Doty: Aporia

Doty, RL. 1997. “Aporia: A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in International Relations Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 3:365.

As the name “aporia” suggests, there is much that is undecidable, unknowable and undefinable in the description of the agent-structure problem by Doty.

The article begins by addressing the complexity of the agent-structure problem, first brought to the forefront by Wendt (1987). His solution took the form of structuration theory, a mixture of agent-driven theory and structure-driven theory.

“In this article I examine some significant problems found in this very important conversation, and suggest that they result in serious gaps and silences. However, I also propose that important openings can be found that point to a more critical, if unsettling, way of conceptualizing agents and structures and the relation between them. Specifically I suggest that claims to have resolved the dualism between agents and structures are unwarranted. The ‘solutions’ that have been proposed to this problem either end up reverting to a structural determinism or alternatively to an understanding of agency which presumes pregiven, autonomous individuals. Both of these positions come full circle back to the very dilemma that gives rise to the agent-structure problem in the first place. Despite the failure to resolve the agent-structure problem, however, the conversations that have taken place contain some important insights and openings that raise just the kind of questions that can lead to a more critical understanding of International Relations. These openings have not, however, been pursued by the framers of the agent-structure problematique. Because of this, serious gaps, silences and foreclosures of possibilities remain” (366).

“I make the following arguments. (1) Scientific realism, the philosophy of science which either explicitly or implicitly underpins the various ‘solutions’ to the agent-structure problem, remains wedded to an essentialist notion of structure which is at odds with attempts to give equal ontological and explanatory priority to the practices of agents. (2) Structuration theory contains contradictions that are most manifest in its resort to ‘bracketing’… (3) Far from transcending the subject-object dualism, the proposed solutions to the agent-structure problem merely replicate it” (366).

“One popular story is that of agents whose practices produce, reproduce and sometimes transform the structures that make up society. The other story is that of the structures themselves which enable, constrain and make possible the practices of agents…Dressler…frames the issue as involving two uncontentious truths—(1) human agency is the only moving force behind actions, events and outcomes; and (2) agency can only be realized in concrete historical circumstances. Wendt…suggests that the agent-structure problem has its origins in two truisms about social life—(1) human beings and their organizations are purposeful actors whose actions help reproduce or transform the society in which they live; and (2) society is made up of social relationships, which structure the interactions between these purposeful actors” (367).

“The difficulty…is the oppositional logic within which the agent-structure problem has been articulated, i.e. the agent-structure problem has been formulated within a system of thought that defines structures and agents as two distinct, fully constituted and opposed entities each with essential properties, while the central feature of structures, as defined in the agent-structure problematique, makes problematic this very distinction” (371-2).

Doty claims that the issue of agency has been underwhelmingly emphasized and tries to shed light on it.

The current treatment of the agent-structure problem does not allow for the undecidability of the aporia, that Doty puts forth. This post-structural approach, this rejection of decidability is not an embrace of nihilism or non-action, but rather is a problematization of the ability of scholars to truly identify whether causality takes place in the realm of structure or agency. In fact, the current treatment of the dichotomy, in its inadequacy to identify and highlight the interaction of structure/agent, actually makes quite clearly the case that the agent-structure issue has not, and cannot, be brought to clarity.

Doty then presents undecidability and paradoxes as a method for achieving three things:

“I do, however, claim that it is possible to take the undecidability of issues seriously and to press these paradoxes further than they have been pressed by IR theorists. The purpose of doing this are threefold—(1) to reconceptualize the nature and significance of practice; (2) to suggest an alternative way of understanding the agent-structure relationship; and (3) to point out how current ‘solutions’ foreclose important possibilities in terms of critical International Relations theory” (375).

Doty uses concepts like play and practice in determining the causal implications of either structure or agency.

Doty does not argue that the efforts of Wendt and others in re-associating the agent-structure problem with a contsructeivist method and ontology is wholely base. She makes the case that they could go much further. “Certainly, approaches which reject a priori assumptions about the givenness of either agents or structures enable the posing of a much wider range of questions than do those which give explanatory priority to either one of these. However, the current framing of the agent-structure problem precludes important critical moves and creates boundaries beyond which IR theory cannot go. At stake is the extent to which the inquiries enabled by particular framings of the issue are complicit with existing discourses, and the extent to which they make problematic these discourses, their underlying presuppositions and the power inherent in them” (383).

There is a discussion of practice informing identity, which is over determined, and the concept of subject-position, being discursively formed and uncentered (always already uncenterable?) as being important as well.

“If structures, meanings and identities are overdetermined and inherently undecidable, and the construction of all of these things results from practices which marginalize and exclude the excesses that would call into question the center of itself…, then we can reasonably suggest that power is fundamental to discursive constructions. There are no constructions in the absence of power” (386).

“Hollis and Smith…suggest that there are still two stories to tell, that of agency and that of structure. Wendt…also suggests that there are two stories to tell regarding the relationship between structure and process—one based exclusively on microeconomic analogies, and one based on sociological and social psychological analogies. In this article, I have attempted to show that there are also other stories to tell regarding agency, structure and the relationship between them and practices” (387).