Download Margaret Archer on Structural and Cultural Morphogenesis

Margaret Archer on Structural and Cultural Morphogenesis
Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach by Margaret S. Archer; Culture and
Agency. The Place of Culture in Social Theory by Margaret S. Archer
Review by: Lilli Zeuner
Acta Sociologica, Vol. 42, No. 1 (1999), pp. 79-86
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201123 .
Accessed: 11/02/2015 23:20
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 to Acta
Sociologica.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ACIASOCIOLOGICA
1999
REVIEW
ESSAY
Archer
Margaret
on
and
Structural
Cultural
Morphogenesis
LilliZeuner
Danish National
Institute of Social Research, Copenhagen,
Margaret S. Archer: Realist Social Theory: the
Morphogenet?c Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995) and Culture and Agency.
The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Revised
Edition
University
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
Press, 1996).
With this revised edition of Culture and Agency
and the publication
of Reahst Social Theory,
English sociologist
Margaret Archer positions
herself as an important
contributor
to sociotheory. The germ of the theoretical
logical
in her two new publications
construction
can
already be seen in her very early works. The
of her theorefollowing is a short presentation
tical construction.
I place it in its context and
mention a few points of criticism.
Structure
In the
and culture
to Reahst Social Theory
Introduction
Archer
(1995),
presents her principles for social
analysis,
making it clear that there must be
internal
between social ontology,
consistency
and practical social
explanatory
methodology
In her view, any social ontology
theorizing.
for the explanatory
adopted has implications
endorsed, and in turn this methmethodology
for the guidelines
to
odology has implications
practical social theorizing.
Social realism and the principle of emergence are the ontological points of departure for
Margaret Archer. In her concept of society, she
makes it crystal clear that structure and agency
- distinct from and
must be kept separate
irreducible one to the other. For both levels the
principle of emergence
applies, i.e. the principle
according to which new properties can emerge
Denmark
on the basis of existing properties, which implies
that emergence occurs in time, that the properfrom each other,
ties have relative autonomy
and that they exert independent
causal influences.
of this ontological
As a consequence
Archer's
methodological
approach,
approach
becomes analytical dualism, which emphasizes
the necessity of studying the interplay between
two levels without
them, i.e. nonconflating
This applies to the
theorizing.
conflationary
interplay between structure and agency as well
as to that between culture and agency.
and of analyThe principles of emergence
to develop
lead Archer
the
tical dualism
approach to the study of strucmorphogenetic
has the
ture and culture.
Morphogenesis
of a cycle which
three
involves
character
phases, (1) structural or cultural conditioning,
and (3)
interaction,
(2) social or sociocultural
social or cultural elaboration.
Archer gives these basic ideas about social
and princimethodology
ontology, explanatory
ples for practical social theorizing their clearest
in her most recent book, Realist
expression
Social Theory, but they also form the basis of her
earlier works.
Already in her major study of the emersystems in England,
gence of the educational
France and Russia, Archer utilizes
Denmark,
is introdualism
these principles.
Analytical
duced as a principle of separation between social
and system
(Archer
integration
integration
1979:33).
Although she does not use the term
its three
cycle, she presents
morphogenetic
phases (ibid., p. 44). In fact, her entire analysis
of the four educational
of the emergence
on
two
based
is
analytical
cycles, one
systems
following the other. The first starts in mediaeval
This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80 ACTASOCIOLOGICA
1999
Europe, when the Church owned and monoand then moves into the
polized all education,
The
of state educational
systems.
emergence
second cycle takes its point of departure in the
elaborated structures created by the emergence
of state educational
systems, and then moves
The
different
of change.
towards
patterns
which
follows one cycle strucdevelopment
turally conditions the following one.
of the emergence
of the
This analysis
educational
systems - and it is a most thorough
- constitutes
and
comprehensive
analysis
contribuArcher's most important
historical
tion. Clearly, it forms the point of departure of
and
her later theorizing
cultural
concerning
It is worth noting that
structural phenomena.
while
Archer
the
distinction
emphasizes
between
and cultural phenomena,
structural
as phenomena
she nevertheless
sees them
in accordance
with similar princideveloping
ples. Analytical dualism as well as the morphogenetic approach are applied to both types of
(Archer 1995:179).
phenomena
in
The theory
of culture
is developed
where analyCulture and Agency (1988/1996),
tical dualism and the morphogenetic
approach
are brought out very clearly. Analytical dualism
cultural system from socioleads to distinguish
this distinction
is upheld
cultural interaction;
moves through
the three
while the analysis
cycle. At one level,
phases of the morphogenetic
the cultural system consists of logical proposior
tions which may be either contradictory
while at the other level sociocomplementary,
of
of matters
interaction
consists
cultural
relationThe
cultural
influence.
interpersonal
the cultural system and socioship between
factor
interaction
is the decisive
cultural
or morwhether
morphogenesis
influencing
- elaboration
or maintenance
phostasis
prevails.
The starting point of cultural morphogenas the
understood
esis is cultural conditioning,
ideas which at any given time have holders.
Only if ideas have holders can they have any
effect on agency. According to Archer, cultural
is characterized
by its logical
conditioning
relations. Are the items of culture contradictory
will mould
Contradictions
or complementary?
for cultural agents,
situations
problem-ridden
will mould problemwhile complementarities
free situations. The cultural system thus creates
a situational logic for agents. Archer exemplifies
the
such cultural
by utilizing
conditioning
of some of the
analyses of cultural phenomena
In Durkheim's
fathers of sociology.
founding
VOLUME
42
of educational
of the development
analysis
in France,
is tied to
Christianity
thought
in constraining
In
contradictions.
Antiquity
Weber's analysis of Ancient China and India,
with the
religious beliefs are complementary
she emphasizes
ethos. Nevertheless,
economic
cannot in themselves
that cultural conditions
whether cultural change will take
determine
sociocultural
interplace. Change presupposes
action, and interaction will be characterized
by
attempts to protect or increase vested material
is
sociocultural
interaction
interests.
Thus,
determined by material interests.
becomes
Therefore, the decisive question
how the two levels of the cultural system and
interaction
combine. It is of little
sociocultural
value that the cultural system is riven with
inconsistencies
demanding
change, if the distribution of power is such that any attempt at
change can be suppressed. It is of no use either
that the cultural
by
system is characterized
involve ample opporwhich
complementarities
tunities for adding new elements to the already
existing cultural system, if the holders of power
use all means to prevent this. In this way, the
second phase of the morphogenetic
cycle
the use of power and
sociocultural
interaction,
for
the escape from power - is all-decisive
whether the outcome turns out to be morphogenesis or morphostasis.
to Archer, it is possible under
According
to supconditions
sociocultural
well-ordered
or even
for months,
years
press changes
but in the long run it becomes
centuries,
At some point in time a situation
impossible.
will arise where even the cultural elite will see
its own interest in accepting the demand for a
revision of culture in order to minimize inconsistencies, or a situation where it will be forced
to accept new cultural items in order to uphold
its position. Sooner or later the third phase of
the morphogenetic
cycle will become reality.
The theory of structure and the theory of
between structure and culture
the relationship
are developed in Reahst Social Theory (1995).
of
her principles
advocates
Archer
Again,
the
and
dualism
morphogenetic
analytical
approach. With them she moves through two
cycles, structural morparallel morphogenetic
She
and cultural
morphogenesis.
phogenesis
to
via interaction
moves from conditioning
elaboration.
Seen in relation to Culture and Agency,
Archer in Realist Social Theory primarily underof the second
elaboration
takes a theoretical
cycle, social or
phase of the morphogenetic
This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MargaretArcheron Structuraland CulturalMorphogenesis 81
In this work, Archer
interaction.
sociocultural
points out that agency in itself must be analysed
as a morphogenetic
cycle. In order to develop
of agency, Archer estabthis morphogenesis
between (a) agents underlishes a distinction
with similar life chances,
stood as collectivities
as individual
persons
(b) actors understood
and
their
roles,
(c) persons undergiven
filling
stood as people with a personal and social self.
Concerning
agents, she further distinguishes
between
corporate agents, which have power
and primary agents, which do
and influence,
not possess such power and influence.
of
The starting point for morphogenesis
agency is structural or cultural morphogenesis.
Because of this type of morphogenesis,
morphogenesis of agency takes place. One morphogenetic cycle leads to the other. With regard to the
of agency it also implies that
morphogenesis
can long prevent restrucpower relationships
corporate
agents. As long as an
turing among
elite can keep its distance to the primary agents,
no change will take place. The problem is that
the primary agents with time w?l organize and
thus become
The consecorporate
agents.
will be regrouping.
quence
Morphogenesis
takes
becomes
reality. Double morphogenesis
place.
of agency
Morphogenesis
yet
produces
another kind of morphogenesis,
morphogenesis
of actors. When agents regroup, an elaboration
of roles will take place. The number of roles
which can be attributed to persons will increase.
This, too, is a morphogenetic
process. Triple
takes place.
morphogenesis
Archer emphasizes,
however, that agents
as well as actors are anchored in persons. A
person has energy and the ability to be reflexive
and creative. This implies that a person can
of
make choices.
Therefore,
morphogenesis
or
of
is
not
automatic.
These
agents
agency
are anchored
in persons who can
processes
assess and choose.
Towards the end of Reahst Social Theory
of structural
Archer undertakes
a unification
and cultural analysis. She raises the questions of
how cultural factors find their way into the
structural
field, and of how structural factors
find their way into the cultural field. She points
of these proout that the basic mechanisms
cesses are extremely simple.
If a material interest group is in need of
or legitimation,
it will
assertion
articulation,
look for a doctrine which it can exploit in order
to further these interests. The problem is that as
soon 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 relate
itself to the advanced cultural struggles. This
applies to all material interest groups which are
in alliance with or in opposition to the former
group. They, too, must attempt to make themselves visible and legitimate, but they must do so
in the light of choices made by the former group.
interaction penetrates
In this way sociocultural
the structural domain.
If an ideational group, advocating any kind
with a
has become
of doctrine,
associated
material interest group in order to
particular
for its activities,
it has
resources
safeguard
form
thereby given up part of the universalistic
It must
now submit
to the
of its ideas.
interests pursued by the material
particularistic
interest group in question. There is a cost to
finding a sponsor for one's cultural activities.
The problem is that when one ideational group
an
its resources
has safeguarded
by such
alliance, other ideational
groups are forced to
do the same. If other ideational groups are to
behind in relation to the first
avoid lagging
for
too
must safeguard sponsoring
they
group,
from material interest groups. In
themselves
this way, ideational groups are drawn into the
the
taking
struggles
place between
power
material interest groups. Structural interaction
thus penetrates the cultural domain.
The last question Archer raises in Realist
Social Theory is that of the relationship between
and history.
She characterizes
her
theory
approach to cultural and strucmorphogenetic
tural analyses as an explanatory format. In her
opinion, one should add analytical histories of
to this format. As an example of this
emergence
type of analytical history, Archer points to her
of educational
own analysis of the development
systems.
Archer has also touched upon this question
to the anthology on Europe,
in the Introduction
which she edited in 1978 with Salvador Giner.
Here, she makes the point that there must be a
scientific dialogue in which comcontinuous
are
formulation
parative study and theoretical
is that
intertwined.
Her view
inextricably
empirical adequacy is the ultimate criterion of
in Giner &
theoretical
(Archer
explanation
Archer (eds.) 1978:23-24).
The heritage
Archer
from
commences
systematically
Lockwood
most
criticizing
This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and Buckley
of her works
either sociology
by
or
82 ACTASOCIOLOGICA
1999
the philosophy
of the social sciences, turning
her principle
of analytical
dualism
against
them.
In her opinion,
from
representatives
both disciplines
make themselves
of
guilty
conflation.
The two levels of analysis, which
should be kept analytically apart, are conflated.
In her critique of sociological
analyses of
Archer
between
three
culture,
distinguishes
downwards
and
types of conflation:
upwards,
central
conflation
1988/
1985,
(1982,
In downwards
conflation, repre1996:25-96).
sented by Sorokin (1957), Parsons (1951) and
L?vi-Strauss
it is assumed that
(1958/1969),
cultural cohesion
has the ability of producing
sociocultural
cohesion.
In this way, the sociocultural level is treated as an epiphenomenon
of
culture. In upwards conflation,
represented by
Gramsci (1932/1975),
Miliband (1969)
and
Habermas
it is assumed
that socio(1971),
cultural
cohesion
has the ability to produce
cultural cohesion, whereby culture becomes an
of the sociocultural
level. In
epiphenomenon
central
conflation,
represented
by Giddens
culture
and the sociocultural
level
(1979),
constitute
one another,
and are therefore
perceived of as inseparable. This precludes any
two-way interplay between the levels.
Archer directs a similar critique against
and methodoindividualism
methodological
(1979:5-25,
1995:33-64).
logical collectivism
In methodological
individualism,
represented by
Watkins (1968)
and Hayek (1973), the individual and the acts of the individual are attributed
with
all-decisive
that
importance,
implying
structural
become
the inert and
properties
element. The consequence
is downdependent
wards conflation.
In methodological
collectivand
ism,
by Gellner
(1968)
represented
Mandelbaum
it is the other way
(1973),
around.
that structural
Here, it is assumed
influence in the
properties exert a deterministic
of events, implying that the
regular occurrence
individual and the acts of the individual become
derived phenomena,
of
i.e. a subordination
is upwards conflation.
agency. The consequence
In the revised edition of Culture and Agency,
Archer has added a chapter with a critique of
J?rgen Habermas' book The Theory of Communicative Action (1981/1991-92;
Archer 1988/
Habermas
96:288-315).
develops his theory of
communicative
action on the basis of a distincSo
tion between social and system integration.
far, Habermas and Archer have common basic
elements in their theories. Nevertheless,
Archer
raises a number of critical points against the
theory developed by Habermas on the basis of
VOLUME
42
this distinction.
She criticizes Habermas, inter
aha, for upholding the differences between the
constitution
of the lifeworld and that of the
system instead of seeing the formal communalities between
the dynamics
of structure and
culture.
She criticizes
for
him, furthermore,
between lifeworld and system as
distinguishing
two blocks instead of distinguishing
between on
the one hand the social system and the cultural
system and, on the other hand, sociocultural
interaction
and structural
interaction.
The
of this lack of distinction
is, in
consequence
Archer's view, that culture becomes
an unshared
horizon.
This
means
that
problematic
still contributes
Habermas
to the myth of
cultural
she criticizes
integration.
Finally,
Habermas's
for being
a one-time
analysis
historical
account
of the effects of lifeworld
upon system and vice versa, instead of taking up
universal processes.
Consequently,
system and
lifeworld are considered
as a single historical
No possibility
arises to
process of evolution.
study the interplay between the two levels of
analysis.
Having criticized large parts of sociology
and the philosophy of the social sciences for lack
of analytical dualism, Archer takes her theoretical point of departure
in David Lockwood's
article "Social Integration
and System Integration" from 1964. This short article - only 10
- seems to be a decisive source of
pages long
for Archer and her principle of
inspiration
dualism. Already in her analysis of
analytical
of educational
the development
systems, the
from
Lockwood's
distinction
inspiration
between social integration
and system integration becomes visible. Archer herself writes that
she attempts to formulate her theory of cultural
on the basis of Lockwood's
change
theory.
Finally, Lockwood's
theory is the main source
of inspiration for the overall development of her
theory in Reahst Social Theory.
In this way, Lockwood's
combination
of
forms
conflict theory and general fiinctionalism
the point of departure for Archer's theory. The
is applied to social
concept of social integration
and sociocultural
interaction, while the concept
is applied to the cultural
of system integration
and the social systems.
this dual
Employing
it
becomes
for
Archer
to
possible
approach,
develop her historical analysis and her general
theory with analytical dualism.
The principle of morphogenesis
and moris
derived
Walter
from
phostasis
Buckley's
does not
systems
theory. Although
Buckley
the significant
of the
trisectioning
employ
This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MargaretArcher on Structuraland CulturalMorphogenesis 83
morphogenetic
cycle which Archer develops, he
does have a number
of theoretical
elements
which are later utilized in Archer's theory: the
idea of variety generated by the system itself, the
idea of tensions in the system and the idea of
transactional
of exchange,
processes
negotiation or bargaining
This
(Buckley 1967:160).
source of inspiration seems to have had a major
impact on all of Archer's works.
In her most recent book, Reahst Social
of inspiration
is the
Theory, a new source
of Roy Bhaskar
and the realist
philosophy
school. The principle of emergence,
in particular, is elaborated under the influence of Bhaskar,
who has developed
the idea that a context
within and between
consisting of contradictions
differentiated
and stratified entities constitutes
the basis of emergence.
Thus, on the basis of
contradictions
one term arises out of the other.
Action
to this development
must,
leading
however, take its point of departure in reflexivity
and judgement (Bhaskar 1993:303,
382, 397).
In this way, Archer bases the elaboration of her
own theory on Bhaskar's philosophy of development.
The final source
of inspiration
to be
mentioned here is the philosophy of Karl Popper.
This inspiration
becomes apparent in Archer's
definition of the concept of culture. The concept
to Popper's definition of the third
corresponds
world. In Objective Knowledge, Popper distinguishes among the first world being the physical
world, the second world being the mental world
and the third world being ideas in the objective
sense. The connection
between the first and the
third worlds can only take place with the second
world as mediator
between
the two (Popper
the third world
Thus,
1972/92:154^155).
consists of ideas in the objective sense, as they
appear in books and other sorts of accessible
sources. These sources have an objective existence
and are possible
objects for human
is
this
It
thought.
objective world which Archer
conceives of as culture.
Continuity
and originality
All Archer's works hitherto show sociological
and
thinking characterized
by both continuity
The principles
for social analysis
originality.
which Archer introduced in her early works still
characterize
her theoretical
thinking. Morphoand
dualism
her
follow
genesis
analytical
all her works. This does not mean
through
in Archer's theoretical thinking. On
stagnation
the contrary, she has been able to elaborate
these principles through the process of includof inspiration
while
ing still more sources
upholding a high degree of continuity.
At the same time, her theory expresses a
of originality.
Her distinction
high
degree
between the cultural system and sociocultural
interaction is original. Her view of the structural
and the cultural domains as phenomena
which
must
be analysed
to the same
according
principles has not been suggested before. Her
focus on the logical relations of culture and on
the types of dynamism that spring from this is a
novel
to sociological
contribution
thinking
about culture.
The result of this continuity and originality
is an impressive theoretical
construction
spanthe cultural
the structural
domain,
ning
domain
and their mutual
relations.
Archer
has succeeded
in creating a theory, which despite its extensive area of validity - meets her
declared
to develop
for
purpose:
guidelines
practical social theorizing.
in the following I criticize a
Nevertheless,
few aspects
of her theoretical
construction,
namely, her basic principles of theory construcand her
tion, her uses of classical
sociology
of theory and history.
combination
Morphogenesis
and analytical
dualism
The first question I pursue has to do with the
of the fact that Archer allows
consequences
herself to be inspired by such very different
sources. What happens to her theory? Is she
successful in adhering to the principles that she
herself establishes
and which
she criticizes
others for not observing?
Archer's
two most important
methodoare analytical
dualism
and
logical principles
morphogenesis.
Analytical dualism has its roots
in Lockwood's combination
of general functionalism and conflict
of
theory. The principle
has its roots in Buckley's sysmorphogenesis
tems theory. Analytical
dualism leads to the
demand that structure and agency have to be
and analysed
if an
kept separate
separately
of their mutual interplay is to be
understanding
obtained.
Over time, however, Archer has let
and thereby the sysmorphogenetic
thinking
tems theoretical
approach dominate in relation
to the interactionist
approach. In her theory,
agency in itself becomes a morphogenetic
cycle.
It becomes
a part of the social system. The
question is whether this theoretical elaboration
This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
84 ACTASOCIOLOGICA
1999
is in contradiction
dualism.
analytical
with Archer's principle of
One might say that the
encroaches
systems
perspective
upon agency
and renders agency a part of the social system.
and the conflict perspecTherefore, interaction
tive are no longer seen as separate from the
In this way, analytical
systems
perspective.
dualism is not observed.
In Archer's
of culture
another
theory
combination
the
occurs.
Here,
important
methodological
principle of analytical dualism
is combined with Popper's philosophy of science.
to Popper, one must distinguish
According
among the physical world, the mental world
and the world of objective ideas. It is the third
world, the world of objective ideas, which forms
the point of departure for Archer's concept of
culture.
In Popper's theory, however, it is a
that the mental world mediates
precondition
the physical world and the world of
between
objective ideas. This mental world is by and
large absent in Archer's theory of culture. She
lets analytical
as developed
on the
dualism,
basis of Lockwood's article about social integration and system integration,
apply not just to
the structural domain, but also to the cultural
domain.
Certainly, this was not the aim of
Lockwood's article. For Lockwood, the aim was
in
to develop a novel sociological
perspective
which social integration and system integration
were combined and it was directed towards the
analysis of those societal elements which Archer
labels structure. By assuming that culture and
are governed by the same mechanstructure
of the
isms, Archer transfers the mechanisms
structural domain to the cultural domain. Thus
is
she assumes
that sociocultural
interaction
material
interests.
In
her
determined
view,
by
sociocultural
agency takes place in order to
protect or increase vested material interests. As
in her theory of the intersection
a consequence,
between structure and culture, she reaches the
result that a transfer of legitimacy from culture
to structure takes place. For the structural world
the most important result of cultural processes
thus becomes
its own self-Iegitimization.
By
dualism to both structure
applying analytical
and culture, Archer turns cultural processes
When
into a mirror of structural
processes.
interests
cultural
material
determine
the
that this domain
this implies
is
domain,
The
under the structural
domain.
subsumed
of culture, in which
autonomous
dynamism
mediate
the relationship
mental
processes
culture
and its material
between
objective
as in Popper's theory, has been cut
foundation,
VOLUME
42
out in Archer's theory. Instead, she lets vested
material
be the connecting
interests
link
between
culture
and its material
objective
foundation.
then, does not become
Thinking,
decisive for the development
of culture. On the
of thinking
contrary, the material advantages
become decisive for this development.
In this
culture
is
subsumed
under
structure.
way
Situational
logic
and classical
sociology
The next question I pursue has to do with the
of Archer's combination
of the
consequences
concept of the cultural system and her utilization of the classical sociologists as examples. Is it
possible on the one hand to claim that culture
must be studied as a cultural system consisting
while on the other hand
of logical propositions,
utilizing the cultural analyses of Durkheim and
Weber? Is it possible on the one hand that
cultural interaction is determined by situational
logic and vested material interests, and on the
other hand include cultural studies which focus
upon the education of pupils and the cultivation
of people?
In Archer's theory of culture, Durkheim's
of the development
of educational
analysis
is included
as an example.
In her
thought
of
cultural
labelled
conditions,
exemplification
Archer
contradictions,
by her as constraining
refers to Durkheim's
analysis of the contradiction between Christian beliefs and classical
civilization (Durkheim 1938/77).
Furthermore,
kind of
when she argues for the particular
interaction
which can take place
sociocultural
of constraining
contradicas a consequence
Archer
bases her argument
on this
tions,
example. The holders of power in the Christian
church had to attempt to limit the access to the
classical texts. The problem was, however, that
to
the early Christian texts held commentaries
the works of the ancients. Therefore, it was not
possible in the long run to uphold this prohibition against studying the works of the ancients.
had to become visible.
The contradictions
In this way, Durkheim's
analysis becomes
of a morphogenetic
an example
cycle in
Archer's theory. However, the aim of Durkwas not to study cultural
heim's
analysis
of the
change, but to analyse the cultivation
under varying cultural conditions.
individual
Posing the question in this way means employdifferent concept of culture
ing a completely
from the one we find in Archer's
theory
as a subject-object
Durkheim
sees culture
This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MargaretArcher on Structuraland CulturalMorphogenesis 85
relation. Culture has to do with the cultivating
that Durkheim is
of people. It is characteristic
culture. This culture
looking for a common
as
such
of (a) cultural
treasures
consists
etc. (Durkliterature, architecture,
sculptures,
heim 1938/77:19);
(b) common rules of action
enable
social
which
integration
(Durkheim
available for
and (c) categories
1925/68:24);
In Durkour thinking (Durkheim 1912/95:15).
heim's analysis, culture is an asset available to
us all, and it is this culture that each individual
can incorporate.
People can obtain linguistic
to think, obtain
skills, develop the capacity
and wisdom and increase the preknowledge
dictability of conduct.
Archer can only utilize Durkheim's analyof her own
sis as the basis for the development
theory by eliding the theory which lies behind
Durkheim's
analysis. Thus, she reduces Durkheim's analysis to examples. Durkheim's view of
culture as cultivation of the triinking, the moral
and the conduct of people, is clearly in opposition to Archer's view of culture as an objective
world which can affect people by means of its
situational logic and its ability to create material
advantages.
Weber's
as
are also included
analyses
examples by Archer in her theory of culture.
which she labels
Here, the cultural conditions,
are exempliconcomitant
complementarities,
fied. In his analysis of Ancient China and India,
Weber (1948/70:396-444)
shows how relifor status
gious beliefs and their rationale
are complementary
with the ecodistribution
internomic ethos. The kinds of sociocultural
which
action
can result from this cultural
are also exemplified
conditioning
by utilizing
Weber's analyses. Here, Archer incorporates his
Over time,
analysis of the Chinese Mandarins.
in China had become
the cultural
system
characterized
by a high degree of cultural
that it could take a whole
density, implying
of this
lifetime to acquire complete knowledge
culture. From this, Archer deduces the problem
that this very large investment by the individual
material
would often not yield the expected
benefits to that person. When there is only room
for a small elite, the consequence
may be that
many of the people who have in fact undertaken
a major personal
in education
investment
social marginals.
become
They can choose
of the acquired
desertion
and conjunction
with
culture
new items.
The consequence
must be migration and cultural change.
Weber's analyses, thus, are also utilized as
an example of a morphogenetic
cycle. Here, too,
it was not Weber's aim to explain
cultural
change, although he fully recognizes that such
takes place. His aim is, quite the
change
to study what kind of cultivation
contrary,
The
results
from different types of culture.
the
of
ethics
of
economic
question
development
is central to him. Like Durkheim,
Weber sees
In his
culture
as a subject-object
relation.
of the world
theory, culture is those segments
process which people have related to value ideas
and which have thereby been given meaning
and significance
(Weber 1904-17/1949:76,
by the
81). Culture is developed, consequently,
relation of value ideas to the world process, and
it gives meaning to life. Weber, too, sees culture
The
of the individual.
as the cultivation
individual
must be cultivated
by education.
The problem, as he sees it, is that there is an
of cultural
values
advancement
and that
still
therefore becomes characterized
education
more by specialized examinations.
The implication of this is that education no longer means
real cultivation.
Specialized training makes it
to possess
the
for the individual
impossible
as a whole. As a consequence,
the
culture
individual must strive towards cultural perfection all life through; this is, however, impossible.
The individual is threatened by loss of meaning
and there is, therefore, only one option: the
values
1948/
of cultural
selection
(Weber
70:356).
Again it must be said that Archer can only
utilize Weber's analyses as the basis of her own
theory by eliding the theory of culture which his
analyses are based on. She must reduce them to
There is a fundamental
difference
examples.
between Weber's view of culture as meaning
created through the relation of value ideas to
the world process, and Archer's very logical
approach to the study of culture. For Weber,
culture has to do with cultivating
people, i.e.
them with an ethic which can give
supplying
direction to practical conduct. For Archer, the
interaction
is determined
sociocultural
by
which can be obtained by
material advantages
reacting to the situational logic.
of the
The result of Archer's utilization
that she
works becomes
classical sociological
from these
She
selects
analyses.
examples
to
her
own
advance
these
examples
exploits
the
theory, while at the same time disregarding
views of culture by the classical
fundamental
themselves.
She ignores their own
sociologists
theories and the lessons to be learnt from them.
between the focus
This creates a contradiction
of Archer upon logic and power and the focus of
This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
VOLUME
42
1999
86 ACTASOCIOLOGICA
moral
the classical sociologists upon cultivation,
and ethics. The question is what this contrawill mean
for Archer's
theoretical
diction
in the longer run.
construction
Format
and analytical
histories
The last problem I take up is Archer's view of the
between theory and history. In the
relationship
to Contemporary Europe, she writes
introduction
formulation
and comparative
that theoretical
must be intertwined.
She advoinvestigation
cates the view that the ultimate criterion of the
theoretical
must be its empirical
explanation
Towards the end of Reahst Social
adequacy.
Theory she takes up once again the question of
between
the relationship
theory and history.
Here, she points out that her theory should be
format which
perceived of as an explanatory
of
can form the basis of analytical
histories
to
The
becomes
the
extent
emergence.
question
in relating
her own
which Archer succeeds
of
to history. The analytical
history
theory
which she adds to her theory in
emergence,
Reahst Social Theory, is her own analytical
of state educational
history of the emergence
systems. Beyond this, she bases her theory upon
but, as
examples from the classical sociologists,
and
shown
above, she elides their theories
the analytical
histories
that
they
thereby
The problem
is that Archer
might contain.
does not connect her theory of cultural morof
with
any analytical
history
phogenesis
In this way, this part of the theory
emergence.
format. Her fundamenremains an explanatory
tal view of culture and structure as phenomena
which can be studied with similar analytical
principles is not confronted with any analytical
histories. Thus, we are not given any answer to
of the entire theory's
the question
empirical
a
In
this way, the theory remains
adequacy.
format.
References
Archer, M. S. 1979. Social Origins of EducationalSystems.
London:Sage.
Archer, M. S. 1982. Morphogenesisversus Structuration:On
CombiningStructureand Action. BritishJournalof Sociology,
33, 455-183.
Archer, M. S. 1985. The Myth of CulturalIntegration. British
Journalof Sociology,36:3.
Archer,M. S. 1988/96. CultureandAgency.ThePlaceof Culturein
Social Theory. Rev. ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University
Press.
Archer, M. S. 1995. Realist Social Theory:the Morphogenetic
Approach.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bhaskar,R. 1993. Dialectic.ThePulseof Freedom.London:Verso.
Buckley, W. 1967. Sociology and Modern Systems Theory.
EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Durkheim,E. 1912/95. TheElementaryFormsof ReligiousLife.
New York:Free Press.
Durkheim,E. 1925/68. MoralEducation.A Studyin the Theory
and Applicationof the Sociologyof Education.New York:Free
Press.
Durkheim, E. 1938/77. The Evolutionof EducationalThought.
Lectures on the Formationand Developmentof Secondary
Educationin France.London:Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Gellner,E. 1968. Holism VersusIndividualism.In M. Brodbeck
(ed.), Readingsin the Philosophyof the SocialSciences.London:
Macmillan.
Giddens, ?. 1979. CentralProblemsin Social Theory.London:
Macmillan.
Giner,S. &Archer,M. S. (eds.) 1978. Contemporary
Europe:Social
Structuresand CulturalPatterns.London:Routledge& Kegan
Paul.
Gramsci,A. 1932/75. Lettersfrom Prison:AntonioGramsci.Ed.
by Lynne Lawner.New York:HarperColophon.
Habermas, J. 1971. Towardsa Rational Society. London:
Heinemann.
Habermas, J. 1981/1991-92. The Theoryof Communicative
Action.Cambridge:Polity Press.
Hayek,F.A. 1973. FromScientismand the Studyof Society.In J.
and Collectivism.
London:
O'Neill(ed.), Modesof Individualism
Heinemann.
L?vi-Strauss, C. 1958/69. StructuralAnthropology.London:
Allen Lane.
Lockwood,D. 1964. Social Integrationand System Integration.
In G. K. Zollschan &W. Hirsch (eds.), Explorationsin Social
Change.London:Routledge& KeganPaul.
Mandelbaum,M. 1973. SocietalFacts. In J. O'Neill(ed.), Modes
and Collectivism.
London:Heinemann.
of Individualism
Miliband,R. 1969. TheStatein CapitalistSociety.London:Allen
& Unwin.
Parsons,T. 1951. TheSocialSystem.London:Routledge&Kegan
Paul.
Popper, K. R. 1972/92. ObjectiveKnowledge.An Evolutionary
Rev.ed. Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Approach.
Sorokin, P. 1957. Socialand CulturalDynamics.London:Peter
Owen.
Watkins, J.W. N. 1968. Methodological Individualism and
Social Tendencies. In M. Brodbeck (ed.), Readingsin the
Philosophyof the SocialSciences.London:Macmillan.
Weber, M. 1904-17/1949. The Methodologyof the Social
Sciences.Transi, and ed. by E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch.
New York:Free Press.
Weber,M. 1948/70. FromMax Weber:
Essaysin Sociology.Trans.
and ed. and with an Introduction by H. H. Gerth and C.
WrightMills.London:Routledge& KeganPaul.
This content downloaded from 137.110.34.107 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:20:58 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions