Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol.

V (2012)

The Structuration Approach of Anthony Giddens

? Mukunda Lamsal
Abstract
Structuration Theory developed by Anthony Giddens, a British sociologist,
in response to claims by post-structuralism, holds that the structures that
humans ind themselves in are determined for them, and volunteerism,
that suggests that humans are completely free to create their lived
environment. Structuration theory has a several unique nomenclature to
explain the relationships that the human agency has with institutions or
structure. This paper explains the use of the words and relate them
to relevant examples. The understanding that Structuration Theory gives
us can be very useful for understanding geographic phenomenon such as
the idea of the time-space continuum. Urban arenas have a very complex
set of relationships between humans and their environments; housing,
movement within the environment, etcetera. The paper is also focused on
understanding the connections between Giddens theory and the ield of
geography. The main focus of this paper is on exploring the complexities of
Giddens Structuration Theory and understanding how it is currently being
implemented in societies.
Keywords: Structuration, structuralism, agency, structure
Introduction
Societies in the developed world are becoming highly advanced and have
undergone various changes in their value, knowledge and physical systems.
The ield of Sociology has attempted to categorize such changes as a result
of various entities acting upon other actors (people), institutions or classes.
Sociology has only been around since the mid nineteenth century but has
provoked some of the most heated debates concerning human geography.
The role we play in our shared reality with the world has come under the
studies of some of the most prestigious sociologists, like Karl Marx, Emile
Durkheim, and Max Weber. These igures have formulated some of the
most inluential theories of their time and have laid the basis of discussion
for contemporary theorists. The human element in the social world has
taken various positions in each theory. There are several stances that those
sociologists believe are either one way or the other with no middle ground

111
The Structuration .........Lamsal

that balances elements from both sides (i.e. macro and micro).
Anthony Giddens, the igure that is the focus in this paper, is unique in this
sense because of his thoughts on the delicate relationship between structure
(external forces) and agency (internal motivations) in society; or macro
versus micro perspectives respectively. Giddens thoughts have been used
by some of the most well-known policy makers in the world including
the United Kingdoms Prime Minister Tony Blair. The use of sociological
theories in real world policies is an important aspect to study in order to
understand the intricate complexities that develop in our cities.
Giddens early work on the basis of Sociology argued that the current state
of the ield was overly revolutionary. There were several theorists that were
trying to create an over encompassing social theory of the social world.
The role of the human agent was either solely based on volunteerism,
where human action was unconstrained by social forces, or that it was too
deterministic, that humans are solely restricted by their social structure.
He rejected both points of view because he thought that neither theory
gives proper attention to the actors themselves in producing their social
reality. Giddens could be said to be a theorist of the humanistic frame of
thought. He believed that it was humans that act as knowledgeable objects
in conjunction with the social order to change their social reality. He
redeines the role of structure by realizing that it can be both a constraining
and an enabling element for human action. As society becomes more
urban, Giddens theory can be of great assistance to policy makers and
human geographers alike to understand the needs of the current and future
generations.
The UN habitat organization reports that the number of people living
in metropolitan areas has been rapidly increasing and is projected to be
the home for more than 6 billion people worldwide or two-thirds of the
human population by 2050. The role of the city in human development is
universal. Cities are well known for their abilities to promote economic
trade including employment, providing a stage for civil protest and offering
a healthy lifestyle for its citizens. Yet, as our cities grow and change, it is
important that we do not lose sight of the unintended consequences of such
a rapid immigration to urban areas. Cities in different parts of the world
are not always equal in their offering of goods and services to their citizens.

112
 Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. V (2012)

Theory of Structuration
Anthony Giddens uses a selected vocabulary to understand his theory of
Structuration. The relationship between actors and social forces may not
be clear immediately but in this chapter we will explain how he uses these
terms in conjunction with his theory of Structuration, the different forms of
structure (social forces) and how the relationship between the two can be
used to understand our shared reality.
a. Structuralism
The basis of the theory of Structuration involves the identiication of the
relationship between the individuals and the social forces that act upon us.
In Giddens theory of Structuration he tries to balance the role that actors
play with their limited choice of position in history and in the social fabric
they ind themselves. In his theory, Giddens proposes that people do not
have entire preference of their actions and their knowledge is restricted;
nonetheless, they are the elements that recreate the social structure and
produces social change (Craib, 1992, pg.33).
Structuration, as with any theoretical issue, is suggested to have two
signiicant philosophical components; Ontology and Epistemology.
Ontology is the theory that suggests the existence of some phenomenon
and Epistemology emphasizes the philosophical theory of knowledge,
exploring a deinition for a phenomenon, recognizing both its sources and
establishing its limits (Cloke, 1991, pg. 95). Giddens is more interested
in proving the existence of this duality between structure and agency than
deining what exactly causes or reinforces its existence.
He speciies that structure and agency cannot be separated; that they are
connected to one another in what Giddens has termed the duality of
structure. Human actors are the elements that enable creation of our
society's structure by means of invented values, norms or are reinforced
through social acceptance. Yet, at the same time people are constrained
by our social structure. A person is unable to choose who ones parents are
or what period of time one exists. Giddens describes structure in terms of
what he refers to as modalities (elaborated on in the next section); as a set
of rules and resources that engages human action. He explains that rules
restrict actions but the resources facilitate it. Along the same lines he also
distinguishes the differences between systems of interaction and structures.

113
The Structuration .........Lamsal

A system of interaction, he explains, exhibits structural qualities although it

is not entirely a structure itself (Cloke, 1991, pg. 101).
One of the most widely used examples of a system of interaction is
speech. The monologue of a speaker is understood by the audience if they
understand the language (structure). Languages use strict guidelines or
rules to insure that what is being expressed is understood by the interpreter,
this is what Giddens compares to element of structure. It is through the
use of the actors voice and knowledge of the language (structure) that
speech (system of interaction) is understood. Therefore, Structuration is the
process of structures reproducing systems; the system of interaction exists
as a result of the structure of the language spoken. This relationship is what
Giddens refers to as the rules and resources established by structures that
facilitate and reproduce social interaction.
Giddens recommend that structures (traditions, institutions, moral codes,
and other sets of expectations) are universally steady, nevertheless, could
be changed mainly during the unintentional consequences of action. For
example, when people begin to pay no attention to the social norms,
substitute them, or reproduce them in a different way.
b. Types of Structure
Giddens identiies three kinds of structures in a social system: signiication,
legitimation and domination. In the stratiication model of structure,
Giddens attempts to illustrate the links between the structure and the system
of interaction ( Jacobs, 1993). The irst type of structure is signiication
which produces meaning through organized webs of language (semantic
codes, interpretive schemes and discursive practices). Drawing on the
speech example referenced above, the interaction of agents through speech
"can be structured because particular interpretations of reality can be
signiied in our language beyond the simple meaning of mere words and
thoughts (Cloke, 1991, pg. 103). In this respect Giddens is expanding the
role of the actor to be able to interpret and manipulate a structured language
by interpretive meanings.
The second dimension of his stratiication model, legitimation, produces
a moral order via naturalization of societal norms, values and standards.
When individual agents interact, they exhibit consciously, subconsciously,
or unconsciously meanings (Giddens refers to these as sanctions) of their

114
 Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. V (2012)

behavior. Interacting in this manner shapes the current social norms and
are weighed against the moral rules of the structure. Therefore, whether or
not an action is considered legitimate in the social order is structured by
this dimension of legitimation. The inal element, Domination, focuses on
the production of (and exercise of) power, originating from the control of
resources.
Giddens identiies that forces of domination and submission exist in the
delicate power relationship that Karl Marx is well known for remarking
upon. Giddens, like Marx, believes that resources are the vehicles for
power. However, Marx is more interested in relationship between the
'means of production' in the capitalist societies whereas Giddens' goal is
to understand the power relationship as a form of interaction between the
actor and the structure. In this interaction, resources can be used as a form
of authority illustrated by a boss and employee relationship. Resources can
also be used in the form of property such as the allocation of wealth or
property.
c. Agency
The basic human acts and resulting activities can be seen as the two deining
capabilities of what Gidden's terms the 'Agency'. Giddens distinguishes
between acts as a separate progression of action and action as a continuous
low of involvements by different and autonomous human agents (Cloke,
1991, pg. 99). Giddens identiies that action could be stimulated by
the individual who wants to investigate what he/she is doing; the self-
examination process is referred to as relexive monitoring (Giddens,
1984, pg. 5). Gidden's model of action, as depicted in Figure 2, has three
elements of action, relexive monitoring, rationalization and motivation of
action. Each element has a speciic role in the overall process of action.
The atmosphere we interact with is that of an individual's action which
is inluenced by both unintended consequences and unacknowledged
conditions of their acts. The unacknowledged circumstances involve the
unconscious sources of motivation, as a persistent stream of interference
in the world by special agents (Cloke, 1991, pg 101). Action or the ability
to act by the agency is always interacting with power. Structuration theory
suggests that the agency is the fundamental element to create any sort of
change. Change can be thought of as simple as movement through space to
interact with a new environment, thereof changing interaction or as complex

115
The Structuration .........Lamsal

as voting to pass a piece of legislature that will create new laws, changing
the routine of society. Through the decision to act, either consciously or
not, creates changes within the agency and to the structure that one has
inluence on (Mestrovic, 1998, pg.182).
d. Micro vs. Macro
Structuration is essential for both micro and macro level topics. Taking the
example used previously of restricted selection of ones parents. At a micro
level we cannot choose our parents but have the choice to have children.
The relationships we create are in constant interaction and are controlled
by the individuals themselves. On the other hand, we are not capable of
organizing as a society without some form of state and social organizations.
At this macro level we are held together by a common pattern of survival
which is structured by a set of determined standards such as state laws. The
two perspectives could not be separated; otherwise it will be dificult to
understand them apart. This shared bond between individuals and exterior
forces brings Giddens theory of Structuration together.
Human Geography
The previous two parts focused mainly on the ideas of Structuration Theory
and Anthony Giddens' thoughts on the subject. Now it will try to explore
how this theory is related to human geography and more speciically urban
environments. Urban social forms are by far the most complex social reality
and maybe the most dificult to analyze completely. For that reason, the
focus will be on dominant social struggles, such as allocation of resources,
municipal segmentation, etc. and understanding why Giddens believes that
the single human agency is disregarded in other social theories.
a. Introductory Connections:
The main point of convergence between Giddens' theory and human
geography would be the emphasis that Giddens gives to the knowledgeable
human agency and their freedom in time and space. Humans are constantly
in action in one sense or another; be it through monitoring of one's own or
other's action, developing an understanding for such action or choosing
their own course of action. Yet, as Giddens points out, day-to-day activities
are not directly motivated but through relective monitoring the individual
can rationalize their actions (Giddens, 1984, p. 6). Therefore, according to
Giddens, humans routines are based on rational thought, not on the often
116
 Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. V (2012)

hidden motivations that drive our actions. The relevance of the separation
between routines and motivations can be witnessed through the capabilities
possessed by humans and the unconscious results of their action. The idea
of consequences of action is well outlined in Giddens own words:
"The consequences of what actors do, intentionally or unintentionally, are
events which would not have happened if that actor had behaved differently,
but which are not within the scope of the agent's power to have brought about
(regardless of what the agent's intentions are) (Giddens, 1984, pg.11) ."
Giddens is telling us that our current state of affairs in this world is in control
of the factors that inluence them, not solely restricted by our structure.
This idea can be applied in several ways and at different levels of society
(city v. world policy) or through institutions such as the student-teacher
relationship. The way in which people have altered human development
patterns can be illustrated through the application of an apartheid or racial/
ethnic segregation in city planning or the displacement of people from
regions because of conlict. One of the most widely known apartheid ever
to have dominated the social mainstream was in place under the South
African government from 1950's until the mid-1990. South Africa, a country
founded in British colonialism, created separate areas for 'white' and 'non-
white' people to ensure European dominance in the area. Both white and
non-white people were restricted by the area that they could move, do
business, go to school as well as limiting who one could interact with and
even marry. Racial apartheid has been used in several points throughout
human history including the Native American reservations or the separate
but equal standards during the black suffrage years in the United States.
Today, there is no known nationally enforced apartheid mainly because the
policy is considered to be a crime against humanity by the United Nations.
However, it is a great example to illustrate exactly what Giddens means by
the consequences of action and the result of concentrating so much power
in the hands of a relatively few.
In the Structuration theory, the agency does not have complete power
but is constrained by the second modality of the structure which is the
societal 'rules' that limit human freedom. As said previously, structure is
not completely constraining as a result of its rules but also facilitates action
through resources. In many circumstances, such as South African example,
resources are unevenly distributed. Most often people have identiied class
stratiication as the main dividing point between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'.
117
The Structuration .........Lamsal

While Giddens would agree that class differences are a main determining
factor in resource allocation he also thinks that the relationship between
rules and resources is much more dynamic than solely reliant on class
position. It is most important to note what Giddens is trying to prove here.
By giving preference to the agency and explaining that structure has both
rules and resources he is expressing his biggest disagreement with past
structural theorist, such as Karl Marx, who have blindly given the structure
the constraining characteristics without acknowledging its facilitating
abilities as well. So, with this understanding it is imperative to seek how
Structuration theory is facilitated and exists in the social world we are
interacting with today. We would like to illustrate this in three ways: the
effect of globalization, in separation of agents in space and in terms of
multicultural city policy.
b. Globalization and Time/Space
Globalization has been a dominant issue ever since its irst appearance on
the world stage. It has been a concept that has been met with both great
appreciations for its connective abilities and iercely opposed because of its
lack of intimacy. There are several angles to look at the issue of globalization
from economic and political ties to its changes in the traditional social and
cultural frameworks. Geographically it has inluenced the social framework
of the world most of us interact with, many times unknowingly. Take for
example the internet encyclopedia website Wikipedia. The way people
interact, gain and share knowledge has all changed in the last 20 years.
The realm of an actor's impact on world affairs has vastly increased. This
can be experienced by the increase in large foreign direct investment into
businesses and countries with very little more than video conferencing and
the click of the mouse. This example also illustrates that the space that
someone really needs to physically cover has shrunk tremendously in day
to day activities. This trend is mainly fueled by innovations in technologies
and streamlined production processes.
Giddens' Structuration theory has been inluential by giving us a notion for
understanding how actors routine behavior has inluenced the structure of
society and introducing ideas of time-space geography. Giddens stresses
that "the concept of routinization...is vital to the theory of Structuration
(Giddens, 1984, pg 60)." Globalization has been one of the most well-
known phenomena to be taking place around the world today, with only

118
 Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. V (2012)

a couple of exceptions. The number of ways it has affected our daily

routines has been enormous even if you don't agree with its externalities.
The marketplace used to be the hub of personal interaction and trade,
while, in modern societies the process has moved into computers and
mobile phones. People are unconsciously covering virtual space and time
by always being connected to a source of communication at many times of
the day. The virtual space that we cover by shopping, talking, or trading
(via global technology) is now dually connected to our daily activities with
respect to the physical space and time we exist in. Giddens duality of
structure illustrates this separation in time and space that is very crucial to
geographic studies very well.
Separation of people through space is fundamental to sociological and
geographical frames of thought. In each, the socio-spatial patterning
of human development is the key to understanding complex situations
involving labor relations, housing selection, as well as, understanding
demographic patterning. Giddens deines space in the following way:
"Space is not an empty dimension along which social groupings become
structured, but has to be considered in terms of its involvement in the
constitution of the systems of interactions (Giddens, 1984, pg. 396)."
Social groupings should be understood as elements of connectivity. The
way people connect with each other is understood by Giddens as a matter
that is closely linked to the network relationships between agents. It is
interesting to view systems of interaction as a major determinant in creating
space.
The example of segregation and exclusion of people from space that took
place in South Africa is one of the more extreme cases but illustrates how
Giddens framework matches up with real events. In more contemporary
times segregation by class, race and ethnicity takes place but is much
more transparent. In modern societies low income housing projects or
gated communities tend to group people together by their relative market
value. In this case, the agent is subject to the institutional capital market to
determine the location of settlement based on the allocation of resources.
The settlement of humans across space is limited and it would be believed
that Giddens would agree.
When settlement occurs, the position of state and local civil facilities
is usually well established but seems to be a process of continuous

119
The Structuration .........Lamsal

modiication. For instance, a new landill location is useful for all of

society if demand is great enough but the fact that the development has
several negative connotations is more likely to be located away from areas
that have access to bargaining resources. As a result, low income groups
may feel that they are being discriminated against because of a lack of
resources. The point being that when agents settle they tend to connect with
people that have similar shared experiences. Take public transportation
for example, in many instances gets labeled as a low income mode of
transportation (at least in the United States). The people that share the same
bus line day-in and day-out are said to share a common bond and could
be considered a system of interaction. The social grouping of people on
the bus line reinforces the daily routine that exists in time and space. The
relationship that actors share across any dimension, not just class, adds
to the collective bargaining power of the group. The example presented
here is one possible way to apply Giddens Structuration theory to public
service provisions. Elements such as land and housing costs may limit
access of actors settlement patterns but, as a result of settlement, collective
bargaining can be established and used as a resource for agents with similar
views, norms and values. Therefore, the collection of people in a region
can indirectly manipulate the lived environment and alter the structure of
their neighborhood. The issue of settlement patterns and social networks is
a topic that is discussed in many government policies.
Conclusion
Giddens has presented a case for individual knowledge and choice within a
structuralist theory that was partially, if not completely, blind to the inluence
that the agency has on the structure. The duality of structure is the essential
to understand the complexities that exist in the relationship between the
two elements. The position that he has taken has avoided volunteerism by
conining the agency to a set of societal rules and introduced the element
of humanism by explaining that the knowledgeable agency can deduce from
experiences their location in the structure. Giddens spends a signiicant
amount of time to explain why agency should be used to explain the status
of the structure. The freedom that an agency has in their environment is
reliant on the context that the agency is observed in. Our placement in
history and native language is not of our choosing but in the same sense the
agency has a vital part to play in changing the structure when it comes to
such things as policy changes. It is illustrated here why Giddens believes
120
 Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. V (2012)

that the structure is a relection of agencys power to inluence their lived

environment.
Structuration theory has argued against past structuralists restricted view
of the knowledgeable agents inluence on structure and as a result has been
criticized for its claim. In the critical realism frame of thought, Giddens is
suggesting that there is a relationship that agency shares with the structure;
yet, it has a limited causal explanation for studying the dichotomy. The
theory, they would argue, has no understanding of how or when agency
changes are relected in the structure. The main argument that they have
raised concerns the necessities that need to occur for changes to be seen in
both. When and how are changes by agency considered signiicant enough
to change the structure?
Geoff Hodgson, a British economist, raised this question as a chief argument
that Giddens has been criticized about. This reservation of the relative
completeness on Giddens part illustrates one of the main propositions in
Giddens theory. Past sociologists have attempted to explain social life
through empire building endeavors or complete social theories for the
world. Understanding Giddens involves relection and monitoring of
actions. That being said, Structuration theory does not try to complicate
things by involving elements apart from the context which Giddens is
trying to observe them in.
The examples that have been drawn upon here have illustrated the main
contributions that Structuration theory has made to understanding the
relationships that exist in the structures that we ind ourselves, political,
geographical, religious, etcetera. The knowledge gained from this
understanding can be seen as a building block that humans can use to
bring about change through social reform. In contrast to Marx, Giddens
understands that structural change can be and has been achieved peacefully.
References:
Cloke, P., Philo, Ch. & Sadler, D. (1991). Structuration Theory: Anthony
Giddens and the Bringing Together of Structure and Agency,
Cambridge polity press Oxford.
Craib, Ian. (1992). Anthony Giddens structuration , Routledge a division
of Routledge, Chapman and Hall Inc.

121
The Structuration .........Lamsal

Giddens, Anthony. (1984). The Constitution of Society, Cambridge polity

press Oxford.
Held, David, Thompson, John. (1989). Social theory of modern societies
Anthony Giddens and his critics, Cambridge University Press,
19
Mestrovic Stjepan G. (1998). Anthony Giddens the last modernist,
Routledge London, 1998
Giddens, Anthony. (2009). Sociology, Polity press, Main street, USA.
Giddens, Anthony.(1991). The consequences of modernity, Polity
press,Cambridge,UK.
Giddens, Anthony.(1991). The third way: The renewal of social democracy,
Polity press, Cambridge,UK.
Moore, Kelly. (2008). Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American
Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, Princeton University
Press.
Putnam, Robert D. (2001). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of
American Community, 1st ed. Simon & Schuster.
Mills, C. Wright. (2000). The Sociological Imagination, 40th ed. Oxford
University Press,
Weber, Max. (1997) The Theory Of Social And Economic Organization,
Free Press.
Dilthey, W. (1978), Descriptive Psychology and Historical Understanding,
1st ed. Springer.

122