Gender in Agency-Structure Debate
Abstract
This study sheds light on conceptual debates on domination of agency and structure in socioeconomic stratification. Various angles of thoughts—Marxists, Functionalists, Feminists, New right, and New labor—on defining family and gender role are guiding tools to understand the association between gender and agency-structure. Various perspectives of school of thoughts are taken into account to clarify the debate in order to fulfil the purpose of this article. Criticism on structural approach and agency structure debate manifest the presence of different lines of thought- structural approach as passive objects, household as the most relevant unit of utility maximization, cooperative conflict is important in intra-family decisions, on defining agency and structure. Members of the family, division of labor, decision making roles are influenced by structure; and neither gender nor the structure lonely sufficient to explain the decisions taking in family, is crux of this study. This article concludes by deliberating guiding principle for further study.
How to cite this article: Bhusal D. Gender in Agency-Structure Debate. J Adv Res Humani Social Sci 2020; 7(3): 13-17.
References
2. Analysis T, Author DG, Junko S et al. Family and household : The analysis of domestic groups. Annual Review of Anthropology. 2008; 8: 161-205. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155618.
3. Archer M. Culture and agency: The place of culture
in social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988.
4. Baldwin JD. Mead’s solution to the problem of agency. Sociological Inquiry 1988; 58: 139-161.
5. Barker Chris. Cultural studies: Theory and practice. London: Sage. 2005; 448, ISBN 0-7619-4156-8.
6. Carlsnaes W. The agency-structure problem in foreign policy analysis. International Studies Quarterly 1992; 36(3): 245–270.
7. Dwyer D, Bruce J. A home divided: Women and income in the third world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1988.
8. Edwards HN. Changing family structure and youthful well-being. Journal of Family 1987; 8: 355-372.
9. Evans A. ‘Women, rural development and gender issues in rural household economies. Discussion Paper 254, Sussex: Institute of Development Studies. 1989.
10. Fine GA. Agency, structure, and comparative contexts: Toward a synthetic interactionism. Symbolic Interaction, 1992; 15(1): 87-107. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1992.-15.1.87
11. Harris O. Households as natural units. In K.Young, Wolkowitz C and McCullagh R. (Eds), Marriage and the Market. London: CSE. 1981.
12. Hartmann HI. The family as the locus of gender, class, and political struggle: The example of housework. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1981; 6(3): 366-394. https://doi.org/10.1086/493813
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(sociology)
14. Imbroscio DL. Structure, agency, and democratic theory. The University of Chicago Press. 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235333
15. Jain D, Moser CON. Gender planning and development: Theory, practice and training. Feminist Review. 1995. https://doi.org/10.2307/1395333
16. Kabeer N. Resources, agency, achievements: Reactions on the measurement of women’s empowerment. 1999; 30: 435-464. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00125
17. Lane DC. Opportunities generated by the agency/structure debate and suggestions for clarifying the social theoretic position of system dynamics. System Dynamics Review 2001; 17(4: 293-309. https://doi.org/:10.1002/sdr.221
18. Raymond M. Social closure: The theory of monopolization and exclusion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1988.
19. O’Neill K, Balsiger J, VanDeveer SD. Actors, norms, and impact: Recent international cooperation theory and the influence of the agent-structure debate. Annu Rev Polit Sci 2004; 7: 149-175.
20. Risman BJ. Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender and Society 2004; 18(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265349
21. Rock P. The making of symbolic interaction. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. 1979.
22. Sen A. ‘Gender and co-operative conflicts. In I. Tinker (ed.), Persistent Inequalities, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1990.
23. Sen A. Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 2000.
24. Simpson IH. The sociology of work: Where have the workers gone? Social Forces 1989; 67: 563-81.
25. Smith CW. A case study of structuration: The pure-bredbeef business. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 1983; 13: 3-18.
26. Thompson CH. Family and social structure revision. 2014. Retrieved https://sociologytwynham.com/2014/family-and-social-structure-revision/
27. Touraine A. Return of the actor: Social theory in postindustrial society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1988.
28. Wilson G, Sphall S. Action, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.
