Introduction Although Anthony Giddens describes his approach as “social” rather than “critical” theory, and although there is little obvious Frankfurt School influence in his writing, he believes “social theory is inevitably critical theory.”1 While he might aim at such a critical position, it is far from obvious that he succeeds. On the contrary, his later writings have become an apology for the status quo.2 Failing to consider his prejudices, perhaps because he thinks critique is inevitable, Giddens has increasingly vindicated (...) predominant relations of domination. He celebrates the rise of post-traditional individuals, who have the freedom of choice to create and…. (shrink)

The concept of structure is central to Giddens’s structuration theory because it apparently accounts for the reproduction of the social system without derogating the lay actor in functionalist or structuralist fashion. In fact, the concept of structure involves the very derogation of the lay actor which Giddens highlights as the principal error of these objectivist social theories and which he wishes to avoid. However, although Giddens fails to recognize it, the concept of “practical consciousness” which Giddens also regards as central (...) to structuration theory avoids this relapse into objectivism and offers a route to a sustainable social theory which highlights the agency of social actors. (shrink)

Recent social theory has identified various institutional forces operating at a global level promoting novel trends towards “individualization”, “reflexive self-identity” and “new individualism” (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2001; Giddens, 1991, 1992; Elliott and Lemert, 2009, 2009a). This article develops an exploratory overview of the theory of new individualism with reference to Japanese sociologies of self specifically and contemporary Japanese society more generally. Detailing the large-scale societal shift in Japan from traditional forms of identity-construction (based on a citizenship model of social order) (...) to post-traditional forms of identity-construction (promoted by globalization and neoliberal policies), the article distinguishes between four discourses of the self in post-war Japanese society: the age of the ideal; the age of the dream; the age of fiction; and, the age of fragmentation. Moreover, the article examines the Japanese employment system and the emergence of new individualist employment, as well as considering the emotional impacts of a rise in suicides in contemporary Japan. The argument is that the new individualist thesis can contribute to a sociological understanding of recent social transformations in Japan. However, situating new individualism in the context of Japan also highlights significant tensions in processes of new individualism, tensions between individual initiatives and institutional pressures. (shrink)

Restless Ideas is a lively new textbook of contemporary social theory that speaks directly to the anxious age in which we live today. In addition to providing a highly readable guided tour of major social theories from the mid-20th to the early 21st century, this book is full of dynamic examples that show how these theories may be used to deepen our understanding of current events and of our own life experiences. The emergence of demagogic political leaders like Donald Trump (...) in the USA, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey; the rise of religious fundamentalism, terrorism, and political populism; the digital echo-chamber of social media; and the underlying causes of Brexit are only some of the many current social issues that can be framed through contemporary social theories. Similarly, the politics of sexual, racial and ethnic minorities can be analyzed through the prism of theoretical perspectives such as queer theory, standpoint and intersectional theory, postcolonial theory and critical race theory, while the ongoing struggles for gender equality and gender justice can usefully be examined through the generational perspectives of feminist theories. This book sets the stage with a critical discussion of the loaded history of the social theory canon and makes the argument that there has never been a better time than the present to broaden our understanding of our shared global heritage of social theory, to include some of the formerly excluded classics of past social thinkers, and to open the doors to current social thinkers theorizing from the margins. The book traces the modern roots of contemporary social theory back to the works of the early structural functionalists, systems theorists, conflict theorists, symbolic interactionists, ethnomethodologists and sociobiologists, building on and at times inverting the canon with the critical advancements to social theory. Later chapters focus on the current influence of structuration theory, third wave critical theory, postmodernism and poststructuralism, critical race theory, postcolonialism, liquid and late modernity theories, and globalization theories. These perspectives include the works of contemporary social theorists such as Anthony Giddens, Pierre Bourdieu, Juliet Mitchell, Dorothy Smith, Judith Butler, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard, Gayatri Spivak, Homi K. Bhabha, Zygmunt Bauman, Slavoj Zizek, Alain Badiou, Jürgen Habermas, Axel Honneth, Nancy Fraser, Manuel Castells and Ulrich Beck. The underlying premise - and the promise - of this book is that social theory has the power to provide us with the skills for more informed observation, analysis, and empathic understanding of social behavior and social interaction. In a word: the value of social theory may be seen in how it can enhance social literacy - by deepening our understanding of the world around us, and by empowering us to become practical theorists in our own lives. (shrink)

The broad purpose of this article is to explore the theoretical conditions for understanding the new individualist configurations of imagination and identity in contemporary culture and critical discourse. The article begins with a sketch of recent debates in social theory on identity, individualization and new individualism, focusing on the work of Giddens, Beck, and Bauman, as well as Lemert and Elliott. The second part of the article turns to consider, in some detail, the path breaking contributions of Cornelius Castoriadis on (...) the demise of the social imaginary in conditions of advanced capitalism or what he termed the spread of ‘generalized conformism’. Whilst making the argument that the notion of ‘generalized conformism’ is of key importance in grasping the subjective and cultural dynamics promoted by the global electronic economy, the article also underscores the limitations of Castoriadis’s psychoanalytic and political position. The third section of the article offers a pathway beyond such constraint by examining the recent social-theoretical contributions of Julia Kristeva on ‘new maladies of the soul’. Like Castoriadis, Kristeva focuses on the atrophy of imagination in contemporary times, but does so from a more complex psychoanalytic prism. The article concludes that the work of both Castoriadis and Kristeva are essential to grasping contemporary shifts in the new individualism. (shrink)

Reviews : Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity ; Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity ; Agnes Heller, Can Modernity Survive?

Dans ce livre écrit il y a plus de dix ans mais qui vient d’être traduit en français, le sociologue britannique Anthony Giddens explore les changements qui ont touché la sexualité, l’amour et les rapports entre les sexes, afin d’identifier les causes de la « révolution sexuelle ». Prenant à revers la critique foucaldienne de l’hypothèse répressive, le sociologue affirme l’évidence actuelle de la révolution sexuelle, comprenant trois éléments fondamentaux : la conquête par les femmes de leur a...

The political and sociological project -- Knowledge and epistemology -- Agency -- Social structure -- Time, space, and historical sociology -- Modernity -- Rationality and reflexivity -- Politics and the third way -- An alternative sociology.

A recent paper in this journal by Hardcastle et al. in 2005 argued that Anthony Giddens’s Structuration Theory (ST) might usefully inform sociological nursing research. In response, a critique of ST based upon the Realist Social Theory of Margaret Archer is presented. Archer maintains that ST is fatally flawed and, in consequence, it has little to offer nursing research. Following an analysis of the concepts epiphenomenalism and elisionism, it is suggested that emergentist Realist Social Theory captures or describes a (...) more coherent explanatory vision of social reality than other perspectives and nurse researchers are advised to consider its potential. (shrink)

Partindo das reflexões de Habermas e sua concepção de modernidade, compreendida como um projeto inacabado, Giddens salienta que, em todas as sociedades, a manutenção da identidade pessoal e sua conexão com identidades sociais mais amplas é um requisito primordial para a segurança ontológica. Para alcançar a segurança ontológica, a modernidade teve que (re)inventar tradições e se afastar de "tradições genuínas", isto é, aqueles valores radicalmente vinculados ao passado pré moderno. Este é um caráter de descontinuidade da modernidade - a separação (...) entre o que se apresenta como o novo e o que persiste como herança do velho. É sobre a relação entre tradição e modernidade e sobre um diálogo entre Giddens e Habermas que trata este texto. O objetivo é identificar os pontos de contato e as diferenças das teses defendidas por ambos, a fim de avaliar as contribuições de cada um para se pensar a racionalização das sociedades contemporâneas. A modernidade tardia ou reflexiva é um processo de mudanças ininterruptas que afetam as bases da sociedade ocidental. Frente a uma realidade em constante alteração, faz-se necessário escolher entre uma certeza do passado e uma nova realidade, em contínua mutação. Nesse sentido, e segundo a perspectiva habermasiana, o caráter reflexivo da modernidade está nesse processo de escolha entre as certezas herdadas do passado e as novas formas sociais que conduz à reflexão ou, até mesmo, à reformulação das práticas sociais, provocando a racionalização e a (re)invenção de diversos aspectos da vida em sociedade. (shrink)

In Giddens view, there is historical materialism "reductionism", "evolution" and "functional theory" three defects. "Reductionism," manifested in historical materialism and the complex social relations of human history is about productivity, economic relations and class struggle, etc., as its reconstruction, Giddens proposed to "extend the level of time and space" as the division of social types of new standards; "evolution" of human performance in the history of historical materialism as a lower stage to higher evolving process, as its reconstruction, Giddens made (...) ​​from "pieces" and "time edge" perspective to explain social reproduction and social change as a process of its reconstruction, Giddens proposed a "random social change" model of the new point of view. Giddens reflection of historical materialism and the "reconstruction" has some inspiration, but there are obvious flaws. According to the viewpoint of Anthony Giddens, Historical Materialism ham three main deficiencies: "Reductionism", "Evolutionism" and "Functionalism". "Reductionism" exhibits on the Historical Materialism's reducing the complicated human history and social relationships into the forces of production, economic relationships, class struggles, etc. As an alternation of it, Giddens advances the notion of "level of time-space distanciation", which serves as the new standard for dividing the societal types. "Evolutionism" exhibits on the Historical Materialism's regarding the human history as a process which continuously evolutes from the lower stages to the upper ones. As a reconstruction of it, Giddens brings forward two concepts of "episode" and "time-space edge", which serves as the new criteria for identifying the general outline of the human history. "Functionalism" exhibits on the Historical Materialism's describing the societal reproduction and social change from the viewpoints of "need" and "function". As a revision of it, Giddens puts forward the new model of "contingent social change" . Giddens' endeavors have certain significance in understanding Historical Materialism, but his limitations are also obvious. (shrink)

Reviews : Gregor McLennan, Marxism and the Methodologies of History,, pp. 272. Anthony Giddens, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism,, pp. 294. Raphael Samuel, ed., People's History and Socialist Theory. History Workshop Series,, pp. vi + 417. G. Osborne and W. F. Mandle, eds., New History Studying Australia Today,, pp. 216.

Partindo das reflexões de Habermas e sua concepção de modernidade, compreendida como um projeto inacabado, Giddens salienta que, em todas as sociedades, a manutenção da identidade pessoal e sua conexão com identidades sociais mais amplas é um requisito primordial para a segurança ontológica. Para alcançar a segurança ontológica, a modernidade teve que (re)inventar tradições e se afastar de "tradições genuínas", isto é, aqueles valores radicalmente vinculados ao passado pré-moderno. Este é um caráter de descontinuidade da modernidade - a separação entre (...) o que se apresenta como o novo e o que persiste como herança do velho. É sobre a relação entre tradição e modernidade e sobre um diálogo entre Giddens e Habermas que trata este texto. O objetivo é identificar os pontos de contato e as diferenças das teses defendidas por ambos, a fim de avaliar as contribuições de cada um para se pensar a racionalização das sociedades contemporâneas. A modernidade tardia ou reflexiva é um processo de mudanças ininterruptas que afetam as bases da sociedade ocidental. Frente a uma realidade em constante alteração, faz-se necessário escolher entre uma certeza do passado e uma nova realidade, em contínua mutação. Nesse sentido, e segundo a perspectiva habermasiana, o caráter reflexivo da modernidade está nesse processo de escolha entre as certezas herdadas do passado e as novas formas sociais que conduz à reflexão ou, até mesmo, à reformulação das práticas sociais, provocando a racionalização e a (re)invenção de diversos aspectos da vida em sociedade. Based on the reflections of Habermas and his conception of modernity, understood as an unfinished project, Giddens stresses that in all societies the maintenance of personal identity and its connection to broader social identities is a primordial requirement for ontological security. To achieve ontological security, modernity had to (re) invent traditions and get away from "genuine traditions", that is, those values ​​radically linked to the pre-modern past. This is a character of the discontinuity of modernity, the separation between what is presented as the new and that which persists as the legacy of the old. This article discusses the relationship between tradition and modernity and the dialogue between Giddens and Habermas. The goal is to identify the points of contact and the differences in the theses defended by both authors, in order to assess their contributions to discussions of the rationalization of contemporary societies. Late or reflexive modernity is an uninterrupted process of changes that affect the foundations of Western society. Faced with a reality of constant change, it is necessary to choose between the certainty of the past and a new reality of continuous change. In this sense, and according to the Habermasian perspective, the reflexive character of modernity is found in this process of choosing between the certainties inherited from the past and new social forms, a process that that leads to the reflection on - or even the recasting of - social practices, causing the rationalization and (re) invention of various aspects of life in society. (shrink)

Résumé Le but de cet article est de mettre en dialogue Ricœur avec la théorie sociale d’Anthony Giddens, plus spécifiquement l’herméneutique de l’homme capable avec la théorie de la structuration. Nous commencerons par explorer quelques termes clefs permettant de comparer les deux auteurs au sujet du rapport entre acteurs et systèmes. Chez Ricœur, nous commenterons les notions d’institution et de pratique; chez Giddens, des notions importantes pour présenter la “dualité de structure.” Au cours de cette exploration, quatre tâches seront (...) identifiées en vue de préciser la “théorie sociale” de Soi-même comme un autre : dépasser le schéma foncièrement téléologique de l’action; explorer la stabilisation de l’action malgré l’incertitude inscrite dans le schéma téléologique; réinvestir la notion de contrainte; et clarifier l’ambiguïté de la notion d’institution. En conclusion, nous montrerons quels apports la mise en dialogue de Ricœur avec Giddens pourrait offrir pour accomplir ces quatre tâches. Mots-clés : Homme capable, sructuration, acteur, dualité de structure, institution, contrainte.The aim of this article is to reconstruct a dialogue between Ricœur and Anthony Giddens, in particular between the hermeneutics of the capable human and the theory of structuration. The article starts with an exploration of key concepts on the basis of which to compare the two authors on the relation between actors and systems. On Ricœur’s side the concepts of institution and practice will be commented on; on Giddens’ side notions selected to present the “duality of structure” will be considered. In the course of this exploration, four tasks will be identified by which to refine the “social theory” of Oneself as Another : surpass its ultimately teleological schema of action; explore the stabilisation of action despite the uncertainty attributed to the teleological schema; reinvest the notion of constraint; and clarify the ambiguity in the notion of institution. In conclusion the contribution of a Ricœur-Giddens dialogue to the accomplishment of these four tasks will be demonstrated. Keywords: Capable Man, Structuration, Actor, Duality of structure, Institution, Constraint. (shrink)