- Zeuner 1999 Magret Archer on Structural and Cultural Morphogenesis

7/30/2019 - Zeuner 1999 Magret Archer on Structural and Cultural Morphogenesis

1/9

Margaret Archer on Structural and Cultural MorphogenesisRealist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach by Margaret S. Archer; Culture andAgency. The Place of Culture in Social Theory by Margaret S. ArcherReview by: Lilli ZeunerActa Sociologica, Vol. 42, No. 1 (1999), pp. 79-86Published 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 [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toActa

Sociologica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 82 18 130 62 on Sun 5 May 2013 12:37:38 PM
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4201123?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4201123?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd


2/9

ACIA OCIOLOGICA999

REVIEW ESSAY

Margaret Archer on Structural and Cultural

Morphogenesis

LilliZeunerDanish National Institute of Social Research, Copenhagen, Denmark

Margaret S. Archer: Realist Social Theory: theMorphogenet?c Approach (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995) and Culture and Agency.The Place of Culture in Social Theory. RevisedEdition (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1996).With this revised edition of Culture and Agencyand the publication of Reahst Social Theory,English sociologist Margaret Archer positionsherself as an important contributor to socio-logical theory. The germ of the theoreticalconstruction in her two new publications canalready be seen in her very early works. Thefollowing is a short presentation of her theore-tical construction. I place it in its context andmention a few points of criticism.

Structure and cultureIn the Introduction to Reahst Social Theory(1995), Archer presents her principles for socialanalysis, making it clear that there must beinternal consistency between social ontology,explanatory methodology and practical socialtheorizing. In her view, any social ontologyadopted has implications for the explanatorymethodology endorsed, and in turn this meth-odology has implications for the guidelines topractical social theorizing.Social realism and the principle of emer-gence are the ontological points of departure forMargaret Archer. In her concept of society, shemakes it crystal clear that structure and agencymust be kept separate - distinct from andirreducible one to the other. For both levels theprinciple of emergence applies, i.e. the principleaccording to which new properties can emerge

on the basis of existing properties, which impliesthat emergence occurs in time, that the proper-ties have relative autonomy from each other,and that they exert independent causal influ-ences.As a consequence of this ontological

approach, Archer's methodological approachbecomes analytical dualism, which emphasizesthe necessity of studying the interplay betweentwo levels without conflating them, i.e. non-conflationary theorizing. This applies to theinterplay between structure and agency as wellas to that between culture and agency.The principles of emergence and of analy-tical dualism lead Archer to develop themorphogenetic approach to the study of struc-ture and culture. Morphogenesis has thecharacter of a cycle which involves threephases, (1) structural or cultural conditioning,(2) social or sociocultural interaction, and (3)social or cultural elaboration.

Archer gives these basic ideas about socialontology, explanatory methodology and princi-ples for practical social theorizing their clearestexpression in her most recent book, RealistSocial Theory, but they also form the basis of herearlier works.

Already in her major study of the emer-gence of the educational systems in England,Denmark, France and Russia, Archer utilizesthese principles. Analytical dualism is intro-duced as a principle of separation between socialintegration and system integration (Archer1979:33). Although she does not use the termmorphogenetic cycle, she presents its threephases (ibid., p. 44). In fact, her entire analysisof the emergence of the four educationalsystems is based on two analytical cycles, onefollowing the other. The first starts in mediaeval

This content downloaded from 82.18.130.62 on Sun, 5 May 2013 12:37:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

80 ACTASOCIOLOGICA999 VOLUME2

Europe, when the Church owned and mono-polized all education, and then moves into theemergence of state educational systems. Thesecond cycle takes its point of departure in theelaborated structures created by the emergenceof state educational systems, and then movestowards different patterns of change. Thedevelopment which follows one cycle struc-turally conditions the following one.This analysis of the emergence of theeducational systems - and it is a most thoroughand comprehensive analysis - constitutesArcher's most important historical contribu-tion. Clearly, it forms the point of departure ofher later theorizing concerning cultural andstructural phenomena. It is worth noting thatwhile Archer emphasizes the distinctionbetween structural and cultural phenomena,she nevertheless sees them as phenomenadeveloping in accordance with similar princi-ples. Analytical dualism as well as the morpho-genetic approach are applied to both types ofphenomena (Archer 1995:179).The theory of culture is developed inCulture and Agency (1988/1996), where analy-tical dualism and the morphogenetic approachare brought out very clearly. Analytical dualismleads to distinguish cultural system from socio-cultural interaction; this distinction is upheldwhile the analysis moves through the threephases of the morphogenetic cycle. At one level,the cultural system consists of logical proposi-tions which may be either contradictory orcomplementary, while at the other level socio-cultural interaction consists of matters ofinterpersonal cultural influence. The relation-ship between the cultural system and socio-cultural interaction is the decisive factorinfluencing whether morphogenesis or mor-phostasis - elaboration or maintenance -prevails.The starting point of cultural morphogen-esis is cultural conditioning, understood as theideas which at any given time have holders.Only if ideas have holders can they have anyeffect on agency. According to Archer, culturalconditioning is characterized by its logicalrelations. Are the items of culture contradictoryor complementary? Contradictions will mouldproblem-ridden situations for cultural agents,while complementarities will mould problem-free situations. The cultural system thus createsa situational logic for agents. Archer exemplifiessuch cultural conditioning by utilizing theanalyses of cultural phenomena of some of thefounding fathers of sociology. In Durkheim's

analysis of the development of educationalthought in France, Christianity is tied toAntiquity in constraining contradictions. InWeber's analysis of Ancient China and India,religious beliefs are complementary with theeconomic ethos. Nevertheless, she emphasizesthat cultural conditions cannot in themselvesdetermine whether cultural change will takeplace. Change presupposes sociocultural inter-action, and interaction will be characterized byattempts to protect or increase vested materialinterests. Thus, sociocultural interaction isdetermined by material interests.

Therefore, the decisive question becomeshow the two levels of the cultural system andsociocultural interaction combine. It is of littlevalue that the cultural system is riven withinconsistencies demanding change, if the dis-tribution of power is such that any attempt atchange can be suppressed. It is of no use eitherthat the cultural system is characterized bycomplementarities which involve ample oppor-tunities for adding new elements to the alreadyexisting cultural system, if the holders of poweruse all means to prevent this. In this way, thesecond phase of the morphogenetic cycle -sociocultural interaction, the use of power andthe escape from power - is all-decisive forwhether the outcome turns out to be morpho-genesis or morphostasis.According to Archer, it is possible underwell-ordered sociocultural conditions to sup-press changes for months, years or evencenturies, but in the long run it becomesimpossible. At some point in time a situationwill arise where even the cultural elite will seeits own interest in accepting the demand for arevision of culture in order to minimize incon-sistencies, or a situation where it will be forcedto accept new cultural items in order to upholdits position. Sooner or later the third phase ofthe morphogenetic cycle will become reality.The theory of structure and the theory ofthe relationship between structure and cultureare developed in Reahst Social Theory (1995).Again, Archer advocates her principles ofanalytical dualism and the morphogeneticapproach. With them she moves through twoparallel morphogenetic cycles, structural mor-phogenesis and cultural morphogenesis. Shemoves from conditioning via interaction toelaboration.

Seen in relation to Culture and Agency,Archer in Realist Social Theory primarily under-takes a theoretical elaboration of the secondphase of the morphogenetic cycle, social or



4/9

MargaretArcheron StructuralandCulturalMorphogenesis 81

sociocultural interaction. In this work, Archerpoints out that agency in itself must be analysedas a morphogenetic cycle. In order to developthis morphogenesis of agency, Archer estab-lishes a distinction between (a) agents under-stood as collectivities with similar life chances,(b) actors understood as individual personsfilling their given roles, and (c) persons under-stood as people with a personal and social self.Concerning agents, she further distinguishesbetween corporate agents, which have powerand influence, and primary agents, which donot possess such power and influence.The starting point for morphogenesis ofagency is structural or cultural morphogenesis.Because of this type of morphogenesis, morpho-genesis of agency takes place. One morphoge-netic cycle leads to the other. With regard to themorphogenesis of agency it also implies thatpower relationships can long prevent restruc-turing among corporate agents. As long as anelite can keep its distance to the primary agents,no change will take place. The problem is thatthe primary agents with time w?l organize andthus become corporate agents. The conse-quence will be regrouping. Morphogenesisbecomes reality. Double morphogenesis takesplace.

Morphogenesis of agency produces yetanother kind of morphogenesis, morphogenesisof actors. When agents regroup, an elaborationof roles will take place. The number of roleswhich can be attributed to persons will increase.This, too, is a morphogenetic process. Triplemorphogenesis takes place.Archer emphasizes, however, that agentsas well as actors are anchored in persons. Aperson has energy and the ability to be reflexiveand creative. This implies that a person canmake choices. Therefore, morphogenesis ofagency or of agents is not automatic. Theseprocesses are anchored in persons who canassess and choose.

Towards the end of Reahst Social TheoryArcher undertakes a unification of structuraland cultural analysis. She raises the questions ofhow cultural factors find their way into thestructural field, and of how structural factorsfind their way into the cultural field. She pointsout that the basic mechanisms of these pro-cesses are extremely simple.If a material interest group is in need ofarticulation, assertion or legitimation, it willlook for a doctrine which it can exploit in orderto further these interests. The problem is that assoon 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 relateitself to the advanced cultural struggles. Thisapplies to all material interest groups which arein alliance with or in opposition to the formergroup. They, too, must attempt to make them-selves visible and legitimate, but they must do soin the light of choices made by the former group.In this way sociocultural interaction penetratesthe structural domain.

If an ideational group, advocating any kindof doctrine, has become associated with aparticular material interest group in order tosafeguard resources for its activities, it hasthereby given up part of the universalistic formof its ideas. It must now submit to theparticularistic interests pursued by the materialinterest group in question. There is a cost tofinding a sponsor for one's cultural activities.The problem is that when one ideational grouphas safeguarded its resources by such analliance, other ideational groups are forced todo the same. If other ideational groups are toavoid lagging behind in relation to the firstgroup, they too must safeguard sponsoring forthemselves from material interest groups. Inthis way, ideational groups are drawn into thepower struggles taking place between thematerial interest groups. Structural interactionthus penetrates the cultural domain.The last question Archer raises in RealistSocial Theory is that of the relationship betweentheory and history. She characterizes hermorphogenetic approach to cultural and struc-tural analyses as an explanatory format. In heropinion, one should add analytical histories ofemergence to this format. As an example of thistype of analytical history, Archer points to herown analysis of the development of educationalsystems.Archer has also touched upon this questionin the Introduction to the anthology on Europe,which she edited in 1978 with Salvador Giner.Here, she makes the point that there must be acontinuous scientific dialogue in which com-parative study and theoretical formulation areinextricably intertwined. Her view is thatempirical adequacy is the ultimate criterion oftheoretical explanation (Archer in Giner &Archer (eds.) 1978:23-24).

The heritage from Lockwood and BuckleyArcher commences most of her works bysystematically criticizing either sociology or



5/9


the philosophy of the social sciences, turningher principle of analytical dualism againstthem. In her opinion, representatives fromboth disciplines make themselves guilty ofconflation. The two levels of analysis, whichshould be kept analytically apart, are conflated.In her critique of sociological analyses ofculture, Archer distinguishes between threetypes of conflation: upwards, downwards andcentral conflation (1982, 1985, 1988/1996:25-96). In downwards conflation, repre-sented by Sorokin (1957), Parsons (1951) andL?vi-Strauss (1958/1969), it is assumed thatcultural cohesion has the ability of producingsociocultural cohesion. In this way, the socio-cultural level is treated as an epiphenomenon ofculture. In upwards conflation, represented byGramsci (1932/1975), Miliband (1969) andHabermas (1971), it is assumed that socio-cultural cohesion has the ability to producecultural cohesion, whereby culture becomes anepiphenomenon of the sociocultural level. Incentral conflation, represented by Giddens(1979), culture and the sociocultural levelconstitute one another, and are thereforeperceived of as inseparable. This precludes anytwo-way interplay between the levels.Archer directs a similar critique againstmethodological individualism and methodo-logical collectivism (1979:5-25, 1995:33-64).In methodological individualism, represented byWatkins (1968) and Hayek (1973), the indivi-dual and the acts of the individual are attributedwith all-decisive importance, implying thatstructural properties become the inert anddependent element. The consequence is down-wards conflation. In methodological collectiv-ism, represented by Gellner (1968) andMandelbaum (1973), it is the other wayaround. Here, it is assumed that structuralproperties exert a deterministic influence in theregular occurrence of events, implying that theindividual and the acts of the individual becomederived phenomena, i.e. a subordination ofagency. The consequence is upwards conflation.In the revised edition of Culture and Agency,Archer has added a chapter with a critique ofJ?rgen Habermas' book The Theory of Commu-nicative Action (1981/1991-92; Archer 1988/96:288-315). Habermas develops his theory ofcommunicative action on the basis of a distinc-tion between social and system integration. Sofar, Habermas and Archer have common basicelements in their theories. Nevertheless, Archerraises a number of critical points against thetheory developed by Habermas on the basis of

this distinction. She criticizes Habermas, interaha, for upholding the differences between theconstitution of the lifeworld and that of thesystem instead of seeing the formal communal-ities between the dynamics of structure andculture. She criticizes him, furthermore, fordistinguishing between lifeworld and system astwo blocks instead of distinguishing between onthe one hand the social system and the culturalsystem and, on the other hand, socioculturalinteraction and structural interaction. Theconsequence of this lack of distinction is, inArcher's view, that culture becomes an un-problematic shared horizon. This means thatHabermas still contributes to the myth ofcultural integration. Finally, she criticizesHabermas's analysis for being a one-timehistorical account of the effects of lifeworldupon system and vice versa, instead of taking upuniversal processes. Consequently, system andlifeworld are considered as a single historicalprocess of evolution. No possibility arises tostudy the interplay between the two levels ofanalysis.

Having criticized large parts of sociologyand the philosophy of the social sciences for lackof analytical dualism, Archer takes her theore-tical point of departure in David Lockwood'sarticle "Social Integration and System Integra-tion" from 1964. This short article - only 10pages long - seems to be a decisive source ofinspiration for Archer and her principle ofanalytical dualism. Already in her analysis ofthe development of educational systems, theinspiration from Lockwood's distinctionbetween social integration and system integra-tion becomes visible. Archer herself writes thatshe attempts to formulate her theory of culturalchange on the basis of Lockwood's theory.Finally, Lockwood's theory is the main sourceof inspiration for the overall development of hertheory in Reahst Social Theory.In this way, Lockwood's combination ofconflict theory and general fiinctionalism formsthe point of departure for Archer's theory. Theconcept of social integration is applied to socialand sociocultural interaction, while the conceptof system integration is applied to the culturaland the social systems. Employing this dualapproach, it becomes possible for Archer todevelop her historical analysis and her generaltheory with analytical dualism.The principle of morphogenesis and mor-phostasis is derived from Walter Buckley'ssystems theory. Although Buckley does notemploy the significant trisectioning of the



6/9

MargaretArcher on StructuralandCulturalMorphogenesis 83

morphogenetic cycle which Archer develops, hedoes have a number of theoretical elementswhich are later utilized in Archer's theory: theidea of variety generated by the system itself, theidea of tensions in the system and the idea oftransactional processes of exchange, negotia-tion or bargaining (Buckley 1967:160). Thissource of inspiration seems to have had a majorimpact on all of Archer's works.In her most recent book, Reahst SocialTheory, a new source of inspiration is thephilosophy of Roy Bhaskar and the realistschool. The principle of emergence, in particu-lar, is elaborated under the influence of Bhaskar,who has developed the idea that a contextconsisting of contradictions within and betweendifferentiated and stratified entities constitutesthe basis of emergence. Thus, on the basis ofcontradictions one term arises out of the other.Action leading to this development must,however, take its point of departure in reflexivityand judgement (Bhaskar 1993:303, 382, 397).In this way, Archer bases the elaboration of herown theory on Bhaskar's philosophy of devel-opment.The final source of inspiration to bementioned here is the philosophy of Karl Popper.This inspiration becomes apparent in Archer'sdefinition of the concept of culture. The conceptcorresponds to Popper's definition of the thirdworld. In Objective Knowledge, Popper distin-guishes among the first world being the physicalworld, the second world being the mental worldand the third world being ideas in the objectivesense. The connection between the first and thethird worlds can only take place with the secondworld as mediator between the two (Popper1972/92:154^155). Thus, the third worldconsists of ideas in the objective sense, as theyappear in books and other sorts of accessiblesources. These sources have an objective exis-tence and are possible objects for humanthought. It is this objective world which Archerconceives of as culture.

Continuity and originalityAll Archer's works hitherto show sociologicalthinking characterized by both continuity andoriginality. The principles for social analysiswhich Archer introduced in her early works stillcharacterize her theoretical thinking. Morpho-genesis and analytical dualism follow herthrough all her works. This does not meanstagnation in Archer's theoretical thinking. On

the contrary, she has been able to elaboratethese principles through the process of includ-ing still more sources of inspiration whileupholding a high degree of continuity.At the same time, her theory expresses ahigh degree of originality. Her distinctionbetween the cultural system and socioculturalinteraction is original. Her view of the structuraland the cultural domains as phenomena whichmust be analysed according to the sameprinciples has not been suggested before. Herfocus on the logical relations of culture and onthe types of dynamism that spring from this is anovel contribution to sociological thinkingabout culture.

The result of this continuity and originalityis an impressive theoretical construction span-ning the cultural domain, the structuraldomain and their mutual relations. Archerhas succeeded in creating a theory, which -despite its extensive area of validity - meets herdeclared purpose: to develop guidelines forpractical social theorizing.

Nevertheless, in the following I criticize afew aspects of her theoretical construction,namely, her basic principles of theory construc-tion, her uses of classical sociology and hercombination of theory and history.

Morphogenesis and analytical dualismThe first question I pursue has to do with theconsequences of the fact that Archer allowsherself to be inspired by such very differentsources. What happens to her theory? Is shesuccessful in adhering to the principles that sheherself establishes and which she criticizesothers for not observing?Archer's two most important methodo-logical principles are analytical dualism andmorphogenesis. Analytical dualism has its rootsin Lockwood's combination of general function-alism and conflict theory. The principle ofmorphogenesis has its roots in Buckley's sys-tems theory. Analytical dualism leads to thedemand that structure and agency have to bekept separate and analysed separately if anunderstanding of their mutual interplay is to beobtained. Over time, however, Archer has letmorphogenetic thinking and thereby the sys-tems theoretical approach dominate in relationto the interactionist approach. In her theory,agency in itself becomes a morphogenetic cycle.It becomes a part of the social system. Thequestion is whether this theoretical elaboration



7/9


is in contradiction with Archer's principle ofanalytical dualism. One might say that thesystems perspective encroaches upon agencyand renders agency a part of the social system.Therefore, interaction and the conflict perspec-tive are no longer seen as separate from thesystems perspective. In this way, analyticaldualism is not observed.

In Archer's theory of culture anotherimportant combination occurs. Here, themethodological principle of analytical dualismis combined with Popper's philosophy of science.According to Popper, one must distinguishamong the physical world, the mental worldand the world of objective ideas. It is the thirdworld, the world of objective ideas, which formsthe point of departure for Archer's concept ofculture. In Popper's theory, however, it is aprecondition that the mental world mediatesbetween the physical world and the world ofobjective ideas. This mental world is by andlarge absent in Archer's theory of culture. Shelets analytical dualism, as developed on thebasis of Lockwood's article about social integra-tion and system integration, apply not just tothe structural domain, but also to the culturaldomain. Certainly, this was not the aim ofLockwood's article. For Lockwood, the aim wasto develop a novel sociological perspective inwhich social integration and system integrationwere combined and it was directed towards theanalysis of those societal elements which Archerlabels structure. By assuming that culture andstructure are governed by the same mechan-isms, Archer transfers the mechanisms of thestructural domain to the cultural domain. Thusshe assumes that sociocultural interaction isdetermined by material interests. In her view,sociocultural agency takes place in order toprotect or increase vested material interests. Asa consequence, in her theory of the intersectionbetween structure and culture, she reaches theresult that a transfer of legitimacy from cultureto structure takes place. For the structural worldthe most important result of cultural processesthus becomes its own self-Iegitimization. Byapplying analytical dualism to both structureand culture, Archer turns cultural processesinto a mirror of structural processes. Whenmaterial interests determine the culturaldomain, this implies that this domain issubsumed under the structural domain. Theautonomous dynamism of culture, in whichmental processes mediate the relationshipbetween objective culture and its materialfoundation, as in Popper's theory, has been cut

out in Archer's theory. Instead, she lets vestedmaterial interests be the connecting linkbetween objective culture and its materialfoundation. Thinking, then, does not becomedecisive for the development of culture. On thecontrary, the material advantages of thinkingbecome decisive for this development. In thisway culture is subsumed under structure.

Situational logic and classical sociologyThe next question I pursue has to do with theconsequences of Archer's combination of theconcept of the cultural system and her utiliza-tion of the classical sociologists as examples. Is itpossible on the one hand to claim that culturemust be studied as a cultural system consistingof logical propositions, while on the other handutilizing the cultural analyses of Durkheim andWeber? Is it possible on the one hand thatcultural interaction is determined by situationallogic and vested material interests, and on theother hand include cultural studies which focusupon the education of pupils and the cultivationof people?In Archer's theory of culture, Durkheim'sanalysis of the development of educationalthought is included as an example. In herexemplification of cultural conditions, labelledby her as constraining contradictions, Archerrefers to Durkheim's analysis of the contra-diction between Christian beliefs and classicalcivilization (Durkheim 1938/77). Furthermore,when she argues for the particular kind ofsociocultural interaction which can take placeas a consequence of constraining contradic-tions, Archer bases her argument on thisexample. The holders of power in the Christianchurch had to attempt to limit the access to theclassical texts. The problem was, however, thatthe early Christian texts held commentaries tothe works of the ancients. Therefore, it was notpossible in the long run to uphold this prohibi-tion against studying the works of the ancients.The contradictions had to become visible.

In this way, Durkheim's analysis becomesan example of a morphogenetic cycle inArcher's theory. However, the aim of Durk-heim's analysis was not to study culturalchange, but to analyse the cultivation of theindividual under varying cultural conditions.Posing the question in this way means employ-ing a completely different concept of culturefrom the one we find in Archer's theoryDurkheim sees culture as a subject-object



8/9

MargaretArcher on Structuraland CulturalMorphogenesis 85

relation. Culture has to do with the cultivatingof people. It is characteristic that Durkheim islooking for a common culture. This cultureconsists of (a) cultural treasures such asliterature, architecture, sculptures, etc. (Durk-heim 1938/77:19); (b) common rules of actionwhich enable social integration (Durkheim1925/68:24); and (c) categories available forour thinking (Durkheim 1912/95:15). In Durk-heim's analysis, culture is an asset available tous all, and it is this culture that each individualcan incorporate. People can obtain linguisticskills, develop the capacity to think, obtainknowledge and wisdom and increase the pre-dictability of conduct.Archer can only utilize Durkheim's analy-sis as the basis for the development of her owntheory by eliding the theory which lies behindDurkheim's analysis. Thus, she reduces Durk-heim's analysis to examples. Durkheim's view ofculture as cultivation of the triinking, the moraland the conduct of people, is clearly in opposi-tion to Archer's view of culture as an objectiveworld which can affect people by means of itssituational logic and its ability to create materialadvantages.Weber's analyses are also included asexamples by Archer in her theory of culture.Here, the cultural conditions, which she labelsconcomitant complementarities, are exempli-fied. In his analysis of Ancient China and India,Weber (1948/70:396-444) shows how reli-gious beliefs and their rationale for statusdistribution are complementary with the eco-nomic ethos. The kinds of sociocultural inter-action which can result from this culturalconditioning are also exemplified by utilizingWeber's analyses. Here, Archer incorporates hisanalysis of the Chinese Mandarins. Over time,the cultural system in China had becomecharacterized by a high degree of culturaldensity, implying that it could take a wholelifetime to acquire complete knowledge of thisculture. From this, Archer deduces the problemthat this very large investment by the individualwould often not yield the expected materialbenefits to that person. When there is only roomfor a small elite, the consequence may be thatmany of the people who have in fact undertakena major personal investment in educationbecome social marginals. They can choosedesertion and conjunction of the acquiredculture with new items. The consequencemust be migration and cultural change.

Weber's analyses, thus, are also utilized asan example of a morphogenetic cycle. Here, too,

it was not Weber's aim to explain culturalchange, although he fully recognizes that suchchange takes place. His aim is, quite thecontrary, to study what kind of cultivationresults from different types of culture. Thequestion of the development of economic ethicsis central to him. Like Durkheim, Weber seesculture as a subject-object relation. In histheory, culture is those segments of the worldprocess which people have related to value ideasand which have thereby been given meaningand significance (Weber 1904-17/1949:76,81). Culture is developed, consequently, by therelation of value ideas to the world process, andit gives meaning to life. Weber, too, sees cultureas the cultivation of the individual. Theindividual must be cultivated by education.The problem, as he sees it, is that there is anadvancement of cultural values and thateducation therefore becomes characterized stillmore by specialized examinations. The implica-tion of this is that education no longer meansreal cultivation. Specialized training makes itimpossible for the individual to possess theculture as a whole. As a consequence, theindividual must strive towards cultural perfec-tion all life through; this is, however, impossible.The individual is threatened by loss of meaningand there is, therefore, only one option: theselection of cultural values (Weber 1948/70:356).

Again it must be said that Archer can onlyutilize Weber's analyses as the basis of her owntheory by eliding the theory of culture which hisanalyses are based on. She must reduce them toexamples. There is a fundamental differencebetween Weber's view of culture as meaningcreated through the relation of value ideas tothe world process, and Archer's very logicalapproach to the study of culture. For Weber,culture has to do with cultivating people, i.e.supplying them with an ethic which can givedirection to practical conduct. For Archer, thesociocultural interaction is determined bymaterial advantages which can be obtained byreacting to the situational logic.The result of Archer's utilization of theclassical sociological works becomes that sheselects examples from these analyses. Sheexploits these examples to advance her owntheory, while at the same time disregarding thefundamental views of culture by the classicalsociologists themselves. She ignores their owntheories and the lessons to be learnt from them.This creates a contradiction between the focusof Archer upon logic and power and the focus of



9/9


the classical sociologists upon cultivation, moraland ethics. The question is what this contra-diction will mean for Archer's theoreticalconstruction in the longer run.

Format and analytical historiesThe last problem I take up is Archer's view of therelationship between theory and history. In theintroduction to Contemporary Europe, she writesthat theoretical formulation and comparativeinvestigation must be intertwined. She advo-cates the view that the ultimate criterion of thetheoretical explanation must be its empiricaladequacy. Towards the end of Reahst SocialTheory she takes up once again the question ofthe relationship between theory and history.Here, she points out that her theory should beperceived of as an explanatory format whichcan form the basis of analytical histories ofemergence. The question becomes the extent towhich Archer succeeds in relating her owntheory to history. The analytical history ofemergence, which she adds to her theory inReahst Social Theory, is her own analyticalhistory of the emergence of state educationalsystems. Beyond this, she bases her theory uponexamples from the classical sociologists, but, asshown above, she elides their theories andthereby the analytical histories that theymight contain. The problem is that Archerdoes not connect her theory of cultural mor-phogenesis with any analytical history ofemergence. In this way, this part of the theoryremains an explanatory format. Her fundamen-tal view of culture and structure as phenomenawhich can be studied with similar analyticalprinciples is not confronted with any analyticalhistories. Thus, we are not given any answer tothe question of the entire theory's empiricaladequacy. In this way, the theory remains aformat.

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

CombiningStructureand Action. BritishJournal f Sociology,33, 455-183.Archer,M. S. 1985. The Myth of Cultural ntegration.BritishJournal f Sociology, 6:3.Archer,M.S. 1988/96. Culture ndAgency.ThePlaceofCulturenSocial Theory.Rev. ed. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Archer, M. S. 1995. Realist Social Theory: he MorphogeneticApproach. ambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Bhaskar,R. 1993. Dialectic.ThePulseofFreedom. ondon:Verso.Buckley, W. 1967. Sociologyand Modern Systems Theory.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.Durkheim,E. 1912/95. TheElementary ormsof ReligiousLife.New York:Free Press.Durkheim,E. 1925/68. MoralEducation.A Study n the TheoryandApplication f theSociology f Education.New York:FreePress.Durkheim, E. 1938/77. The Evolutionof EducationalThought.Lectureson the Formationand Development f SecondaryEducationn France.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.Gellner,E. 1968. HolismVersusIndividualism. n M. Brodbeck(ed.), Readingsn thePhilosophy f theSocialSciences.London:Macmillan.Giddens,?. 1979. CentralProblemsn SocialTheory.London:Macmillan.Giner,S.&Archer,M. S. (eds.)1978. Contemporaryurope: ocialStructures nd Cultural atterns.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.Gramsci,A. 1932/75. LettersromPrison:AntonioGramsci.Ed.by LynneLawner.New York:HarperColophon.Habermas, J. 1971. Towardsa Rational Society. London:Heinemann.Habermas,J. 1981/1991-92. The Theoryof CommunicativeAction.Cambridge: olityPress.Hayek,F.A. 1973. FromScientismandthe StudyofSociety. nJ.O'Neill ed.),ModesofIndividualismnd Collectivism.ondon:Heinemann.L?vi-Strauss, C. 1958/69. StructuralAnthropology.London:AllenLane.Lockwood,D. 1964. SocialIntegrationandSystemIntegration.In G. K. Zollschan&W.Hirsch(eds.),Explorationsn SocialChange.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.Mandelbaum,M. 1973. Societal Facts.InJ.O'Neill ed.),ModesofIndividualismnd Collectivism.ondon:Heinemann.Miliband,R. 1969. TheState n Capitalist ociety.London:Allen& Unwin.Parsons,T. 1951. TheSocialSystem.London:Routledge&Kegan

Paul.Popper,K. R. 1972/92. ObjectiveKnowledge.An EvolutionaryApproach. ev.ed. Oxford:ClarendonPress.Sorokin,P. 1957. Socialand CulturalDynamics.London:PeterOwen.Watkins, J.W. N. 1968. Methodological IndividualismandSocial Tendencies. In M. Brodbeck(ed.), Readings n thePhilosophy f the SocialSciences.London:Macmillan.Weber, M. 1904-17/1949. The Methodologyof the SocialSciences.Transi, and ed. by E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch.New York:Free Press.Weber,M. 1948/70. FromMaxWeber: ssays nSociology. rans.and ed. and with an Introductionby H. H. Gerth and C.WrightMills. London:Routledge&KeganPaul.

This content downloaded from 82 18 130 62 on Sun 5 May 2013 12:37:38 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

- Zeuner 1999 Magret Archer on Structural and Cultural Morphogenesis

Documents

Transcript of - Zeuner 1999 Magret Archer on Structural and Cultural Morphogenesis