The preceding analysis disclosed how Giddens's aim of sociologically extending the praxis perspective differs from Habermas's (1987b) assessment that the philosophy of praxis has been effectively superseded by the paradigm of understanding. A number of these contrasts warrant specific consideration, because they are relevant to Habermas's and Giddens's contrasting interpretations of the institutionalization of modernity and their broader theoretical conceptions of historical change. These contrasts are similarly related to the immanent difficulties of Habermas's change to the paradigm of understanding and equally the need for Giddens to further develop the presuppositions of his programme. In fact, Habermas and Giddens highlight how the institutionalization of modernity was shaped by similar major developments, particularly the separation of the capitalist economic system from the state. Yet, owing to their different theoretical perspectives, they sometimes characterize these same developments in contrasting ways and present different, as well as well as sometimes complementary, evaluations of their implications.

My discussion here will initially draw attention to the potentials that structuration theory contains for rectifying certain difficulties of Habermas's theory, particularly those limitations that result from his formulation of the intersubjective constitution of identity as a rational mediation of the universal and particular. Habermas's explanation of the historical institutionalization of modernity is based on the theoretical argument that processes of cultural rationalization initially made possible the structural rationalization of the spheres of the capitalist economy and the state administrative system. The latter processes consolidate the separation between the lifeworld and system, with the expansion of the latter developing to a stage where it paradoxically threatens the communicative reproduction of the lifeworld. As expected, Giddens's explanation of the institutional transition to modernity places greater emphasis on the changing complexion of power and the radically new temporal and spatial dynamic of the structuration of institutional systems, particularly capitalism and the mediated transmission of information more generally. The normative changes that Giddens identifies are largely considered in combination with power. The limitations of this approach will become apparent when the perspectives are reversed and the weaknesses of Giddens's theory of structuration and deconstruction of historical materialism are considered in light of Habermas's theoretical standpoint.