Margaret Archer on Structural and Cultural Morphogenesis Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach by Margaret S.

Archer; Culture and Agency. The Place of Culture in Social Theory by Margaret S. Archer Review by: Lilli Zeuner Acta Sociologica, Vol. 42, No. 1 (1999), pp. 79-86 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201123 . Accessed: 05/05/2013 12:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Sun, 5 May 2013 12:37:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ACIA SOCIOLOGICA 1999

REVIEW

ESSAY

Margaret Morphogenesis

Archer

on

Structural

and

Cultural

LilliZeuner Danish National Institute of Social Research, Copenhagen, Denmark

Margaret S. Archer: Realist Social Theory: the Morphogenet?c Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) and Culture and Agency. The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Revised Edition University (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1996). With this revised edition of Culture and Agency and the publication of Reahst Social Theory, English sociologist Margaret Archer positions herself as an important contributor to sociotheory. The germ of the theoretical logical in her two new publications construction can already be seen in her very early works. The of her theorefollowing is a short presentation tical construction. I place it in its context and mention a few points of criticism.

Structure In the

and culture

to Reahst Social Theory Introduction Archer (1995), presents her principles for social analysis, making it clear that there must be internal between social ontology, consistency and practical social explanatory methodology In her view, any social ontology theorizing. for the explanatory adopted has implications endorsed, and in turn this methmethodology for the guidelines to odology has implications practical social theorizing. Social realism and the principle of emergence are the ontological points of departure for Margaret Archer. In her concept of society, she makes it crystal clear that structure and agency - distinct from and must be kept separate irreducible one to the other. For both levels the principle of emergence applies, i.e. the principle according to which new properties can emerge

on the basis of existing properties, which implies that emergence occurs in time, that the properfrom each other, ties have relative autonomy and that they exert independent causal influences. of this ontological As a consequence Archer's methodological approach, approach becomes analytical dualism, which emphasizes the necessity of studying the interplay between two levels without them, i.e. nonconflating This applies to the theorizing. conflationary interplay between structure and agency as well as to that between culture and agency. and of analyThe principles of emergence to develop lead Archer the tical dualism approach to the study of strucmorphogenetic has the ture and culture. Morphogenesis of a cycle which three involves character phases, (1) structural or cultural conditioning, and (3) interaction, (2) social or sociocultural social or cultural elaboration. Archer gives these basic ideas about social and princimethodology ontology, explanatory ples for practical social theorizing their clearest in her most recent book, Realist expression Social Theory, but they also form the basis of her earlier works. Already in her major study of the emersystems in England, gence of the educational France and Russia, Archer utilizes Denmark, is introdualism these principles. Analytical duced as a principle of separation between social and system (Archer integration integration 1979:33). Although she does not use the term its three cycle, she presents morphogenetic phases (ibid., p. 44). In fact, her entire analysis of the four educational of the emergence on two based is analytical cycles, one systems following the other. The first starts in mediaeval

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Sun, 5 May 2013 12:37:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

80 ACTASOCIOLOGICA 1999

VOLUME 42

Europe, when the Church owned and monoand then moves into the polized all education, The of state educational systems. emergence second cycle takes its point of departure in the elaborated structures created by the emergence of state educational systems, and then moves The different of change. towards patterns which follows one cycle strucdevelopment turally conditions the following one. of the emergence of the This analysis educational systems - and it is a most thorough - constitutes and comprehensive analysis contribuArcher's most important historical tion. Clearly, it forms the point of departure of and her later theorizing cultural concerning It is worth noting that structural phenomena. while Archer the distinction emphasizes between and cultural phenomena, structural as phenomena she nevertheless sees them in accordance with similar princideveloping ples. Analytical dualism as well as the morphogenetic approach are applied to both types of (Archer 1995:179). phenomena in The theory of culture is developed where analyCulture and Agency (1988/1996), tical dualism and the morphogenetic approach are brought out very clearly. Analytical dualism cultural system from socioleads to distinguish this distinction is upheld cultural interaction; moves through the three while the analysis cycle. At one level, phases of the morphogenetic the cultural system consists of logical proposior tions which may be either contradictory while at the other level sociocomplementary, of of matters interaction consists cultural relationThe cultural influence. interpersonal the cultural system and socioship between factor interaction is the decisive cultural or morwhether morphogenesis influencing - elaboration or maintenance phostasis prevails. The starting point of cultural morphogenas the understood esis is cultural conditioning, ideas which at any given time have holders. Only if ideas have holders can they have any effect on agency. According to Archer, cultural is characterized by its logical conditioning relations. Are the items of culture contradictory will mould Contradictions or complementary? for cultural agents, situations problem-ridden will mould problemwhile complementarities free situations. The cultural system thus creates a situational logic for agents. Archer exemplifies the such cultural by utilizing conditioning of some of the analyses of cultural phenomena In Durkheim's fathers of sociology. founding

of educational of the development analysis in France, is tied to Christianity thought in constraining In contradictions. Antiquity Weber's analysis of Ancient China and India, with the religious beliefs are complementary she emphasizes ethos. Nevertheless, economic cannot in themselves that cultural conditions whether cultural change will take determine sociocultural interplace. Change presupposes action, and interaction will be characterized by attempts to protect or increase vested material is sociocultural interaction interests. Thus, determined by material interests. becomes Therefore, the decisive question how the two levels of the cultural system and interaction combine. It is of little sociocultural value that the cultural system is riven with inconsistencies demanding change, if the distribution of power is such that any attempt at change can be suppressed. It is of no use either that the cultural by system is characterized involve ample opporwhich complementarities tunities for adding new elements to the already existing cultural system, if the holders of power use all means to prevent this. In this way, the second phase of the morphogenetic cycle the use of power and sociocultural interaction, for the escape from power - is all-decisive whether the outcome turns out to be morphogenesis or morphostasis. to Archer, it is possible under According to supconditions sociocultural well-ordered or even for months, years press changes but in the long run it becomes centuries, At some point in time a situation impossible. will arise where even the cultural elite will see its own interest in accepting the demand for a revision of culture in order to minimize inconsistencies, or a situation where it will be forced to accept new cultural items in order to uphold its position. Sooner or later the third phase of the morphogenetic cycle will become reality. The theory of structure and the theory of between structure and culture the relationship are developed in Reahst Social Theory (1995). of her principles advocates Archer Again, the and dualism morphogenetic analytical approach. With them she moves through two cycles, structural morparallel morphogenetic She and cultural morphogenesis. phogenesis to via interaction moves from conditioning elaboration. Seen in relation to Culture and Agency, Archer in Realist Social Theory primarily underof the second elaboration takes a theoretical cycle, social or phase of the morphogenetic

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Sun, 5 May 2013 12:37:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MargaretArcheron Structuraland CulturalMorphogenesis 81 In this work, Archer interaction. sociocultural points out that agency in itself must be analysed as a morphogenetic cycle. In order to develop of agency, Archer estabthis morphogenesis between (a) agents underlishes a distinction with similar life chances, stood as collectivities as individual persons (b) actors understood and their roles, (c) persons undergiven filling stood as people with a personal and social self. Concerning agents, she further distinguishes between corporate agents, which have power and primary agents, which do and influence, not possess such power and influence. of The starting point for morphogenesis agency is structural or cultural morphogenesis. Because of this type of morphogenesis, morphogenesis of agency takes place. One morphogenetic cycle leads to the other. With regard to the of agency it also implies that morphogenesis can long prevent restrucpower relationships corporate agents. As long as an turing among elite can keep its distance to the primary agents, no change will take place. The problem is that the primary agents with time w?l organize and thus become The consecorporate agents. will be regrouping. quence Morphogenesis takes becomes reality. Double morphogenesis place. of agency Morphogenesis yet produces another kind of morphogenesis, morphogenesis of actors. When agents regroup, an elaboration of roles will take place. The number of roles which can be attributed to persons will increase. This, too, is a morphogenetic process. Triple takes place. morphogenesis Archer emphasizes, however, that agents as well as actors are anchored in persons. A person has energy and the ability to be reflexive and creative. This implies that a person can of make choices. Therefore, morphogenesis or of is not automatic. These agents agency are anchored in persons who can processes assess and choose. Towards the end of Reahst Social Theory of structural Archer undertakes a unification and cultural analysis. She raises the questions of how cultural factors find their way into the structural field, and of how structural factors find their way into the cultural field. She points of these proout that the basic mechanisms cesses are extremely simple. If a material interest group is in need of or legitimation, it will assertion articulation, look for a doctrine which it can exploit in order to further these interests. The problem is that as soon as it has done this, it will discover that it has plunged into the situational logic of culture. Not only this group, however, has now to relate itself to the advanced cultural struggles. This applies to all material interest groups which are in alliance with or in opposition to the former group. They, too, must attempt to make themselves visible and legitimate, but they must do so in the light of choices made by the former group. interaction penetrates In this way sociocultural the structural domain. If an ideational group, advocating any kind with a has become of doctrine, associated material interest group in order to particular for its activities, it has resources safeguard form thereby given up part of the universalistic It must now submit to the of its ideas. interests pursued by the material particularistic interest group in question. There is a cost to finding a sponsor for one's cultural activities. The problem is that when one ideational group an its resources has safeguarded by such alliance, other ideational groups are forced to do the same. If other ideational groups are to behind in relation to the first avoid lagging for too must safeguard sponsoring they group, from material interest groups. In themselves this way, ideational groups are drawn into the the taking struggles place between power material interest groups. Structural interaction thus penetrates the cultural domain. The last question Archer raises in Realist Social Theory is that of the relationship between and history. She characterizes her theory approach to cultural and strucmorphogenetic tural analyses as an explanatory format. In her opinion, one should add analytical histories of to this format. As an example of this emergence type of analytical history, Archer points to her of educational own analysis of the development systems. Archer has also touched upon this question to the anthology on Europe, in the Introduction which she edited in 1978 with Salvador Giner. Here, she makes the point that there must be a scientific dialogue in which comcontinuous are formulation parative study and theoretical is that intertwined. Her view inextricably empirical adequacy is the ultimate criterion of in Giner & theoretical (Archer explanation Archer (eds.) 1978:23-24).

The heritage Archer

from

Lockwood most

and Buckley by or

commences

systematically

criticizing

of her works either sociology

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Sun, 5 May 2013 12:37:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

82 ACTASOCIOLOGICA 1999

VOLUME 42 this distinction. She criticizes Habermas, inter aha, for upholding the differences between the constitution of the lifeworld and that of the system instead of seeing the formal communalities between the dynamics of structure and culture. She criticizes for him, furthermore, between lifeworld and system as distinguishing two blocks instead of distinguishing between on the one hand the social system and the cultural system and, on the other hand, sociocultural interaction and structural interaction. The of this lack of distinction is, in consequence Archer's view, that culture becomes an unshared horizon. This means that problematic still contributes Habermas to the myth of cultural she criticizes integration. Finally, Habermas's for being a one-time analysis historical account of the effects of lifeworld upon system and vice versa, instead of taking up universal processes. Consequently, system and lifeworld are considered as a single historical No possibility arises to process of evolution. study the interplay between the two levels of analysis. Having criticized large parts of sociology and the philosophy of the social sciences for lack of analytical dualism, Archer takes her theoretical point of departure in David Lockwood's article "Social Integration and System Integration" from 1964. This short article - only 10 - seems to be a decisive source of pages long for Archer and her principle of inspiration dualism. Already in her analysis of analytical of educational the development systems, the from Lockwood's distinction inspiration between social integration and system integration becomes visible. Archer herself writes that she attempts to formulate her theory of cultural on the basis of Lockwood's change theory. Finally, Lockwood's theory is the main source of inspiration for the overall development of her theory in Reahst Social Theory. In this way, Lockwood's combination of forms conflict theory and general fiinctionalism the point of departure for Archer's theory. The is applied to social concept of social integration and sociocultural interaction, while the concept is applied to the cultural of system integration and the social systems. this dual Employing it becomes for Archer to possible approach, develop her historical analysis and her general theory with analytical dualism. The principle of morphogenesis and moris derived Walter from phostasis Buckley's does not systems theory. Although Buckley the significant of the trisectioning employ

the philosophy of the social sciences, turning her principle of analytical dualism against them. In her opinion, from representatives both disciplines make themselves of guilty conflation. The two levels of analysis, which should be kept analytically apart, are conflated. In her critique of sociological analyses of Archer between three culture, distinguishes downwards and types of conflation: upwards, central conflation 1988/ 1985, (1982, In downwards conflation, repre1996:25-96). sented by Sorokin (1957), Parsons (1951) and L?vi-Strauss it is assumed that (1958/1969), cultural cohesion has the ability of producing sociocultural cohesion. In this way, the sociocultural level is treated as an epiphenomenon of culture. In upwards conflation, represented by Gramsci (1932/1975), Miliband (1969) and Habermas it is assumed that socio(1971), cultural cohesion has the ability to produce cultural cohesion, whereby culture becomes an of the sociocultural level. In epiphenomenon central conflation, represented by Giddens culture and the sociocultural level (1979), constitute one another, and are therefore perceived of as inseparable. This precludes any two-way interplay between the levels. Archer directs a similar critique against and methodoindividualism methodological (1979:5-25, 1995:33-64). logical collectivism In methodological individualism, represented by Watkins (1968) and Hayek (1973), the individual and the acts of the individual are attributed with all-decisive that importance, implying structural become the inert and properties element. The consequence is downdependent wards conflation. In methodological collectivand ism, by Gellner (1968) represented Mandelbaum it is the other way (1973), around. that structural Here, it is assumed influence in the properties exert a deterministic of events, implying that the regular occurrence individual and the acts of the individual become derived phenomena, of i.e. a subordination is upwards conflation. agency. The consequence In the revised edition of Culture and Agency, Archer has added a chapter with a critique of J?rgen Habermas' book The Theory of Communicative Action (1981/1991-92; Archer 1988/ Habermas 96:288-315). develops his theory of communicative action on the basis of a distincSo tion between social and system integration. far, Habermas and Archer have common basic elements in their theories. Nevertheless, Archer raises a number of critical points against the theory developed by Habermas on the basis of

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Sun, 5 May 2013 12:37:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MargaretArcher on Structuraland CulturalMorphogenesis 83 morphogenetic cycle which Archer develops, he does have a number of theoretical elements which are later utilized in Archer's theory: the idea of variety generated by the system itself, the idea of tensions in the system and the idea of transactional of exchange, processes negotiation or bargaining This (Buckley 1967:160). source of inspiration seems to have had a major impact on all of Archer's works. In her most recent book, Reahst Social of inspiration is the Theory, a new source of Roy Bhaskar and the realist philosophy school. The principle of emergence, in particular, is elaborated under the influence of Bhaskar, who has developed the idea that a context within and between consisting of contradictions differentiated and stratified entities constitutes the basis of emergence. Thus, on the basis of contradictions one term arises out of the other. Action to this development must, leading however, take its point of departure in reflexivity and judgement (Bhaskar 1993:303, 382, 397). In this way, Archer bases the elaboration of her own theory on Bhaskar's philosophy of development. The final source of inspiration to be mentioned here is the philosophy of Karl Popper. This inspiration becomes apparent in Archer's definition of the concept of culture. The concept to Popper's definition of the third corresponds world. In Objective Knowledge, Popper distinguishes among the first world being the physical world, the second world being the mental world and the third world being ideas in the objective sense. The connection between the first and the third worlds can only take place with the second world as mediator between the two (Popper the third world Thus, 1972/92:154^155). consists of ideas in the objective sense, as they appear in books and other sorts of accessible sources. These sources have an objective existence and are possible objects for human is this It thought. objective world which Archer conceives of as culture. the contrary, she has been able to elaborate these principles through the process of includof inspiration while ing still more sources upholding a high degree of continuity. At the same time, her theory expresses a of originality. Her distinction high degree between the cultural system and sociocultural interaction is original. Her view of the structural and the cultural domains as phenomena which must be analysed to the same according principles has not been suggested before. Her focus on the logical relations of culture and on the types of dynamism that spring from this is a novel to sociological contribution thinking about culture. The result of this continuity and originality is an impressive theoretical construction spanthe cultural the structural domain, ning domain and their mutual relations. Archer has succeeded in creating a theory, which despite its extensive area of validity - meets her declared to develop for purpose: guidelines practical social theorizing. in the following I criticize a Nevertheless, few aspects of her theoretical construction, namely, her basic principles of theory construcand her tion, her uses of classical sociology of theory and history. combination

Morphogenesis

and analytical

dualism

Continuity

and originality

All Archer's works hitherto show sociological and thinking characterized by both continuity The principles for social analysis originality. which Archer introduced in her early works still characterize her theoretical thinking. Morphoand dualism her follow genesis analytical all her works. This does not mean through in Archer's theoretical thinking. On stagnation

The first question I pursue has to do with the of the fact that Archer allows consequences herself to be inspired by such very different sources. What happens to her theory? Is she successful in adhering to the principles that she herself establishes and which she criticizes others for not observing? Archer's two most important methodoare analytical dualism and logical principles morphogenesis. Analytical dualism has its roots in Lockwood's combination of general functionalism and conflict of theory. The principle has its roots in Buckley's sysmorphogenesis tems theory. Analytical dualism leads to the demand that structure and agency have to be and analysed if an kept separate separately of their mutual interplay is to be understanding obtained. Over time, however, Archer has let and thereby the sysmorphogenetic thinking tems theoretical approach dominate in relation to the interactionist approach. In her theory, agency in itself becomes a morphogenetic cycle. It becomes a part of the social system. The question is whether this theoretical elaboration

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Sun, 5 May 2013 12:37:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

84 ACTASOCIOLOGICA 1999

VOLUME 42

with Archer's principle of One might say that the encroaches systems perspective upon agency and renders agency a part of the social system. and the conflict perspecTherefore, interaction tive are no longer seen as separate from the In this way, analytical systems perspective. dualism is not observed. In Archer's of culture another theory combination the occurs. Here, important methodological principle of analytical dualism is combined with Popper's philosophy of science. to Popper, one must distinguish According among the physical world, the mental world and the world of objective ideas. It is the third world, the world of objective ideas, which forms the point of departure for Archer's concept of culture. In Popper's theory, however, it is a that the mental world mediates precondition the physical world and the world of between objective ideas. This mental world is by and large absent in Archer's theory of culture. She lets analytical as developed on the dualism, basis of Lockwood's article about social integration and system integration, apply not just to the structural domain, but also to the cultural domain. Certainly, this was not the aim of Lockwood's article. For Lockwood, the aim was in to develop a novel sociological perspective which social integration and system integration were combined and it was directed towards the analysis of those societal elements which Archer labels structure. By assuming that culture and are governed by the same mechanstructure of the isms, Archer transfers the mechanisms structural domain to the cultural domain. Thus is she assumes that sociocultural interaction material interests. In her determined view, by sociocultural agency takes place in order to protect or increase vested material interests. As in her theory of the intersection a consequence, between structure and culture, she reaches the result that a transfer of legitimacy from culture to structure takes place. For the structural world the most important result of cultural processes thus becomes its own self-Iegitimization. By dualism to both structure applying analytical and culture, Archer turns cultural processes When into a mirror of structural processes. interests cultural material determine the that this domain this implies is domain, The under the structural domain. subsumed of culture, in which autonomous dynamism mediate the relationship mental processes culture and its material between objective as in Popper's theory, has been cut foundation,

is in contradiction dualism. analytical

out in Archer's theory. Instead, she lets vested material be the connecting interests link between culture and its material objective foundation. then, does not become Thinking, decisive for the development of culture. On the of thinking contrary, the material advantages become decisive for this development. In this culture is subsumed under structure. way

Situational

logic

and classical

sociology

The next question I pursue has to do with the of Archer's combination of the consequences concept of the cultural system and her utilization of the classical sociologists as examples. Is it possible on the one hand to claim that culture must be studied as a cultural system consisting while on the other hand of logical propositions, utilizing the cultural analyses of Durkheim and Weber? Is it possible on the one hand that cultural interaction is determined by situational logic and vested material interests, and on the other hand include cultural studies which focus upon the education of pupils and the cultivation of people? In Archer's theory of culture, Durkheim's of the development of educational analysis is included as an example. In her thought of cultural labelled conditions, exemplification Archer contradictions, by her as constraining refers to Durkheim's analysis of the contradiction between Christian beliefs and classical civilization (Durkheim 1938/77). Furthermore, kind of when she argues for the particular interaction which can take place sociocultural of constraining contradicas a consequence Archer bases her argument on this tions, example. The holders of power in the Christian church had to attempt to limit the access to the classical texts. The problem was, however, that to the early Christian texts held commentaries the works of the ancients. Therefore, it was not possible in the long run to uphold this prohibition against studying the works of the ancients. had to become visible. The contradictions In this way, Durkheim's analysis becomes of a morphogenetic an example cycle in Archer's theory. However, the aim of Durkwas not to study cultural heim's analysis of the change, but to analyse the cultivation under varying cultural conditions. individual Posing the question in this way means employdifferent concept of culture ing a completely from the one we find in Archer's theory as a subject-object Durkheim sees culture

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Sun, 5 May 2013 12:37:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MargaretArcher on Structuraland CulturalMorphogenesis 85 relation. Culture has to do with the cultivating that Durkheim is of people. It is characteristic culture. This culture looking for a common as such of (a) cultural treasures consists etc. (Durkliterature, architecture, sculptures, heim 1938/77:19); (b) common rules of action enable social which integration (Durkheim available for and (c) categories 1925/68:24); In Durkour thinking (Durkheim 1912/95:15). heim's analysis, culture is an asset available to us all, and it is this culture that each individual can incorporate. People can obtain linguistic to think, obtain skills, develop the capacity and wisdom and increase the preknowledge dictability of conduct. Archer can only utilize Durkheim's analyof her own sis as the basis for the development theory by eliding the theory which lies behind Durkheim's analysis. Thus, she reduces Durkheim's analysis to examples. Durkheim's view of culture as cultivation of the triinking, the moral and the conduct of people, is clearly in opposition to Archer's view of culture as an objective world which can affect people by means of its situational logic and its ability to create material advantages. Weber's as are also included analyses examples by Archer in her theory of culture. which she labels Here, the cultural conditions, are exempliconcomitant complementarities, fied. In his analysis of Ancient China and India, Weber (1948/70:396-444) shows how relifor status gious beliefs and their rationale are complementary with the ecodistribution internomic ethos. The kinds of sociocultural which action can result from this cultural are also exemplified conditioning by utilizing Weber's analyses. Here, Archer incorporates his Over time, analysis of the Chinese Mandarins. in China had become the cultural system characterized by a high degree of cultural that it could take a whole density, implying of this lifetime to acquire complete knowledge culture. From this, Archer deduces the problem that this very large investment by the individual material would often not yield the expected benefits to that person. When there is only room for a small elite, the consequence may be that many of the people who have in fact undertaken a major personal in education investment social marginals. become They can choose of the acquired desertion and conjunction with culture new items. The consequence must be migration and cultural change. Weber's analyses, thus, are also utilized as an example of a morphogenetic cycle. Here, too, it was not Weber's aim to explain cultural change, although he fully recognizes that such takes place. His aim is, quite the change to study what kind of cultivation contrary, The results from different types of culture. the of ethics of economic question development is central to him. Like Durkheim, Weber sees In his culture as a subject-object relation. of the world theory, culture is those segments process which people have related to value ideas and which have thereby been given meaning and significance (Weber 1904-17/1949:76, by the 81). Culture is developed, consequently, relation of value ideas to the world process, and it gives meaning to life. Weber, too, sees culture The of the individual. as the cultivation individual must be cultivated by education. The problem, as he sees it, is that there is an of cultural values advancement and that still therefore becomes characterized education more by specialized examinations. The implication of this is that education no longer means real cultivation. Specialized training makes it to possess the for the individual impossible as a whole. As a consequence, the culture individual must strive towards cultural perfection all life through; this is, however, impossible. The individual is threatened by loss of meaning and there is, therefore, only one option: the values 1948/ of cultural selection (Weber 70:356). Again it must be said that Archer can only utilize Weber's analyses as the basis of her own theory by eliding the theory of culture which his analyses are based on. She must reduce them to There is a fundamental difference examples. between Weber's view of culture as meaning created through the relation of value ideas to the world process, and Archer's very logical approach to the study of culture. For Weber, culture has to do with cultivating people, i.e. them with an ethic which can give supplying direction to practical conduct. For Archer, the interaction is determined sociocultural by which can be obtained by material advantages reacting to the situational logic. of the The result of Archer's utilization that she works becomes classical sociological from these She selects analyses. examples to her own advance these examples exploits the theory, while at the same time disregarding views of culture by the classical fundamental themselves. She ignores their own sociologists theories and the lessons to be learnt from them. between the focus This creates a contradiction of Archer upon logic and power and the focus of

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Sun, 5 May 2013 12:37:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1999 86 ACTASOCIOLOGICA

VOLUME 42 CombiningStructureand Action. BritishJournal of Sociology, 33, 455-183. Archer, M. S. 1985. The Myth of CulturalIntegration. British 36:3. of Sociology, Journal in andAgency. The Placeof Culture Archer,M. S. 1988/96. Culture Social Theory. Rev. ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. S. 1995. Realist Social Theory:the Morphogenetic Cambridge UniversityPress. Cambridge: Approach. ThePulseof Freedom. London:Verso. Bhaskar,R. 1993. Dialectic. Buckley, W. 1967. Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall. Formsof Religious Durkheim,E. 1912/95. TheElementary Life. New York:Free Press. A Studyin the Theory Durkheim,E. 1925/68. MoralEducation. New York:Free and Application of the Sociology of Education. Press. Durkheim, E. 1938/77. The Evolutionof Educational Thought. Lectures on the Formationand Development of Secondary in France. London:Routledge& Kegan Paul. Education In M. Brodbeck Gellner,E. 1968. Holism VersusIndividualism. in the Philosophy London: of the SocialSciences. (ed.), Readings Macmillan. Giddens, ?. 1979. CentralProblemsin Social Theory.London: Macmillan. Social Giner,S. &Archer,M. S. (eds.) 1978. Contemporary Europe: Patterns.London:Routledge& Kegan and Cultural Structures Paul. Ed. Gramsci,A. 1932/75. Letters from Prison:AntonioGramsci. by Lynne Lawner.New York:HarperColophon. Habermas, J. 1971. Towardsa Rational Society. London: Heinemann. Habermas, J. 1981/1991-92. The Theoryof Communicative Action.Cambridge: Polity Press. Hayek,F.A. 1973. FromScientismand the Studyof Society.In J. and Collectivism. London: O'Neill(ed.), Modesof Individualism Heinemann. London: L?vi-Strauss, C. 1958/69. StructuralAnthropology. Allen Lane. Lockwood,D. 1964. Social Integrationand System Integration. in Social In G. K. Zollschan &W. Hirsch (eds.), Explorations London:Routledge& KeganPaul. Change. Mandelbaum,M. 1973. SocietalFacts. In J. O'Neill(ed.), Modes and Collectivism. London:Heinemann. of Individualism Miliband,R. 1969. TheStatein Capitalist Society.London:Allen & Unwin. Parsons,T. 1951. TheSocialSystem.London:Routledge&Kegan Paul. An Evolutionary Knowledge. Popper, K. R. 1972/92. Objective ClarendonPress. Rev.ed. Oxford: Approach. Sorokin, P. 1957. Socialand Cultural Dynamics.London:Peter Owen. Watkins, J.W. N. 1968. Methodological Individualism and Social Tendencies. In M. Brodbeck (ed.), Readingsin the London:Macmillan. of the SocialSciences. Philosophy Weber, M. 1904-17/1949. The Methodologyof the Social Sciences.Transi, and ed. by E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch. New York:Free Press. Max Weber: Trans. M. 1948/70. From Weber, Essaysin Sociology. and ed. and with an Introduction by H. H. Gerth and C. WrightMills.London:Routledge& KeganPaul.

moral the classical sociologists upon cultivation, and ethics. The question is what this contrawill mean for Archer's theoretical diction in the longer run. construction

Format

and analytical

histories

The last problem I take up is Archer's view of the between theory and history. In the relationship to Contemporary Europe, she writes introduction formulation and comparative that theoretical must be intertwined. She advoinvestigation cates the view that the ultimate criterion of the theoretical must be its empirical explanation Towards the end of Reahst Social adequacy. Theory she takes up once again the question of between the relationship theory and history. Here, she points out that her theory should be format which perceived of as an explanatory of can form the basis of analytical histories to The becomes the extent emergence. question in relating her own which Archer succeeds of to history. The analytical history theory which she adds to her theory in emergence, Reahst Social Theory, is her own analytical of state educational history of the emergence systems. Beyond this, she bases her theory upon but, as examples from the classical sociologists, and shown above, she elides their theories the analytical histories that they thereby The problem is that Archer might contain. does not connect her theory of cultural morof with any analytical history phogenesis In this way, this part of the theory emergence. format. Her fundamenremains an explanatory tal view of culture and structure as phenomena which can be studied with similar analytical principles is not confronted with any analytical histories. Thus, we are not given any answer to of the entire theory's the question empirical a In this way, the theory remains adequacy. format.

References Archer, M. S. 1979. Social Origins of EducationalSystems. London:Sage. Archer, M. S. 1982. Morphogenesisversus Structuration:On

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Sun, 5 May 2013 12:37:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions