Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The termagency refers to the extent to which individuals have the capacity to choose the action that they take. Human agency involves the proposition that individuals both make choices, irrespective of how they come to make them, and enact them. Such a proposition brings morality into play: If a situation has arisen because of human decision making, then those making such decisions may legitimately be held responsible and value judgments may be made in light of the actions taken.

The central debate concerning agency is the extent to which that which is outside the individual human being (the collective, discourse, structure, etc.) overrides that individual's capacity for agency. One argument would be, for instance, that even though someone subjectively believes or feels that he or she is making a decision, this decision is more accurately seen as arising out of the cultural, political, historical, and linguistic context which the individual inhabits. Put crudely, there is tension between, on the one hand, the individual being said to make choices with intentionality in light of the freedom that he or she has, with these choices leading to actions, and, on the other, the contention that there is no such freedom and no such choice, but determinism and inevitability, with the individual acting in accordance with structures, society, and the individual's environment.

Agency versus Structure: Early Contemporary Theories

Concepts of agency, culture, and structure in early sociological theory tended toward the reductionist. For example, seen from a traditional Marxist position, the subject of social change—the agent—is collective. It is collective behavior, rather than individual behavior, that is significant. The collective creates history; human beings, as social animals, are, together, the agents of social change. Abstract forces such as “history” or “the party” do not. Class is the main collective that Karl Marx refers to, and class is characterized through Marx's use of Ludwig Feuerbach's idea of the species-being having human essence, not within the individual but in terms of action as asocial being. Marx's subversion of the Hegelian dialectic as an exchange between classes with different material circumstances (dialectical materialism) rather than between individuals with different rational consciousness (a dialectic of idealism) shows a consolidation of the modernist structure/agency binary.

Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser took a subtly different view. Althusser compared being an agent of change with being the bearer of disease: We “carry” the agency that properly belongs not to us as individuals but to structure. Change takes place as a result of structure, not as a consequence of even collective human agency.

Giddens and Structuration

Anthony Giddens, a British sociologist, addressed this tension between structure and agency—between Marxist and humanist perspectives perhaps—in the development ofstructuration during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Giddens proposed a concept of structure (though he drew distinctions among the generic termssocial structure, structures, andstructural properties ) not as form itself, not as something that physically and observably exists, but as that which gives form and shape to social life. For Giddens, structure is not external to human agents but is present only within and through the activities that an individual undertakes. Mirroring this, he proposed that, just as structure is not outside agency, so agency does not belong to the individual; it is not something that is mine but relates to the range of actions that I undertake. He suggested, in turn, that action, frequently repetitive and routine, simultaneously both is governed by existing structure and serves to generate and regenerate structure. The agent hasknowledgeability, the ability to take action that has an impact, and action is, for Giddens, not one momentary act but a discursive flow. Structure is reproduced socially, and therefore what needs to be studied are socialpractices, undertaken within and across space and time (locales, as Giddens conceptualized them: stable features that shape localized actions). Practice, according to Giddens, bridges structure and action; a practice is a “structured action” or “enacted structure.”

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading