1.

Introduction
The British social theorist Anthony Giddens has developed a theoretical structure that
explains human agency (action) in the context of social structure and integrate action
and structure. In this approach, termed structuration theory, Giddens argues that
human agency and social structure are not two separate concepts or constructs, but
these are together produced by social action and interaction. In sociological analysis,
their separation may be a result of how sociologists examine and interpret social
reality, with agency and structure being two ways that social action can be studied and
understood sociologically. There is a duality of structures in society on one side
there are individuals as actors in particular situations, who enter into knowledgeable
activities and participate in social action and interaction in these situations. At the
same time, the social world is composed of social systems and structures these are
the rules, resources, and social relationships that actors produce and reproduce
through social interaction. The study of structuration means examination and analysis
of the ways in which social systems are produced and reproduced in social interaction
(Giddens, 1984, pp. 25-6). Giddens definesstructuration as the structuring of social
relations across time and space, in virtue of the duality of structure (Giddens, 1984,
p. 376).
In the assigned reading, Dilemmas of the Self, Giddens examines four seemingly
contradictory aspects of contemporary modern society. Each of these dilemmas can
lead to pathological results for an individual; at the same time, each dilemma opens
new possibilities and opportunities for an individual, possibilities that can be creative
and produce a better life. In the reading, Giddens appears to argue that individuals are
generally able to resolve the dilemmas as they construct their self and their individual
identity through social action and interaction. Of the authors examined so far this
semester, Giddensappears to have the most sophisticated way of connecting
a microsociological theory of social action with a macrosociological explanation of
the systems and structures of society. Even where he does not deal with all the micromacro issues, and while his approach may not always provide a satisfactory or
complete explanation, he openly addresses issues related to social action at the micro
and macro level and attempts to integrate them.
2. Anthony Giddens
Anthony Giddens (1938- , English) is one of the major contemporary sociological
theorists. He was professor at the University of Cambridge and, from the mid 1990s
through 2003, Director of the London School of Economics. He is a cofounder of a
publishing company, Polity Press, and has written thirty-four sociological books

some are textbooks and others develop sociological theory. Capitalism and Modern
Social Theory (1971) and The Class Structure of Advanced Societies (1981) are two
useful books that summarize classical theory very well. The Constitution of
Society (1984) is a more theoretical book that presents and develops
his structuration theory. Modernity and Self-Identity deals more with theories of the
self and microsociological issues in the contemporary world.
During the last decade, Giddens has sometimes been an advisor to the British Labour
Party and is closely connected with Tony Blair, the British Prime
Minister. Giddens advocates a third way between traditional forms of capitalism
and socialism. This is generally considered a left-of-centre approach that is
not Marxist, that is, it is an attempt to renew social democracy by looking for new
relationships between the individual and community, fostering a concern for social
justice and social inclusion, and creating an active civil society in which community
and state act in partnership. A summary is available
at www.lse.ac.uk/Giddens/FAQs.htm. Regardless of differences over
political postion, Giddens is a leading public intellectual who addresses topics of
contemporary concern and is listened to by non-sociologists.
Giddens is masterful at summarizing, integrating, and presenting earlier theoretical
perspectives and arguments. The handout Dilemmas of the Self, from Modernity
and Self-Identity (1991) refers to and integrates concepts and analysis from Marx,
Weber, Durkheim, Goffman, Simmel, Parsons, Goffman, and other sociologists. In
presenting his arguments, Giddens moves beyond earlier theorists and develops his
own perspective. He attempts to develop an all-encompassing theoretical approach
without being as abstract and obscure as Parsons. In his analysis, Giddens provides
theoretical views on social action and interaction, history, systems and structures, and
political sociology. In each he attempts to solve sociological puzzles and problems,
and integrate seemingly disparate theories and perspectives into an overall
sociological theory.
Time, space, local life, physical bodies, and material realities, in addition to social
interaction, form a major part of his theoretical perspective. While time and space
have often been ignored in sociological theory, receiving no more than occasional
offhand or incidental reference in the writing of other sociologists, they are central
aspects to social life and Giddens incorporates into structuration. In the handout
Dilemmas of the Self, Giddens notes that Everyone still continues to live a local
life, and the constraints of the body ensure that all individuals, at every moment, are
contextually situated in time and space (lines 2-3). Giddens notes how time and
space, or at least our concepts and understanding of these, as well as their material
implications, have changed dramatically in recent years, and the relation of people to

these in the contemporary social world differs from that of earlier

societies. Individuals today are more connected to geographically distant events and
people and global and local issues and structures are more connected than in earlier
periods. In Dilemmas of the Self, Giddens illustrates implications of this, not only
for systems and structures but also for self and identity.
In summary, Giddenss approach to social action is that of praxis regular patterns of
enacted conduct by active individuals who, as social actors, interact other social actors
in situations involving diverse influences that include habit and patterns but also
reflection and conscious decision-making. Adams and Sydie (pp. 48-49) sum
up structuration by pointing to three emphases of Giddens:
Human agency, where the social actor is a rational actor who has the ability to
make decisions.
Reflexivity. This involves a self-consciousness on the part of the individual and
an ability to monitor the ongoing flow of social life and, at least sometimes, take
ones understanding of this flow of social life into account when considering
appropriate action and deciding on a course of action.
Structure. These are the patterns in the social world that affect individuals and
are composed of rules, resources, and agency. (see next section).
3. Systems and structures structuration
Giddens uses the closely related concepts of systems and structures in his theory
of structuration. Systems are patterns of relations in groupings of all kinds, from
small, intimate groups, to social networks, to large organizations (p. 94) whereas
structures are specific practices surrounding how social actors deal with rules and
resources. Systems include social and cultural systems (similar to those of Parsons)
and structures include class structures, educational institutions, etc.
In Giddenss model, systems appear to be more dynamic than structures, with the
latter being relatively fixed and forming a framework for the social activity that
occurs in systems. Analogies might be heating or cooling systems or city transit
systems both require a material structure and a transit system requires humans as
workers and procedures but each has a dynamic character of change and flow, as
well as some regularity and possibly an equilibrium. A city or metropolitan area as a
whole can be regarded as a system in having a life, entities that move in it, and social
relationships among those in it, with both tendencies toward an equilibrium state and
also changes to deal with adaptation to environment and achieving new or different
ends. A city also has a structure, something fixed and established (physical structures
and procedures), and one that allows the system to operate.

For Giddens, systems are patterns of relations in groupings of all kinds, from small,
intimate groups, to social networks, to large organizations. That is, it is the patterns
of enacted conduct, the repeated forms of social action and interaction, or the
enduring cycles of reproduced relations that form social systems. These could be
systems such as families, peer groups, communities, or cities, either at a face-to-face
level or existing via networks over space and time. While a social system may not
have the completeness or closure of a biological or ecological system, system
reproduction generally proceeds via enduring cycles of reproduced relations in which
recurrent practices constitute links and nodes (references from Cohen, p. 94).
Goffmans interaction order of face-to-face encounters, can be considered as one form
of a local system. Networks that people establish through print or
electronic communication, or occasional person-to-person meetings associated with
conventions or conferences, are examples of systems that have become more common
with the development and expansion of new and inexpensive forms of communication
and transportation. Goffman makes some reference to these as mediated forms of
encounters, but does not pay much attention to these, concentrating instead on face
in personal encounters. It is the patterns of relationships and repeated forms of
interaction themselves that form the systems.
For Giddens, structure is more specific and detailed than system, referring to
structured practices. Rules and resources are the two primary features of structures
such as market exchange, class structures, political organizations and processes, and
educational institutions.
Procedural rules how the practice is performed. Give and take of encounters,
language rules, walking in a crowd. Goffman (face, roles, role distance)
and ethnomethodologists analyze these.
Moral rules appropriate forms of enactment of social action. Laws, what is
permissible and what is not. These do not refer ultimate values (eg. spiritual or
sacred values), but refer to appropriate ways of carrying out social action and
interaction. Durkheim and Parsons emphasized the importance of these norms,
mores, customs, laws.
Material resources allocation of resources among activities and members of
society. Means of production, commodities, income, consumer and capital
goods. Marxian analysis demonstrates the inequalities associated with
allocation.
Resources of authority. Formal organizations, how time and space are
organized, production and reproduction, social mobility, legitimacy, and

authority. Weber analyzed the latter issues in the context of power and its
exercise. Wright included these resources as assets in his explanation of
contradictory class locations.
Each structure has the above aspects, involving different combinations of rules and
resources. These structures are formed by structured practices that is, they do not
just exist in and of themselves and they cannot exist without enacted conduct. While
we may abstract from these practices and refer to these as structures that frame and
affect society, Giddens is interested in how they are reproduced. It is enacted human
conduct in the form of structured practices that maintains and reproduces these
structures. But if these enacted forms of conduct change, either because individuals
make conscious decisions to change, because of fateful moments, or through less
conscious forms of adjustment, adaptation, and practice, then this can produce
structural change. Social movements, collective action, or parallel changes by many
individuals could have this result. Giddens notes that there are sometimes critical
suspensions of routine and occasions on which actors mobilize their efforts and focus
their thoughts on responses toproblesm which will diminish their anxiety, and
ultimately bring about social change (Cohen, p. 97).
For Giddens, structured practices are primary units of analysis, perhaps the parallel
of the unit act in the Parsonian theory of social action (Cohen). In terms
of structurationtheory as a whole, structures and systems are reminiscent of Parsons in
that they provide an all-encompassing theoretical framework that can be used to
analyze various aspects of social organization and social change. One major
difference between the two is that Giddens makes unequal distribution of resources
and power a central feature of his analysis, whereas Parsons pays little attention to
this. Giddenss structures and systems also appear to be more dynamic and less closed
than those of Parsons, so that they can accommodate many different forms of power
and social change.
One way to think of these systems and structures is as a means of bridging the
structure-agency gap, focusing on systems and structures as patterns of enacted
conduct. While we may consider systems and structures as external to the individual,
imposing constraints on the individuals, and existing apart from the individual, if
social action and interaction were to end, social structures would no longer exist. In
order to think like Giddens, consider structures as structured practices. That is, praxis
does not exist apart from structure, and structure is enduring patterns of action guided
by rules and resources. The social relationships that occur within these are the
systems of structuration theory.
4. Modernity (notes from Adams and Sydie, p. 49)

The main focus of the writing of Giddens is on the current period of late
modernity. He refers to the current as a continuation of the modern, rather than as
post-modern or post-structuralist or post-industrial. At the same time, he identifies
some important changes that characterize the current period global influences and
connections that have created a more interdependent world and developments in
communication and technology that alter our perceptions of, and the influence of, time
and space.
While Giddens does not deny that tradition is still an important influence in modern
life, he considers modernity to represent a qualitative change from earlier
periods. Much along the same lines as argued by critical and world-system theorists,
he argues that the modern era is characterized by continuous change, the expansion of
capitalism, and the development of industrialism or machine technology to control
and transform nature (Adams and Sydie, p. 49). The traditional social setting
involved religion, community, and family as dominant forces guiding individuals and
group action and interaction in local settings. While these traditional features still
carry influence, their dominance has been displaced by new systems and structures
related to capitalism, industrialism, and communication.
While Giddens draws on the insights of world-system and critical theorists, he adopts
a more optimistic point of view about our period of late modernity. At one level the
new structures and systems act as constraints on human action, or at least individuals
and groups must alter ideas and actions to deal with the new social realities. At the
same time, it is through enacted social practices that these systems and structures are
reproduced. This creates the possibility of change, as human action and interaction
alter these ongoing practices while some aspects of system and structure are
reproduced in unaltered form, others change as new social practices emerge. In
examining modernity in this setting, Giddens argues that social structures and systems
can also be considered to constitute opportunities within which individuals and groups
can exercise greater freedom and flexibility than in traditional settings.
Giddens identifies four aspects of modern society that differ from earlier, traditional
forms of social organization (Adams and Sydie, pp. 49-50).

Distanciation. This refers to social relationships being local and global. Relationships
and influences can be immediate or direct, as they were in traditional society. But
modernity has created the possibility of distant influences and distant relationships. The
first page of Dilemmas of the Self describes this distanciated influences, mediated
experiences, and multiple images. Yet the individual is generally able to make sense of
these, find a means of sorting through and organizing these images and
influences. Giddens argues that this is not a random or passive process on the part of
an individual but each reader imposes his own order on this diversity and this is part of
the protective cocoon which helps regulate ontological security. (Dilemmas, p. 1). Also
noteGiddenss reference to the networked diaspora of the French immigrants.

Power/agency is the capacity or ability to make decisions and do things (Adams

and Sydie, p. 49). In this context, social structures provide resources (material and
authority) and rules (procedural and moral), but within this context, individuals have the
capacity to act and make decisions about their actions. Within traditional settings, people
were not individuals in the modern sense and generally had little power to make decisions
that would change their social setting. In modern societies, some are more powerful than
others, and systems and structures exercise domination. At the same time, individuals
have a range of ways of exercising the capacity to act, make decisions, and change their
course of action a transformative capacity and ability to make things happen
(Adams and Sydie, p. 50).

Risk is a new element that modernity introduces. While traditional societies were
subject to external forces (natural disasters, weather, seasons), most of these were outside
individual control. In modernity, many of these are now subject to control by individuals
or society and it is often possible to calculate or determine risks associated with
alternative possible course of action. The insurance industry, probability and statistics,
and political processes all demonstrate a shift from uncertainty (not calculable) to risk
(calculable). While individuals can make calculations to protect them from risks,
modern society has also created many new forms of risk (eg. ecological and terrorism),
against which individuals or society may not be able to protect themselves by planning
and. However,Giddens points to ways that individuals make decisions aimed at risk
reduction and peace of mind (Adams and Sydie, p. 50).

Trust. Given the risks associated with modernity, and the fact that our knowledge about
the factors that affect us can often not be known or understood locally by individuals, it is
necessary for people to exercise trust in others. We vest trust in experts, known sources,
friends, authorities, institutions, and structures. For Giddens, this is a necessary feature
of modernity, but one that also can create difficulties, especially when trust is eroded.

5. Acting subject and the self

Giddenss approach to the acting subject is less like Weber and Parsons, and more like
Dewey, Mead, or Goffman (Cohen, pp. 96-97). Adams and Sydie (pp. 50-51) identify
his approach as being similar to that of Mead in that the self is reflexive. This means

that the actor builds a self by incorporating societal influences but does not do this in a
passive manner. The actor is thoughtful and reflects on how to best respond to
symbols. Adams and Sydie (p. 51) point out that the approach of Giddens differs
somewhat from this in that an individual creates a self or identity by being both object
and agent, and is concerned with self-actualization. While this may be a difficult
process for individuals, there are three aspects of consciousness that are related to this.
Practical consciousness. This refers to the way the routine and habit occur a
tacit awareness (Cohen, p. 96) of these routine forms of conduct along with a
regular and continued set of practices of which an actor may not be fully
conscious. These include the enacted conduct noted by ethnomethodologists.
Unconscious activity. Giddens argues that from infancy there is a primordial,
unconscious need for feelings of familiarity and practical mastery of the stable
features of the social world. As these practices are repeated, this means social
reproduction of these, and such routine tends to eliminate anxiety-producing
anomie (Cohen, p. 97).
Discursive consciousness. This is the active, considered consciousness, similar
to that described by Weber and Parsons. For Giddens, actors are not inherently
engaged in existential reflection on the meaning of their conduct from moment
to moment in everyday life. Rather, discursive consciousness emerges at
critical times expected or unexpected. In these circumstances, actors mobilize
their efforts and focus their thoughts on responses to problems which will
diminish their anxiety, and ultimately bring about social change (Cohen, p.
97). Being able to use trust is an important feature of this. This may be at the
local level, with trust in family, friends, or associates, or trust in institutions and
structures that have been found to be reliable.
In terms of socialization and the development of the self from childhood, there is a
primordial need for familiarity, practical mastery of surroundings, and a sense of
security. This is obtained from development of familiar routines, which
accommodate the child to his or her surroundings and meet his or her needs. This also
is a means by which reproduction of the social order occurs, since the social order is
the set of practices and procedures that are ongoing and continued. To the extent that
these meet the needs of the child, the child develops trust in these routines; where the
routines and needs are not met, this may produce anxiety. Where security is disturbed
in this way, this may produce anxiety and fear, but it is partly through these that the
child learns to deal with these problems. As individuals develop a practical mastery
of surrounding, through habit and routine and through discursive consciousness, they
develop a self-identity.
From these considerations, Giddens is not downplaying subjective consciousness as a
source of meaning and action, rather he recognizes the importance of both

consciousness and a praxis approach in terms of explaining large parts of human

social action and interaction.
6. Dilemmas of the self
In this reading, Giddens sets out four dilemmas of the self in modern society. Among
the issues to note are the following.

Modern, global society, in contrast to tradition and traditional society. Connection

between local and global. The global may threaten the local but the global also
provides a means of selecting, appropriating, and ordering issues for the
individual. That is, the global provides resources. Giddens does not look on the
global as necessarily good or bad, but as existing and individuals must learn how
to deal with it.

Self. The modern leads to individualism and the project of the self (p. 6). In
traditional societies, a sense of self is maintained largely through the stability of
the social positions of individuals in the community. Where tradition lapses, and
lifestyle choice prevails, the self isnt exempt. Self-identity has to be created and
recreated on a more active basis than before (Giddens, 2000, p. 65). While this
creates tensions and difficulties for the self, the modern, global world also provides
information, flexibility, and options for the individual. As a result, Giddens does
not consider these so much as difficulties for the self but as dilemmas that the self
has to understand and master (p. 1, near bottom).

Security of ones being as one over-riding aim establish a protective cocoon, but
one that is not too protective. Risk, trust, uncertainty, fate all figure in equation.

Accomplished, regular actions, routine like ethnomethodology.

Dilemmas are like the pattern variables of Parsons polar opposite ideal types
associated with traditional and modern.

Positive and negative aspects of dilemmas, with a polar opposite set of

pathological results possible in each. But Giddens appears to be arguing that most
selves develop a degree of normality, or at least an ability to exist within this
framework.

Notes on the four dilemmas in Dilemmas of the Self:

Unification and fragmentation. While modernization results in dispersal,

individualism, and fragmentation, there are also integrative
mechanisms. Giddens appears to discuss the unifying aspects moreas integrative
than standardizing. Rather than considering the effect as primarily creating
multiple or fragmented selves, Giddens notes how individuals have an ability to
deal with different situations and contexts like Simmel. That
is, Giddenss cosmopolitan person may be similar to Simmels metropolitan
man. Dangers include become a rigid traditionalist (some fundamentalist
religious persons) or becoming an evaporated self (no self-identity but merely a
mimic of fashions and trends). Note that Giddens solution is that of Mead: The
individual only feels psychologically secure in his self-identity in so far as
others recognise his behaviour as appropriate or reasonable. (p. 3).

Powerlessness and appropriation. Modern society can create alienation,

anomie, rationalization and an iron cage, or mass society. But Giddens notes that
individuals in traditional societies were powerless as well, found it difficult to
challenge tradition, and had limited resources and communication to affect
change. While globalization and the modern create risk and uncertainty, with
seemingly little control, they also produce the possibility of construction of self
through appropriation and mastery over life circumstances. Giddens uses the same
example that Simmel does, that of money. Trust and regularity is required, but
money also creates new capacities, aims, projects, and aspirations. Cohen notes
how even the seemingly powerless can often exercise some degree of control over
their lives. Pathological forms include engulfment (complete loss of control) or
omnipotence (a fantasy).

Authority and uncertainty. Uncertainty existed in traditional societies and,

as Durkheim argues, religion may have initially emerged as an attempt to explain
uncertain and unknowable cosmic forces. Also, single authorities tended to
dominate religion, community, kinship. These were often very diffuse in their
effects (as Parsons argued) and left the individual little room
for manoeuvre. Modern society is charaterized by a pluralism of authority, with
specialization and fragmentation of expertise. It may be difficult to negotiate ones
way through this but routine, lifestyle, and trust can help create some form of
protective cocoon. This allows for greater flexibility than in traditional societies,
but can be associated with pathologies of dogmatic authoritarianism or
immobilization.

Personalized and commoditized. As they become autonomous and powerful,

markets generally attack and destroy traditional social relations, including family
and self. While markets expand the scope for individual initiative and decision-

making, they also bend these in a particular direction. Giddens mentions the self
as consumer, lifestyle as commodity, self-activity as a consumer package, and
reshaping daily life in line with market directions. But he also argues there are
limits to this markets are both standardizing and fragmenting, and individuals
develop means to limit their effects. As a result, the commodity is not alltriumphant. Pathologies though are narcissism (self-love and egoism) or excessive
individualism, whereby the integrative aspects of modernity are not effective.
Giddenss overall judgment about late modernity seems relatively positive, in much
the same manner as Durkheim. That is, there are divisive and abnormal effects in
modernity, but there are also integrative forces that provide possibilities for individual
self development and social integration. As compared with Durkheims emphasis on
the division of labour as a means of accomplishing this, Giddens relies more on the
possibilities for development of the self. At the same time, he notes the powerful
effects of commoditization and the resulting economic inequalities that can
emerge. While a solution to these is not contained in this reading, he points towards
forms of social democratic political and social solutions for these problems.