抄録
The purpose of this study is to rethink Structuration Theory. In Structuration Theory, Anthony Giddens suggested the transformative capacity of human agents against the constraints of society as a whole. In Structurist theory, in Althusser for instance, human subjects have no transformative capacity with regard to social change and are subordinated to the “structure” of total society. In Structuration Theory, Giddens distinguishes structure from structures. The word “structure” refers to the rules and resources which human agents can utilize. The word “structures” refers to the matrix of the transformation / mediation relation of total society as a set of structures. The aggregate of structures’ “structural principles” control the basic alignment of social institutions, whereas human agents can change social institutions by utilizing structure. In this respect institutions are influenced by both structures and agents. Giddens fails to unite the notion that human agents change institutions and that the aggregate of structures’ “structural principles” control the basic alignment of social institutions. For this reason, two equivalent images emerge – the chronic reproduction of institutions and the transformation of institutions. This is very important because this problem is connected with the definition of degrees of freedom and the stringency of structure’s constraint on agents to overcome voluntarism and determinism. To resolve this problem, in this study I pay particular attention to the characteristic of structures. As structures are the matrix of the transformation / mediation relation of total society, they have convertibility in the determinated direction. The convertibility of structures acts as a constraint on agents because it restricts the freedom of agents changing institutional alignments by destroying the convertibility of structures. The total alignment of social institutions is determined by structural principles which are the aggregate of structures. However each institution can be transformed by agents as long as they conform to the convertibility of structures. In the conclusion of this paper, I consider whether structural principles can be changed.
