Re: [xmca] Structure vs. Agency

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Structure "VS" agency

 Martin Packer in his posted article used a term I found interesting.  He
used the term "reassembling" to capture the reality that a researcher is
always located IN the situation. (p.22)
Reassembling as a term implies "intentionality" and "purpose". within
cultural communities

I have been reading an article by Per Linell, "Dialogicality in languages,
minds, and brains: is there a convergence between dialogism and
neuro-biology? published in the journal ScienceDirect 29 (2007) p. 605-620

On page 613 he writes "... we can speak of a dialogical stance of
relationism; sense-making (understanding) is neither contained in an 'inner
(subjective) world' , nor in an 'outer (objective) world' , but it lives in
the RELATIONS BETWEEN these, in an 'inter-world (Merleau-Ponty, 1955)
between the organism and the external world.  This somewhat peculiar notion
of an 'inter-world' should be adopted, because we want to avoid the choice
between complete subjectivity (meanings are "in the head") or external
radical objectivity (meanings are "out there") in theorizing meaning and
meaning-making; rather meanings are (largely) intersubjective,
linquistically, and pragmatically established and sustained in and through
interactions.... Thibault (2005, p.124) and Hodges extend the theory of
social affordances to utterances: 'In talking with each other (and
ourselves) we create affordances, opportunities that invite the other into
seeing and moving in certain directions that look promising'.... Our
consciousnes is relational, INTENDED (or directed) to something in the world
or in the body; the very MOTIVATION of the brain is to relate apperceptions
of the world to the bodily states, to EVALUATE objects by means of affectual
and attitudinal reactions."

Per Linell is taking a "dialogical stance" to languaging and attempting to
bridge notions of structure and agency with the concept of  an
"inter-world".  In the final analysis does his concept of the
"inter-world" collapse into duality because he is trying to BRIDGE the
social and personal as BOTH implicated in an "inter-world" or is it
necessary to bracket and differentiate these concepts in order to REASSEMBLE
them within a dialogical stance?  This framework does not perceive
"structure VS agency" but rather "structure/agency" as a dynamic process of
reassembly.

I realize I may be continuing to fall back into "dualistic thinking" [by
bracketing  RELATIONAL "interworlds"]  but the notion of "dynamic
reassembling" within the dialogical stance is a notion I'm struggling with.

Larry

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns <
jlarream@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:

> Agree. Though, I mentioned Giddens because he uses explicitly the terms
> structure and agency and has precisely engaged in controversy with
> structuralists like Althusser. In any case, it seems to me that it is an
> articulation to which several proponents have come independently (Bahktin,
> Giddens, not to mention, in his particular way, Vygotsky).
>
> Jorge
>
> On Sep 25, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>
> > Sure. I wouldn't necessarily single out Giddens. It just depends where
> you are coming from. If Giddens is your social theory, then that would be
> the case. Or it might be Marx.
>  > Andy
> >
> > Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns wrote:
> >> One would need, of course, to explore differences with respect to
> Gidden's theory of structuration, which also articulates structure and
> agency in a way that is clearly distinct from say Althusser and naive views
> of the effect of individual actions.  Jorge
> >>
> >> Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
> >> Profesor Asociado y Director
> >> Departamento de Psicología
> >> Universidad de los Andes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 25, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Jorge, this came up on xmca in November 2007:
> >>>
> >>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2007_11.dir/index.html
> >>>
> >>> It is an undeveloped idea.
> >>>
> >>> On one hand you have Althusser or Levi-Strauss arguing that no
> individual has any real impact on the course of history and to think you
> have agency (in the real sense) is self-delusion. On the other hand you have
> people (probably including people on this list) who reduce the problem of
> agency to having an effect within your own immediate social circle (or field
> or figured world) but obviously according to rules not of your making and
> for aims not of your choosing.
> >>>
> >>> Both responses to the problem of agency are unsatisfactory. Each
> elevates one exreme to the absolute. A societal/social dichotomy allows two
> alternative self-evident answers to be given. So rather than asking "Do
> individuals have agency?" I ask "Over what radius does a given individual
> have subjectivity?" I introduce the word "subjectivity" because agency is
> one-sided. One can act only to the extent one has moral responsibility and
> knowledge of the consequences of your own actions. This is always finite,
> but never null. An individual may aspire to extend the radius of their
> subjectivity. At the same time, I hold that subjectivity (including agency)
> is semiotically and socially _mediated_. EG I bear responsibility for my
> country's war in Afghanistan, but that is obviously relative to my
> understanding and social position in the nation. etc., etc. I can't draw a
> sharp line between my responsibility for an act of war carried out by
> someone I voted for (or failed to prevent being elected) and my
> responsibility for doing a bad thing to my partner at home.
> >>>
> >>> So the idea was to create terms in which agency could be sensibly
> discussed. I think David and Paul Dillon were the only people who took any
> notice, so far as I know at any rate,
> >>>
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >>> Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Andy, Could you elaborate. once more, on the idea of radius of
> subjectivity?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jorge
> >>>>
> >>>> Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
> >>>> Profesor Asociado y Director
> >>>> Departamento de Psicología
> >>>> Universidad de los Andes
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> An example of the dangers of polysemy, David, is that archetypal
> structuralist, Louis Althusser, means by "agency" what we mean when we say
> that germs are the agents of disease - the exasct opposite of what most
> CHATters mean. As you recall, I resolved this conundrum with the idea of
> "radius of subjectivity."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David Kellogg wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> After they introduce the "boundary" concept Jahreie and Ottesen
> introduce two terms from mainstream sociology: "structure" and "agency". I'm
> not a sociologist, and I've only read a bit aroung the edges of this
> opposition. But I have the following questions, which are really "dubbio",
> suspicious doubts, rather than questions:
> >>>>>> a) The ETHNOMETHODOLOGICAL, microgenetic "dubbio". If boundaries are
> "constructed in interaction" (in the ethnomethodological sense), can we say
> that they are "structure" as opposed to "agency"? Doesn't "constructed in
> interaction" imply the (microgenetic) emergence of structure out of agency?
> Or is there somehow a pre-existing blueprint implicit in interactions that
> can be made explicit, through, say, conversation analysis?
> >>>>>> b) A CH/AT, ontogenetic "dubbio". Leontiev insists that society
> cannot be seen as confronting the individual as something hostile, something
> alien in psychological substance, something irreconcilable, and a lot of
> Vygotsky's objections to Piaget can be read in this light too (development
> cannot be seen as the red liquid of socialized thinking forcing out the
> white liquid of egocentric thinking). Doesn't this suggest that what we are
> describing here is boundary construction rather than development?
> >>>>>> c) Finally, a GENERAL, methodological "dubbio". Andy suggests that
> we need to be pretty careful about what goes into our mouths and minds,
> because some concepts out there mean very different things from what we
> think they mean. As a foreign language teacher, I wholeheartedly agree with
> this (children who call me "David Teacher!" are actually TRYING to be very
> respectful, but you need to translate literally into Korean to understand
> that). Can we really use "structure" and "agency" in opposition to each
> other without CREATING the boundaries that we are supposed to be studying?
> Can we use these terms at all? Don't they imply EXACTLY the kind of
> ahistorical Saussurean view of a "system" that Wolff-Michael criticizes in
> his editorial (this issue)?  David Kellogg
> >>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
> >>>>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>    _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> >>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> >>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca