Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
New Bottles?
Author(s): Keith Morrison
Source: British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jul., 2005), pp. 311-326
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036070
Accessed: 12/01/2010 04:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
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.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British Journal
of Sociology of Education.
http://www.jstor.org
BritishJournalof Sociologyof Education
Vol. 26, No. 3, July 2005, pp. 311-326 I Routledge
&Francis
Taylor Group
This paper examines similarities and differences between structuration theory, habitus and
complexity theory, as theories of social change. The paper suggests that structuration theory and
habitus can theorize change, but that complexity theory offers a more complete theory of change
because it focuses on social production rather than reproduction. Although there are elective affin-
ities between structuration theory, habitus and complexity theory, nevertheless there are important
differences between them. Complexity theory, being at heart a theory of change and development,
differentiation and open systems, is more than merely a reformulation of structuration theory and
habitus, and offers a more complete theory of social change than these two. Implications and
agendas are drawn for the sociology of education from a complexity perspective.
Introduction
Structuration theory, habitus and complexity theory offer three theories of social
change that integrate agency and structure. The purpose of this paper is to identify
which offers a more complete account of change. It examines the similarities and
differences between structurationtheory, habitus and complexity theory, as theories
of social change. Structurationtheory and habitus, it is argued, theorize social repro-
duction well, but complexity theory offers a more complete theory of change, as it
focuses on production ratherthan reproduction.Although similaritiesbetween struc-
turation theory, habitus and complexity theory are drawn, the paper suggests that
complexity theory is more than a reformulationof structurationtheory and habitus in
explaining change. The paper closes with implications of complexity theory being
drawn for the sociology of education.
* Inter-University Institute of Macau, NAPE, Lote 16, Rua de Londres, Edf. Tak Ip Plaza, Macau,
People's Republic of China. E-mail: kmorrison@iium.edu.mo
Take two short examples. First, why do teachers perpetuate practices that are, in
many ways, anti-educational rather than change them? For example, the widely
discredited practice of over-testing is rehearsed repeatedlyin the daily lives of many
teachers (Dore & Sako, 1989; Lewin & Wang, 1990; Sacks, 1999; Morrison & Tang,
2002). Teachers, often constrained by government pressures or, indeed, from their
own choice, perpetuate an educationally potentially questionable practice. One can
find an explanation for this in Giddens' structurationtheory and Bourdieu's habitus,
operating as theories of reproduction. In both, the effects of imposed or self-imposed
control operate to reproduce the statusquo.
Take a second example. A small ruralschool, characterizedby teachers workingin
comfortable isolation within a traditional curriculum, appoints a new principal who
decides: that the students need to be equipped to take their place in new employment
markets, that the horizons of the local population need to be extended, that the
curriculum needs to place greater emphasis on information and communications
technology (ICT), and that the school should become much more of a community
resource. After discussions with parents, community and teachers, the school
becomes a centre for community Internet and ICT links and courses, there is greater
student-centredness and ICT-based learning, there is increased collaborative
planning and teaching, and there is more involvement of parents and the community.
The school changes from being a sleepy, if well-intentioned and friendly, place, into
a vibrant community with close and productive links to the outside world.
In this second example the school has changed; it has greaterexternal links to the
environment (externalconnectedness) and has sensed and met the needs of the exter-
nal environment by changing its internal practices (internal connectedness). The
school has changed through self-organization, and a new form of planning and
teaching-team based-has emerged because the older, isolationist forms were not
working. The school has changed from a closed to an open system, and has impacted
on its local environment; it has been affected by the external environment and, in
turn, has affected that environment.
This second example is not easily explained by theories of reproduction, structur-
ation and habitus, as new, emergent practices present themselves. It is better
explained by complexity theory; sensitivity to the external environment has resulted
in internal change.
The dialectic of agency and structurein accounting for, and fostering, change and
development in social systems has long exercised the minds of social theorists.
Giddens' (1984) theory of structurationconstitutes a celebrated and largelysuccess-
ful, if contested (for example, Clegg, 1989; Layder, 1994), attempt at integrating
agency and structure. For Giddens, agency and structureare symbiotic, two facets of
a single phenomenon, and such 'dualityof structure'is not externalto individualsand
groups but internal to their lifeworlds.
Giddens' structurationtheory is familiar:in their everydaylives people create and
reproduce existing social practices. Giddens (1984) prefaces his work with Marx's
Structurationtheory,habitusand complexitytheory 313
famous dictum: 'men [sic] make their own history, but they do not make it under
circumstancesof their own choosing' (Marx, 1852, p. 115). We exert our own agency
and intentionality, creating, producing and reproducing systems through our daily
interactions, and in turn those systems constrain and influence the way in which we
behave. In our everyday actions we produce and reproduce both constraining and
enabling social structures,which are both the medium and outcome of social produc-
tion and reproduction (Giddens, 1976). Indeed, 'all human action is carried on by
knowledgeable agents who both construct the social world through their action, but
yet whose action is also conditioned and constrained by the very world of their
creation' (Giddens, 1981, p. 54).
For structurationtheory, the moment of action can also be the moment of social
reproduction as, in our actions, we reproduce the conditions of reproduction, 'the
conditions that make these activities possible' (Giddens, 1984, p. 2). Indeed, Layder
(1994, p. 133) writes: 'as ciphers of structural demands, people are condemned to
repeat and reinforcethe very conditions that restrict their freedom in the first place'.
Through our activities we create and reproduce structural conditions, comprising
knowledge, resources, rules, institutional and societal practices.
For Giddens, routinizationis a powerful force for inertia ratherthan change; as he
argues (1984, p. 2): 'human social activities, like some self-reproducing items in
nature, are recursive.That is to say, they are not brought into being by social actors
but continually recreatedby them via the very means whereby they express themselves
as actors'. Although we may act intentionally and deliberately, nevertheless we may
end up reproducingthe existing social order and social fabric. Giddens writes that 'in
structuration theory "structure"is regarded as the rules and resources recursively
implicated in social reproduction' (Giddens, 1984, p. xxxi); human social activities
are recursivein as much they are continually being recreatedby the actors (Giddens,
1984, p. xxxi). That said, social structures do not force people to act in particular
ways; people are not 'ideological dopes of stunning mediocrity' (Giddens, 1979,
p. 52); social structuresdo not operate independently of the motives and reasons that
people have for theirbehaviour (Giddens, 1984, p. 181). Humans exercise choice and
agency in the matter (although Clegg [1989] and Layder [1994] argue that Giddens
overstates the role of agency).
In discussing agency and structure there is an elective affinity, a mutually
potentiating similarity, between Giddens and Bourdieu, albeit their terminology
differs. Giddens' 'duality of structure'rehearsesBourdieu's conception of structured
structures and structuring structures. Structured structures and structuring struc-
tures reside within the habitus(Bourdieu, 1977, p. 53), defined as 'systems of durable,
transportable dispositions,structured structures predisposed to function as structuring
structures, that is, as principles of the generation and structuring of practices and
representations'. Shilling (2004, p. 475) cites Bourdieu's (1990, p. 53) remark that
habitus provides individuals with 'predisposed ways of categorizing and relating to
familiar and novel situations'.
The habitus is both a result of social structures and yet also structures; that is,
changes and influences, behaviour, life-styles and social systems. 'The habitus is not
314 K. Morrison
initial conditionings' (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 95). For both Giddens and Bourdieu,
structuresare both the medium and outcome of social actions (Fuchs, 2003a). They
constrain practices but are also a result of creativehuman relationships.
For example, teachersmay be constrainedby a system that requiresthem to behave
in certainways, but they themselves might also set the conditions that constrainthem,
reproducing cycles of causality. Teachers, not acquiescentlybut volitionally, exerting
their agency, may set up the conditions for the reproduction of the system. The
structured structures perhaps condition them to behave in a particular way, but
teachers deliberatelymay choose a course of action that guaranteesthat such a course
continues to constrain them. The process can be circular, echoing Giddens' view of
the routinization of practices, the circularityof agency and structure, and the circu-
larity of causality.
In Bourdieu's terms, the structuredstructurecan be reproduced through the struc-
turing structure (teachers' conscious, agential, volitional decision to opt for a partic-
ular system or set of practices). It is akin to the celebratedstudy of 'why workingclass
kids get working class jobs' by Willis (1977), in which teenage working-classmales,
influenced by the structuralconditions in which they found themselves (e.g. the need
for a social life, the need to live for the present and for immediate gratificationand its
associated need for money, the need to demonstrate masculinity, the need to subvert
authority), positively and volitionally (exerting their own agency, a key element of
their subculture) chose a life-style that would guaranteethat they remained working-
class kids, rather than opting for the deferred, and ultimately financially more
rewarding,gratificationof non-working-classsocio-economic groups.
internal and external environments, and survival and development through adapta-
tion and change. Society and societal systems are open; closed systems, as Prigogine
and Stengers (1985) remind us, run down and decay into entropy unless they import
energy from outside. Adapt or die.
In terms of many teachers' practices, one can sometimes observe the presence of a
collective, partiallyself-organized system will not to change the situation, the lack of
creativityand diversity, the lack of internal flexibility and adaptability,the presence
of a closed, reproductive system, the absence of emergence or new behaviours, the
recursivecycles of reproduction, and the inabilityof the system to inform itself of best
practice outside itself (the environment); for example, in new methods of teaching
and assessment. The system is closed and, therefore, reproductive.
If reproduction is to be broken then the argument here suggests that the system
must become open so that it can change autocatalytically,so that new practices can
emerge through self-organization.Change requiresattention to teacher development,
to the fuller empowerment of teachers to change, to the replacement of control by
emergent and changing order, to the increase in communication between all the
stakeholders in educational processes, and to the significance of school leaders to
make changes. It implies that schools have to provide support and space for change,
creativity and imagination, so that change can emerge through self-organization.
Change requires communication and information to and from all stakeholders;
whether the practices are recursively or discursively redeemed in everydaylife (e.g.
Giddens and Habermas,respectively),new elements for routinizationhave to be both
developed and communicated widely.
agency ad infinitum.All three stress the point that causes and effects do not behave
linearly: small causes can have large effects and large causes can have small effects.
All three indicate that complex systems are organized in a distributed rather than a
centrally organized way, and there are many and multi-directional connections
between the parts of the system (Kauffman, 1995; Edmonds, 1996).
Fuchs (2003b, p. 10) notes that there are 'conceptual affinitiesbetween Giddens'
theory and the philosophical assumptions of self-organizationtheory'; Giddens, like
complexity theory:
is describingsociety in terms of mutualand circularcausalityand ... is criticalof reduc-
tionism. ... Both Giddens and concepts of self-organization'place the productionand
reproductionof systemsat the centerof theirtheories,in particularthe idea that systems
can be recursivelyself-producing'.(Mingers,1995, p. 136, quotedin Fuchs, 2003b)
All three theories stress that circular causality and feedback are central elements in
describing society. Fuchs (2003b, p. 16) indicates that the term socialself-organization
is implied in all three theories and:
refersto the dialecticalrelationshipof structuresand actionswhich resultsin the overall
re-productionof the system.The creativityand knowledgeability of actorsis at the core of
this process and secures the re-creation of social systems within and through self-
conscious, creativeactivitiesof human actors. ... The term self-organization refersto the
role of the self-conscious,creative,reflectiveand knowledgeablehuman beings in the
reproductionof social systems.(Fuchs, 2003b, p. 16)
Marx's remark noted earlier applies equally to self-organization:we create our own
history but not in circumstances of our own choosing; we are affected by external
conditions.
Although there are many similaritiesbetween structurationtheory and habitus, as
already set out, and although there are very great similaritiesbetween these two and
complexity theory, nevertheless there are important differences between complexity
theory and the other two. For example, complexity theory is a theory of necessaryand
inexorablechange and development for survival,in a way in which the other two theo-
ries are not. It is a theory of social production whereas the other two may be theories
of social production but could also be theories of social reproduction and the self-
fulfillingprophecy; and indeed Bourdieu's (1976) piece and his joint work on cultural
capital and habitus (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) were a theory of reproduction.
Habitus can over-determineagency.
Structurationtheory and habitus, as theories of reproduction, can provide a fitting
explanationfor the reproductionof practice. Structurationtheory and habitus can give
an account of change; they can also give an account of inertia, stability and reproduc-
tion, albeit in part derived from agency. However, inertia and stability are not in the
conceptual vocabulary of complexity theory. Structuration theory and habitus are, at
heart, descriptivetheories of a particular phenomenon or of the status quo (and, indeed,
Bourdieu [1976] regarded the school as a conservative force) rather than prescriptive
of how to change, other than by exhorting increased agency or system change.
Complexity theory, on the other hand, is prescriptive, setting an agenda, focus and
process for change; for example, changing the internal and external environments,
Structurationtheory,habitusand complexitytheory 321
* The processes and contents of how schools position themselves in the community
and society.
* The nature of schools' and systems' strategic planning for unpredictable futures,
and responses to unpredicted situations.
* How large-scalereformsdevelop and use, and are informed by, local networksand
interactions.
structure, lifeworld and system, divergence and convergence interact to bring about
or impede educational change; (c) how to both use, but transcend, simple causality
in understandingthe processes of school development and change; (d) how coopera-
tion, interdependence, collaboration and competition mutually inform and deter-
mine each other (i.e. how consensus, structuralist, functionalist and conflict
perspectives combine to promote development and change in education); and (e)
how viewing a system holistically, as having its own ecology of multiply-interacting
elements, yields greaterinsights than an atomized approach.
More fundamentally, complexity theory suggests that the conventional units of
analysis in sociology of education (as in other fields) should move away from, for
example, individuals, institutions, communities and systems (cf. Lemke, 2001).
These should merge, so that the unit of analysisbecomes a web or ecosystem (Capra,
1996, p. 301), focused on, and arising from, a specific topic or centre of interest (a
'strange attractor'). Individuals, families, schools, communities and societies exist in
symbiosis; complexity theory tells us that their relationships are necessary, not
contingent, and analytic, not synthetic. This is a challenging prospect for the
sociology of education, and complexity theory, a comparativelyneglected field in the
sociology of education, offers considerable leverage into understanding societal,
community, individual and institutional change; it provides the nexus between
macro-sociology and micro-sociology in understandingand promoting change.
Notes
1. Although Nash (1999, p. 176) suggests that 'habitus also provides the grounds for agency,
within a limited arena of choice, and thus an escape from structural determinism', enabling
'individual trajectories to be studied', nevertheless agency and action alone do not equate with,
or guarantee change; actions can be reproductive. Furthermore, Shilling (2004, p. 474)
suggests that 'Bourdieu's analysis is hampered by an overly reproductionist analysis of human
behaviour ... Bourdieu is unable to account satisfactorily for individuals who break free from
the trajectories assigned to them by their background and training'.
References
April, K. A., Macdonald, R. & Vriesendorp, S. (2000) Rethinkingleadership(Capetown, University
of Capetown Press).
Arshinov, V. & Fuchs, C. (Eds) (2003) Causality, emergence,self-organization (Vienna, Vienna
University of Technology, INTAS Research Project on Human Strategies in Complexity).
Ashby, W. R. (1964) Introductionto cybernetics(London, Methuen).
Bak, P. (1996) How nature works(New York, Copernicus).
Bak, P. & Chen, K. (1991) Self-organized criticality, ScientificAmerican, January, 46-53.
Bar-Yam, Y. (1997) Dynamics of complexsystems(New York, Perseus Press).
Bourdieu, P. (1976) The school as a conservative force: scholastic and cultural inequalities, in:
R. Dale, G. Esland & M. Macdonald (Eds) Schoolingand capitalism (London, Routledge and
Kegan Paul).
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a theoryof practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Bourdieu, P. (1986) Distinction:a social critiqueof thejudgementof taste (London, Routledge).
Bourdieu, P. (1990) The logic of practice (Stanford, Stanford University Press).
Structurationtheory,habitusand complexitytheory 325