The middle-ground theory of Giddens

Alvin Concha | Sociology of Development | MASOR Gender Studies | Ateneo de Davao University
Submitted to Dr Mae Ursos | 4 March 2006

So far, we have been reviewing sociological theories that take a macro perspective. The
theories of Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Parsons are good examples of theories that show
how society and culture determine, at least to some extent, the behavior of the people. On
the other hand, it is convenient to think that the perspective in the opposite end of the
spectrum, the micro perspective, belongs in the province of Anthropology. Thus, the
works of many feminists and, to some extent, those of Foucault, Baudrillard and Jameson
appropriate notions of human agency and are more concerned with human activity at the
individual or small group level.

Yet, it is perhaps not difficult to imagine that, by virtue of an individual’s being situated
in a larger societal context, human activity and structures in the society influence each
other. Humans can behave, at least to some extent, according to the moulds provided by
the structures and culture, yet these same moulds can be reshaped by humans. The
bounds of structural influence on people are determined by what people affirm, maintain
or reproduce in the structure.

Such is the basis of a promising theory as proposed by Anthony Giddens. The theory of
structuration posits that “[h]uman agency (micro level activity) and social structure
(macro level forces) continuously feed into each other. The social structure is reproduced
through repetition of acts by individual people (and therefore can change).”1 It is a
theoretical middle-ground between sociological and anthropological theories. It connects
both disciplines in an attempt to produce more than one level of explanations of certain
phenomena. Many followers of Giddens would, however, capitalize on his contribution to
the discourse on human agency. My take is that, as far as structuration theory is
concerned, human agency is only half of the picture.

Giddens’ theory is important because it acknowledges and rejects cultural determinism,

all at the same time. It illustrates that too much of macro theories misses a lot of nuances,
and too much focus on the individual equally forgets significant forces.

What are probably valuable at this point would be some principles on how much of
micro- and how much of macro-level forces figure in a given situation. However, I don’t
believe Giddens intends a formulaic approach to this problematic. This can even be seen
as an open space for multiple possible theories around a single phenomenon. If anything,
the theory of structuration recognizes that “truth,” as has been actively sought by theorists
for the longest time, is indeed unstable, at the very least.

1
Gauntlett, D. (2002). Media, gender and identity. Routledge. London.