Comp. by: VPugazhenthi Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_S Date:1/4/
09 Time:15:23:40 Filepath:H:/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-9781405132879/appln/3B2/
revises/9781405132879_4_S.3d
Giddens (1938– ) that seeks to elucidate the
intersections between humansubjects and
the social structures in which they are
involved. Giddens’ original purpose was to
solve the classical problem of social order. In
his view, explanations of social life typically
privileged either ‘agency’ (the intentions,
meanings and actions of subjects) or ‘struc-
ture’ (the logics, limitations and systems of
society). Instead, Giddens proposed to treat
the production and reproduction of social
life as an ongoingprocessofstructuration.
In this view, ‘structure’ is implicated in every
moment of social interaction – ‘structures’
are not only constraints but also the very
conditions of social action – and, conversely,
structure is an ‘absent’ order of differences,
‘present’ only in the moments of social inter-
action through which it is itself reproduced
or transformed (Giddens, 1979, 1981,
1984).
Three concepts were crucial to this model:(1) Reflexivity: The production of social life
is a skilled accomplishment on the part of
knowledgeable and capable human sub-
jects (seehuman agency).
(2) Recursiveness: ‘Structure’ is both the med-
ium and theoutcomeofthesocial practices
that constitute social systems: rules and
resources are drawn upon by actors from
structures of signification, domination and
legitimation, and these structures are in
turn reproduced or transformed through
those social practices (see figure).(3) Regionalization: The continuity of social
life depends on interactions with others
who are either co-present in time and/or
space (time–space routinization; cf.time-
geography)orwhoareabsentintimeand/
or space (time–space distanciation).Giddens argued that these propositions make
it possible to analyse the interconnection of
routinized and repetitive conduct between act-
ors with long-term, large-scale institutional
development in a depth that is denied to
both classicalsocial theoryandhistorical
materialism.
Giddens fashioned structuration theory
through a wide-ranging series of philosophical
and theoretical critiques of other writers.
Some of his critics complained that it was
impossible to rework such radically different
ideas into a coherent synthesis; others noted
that Giddens worked at such a high level of
abstractionthat it was far from clear how
his general ideas could be brought to bear on
empirical enquiry (Gregson, 1989). Although
the same agency–structure dualism bedevilled
human geography, most human geographers
sought a more historically and geographically
inflected version of structuration (Thrift,
1983; Gregson, 2005). Aware of parallel
debates in social history, and usually more
sympathetic tomarxismthan Giddens, they
mapped thevariableanddifferentialintersec-
tions of ‘agency’ and ‘structure’ in the produc-
tion and transformation of specific places,
regions and landscapes (Gregory, 1982;structuration theory 1: System and structureGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_S Final Proof page 726 1.4.2009 3:23pmSTRUCTURATION THEORY