approaches to structure vs agency Flashcards
what are the 3 different approaches?
Giddens structuration theory
Archer morphogenetic approach
Hay strategic relational approach
how did Giddens describe structure and agency?
two sides of the same coin, internally related and interdependent
what distinction does Giddens see between structure vs agency?
analytical
what does Giddens believe researchers should do with structure and agency?
bracket one off during research
why did Giddens come up with structuration theory?
to bridge the gap between structuralists and intentionalists
why does Giddens believe structure and agency are interdependent?
structures exist through agents and agents also have rules that they have to abide by
How does Hay criticise Giddens’ structuration theory?
can be seen as privileging the agency side, as seen in Giddens’ empirical research
what distinction does Archer see between structure vs agency?
analytical and ontological
what is Archer’s morphogenetic approach?
T1 - structural conditioning
T2-3 - social interaction
T4 - structural elaboration, leading to morphogenesis and morphostasis
how did Archer describe structure and agency?
2 strands which operate differently but entwine
what distinction is important for Archer between structure and agency?
the temporal distinction
How does Hay criticise Archer’s morphogenetic approach? (3)
structure and agency are only analytically separate, takes issue with the idea that structure predates agency and the temporal distinction, therefore presents an ‘agent centric’ view again
what distinction does Hay see between structure vs agency?
analytical
how does Hay describe structure and agency?
cannot be seperated, temporally or otherwise - they are mutually constituted
How does Hay use Giddens’ coin analogy for his own approach?
2 alloys within the same coin
does structure have any independent causal power for Hay?
no
what is the core of the strategic relational approach?
“the interaction between strategic actors and the strategic context within which they find themselves”
what are the crucial issue with the strategic relational approach?
if structure (and agency) have no independent causal power, it’s hard to see how the relationship between them is dialectical
which side does Hay’s strategic relational approach end up privileging? why?
agents because it is their choice what is important, and structures don’t exist independently and only have an effect when the agent recognises them and chooses to be influenced by them
how does Hay describe strategy?
‘…it is the intention to realise certain outcomes and objectives that motivate action…informed by a strategic assessment of the relevant context…’
what does Hay’s definition of strategy mean for his research?
since the explanatory power lies with the consciousness of agents, we need to identify the discourses which shape the context and therefore the outcome
how is Archer’s formulation different to Hay? (3)
- both have causal powers, although not independently
- emphasises the relationship as dialectical, as structure constrains or facilitates the agent, who in acting change structures, etc etc
- recognises that structures can have an unconscious affect on agents
who provides an idea of how agents can be unconsciously affected by structures?
Bordieu’s habitus
if you conceptualise agency and structure as ontologically separated, how can the relationship be seen as dialectical? (6)
- structures provide the context within which actors act
- actors have preferences which they attempt to forward
- actors interpret the context within which they act
- however, structures can have an unconscious affect on agents
- in acting, agents change the structure
- the structures then provide the context within which agents act in the next iteration
