Editing Structuration theory (section)

===John B. Thompson===
{{Main|John Thompson (sociologist)}}

Though he agreed with the soundness and overall purposes of Giddens' most expansive structuration concepts (i.e., against dualism and for the study of structure in concert with agency), John B. Thompson ("a close friend and colleague of Giddens at Cambridge University")<ref name="Structuration theory" />{{rp|46}} wrote one of the most widely cited critiques of structuration theory.<ref name="Theory of Ideology">Thompson, J.B. (1984). ''Studies in the theory of ideology''. Cambridge: Polity Press.</ref> His central argument was that it needed to be more specific and more consistent both internally and with conventional social structure theory. Thompson focused on problematic aspects of Giddens' concept of structure as "rules and resources," focusing on "rules". He argued that Giddens' concept of rule was too broad.

Thompson claimed that Giddens presupposed a ''criterion of importance'' in contending that rules are a generalizable enough tool to apply to every aspect of human action and interaction; "on the other hand, Giddens is well aware that {{em|some}} rules, or some kinds or aspects of rules, are much more important than others for the analysis of, for example, the social structure of capitalist societies."<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|159}} He found the term to be imprecise and to not designate which rules are more relevant for which social structures.

Thompson used the example of [[linguistic analysis]] to point out that the need for a prior framework which to enable analysis of, for example, the social structure of an entire nation. While [[semantic rule]]s may be relevant to social structure, to study them "presupposes some structural points of reference which are not themselves {{em|rules}}, with regard to which [of] these semantic rules are differentiated"<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|159}} according to class, sex, region and so on. He called this ''structural differentiation.''

Rules differently affect variously situated individuals. Thompson gave the example of a private school which restricts enrollment and thus participation. Thus rules—in this case, restrictions—"operate {{em|differentially}}, affecting unevenly various groups of individuals whose categorization depends on certain assumptions about social structures."<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|159}} The isolated analysis of rules does not incorporate differences among agents.

Thompson claimed that Giddens offered no way of formulating ''structural identity''. Some "rules" are better conceived of as broad inherent elements that define a structure's identity (e.g., [[Henry Ford]] and [[Harold Macmillan]] are "capitalistic"). These agents may differ, but have important traits in common due to their "capitalistic" identity. Thompson theorized that these traits were not rules in the sense that a manager could draw upon a "rule" to fire a tardy employee; rather, they were {{em|elements}} which "{{em|limit}} the kinds of rules which are possible and which thereby {{em|delimit}} the scope for institutional variation."<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|160}} It is necessary to outline the broader social system to be able to analyze agents, actors, and rules within that system.

Thus Thompson concluded that Giddens' use of the term "rules" is problematic. "Structure" is similarly objectionable: "But to adhere to this conception of structure, while at the same time acknowledging the need for the study of 'structural principles,' 'structural sets' and 'axes of structuration,' is simply a recipe for conceptual confusion."<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|163}}

Thompson proposed several amendments. He requested sharper differentiation between the reproduction of institutions and the reproduction of social structure. He proposed an altered version of the structuration cycle. He defined "[[social institutions|institutions]]" as "characterized by rules, regulations and conventions of various sorts, by differing kinds and quantities of resources and by hierarchical power relations between the occupants of institutional positions."<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|165}} Agents acting within institutions and conforming to institutional rules and regulations or using institutionally endowed power reproduce the institution. "If, in so doing, the institutions continue to satisfy certain structural conditions, both in the sense of conditions which delimit the scope for ''institutional variation'' and the conditions which underlie the operation of ''structural differentiation'', then the agents may be said to reproduce social structure."<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|165}}

Thompson also proposed adding a ''range of alternatives'' to Giddens' conception of constraints on human action. He pointed out the paradoxical relationship between Giddens' "dialectic of control" and his acknowledgement that constraints may leave an agent with no choice. He demanded that Giddens better show how wants and desires relate to choice.

Giddens replied that a structural principle is not equivalent with rules, and pointed to his definition from ''A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism'': "Structural principles are principles of organisation implicated in those practices most "deeply" (in time) and "pervasively" (in space) sedimented in society",<ref name="Contemporary critique">Giddens, A. (1981). ''A contemporary critique of historical materialism: vol 1: Power, property, and the state.'' London: Macmillan.</ref>{{rp|54}} and described structuration as a "mode of institutional articulation"<ref name="A reply to my critics">Giddens, A. (1989). A reply to my critics. In D. Held & J. B. Thompson (Eds.), ''Social theory of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics'' (pp.249-301). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>{{rp|257}} with emphasis on the relationship between time and space and a host of institutional orderings including, but not limited to, rules.

Ultimately, Thompson concluded that the concept of structure as "rules and resources" in an elemental and ontological way resulted in conceptual confusion. Many theorists supported Thompson's argument that an analysis "based on structuration's ontology of structures as norms, interpretative schemes and power resources radically limits itself if it does not frame and locate itself within a more broadly conceived notion of social structures."<ref name="Structuration theory" />{{rp|51}}<ref name="Sewell" />