Editing Structuration theory (section)

===Change===
Sewell provided a useful summary that included one of the theory's less specified aspects: the question "Why are structural transformations possible?" He claimed that Giddens' overrelied on rules and modified Giddens' argument by re-defining "resources" as the embodiment of cultural [[Schema (Kant)|schemas]]. He argued that change arises from the multiplicity of structures, the ''transposable'' nature of schemas, the unpredictability of resource accumulation, the [[polysemy]] of resources and the intersection of structures.<ref name="Sewell" />{{rp|20}}

The existence of multiple structures implies that the knowledgeable agents whose actions produce systems are capable of applying different schemas to contexts with differing resources, contrary to the conception of a universal [[Habitus (sociology)|habitus]] (learned dispositions, skills and ways of acting). He wrote that "Societies are based on practices that derived from many distinct structures, which exist at different levels, operate in different modalities, and are themselves based on widely varying types and quantities of resources. ...It is never true that all of them are homologous."<ref name="Sewell">Sewell, Jr., W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation. ''The American Journal of Sociology, 98''(1):1-29.</ref>{{rp|16}}

Originally from [[Bourdieu]], ''transposable'' schemas can be "applied to a wide and not fully predictable range of cases outside the context in which they were initially learned." That capacity "is inherent in the knowledge of cultural schemas that characterizes all minimally competent members of society."<ref name="Sewell" />{{rp|17}}

Agents may modify schemas even though their use does not predictably accumulate resources. For example, the effect of a joke is never quite certain, but a comedian may alter it based on the amount of laughter it garners regardless of this variability.

Agents may interpret a particular resource according to different schemas. E.g., a commander could attribute his wealth to military prowess, while others could see it as a blessing from the gods or a coincidental initial advantage.

Structures often overlap, confusing interpretation (e.g., the structure of capitalist society includes production from both private property and worker [[social solidarity|solidarity]]).