ABSTRACT

In a recent review of agency theory in archaeology Dornan (2002) outlines some criticisms of the ideas of the founding fathers of agency theory – Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens – and identifies three interrelated issues in the field that remain unresolved. The first concerns the proper unit of analysis. If agency theory is concerned with individual action, the power of individuals to act, and the relation between these and social structure, what is the nature of these individuals? How generic or specific are they? If a key aspect of the relation between structure and agency is the internalisation of social norms within individuals, how can we separate out those elements of structure which they have internalised? The second issue concerns the role of rationality, and agency theory’s emphasis on the ability of the individual to resist ideological domination. Why should individual resistance to ideological domination ever be an appropriate strategy? The third issue concerns the relationship between intentionality and the consequences of actions. How much do individual intentions matter? Are the unintended consequences of action far more significant?