Structural theorists postulate that elements responsible for defining human culture should be perceived more in the context of their relationship with a larger all-encompassing structure and system. The theory behind this thinking is referred to as structuralism that seeks to…
Download file to see previous pages...
The school of culture and agency is based on the premise that repeated conditioning of individuals through their culture patterns human behaviour. Agency forwards the notion that human behaviour is determined by free will that charts the way for independent action and free will in making choices. Revolutions are occurrences in governance that result to a change in leadership, which is achieved through various means. Numerous schools of thought have been forwarded in an attempt to explain and the understanding of the making and the instigators of revolutions. This paper seeks to highlight the debate between structural theorists and the culture and agency school to the 1906 constitutional revolution in Iran.
The 1906 constitutional revolution in Iran was instigated by the Shah’s extravagance, which led to the exploitation and destruction of the nation’s economy (Poulson 104). Teheran was the seat of Persian power and majority of the population was composed of merchants, noble classes, religious authorities and the educated elite who felt and understood the consequences of the Shah’s extravagance (Poulson 106). They were the main instigators of the revolution that called for the removal of the chancellor who was to blame for the dire economic situation. After the removal of the chancellor the Shah did not change his extravagant ways and the same group campaigned and advocated for the establishment of an institution would rule by law instead of royal and foreign influence. In the context of this discussion, the 1906 revolution in Iran can be viewed from both perspectives that are presented by structural theorists and the culture and agency school of thought. This is because according to Skocpol, there are always structural forces that underlie the uprising of a revolution. Persia was facing an economic meltdown under the leadership of the Shah, which means the societal structure was under threat (Geels 32). This is in the
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
(“Structure and Agency in Revolutionary Theory Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved de https://studentshare.org/history/1623305-structure-and-agency-in-revolutionary-theory
(Structure and Agency in Revolutionary Theory Essay)
“Structure and Agency in Revolutionary Theory Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/history/1623305-structure-and-agency-in-revolutionary-theory.
Agency theory is entirely an academic term and it defines the relation and conflicts between a principal and an agent. With the help of corporate governance any corporation and company can be managed and governed. Agency theory is a part of corporate governance as corporate governance is not complete without the committee members, shareholders and board of directors of a company.
Giddens suggested that human agency and social structure are in relationships with one another and that repeating actions by individual agents produces the social structure. He held that social structure comprises of moral codes, institutions, conventions and traditional methods of doing things.
It is noteworthy that the number of intelligence agencies have been increasing rapidly since the begging of cold causing the structural problems faced by the Intelligence community. The Intelligence for a long period has had to deal with the uncountable challenges with its structure.
In accordance with the issues discussed in the paper we all are somewhat bound and restricted by the constraints of our surroundings and its contexts. At the same time, we as moral beings should also make sure that we exercise our power/choice to act in a responsible manner by taking the right path.
By analysing the ownership structure of the firm, agency theory provides an explanation for firm failure and performance. In theory, the alignment of interests between the principals (owners) and agents (managers) entails agency costs that affect firm value, so firm value can be maximised to the extent that principals and agents minimise agency costs.
Structure on the other hand describes the prevailing structured plans that are aimed at driving individuals to have limited choices and scarce opportunities. Structure sells the idea of socialism while agency calls for autonomy. The question on which is better has brought heated debates among the renowned sociologists.
This paper delves into agents of socialization and the philosophies of socialization.
My parents, for instance, are well educated and very hard working. For this reason, they have been able to provide me with a