Tructural Correlations Between Action And Knowledge

The increasing knowledgeablization of the modern society inevitably calls for scholastic efforts in social theorization. The theory of Structuration, as advocated by the distinguished British sociologist Anthony Giddens is a resounding answer to the call. Giddens unexpectedly focuses our attention on the correlation between knowledge and action making the analysis of that correlation the core of his theory. To Giddens, knowledge is more like the structural features of action rather than structural elements. What at issue here are why Giddens is particularly concerned with the structural correlation between knowledge and action and if we can become sociologically more imaginative from his analysis. Exploring these issues will not only give life to Giddens' Structuration theory, but also add meaning to the development of sociology. The purpose of this study is to conduct reconstructive analysis, through which we may prove that the actor of knowledge is knowledgeable; and the action of the knowledgeable actor is the action of knowledgeablization; and the knowledge of the knowledgeable actor is practical knowledge.When building up his theory, Giddens took the actor, or the knowledgeable actor as the logical starting point, and then proceeded to discuss the correlations between the actor, knowledge and action, completing his structuration theory upon the discussion. Giddens reached the basic conclusion that the actor is the knowledgeable actor after an analysis of the stratification model, social positioning and the consequence of the action of the actor. He thus concluded that it is a striking feature of the actor to have the knowledge for action. To Giddens, the actor's knowledge on the conditions of action, and the consequences of the action make it possible for the action to happen finally. Without the knowledge, the action will not be possible. He believed that this feature of the knowledgeable actor is very popular among social members who undertake actions. Taking the actoras the knowledgeable actor and taking the actor as the action taker who has knowledge will make the action as knowledge-driven, and will also put a structural stamp on the society where the actor belongs. However, Giddens left nany "actor problems" unresolved, such as the ontology of the sociological knowledge. For example, the actor should be a free person; and Giddens has prepared the knowledge tool and made some efforts to rescue the actor from the dark night of the knowledge-action theory of Parsons and others. However, the last actor and the action rationality and the knowledge base of the action Giddens attached onto the actor were imprisoned into his structuration.This paper has analyzed Giddens' knowledgeablization-based action theory by attempting to define action, discussing the characteristics of knowledgeablization-based action, the field of action and the dimensions of interaction Giddens held that the action of the actor has the features of autonomy, intentional ity, rationality and constraint (sanction), of which autonomy is by far the most primary feature. With regards to the relationship between action limitation and action autonomy, Giddens came out with a compromising model integrating both into his unified structuration theory. By examining the significance of the knowledge practicality, the composition of the mutual knowledge, the knowledge base of the action reflexivity, and the relationship between commonsense knowledge and expert knowledge, the paper has expounded Giddens' structural correlation between action and knowledge.The third way opened by Giddens in politics originates in reality from his social theoretical third way. This paper has used "the mediate model, or the model of the mean" to call this way, because the author believes that the effective channel for communication between facts and knowledge can be constructed not only with building roads, but also providing bridges. For example, the observer of actions as an sociologist often apply what he or she has learned as commonsense in life to partially get closer to the actor to be observed. However, to test if the approach is effective is to build a bridge between the world of everyday-life and the world of social systems, instead of providing a third way between the two. Basically, Giddens has shifted his attention downward from the action reflexivity to the modernity reflexivity in order to reach the...