social sciences $€ £ ¥ Article Reflexivity and Structural Positions: The Effects of Generation, Gender and Education Tea Golob 1 and Matej Makaroviˇc 1,2,* 1 School of Advanced Social Studies in Nova Gorica, Institute for Social Transformations, Gregorˇciˇceva19, SI-5000 Nova Gorica, Slovenia 2 Faculty of Information Studies, Ljubljanska 31a, SI-8000 Novo Mesto, Slovenia * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 5 June 2019; Accepted: 21 August 2019; Published: 27 August 2019 Abstract: This article examines how reflexivity, as understood by Margaret Archer, is affected by the structural settings in the context of morphogenetic social and cultural transformations. It draws on the Slovenian national case as an example of swift structural and cultural shifts towards late modernity. For that purpose, we apply a new measurement tool developed through our previous research, which upgrades Archer’s existing ICONI model by distinguishing between the intensity and the concurrent practicing of the reflexivity modes within the inner dialogue. Based on a general national sample, we confirm not only the reflexivity changes from the older to the younger generations but also the role of education and gender in reflexivity levels and modes. We refer to the problem of deprivation and the importance of linking fractured reflexivity to the challenges, women are facing nowadays. Thus, the article confirms some of the critics of Archer’s work, demonstrating—despite significant individual differences—the clear impact of the individual’s background and her/his position in the social structure. Keywords: reflexivity; Margaret Archer; structure; Slovenia; morphogenetic transformation 1. Introduction The purpose of this article is to provide an empirical observation on how individuals’ reflexivity is affected by their positions in the social structure. Studying reflexivity on a general population in a detailed national case for the first time provides us with an opportunity to compare the reflexivity of individuals belonging to various social categories with each other and to place the individuals’ reflexivity in the context of macro-level structural and cultural transformations. Reflexivity as a concept is far from novel, although it has become widely popular in academia only in recent decades. The empirical considerations of the concept, however, are quite an innovative scholarly endeavour. It has been initiated by Margaret Archer’s (2007, 2012) attempt to sociologically ground the concept in theoretical terms, recognising it as a process of inner dialogue changing over time, and differing among individuals as well. Archer argues that reflexivity is “the regular exercise of the mental ability, shared by all normal people, to consider themselves in relation to their (social) contexts and vice versa” (Archer 2007, p. 4). As we are drawing on Archer’s exploration of reflexivity, we lean on the philosophical tradition of critical realism, primarily related to the work of Roy Bhaskar. The most important premise of such thinking is that there is a “causally efficacious world” (Mingers et al. 2013, pp. 794–95), which exists independently of our constructions and knowledge. Critical realism advocates that the reality cannot be reduced only to empirical observations and measures as implied by classical positivism, while it also defends against constructivism conditioning the existence of the world with the human knowledge. It also recognises that our relation to the world is always resulting from evaluations ensuing from our Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 248; doi:10.3390/socsci8090248 www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 248 2 of 23 perceptual and theoretical lenses. It gives credence to epistemic relativity that knowledge should be considered through the lens of its local and historical dimension, but it advocates against judgmental relativity referring to the existence of equally valid views and opinions (Mingers et al. 2013). On the basis of Bhaskar’s critical realism, Archer rejects the “elision of structure with agency” (Archer 1988, 2013, p. 6) and considers human persons and society as two emergent entities, which cannot directly determine each other. In that regard, she draws a sharp line between her dualism and Giddens’ structuration theory (1984), and the extended reflexivity further elaborated by Beck(1992). She rejects the conflation between structure and agency, as well as the understanding of reflexivity as a mere observation and monitoring of the continuing flow of activities and structural settings. Instead, Archer sees reflexivity as enabling the individuals to adopt certain “stances” towards society, which constitute the micro-macro link and produce the “active agent”. In that sense, reflexivity is a mediator between structure and agency (Archer 2003, 2007). Being a part of the inner dialogue, reflexivity is seen as an emergent property of individuals, which can activate the causal powers of structures and allows individuals to deliberate on their future actions. In terms of social theory, critical realism thus implies the division between structure and agency seeing both of them as emergent realities. They have their own powers or tendencies, which may be exercised all the time or only when triggered and not countervailed by an opposing mechanism (Mingers and Standing 2017). In terms of methodology, as it places itself beyond the positivist compared to the constructivist divisions, it implies methodological triangulation combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009, p. 15). This has been demonstrated by Archer herself: By using a qualitative approach, she has recognised different modes of reflexivity, which preceded the quantitative tool ICONI, enabling her to identify consistent practitioners of each mode (Archer 2007, 2012). However, despite these theoretical and methodological orientations, we can notice a significant gap in the empirical research on reflexivity, which may also affect the theoretical conclusions. A clear limitation of the research adapting Archer’ work is that it has been typically based on the studies of specific populations, for example observing particular groups of students (Porpora and Shumar 2010; Archer 2012; Mills 2016; Kahn et al. 2017; Golob 2017; Golob and Makaroviˇc 2018), or local authorities in particular regions (Sackmann et al. 2015). Archer’s theory of reflexivity clearly entails the possibility of identifying and explaining the divergence of life journeys of individuals with similar social circumstances. Our research, however, intends to take a step further to elucidate how different positions of individuals in social structure might affect their reflexivity. It thus provides a clearer empirical insight in the relationships between reflexivity and social inequality, as well as between reflexivity and macro-level social and semantic transformations. This gap has been well noticed by the latest concerns on the matter. Several authors have critically pondered Archer’s only partial acknowledgement of the social structure and/or over-emphasising reflexivity on the account of the eliding agency with reflexivity (Akram and Hogan 2015, p. 606), thus minimising the role of social origins, family socialization, processes of internalization of exteriority, and the persistence of social reproduction (Caetano 2015, p. 1). Similar concerns regarding the neglected role of the structural settings in one’s reflexive deliberation can also be derived from the contributions of a broad variety of other theorists and empirical researchers (Mutch 2004; Dyke et al. 2012; Farrugia and Woodman 2015; Mouzelis 2007; Sayer 2010; Atkinson 2010; Porpora and Shumar 2010). Our own research, presented in this article, addresses this gap—being the first one to empirically observe reflexivity levels and modes in a sample representing a general national population. We are thus able to assess for the first time in a systematic way how reflexivity can be linked to generations, gender and education—in the overall structural and cultural context. For this purpose, we, firstly, provide a brief review of the reflexivity modes, connect them to the structural and semantic transformations, as well as to the differential positions of individuals in the social structure. We derive this perspective from Archer’s categorization of the reflexivity modes and her understanding of morphogenetic cycles. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 248 3 of 23 Secondly, we present our methodological perspective, together with our quantitative methodological tool intended to assess reflexivity levels and modes through survey sampling. The tool has already been developed within our previous qualitative (Golob 2017) and quantitative research (Golob and Makaroviˇc 2018, 2019). The quantitative methodological tool is based on the broader methodological framework ensuing from the existing theory and research and, in particular, from our previous in-depth biographical interviews (Golob 2017; Golob and Makaroviˇc 2019) serving as an inspiration to advance the key questions of our present study. Thirdly, we place reflexivity and its modes in the context of the Slovenian national case. Within this framework, we hypothesize whether structural and semantic transformations at the macro level and the individuals’ positions in the social structure in terms of generation, gender and education have actually affected their reflexivity levels and modes and, particularly, through which mechanisms has taken place. Finally, we review, interpret and discuss the results obtained from a national representative