Structuration Theory

Bourdieu/Giddens

Similarities

Anthony Giddens focuses his ontology on exploring the relationship that the knowledgeable actor has with the structure. He also points out that the modalities of structure have two functions for the agency; facilitating resources and constraining rules. Pierre Bourdieu accomplishes a similar dichotomy between what he terms the habitus and field. The habitus, think of the word ‘habit’, can be defined as a system of dispositions incorporated by agents. It is a set of durable, unconscious schemes which form the foundation of someone’s thinking, perceiving and acting. A field is a structured system of social positions occupied by agents or structures and the nature of social positions determinates the situation for them.

The two theorist are like minded in their views of the limited mobility of an agency into their position within the structure. The agency is not free to choose their parents or place in the historical timeline. The two have also made it clear in their theories that the agency is able to manipulate the structure through different means.

Similarities between the two theorists can also be made by their rejection of Karl Marx view that society can only be analyzed by the economic classes which one associates with.

Differences

While Bourdieu has his focus on the existence and differences between classes, Giddens is more interested in understanding how the structure and agency exist together. Bourdieu isolates the means to change the structure by the access to capital. Giddens is interested in the interplay that occurs with social class but does not explore the dimensions that are at work. Instead, he is focuses on drawing the distinction between the type of structure, legitimation, signification, and domination, and the rules and resources that it leaves available to the agent.

Language is another point of departure for the two by the way they use it to understand the relationships between humans and their environment. For Giddens, language is used as a something that exist apart from humans in time and space but is drawn upon through system of interaction. In this respect language is seen as the structure that humans use to communicate. Bourdieu refers to language as a linguistic capital that agents use to achieve power within fields. It is important to state that according to Bourdieu agents need to possess enough linguistic capital to understand each other not only to exercise power.