We're not making progress. In an earlier post I explained that although structure is realized in human interactions, something almost no one disputes, it doesn't follow that it doesn't have an existence anda reality that is irreducible to human interactions. The remarks below suggest that your interpretation of Giddens underwrites Callinicos' concern: that Giddens may be in fact denying the reality of structurea altogether. --Justin On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Eric Nilsson wrote: > Justin Schwartz writes, > > Eric says that the duality of structurea nda gency is unproductive when we > > realize that we cannot do without either pole. > > I don't think this is what I said. My understanding of Giddens is > that he is saying that structure expresses itself through agency. > That is, it is NOT that "we cannot do without either pole" but the > two poles do not exist. > > > Callinicos objects taht Giddens actually tends the other way, collapsing > > structure into agency and in effect denying the reality of structure. G > > is, he thinks, methodologically individualist in an eliminative way. > > Structure for G, accoirding to C, is nothing but the unintended > > consequences of individual actions. There may be some merit to the charge > > that G goes to far against structure. > > I can see that the above is a concern. But, it assumes what is not > neccessarily a "fact", to wit, "the reality of structure" if this > implies that structure is "out there" beyond human interaction. > > Eric > > . > Eric Nilsson > Department of Economics > California State University > San Bernardino, CA 92407 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
