Critical Analysis of Margaret Archer's Morphogenetic Approach in Explaining the Structure-Agency Relationship

Document Type : Original Article

Author

, Ph.D. Student, Sociology - Cultural Policy, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22126/tbih.2025.12574.1041

Abstract

The present study critically examines Margaret Archer's Morphogenetic Approach in explaining the structure-agency relationship. Utilizing an analytical-critical method, this research demonstrates that Archer—relying on the foundations of critical realism—attempts to transcend the traditional dichotomy between Durkheimian holism and Weberian individualism.The findings indicate that the Morphogenetic Theory, by emphasizing the ontological stratification of social reality and the emergent properties at each level, provides a more sophisticated framework for understanding the dialectical relationship between structure and agency.This study reveals that Archer's approach is significant in several respects:By acknowledging the relative autonomy of structure and agency, it avoids reductionism.It offers a framework for analyzing the dynamics of social change.By incorporating a temporal dimension into analysis, it enriches theoretical discourse.However, the study also shows that this theory faces challenges in precisely explaining the mechanisms of structure-agency interplay and in analyzing specific institutions.The results can contribute to future social theories and empirical analyses across sociological domains. This research not only evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the Morphogenetic Approach but also creates a platform for dialogue between different theoretical paradigms in contemporary sociology.

Keywords

References

Allen, K. A., Gray, D. L., Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (2022). The need to belong: A deep dive into the origins, implications, and future of a foundational construct. Educational psychology review, 34(2), 1133-1156.
‏ Archer, MS. (1995). Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge University Press.
‏ Archer, M. S. (Ed.). (2013). Social morphogenesis. Springer Science & Business Media
 Agassi, J. (1960). Methodological individualism. The British journal of sociology, 11(3), 244-270.
‏ Brock, T., Carrigan, M., & Scambler, G. (2016). Structure, culture and agency: Selected papers of Margaret Archer. Routledge.‏
Bhaskar, R. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds: Leeds Books
Bhaskar, R. (1979). The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2018). The mediated construction of reality. John Wiley & Sons.
‏ Craib, I. (2011). Anthony Giddens (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.‏
Elder-Vass, D. (2010). The Causal Power of Social Structures. Cambridge University Press.
Jessop, B. (2005). Critical realism and the strategic-relational approach. New formations, 56(56), 40-53.
‏ Gintis, Herbert, 2007. “A Framework for the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30: 1–16.
King, A. (2010). The Odd Couple: Margaret Archer, Anthony Giddens and British Social Theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 61(1), 253-260.
Lukes, Steven, 1968. “Methodological Individualism Reconsidered,” The British Journal of Sociology, 19(2): 119–129.
List, Ch., Philip P. (2011). Group Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mutch, A. (2020). Margaret Archer and a morphogenetic take on strategy. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 73, 101985.‏
Porpora, D. V. (2015). Reconstructing sociology: The critical realist approach. Cambridge University Press.
PODESTÀ, F. (2025). The Conventional Emptiness of Human Beings: Reviewing Archer’s Theory of Agency through Nagarjuna’s Looking Glass. Comparative Philosophy, 16(2), 8.‏
‏Sztompka, P. (2013). Sociological dilemmas: Toward a dialectic paradigm. Elsevier.‏
Tuomela, R. (2012). On individualism and collectivism in social science. In Selbstbeobachtung der modernen Gesellschaft und die neuen Grenzen des Sozialen (pp. 129-143). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Tucker, K. (1998). Anthony Giddens and modern social theory.
‏ Weber, M. (1922). Economy and Society, Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (eds.), Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.
Udehn, L. (2001). Methodological Individualism, London: Routledge.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics