It seems like the word is used in several different senses in the following excerpt:
I think that’s why I like the work of Michel Foucault, because the subject’s always being constituted by external forces. Some people think that that’s overly deterministic, that it removes the agency of the individual. But I don’t really think it removes their agency. I think their actions constitute the structures that shape them. I don’t know if that really answers your question, but I always look at individual actions as constituted by larger social processes and I think that’s why in my work the global and the lo- cal are always together and they are not separate processes.
Is the following interpretation correct?
being constituted by = being shaped by
constitute the structures = create the structures
actions as constituted by = actions as shaped by
Also, I see the word used a lot in the sociological literature -- Does the word have a special meaning in sociology (or is it a ruse to appear intellectual)?