Structure and agency are main concepts in social theory. Structure refers to the general features of social life that happen regularly and do not change. Structure also refers to social institutions or systems, social facts that are independent of the individual and are able to determine and restrict individual action. Agency refers to action; usually the action of individuals or groups. Agency also refers to the thought that individuals are capable of choosing different courses of action. Individuals can choose what to do, though their choices are restricted and shaped in various ways by structural realities (Harrington, 2005). Anthony Giddens structuration theory had many critisisms from Bhaskar and Callinicos, which will be looked at throughout
…show more content…
Structures, enable and restrict agency, while their durability, depends upon the reproduction by that agency. The resources of an organisation (skills of staff), only matter to the level that they are actualised in agency (labour); on the other hand, the effectiveness of that agency depends on the resources provided. Therefore, structuration refers to the equally constitutive character of agency and structure within social relationships, while organisation features as the ability to integrate previously disjointed social relationships across time and space (Clegg and Bailey, …show more content…
Regular social interaction here seems to be explained only by individual choice. The dilemma is either that structure agency thinking tends to emasculate individual agency, claiming that individuals are determined externally by structure or habitus, or structure agency thinking tends to over assert the agency of individuals, leaving the persistence and resilience of regular social institutions impossible to explain and giving individuals the possibility of acting otherwise. In this sense structure agency thinking tends toward a risk of determinism as well as a risk of randomness of choices. In general, it is argued that social structure is reproduced by means of the agency of individuals through the mediation of cultural rules and resources. Individuals are able to act fairly predictably and to create social order because they regularly accept certain common understandings of what is appropriate and these understandings become binding and restricting (Harrington,
Structures, enable and restrict agency, while their durability, depends upon the reproduction by that agency. The resources of an organisation (skills of staff), only matter to the level that they are actualised in agency (labour); on the other hand, the effectiveness of that agency depends on the resources provided. Therefore, structuration refers to the equally constitutive character of agency and structure within social relationships, while organisation features as the ability to integrate previously disjointed social relationships across time and space (Clegg and Bailey, …show more content…
Regular social interaction here seems to be explained only by individual choice. The dilemma is either that structure agency thinking tends to emasculate individual agency, claiming that individuals are determined externally by structure or habitus, or structure agency thinking tends to over assert the agency of individuals, leaving the persistence and resilience of regular social institutions impossible to explain and giving individuals the possibility of acting otherwise. In this sense structure agency thinking tends toward a risk of determinism as well as a risk of randomness of choices. In general, it is argued that social structure is reproduced by means of the agency of individuals through the mediation of cultural rules and resources. Individuals are able to act fairly predictably and to create social order because they regularly accept certain common understandings of what is appropriate and these understandings become binding and restricting (Harrington,