Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Review: Anthony Giddens and His Critics Author(s): Mats Franzen Reviewed work(s): The Consequences of Modernity by Anthony

Giddens Source: Acta Sociologica, Vol. 35, No. 2 (1992), pp. 151-155 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4194765 . Accessed: 07/01/2011 23:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Acta Sociologica.

http://www.jstor.org

Acta Sociologica(1992)35:151-155

REVIEW ESSAY

Anthony Giddens and His Critics


Mats Franzen Uppsala Uniiversity

Anthony Giddens, The Consequencesof Modernity.Cambridge:Polity Press 1990, xiii + 186pp.; Christopher G. A. Bryant & David Jary (eds), Giddens' Theory of Structuration. A Critical Appreciation. London/New York: Routledge 1991. xi + 252 pp.; Anthony Giddens. Consensuts and Controversy.Jon Clark. Celia Modgil & SohanModgil(eds). London/New York/ Philadelphia: Falmer Press 1990. x + 352 pp. Anthony Giddens' oevre has now reached suchrecognitionand reputationthatat least in the Anglo-Saxon world it is generating discussionand criticalcomment by a series of prominentscholarsand in a quantitythat could fill severalbooks. At the heartof this recognition lies Giddens' theory of structurationas developed in a series of books from the late 1970s to the middle of the 1980s. The Consequences Modernity(henceof forth CM) puts Giddens' thought on new intellectualterrain.This is indicatedby the factthatin neitherGiddensTheoryof Structuration(GTS) nor in the Consensusand Controversy book (CC) does modernity enter the discussion as an explicit subject by any of the authors- with one exception, Giddenshimself,who goes into it in his two comments to his critics. This is almost a paradox, since the duality of structure, a cornerstoneof the theory of structuration, is obviouslya phenomenoncentralto modernity, although Giddens does not conceptualize it that way. Giddens' present discussion of modernity, however, is coupled to some aspects of the duality of structureproblem. ?) ScandinavianSociologicalAssociation, 1992

It takes its departurein 'an institutional analysisof the double-edged characterof modernity'.Giddens posits modemity, in the mainstreamof the discussion, as an ambivalentphenomenon;he specifies it as involvingtrustversusrisk. opportunityversus danger. Ambivalence is rooted in the dynamic nature of modernity- and preciselyherewe finda referenceto the theory of structuration or 'the separationof time
and space and their recombination . . disembedding of social systems ...; social relations ...
.;

the and

the reflexive ordering and reordering of Here Giddens talks about four basic institutional dimensions of modernity - surveillance, industrialism, capitalism and militarypower. So, CM begins where Thie and Violence(1985) ended. Nation-State Giddensdiagnoses the present situation as modernity. not postmodernity. Postmodernityfor him is a possibility beyond the institutions of modernity. Postmodernism, for Giddens, in other words, is more of an aesthetic category reflecting modernity. In his critique of postmodernism, Giddens' diagnosis of the present becomes clear. Epistemologically, the break with foundationalism,Giddens claims, does not, contraryto postmodernism, preclude systematic knowledge. On the contrary,this break is all about modernity coming to know itself by its reflexivity. Giddens'position here, which comes quite close to Albrecht Welimer's (Wellmer 1985), is that modernity is now becomingradicalized,not transcended.Consequently, Giddens talks explicitly about 'the radicalizing modernity'in the presof ent conjuncture. 151
[emphasis deletedJ.'

Neither does '[tihe declininggrip of the West over the rest of the world' mean a condition of postmodernityfor Giddens, butrathera processof globalization modof ernity. Giddens'critiqueof postmodernism also questionsthe ideaof the end of history. Of course, since the world-historical events of 1989 this is an easy point to make. Giddens'view of historicity an open proas cess without any "overallteleology' is a corollaryto the radicalization modernity of thesis. His treatment of historicityin CM (pp. 50 f. in particular).however, is still somewhat ambiguous. First its relation to hisconceptualization socialtime (cf. Gidof dens 1984:34ff.. 203) remainsunclear.His sociologicaldiscussionof time never really comes to terms with the historicalnature of (modern) society. This is curious, since historicity, as Giddens understandsit. is directlyconnectedwith the dualityof structure problem. Perhaps it would be easier understanding time at the outset as an historical category. and not as a sociological in one. as Giddensdoes. Seco)nd. his discussion of historicity under modernity, he would have learned a lot from Koselleck's (1979) subtle analysis of the relation between past, present and future, action and structure,in modernity.Now Giddens bringsus descriptionslike 'the chartingof possible/likely/availablefutures- becomes more importantthanchartingout the past'; making use of Koselleck's conceptual
couple, Erfahrungsraum and Erwartungs-

social relations so as to pin them down (however partiallyor transitorily)to local conditionsof time and place.' In the condition of modernity, this implies, to Giddens, both faceworkand faceless commitments.

Faceless commitmentshave to do with trustworthiness abstractsystems - here in Giddens explicitly talks about expert systems and symbolictokens - as something peculiarto modernity.These abstractsystems would not work without trust. Reembedding here normally takes place at access points where lay people meet experts. Trustconstitutedthis way may be ambivalent,since normallyit is routinely grounded.Beyondtrustangstlurks,so trust presupposes ontologicalsecurity,which, in turn,goes backto earlysocialization. where the child learnstrustin and by the absence of the mother. This argument on the relationbetweentrustand abstractsystems is a very important one. Moreover,there is a profoundparallelhere with Habermas's discussion of the relations between lifeworld and system. However, Giddens does not enter any discussionwith Habermas.Such a discussion would have been interestingprecisely here. Moreover. Giddens misunderstands
Habermas's argument - a common mis-

horizont, would have strengthened this argument, an argument which, despite these remarks, is reasonable in its main features, as far as I can see. So far I have gone into Giddens'analysis of the conditions of modernity(chs. I-II), but, as one might expect, the most interesting parts of CM have to do with the consequences of modernity. The concept of trust here plays an important role in Giddens' argument,just as in the present world. This analysisis all the more important since mainstreamsociology - with its romantic nostalgia (cf. Robertson 1990: 52 ff.) - does not see the counter-trends in modernity. But Giddens does, and this is one of the merits of CM. One such trend Giddens calls re-embedding: 'the reappropriation of recasting of disembedded

understanding- by reading the relation betweensystemand life-worldin a romantic-nostalgic way, as if Habermas's thesis is thatthe systemcolonizedthe life-world(cf. CM, pp. 115ff, 144). But this is not Habermas's view (cf. Habermas 1981:451 ff. 470-488). He makesa verycleardistinction between mediatization colonizationof and the life-world,where the former process, the normaloutcome of the rationalization process,is where Giddenscould have gone into this discussion.What Habermastalks of as 'Entlastung Lebenswelt' client der and relationson the edge between system and life-worldbear strikingsimilaritiesto Giddens' discussionof trust and access points
in CM.

Faceworkcommitments,then, have do to with '[tlruston a personal level', with Here Giddensmakessome very friendship. fine points, contrary nostalgicsociology. to Communitymay be gone, friendshipnot. The globalizingof modernity.accordingto
152

Giddens, is coupled with 'the transformation of intimacy',to the self as a reflexive project. "Trust. . . becomes a project, to be "worked out" ... and demands the opening out of the individualto the other' since 'trust has to be won'. So friendship becomes a most important re-embedding mechanism. This argument by Giddens, I believe is basic to understanding, and rightly to evaluating modernity. Friendship, understoodthis way, however, is not a neglected sociological topic, as Giddens argues. There is, for example, a very fine analysisof friendshipas a modern relation of intimacyby the Italiansociologist Francesco Alberoni (1984). In the phenomenology of radicalized modernity, contradictoryexperiences and feelingsof ambivalencebecome the normal condition. Giddens here deploys the juggernaut metaphor. Whether this is better than others that have been used is an open question. Be that as it may, Giddensmakes some importantobservationson this contradictory experience. Media and communicationsdisplace us, but they also reembed us; the impersonalityof many features of modern society is precisely what makes modern intimacy possible; and expertisemaybe reappropriated lay perby sons, who, consequently, are not totally helpless. And as trustand risk, opportunity and danger permeate everyday life, privatismmay be seen as one strategyto survive - if coupled to engagement. We cannot control the world, but Giddens believes in some possibilitieshere. In this connection, we find the invention of a new concept, so typical of Giddens' intellectual style, trying to evade dualisms. To gain some control over the juggernaut,we need, whathe calls, modelsof utopianrealism, of the good society. To be good, if I understand him correctly, these models have to balance politicizationof the local with politicizationof the global, life politics with emancipatorypolitics. If we can move towards such a new order, beyond modernity, we will enter Giddens' postmodernity,which - contraryto a common conception of postmodernity, which lets everythingfloat - would imply a more reembedded world 'which blocks off modernity'sendlessly open character'.But this

is more utopian than realistic, Giddens ends. CM. being quite a small book, lays some new pieces to Giddens' work. Here he makes a contributionto the modern-postmodem debate in his own terms. This contributionhas one of its points of departure in the theoryof structuration, whichin turn, is the core of Giddens' contribution to sociologicalthinking.The two volumes on Giddens- GTSand CC- confirmthis latter point. To review these two volumes is no easytask;togethertheycomprise28 articles (7 and 21 articles respectively) excluding Giddens'own two commentaries. One thing, however,is easy to recognize. Of the two volumes, the GTS is the one to recommend firstand last. There are several reasonsfor this. The most convenient way to bringthis out is by pointingat the weaknesses of the CC volume. There is a problem of form there, or, more precisely, the problems of a form inappropriateto an understanding,and critique, of Giddens' work. The CC volume on Giddens is part of a series on principalpsychologistsand sociologists(sociologicalvolumes on Robert Merton and John Goldthorpe have alreadybeen published).The idea is to let an antagonistand a protagonistdiscuss a specifictopicof the intellectualin question, hence the name of the series: Consensus and Controversy.Thus, such a book is arrangedin a very specific way. On each topic, thereis normallyone criticaland one more sympatheticcontribution, followed by a double reply. This form, however, is not conducive to a rewardingdiscussionof Giddens. First, dividinghis work into several topics is not easy. Forexample, to separatea discussion of structuration theory- a topic chosen for IraJ. Cohen(pro) andArthurStinchcombe (con) - from a discussion of agency and structures where WilliamOuthwaiteand Archer meet - must be very graMargaret tuituous. Examplesof this kind are abundant. The form chosen for the book thus fragmentsGiddens'work, or leads into too manyreiterationsof differenttopics in different articles, making the book burdensome reading.

153

Second. Giddens' intellectualstyle does not make him a controversialsociologist. As Bryantand Jaryso impressivelynote in their introductionto GTS. there is a 'curious ambivalence' in Giddens' theory of structuration.'On the one hand, he presents it as an approach to social science
that avoids the dualisms . . . which have so

bedevilled other social theories. On the other hand, he makes no exclusive claims
for it. . . . This combination of conviction
and reticenceis unusualand disorienting' a judgement I cannot but agree with. The effect of this is easy to recognizein most of the discussions pro and con Giddens: the standpointstaken too often come too close to each other to make the reading really interesting.Or. as Giddens puts it himself in a comment to his critics:'Sometimesmy defenders seem to take harsherline than those nominally more hostile to my ideas,

and on more than one occasion . . . I found

myself more in agreementwith the "critic" than with the "ally".' This does not mean that there are no good contributionsin CC. but reading its 21 articlesfrom beginningto end may be a very irritatingendeavour. Perhapsthe best recommendationwould be to use it as a kind of handbook. Of the best. I found Outhwaite's pro-article on agency and structure, Hans Joas's. also pro, on Giddens' critique of functionalism, confrontingGiddens'theorieswithactualpostParsoniancontributionsof Luhmannand others, Allan Pred on time and space in Giddens, and, last but not least, the two contributionsto the topic 'Theoriesof history and social change' by Derek Gregory (pro) and Derek Sayer (con). Beyond the irritation that the form of CC brings to reading it, I must however acknowledge that most of its contributions are worth reading.But read them as you need them! The opposite may be said about GTS, a book that is well worth reading from beginning to end. The editors, Bryant & Jary, have succeeded in giving the book a formthat contributesto a criticalappraisal of Giddens'sociology. The formulafor this achievement is a very different one from that employed in CC. To begin with, there is an introductionby the editors, both to Giddens' thought and to the book. Con-

cerning the former task, Bryant & Jary, besidesa very comprehensive presentation of the fundamentals Giddens'theory of of structuration,and a critical evaluation of it, make a good presentationof Giddens' intellectualstyle, and the early formation of whatcan now, in its own terms,be identified as a vast intellectualproject. Then three chaptersfollow on Giddens' affinitieswith, and divergencies from, developments of social science in the USA, West Germany and France. Together, these threechapters,by Alan Sica, Richard Kilminster and Roy Boyne. reveal the elements of Giddens' theory of structuration and their specific combination. Severalimportantaspectsof Giddens'project are highlightedthis way. Mentioning just a few of them may be sufficient to demonstrate this. Sica, for example, points to structuration theory as built largely of US elements, from both the West Coast and (Garfinkel ethnomethodology) the and East Coast (Parsonsand Merton), but in Giddens'own combination.The other side of this coin is Giddens' unwillingnessto go into thorough critical debate with the Continentaltheories,as Sica shows. This is also demonstrated specificially by Kilminsterand Boyne on Giddens' relations to, for example, Habermasand Foucault. A very interestingthingto be noted is Giddens' conceptualization the subject. Kilof minstertakes this as a liberal element in Giddens' thought:his actors are strangely rationalistic: althoughactingin specificcircumstances,they are never really shaped by them. And Boyne makesthe same point with the help of Foucault;in fact, Giddens takes what he wantsfrom Foucault,a theory of organizationand surveillance, not his critical discussion of the subject. On the other hand, this indicatesan internal consistency in Giddens' theory of structuration,i.e. it is not an eclectic project. After placing Giddens' thought in its intellectualcontext this way, there follow two critical,but very balanced,discussions of important aspectsof structuration theory as such, one by Jary. historyandchange, on the other by John Urryon time and space. On Jary'sstress on the ambivalentimportance of structuration theory for historical sociology I cannot but agree - ambivalent

154

since many of Giddens'crucialpoints have alreadybeen made preciselyin the context of historical sociology. Urry's critique of space and time in structuration theory is a very apt one, positing it as too structuralized;contraryto Urry, however, and in accordancewith my discussionabove, I would like to lay critical stress more on Gidden's treatment of time than on his treatment of space. Then an unexpected, but important,chapterfollows on Giddens' relevanceto appliedsociology:a themetoo often neglected in the discussionof 'grand theory'. As Bryant shows. Giddens' thoughtreally is of importancehere, but it also has its limits, being 'criticalin a minimal sense', since Giddensdoes not provide us with any 'normative counterfactual theory'. as Habermas and Rawls, for example. do. In short, the double hermeneuticof structuration theorytoo easily. and too arbitrarily, provides a critical device to its appliers. What about Giddens'replyto his critics? One impression.groundedin his replies, is that he is more interested in furtherdeveloping his theoreticalprojectinto new terr4in than going into a detailed argument about alreadypublishedwork. In both CC and GTS he takes up themes elaboratedin The Consequencesof Modernity.In both CC and GTS he refers those interestedin his way of defending his theoreticalproject to his chapterin Social Theoryand Modern Society: Anthony Giddens and His Critics

(1989). However, there are no explicit answersto be found there to the critiqueof the 28 articles in CC and GTS. However, in CC Giddens makes seven explicit but short replies to seven authors, but summarizeshis answerthis way: 'at the risk of sounding super-confident,I would not be led to alter any of my basicviews as a result of the commentariesoffered.' Perhapsthis unwillingness an integralpartof Giddens' is intellectualstyle. Not being an eclectic, his ambitions, nevertheless, are more substantial and synthetical, than critical and polemical.
References Alberoni. F. 1984. Vdnskap. Gothenburg:Korpen (ital. orig. L'amicizia. 1984). Giddens. A. 1984. The Constitution Society. of Outlineof the Theorvof Structuration. Cambridge:Polity Press. J. Habermas. 1981.Theorie kommunikativen des Handelns. Band 2. Zur Kritik der funktionalistischenVernunft.Frankfurt/M.Suhrkamp. Koselleck. R. 1979. Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten.Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp. Robertson. R. 1990. After Nostalgia? Wilful Nostalgiaand the Phasesof Globalization.In B. S. Turner(ed.). Theories Modernity of and Postmodernity. 45-61. London;Sage. pp. Wellmer.A. 1985. Zur Dialektikvon Moderne und Postmoderne. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp. Mats Franzen. Sociologiskainstitutionen. Jirnvagspromenaden S-75320Uppsala.Sweden. 19,

155

Вам также может понравиться