Margaret Archer on Structural and Cultural Morphogenesis

Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach by Margaret S. Archer; Culture and
Agency. The Place of Culture in Social Theory by Margaret S. Archer
Review by: Lilli Zeuner
Acta Sociologica, Vol. 42, No. 1 (1999), pp. 79-86
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201123 .
Accessed: 11/02/2015 23:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Acta
Sociologica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ACIASOCIOLOGICA
1999

REVIEW ESSAY

Margaret Archer on Structural and Cultural

Morphogenesis

LilliZeuner
Danish National Institute of Social Research, Copenhagen, Denmark

Margaret S. Archer: Realist Social Theory: the on the basis of existing properties, which implies
Morphogenet?c Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge that emergence occurs in time, that the proper-
University Press, 1995) and Culture and Agency. ties have relative autonomy from each other,
The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Revised and that they exert independent causal influ-
Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University ences.
Press, 1996). As a consequence of this ontological
approach, Archer's methodological approach
With this revised edition of Culture and Agency becomes analytical dualism, which emphasizes
and the publication of Reahst Social Theory, the necessity of studying the interplay between
English sociologist Margaret Archer positions two levels without conflating them, i.e. non-
herself as an important contributor to socio- conflationary theorizing. This applies to the
logical theory. The germ of the theoretical interplay between structure and agency as well
construction in her two new publications can as to that between culture and agency.
already be seen in her very early works. The The principles of emergence and of analy-
following is a short presentation of her theore- tical dualism lead Archer to develop the
tical construction. I place it in its context and morphogenetic approach to the study of struc-
mention a few points of criticism. ture and culture. Morphogenesis has the
character of a cycle which involves three
phases, (1) structural or cultural conditioning,
Structure and culture (2) social or sociocultural interaction, and (3)
social or cultural elaboration.
In the Introduction to Reahst Social Theory Archer gives these basic ideas about social
(1995), Archer presents her principles for social ontology, explanatory methodology and princi-
analysis, making it clear that there must be ples for practical social theorizing their clearest
internal consistency between social ontology, expression in her most recent book, Realist
explanatory methodology and practical social Social Theory, but they also form the basis of her
theorizing. In her view, any social ontology earlier works.
adopted has implications for the explanatory Already in her major study of the emer-
methodology endorsed, and in turn this meth- gence of the educational systems in England,
odology has implications for the guidelines to Denmark, France and Russia, Archer utilizes
practical social theorizing. these principles. Analytical dualism is intro-
Social realism and the principle of emer- duced as a principle of separation between social
gence are the ontological points of departure for integration and system integration (Archer
Margaret Archer. In her concept of society, she 1979:33). Although she does not use the term
makes it crystal clear that structure and agency morphogenetic cycle, she presents its three
must be kept separate - distinct from and phases (ibid., p. 44). In fact, her entire analysis
irreducible one to the other. For both levels the of the emergence of the four educational
principle of emergence applies, i.e. the principle systems is based on two analytical cycles, one
according to which new properties can emerge following the other. The first starts in mediaeval

This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80 ACTASOCIOLOGICA
1999 VOLUME
42

Europe, when the Church owned and mono- analysis of the development of educational
polized all education, and then moves into the thought in France, Christianity is tied to
emergence of state educational systems. The Antiquity in constraining contradictions. In
second cycle takes its point of departure in the Weber's analysis of Ancient China and India,
elaborated structures created by the emergence religious beliefs are complementary with the
of state educational systems, and then moves economic ethos. Nevertheless, she emphasizes
towards different patterns of change. The that cultural conditions cannot in themselves
development which follows one cycle struc- determine whether cultural change will take
turally conditions the following one. place. Change presupposes sociocultural inter-
This analysis of the emergence of the action, and interaction will be characterized by
educational systems - and it is a most thorough attempts to protect or increase vested material
and comprehensive analysis - constitutes interests. Thus, sociocultural interaction is
Archer's most important historical contribu- determined by material interests.
tion. Clearly, it forms the point of departure of Therefore, the decisive question becomes
her later theorizing concerning cultural and how the two levels of the cultural system and
structural phenomena. It is worth noting that sociocultural interaction combine. It is of little
while Archer emphasizes the distinction value that the cultural system is riven with
between structural and cultural phenomena, inconsistencies demanding change, if the dis-
she nevertheless sees them as phenomena tribution of power is such that any attempt at
developing in accordance with similar princi- change can be suppressed. It is of no use either
ples. Analytical dualism as well as the morpho- that the cultural system is characterized by
genetic approach are applied to both types of complementarities which involve ample oppor-
phenomena (Archer 1995:179). tunities for adding new elements to the already
The theory of culture is developed in existing cultural system, if the holders of power
Culture and Agency (1988/1996), where analy- use all means to prevent this. In this way, the
tical dualism and the morphogenetic second phase of the morphogenetic -
approach cycle
are brought out very clearly. Analytical dualism sociocultural interaction, the use of power and
leads to distinguish cultural system from socio- the escape from power - is all-decisive for
cultural interaction; this distinction is upheld whether the outcome turns out to be morpho-
while the analysis moves through the three genesis or morphostasis.
phases of the morphogenetic cycle. At one level, According to Archer, it is possible under
the cultural system consists of logical proposi- well-ordered sociocultural conditions to sup-
tions which may be either contradictory or press changes for months, years or even
complementary, while at the other level socio- centuries, but in the long run it becomes
cultural interaction consists of matters of impossible. At some point in time a situation
interpersonal cultural influence. The relation- will arise where even the cultural elite will see
ship between the cultural system and socio- its own interest in accepting the demand for a
cultural interaction is the decisive factor revision of culture in order to minimize incon-
influencing whether morphogenesis or mor- sistencies, or a situation where it will be forced
- elaboration or maintenance - to accept new cultural items in order to uphold
phostasis
prevails. its position. Sooner or later the third phase of
The starting point of cultural morphogen- the morphogenetic cycle will become reality.
esis is cultural conditioning, understood as the The theory of structure and the theory of
ideas which at any given time have holders. the relationship between structure and culture
Only if ideas have holders can they have any are developed in Reahst Social Theory (1995).
effect on agency. According to Archer, cultural Again, Archer advocates her principles of
conditioning is characterized by its logical analytical dualism and the morphogenetic
relations. Are the items of culture contradictory approach. With them she moves through two
or complementary? Contradictions will mould parallel morphogenetic cycles, structural mor-
problem-ridden situations for cultural agents, phogenesis and cultural morphogenesis. She
while complementarities will mould problem- moves from conditioning via interaction to
free situations. The cultural system thus creates elaboration.
a situational logic for agents. Archer exemplifies Seen in relation to Culture and Agency,
such cultural conditioning by utilizing the Archer in Realist Social Theory primarily under-
analyses of cultural phenomena of some of the takes a theoretical elaboration of the second
founding fathers of sociology. In Durkheim's phase of the morphogenetic cycle, social or

This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MargaretArcheron Structuraland CulturalMorphogenesis 81

sociocultural interaction. In this work, Archer has plunged into the situational logic of culture.
points out that agency in itself must be analysed Not only this group, however, has now to relate
as a morphogenetic cycle. In order to develop itself to the advanced cultural struggles. This
this morphogenesis of agency, Archer estab- applies to all material interest groups which are
lishes a distinction between (a) agents under- in alliance with or in opposition to the former
stood as collectivities with similar life chances, group. They, too, must attempt to make them-
(b) actors understood as individual persons selves visible and legitimate, but they must do so
filling their given roles, and (c) persons under- in the light of choices made by the former group.
stood as people with a personal and social self. In this way sociocultural interaction penetrates
Concerning agents, she further distinguishes the structural domain.
between corporate agents, which have power If an ideational group, advocating any kind
and influence, and primary agents, which do of doctrine, has become associated with a
not possess such power and influence. particular material interest group in order to
The starting point for morphogenesis of safeguard resources for its activities, it has
agency is structural or cultural morphogenesis. thereby given up part of the universalistic form
Because of this type of morphogenesis, morpho- of its ideas. It must now submit to the
genesis of agency takes place. One morphoge- particularistic interests pursued by the material
netic cycle leads to the other. With regard to the interest group in question. There is a cost to
morphogenesis of agency it also implies that finding a sponsor for one's cultural activities.
power relationships can long prevent restruc- The problem is that when one ideational group
turing among corporate agents. As long as an has safeguarded its resources by such an
elite can keep its distance to the primary agents, alliance, other ideational groups are forced to
no change will take place. The problem is that do the same. If other ideational groups are to
the primary agents with time w?l organize and avoid lagging behind in relation to the first
thus become corporate agents. The conse- group, they too must safeguard sponsoring for
quence will be regrouping. Morphogenesis themselves from material interest groups. In
becomes reality. Double morphogenesis takes this way, ideational groups are drawn into the
place. power struggles taking place between the
Morphogenesis of agency produces yet material interest groups. Structural interaction
another kind of morphogenesis, morphogenesis thus penetrates the cultural domain.
of actors. When agents regroup, an elaboration The last question Archer raises in Realist
of roles will take place. The number of roles Social Theory is that of the relationship between
which can be attributed to persons will increase. theory and history. She characterizes her
This, too, is a morphogenetic process. Triple morphogenetic approach to cultural and struc-
morphogenesis takes place. tural analyses as an explanatory format. In her
Archer emphasizes, however, that agents opinion, one should add analytical histories of
as well as actors are anchored in persons. A emergence to this format. As an example of this
person has energy and the ability to be reflexive type of analytical history, Archer points to her
and creative. This implies that a person can own analysis of the development of educational
make choices. Therefore, morphogenesis of systems.
agency or of agents is not automatic. These Archer has also touched upon this question
processes are anchored in persons who can in the Introduction to the anthology on Europe,
assess and choose. which she edited in 1978 with Salvador Giner.
Towards the end of Reahst Social Theory Here, she makes the point that there must be a
Archer undertakes a unification of structural continuous scientific dialogue in which com-
and cultural analysis. She raises the questions of parative study and theoretical formulation are
how cultural factors find their way into the inextricably intertwined. Her view is that
structural field, and of how structural factors empirical adequacy is the ultimate criterion of
find their way into the cultural field. She points theoretical explanation (Archer in Giner &
out that the basic mechanisms of these pro- Archer (eds.) 1978:23-24).
cesses are extremely simple.
If a material interest group is in need of
articulation, assertion or legitimation, it will The heritage from Lockwood and Buckley
look for a doctrine which it can exploit in order
to further these interests. The problem is that as Archer commences most of her works by
soon as it has done this, it will discover that it systematically criticizing either sociology or

This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 ACTASOCIOLOGICA
1999 VOLUME
42

the philosophy of the social sciences, turning this distinction. She criticizes Habermas, inter
her principle of analytical dualism against aha, for upholding the differences between the
them. In her opinion, representatives from constitution of the lifeworld and that of the
both disciplines make themselves guilty of system instead of seeing the formal communal-
conflation. The two levels of analysis, which ities between the dynamics of structure and
should be kept analytically apart, are conflated. culture. She criticizes him, furthermore, for
In her critique of sociological analyses of distinguishing between lifeworld and system as
culture, Archer distinguishes between three two blocks instead of distinguishing between on
types of conflation: upwards, downwards and the one hand the social system and the cultural
central conflation (1982, 1985, 1988/ system and, on the other hand, sociocultural
1996:25-96). In downwards conflation, repre- interaction and structural interaction. The
sented by Sorokin (1957), Parsons (1951) and consequence of this lack of distinction is, in
L?vi-Strauss (1958/1969), it is assumed that Archer's view, that culture becomes an un-
cultural cohesion has the ability of producing problematic shared horizon. This means that
sociocultural cohesion. In this way, the socio- Habermas still contributes to the myth of
cultural level is treated as an epiphenomenon of cultural integration. Finally, she criticizes
culture. In upwards conflation, represented by Habermas's analysis for being a one-time
Gramsci (1932/1975), Miliband (1969) and historical account of the effects of lifeworld
Habermas (1971), it is assumed that socio- upon system and vice versa, instead of taking up
cultural cohesion has the ability to produce universal processes. Consequently, system and
cultural cohesion, whereby culture becomes an lifeworld are considered as a single historical
epiphenomenon of the sociocultural level. In process of evolution. No possibility arises to
central conflation, represented by Giddens study the interplay between the two levels of
(1979), culture and the sociocultural level analysis.
constitute one another, and are therefore Having criticized large parts of sociology
perceived of as inseparable. This precludes any and the philosophy of the social sciences for lack
two-way interplay between the levels. of analytical dualism, Archer takes her theore-
Archer directs a similar critique against tical point of departure in David Lockwood's
methodological individualism and methodo- article "Social Integration and System Integra-
logical collectivism (1979:5-25, 1995:33-64). tion" from 1964. This short article - only 10
In methodological individualism, - seems to be a decisive source of
represented by pages long
Watkins (1968) and Hayek (1973), the indivi- inspiration for Archer and her principle of
dual and the acts of the individual are attributed analytical dualism. Already in her analysis of
with all-decisive importance, implying that the development of educational systems, the
structural properties become the inert and inspiration from Lockwood's distinction
dependent element. The consequence is down- between social integration and system integra-
wards conflation. In methodological collectiv- tion becomes visible. Archer herself writes that
ism, represented by Gellner (1968) and she attempts to formulate her theory of cultural
Mandelbaum (1973), it is the other way change on the basis of Lockwood's theory.
around. Here, it is assumed that structural Finally, Lockwood's theory is the main source
properties exert a deterministic influence in the of inspiration for the overall development of her
regular occurrence of events, implying that the theory in Reahst Social Theory.
individual and the acts of the individual become In this way, Lockwood's combination of
derived phenomena, i.e. a subordination of conflict theory and general fiinctionalism forms
agency. The consequence is upwards conflation. the point of departure for Archer's theory. The
In the revised edition of Culture and Agency, concept of social integration is applied to social
Archer has added a chapter with a critique of and sociocultural interaction, while the concept
J?rgen Habermas' book The Theory of Commu- of system integration is applied to the cultural
nicative Action (1981/1991-92; Archer 1988/ and the social systems. Employing this dual
96:288-315). Habermas develops his theory of approach, it becomes possible for Archer to
communicative action on the basis of a distinc- develop her historical analysis and her general
tion between social and system integration. So theory with analytical dualism.
far, Habermas and Archer have common basic The principle of morphogenesis and mor-
elements in their theories. Nevertheless, Archer phostasis is derived from Walter Buckley's
raises a number of critical points against the systems theory. Although Buckley does not
theory developed by Habermas on the basis of employ the significant trisectioning of the

This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MargaretArcher on Structuraland CulturalMorphogenesis 83

morphogenetic cycle which Archer develops, he the contrary, she has been able to elaborate
does have a number of theoretical elements these principles through the process of includ-
which are later utilized in Archer's theory: the ing still more sources of inspiration while
idea of variety generated by the system itself, the upholding a high degree of continuity.
idea of tensions in the system and the idea of At the same time, her theory expresses a
transactional processes of exchange, negotia- high degree of originality. Her distinction
tion or bargaining (Buckley 1967:160). This between the cultural system and sociocultural
source of inspiration seems to have had a major interaction is original. Her view of the structural
impact on all of Archer's works. and the cultural domains as phenomena which
In her most recent book, Reahst Social must be analysed according to the same
Theory, a new source of inspiration is the principles has not been suggested before. Her
philosophy of Roy Bhaskar and the realist focus on the logical relations of culture and on
school. The principle of emergence, in particu- the types of dynamism that spring from this is a
lar, is elaborated under the influence of Bhaskar, novel contribution to sociological thinking
who has developed the idea that a context about culture.
consisting of contradictions within and between The result of this continuity and originality
differentiated and stratified entities constitutes is an impressive theoretical construction span-
the basis of emergence. Thus, on the basis of ning the cultural domain, the structural
contradictions one term arises out of the other. domain and their mutual relations. Archer
Action leading to this development must, has succeeded in creating a theory, which -
however, take its point of departure in reflexivity despite its extensive area of validity - meets her
and judgement (Bhaskar 1993:303, 382, 397). declared purpose: to develop guidelines for
In this way, Archer bases the elaboration of her practical social theorizing.
own theory on Bhaskar's philosophy of devel- Nevertheless, in the following I criticize a
opment. few aspects of her theoretical construction,
The final source of inspiration to be namely, her basic principles of theory construc-
mentioned here is the philosophy of Karl Popper. tion, her uses of classical sociology and her
This inspiration becomes apparent in Archer's combination of theory and history.
definition of the concept of culture. The concept
corresponds to Popper's definition of the third
world. In Objective Knowledge, Popper distin- Morphogenesis and analytical dualism
guishes among the first world being the physical
world, the second world being the mental world The first question I pursue has to do with the
and the third world being ideas in the objective consequences of the fact that Archer allows
sense. The connection between the first and the herself to be inspired by such very different
third worlds can only take place with the second sources. What happens to her theory? Is she
world as mediator between the two (Popper successful in adhering to the principles that she
1972/92:154^155). Thus, the third world herself establishes and which she criticizes
consists of ideas in the objective sense, as they others for not observing?
appear in books and other sorts of accessible Archer's two most important methodo-
sources. These sources have an objective exis- logical principles are analytical dualism and
tence and are possible objects for human morphogenesis. Analytical dualism has its roots
thought. It is this objective world which Archer in Lockwood's combination of general function-
conceives of as culture. alism and conflict theory. The principle of
morphogenesis has its roots in Buckley's sys-
tems theory. Analytical dualism leads to the
Continuity and originality demand that structure and agency have to be
kept separate and analysed separately if an
All Archer's works hitherto show sociological understanding of their mutual interplay is to be
thinking characterized by both continuity and obtained. Over time, however, Archer has let
originality. The principles for social analysis morphogenetic thinking and thereby the sys-
which Archer introduced in her early works still tems theoretical approach dominate in relation
characterize her theoretical thinking. Morpho- to the interactionist approach. In her theory,
genesis and analytical dualism follow her agency in itself becomes a morphogenetic cycle.
through all her works. This does not mean It becomes a part of the social system. The
stagnation in Archer's theoretical thinking. On question is whether this theoretical elaboration

This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
84 ACTASOCIOLOGICA
1999 VOLUME
42

is in contradiction with Archer's principle of out in Archer's theory. Instead, she lets vested
analytical dualism. One might say that the material interests be the connecting link
systems perspective encroaches upon agency between objective culture and its material
and renders agency a part of the social system. foundation. Thinking, then, does not become
Therefore, interaction and the conflict perspec- decisive for the development of culture. On the
tive are no longer seen as separate from the contrary, the material advantages of thinking
systems perspective. In this way, analytical become decisive for this development. In this
dualism is not observed. way culture is subsumed under structure.
In Archer's theory of culture another
important combination occurs. Here, the
methodological principle of analytical dualism Situational logic and classical sociology
is combined with Popper's philosophy of science.
According to Popper, one must distinguish The next question I pursue has to do with the
among the physical world, the mental world consequences of Archer's combination of the
and the world of objective ideas. It is the third concept of the cultural system and her utiliza-
world, the world of objective ideas, which forms tion of the classical sociologists as examples. Is it
the point of departure for Archer's concept of possible on the one hand to claim that culture
culture. In Popper's theory, however, it is a must be studied as a cultural system consisting
precondition that the mental world mediates of logical propositions, while on the other hand
between the physical world and the world of utilizing the cultural analyses of Durkheim and
objective ideas. This mental world is by and Weber? Is it possible on the one hand that
large absent in Archer's theory of culture. She cultural interaction is determined by situational
lets analytical dualism, as developed on the logic and vested material interests, and on the
basis of Lockwood's article about social integra- other hand include cultural studies which focus
tion and system integration, apply not just to upon the education of pupils and the cultivation
the structural domain, but also to the cultural of people?
domain. Certainly, this was not the aim of In Archer's theory of culture, Durkheim's
Lockwood's article. For Lockwood, the aim was analysis of the development of educational
to develop a novel sociological perspective in thought is included as an example. In her
which social integration and system integration exemplification of cultural conditions, labelled
were combined and it was directed towards the by her as constraining contradictions, Archer
analysis of those societal elements which Archer refers to Durkheim's analysis of the contra-
labels structure. By assuming that culture and diction between Christian beliefs and classical
structure are governed by the same mechan- civilization (Durkheim 1938/77). Furthermore,
isms, Archer transfers the mechanisms of the when she argues for the particular kind of
structural domain to the cultural domain. Thus sociocultural interaction which can take place
she assumes that sociocultural interaction is as a consequence of constraining contradic-
determined by material interests. In her view, tions, Archer bases her argument on this
sociocultural agency takes place in order to example. The holders of power in the Christian
protect or increase vested material interests. As church had to attempt to limit the access to the
a consequence, in her theory of the intersection classical texts. The problem was, however, that
between structure and culture, she reaches the the early Christian texts held commentaries to
result that a transfer of legitimacy from culture the works of the ancients. Therefore, it was not
to structure takes place. For the structural world possible in the long run to uphold this prohibi-
the most important result of cultural processes tion against studying the works of the ancients.
thus becomes its own self-Iegitimization. By The contradictions had to become visible.
applying analytical dualism to both structure In this way, Durkheim's analysis becomes
and culture, Archer turns cultural processes an example of a morphogenetic cycle in
into a mirror of structural processes. When Archer's theory. However, the aim of Durk-
material interests determine the cultural heim's analysis was not to study cultural
domain, this implies that this domain is change, but to analyse the cultivation of the
subsumed under the structural domain. The individual under varying cultural conditions.
autonomous dynamism of culture, in which Posing the question in this way means employ-
mental processes mediate the relationship ing a completely different concept of culture
between objective culture and its material from the one we find in Archer's theory
foundation, as in Popper's theory, has been cut Durkheim sees culture as a subject-object

This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MargaretArcher on Structuraland CulturalMorphogenesis 85

relation. Culture has to do with the cultivating it was not Weber's aim to explain cultural
of people. It is characteristic that Durkheim is change, although he fully recognizes that such
looking for a common culture. This culture change takes place. His aim is, quite the
consists of (a) cultural treasures such as contrary, to study what kind of cultivation
literature, architecture, sculptures, etc. (Durk- results from different types of culture. The
heim 1938/77:19); (b) common rules of action question of the development of economic ethics
which enable social integration (Durkheim is central to him. Like Durkheim, Weber sees
1925/68:24); and (c) categories available for culture as a subject-object relation. In his
our thinking (Durkheim 1912/95:15). In Durk- theory, culture is those segments of the world
heim's analysis, culture is an asset available to process which people have related to value ideas
us all, and it is this culture that each individual and which have thereby been given meaning
can incorporate. People can obtain linguistic and significance (Weber 1904-17/1949:76,
skills, develop the capacity to think, obtain 81). Culture is developed, consequently, by the
knowledge and wisdom and increase the pre- relation of value ideas to the world process, and
dictability of conduct. it gives meaning to life. Weber, too, sees culture
Archer can only utilize Durkheim's analy- as the cultivation of the individual. The
sis as the basis for the development of her own individual must be cultivated by education.
theory by eliding the theory which lies behind The problem, as he sees it, is that there is an
Durkheim's analysis. Thus, she reduces Durk- advancement of cultural values and that
heim's analysis to examples. Durkheim's view of education therefore becomes characterized still
culture as cultivation of the triinking, the moral more by specialized examinations. The implica-
and the conduct of people, is clearly in opposi- tion of this is that education no longer means
tion to Archer's view of culture as an objective real cultivation. Specialized training makes it
world which can affect people by means of its impossible for the individual to possess the
situational logic and its ability to create material culture as a whole. As a consequence, the
advantages. individual must strive towards cultural perfec-
Weber's analyses are also included as tion all life through; this is, however, impossible.
examples by Archer in her theory of culture. The individual is threatened by loss of meaning
Here, the cultural conditions, which she labels and there is, therefore, only one option: the
concomitant complementarities, are exempli- selection of cultural values (Weber 1948/
fied. In his analysis of Ancient China and India, 70:356).
Weber (1948/70:396-444) shows how reli- Again it must be said that Archer can only
gious beliefs and their rationale for status utilize Weber's analyses as the basis of her own
distribution are complementary with the eco- theory by eliding the theory of culture which his
nomic ethos. The kinds of sociocultural inter- analyses are based on. She must reduce them to
action which can result from this cultural examples. There is a fundamental difference
conditioning are also exemplified by utilizing between Weber's view of culture as meaning
Weber's analyses. Here, Archer incorporates his created through the relation of value ideas to
analysis of the Chinese Mandarins. Over time, the world process, and Archer's very logical
the cultural system in China had become approach to the study of culture. For Weber,
characterized by a high degree of cultural culture has to do with cultivating people, i.e.
density, implying that it could take a whole supplying them with an ethic which can give
lifetime to acquire complete knowledge of this direction to practical conduct. For Archer, the
culture. From this, Archer deduces the problem sociocultural interaction is determined by
that this very large investment by the individual material advantages which can be obtained by
would often not yield the expected material reacting to the situational logic.
benefits to that person. When there is only room The result of Archer's utilization of the
for a small elite, the consequence may be that classical sociological works becomes that she
many of the people who have in fact undertaken selects examples from these analyses. She
a major personal investment in education exploits these examples to advance her own
become social marginals. They can choose theory, while at the same time disregarding the
desertion and conjunction of the acquired fundamental views of culture by the classical
culture with new items. The consequence sociologists themselves. She ignores their own
must be migration and cultural change. theories and the lessons to be learnt from them.
Weber's analyses, thus, are also utilized as This creates a contradiction between the focus
an example of a morphogenetic cycle. Here, too, of Archer upon logic and power and the focus of

This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
86 ACTASOCIOLOGICA
1999 VOLUME
42

the classical sociologists upon cultivation, moral CombiningStructureand Action. BritishJournalof Sociology,
and ethics. The question is what this contra- 33, 455-183.
Archer, M. S. 1985. The Myth of CulturalIntegration. British
diction will mean for Archer's theoretical
Journalof Sociology,36:3.
construction in the longer run. Archer,M. S. 1988/96. CultureandAgency.ThePlaceof Culturein
Social Theory. Rev. ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University
Press.
Archer, M. S. 1995. Realist Social Theory:the Morphogenetic
Format and analytical histories Approach.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bhaskar,R. 1993. Dialectic.ThePulseof Freedom.London:Verso.
Buckley, W. 1967. Sociology and Modern Systems Theory.
The last problem I take up is Archer's view of the EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
relationship between theory and history. In the Durkheim,E. 1912/95. TheElementaryFormsof ReligiousLife.
introduction to Contemporary Europe, she writes New York:Free Press.
Durkheim,E. 1925/68. MoralEducation.A Studyin the Theory
that theoretical formulation and comparative
and Applicationof the Sociologyof Education.New York:Free
investigation must be intertwined. She advo- Press.
cates the view that the ultimate criterion of the Durkheim, E. 1938/77. The Evolutionof EducationalThought.
theoretical explanation must be its empirical Lectures on the Formationand Developmentof Secondary
Towards the end of Reahst Social Educationin France.London:Routledge& Kegan Paul.
adequacy.
Gellner,E. 1968. Holism VersusIndividualism.In M. Brodbeck
Theory she takes up once again the question of (ed.), Readingsin the Philosophyof the SocialSciences.London:
the relationship between theory and history. Macmillan.
Here, she points out that her theory should be Giddens, ?. 1979. CentralProblemsin Social Theory.London:
perceived of as an explanatory format which Macmillan.
can form the basis of analytical histories of Giner,S. &Archer,M. S. (eds.) 1978. Contemporary Europe:Social
Structuresand CulturalPatterns.London:Routledge& Kegan
emergence. The question becomes the extent to Paul.
which Archer succeeds in relating her own Gramsci,A. 1932/75. Lettersfrom Prison:AntonioGramsci.Ed.
theory to history. The analytical history of by Lynne Lawner.New York:HarperColophon.
emergence, which she adds to her theory in Habermas, J. 1971. Towardsa Rational Society. London:
Heinemann.
Reahst Social Theory, is her own analytical
Habermas, J. 1981/1991-92. The Theoryof Communicative
history of the emergence of state educational Action.Cambridge:Polity Press.
systems. Beyond this, she bases her theory upon Hayek,F.A. 1973. FromScientismand the Studyof Society.In J.
examples from the classical sociologists, but, as O'Neill(ed.), Modesof Individualism and Collectivism.
London:
shown above, she elides their theories and Heinemann.
L?vi-Strauss, C. 1958/69. StructuralAnthropology.London:
thereby the analytical histories that they Allen Lane.
might contain. The problem is that Archer Lockwood,D. 1964. Social Integrationand System Integration.
does not connect her theory of cultural mor- In G. K. Zollschan &W. Hirsch (eds.), Explorationsin Social
phogenesis with any analytical history of Change.London:Routledge& KeganPaul.
In this way, this part of the theory Mandelbaum,M. 1973. SocietalFacts. In J. O'Neill(ed.), Modes
emergence. and Collectivism.London:Heinemann.
of Individualism
remains an explanatory format. Her fundamen-
Miliband,R. 1969. TheStatein CapitalistSociety.London:Allen
tal view of culture and structure as phenomena & Unwin.
which can be studied with similar analytical Parsons,T. 1951. TheSocialSystem.London:Routledge&Kegan
Paul.
principles is not confronted with any analytical
histories. Thus, we are not given any answer to Popper, K. R. 1972/92. ObjectiveKnowledge.An Evolutionary
Approach. Rev.ed. Oxford:ClarendonPress.
the question of the entire theory's empirical Sorokin, P. 1957. Socialand CulturalDynamics.London:Peter
adequacy. In this way, the theory remains a Owen.
format. Watkins, J.W. N. 1968. Methodological Individualism and
Social Tendencies. In M. Brodbeck (ed.), Readingsin the
Philosophyof the SocialSciences.London:Macmillan.
Weber, M. 1904-17/1949. The Methodologyof the Social
Sciences.Transi, and ed. by E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch.
References New York:Free Press.
Archer, M. S. 1979. Social Origins of EducationalSystems. Weber,M. 1948/70. FromMax Weber: Essaysin Sociology.Trans.
London:Sage. and ed. and with an Introduction by H. H. Gerth and C.
Archer, M. S. 1982. Morphogenesisversus Structuration:On WrightMills.London:Routledge& KeganPaul.

This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions