separating what e called “utiitarinn from mora’ saetions. But the way in which he formulated the distinction, creating moral sanctions a the very prototype of social relations, prevented ise from theorising gute basic sense in which norms can be rege, In a“utlitarian’ manner by agents manner tht hast be ested conceptually to the contingent character of the reatiation of no pea Ageney, Simctre 87 mative clas. There isa range of posible “shading Between cceptance of 3 normative cigation asa moral commitment, the type ease for Durkheim, and conformity based onthe acknowige- nent of sanctions that apply tothe transgression of normative preseriptons tote words, the fat that the normative featores of “Salle involve the double comtingeney of soca interaction docs ‘ot neces eleate a "utara mode of orientation towards ‘Srstions to non seal casal consequences of behaviour, Amato nay ‘caleuste the ak! involved inthe enactment of ven form Social conde, im expect of the Hkethod ofthe sation: ‘involved Being actually applied, aad may be prepared to soit them as a price to Be paid for sehieving a ptcular end. The theorclicel Sgifeance Of this semi obvious point for prob lem of lesitimation snd conformity i considerable ~ in two re spect, Ones that i det the theory ofleiimation aay fromthe “mernalisedvalue-nocin-moral contens theorem that has Been the hallmark of the "normative functionals’ of Durkheim and Parsons." second that it ret tention tothe notated Ghrscter of sanctions, relating the predction of meaning to the Jroution of ancnative onder, "acute" atitudes towards roms can eatond through to processes of “presentation of self, "Parting fein which ects who ether Conform o ansgress normative prescriptions may negitein some degree what confor Intyortaneresin arin the content oftheir conduc, by means of that conduct, thereby sho affecting the saneions co which i is subject, 'Aclsscetion of sanctions can be based upon dhe elements smobilisedio praducethe sanctioning effet, the ater tobe efetive Llways in some sense impinging pom ators” want (conscious oF {tnconsciogs) even inthe carcof sanctions which involve tbe wse of force I follows however {om what hasbeen ald previousy,thatit would hea mistake to spe that ranetons onl exit when ators “erty te to bring each er to line” in sere particu asion “The operation of sanctions, or sanctioning’ 1s achronic feature of all soi encounters, however pervasive ot subtle the mutual processes of adjustment im snteraction may be. This applies, of ours, to the pritution of meaning ina baie sense, Thetocksof nowtcdge drawn upon in ingisi communication, ineuding sy tactical tues, buve a sting “obliging quality, and could not ‘operate outside 2 normative contest anymore than any other[88 Conv Problems in Socal Theory structural features of systems of interaction. Conformity ttngui tie rules is baieally secured a a means and an osteome of the feverylay use of language itselt in which the main normative commitments ae simply those ofthe sustaining of “acountabiity” in Gafinke'ssense. Power:relationsof autonomy and dependence ‘Asin the eae ofthe ther modalities f stucturaton, power can be felato to iteration in a dual see: as insted iatittonaly in processes of interaction, and as wsed to accomplish outcomes in Sirategc conduct ven the most casual social encounter Instances slementsof the tofalty es a structure f domination; bat such Structural properties are atthe sume time dra upon, and repo Aiuced through, the sctivies of participants in wstems of terae- tion. Ihave arguod ekewhere thatthe concept of ction slgeally tied to that of power, where the liter notion # undersiood transformative capacity.” This has usually only been obliquely recognised in the philosophy of action in which itiacommvon (talk of seton inter of con” of able tor “powers The literate ‘concerned to analae human agency in terms of powers however, ‘arely fever intersects with sciologil geusons of ations of power in interaction. The relation between the concepts ston find power, on the love of strategie conduct, can Bo set Out at follows. Action involves intervention in event inthe work, thus producing definite outcomes, with intended action being one cale= Bory of an agent's doings or his ersning, Pwer as ramformace ‘apacity can then be taken to eer to agents capable of racing ‘ch oecrnee” ‘Bven a casual survey ofthe massive Uteratureconcemed withthe concept of power and its implementation socal science ndieates thatthe study of power reflects the same dualism of action and structure that T have diagnored jn approaches to socal theory generally. One notion of power, found in Hobbes, in Weber in Somewhat diferent form, and more recent ithe writings ol Dah, {teats power asa phenomenon of willed or intended ation.” Here power is define in terms ofthe capacity or Helihood of actors to achieve desived or intended outcomes, According o other ahr, fon the other hand ~ incoding such otherwise verse figures as Agency Sucre 89 “Arendt, Parsons and Poulantza- power specticallya property of the vocal community, amesum wherebycommon nterestsor css interests ave realsed. These ate effectively two verons of how ypower structures are constituted, and to versions of domination’ {each of which may link the notion of power logically to that of ‘conflict, bat nether of which necessarily doesso).The fist tends to treat domination as «network of decson- making, operating aginst tn anexsmined institutional backdtop; the second regards domina- tion as itsef a institutional penomenon, ether astegardng power as rating to the active sccomplisimeats of actor, at {renting asin some way determined by nstitations, ‘As well known, there have been various attempts to recone these two approaches, onthe basis ckposing the nitatons ofthe ‘power as decision-making" approach " The capability of actors to ‘teure desired oataomes la interaction with ethers, secorcng to ‘Bachrach ad Barat sony ‘one ace’ power; powerhas nother face, which i that of the mobisstion of” bul ato institutions ‘The seoand fs a sphere of “non-dedlsion-making’; of implicitly sscepted and undisputed practices ‘However the ies of ‘n-decision-making i only partial and Snadeguate way of analysing how power i stractred int insite tions, and is fmod in terms ofthe action approach tha is sop- osedly subjected to ertgue. Non-decsion-makingis stil basicaly Fears ava property of agents, rather than of soca instttions Perhaps the best cilcal appraisal ofthese fsues is that by Lakes" Power, acoording to hin, & more than merely shiz it tioes not Just have two faces, but thre. There one key part of Lakess argument which I shall reject at the outset: he 55, following Gale. that power an essentially contestes” concept thd ineraticably evaluative’. think this view iether mistaken or “ineoligtening. tis stn i che implenton that some notions fn the soca scence areesventally contested while others are aot Sch thit we could draw up an (uncontested?) Fst of essentially ‘Sontested concepts, separate fom others. The chronic contestation ‘or disputation of concepts an hors inthe social siences iin Some part due tothe fact that these concepts nd heures ate caUght {pia What theyare abou, namely social feltset:a in of thou ‘sll develop in the conciuding paper in his volume. The notion of power verily tendr to provoke parcularly deep-seated con- rovers, Buta range of ther ter tha ls figure in an impor~90° Contra Problems in Social They tant way inthis bok ~ cas, ideology, imerst, te. — ate eauly Potent inthis respect and Tou watt acai not jt that af ‘xpecaly contentious coneepts suchas these, but the whole eo ‘eptual apparatus of socal theory iin some sense neriicaly valutive™. These things do no, ofcourse, necessarily compromise [Ckess suggestion thatthe tives faces of powerhe analyses may De ‘more less closely elated to tering political postions; however {Vwant to contend that i snot in fact useful distinguish three dimensions of power, as Lakes attempts odo, Takes accepts thal the non-decson-muking proach marks an advanee over the devision-mabing one (or what hecallethepal- Sst view). The former of these, ts contrasted 10 the later, is two-dimensional because it does not simply concentrate pon the ‘enactment of decisions, ut ako pints to ways in which te age “suppresied from being “dcisonuble” at all As Lukes says ite Fiat. the specie imitation ofthe two-dimensional vw that t {sll oo closely inked tothe standpoint which opposes "The ass of the [sock] system, Lakes points out, “is nut sustained simply by a series of individually chosen acts, but alo, most importsntly, by the socially structured snd early paierned Dohaviour of growps, and practices 2” Conse ‘quently in place of the two-dimensional view, Lakes nttodces is {hiee-dimensional concept. The thre-dimensicaal view invokes the nodion of intrest: fn conjunction with i, Lukes redefines power asthe capability of one actor or party tnftsence nother in manner contrary tha oers intrest, Now this does nose to work. Or at leat ntitively there seems na reason to supose that power i only exercised where A affect Bin way contrary to B's interests as compared to where A affects Bina vay tat fy lnretevantto Bsinteents, or more importantly where A slfet in aay that acords with B's ntreuts® The sera ofthese oul only be excluded avs ese of power B always behaved in his own interests, regardless of anyone elses intervention; but people re ‘ot sways inclined toactin accordance with heir interests- should ‘want to sy. a8 agus Lukes, that the concept of interest, ike that ‘confi, has nothing loglelly todo with that of power; although substantively, nthe atu enaciment of seca if, the phenomena to which they refer havea reat dealt do with one another But any ease appeal interest fn od twit nthe argent ocaune ‘ding the idea of faterets tothe one" and ordinal” r Agency, Siewre 91 ‘views whic is essentially Lake's strategy, dose not in fact des the problem of how to Tacorporate ‘secallystocured conduct within general restnient of power; for Lakes does ot sugest that Tnterst rea group oF structural pheaomenon rather than one to ‘do with sndvidost actors, Rar than adng om another "dimen Son tothe decision-making and non-decsion-making approaches, wwe nced to do what Lukes sdvoests, but docs not att acne Dich; this ples attempting to overcome the tadional division Fetweenvolonarsi” and struct notions of power Tlukes his, however, attacked the problem direct} in subse- gent poblication™ Power in socal theory, he args, a8 do = ‘ontraly involved with human agency: person or patty who wilds Power cold "have acted otherwise, nd the person oF party Over ‘whom power i wielded, the conccpt implies, would have acted ‘overwie power ad not been exercised In speaking this one ‘sums that, although the agents operate within structurally deter Sd ould have acted eiflerenty.™ In representing Dlcing limitations or constraints upon the activities of agents however, Lukes tends to repeat the dualism of agency andstractore that have spoken of in earhir papers, lence he talks of "where Structural determinism ends and power begins" and is unable ‘atisfactorily to del with tructar asimplcatedin power relations, fd power relations as implicated in strctue. "This can only be achieved, Lthink, iit ocognised that power mist be treated i the context ofthe dusty of stueture: Hf the ‘Tesoutees which the existence of domination implies and the exer ‘Gee of power drs upon te seen to be at thesame ine structural components of social systems. The exercise of powerisnetatypeot Sather power is iastantated in ation, ay regular and outing ‘henomenon. Rie mistaken moreover to treat power elf a 4 esource 25 many theorists of power do. Resources are the media through which power is exercised, and structures of domination ‘reprolcd, 2 ndieated in igure 26. "The motion of resources, a structural components of sci stems, figures a8 a key one the teatment of power within the theory of sructurtion. The concept of power both a transfor tive capacity (the chaactrstic view hel by howe treating powerin terms ofthe condoct of gets), andas domination (he main focus of those concentrating yon power a structural quality), depens92 Cental Problems in Social Theory cowerons) — rs [rreronnme ars — Fraune 26 ‘upon the ust of sources. ropar each view amplyng the ‘other, however. Resources are the media whereby transformative ‘ipacty is employed as power in the routine course of social Jneraction; but they ave atthe same time stractoral elements of social sjsom as systems, reconstituted though thei wilson in social interaction. This is therefore the correlate, in cespect a Power, ofthe dua ostractureinrespectofte communication of Imeaning and of normative sanetons vespurees ae not jus tional elements to these, but inelide the means whereby the mesa ingtul and the normative content of lnteracion iy actutsed “Power intervenes conceptually Between the broader notions of transformative capacity om the onesie, and of dominion om the other: power isa relational concep but ony operates a8 sich Through the wsation of transformative capacity se penersted by stractres of domination ‘To repeat what has been sid before, understood as asforma= tive capnety, power is intially related to human agency. The ‘could have done otherwise f ation a necessary element ofthe theory of power. AsThave lado ndoateckewhere," the concept of ageney canaot be defined through that of intention, pe sumed in so much of the Mterature to do with the psiosopy of ‘ction; the notion of agency, as Temply it, Take tobe logically Dror to subjectfobjectafferentiation, The same holds for the concept of potter. The notion of power has no inherent connection ith intention oF ‘wil, ne i haw in Weber's ad many other {ormulatons. Ie might t frst ser somewhat od to hold that an agent can exerese power without intending £0 do x0, of even ‘wanting todo so: for T wish to claim tit the notion of power hs no logical tie to motivation or wanting either But itis not a ll iosyneratie: it itsounds wo, itis perhaps because many dscns ‘of the concept of power have ten place In a polital context ‘where ‘decisions are clearly arcuate in elation to ends that Agency Smectre 93 sectors purse. Ax with the sphere of agency more generally, those ‘specs of power encompassed by intentional ations, or within the feflexive monitoring of condct, have a paticalae form; a range of ‘ations each a8 “eomplance’ “bargaining, et, apply omy within such conte. ‘Athough in dhe sense of transformative capacity power i im- plein thevery notion of action, [shall henceforth employ the term ‘power ata sub-category af ‘transformative capacity’, to reer to interaction where transformative capacity i hamesed fo ato a- {emptsto get others to comply withthe wants Power, thistlaton- lsense,concenss the eapabihty of acorsto secure outcomes where the realisation of these outcomes depends upon the agency of ‘thers The tse of power in interactions can De understood in terme of the facies that purtispants bring 0 snd mobilise 3s ‘ements ofthe prodcton of that interaction, thereby infucnsing fis course, Social ystems are constituted as repulsed practic: poster within social systems ean thas be treated as ineteig epo- Une relations of eutonomy and dependence i socal eration” Power reltions therefore are always bo-iay, even if the power of fone actor oF party in a social relation i minimal compared to nother, Power telatons are relations of autonomy and depen: ‘dence, but even the most autonomons agent Issn some depree ‘dependent, andthe mort dependent actor or party a ecatonship ‘retains some wtonomy. Structures of domination involve asymmetries of resources emp layed in the sustaining of power relations in and between sjstems of Resource Sanction AUTHORISATION COERCION ALLOCATION INDUCEMENT oune 2.7 1 all isitutonaisod forms of social iteration, 26 shall {indicate inthe following paper, there re two major resoarees which ‘an be dstingisheds we can add to these two mala categories of| Scion, a inated in Figure 2.7, Athorstion snd allocation