Sociologists have been addressing the debate on structure versus agency for a long time. Agency advocates for free will whereby an individual can make his or her own choices without external influence. …
Download file to see previous pages...
Various sociologists have taken part in the debate on primacy of either structure or agency. Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim are among the many sociologists who have made contributions to the debate. Marx advocates for the agency. The theorists believe that individuality in decision making translate to inevitable modification in the societal structure. Marx believes in starting change from the individual level. Marx acknowledges that both structure and agency bring change to the society but has gone ahead to argue that structure forces people to change even when they do not require the change. Agency brings change that is of everybody’s best interest (Marx & Friedrich 473-483).
Emile Durkheim is another sociologist whose opinion on the debate holds water. Unlike Karl Marx, Durkheim advocates for the uses of structure to instill change in the society. He argues that individuals do not bring change that can influence the entire society. They just bring change based on personal needs. Structure on the other hand brings uniform change to the entire society with reference to the underlying societal needs pinpointed by the authority. He further argues that individuals should not be allowed to formulate their own thoughts. He strongly believes that for the best of the society, structure is important (Durkheim 50-59).
In the debate on who is to blame for the current economic crisis, one can directly apply Marx and Durkheim’s theories on structure versus agency. It is vividly clear that Marx would blame the financial institutions that have designed to vend unbearable mortgages to the people (Powell Para 8).
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
The researcher states that Weak Matrix Structure with project team members scattered in many functional departments and working under primary authority of their respective functional managers. Strong Matrix Structure indicating clear authority of Project Managers and Functional Managers but Project Managers having the upper hand
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.
Agency refers to the autonomy enjoyed by individuals in decision making, hence perform every action out of their own will. On the other hand, structure refers to a system of repeated patterns and arrangements which often influences an individual’s choice.
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.
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
Comparing the former centuries with the last three, there has been a great to transition child care and protection within nations and across the international level. The manner in which children in the society were perceived and attended to,