Repository | Book | Chapter

Subject to the charge of excessive formalism, lacking a basis in social praxis, neglectful of the time-space constitution of social patterns; all of these problems damage the credibility of latter-day social morphology. Yet the importance of the subject-matter to which morphologists attend cannot be denied. Issues central to their work, such as the articulation and configuration of patterns in the relations between actors, have figured prominently in the social sciences since the dawn of the discipline, and no doubt they will remain on the agenda for generations yet to come. Although it would be unwise to equate social morphology, with its formalist connotations, with the account of social patterning Giddens develops in structuration theory, the set of concepts he provides preserves the morphological concern with social patterns while providing a home base for these patterns in modes of interaction reproduced across time and space. As I have mentioned above, a shift to a praxiological outlook does away with the problematic claim that collective patterns possess emergent properties, as well as the concomitant distinction between hypostatised patterns and the consciousness of individuals. In structuration theory, agents, with a practical consciousness regarding appropriate procedures, maintain these patterns during the course of their active participation in social routines.

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-20255-3_4

Full citation: