Читать книгу SCM Core Text Sociology of Religion - Andrew Dawson - Страница 17

The impact of social structure upon agency has two important and overlapping dimensions. The first, and more abstract, dimension of the social structuring of agency concerns the theoretical issue of determinism. Here, social theory treats the extent to which individual choices, values, beliefs, and tastes originate from voluntary dynamics and subjective freedoms or are the products of social processes and determinative forces exterior to the self. While each extreme of the determinism equation has found adherents within the sociological community, mainstream social theory has traditionally acknowledged elements of both structural determination and subjective freedom as constitutive dimensions of individual agency (Heilbron, 1995). Mainstream opinion remains divided, however, as to which of these two elements deserves most attention and as to how precisely the dimensions of structure and agency interact. For example, while readily acknowledging the importance of individual agency, the French social theorist Pierre Bourdieu affords greater theoretical space to the structuring capacities of social forces (1984, 1993 and 1998). As he remarks, somewhat pessimis­tically perhaps:

The true freedom that sociology offers is to give us a small chance of . . . minimizing the ways in which we are manipulated by the forces of the [social] field in which we evolve, as well as by the embodied social forces that operate from within us. (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, p. 198)

On the other hand, while Giddens’ ‘theory of structuration’ gives ample acknowledgment of the ‘structural properties of social systems’, his analytical emphasis remains squarely upon agency as expressed through ‘the reflexively monitored activities of situated actors, having a range of intended and unintended consequences’ (1984, p. 212). Although agreeing with Bourdieu and Giddens as to the dual importance of structure and agency, Margaret Archer is critical of their conceptualization of how these two mutually constitutive elements interact. For Archer, both theorists fail to acknowledge that while structural determination may be to the fore in one time or place, in other periods and locales individual agency enjoys heightened efficacy (1996, pp. 72–96). The relationship between structure and agency is, then, often asymmetric in nature.

Wherever they stand on the spectrum of the determinism debate, most sociologists would agree that every individual is a social being whose values and beliefs, preferences and aversions, aspirations, preoccupations and preju­dices, are never purely her own. Rather, they stem also from sources outside of ourselves (e.g. family, peer group, schooling, workplace, religion, media) and are internalized by us through our exposure to the processes of socialization particular to each of the institutions through which we pass. As Berger puts it: ‘Society does not stop at the surface of our skins. Society penetrates us as much as it envelops us’ (1966, p. 140). By virtue of our internalization of them, these exterior influences become integral features of our innermost subjectivity, influencing us in ways which – more often than not – escape our immediate awareness.

The tendency of social processes to influence human beings in ways which escape their immediate notice has sociological implications that go beyond some of the theoretical abstractions of the determinism debate. This is the case because structural determination generates patterns and regularities in human behaviour which impact directly upon the life choices made by and social opportunities available to every individual. As Jonathan Turner notes:

The symbolic and material resources available to individuals, the placement of people in space, the amount of time people have, the options that are realistically available, and just about everything that is possible in a micro encounter are all dictated by macrostructure. (1988, p. 211)

The macro-determination of micro-possibility generates comparative regularities in individual behaviour which can be mapped against shared characteristics of, for example, class membership, sex or ethnic identity. In respect of class, individuals belonging to poorer socio-economic groups exhibit different patterns of consumption from those from more affluent households. In both the UK and USA, for example, poorer families will spend less of their household income on fruit and vegetables than families from more affluent professional backgrounds. At the same time, more affluent families are more likely to purchase their groceries at supermarkets, where prices are generally cheaper and money goes further, while poorer families are more likely to shop at local stores where prices are generally higher. In the same vein, while those from poorer socio-economic groups are more likely than those from more affluent backgrounds to smoke, have a poorer diet, die sooner, suffer more illness, and recover more slowly from these illnesses, they are less likely to consult a dentist, optician and chiropodist and to make use of preventative facilities such as cervical screening and routine medical examination (Butler and Watt, 2007; Gilbert, 2008).

Where race and ethnicity are concerned, UK figures released in 2003 show different patterns of employment relative to differences in racial-ethnic status. For example, the data indicate that one in 20 Indian men is a doctor, compared with one in 200 white men, 45 per cent of Chinese men are in professional or managerial jobs compared with 25 per cent of white and Indian men, and members of the Hindu community are four times less likely to be unemployed than Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims. At the same time, while Black Caribbean women earn £30 more than white women, Pakistani and Bangladeshi women earn £34 less than their white counterparts (Cabinet Office, 2003).

In respect of sex, statistics from the USA clearly demonstrate societal patterning of female agency relative to that of men. For example, the annual income of American women in full-time employment is three-quarters of that of their male counterparts. In the same vein, while a man with a bach­elor’s degree will earn approximately $25,000 more than a man with a high­school diploma, a woman with a bachelor’s degree will earn around only $5,000 more than a man with a high-school diploma. At the same time, whereas female professional employment is concentrated in the social and health sciences, male professional employment is concentrated in engineering and new technologies. Furthermore, during the course of their working lives women will enjoy substantially less leisure time than male workers, while subsequent to retiring from the workforce women are far more likely than men to suffer some form of socio-economic impoverishment (McCall, 2001; Ore, 2008; Rothenberg, 2006).

In terms of explaining the above modes of societal patterning, popular myths, ill-informed bigotries or simple ignorance point readily to the fecklessness or determination of the different classes, the idleness or industry of particular racial-ethnic groups and the respective inclinations of the sexes. In addition to perpetuating classist, racist and sexist prejudices, such poorly judged opinion commits the reductionist error of explaining overarching societal processes through reference to singular causes or unrelated phenomena which function in isolation from the complex systems they purport to explain. For example, while the biological differences between men and women are clearly relevant, they do not in themselves account for the processes of socialization and discrimination which sustain patriarchal structures and their gendered inequalities. In contrast, diligent sociological analysis of differential social outcomes takes due account of the macro-structural dynamics, institutional processes and micro-interactions which provide, ration or deny symbolic and material resources to individuals of differing sex, socio-economic standing or ethnic-racial origins.