Skip to main content

Institutions, Reproduction, Socialisation

  • Chapter
  • 211 Accesses

Part of the book series: Contemporary Social Theory

Abstract

In the preceding paper, I deferred consideration of problems of institutional analysis, and it is these I shall concentrate upon in the sections which follow. I distinguish ‘institution’ from ‘social system’ or ‘collectivity’. Institutions, to quote Radcliffe-Brown, may be regarded as ‘standardised modes of behaviour’1 which play a basic part in the time-space constitution of social systems. The standardisation of behaviour in time-space, as I have emphasised in the foregoing discussion, involves its chronic reconstitution in contingent contexts of day-to-day social activity. Temporality enters into the reproduction of social systems in a threefold way:

  1. 1.

    In the immediate nexus of interaction, as contingently accomplished or ‘brought off’ by actors, social reproduction in its most elemental sense.

  2. 2.

    In the reproduction of the personnel of social systems, as beings with a finite life-span, Sein zum Tode, anchored of course in biological reproduction.

  3. 3.

    In the reproduction of institutions, sedimented in the longue durée of historical time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, ‘On social structure’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. 70 (1940) p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature (Oxford University Press, 1977) pp.38ff.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cf. the interesting and important discussion in Edmond Wright, ‘Sociology and the irony model’, Sociology, vol. 12 (1978) pp. 528ff.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cf. Edmund Leach, Culture and Communication (Cambridge University Press, 1976) pp. 52ff.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Ralf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford University Press, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales, Family, Socialisation and Interaction Process (New York: Free Press, 1955) p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Paul Ricoeur, ‘Existence and hermeneutics’, in The Conflict of Interpretations (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974) pp. 12–13. See also subsequent emendations of his position in Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cf. Jung: ‘a symbol is a term, a name, or even a picture that may be familiar in daily life, yet that possesses specific connotations in addition to its conventional obvious meaning’. Carl G. Jung et al., Man and His Symbols (London: Pan, 1978) p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cf. Donald A. Schon, Displacement of Concepts (London: Tavistock, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cf. Max Weber, Economy and Society, vol. 2 (New York: Bedminster, 1968) pp. 901–10.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Alan Wells, Social Institutions (London: Heinemann, 1970) p. 133.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nicos Poulantzas, Political Power and Social Classes (London: New Left Books, 1973) p. 44. For a critical discussion of functionalism in recent Marxist literature, see R. W. Connell, ‘Complexities of furies leave … a critique of the Althusserian approach to class’, Macquarie University Paper (June 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  13. See, for example, Manuel Castells, The Urban Question (London: Arnold, 1977) especially pp. 461ff.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cf. Pierre Bourdieu and J. C. Passerron, Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (London: Sage, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Parsons, Sociological Theory and Modern Society (New York: Free Press, 1967) p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  16. For German discussions, mainly revolving around Dahrendorf’s Homo Sociologicus, see for example, Friedrich H. Tenbruck, ‘Zur Deutschen Reception der Rollenanalyse’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie, vol. 1 (1961); in English, Margaret A. Coulson, ‘Role: a redundant concept in sociology?’, in J. A. Jackson, Role (Cambridge University Press, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Erving Goffman, Where the Action Is (London: Allen Lane, 1969) p.41.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cf. Stanford Lyman and B. M. Scott, The Drama of Social Reality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jacques Lacan, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis (London: Hogarth Press, 1977) p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  20. ‘The agency of the letter in the unconscious’, Écrits. Cf. also Anika Lemaire, Jacques Lacan (London: Routledge, 1977);

    Google Scholar 

  21. Anthony Wilden, The Language of the Self (NewYork: Dell, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. Freud, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (London: Hogarth Press, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd (London, 1925) p. 7. Le Bon however held that the unconscious is composed primarily of an ‘archaic heritage’ of a racial character.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bruno Bettelheim, The Informed Heart (Glencoe: Free Press, 1960).

    Google Scholar 

  25. William Sargant, Battle for the Mind (London: Pan, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cf. Jerome S. Bruner, ‘The organisation of early skilled action’, in Martin P. Richards, The Integration of a Child into a Social World (Cambridge University Press, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Daniel Bertaux, Destins personnels et structure de classe (Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1977), in which the author argues for a version of class theory incorporating ‘social trajectories’.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 1979 Anthony Giddens

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Giddens, A. (1979). Institutions, Reproduction, Socialisation. In: Central Problems in Social Theory. Contemporary Social Theory. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16161-4_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics