This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by O’Donnell, M. H. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Radically Reconstituting the Subject: Social Theory and Human Nature

Westminster Universityodonnell{at}wmin.ac.uk

This article analyses some assumptions about human nature and subject agency apparent in two approaches to social theory: liberalism, particularly Giddens, and structuralism/poststructuralism, particularly Foucault. Feminist and Critical Theory are also drawn on. Disagreements between these approaches in relation to subject agency and structural influence are noted but an attempt is made to find complementary and common ground and to that extent to reconcile them. In so far as an integrated theoretical approach is achievable from the work of Foucault and Giddens, it is suggested that the term radical liberal best describes it. Nevertheless, this term sits more comfortably with Giddens than Foucault. I seek critical leverage on both thinkers by adopting an explicitly Freudian view of human capacities and a politically egalitarian perspective.

Key Words: agency • structure • determinism • voluntarism • human capacities • liberalism • post • structuralism • radicalism • subject

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Marzano I. Is My Work `Feminist' Enough? Tensions and Dilemmas in Researching Male Prisoners who Self-harm Feminism Psychology, August 1, 2007; 17(3): 295 - 301. [PDF]