Agency, Structure, and Social Chance as Cross-Disciplinary Concepts
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9256.00097 |
| Published date | 01 September 1999 |
| Date | 01 September 1999 |
| Author | Roger Sibeon |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Agency, Structure, and
nd
Social Chance as Cross-
Disciplinary Concepts
Roger Sibeon
It is appropriate that social scientists should
it is the social world ('structure') that 'con-
develop explicit conceptualisations of agency,
structs' individuals in so far as actors' forms
structure and social chance, these being three
of thought and actions are to a large extent
major dimensions of social and political life.
structurally predetermined by macro-phenom-
The agency±structure debate, which refers to
ena such as culture and political institutions.
theoretical and ontological issues that tend
There are, then, two opposed sides in the
not to be explicitly discussed by political sci-
agency±structure debate: some claim that
entists, is an important interdisciplinary
individuals create forms of society, whereas
starting point for conceptual and empirical
others contend that forms of society create
work involving collaboration between poli-
individuals. Alternatively, some participants in
tical scientists and sociologists. Following a
the debate have argued that the conventional
theoretical review of agency, structure and
distinction between agency and structure
chance, it is argued that empirical research
should be redrawn, since both of these
concerned with the study of politics and
terms, according to Giddens (1984 and 1993)
policy ± indeed, social scienti®c research on
and some other theorists, refer to 'two sides
any topic ± should employ an ontology and
of the same coin'; structures (or social con-
methodology that focuses on the dynamics of
texts, which Giddens refers to as systems)
interaction between agency, structure and
in¯uence people's actions, but in turn, social
social chance.
contexts (or 'structures') continue to exist
only if they are sustained by people's repe-
The work by Marsh (1998) is a welcome but
ated actions. That is to say, Giddens's concept
comparatively rare example of political scien-
of the 'duality of structure' melds agency and
tists' involvement in explicit theorisation of
structure into one, instead of regarding them
the agency±structure debate. Some social sci-
as a dualism that consists of two separable,
entists believe that agency (actors' capacity to
albeit connected, phenomena; unless and
act upon situations) is the paramount feature
until structure is instantiated (practised or put
of social life in so far as, it has been claimed,
into eect by people) it has only virtual exis-
individuals are relatively autonomous, creative
tence in the form of memory traces in peo-
beings who 'construct' the social world; on
ple's minds. In contrast, Archer (1995) and
the other hand, theorists who emphasise
Bhaskar (1993) argue for an ontological dual-
structure rather than agency have argued that
ism in which 'subjective' agency and 'objec-
Robert Sibeon, University of Liverpool
# Political Studies Association 1999. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
139
Agency, Structure and Social Chance . Sibeon
Politics (1999) 19(3) pp. 139±144
tive' social structure are two separable phe-
would ± providing such work was, so to
nomena. Mouzelis (1995) has a diering
speak, fed back to sociology and to other
standpoint. He argues that both duality (the
social sciences ± be of considerable value in
con¯ation of agency and structure) and dual-
the future development of interdisciplinary
ism are to be found in the social world; dua-
research concerned with politics and policy.
lity occurs when actors' activities routinely
It should also be observed that theoretical
reproduce social structure, whereas dualism
concepts, such as agency and structure,
occurs when actors distance themselves from
should not be regarded as immune from
structure for strategic or monitoring pur-
empirical sources of revision. While it is
poses. It is Mouzelis's view of this matter that
important that empirical investigation be
provides some of the underpinning for the
based on explicitly de®ned concepts, this
discussion later in this article. However, the
does not mean the concepts are set in stone;
more general point to be made for the
the concepts themselves may require mod-
moment is that questions relating to agency
i®cation in the light of research data. Hence
and structure are of great importance to poli-
the concepts and postulates...
To continue reading
Request your trial