Editing Structuration theory (section)

==Premises and origins==
Sociologist [[Anthony Giddens]] adopted a [[post-empiricism|post-empiricist]] frame for his theory, as he was concerned with the abstract characteristics of social relations.{{according to whom|date=May 2012}} This leaves each level more accessible to analysis via the [[Ontology|ontologies]] which constitute the human social experience: space and time ("and thus, in one sense, 'history'").<ref name="The constitution of society" />{{rp|3}} His aim was to build a broad social theory which viewed "[t]he basic domain of study of the social sciences... [as] neither the experience of the individual actor, nor the existence of any form of societal totality, but social practices ordered across space and time."<ref name="The constitution of society" />{{rp|189}} His focus on abstract [[ontology]] accompanied a general and purposeful neglect of [[epistemology]] or detailed [[research methodology]], consistent with other types of [[pragmatism]].

Giddens used concepts from [[Objectivity (philosophy)#Objectivism|objectivist]] and [[subjectivism|subjectivist]] social theories, discarding objectivism's focus on detached structures, which lacked regard for humanist elements and subjectivism's exclusive attention to individual or group agency without consideration for socio-structural context. He critically engaged classical nineteenth and early twentieth century social theorists such as [[Positivism#Comte's positivism|Auguste Comte]], [[Materialism#Materialist conception of history and Marx|Karl Marx]], [[Max Weber]], [[Durkheim|Émile Durkheim]], [[Alfred Schutz]], [[Robert K. Merton]], [[Erving Goffman]], and [[Jürgen Habermas]].<ref name="Structuration theory" /> Thus, in many ways, structuration was "an exercise in clarification of logical issues."<ref name="New rules of sociological method">Giddens, A. (1993). ''New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies.'' Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.</ref>{{rp|viii}} Structuration drew on other fields, as well: "He also wanted to bring in from other disciplines novel aspects of ontology that he felt had been neglected by social theorists working in the domains that most interested him. Thus, for example, he enlisted the aid of geographers, historians and philosophers in bringing notions of time and space into the central heartlands of social theory."<ref name="Structuration theory" />{{rp|16}} Giddens hoped that a subject-wide "coming together" might occur which would involve greater cross-disciplinary dialogue and cooperation, especially between [[anthropologists]], social scientists and sociologists of all types, historians, geographers, and even novelists. Believing that "literary style matters", he held that social scientists are communicators who share frames of meaning across cultural contexts through their work by utilising "the same sources of description (mutual knowledge) as novelists or others who write fictional accounts of social life."<ref name="The constitution of society" />{{rp|285}}

Structuration differs from its historical sources. Unlike structuralism it sees the reproduction of social systems not "as a mechanical outcome, [but] rather ... as an active constituting process, accomplished by, and consisting in, the doings of active subjects."<ref name="New rules of sociological method" />{{rp|121}} {{anchor|Althusser}}<!--for Althusser page-->Unlike [[Althusser]]'s concept of agents as "bearers" of structures, structuration theory sees them as active participants. Unlike the [[philosophy of action]] and other forms of [[interpretative sociology]], structuration focuses on structure rather than production exclusively. Unlike [[Ferdinand de Saussure|Saussure's]] production of an utterance, structuration sees language as a tool from which to view society, not as the constitution of society—parting with [[Structural linguistics|structural linguists]] such as [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] and [[generative grammar]] theorists such as [[Noam Chomsky]]. Unlike [[post-structuralist]] theory, which put similar focus on the effects of time and space, structuration does not recognise {{em|only}} movement, change and transition. Unlike [[Functionalism (sociology)|functionalism]], in which structures and their virtual synonyms, "systems", comprise organisations, structuration sees structures and systems as separate concepts. Unlike [[Marxism]], structuration avoids an overly restrictive concept of "society" and Marxism's reliance on a universal "motor of history" (i.e. [[class conflict]]), its theories of societal "adaptation", and its insistence on the working class as universal class and socialism as the ultimate form of modern society. Finally, "structuration theory cannot be expected to furnish the moral guarantees that [[critical theorists]] sometimes purport to offer."<ref name="Critical appreciation" />{{rp|16}}