The central argument of this article is that there is no fact of the matter, no evidence, however tentative or questionable, that will serve adequately to identify actions “chosen” or “determined” for the purposes of sociological theory. This argument will be developed with reference to the two theorists of the greatest importance in advocating the sociological value of the concept of agency: Talcott Parsons, with his “voluntaristic theory of action,” set the scene for the whole agency and structure debate in modern sociology, and Anthony Giddens, in his theory of structuration, provides the most comprehensive recent account. Both theorists put forward grounds and justifications for their use of the concepts of “choice” and “agency,” but it will be argued here that in the last analysis, none of them has any sociological merit.

For the last three decades, sociology has been in a permanent state of theoretical and programmatic disarray. Symptoms of the crisis include ambivalence about the possible scientific status of sociological knowledge, theoretical and methodological fragmentation and ambivalence about the appropriate degree of political and ethical ‘involvement’ in the sociological stance, and deep-seated anxieties about the relationship between sociology and neighbouring disciplines across the human sciences. Through a comprehensive exegesis of his major contributions, it is argued that Norbert Elias provides the foundations for a ‘central theory’, integrating diverse theoretical traditions within sociology, while providing a clear framework for establishing a synthesis across the full range of (social and biological) human sciences. In short, Elias provides us with the rudiments of a comprehensive human science, with sociology well placed to play an orchestrating role in the investigation of phenomena at the highest level of integration.

No abstract

in 1997. My supervisor Barry Barnes was both a model academic and inspiring supervisor and he continues to be a source of encouragement and intellectual stimulation. This intellectual debt is clearly evident throughout the book. In addition, Chapter 3 contains material from a joint paper written with Barry. I would also like to thank a number of other people including friends and former colleagues for their comments and suggestions during the long gestation of this book:

No abstract