SUSHANT SCHOOL OF ART AND ARCHITECTURE

NEW RULES OF SOCIOLOGICAL METHOD: A POSITIVE CRITIQUE OF

INTERPRETIVE SOCIOLOGIES

SUMMARY

ANUSHKA ARORA | 15001545| 3A

10/25/2017

This summary aims to formulate an understanding of the text ‘New rules of sociological method
by Anthony Giddens. It primary deals with the various schools of thought and the social
hierarchy.
 1

The book “New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretive Sociologies by
the author Anthony Giddens examines basic social theory. The book is about ‘method’ in the
sense in which social philosophers characteristically employ the term. The theme of this book
revolves around social theory that must incorporate a treatment of action as rationalized
conduct ordered reflexively by human agents alongside grasping the importance of language as
the practical medium.

Anthony Giddens is a British sociologist who is known for his theory of structuration and his
holistic views of modern societies. Giddens emphasized the social constructs of power,
modernity and institutions, defining sociology as:

“The study of social institutions brought into being by the industrial transformation of the past
two or three centuries”

In New Rules, Giddens has attempted to explain the working of sociology and that the ‘big
picture’ of society is easily deducible to the everyday life of the people which in turn leads to the
reproduction of society.

The book written as a ‘dialogue critique’ of the forms of social and philosophical thought is
viewed as conceptual development in social theory. The first section of the work provides a
critical analysis of functionalism, structuralism and post-structuralism. Drawing up viewpoints
and drawbacks from his earlier edition, the author wards away misconceptions and
uncertainties. New Rules aims to make a distinct statement about questions of agency,
structure and social transformation.

The author divides the content into two parts in the initial stages- ‘duality of structure’ and
‘double hermeneutic’. The first talks about the set structure that is loosely followed in sociology.
Testing the level of social life that should be kept apart, Giddens tries to grasp the double
character of structure as fixed or subject to external factors. He explains that one distances
himself from rules and resources not to defy them but to question them or build theories about
them. This distance helps form strategic ways to tackle these rules. In conclusion, he draws up
the consensus that duality may not be able to cope up with a large scale context but it can be
used to explain that social life is hierarchical. There is a multiplicity of degrees with varying
disjunctions between them.

The author continues to expand on why he chose the topic of duality. One corresponds to
“strong on action but weak on structure” whereas the other is strong on structure but weak on
action. He focuses on the deconstruction of individual and society.

Rejecting the approach of a collective reality, Giddens also states that the individual should not
be treated as the central unit of analysis. Giving particular attention to phenomenology(study of
consciousness), ethnomethodology(how individuals use everyday conversation to construct a
common-sense ) and Wittgensteinian thought, he draws up the statement that the conduct of
social life continually needs ‘theorizing’ and even the most enduring of habits requires detailed
reflexive attention.
 2
Moving on to the second part, deconstruction of society means recognizing the basic
significance of diversity context and history. Using the logic of hermeneutic tradition (from
interpretative sociology), Giddens claims that human actors are always to some degree
knowledgeable to what they are doing. Sociologists, unlike natural scientists, have to interpret a
social world which is already interpreted by the actors that inhabit it. In turn, they formulate
theories of the world and filter it back to society, hence changing the way people think. This two
tiered process between social knowledge and human practices is what is later differentiated
from single hermeneutic and defined as double hermeneutic.

Lastly, Giddens lays focus on the reproduction of society. This process is made to happen by
humans unlike nature, which is not a human product.

In my opinion, Giddens aims to concentrate on the various perspectives on human action, its
intelligibility and the role of society. Action and structure presuppose one another. Challenging
the schools of understanding, the author has targeted interpretive sociology. The main critique,
posed by the author, as I understand, is how different perspectives tackle society as a whole
and interpret the order and combination of it. Focus is laid upon internalized values and social
norms. Individuals distance themselves from these norms to form strategic approaches to it.
This distancing later, helps the individual take a calculated step. The chances of distancing are
most when there exists a gap between reflexivity and institutional reflexivity. As rightly put by
Mouzelis, reflexivity is the quality of human action and institutional reflexivity is a historical
phenomenon. This both stimulates and leads to the decline of the traditional way of doing
things.

Introducing the term “structuration” theory, Giddens attempts to re-establish agency in social
reproduction. The concept of structure presuming that of system successfully simplifies that
structure is what gives form to social influences. This lends an insight to the power and struggle
that goes behind the human society and their actions. Justifiably, this structuration theory also
solves the question of how individual practices can lead to a large scale or global social system.
This is done through the global economy where the local decisions in turn affect the macro
economy.

Circling back to the comparison between natural science and social science, contrary to what
Giddens believes, Knorr Cetina puts forward a valid theory. Neither one is more important; there
are both representative of an equal part. In social life, there are certain individuals that have a
quieter nature that are represented or spoken for by other. Similarly, in natural science,
scientists speak for the ‘natural’ world. Therefore, just how the social life is constituted and
reproduced by individuals, natural world is constituted by the scientists that continually add to it.
 3
Lastly, an important point is drawn up: “If nature could be revealed as a secular order, why
should human social life remain enigmatic?” This directly ties up with the double hermeneutic
and the duality theory. There exists a two way relationship between social and nature. On one
side it is time and again established that natural scientific knowledge is the exemplar of
everything. On the other side, social science was to be revelatory. It started out with the
objective of ruling out prejudiced views and introducing new notions. Thus leading to a more
rational self-understanding of your surroundings. What is so readily rejected by scientists is
actually the sole reason why scientists have theories to prove. It is due to social science that
there was a disinclination to accept that the earth is round, which in turn lead to multiple
researches and speculation.

The book focuses more on drawing up comparisons between different theories of different
sociologists in turn blurring it’s main ideas and arguments. In conclusion, we can only achieve a
fragmented or imperfect knowledge of the other. An ordinary member of the society also shifts
between different orders, as do scientists on the level of theoretical reflection. Therefore,
understanding all levels is the crux of human life in society.