Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:49:17 +0900
From: "Allan Sutherland" <allan-AT-kyushu-ns.ac.jp>
Subject: Structure and agencey




Tobin Nellhaus wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
>
> >            Let me ask the Bhaskar
> >people a question, to which I do not presume to have an answer.  Have any
> of
> >them come up with a social science concept of any richness, say on the
> level
> >of the "habitus", which claims to do some work in linking structure with
> >agency?

Is it not about time that we abandoned, or more accurately superseded the concepts of structure and
agency with accurate explanations of social life, rather than continuously struggle with concepts
that have little individuality,  integrity. As soon as one is tackled the other pops up like a
forbidding ghost that will not go away, why because the attempted explanation is failing.
Unfortunately, resorting to its opposite does not solve the problem- leaving the analyst with a
repeating dualism based on explanatory failure. Attempted balancing tricks, invoking each
simultaneously, such as Gidden's concept of structuration, have proved equally fruitless. Equally,
the above point about habitus, the qualification is 'claims to do some work in linking...'. Why,
because when structural explanations are found wanting, the actions of the social actors are invoked
to fill the gap, and when action explanations are found wanting, structural explanations are invoked
to fill the gap, neither with much success, and both in contradiction of each other. Thus, the only
solution is to abandon these horrible concepts of structure and action and get on with proper
explanatory successes- do you not think?

Cheers.

Allan.

**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu