The Role of Structure and Agency in Identity Construction

Identity Construction is an important part of that of the human species. The construction of identity involves that of life experiences, connections along with that of relationships. Structure is indicative of the recurrent arrangements that limit the choices along with opportunities of an individual (Burkitt, 2016, pp 136).  Agency refers to the capacity of that of the individuals so that they can act independently and make free choices. The debate of structure and agency illuminates on the factor whether the individual acts as that of a free agent or they are controlled by that of social structure. This essay elaborates regarding the fact whether the individuals in the modern era make their own experiences or are they controlled by that of social structure.

Agency states that the behaviour of an individual is owing to their own free choices and it portrays the individual as an “embodied actor”. It lays emphasis on the concept of individualism. Individualism is a social outlook that focuses on the arena of human independence and portrays the importance of liberty. Agency can be well-explained by using the Great Man Theory of Thomas Carlyle who was a Scottish writer. According to this theory, history is largely shaped by that of the impact of individuals who are highly influential. With the help of their charisma and intelligence, they played an effective role in the society and they made use of their power to create a decisive historical impact (Sztompka, 2014, pp 64).  This theory was contradicted by that of Herbert Spencer who said that the great men were products of that of the society. According to Carlyle heroes were responsible for shaping history by making use of their personal attributes. Giddens has stated that people are not ‘cultural dupes’ but that they act intentionally (Giddens et al., 2016, pp 192). Human beings can be deemed to be reflexive agents who act on the basis of their own interpretation of a particular situation (Mitnick, 2015, pp 92).  Self-identity can be said to be reflexive understanding of that of their own biographies. Structure on the other hand lays emphasis on the structural factors that or that of social institutions that play a pivotal role in the shaping of the individuals in the society. Social structure consists of rules along with practices. Social structure is embodied in the actions and beliefs of the human beings. The social structure can organize the behaviour of various actors. The social structure can help in assigning power to that of the individual actors (Strasser, 2014, pp 146 ).  

Understanding Agency and the Great Man Theory

The theory of Hegel states that dialectics of history can be realized by finding a “ great man” who is capable of laying forward his wills. It states that structure along with agency enters into the domain of each other. According to the Hegelian doctrine, time has not yet come to the point of consciousness itself and personal contribution is necessary for the perfect realization of time. The “charismatic legitimation” professed by that of Max Webber states the phenomena of indelible penetration of that of social and that of the agency (Giddens et al., 2016, pp 149).  Charisma can be said to be a form in relation to authority that is socially-structured.  The socially-specified qualities can be deemed to be personal and everybody does not possess them. The primary among these qualities can be said to be agency that wants to throw out that of the precedent and reframe the rules.

It has been found that children who grow up with that of the animals adopt the nature along with behaviour of the particular animal. There are incidences of wild children who grew up with that of the wolves. Wolves are quite intelligent and they think of the orphaned children like their own pups. Children who grow up amidst wild nature adopt the savage behaviour of the animal. This points out that an individual is greatly influenced by the physical environment around which it is bred (Coad, Jack & Kholeif, 2016, pp 1170).  The development of language occurs between that of birth and the five years. It is found that if the children are not rescued by the age of five, then children hardly have any chances of learning about speech. The faculty of abstract thinking is also developed at this stage and this accounts to be one major reason why feral children cannot assimilate into that of the society and have to be cared for throughout their life. Oxana Malaya hailed from Ukraine and between the ages of 3 to that of 8 she lived in that of the dog kennel that was situated behind that of the abusive parents of her home. She was abandoned by her parents and she spent six years having only raw meat and residing with that of the dogs. When she was rescued she was barking and panting and did not have the power of speech. Oxana Malaya had learned about speech by the age of three that helped in restoration of her speech and she learned to converse in the normal manner (Feeney & Pierce, 2016, pp 1174).  Monkeys on the other hand have legs and hands but it is found that they do not act like that of humans when they are raised by that of humans. It is owing to the fact that the brain of an animal cannot think higher than what it is designed to do. Monkeys can be trained by that of humans to do things that are human but this occurs on account of the training that it has received. It is found that when the predatory animals are raised by that of the humans then they cannot protect themselves when they are left in the wild (McPhee & Canary, 2014, pp 89). 

Social Structure and Human Behavior

The intellectual make-up of an individual has an influence on that of the society. The wealth of the social content of an individual is conditioned by that of the diversity of links with that of the social whole. Individual development stands as an indicator of the development prevailing within the society. It cannot be said however that an individual mingles with the society. An individual retains his unique individuality and makes contributions to the whole of the society. The social structure is responsible for shaping the life of human beings and vice versa the individual also shapes the society (Spector, 2016, pp 254).  The individual stands as a link within that of the chain of generations. The affairs of an individual are not regulated solely by himself but by that of the social standard. Napoleon Bonaparte was shaped by that of the French Revolution. Napoleon Bonaparte said that he was the creature of that of circumstances. Society carries an individual in the same manner in which a river is carried by that of the boat. It has been argued by others that an individual is not carried by that of the river but an individual acts like a turbulent river itself (Samuel, 2016, pp 65).  The various happenings of the social life do not come about on their own but they have been made. History is shaped by that of the human effort and it occurs at the expense of that of human blood.

The mystery of that of human nature is imbibed in that of the society. Society becomes like a human being within that of social relations and on the other hand human being acts like an embodiment of that of the social relations. Modern man is built by that of the centuries of excellence and passes it on with the help of traditions. The personality of the modern man is built out of the influence of different strata prevailing within the social structure. Modern man stands as an embodiment of that of the living memory of that of history and he acts as the focus of that of wealth of knowledge (Bakker, 2015, pp 140).  Man acts like a living atom within the system of that of the social reality. With the help of various impulses the creative thought of the people of the past nourishes an individual and with the help of it- contemporary culture. Society exists outside that of the individual like that of a historically shaped relation which is independent of the will of an individual. 

The Impact of Environment on Human Behavior

Giddens conceives of “structure” as the rules that are made use of by the actors in that of interaction. Rules are the reflexive agents that are employed as “formulas” within that of the social system. The structural rules reveal important properties- they are known and they are frequently used in conversations. Structure makes use of resources that act like that of “material equipment” in order to get things done (Bryant & Jary, 2014, pp 1140).  Those who possess the necessary resources can mobilize that of power and power is not a resource but is the result of that of organizational facilities. Rules can be created and changed and combined into that of different forms. Rules help in specifying the rights that act as the basis of sanction and provide that of “interpretive schemes” that is necessary for the purpose of effective communication (Burkitt, 2016, pp 325).  The theory of structuration states that social life is more than that of random individual act. According to Giddens, human agency and that of social structure are integrally related to that of each other and repetition of acts of individual agents gives rise to structure (Giddens et al., 2016, pp 186). Traditions and moral codes exist within the social structure but these can be changed on the occasion of people ignoring the traditions.

According to Anthony Giddens, people find it difficult to act on the basis of their own volition and there are certain invisible social forces that provide resistance (Giddens et al., 2016, pp 201). Giddens draws an analogy with that of language and says that people make use of language when they speak however people react strongly against other people who disregard the rules of language. The rules pertaining to that of social order exists in the head of an individual in such a manner that people are shocked when the expectations are not abided by in the society (Sztompka, 2014 pp 360). The sociological studies of Harold Garfinkel has revealed that on the occasion of people responding in ways that are unexpected to situations that are everyday other reactors also react in an angry manner owing to breach of collective understanding of that of ‘ normal behaviour’. 

Giddens has made a bold observation that the relationship of structure and actor is not a dualism. The actor does not determine the structure nor does the structure determine that of the actor. He has put forward the theory of duality of that of structure. It helps in connecting the production of that of social interaction that is performed by that of knowledgeable agent with that of the reproduction of the social system across that of time and space. The theoretical approach of Giddens suggests that structure can act both as an enabler and that of constraining (Bryant & Jary, 2014, pp 99).   According to Giddens, it is the human agency that can completely transform the social system. This shows that human action can reproduce the social structure and can pave the path for social changes. There is no incidence of reductionism within the structuration theory. Gibbens has said that agency along with structure act as forces that are complementary to each other (Coad, Jack & Kholeif, 2016, pp 1139). Structure has an influence on agency and agency can also change the structure.

Conclusion

Agency highlights that the role that is played by an individual is due to free choices. It puts importance on individualism that gives priority to the concept of that of the individual. The Great Man Theory was an advocator of agency that said that the individuals within the society can prove to be of great influence and has an important bearing on the society. It can be deduced that social structure can play a decisive role in assigning power to that of the individual and the individual also plays a crucial role in framing the social structure. Both the concepts are inter-related as the continuous and repetitive acts of that of the agents can give rise to the concept called “structure”. Structure can act both as an enabler and as a constraining agent. The human agency can drastically change the social system. Agency and structure act as complementary forces that greatly influence each other. 

References:

Bakker, I. (2015). Towards Gendered Global Economic Governance: A Three-Dimensional Analysis of Social Forces. In Critical Perspectives on the Crisis of Global Governance(pp. 134-161). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Bryant, C., & Jary, D. (Eds.). (2014). Giddens’ theory of structuration: A critical appreciation. Routledge.

Burkitt, I. (2016). Relational agency: Relational sociology, agency and interaction. European Journal of Social Theory, 19(3), 322-339.

Coad, A., Jack, L., & Kholeif, A. (2016). Strong structuration theory in accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(7), 1138-1144.

Feeney, O., & Pierce, B. (2016). Strong structuration theory and accounting information: an empirical study. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(7), 1152-1176.

Giddens, A., Duneier, M., Appelbaum, R. P., & Carr, D. S. (2016). Introduction to sociology. WW Norton.

McPhee, R. D., & Canary, H. E. (2014). Structuration theory. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy.

Mitnick, B. M. (2015). Agency theory. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management.

Samuel, R. (Ed.). (2016). People’s History and Socialist Theory (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.

Spector, B. A. (2016). Carlyle, Freud, and the Great Man Theory more fully considered. Leadership, 12(2), 250-260.

Strasser, H. (2014). The Normative Structure of Sociology (RLE Social Theory): Conservative and Emancipatory Themes in Social Thought (Vol. 47). Routledge.

Sztompka, P. (2014). Agency and Structure (RLE Social Theory): Reorienting Social Theory. Routledge.