"Structuration, I say. And again, structuration. Structuration, mates.
Structuration, that's the ticket!"
[WS:] However, he is not an exception - if it is any excuse. A great deal of what passes for "theory" or "philosophy" - especially in social sciences and the humanities is nothing more than Public Displays of Erudition (PDE). - basically dense writing liberally sprinkled with terminology of author's own invention and profuse references to other writings, the more obscure the better. The main purpose of such exercises is to show how erudite the writer is rather than advance knowledge in any way.
This is particularly popular in Europe as Americans tend to be less tolerant of dense prose, but it still can be found here, especially in economics, social sciences and lit-crit writings.
Giddnes had a good idea - to focus on social action and institutions as opposed to static and abstract social structures as functionalists of Marxist, Durkheimian and Parsonian varieties did - but it was hardly an earth shattering revelation. Many before him went in a similar general direction (cf. interactionists like Mead, Blumer, Goffman or even Merton.) However, it is difficult to attain an academic celebrity status for proposing pragmatic ideas that make sense or even to pursue empirical investigations, especially in Europe. To be taken seriously, you must engage in PDEs. You must show you erudition in proposing a grand theory of everything, the more densely written, the more obtuse and less accessible to general readership the better.
Wojtek