'Compare the ways in which Durkheim and Goffman have understood the Essay

'Compare the ways in which Durkheim and Goffman have understood the connections between the structures of our society and the kinds of people we are' - Essay Example The above ability of individuals is represented by the concept of agency. Agency is often related with the social structure which is a term used to explain not only the types of teams developed within the society but also the criteria used for the categorization of people to specific classes based on their religion, their gender, their racial background and so on. The issues of agency and structure as described above have been extensively examined in sociology. Both the above concepts are considered to be important in order to identify the behaviour of individuals in modern societies. Of course, the views of sociologists on agency and social structure present differences; however they all emphasize the importance of identifying the needs of human and to use them in order to explain their needs. Current paper examines the concepts of agency and structure as they are presented in the work of Durkheim and Goffman. Two particular works of the above theorists are used to develop this study: The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life of Durkheim (1912) and the ‘Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental patients and Other Inmates’ of Goffman (1961). The explanations given by Durkheim and Goffman regarding the content and the role of agency and structure have many similarities – they also have certain differences which are highlighted in the sections that follow. The fact that these two theorists lived in different periods may be the reason for these differences. All potential influences on the work of these sociologists – referring specifically to the concepts of agency and structure – are analytically presented. Society has a crucial role in the development of individuals’ perceptions – as it is accepted by both the above theorists. More specifically, Durkheim notices that ‘it is society that has consecrated the individual and made of him the thing to be respected above all; the progressive emancipation of the individual thus does not