Structure-Agency Debate: The Dirty Work of Democracy by by Antony Atlebeker

Clearly, the overall attitude of Captain Lewis Decostar for his work as a police officer is disappointment, "disillusionment of police activities as occupation", and loss of motivation (Atlebeker; 2005: 176). The fact that he went to work pointed to his loss of motivation, but he did not do "his work" as before. Because his promise as a police officer no longer exists. He is disappointed in his role as a police officer, but I believe his career has ended as the White Captain no longer promotes (Atlebeker; 2005: 173).

Structures and agencies, sometimes called determinism and autonomy, form a sustainable ontological debate in social theory: "Do social structures determine human behavior or human behavior?" In this case , The ability of individuals to independently act and select freely, "structure" means factors that limit or influence individual choices and actions (social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc.). Discussions on the superiority of structure and identity include the core of sociological recognition theory ("What constitutes the social world", "What is the cause in the social world, and what is the impact"). The long-standing problem in this discussion is "social revival": a way to regenerate the structure through personal choice (especially creation of an unequal structure)?

Focusing on how Mouzelis investigates social structure and actors includes an established structure in sociology - institutional controversy and criticism of its reductionism (see also Archer 1996, Bhaskar 1989, Giddens 1984). Below we outline the reason why deterministic methods can not deal with structure and agent connections in an ontological and flexible way; then we summarize the morphological order of Archer as a reductionist's " I will discuss it as a possible strategy for studying structure and actors without falling into.

As a way to advance structural and institutional discussion it is useful to consider the work of scholars like Ortner who have tried to adjust the tension between the structure and agents in social science over the past 30 years. A few years ago, she began to describe in detail what she call "practical theory". She tried to understand the interrelationship between social structure and cultural structure on the one hand and the interrelationship between human behavior and practice on the other hand. (See the initial statement of 1989, Ortner). According to Mr. Orthner, "The basic premise of practical theory is that cultures (in general) make people into a certain type of social entity, but social entities are born or transformed through their lives It is. "Normally a part - the culture that makes up them" (2006, 129 pages)