Griselda Gutiérrez Castañeda The Political Subject in Globalization : the Discussion Agency

From the defining trends of a globalized world, I expose an analysis of the systemic effects they produce in different spheres of social life, such as the guidelines that structure, in a systemic sense, the insertion of social agents, as well as the way they influence their traditional forms of intervention and participation in the course of social processes and decision-making. The trends of increasing complexity and indeterminacy inherent to globalization produce changes in the economic dynamics of the world market and effects that disrupt the institutional, legal-political frameworks of states. So, when analyzing such transformations, I take on the radicalization of the questions about the possibilities of inclusion or exclusion of the social agents, and the density of the fragmentary effects on the formation of collective identities (and, therewith, of the debate on the opportunities or restrictions of political intervention, organization and mobilization—in other words, the range of probability of their constitution as political subjects). These social and structural transformations update the basis of the theoretical, philosophical and sociological debate on the quality of the agency of social subjects, for which I consider the task of asking whether the dynamics of globalization block the possibilities of intervention of some relevance or, on the contrary, there is scope for resistance and even ways of influencing constructively. An approach to globalization Sociological research set out to characterize the organizational structures of modern-contemporary social systems tends to privilege the logic of a growing differentiation that –beyond the segmentary historical forms, or through forms of stratification—has the modality of functional differentiation, in which each subsystem (economic, political, juridical, cultural, scientific, etc.) operates according to specific languages, techniques and values, which are not commensurable, and allows for their autonomous specialty (Luhmann / De Giorggi 1993, pp. 279–339). In line with subsystems differentiation, processes of interdependence occur through functional couplings that integrate the social system, which Griselda Gutiérrez Castañeda, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) OpenAccess. © 2018 Griselda Gutiérrez Castañeda, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-002 Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/28/19 2:45 PM reveal a flexible and diffuse dynamic, which in turn leads to the break in the concert of the specific weight of each functional domain with causal, hierarchic or centered standards, giving rise instead to a polycentric tendency. Following this logic, the increasing processes of complexity and indeterminacy in post-industrial societies are explained, and their effects may be noticed at the level of understanding, disposition, adaptation, organization and practical control by social agents. Danilo Zolo′s interpretation in this respect (with which I agree) notes that the plurality of spaces and practices in their differentiation and semantic specialization, while diversifying and increasing the flexibility of social behavior, introduces an increase in the number of intervening variables that deplete the established intellectual resources operability and makes understanding more precarious. Likewise, increasing interdependencies, and the contingent and diffuse nature of interaction between these spaces, obstructs forms of social intervention when predictions are unlikely, since the known intelligibility and control schemes (e.g. causal, linear schemes, etc., or criteria such as centralization, domination/subordination)—effective until very recently as hierarchical structures and defined attributions—lose validity; there is an unfolding of the referents of certainty. Indeed, it is possible to predict why they are considered regularities, tendencies according to causal schemes; or of a similar nature, if this possibility is diluted, then, in a reflexive sense, we speak of indeterminacy. In light of the so-called ‘spheres of social action’ (Weber) that were regulated by basic criteria and norms or accepted and routine techniques, according to which defined roles and possible schemes of action were stipulated, in the now characterized ‘functional domains’, these are replaced by contingent and flexible criteria. With the displacement of shared and institutionalized beliefs, or of positive or negative motivation schemes to encourage or discourage behaviors, their place is occupied by polyvalent value scales that generate difficulties of accommodation and location within these spaces. In turn, the ranges of social mobility are enhanced as a result of the differentiation of experiences that, by blocking routines or opening new options, can generate insecurity, along with destabilizing effects. The repercussion of these tendencies is that diverse experiences tend to be shaped by the dynamics of functional domains rather than being an expression of the purposes of social agents, for whom the roles they must play are increasingly unstable, and for whom the diversity of functional needs and expectations to be met, the possible options of profusion of services, the lack or abundance of information to be processed, and the urgency to respond are all greater, which generates uncertain choices regarding opportunities or risks, as opposed to “a kind of ′selective overload′” (Zolo 1994, pp. 19–21). 4 Griselda Gutiérrez Castañeda Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/28/19 2:45 PM In order to abound in some of these systemic effects on the perception and practices of the social agents, I will approach those macro trends that account for the functioning of the social system in a globalized world, which are relevant for our analysis. Based on the internationalization of exchanges between countries and regions that has been characteristic of market societies, what today prevails in the intensification and complexity of cross-border and transnational interconnections, is a displacement of the space referent, starting from a reconfiguration of the temporal referent (Held 1996, pp. 380–381), which takes on centrality by the impulse of what is justifiably called ‘revolution in communication’. Techno-scientific developments in communication—which reach the level of IT, robotics and ‘mass media’—boost the production and processing of information, the speed and expansion of its distribution and the plasticity in its forms and in the different levels of use, in such a way that when applied to the execution of projects and commercial, scientific and technological exchanges, they practically erase frontiers and permeate all levels of activity: economic, political, technological, military, legal, cultural and environmental areas. Among the systemic tendencies that globalization entails (such as complexity, indeterminacy, interdependence, mobility), I am interested in highlighting the flexibility of connections and the widespread effect of deregulation. The extensive use of new technologies that impels (by intensifying the financial transactions according to trade flows, the investment and the migration) a great dynamism and complexity to the markets, requires—while it feeds back— conditions of flexibility. As a defining criterion of the current capitalist regime, it displaces traditional forms of production and privileges tertiarization, and with this, the organization of enterprises is decentralized and merchandized. This, in the face of greater competition and uncertainty, diversifies organizational and transactional modalities, so that this criterion has an impact on the regulations established for the sake of greater openness and release of restrictions. Such transformations have a substantial impact on the labor market (as precarious salary conditions prevail), as well as on stability in work, and the conditions under which it develops; tertiarization powers sectors such as services and maquilas, increases forms of outsourcing and a tendency to “deslaborizar las relaciones de trabajo” (Yáñez 2004, pp. 85 and 103)—which translates to say that it dilutes or blurs the labor nature of work relations, as informality increases both in the relationship and in the labor spaces. Flexibility, beyond the extension of the range of investment and profit opportunities, and when coming into tension with the established legal routines, standards and procedures, exerts pressure for a relaxation or open fracture of the same, which in turn leads to the establishment of highly permissive legal reforms (of investment, commercialization and labor) or the imposition of practiThe Political Subject in Globalization: the Discussion Agency 5 Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/28/19 2:45 PM ces of open illegality. Certainly, common regulatory and procedural forms operate with temporalities that short-circuit the potential and speed of new technologies—but the latter, together with the current modalities of organization and competition as resources of neoliberal economic policies, produce an effect that (oxymoronically) ‘institutionalizes’ deregulation, prioritizing the logic of the market and reducing the policies of intervention and regulation on behalf of the State. The combination of global trends and neoliberal adjustment policies, by prioritizing the extraction of benefits for global corporations, accentuates inequality in the development of entire countries and regions, as well as high costs in human development, reflected in the increase of unemployment rates, the rising costs of services and an exponential growth of migratory flows. Mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion in a globalized world The confluence of the aforementioned factors and their consequences explains why practical and theoretical debates about the effect on the conditions of social agents’ insertion in th

reveal aflexible and diffusedynamic, which in turn leads to the break in the concert of the specific weight of each functional domain with causal,h ierarchic or centered standards, giving rise instead to ap olycentric tendency.
Following this logic,t he increasing processes of complexity and indeterminacy in post-industrial societiesa re explained,a nd their effects mayb en oticed at the level of understanding,disposition, adaptation, organization and practical control by social agents.Danilo Zolo′sinterpretation in this respect (with which I agree) notes thatthe plurality of spaces and practices in their differentiation and semanticspecialization, while diversifying and increasing the flexibilityofsocial behavior,introducesanincrease in the numberofintervening variables that deplete the established intellectual resources operability and makes understanding more precarious.L ikewise, increasing interdependencies, and the contingent and diffuse nature of interaction between these spaces,obstructs forms of social intervention when predictions are unlikely, since the known intelligibility and control schemes (e. g. causal,linear schemes, etc., or criteria such as centralization, domination/subordination)-effective until very recentlya sh ierarchical structures and defined attributions-lose validity;t here is an unfolding of the referents of certainty.I ndeed, it is possiblet op redict whyt hey are considered regularities, tendencies accordingt oc ausal schemes; or of as imilar nature, if this possibility is diluted, then,i nareflexive sense, we speak of indeterminacy.
In light of the so-called 'spheres of social action' (Weber)that were regulated by basic criteria and norms or accepted and routine techniques, accordingt o which defined rolesa nd possible schemes of action were stipulated, in the now characterized 'functional domains',t hese are replaced by contingent and flexible criteria.With the displacement of shared and institutionalized beliefs, or of positive or negative motivation schemes to encourageordiscouragebehaviors, their place is occupied by polyvalent value scales that generate difficulties of accommodation and location within these spaces.Inturn, the ranges of social mobilitya re enhanceda saresulto ft he differentiation of experiencest hat,b y blocking routines or opening new options, can generate insecurity,a long with destabilizing effects.
The repercussion of these tendencies is that diverse experiences tend to be shaped by the dynamics of functional domainsrather thanbeing an expression of the purposes of social agents, for whom the roles they must playare increasingly unstable, and for whom the diversity of functional needs and expectations to be met,the possible optionsofprofusion of services,the lack or abundanceof information to be processed,a nd the urgency to respond are all greater,which generates uncertain choices regarding opportunities or risks, as opposed to "a kind of ′selective overload′" (Zolo 1994,p p. 19 -21).
In order to abound in some of these systemic effects on the perception and practices of the social agents, Iw ill approach thosem acro trends thata ccount for the functioning of the social system in aglobalized world, which are relevant for our analysis.B ased on the internationalization of exchanges between countries and regions that has been characteristic of market societies, what todayprevails in the intensification and complexity of cross-border and transnationali nterconnections,i sadisplacement of the space referent,s tarting from a reconfiguration of the temporalr eferent (Held 1996,p p. 380 -381), which takes on centrality by the impulse of what is justifiablyc alled 'revolution in communication'.T echno-scientificd evelopments in communication-which reach the level of IT,r obotics and 'mass media'-boost the production and processing of information, the speed and expansion of its distribution and the plasticity in its forms and in the different levels of use, in such aw ay thatw hena pplied to the execution of projects and commercial, scientifica nd technological exchanges, they practicallyerase frontiers and permeatea ll levels of activity:economic,political, technological, military,legal, cultural and environmental areas.
Among the systemic tendencies that globalization entails (such as complexity,i ndeterminacy, interdependence, mobility), Ia mi nterested in highlighting the flexibilityofc onnections and the widespread effect of deregulation.The extensive use of new technologies that impels (byi ntensifyingt he financial transactionsa ccordingt ot rade flows, the investment and the migration) ag reat dynamism and complexity to the markets,r equires-while it feeds backconditions of flexibility.A sadefining criterion of the current capitalist regime, it displaces traditionalf orms of production and privileges tertiarization, and with this, the organization of enterprises is decentralized and merchandized.This, in the face of greater competition and uncertainty,diversifies organizational and transactional modalities, so that this criterion has an impact on the regulations established for the sake of greater openness and release of restrictions.
Such transformationshaveasubstantial impact on the labor market (as precariouss alaryc onditions prevail), as well as on stability in work, and the conditionsu nder which it develops; tertiarization powers sectors such as services and maquilas,i ncreases formso fo utsourcinga nd at endency to "deslaborizar las relaciones de trabajo" (Yáñez2 004,p p. 85 and 103)-which translates to sayt hati td ilutes or blurs the labor nature of work relations,a si nformality increases both in the relationship and in the labor spaces.
Flexibility,beyond the extensionofthe rangeofinvestment and profit opportunities, and when comingi nto tension with the established legal routines, standards and procedures, exerts pressuref or ar elaxation or open fracture of the same, which in turn leadstothe establishment of highlypermissive legal reforms (of investment,c ommercialization and labor)o rt he imposition of practi-ces of open illegality.Certainly, common regulatory and procedural forms operate with temporalities that short-circuit the potential and speed of new technologies-but the latter,t ogether with the current modalities of organization and competition as resourceso fn eoliberal economic policies, produce an effect that (oxymoronically) 'institutionalizes' deregulation, prioritizing the logic of the market and reducing the policies of intervention and regulation on behalf of the State.
The combination of global trends and neoliberal adjustment policies, by prioritizing the extraction of benefits for global corporations, accentuates inequality in the development of entire countries and regions,a sw ell as high costs in human development, reflected in the increase of unemployment rates,the rising costs of services and an exponential growth of migratory flows.

Mechanisms of inclusion ande xclusion in ag lobalized world
The confluence of the aforementioned factors and theirc onsequences explains whypractical and theoretical debates about the effect on the conditions of social agents' insertion in these scenarios revolve around the notions of 'expulsion' and 'social exclusion' (Sassen 2015;S araví2009).In my opinion, the interpretations givent oeach of them are not in contradiction.With regards to 'expulsion', the problem is analyzedfrom the logic underlying the organization of functional domains, which is whyahomeostatic dynamics that operatesinterms of preserving the social system'so wn equilibria tends to prevail, which filters and expels the disruptingf actors (Zolo 1994).I ti sadynamic thatwould allow us to understand that in the practicesofadvanced capitalism'saccumulation, its axis is the procurement of stability,i nvestment and extraction of benefits-even when the expulsion by wayof'collateral effects' implies intensification of unemployment rates,ofe xtreme poverty and the naturalization of the absence of anyl ink with educational training and the labor market of broad social sectors; as well as the displacement of populations derivedfrom the predation of their lands by the extractive industry,a nd at rend of mass migration (particularlyt hat which results in statelessness) and openlyi llegal practices, such as people trafficking.
Likewise, the theory of 'social exclusion' seeks to interpret the diversity of these extreme cases of deprivation and marginality of some groups,a long with the broad social sectors whose situation is one of 'unfavorable integration', as ar esult of the accumulation of disadvantages, since they seek forms of integration in the labor market despite the deficiencies and obstacles.Itstheoretical performance is of interest because, apart from recordingextreme cases of exclusion, it tries to understand the new forms of social configuration based on contemporary forms of inequality,d ifferentiation and polarization (Saraví2 009, p. 24), and allows us to problematize the new forms of integration and social agents.
Iconsider that these interpretations are key to appreciating the effects of the transformations referred to above.In that sense,itisimportant to point out that among the criteria thatg aves upport to the integration of the modern western political-social ordinances was inclusion, in terms of freedoms and protection, and codified in the formal character of juridical-political membership.Nevertheless, inclusion was always materialized in terms of opportunities that maybeof different types, but,relevantly, in economic opportunities.Anditispreciselythis that is now diluted or made precarious by prevailing conditions of labor instability,forms of outsourcing, low wages, and as awhole, lack of protection and job insecurity of people as workers.Thisimplies that as aresultofthe uncertain and reducedo pportunities and poor quality,a gents fragmentarilyface, derived from disappointment and restructuring of expectations, their attemptst oi nsert and adapt to new scenarios.This is intensified by recordingthose sectors that operate from the informality or open illegality to thosew ho access social fringes in a marginal condition, includingthe masses of undocumented migrants in asignificant proportion.
The subsumption of the political subsystem to the logic of the economyi s, among other reasons,what underlies manyoft he transformations of its attributions and competences; it explains the weak presence, and even the absenceo f the State in the mediationand interlocution tasks able to set limits to the abuses of the business sector,a sw ella si ni ts nature as ad emand referent.
Historically, the complianceo fg overnment tasks by nation-states required the construction of as ystem of attributionsa nd competences accordingt o legal, authority and control capacity regulations.This implied, in af unctional sense, operating in ac entralized and binding mannerw ithin defined territorial frameworks,the faculty for the distribution of resources, along with the creation and regulation of conditions and opportunities for economic, political and social exchanges aimed at political integration and, of course, conflict managementas well as the sovereign attribution with respect to deciding between peace and war,a nd determining who should be members of thatc ommunity and who should not.The link between the State and members of the political order according to the status of citizenship was to determine the levels of responsibility to provide welfare, protection and scope of rights,and the type and enforceability of obligations, their complianceoutlining criteria of membership, creatingan institutional frameworkcapable of functionallygenerating stability and continu-ity,and in arelevant wayacivil connection thatsocially and symbolically would have guidedforms of socialization, belongingand the integration of individuals accordingt or oles.
Today, growingi nterdependencies tend to dilute territorial boundaries and centralizedoperation, giventhe proliferationofpower and decision-making centers-such as hegemonic stateso rr egions, transnationali nstitutions, and legal and illegal profitable corporations-accordingtothe influenceoffunctional connections that exert global market sectors such as financial, technological and service sectors.T his, as aw hole, produces an inflation of the states' capacity for resolution and at endencyt oo utsourcet heir authority and decision-making-in other words, their loss of sovereignty.
As Jacobson pointso ut in his analysis of how the State is taking on new forms by losing primary qualities of its institutionaltasks: "… the state remains critical as the mediating mechanism, the node,ofavariety of international institutionsand global processes" (Jacobson 1997, p. x, my italics).This 'node' is one in which corporate interests and transnationalp olitical agreements are crossed, and whose mediation takes place underc onditions of flexibility and deregulation, which impairs its institutional functioning in and on its borders,s uch as the loss of control of its borders in relation to migratory flows.
When the State submits to the pressures of agents and globald ynamics and givesrise to the systematic disengagement towards its governed ones (since, far from dosing the effects of these tendencies,i tc ontributes to the intensification and cancellation of opportunities), an overload that people face under conditions of lack of protection and uncertainty takes place.Thee ffects of this overload are diverse, not onlya tt he level of generating strategies of survival, but also in the fracture of the citizen-State pact,asthe instancesofinterlocution dilute.Typically, productive work as astructuringofexistencehas led to the political codification of mobilization, organization and communication initiatives aimed at demanding inclusion and redistribution (Garretón 1997).Instead, there is agrowingdispersion of organizational initiativesand the disarticulation of traditionalc ollective actors-in fact,n ot onlyasignificant reduction in forms of union organization, but alsoaweakening of the labor movement and aculture of the workingclass is registered, thatatthe time could provide some protection against the corporate interests (Castles/Miller 2003,p .3 6).
Apolitical readingofthe fracture of the pact leads us in twodirections.The first is one in which, by operatinga ccordingt oas elf-referential dynamics, the party system and the state institution, through prioritizingi ts self-preservation and restrictingi ts functions to the mere conservation of stability and the complexity of the social system, causes its programs and decisionst ob ef oreign to the social requirementso fi ts governed ones, which in turn accentuates the def-icits of its representation function.The effect is twofold: from the level of the governed, it is the loss of the civic bond, givent he experience that the channels of political communication are inoperative and exhausted-thatt hey are affected and mere observers of the course of political decisions; and from the political subsystem level, the effect is a 'deinstitutionalization' (Santiago2 015;Z olo 1994)-i.e., the loss of its political capacity to structure forms of identity and integration of political community.
In the other direction, when the states operate under the pressureo ft he global economya nd the systemic effect of expulsion (in which migratory flows increase), the tendencies of flexibility and deregulationt hat manifest in al oss of control of the borders lead to the application of ambiguous strategies (in which the economic benefitso ft hese presences are extracted, but the political integration of the immigrants is reluctant; in practice, forms of insertiona re givend ue to the need to offer some services,which can be interpreted as rights for those who do not have membership) that fuel ac ompetitive struggle for access to services between citizensa nd resident migrants.They also lead to ad evaluation of citizenship for the local ones when facing the displacement of the bond between membershipa nd rights,a sw ell as for immigrants whose access to services does not go hand in hand with loyalty to the political institution.In addition to the resignification of the civicl ink in the form of au tilitarian link, if the State proceeds in this way, in relation to border control as well as to the meaning of migratory policies, it is interpreted by citizens as incapacity in the exercise of its sovereign power,which puts in question its authority and legitimacy (Jacobson 1997, p. 6).
We know that the figureofthe pact has been, bothsymbolically and practically, the guideline for institutionalizing forms of political communication, and that fictio juris has had atheoretical and practical performance, which allows us to conceive of the construction of an order as ap roduct of concerted sovereign wills, and which in turn is concomitant with the conception of the active role of its members and the practical forms of organization and participation.For this reason, it is no minor fact,b ut rather of the greatest transcendence, that the political frameworks of containment tend to weaken and the political referents of interlocution are erased-because it leads to the fact that the policy of the nation-State loses relevance, as well as to the prevailing of ad isaffection with politics.

The role of thea gency under debate
The consequences that these processes generate are very complex, duet ot he type of problems, the diversityo fr eactions and the proliferation of social and political presences marked by fragmentation and disarticulation-multiple presences such as: -actors thatinamore conventional waymaintain politics as the axis, more as an expression of survival than for am anagement or articulation capacity; -social movements that are by right territorial or ethnic, with different degrees of articulation; -large sectors involved in generating strategies of survival, whether politically passive or whose conjunctural appearance is disorganized and defensive; -others that are far from the traditional forms of political integration, and that tend to be guided by symbolic and expressive ways in order to explore and affirm identity in aself-referential way, or to generate solidarity relations and groups by affiliation with subjects of the vital or dailysphere, as well as by ascriptive identity (age, sexual, religious,e tc.); -civil groups such as NGOs and CSOs, with varyingdegrees of organizational capacity and expertise, accordingt ot hematic agendas such as human rights, gender,e nvironmentalism and pacifism (among others), exploring ways of recomposing and reframingi ntervention and political communication that are not constrained to the interlocution with the political system; -groups as transnational actors such as anti-globalization movements; and -extra-institutional presences such as factual powers.
There is no doubtthat complexity,increased differentiation and greater mobility contributetothis proliferation of presences.At first glance, this can be read as a symptom of pluralityand an expression of new alternatives, but amore in-depth approach is needed, since they are phenomena that go hand in hand with important transformations and the radicalityo fc ertain problems thatm ake politics and the State appear as insufficient or impotent to face them, to the point wheret here is an increase of behaviors of detachment from the traditional forms of socialization and integration that contributetothe dilution of the public sphere.
In terms of the political system, the problem maybeaq uestion of governability-but in terms of the governed ones, the problematic acquires greater density because the weakening of bindingd ecisions, the non-adherencet oi nstitutional channels, and the transformation/dilution of political communication all have repercussions on the qualityo ft he protective and binding functions that are the responsibility of institutions, and whose consequences affect the various spheres of social life.Moreover,i napractical sense, justified doubts arise about the relevance of anyi nitiative of participation, since the current tendencies seem to imposeadynamic in which the action, the initiative,the intentionality or the pretensions of control (both practical and political)tend to lack effectiveness or even sense, by neither influencing the agendas (thus translated into political decisions)n or affecting the dynamics of the system.
These doubts, in ar eflexive and political sense, reposition: firstly, the theoretical conceptual debates on the role of political agency,o ni ts relation to the structure or social system, on the validity of subjectivist-mentalist traditions of action in its instrumentalist and/or normative modality,o ro nt he functionalist tradition and the weight of the constraint of the structure; secondly( within societies of great complexity and indeterminacy),the unavoidable questions about the natureofthe individual and collective agency,asasymptom of what the explanationofits occurrence maybe; and finally, to decipher the tenor of new collective actors,a sw ell as the potential of theirm obilizations.
In order to continue developing the last two problems,i nanon-exhaustive approach, Iwilladdress the first one, by contrasting them with some of the theses of Giddens'ss tructuration theory (in which the author tries to reconcile the dimension of the action and the system), and with the systems theory in the version of Luhmann and Zolo, of whose theses Ih aved evelopeds ome throughout these pages.But first Imust refertoacondensed imageofthe contemporary reality of which, with their variants,both theories give us an account,a nd that in Melucci'sw ords could be called "'planetarization' of the system",b yw hich he indicatest hatt he system has alreadyf ound its limits,a nd thatt he intervention of the agents is restricted thereto.Melucci conceivesofaplanetarization in which there is no longer space (because the system wast ransformed into as ingle space), nor is there: … time beyond the system.We know that the great project of industrial capitalism was oriented towards the future,aproject for asociety that would come, that of the wealth of nations,ofthe progress or the kingdom of freedom.We now know-and the dramatic reminders of the possible catastrophe contributetothis-that thereisnotime beyond the internal time of the system, that thereisnolongerany society that awaits us beyond that which we arecapable or not of building; better still, in which we arealreadyimmersed; onlyone that we can makee xist fromn ow,within the tensions of the systemicb alance.(Melucci 1996, p. 294) Indeed, contemporary analyses have transcended the disjunctive as to whether the heuristic keyisthe 'action' or the 'agency' to account for the processes of socializationofthe individual and processes of social change-adisjunctive encod-ed between subjectivist and objectivist traditions, such as that of as trongi ndividualism and ap owerful conception of action, for which the dimension of the context seems to be subsidiary;orthose in which the emphasis is placed on the structure or the system that framesthe subjects accordingtopositions and roles, displacing the autonomous and rational 'action' accordingtoends,bythe 'agency' of subjects as carriers (Träger)o fs tructures.
Giddens'stheoretical intervention is an example of this.Inhis structuration theory,the constitution of agents and that of structures are not independent phenomena and "do not form a dualism but represent a duality" (Giddens 1995, p. 61).He seeks to explain that the structure integratesr ules (guidelinesa nd codes of meaning) and resources( of authority and allocation and control) that intervene recursively in the reproduction of social systems,which are not alien to human action and its reflexive record, although this mayb el imited; the crucial argument is that "Structure should not be assimilated to constraint but is both constrictive and enabling" (Giddens 1995,p .6 1).
The coreo ft his argument,i nw hich Marxian echoes are present,i st hat if action is associated with intentionality,i ti sa ni ncontrovertible fact that social processes are not an intentional product.T his does not prevent them from being the work of practical intervention of men within objectiveconditions;without ruling out the action in the practical and reflexive sphere of the individual, Giddens makes at heoretical shift towards the term 'agency', understood as the capacity to do things, as am atter of power,t op roduce effects, to abstain or to act otherwise-an interpretationwith which he would bet on maintaining the active role of social agents.In the spirit of dismissing pretensions of structural causation that determine social action, while at the sametime recording that the resources of the structure generate forms of social reproduction (and thus stabilize relations in an institutionalized form that give rise to asystemic reproduction, as well as to the production and reproduction of as ocial action), Giddens is interested in highlightingthat such properties and structural resourcesare eventually used and reproducedbyagents in the course of theirinteractions, which mayresult in "processes of selective 'filteringinformation',whereby strategicallylocated actors seek to reflexivelyr egulate the general conditions of as ystemic reproduction, either to maintain thingsasthey are or to changethem" (Giddens 1995, p. 64).
In order to reinforce this proposal, he applies the strategyo fr efutings ome approachesofthe functionalist tradition, in which he encompasses very diverse perspectives( structuralist,p oststructuralist,e volutionist,s ystemic) with regard to the emphasis he attributes to them in terms of the constraints produced by social structure and which, in his opinion, make subjects appear as non-reflexive constraints, as an undisputed causal forcet hat restricts or cancels options, be-fore which action is diluted and at the very least givesr ise to mere reactions-a strategyt hat,despite the expanded nature of its analysis,i sn ot without simplifying dyes.
Ic onsider thatt his position does not necessarilys trengthen his interpretative proposal.Certainly,neither do those who support the thesis of the decentralization of the subject (Althusser)o mit the reflexive contest of the agents (which does not exempt them from subjection), nor do the adaptive forms by which the agents respond to systemic and structural tendencies that overload them, cancel the reasons and the motifs that agents give themselvestoprocess their 'options', with which the role of structural tendencies are in no case equatedwith natural forces.ForGiddens,the form of arguing against thoseformulations thatconceive that systemic reproduction dilutes the place of action (byholding that functional needs onlyp roduce functional consequences),i st oh old that "[s]tructural constraints do not operate independentlyofagents' motifs and reasons to act" (Giddens 1995,p .211)-an argument thath ec onsiders stronge nough to restorea place for the agency to be conceivedo fa sapower,s uch as the capacity and the possibility of producing ad isruptive,o ranovelty effect.
In general terms,Iconsider that the systemic perspective would be far from maintaining adualism between system and agents in theirinterpretations of the system integration process.This would agree with Giddens thatinthis globalized world, there is ak ind of "rupture between systemic integration and social integration" (Giddens 1995,p.213),and wouldn'tcontest the fact that human action has contributed to the generation of this scenario.These pointso fc onvergence present no obstacle for this theory to support the line of argument that it is preciselyt endencies of increasing complexity and indetermination (as well as uncalculatede volutionary pressures)t hat make complex societies operate according to asystemic logic of homeostasis,with the effect thatthe action appears as something irrelevant to as elf-produced reality (Zolo 1994,p.1 48 -149) At this point it is importantt od well on the mechanism of 'adaptation' and the use of the term by Luhmann and Zolo, in contrast to Giddens'squestioning of the application of some of the theories of social change(particularlyhis debates with Parsons, to whom he attributes an update of the evolutionary theory), criticisms of which revolve around the empty,i llusory and narrow use of the concept,which makes it limited to account for changes in the social plane.
Of course there mayb ec ases in which its use lacks precision and explanatory value-but it is certainlyits commitment to the potential of agencythatgives rise to the categoricaltone of his criticisms.It is onlyp lausible if one aspect,or both, of its meaning is extended: if other societies (i.e., the 'social environment') are included in the term 'environment' and/or if anyi mportant social process that seems to increase the chances of maintaining as ociety in af orm thatc an be considered stable is virtuallyc onsidered as 'adaptation'.B ut once that step has been taken, the concept becomes so vaguet hati ti su seless as am eanst o explain anything (Giddens 1995,p .2 62).
From the systemic perspective,a lthough it is emphasized thatt he functionality of the social system as aself-produced reality operatesoutside our rational and technicalc ontrol and our ethical-moral idealizations, this does not mean that the system can dispense with its 'environment',which can be internalized as system information.T he implications of this operation are double: on the one hand, that it contributes to the stabilization or equilibrium of the system; and on the other hand, that agents, as part of the environment,generate patterns of assimilation and accommodation in the form of learning.So, if one considers the self-referential tendencyoft he political system and the distortion of the criteria attributed to 'political action',such as its reflexive,critical and powerful nature, it is necessary to think about which mechanisms of insertioncome into play -especiallyifwetakeinto account the fact that social agents systematicallydeal with adverse conditionsfor the possibility of rational choices,tomake meaningful interactions at the level of political communication, and to achieve some relevant influenceonthe control of procedures, as well as generalizedpossibilities of forming an informed opinion or developing ar eflexive judgment,a llowing them to evaluatet he problems and options presented.This is wheret he explanatory performance of the adaptation mechanism is noticeable, leadingtothe transformation of frustration into learning,and of disappointments into adaptive behaviors, which (although they reserveacertain place for human agency, as Zolo emphasizes) does not mean that the integration of the agents is not in accordance with functional tendencies that preselect possibilities, limit alternativesa nd over determine social expectation (in terms of 'opportunities')-and with that, the nature of 'decisions' is shaped.
Examples abound that mayseem extreme, but are far from extraordinary in these times, when precariousness and deregulation lead to the expulsion of migrant masses, and the devaluation of this type of work and the advantages that can be extracted attract them to certain countries or regions.There is no doubt that objective factors and systemic tendencies are put at risk to explain these massive flows, nor is there anyd oubtw ith respect to the contest of subjective factors such as the expectation of the 'opportunities' represented by the destina-tion, or by fulfilling the purpose of familyunification, including culturaland religious motivations.Therefore, it cannot be argued that agency has ar oleinthis framework (Castles/Miller 2003,p.9)-but it is not outside the discussion to resolve what kind of 'decision' it is.
When the conditions of vulnerability and precariousness in the countries of destination lead immigrant groups to form alternative networks of solidarity,the debate arises as to whether these initiativesa re an expression of 'emerging political subjects' (Sassen 2003,p.26).Thisdiscussion is, of course, inescapable; it cannot be ignored that in an adverse context these networks are aimed at solving material and psycho-social needs, such as preservingi dentity and forms of belonging, through which in such networks the nature of survival strategies prevails.
Confronted with expressions of this nature, manyquestions arise.If we start from the fact that politics is atype of strategic action aimed at remedying something more thanimmediate needs(i.e., thatitisguidedbymore far-reachingobjectivessuch as recognition, inclusion and rights), then we have to ask ourselves: what is the political nature of these expressions; what is their political potential; what is politically possiblea tt hese times; or,what are we talking about today, when we talk about politics?Bibliography . Such an interpretation, farf rom omitting the consideration of how social agents are reflexively and emotionallyinvolved, and with pretensions to influence, instead reframes the questions: what kind of 'action' is at stake; what kind of symptom (or asymptom of what) are these interventions; and, of course, what is the potential of the agency?