Abstract
In this article, I attempt to address some enduring problems in formulation and practical use of the notion of structure in contemporary social science. I begin by revisiting the question of the fidelity of Anthony Giddens’ appropriation of the idea of structure with respect to Levi-Strauss. This requires a reconsideration of Levi-Strauss’ original conceptualization of “social structure” which I argue is a sort of “methodological structuralism” that stands sharply opposed to Giddens’ ontological reconceptualization of the notion. I go on to show that Bourdieu’s contemporaneous critique of Levi-Strauss is best understood as an attempt to recover rather than reject the central implication of Levi-Strauss’ methodological structuralism, which puts Bourdieu and Giddens on clearly distinct camps in terms of their approach toward the idea of structure. To demonstrate the—insurmountable—conceptual difficulties inherent in the ontological approach, I proceed by critically examining what I consider to be the most influential attempt to resolve the ambiguities in Giddens structuration theory: Sewell’s argument for the “duality of structure.” I show that by retaining Giddens’ ontological focus, Sewell ends up with a notion of structure that is at its very core “anti-structuralist” or only structuralist in a weak sense. I close by considering the implications of the analysis for the possibility of developing the rather neglected “methodological structuralist” legacy in contemporary social analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This history appears to be in accord with Thompson’s (1989, p. 62) assertion that “[f]ew concepts in the social sciences are more basic and essential, and yet more ambiguous and contested, than that of structure.”
Bourdieu’s own attempt to go beyond Sartrean subjectivism and Levi-Straussian objectivism in Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977; French original: 1972) and in the later Logic of Practice (1990a; French original: 1980) during the same period (1972–1980), while having acquired equally influential status of late was not as immediately influential in Anglophone sociology as Giddens.
Giddens devoted an entire section of The Constitution of Society (1984, pp. 205–213) to a criticism is this “objectivist” idea of structure as it manifested itself in the work of some prominent American network structuralists of the time such as Bruce Mayhew and Peter Blau.
In contrast to network structuralism, structuralists in sociology who depart from Giddens’ structuration theory tend to emphasize the inherently cultural nature of structure as embodied in “virtual” cognitive schemas (Sewell 2005b, p. 151).
This division between the concrete and the abstract versions of structure itself reappears in mid-twentieth century linguistics, separating the “Anglosaxon” (like Radcliffe-Brown, empiricist) conceptualization of linguistic structure as a corpus of observable and “recordable utterances” proposed by Zelig Harris and the “American” structuralist school from language as an unobservable “system” proposed by members of the Prague school who themselves drew on the formative influence of Saussure. The problem with the empiricist definition of structure is, as Benveniste notes, that “this language realized in recordable utterances could be considered the manifestation of a hidden substructure” (Benveniste 1971, p. 14).
The term “methodological structuralism” was first used—to my knowledge—by Boudon in 1971 in reference to Levi-Strauss, in order to distinguish his approach from what he referred to as “philosophical structuralism,” which is closer to what I refer to as ontological structuralism below (Boudon quoted in Kurzweil [1980: 2]).
Sewell (2005b, p. 129) errs in thinking that Giddens’s notion of structure as rules fundamentally changes from a “Levi-Straussian” notion of structure as cultural rules analogous to the Saussurean langue in Central Problems in Social Theory to a more Wittgenstenian notion in the Constitution of Society. The Wittgenstenian critique of classic structuralism is already present in the earlier work in its entirety (see for instance Giddens 1979, pp. 37–38). In fact it would be easy—but outside of the scope of this article to demonstrate rigorously—to show that there is little that is fundamentally new at a conceptual level—outside of extending the structuration critique to other sociological thinkers (Goffman, Blau, et al.) and developing the linkages to Ericksonian psychoanalytic theory (e.g., the notion of “ontological security”)—in the 1984 exposition of the theory of structuration in comparison to that offered in the earlier book. In fact the 1979 work is in many ways a paragon of clarity of argumentation and analytical sharpness in comparison to the conceptual mélange offered in the Constitution of Society, and as such represents a much more useful source of theoretical exegesis regarding the conceptual origins of the theory of structuration than the latter tome.
For instance, the idea that structures do not have a “real” existence but only a “virtual” existence until they are “instantiated” by actors (a position that Giddens never abandons) is a clear-cut extension of the paradigmatic linguistic situation to the case of social action in general; it is straightforward to show that this analogy is not warranted, and furthermore leads to fundamental (and predictable) distortions of the nature of social action (see Bourdieu 1973: 58–59). However, what has not been adequately realized is that the illicit move is not due to some inherent flaw in the idea of structure—as argued by King (2000)—but to Giddens ’s illicit construal of properties of models (virtuality, lack of extension in time and space, etc.) as properties of real-world objects and processes that the new notion of structure comes to “denote.”
Bourdieu isolates Levi-Strauss as one of the most influential examples of the aforementioned fallacy; but as we have seen Giddens is responsible for a similar mistake in his ontologization of structure as rules (and resources) productive of the chronic instantiation of practices.
The original article was published in 1992 in the American Journal of Sociology.
For instance, among the “structures” considered by Sewell (2005b, pp. 140–151) are: modes of production based on private property in capitalist societies, institutionalized forms of labor organization, the “theological modes” that constrain religion in Christian societies, language, the nation state, military structures, financial structures, and a whole host of other heterogeneous entities and competences.
This important set of problems in Sewell’s account has already been noted by Ann Swidler (2001, p. 79), who remarks that thinking of “... everything from capitalism to handshakes as structured practice can be liberating, but it can also lead to trouble.” The reason for this has to with the tension that is introduced between the usual idea of a structure as implying a simple ordered organization and the newer idea of structure as containing contradictory elements characterized by contingency, unpredictability, and heterogeneity. Swidler notes that “... we can say a great deal about what any one part of such system implies about the other parts ...” when holding on the former view of structure. “But if there is multiplicity, multivocality... and contradiction between structures ... then the reinterpretation of structures may lead to its own dead ends.”
I acknowledge an anonymous reader for bringing this commonality to my attention.
For instance, in the prologue to The State Nobility, entitled “Social Structures and Mental Structures”—to take the clearest out of many possible examples—Bourdieu (1996a, p. 1) notes that it is “the goal of sociology to uncover the most deeply buried structures of the different social worlds that make up the social universe, as well as the ‘mechanisms’ that ensure their reproduction and transformation.”
I am skeptical of this argument for the necessary coupling between so-called quantitative methods and a “mechanistic” ontology. As Fararo (1989) has noted, the underlying mathematical model objects that form of the core of traditional quantitative methods can also be thought of as implying a non-substantialist “process-ontology” strictly antithetical to a mechanistic one.
A chapter that appropriately opens with an epigraphic quote from Lewin.
Richard Nice translates the French phrase espace hodologique as “traveling space” (but is judicious enough to leave the French original in brackets in the English translation). This translation is somewhat unfortunate, since it is clear that in this context Bourdieu is referring to Kurt Lewin’s term “hodological space,” which the latter used as synonymous to the individual “life-space” and “psychological space.” Rendering this term “traveling space” breaks the “family resemblance” that Bourdieu’s methodological structuralism bears to Lewin’s field theory (the only other major theorist in the social sciences who seriously dealt with the question of the relationship between formal models constructed by the analyst and real psycho-social processes that those models are designed to shed light on).
References
Abbott, A. (1988). Transcending general linear reality. Sociological Theory, 6, 169–186.
Abbott, A. (2001). Time matters: On theory and method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Alexander, J. (2003). The meanings of social life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Archer, M. S. (1982). Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action. British Journal of Sociology, 33, 455–483.
Archer, M. S. (1995). Culture and agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barbosa de Almeida, M. W. (1990). Symmetry and entropy: mathematical metaphors in the work of Levi-Strauss. Current Anthropology, 31, 367–385.
Bearman, P. (1997). Generalized exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 1383–1415.
Beisel, N. (1993). Morals versus art: censorship, the politics of interpretation, and the victorian nude. American Sociological Review, 58, 145–162.
Beisel, N., & Kay, T. (2004). Abortion, race, and gender in nineteenth-century America. American Sociological Review, 69, 498–518.
Benveniste, E. (1971). Problems in general linguistics. Miami: University of Miami Press.
Blair-Loy, M. (1999). Career patterns of executive women in finance: an optimal matching analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1346–1397.
Blau, P. M. (1974). Presidential address: parameters of social structure. American Sociological Review, 39, 615–635.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). The three forms of theoretical knowledge. Social Science Information, 12, 53--80.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Translated by R. Nice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). The field of cultural production, or: the economic world reversed. Poetics, 12, 311–356.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14, 723--744.
Bourdieu, P. (1987). Legitimation and structured interests in Weber’s sociology of religion. In S. Lash & S. Whimster (Eds.), Max Weber, rationality, and modernity (pp. 119–136). London: Unwin Hyman.
Bourdieu, P. (1990a). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity.
Bourdieu, P. (1990b). In other words. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1996a). The state nobility. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1996b). The rules of art. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Breiger, R. L. (2000). A tool kit for practice theory. Poetics, 27, 91–115.
Bryant, C. G. A. (1992). Sociology without philosophy? The case of Giddens’s structuration theory. Sociological Theory, 10, 137–149.
Cassedy, S. (1988). Mathematics, relationalism, and the rise of modern literary aesthetics. Journal of the History of Ideas, 49, 109–132.
Clarke, S. (1978). The origins of Levi-Strauss’s structuralism. Sociology, 12, 405–439.
Coleman, J. S. (1986). Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 1309–1335.
Collins, R. (1981). Levi-Strauss’ structural history. In Sociology since midcentury: Essays in theory cumulation (pp. 109–132). New York: Academic Press.
Desai, M. (2002). The relative autonomy of party practices: a counterfactual analysis of left party ascendancy in Kerala, India, 1934–1940. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 616–657.
Dosse, F. (1997). History of structuralism: Volume I, the rising sign, 1945–1966. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Douglas, M. (1968). The social control of cognition: some factors in joke perception. Man, 3(3), 361--376.
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 281–317.
Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1411–1454.
Fararo, T. J. (1989). The spirit of unification in sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 7, 175–190.
Fararo, T. J., & Butts, C. T. (1999). Advances in generative structuralism: structured agency and multilevel dynamics. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 24, 1–65.
Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics essays in positive economics (pp. 3--43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Frisby, D. (2002). Georg Simmel. New York: Routledge.
Gartman, D. (2007). The strength of weak programs in cultural sociology: a critique of Alexander’s critique of Bourdieu. Theory and Society, 36(5), 381--413.
Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of the sociological method. New York: Basic Books.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
Giddens, A. (1981). Agency, institution, and time-space analysis. In K. Knorr-Cetina & A. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro-and macro-analyses (pp. 161–174). Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gerteis, J. (2002). The possession of civic virtue: movement narratives of race and class in the knights of labor. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 580–615.
Glucksmann, M. (1974). Structuralist analysis in contemporary social thought: A comparison of the theories of Claude Lévi-Strauss and Louis Althusser. Routledge/Thoemms Press.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heimer, K. (1997). Socioeconomic status, subcultural definitions, and violent delinquency. Social Forces, 75, 799–833.
Hughes, R. I. G. (1997). Models and representation. Philosophy of Science, 64, 325–336.
King, A. (2000). Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: a ‘practical’ critique of the habitus. Sociological Theory, 18, 417–433.
Kiser, E. & Hechter, M. (1991). The role of general theory in comparative-historical sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 97(1), 1--30.
Kroeber, A. L. (1943). Structure, function and pattern in biology and anthropology. The Scientific Monthly, 56, 105–113.
Kurzweil, E. (1980). The age of structuralism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963a). Social structure. In Structural anthropology (pp. 277–323). New York: Basic Books.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963b). Structural analysis in linguistics and anthropology. In Structural anthropology (pp. 31–54). New York: Basic Books.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963c). Language and the analysis of social laws. In Structural anthropology (pp. 55–66). New York: Basic Books.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963d). The structural study of myth. In Structural anthropology (pp. 206–231). New York: Basic Books.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963e). Do dual organizations exist? In Structural anthropology (pp. 132–163). New York: Basic Books.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963f). Postscript to chapter XV. In Structural anthropology (pp. 324–345). New York: Basic Books.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963g). Structural anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1969). The elementary structures of kinship. Boston: Beacon Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1976a). The scope of anthropology. In Structural anthropology: Volume II. New York: Basic Books.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1976b). The meaning and use of the notion of model. In Structural anthropology: Volume II (pp. 71–81). New York: Basic Books.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1976c). Structural anthropology: Volume II. New York: Basic Books.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1985). The lessons of linguistics. In The view from afar (pp. 138–147). New York: Basic Books.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1987). Introduction to the work of Marcel Mauss. Taylor & Francis.
Lewin, K. (1997). Defining the field at a given time. In G. W. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts & field theory in social science (pp. 200–211). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Logan, J. A. (1996). Opportunity and choice in socially structured labor markets. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 114–160.
Maki, U. (2002). Fact and fiction in economics: models, realism and social construction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marsden, P. & Laumann, E. (1984). Mathematical ideas in social structural analysis. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 10(3), 271--294.
Martin, J. L. (2003). What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology, 109, 1–49.
Maryanski, A., & Turner, J. H. (1991). The offspring of functionalism: French and British structuralism. Sociological Theory, 9, 106–115.
McLennan, G. (1984). Critical or positive theory? A comment on the status of Anthony Giddens’ social theory. Theory, Culture and Society, 2, 123–129.
Mauss, M. (1973). Techniques of the body. Economy and Society, 2, 70–89.
Mische, A. (2003). Cross-talk in movements: Reconceiving the culture-network link. In M. Diani & D. McAdam (Eds.), Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action (pp. 258–280). London: Oxford University Press.
Mische, A., & Pattison, P. (2000). Composing a civic arena: publics, projects, and social settings. Poetics, 27, 163–194.
Mohr, J. W., & Duquenne, V. (1997). The duality of culture and practice: poverty relief in New York City, 1888–1917. Theory and Society, 26, 305–356.
Morrison, M. (1999). Models as autonomous agents. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 28–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morrison, M., & Morgan, M. S. (1999). Models as mediating instruments. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 10–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Neuhouser, K. (1998). “If I had abandoned my children”: community mobilization and commitment to the identity of mother in Northeast Brazil. Social Forces, 77, 331–358.
Parsons, T. (1973). Culture and social structure revisited. In L. Schneider & C. Bonjean (Eds.), The idea of culture in the social sciences (pp. 33–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pedriana, N., & Stryker, R. (1994). Political culture wars 1960s style: equal employment opportunity-affirmative action law and the Philadelphia plan. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 633–691.
Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.
Ridgeway, C., Boyle, E., Kuipers, K., & Robinson, D. (1998). How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience. American Sociological Review, 331--350.
Saussure, F. (1966). Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schatzki, T. (1996). Social practices: A wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sewell, W. H. (2005a). Refiguring the ‘social’ in social science: An interpretivist manifesto. In Logics of history (pp. 318–372). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sewell, W. H. (2005b). A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation. In Logics of History (pp. 124–151). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sewell, W. H. (2005c). Three temporalities: Toward an eventful sociology. In Logics of history (pp. 81–123). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sherkat, D. E. (1998). Counterculture or continuity? Competing influences on baby boomers’ religious orientations and participation. Social Forces, 76, 1087–1114.
Sherkat, D. E., & Ellison, C. G. (1997). The cognitive structure of a moral crusade: conservative protestantism and opposition to pornography. Social Forces, 75, 957–980.
Small, A. W. (1902). The scope of sociology. VIII. The primary concepts of sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 8, 197–250.
Smilde, D. (2005). A qualitative comparative analysis of conversion to Venezuelan evangelicalism: how networks matter. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 757–796.
Spillman, L. (1995). Culture, social structure, and discursive fields. Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 15, 129–154.
Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. Palgrave McMillan.
Stryker, R. (1994). Rules, resources, and legitimacy processes: some implications for social conflict, order, and change. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 847–910.
Swidler, A. (2001). What anchors cultural practices. In T. R. Schatzki, K. K. Cetina, & E. Von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 74–92). New York: Routledge.
Thompson, J. B. (1989). The theory of structuration. In D. Held & J. B. Thompson (Eds.), Social theory of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics (pp. 56–77). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wacquant, L. (2004). Body and soul: Notes of an apprentice boxer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
White, H. P. (1992). Identity and control. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
White, H. P., Boorman, S. A., & Breiger, R. L. (1976). Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 730–780.
Wolf, K. H. (1959). (Ed.), Georg Simmel, 1858–1918: A collection of essays, with translations and a bibliography. Columbus: Ohio St. Univ. Press.
Young, M. P. (2002). Confessional protest: the religious birth of U.S. national social movements. American Sociological Review, 67, 660–688.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Ron Breiger, John Levi Martin, Michael Strand, and in particular the Theory and Society Ediros and reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions. This article benefited in more ways than I can count or remember from their feedback. All remaining errors and omissions are my responsibility.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lizardo, O. Beyond the antinomies of structure: Levi-Strauss, Giddens, Bourdieu, and Sewell. Theor Soc 39, 651–688 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-010-9125-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-010-9125-1