This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Stones, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Refusing the Realism—Structuration Divide

UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX, UK

This article argues against the view put forward by Margaret Archer that there is an irreconcilable divide between realist social theory and structuration theory. Instead, it argues for the systematic articulation of the two theories at both the ontological and the methodological levels. Each has developed a range of insightful and commensurable conceptualizations either missing or underdeveloped in the other. Archer's contention that structuration theory rejects the notion of `analytical dualism' central to the realist approach is shown to be mistaken; Giddens's rejection of `dualism' refers to a different conceptualization of the term. Similarly, Archer's critique of structuration's notion of a `duality' involving structure and agency is rejected by showing that Archer's own morphogenetic approach itself relies upon such a notion. A final section distinguishes between six key problematics of social analysis. It is clear that, for a large number of possible questions within the majority of these problematics, it is a combination of both ontologies that would facilitate the most adequate substantive account.

Key Words: dualism • duality • problematic • realism • structuration

European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 4, No. 2, 177-197 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/13684310122225064


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I. Reed and J. Alexander Social Science as Reading and Performance: A Cultural-Sociological Understanding of Epistemology European Journal of Social Theory, February 1, 2009; 12(1): 21 - 41. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. McGrath School disengagement and 'structural options' Narrative illustrations on an analytical approach Young, February 1, 2009; 17(1): 81 - 101. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Gronow The Over- or the Undersocialized Conception of Man? Practice Theory and the Problem of Intersubjectivity Sociology, April 1, 2008; 42(2): 243 - 259. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Duberley, L. Cohen, and M. Mallon Constructing Scientific Careers: Change, Continuity and Context Organization Studies, August 1, 2006; 27(8): 1131 - 1151. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. R. Bates Making Time for Change: On Temporal Conceptualizations within (Critical Realist) Approaches to the Relationship between Structure and Agency Sociology, February 1, 2006; 40(1): 143 - 161. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. L. Callahan Reversing a conspicuous absence: Mindful inclusion of emotion in structuration theory Human Relations, November 1, 2004; 57(11): 1427 - 1448. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Stones Social theory, documentary film and distant others: Simplicity and subversion in The Good Woman of Bangkok European Journal of Cultural Studies, May 1, 2002; 5(2): 217 - 237. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Stones Social Theory, the Civic Imagination and Documentary Film: A Past-modern Critique of the `Bloody Bosnia' Season's the Roots of War Sociology, May 1, 2002; 36(2): 355 - 375. [Abstract] [PDF]