From Simulation Model to Critique of Structuration

Sean Downey, University of Arizona

Download the Paper (PDF format) - April 12, 2006 Related Files: Downey 2005 SD Archive.zip (21967 kB) archive of model file, and stelle player in various compression formats for pc/mac AppendixD.doc (28 kB) links to on-site files -- must change the url ! industrialbusinessmodel.sit (31 kB) industrialbusinessmodel.sit industrialbusinessmodel.stm (105 kB) industrialbusinessmodel.stm industrialbusinessmodel.zip (32 kB) industrialbusinessmodel.zip iseePlayer8_1.exe (6135 kB) iseePlayer8_1.exe iseePlayer8_1.hqx (6916 kB) iseePlayer8_1.hqx iseePlayer8_1.sit (5096 kB) iseePlayer8_1.sit iseePlayer8_1.zip (5728 kB) iseePlayer8_1.zip ladculturemodel.sit (31 kB) ladculturemodel.sit ladculturemodel.stm (290 kB) ladculturemodel.stm ladculturemodel.zip (40 kB) ladculturemodel.zip SDArchive.zip (21967 kB) SDArchive.zip source.htm (1 kB) source.htm stella.htm (1 kB) stella.htm Tell a colleague about it. Get Acrobat Reader Submit a "Reader's Comment" Printing Tips: Select 'print as image' in the Acrobat print dialog if you have trouble printing. This work has been peer reviewed.

ABSTRACT:
In this paper I use a simulation model of Learning to Labor (Willis 1981) to critique Giddens’ structuration theory (Giddens 1984). The simulation model represents interactions between a group of non-conformist boys from Birmingham, England and an industrial capitalist business. I present the results of three simulation experiments designed to test the limits of structuration theory by exploring when decision-making based in cultural meaning conflicts with structural power and when it reproduces structural power. Tests explore how different non-conformist cultural values affect the economic system, and the cultural and economic conditions under which non-conformists may be more likely to reject their structural positions. Based on these results, I argue that structuration theory does not adequately explain how social structures arise because it does not account for interactions among agents and how analysis of these interactions may lead to a better understanding of the emergence of structures of power. I conclude by suggesting that the results of the research support Archer’s critique of structuration theory and Foucault’s admonition to avoid “theories of power.”