How Sociologists Define Human Agency

How Sociologists Define Human Agency Agency refers to the thoughts  and actions taken by people that express their individual power. The core challenge at the center of the field of sociology is understanding the relationship  between structure and agency. Structure refers to the complex and interconnected set of social forces, relationships, institutions, and elements of social structure that work together to shape the thought, behavior, experiences, choices, and overall life  courses of people. In contrast, agency is the power people have to think for themselves and act in ways that  shape their experiences and life trajectories. Agency can take individual and collective forms. Relationship Between Social Structure and Agency Sociologists understand the relationship between social structure and agency to be an ever-evolving dialectic. In the simplest sense, a dialectic refers to a relationship between two things, each of which has the ability to influence the other, such that a change in one requires a change in the other. To consider the relationship between structure and agency a dialectical one is to assert that while social structure shapes individuals, individuals (and groups) also shape social structure. After all, society is a social creation the creation and maintenance of social order require the cooperation of individuals connected through social relationships. So, while the lives of individuals are shaped by the existing social structure, they none the less have the ability   the  agency   to make decisions and express them in behavior. Reaffirm Social Order or Remake It Individual and collective agency may serve to reaffirm social order by reproducing norms and existing social relationships, or it may serve to challenge and remake social order by going against the status quo to create new norms and relationships. Individually, this might look like rejecting the gendered norms of dress. Collectively, the ongoing civil rights battle to expand the definition of marriage to same-sex couples shows agency expressed through political and legal channels. The Link to Disenfranchised Populations The debate about the relationship between structure and agency often comes up when sociologists study the lives of disenfranchised and oppressed populations. Many people, social scientists included, often slip into the trap of describing such populations as if they have no agency. Because we recognize the power of  social structural elements  like economic class stratification, systemic racism, and patriarchy, to determine life chances and outcomes, we might think that the poor, people of color, and women and girls are universally oppressed by social structure, and thus, have no agency.  When we look at macro trends and longitudinal data, the big picture is read by many as suggesting as much. Agency Is Alive and Well However, when we look sociologically at the everyday lives of people among disenfranchised and oppressed populations, we see that agency is alive and well, and that it takes  many forms. For example, many perceive the life  course of black and Latino boys, especially those who are born into lower socioeconomic classes, as largely predetermined by a raced and classed social structure that corrals poor folks into neighborhoods devoid of employment and resources, pours them into underfunded and understaffed schools, tracks them into remedial classes, and disproportionately polices and punishes them. Yet, despite a social structure that produces such troubling phenomena, sociologists have found that black and Latino boys,  and other disenfranchised and oppressed groups,  exert agency in this social context in a variety of ways. It Takes Many Forms Agency might take the form of demanding respect from teachers and administrators, doing well in school, or even disrespecting teachers, cutting classes, and dropping out. While the latter instances might seem like individual failings, in the context of oppressive social environments, resisting and rejecting authority figures that steward oppressive institutions have been documented as an important form of self-preservation, and thus, as agency. Simultaneously, agency in this context may also take the form of staying in school and working to excel, despite the social structural forces that work to impede such success.

The Collapse of Gupta India

The Collapse of Gupta India The Gupta Empire may have lasted only about 230 years, but it was characterized by a sophisticated culture with innovative advances in literature, arts, and sciences. Its influence continues to be felt in art, dance, mathematics, and many other fields today, not just in India but across Asia and around the world. Called Indias Golden Age by most scholars, the Gupta Empire was likely founded by a member of a lower Hindu caste called Sri Gupta. He came from the Vaishya or farmer caste and founded the new dynasty in reaction to abuses by previous princely rulers. The Gupta were ardent Vaishnavas, devotees of Vishnu and they ruled as traditional Hindu monarchs. Advances of the Golden Age of Classical India During this Golden Age, India was part of an international trade network which also included other great classical empires of the day, the Han Dynasty in China to the east and the Roman Empire to the west. The famed Chinese pilgrim to India, Fa Hsien (Faxien) noted that Gupta law was exceptionally generous; crimes were punished only with fines. The rulers sponsored advances in science, painting, textiles, architecture, and literature. Gupta artists created marvelous sculptures and paintings, perhaps including the Ajanta caves. The surviving architecture includes palaces and purpose-built temples for both Hindu and Buddhist religions, such as the Parvati Temple at Nachana Kuthara and the Dashavatara Temple at Deogarh in Madhya Pradesh. New forms of music and dance, some of which are still performed today, flourished under Gupta patronage. The emperors also founded free hospitals for their citizens, as well as monasteries and universities. The classical Sanskrit language reached its apogee during this period as well, with poets such as Kalidasa and Dandi. The ancient texts of the Mahabharata and Ramayana were converted into sacred texts and the Vau and Matsya Puranas were composed. Scientific and mathematical advances include the invention of the number zero, Aryabhatas astonishingly accurate calculation of pi as 3.1416, and his equally amazing calculation that the solar year is 365.358 days long. Establishing the Gupta Dynasty In about 320 CE, the chief of a small kingdom called Magadha in southeastern India set out to conquer the neighboring kingdoms of Prayaga and Saketa. He used a combination of military might and marriage alliances to expand his kingdom into an empire. His name was Chandragupta I and through his conquests he formed the Gupta Empire. Many scholars believe that Chandraguptas family was from the Vaishya caste, which was the third tier out of four in the traditional Hindu caste system. If so, this was a major departure from Hindu tradition, in which the Brahmin priestly caste and the Kshatriya warrior/princely class generally held religious and secular power over the lower castes. In any case, Chandragupta rose from relative obscurity to reunite much of the Indian subcontinent, which had fragmented five centuries earlier after the fall of the Mauryan Empire in 185 BCE. Rulers of the Gupta Dynasty Chandraguptas son, Samudragupta (ruled 335–380 CE), was a brilliant warrior and statesman, sometimes called the Napoleon of India. Samudragupta, however, never faced a Waterloo, and was able to pass on a greatly expanded Gupta Empire to his sons. He extended the empire to the Deccan Plateau in the south, Punjab in the north, and Assam in the east. Samudragupta also was a talented poet and musician. His successor was Ramagupta, an ineffectual ruler, who was soon deposed and assassinated by his brother, Chandragupta II. Chandragupta II (r. 380–415 CE) expanded the empire still further, to its greatest extent. He conquered much of Gujarat in western India. Like his grandfather, Chandragupta II also used marriage alliances to expand the empire, marrying into control of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, and adding the rich provinces of Punjab, Malwa, Rajputana, Saurashtra, and Gujarat. The city of Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh became a second capital for the Gupta Empire, which was based at Pataliputra in the north. Kumaragupta I succeeded his father in 415 and ruled for 40 years. His son, Skandagupta (r. 455–467 CE), is considered the last of the great Gupta rulers. During his reign, the Gupta Empire first faced incursions by the Huns, who would eventually bring down the empire. After him, lesser emperors, including Narasimha Gupta, Kumaragupta II, Buddhagupta, and Vishnugupta, ruled over the decline of the Gupta Empire. Although the late Gupta ruler Narasimhagupta managed to drive the Huns out of northern India in 528 CE, the effort and expense doomed the dynasty. The last recognized emperor of the Gupta Empire was Vishnugupta, who ruled from about 540 until the empire collapsed around 550 CE. Decline and Fall of the Gupta Empire As with the collapses of other classical political systems, the Gupta Empire crumbled under both internal and external pressures. Internally, the Gupta Dynasty grew weak from a number of succession disputes. As the emperors lost power, regional lords gained increasing autonomy. In a sprawling empire with weak leadership, it was easy for rebellions in Gujarat or Bengal to break out, and difficult for the Gupta emperors to put such uprisings down. By 500 CE, many regional princes were declaring their independence and refusing to pay taxes to the central Gupta state. These included the Maukhari Dynasty, who ruled over Uttar Pradesh and Magadha. By the later Gupta era, the government was having trouble collecting enough taxes to fund both its hugely complex bureaucracy and constant wars against foreign invaders like the Pushyamitras and the Huns. In part, this was due to the common peoples dislike of the meddlesome and unwieldy bureaucracy. Even those who felt a personal loyalty to the Gupta Emperor generally disliked his government and were happy to avoid paying for it if they could. Another factor, of course, was the near-constant rebellions among different provinces of the empire. Invasions In addition to internal disputes, the Gupta Empire faced constant threats of invasion from the north. The cost of fighting off these invasions drained the Gupta treasury, and the government had difficulty refilling the coffers. Among the most troublesome of the invaders were the White Huns (or Hunas), who conquered much of the northwestern section of Gupta territory by 500 CE. The Huns initial raids into India were led by a man who is called Toramana or Toraraya in Gupta records; these documents show that his troops began to pick off feudatory states from the Gupta domains around the year 500. In 510 CE, Toramana swooped down into central India and inflicted a decisive defeat at Eran on the Ganges river. The End of the Dynasty The records indicate that Toramanas reputation was strong enough that some princes voluntarily submitted to his rule. However, the records do not specify why the princes submitted: whether it was because he had a reputation as a great military strategist, was a blood-thirsty tyrant, was a better ruler than the Gupta alternatives, or something else. Eventually, this branch of the Huns adopted Hinduism and was assimilated into Indian society. Although none of the invading groups managed to completely overrun the Gupta Empire, the financial hardship of the battles helped hasten the end of the dynasty. Almost unbelievably, the Huns, or their direct ancestors the Xiongnu, had the same effect on two of the other great classical civilizations in earlier centuries: Han China, which collapsed in 221 CE and the Roman Empire, which fell in 476 CE. Sources Agrawal, Ashvini. Rise and Fall of the Imperial Guptas. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1989. Chaurasia, Radhey Sham. History of Ancient India. Atlantic Publishers, 2002.Dwivedi, Gautam N. The Western Limits of the Gupta Empire. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 34, 1973, pp. 76-79.Goyal, Shankar. Historiography of the Imperial Guptas: Old and New. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 77.1/4, 1996, pp. 1–33.Mookerji, Radhakumud. The Gupta Empire. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1989.Prakash, Budha. Last Days of the Gupta Empire. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 27.1/2, 1946, pp. 124-41. Vajpeyi, Raghavendra. A Critique of the Huna Invasion Theory. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 39, 1978, pp. 62-66.