In Sewell’s criticism of Giddens’ discussion of structuration theory, he finds the idea of a virtual nonhuman resource implausible, but information is a resource that can be virtual and nonhuman, while also being human and actual. Information as a resource can take many forms; information embedded in individuals or processes would seem to be virtual and human, while information recorded in some durable media such as print text appears to be actual and nonhuman, and information recorded in digital media can arguably be considered virtual and nonhuman.
I’m not sure why the virtual versus actual nature of resources matters so much to Sewell. Part of the challenge in interpreting Sewell’s intention in discussing the “virtual” aspects of structure is that he does not directly define “virtual” to clarify his perspective but rather refers to the literature and Giddens’ assertion of existence of structure outside of space and time. Sewell’s redefinition of rules and resources as virtual schemas and actual resources leaves me wondering which of these constitutes information, or whether both do.
Sewell’s discussion of the polysemy of resources refers several times to “an array of resources” that is interpreted or reinterpreted, and the language suggests that the word “information” is a suitable substitute for “array of resources.” This would lead me to restate the definition of agency as the actor’s ability to use information in context, and structure as the information and culture that influence social action and tend to be reproduced by social action. Perhaps this is a bit simplistic, but it is an interpretation that helps me think about the theory in terms that are meaningful to me.
Sewell, William 1992 “A theory of structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation”, American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1-29
Giddens, Anthony. 1979. “Agency Structure”, in Central Problems in Social Theory, 49-72 Cambridge University Press