Talk:Structuration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Structuration, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy

Reagle, may we avoid accusing one another of plagiarism just because you weren't satisfied with the original stub that this article began as?

Contents 1 Renaming as Structuration 2 Typo? Illogical? 3 Sigh 4 Giddens

[edit] Renaming as Structuration

I think this page needs to be renamed Structuration. Not one other article on a sociology theory begins with "Theory of...". They are all just called by the name of the theory. If you disagree please let me know, otherwise I will rename next week sometime. JenLouise 00:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typo? Illogical?

This quote from the current version: " To be an Agent is to be a human, albeit not all agents are human beings. " strikes me as illogical; should it perhaps instead read "To be human is to be an agent, albeit not all agents are human beings."? Could anyone more familiar with Giddens' work comment on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.13.34 (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The modifictaion you suggest is much more logical. Giddens says that to be an agent it is not necessary to have consciousness or volition, simply the capacity to influence other agents. Since animals and objects around us can influence us, they can also be considered to be sources of agency (see for instance Alfred Gell's Art and Agency 1998).163.1.117.224 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh

What a hideous, unforgivable abuse of the language. If Giddens is still alive he should be forced to speak only Latin for the rest of his days.

[edit] Giddens

Having tried to use this for research, I think that this article could be bettered with a critique of the theory; and use subject specific terminology less, when more simplistic terms could be utilised - some areas of the page appear laden with terminology which may not be necessary. Sorry if that appears critical - it's an excellent start, and I'll hopefully be able to help with this rather than merely stating that view - and I hope others may agree.~CortalYX^Talk? 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)