Page 201 - Decoding Culture

194 D E C O D I N G C U L TURE
the one in terms of its methodological strategy, the other in its
basic commitment to the primacy of the agent. In principle, of
course, exponents of both positions recognize the need to incor­
porate structural considerations. In practice, however, they do no
such thing, caught as they are by the methodological individualism
of 'thick description' or the over-active agent of theoretical subjec­
tivism. 'Members of elaborated societies,' Fiske (1989a: 181)
suggests, 'are social agents rather than social subjects.' But the
point of distinguishing social agency and social structure is pre­
cisely to understand how it is that people are both social subjects
and social agents. We exist as social beings in consequence of pre­
existing social practices that are experienced by us, via culture, as
structured. And it is the very presence of such structures that
makes us social agents; without them we would not have access to
the materials necessary for us to produce and reproduce our social
activities. Without structures, then, there can be no social agents;
without social agents, there is no structure. Any approach that
attends to one at the expense of the other - whether by method­
ological default or theoretical fiat - is simply failing to recognize
that they are profoundly implicated in each other, and that both our
methodologies and our theories need to recognize that. Without
theories and methods that will allow us to inquire into this dialec­
tic of structure and agency, we shall be doomed continually to
tumble into the delusions of subjectivism or objectivism. It is the
resolution of this dilemma that is the most urgent task facing us
today. If it cannot be resolved, then there is indeed a real crisis in
cultural studies.

Copyrighted Material