Structure, Agency, Identity and the Media...

Woodward defines ‘structure’ as 'the forces beyond our control which shape our identities' and ‘agency’ as 'the degree of control which we ourselves can exert over who we are' (Woodward, 2000: 6), and it is the supposed ‘tension’ between the two which construct identity. However, this essay will argue that ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ cannot be fully separated out, that they are not binary opposites, but interlinked and interwoven aspects of identity. In other words, a person’s identity may be constructed through what can be perceived as ‘agency’ or their own choices, but this will always be influenced to some extent by ‘structure’, whether it be conscious or unconscious, adhering to or in reaction against physical structures or ideological ones. This essay will argue that ‘agency’ is simply a personalised extension of ‘structure’ and therefore ‘structure’ must be seen as the dominant contributor to the formation of identity. This essay will primarily use examples of gender identity and femininity.

We can define ‘structures’ as outside influences on identity, such as family, friends, government, the media (meaning advertising and portrayals of gender within television, film and magazines) and other various institutions. However, we can also include more ideological ‘structures’ in this list, such as patriarchy, homophobia and feminine stereotypes; and although these are non-corporeal their affect might even be more strongly felt than those embodied structures such as the media; the former is indeed a platform for the implementation and expression of the latter (Williams, 2000). Conversely, we can define ‘agency’ as personal choice, as the ways women choose to behave, appear and generally perform, perhaps in a ‘dramaturgical’ sense, their femininity. (Goffman, 1971). However, this essay argues that ‘true’ agency cannot exist because of the ubiquity of ‘structural’ pressures, and even if individuals are not directly conforming to these pressures, then they may be reacting against them, which implies they are still aware of and are in fact being influenced by them.

Woodward claims that 'although as individuals we have to take up identities actively, those identities are necessarily the product of the society in which we live' (2000: 6), she builds on the work of Althusser (1971) which claims that we are ‘interpellated’, or ‘hailed’ into certain identity positions. This implies some degree of ‘agency’ in the way we choose which identities to ‘take up’, however, it is debatable whether there is any real choice at all because our ‘interpellation’ is determined by ‘structure’. The media defines what a woman ‘should’ look like, for example, ‘Marie Claire’ women’s magazine contains numerous images of thin, svelte and attractive models showing women everywhere ideals of ‘femininity’ and what a ‘real women’ should look like. Adverts for ‘Louis Vuitton’, ‘Dolce & Gabbana’, ‘Emporio Armani’ and ‘Prada’, as well as articles and features portray and reinforce this ‘ideal woman’ image (Marie Claire, March 2006). Again, ‘structure’ can be seen as more important than ‘agency’ in the formation of identity.

Woodward talks about ‘body projects’ and claims that 'people attempt to alter or improve the appearance, size and shape of their bodies in line with their own designs' (2000: 16), again implying some degree of ‘agency’. However, if they are following examples from the media or other ‘structures’, then they are not acting on ‘their own designs’, they are influenced by these ‘structures’. Woodward also claims that 'people resist dominant cultural representations of identity' (2000: 38), a statement which can easily be applied to gender; the women who actively do not look how magazines and other ‘structures’ tell them they should look. However, these women are reacting against ‘structure’ in the form of media representations of femininity, and their highly individualised response may be perceived as ‘agency’. However, this ‘agency’ is a direct result of a rejection of ‘structure’, which therefore renders ‘structure’ as the dominant, influential, albeit indirect, contributor to the formation of feminine identity.

Goffman’s theory of ‘giving’ and ‘giving off’ (1971) can be applied to gender identity, especially femininity. He claims that to ‘give’ information involves the use of symbols 'which he [or she] uses admittedly and solely to convey the information that he [or she] and the others are known to attach to these symbols' (1971: 1), in other words, if a woman is dressed in ‘woman’s’ clothes then she ‘gives’ the impression of femininity. To ‘give off’ information implies that 'the action was performed for reasons other than the information conveyed in this way' (1971: 2), for instance, a woman may be dressed in feminine clothes but she may unintentionally ‘give off’ the impression that she is not comfortable dressed in such a way and that she is simply trying to conform to accepted feminine stereotypes and trends. This choice of dress could be seen as ‘agency’ in the way she can choose what she wears and how she appears, but ‘structural’ influences, such as friends and the media dictate how a woman ‘should look’ and therefore must have some affect on how she appears. On the surface, ‘agency’ appears to exist in choice, but this choice is limited and affected by ‘structure’.

This lack of choice is emphasised in Kathy Davis’s piece on breast augmentation, she argues that women do not really have ‘true’ agency, only partial ‘agency’; 'cosmetic surgery is a choice – albeit a choice taken under conditions which are not of women’s own making' (1995: 120), she also says 'given the enormous pressure on women to meet the prevailing standards of beauty, can we ever speak of consent which is freely given' (1995: 117). Therefore, on the surface we have to argue that women obviously have the choice of whether to have surgery or not, however, these ‘structural’, 'ubiquitous pressures upon women to meet the cultural definitions of beauty' (1995: 119) must have an enormous affect. If a woman chooses to have surgery, it could be argued that she is exerting ‘agency’ and simply doing it for herself, but we cannot know how much ‘structural’ pressures are consciously or subconsciously influencing her decision. In Davis’s study, 'many women expressed indignation about the assumption that they have been pressured into having their breasts augmented' (1995: 127), which disagrees with a ‘structural’ approach, however, their formation of feminine identity through breast augmentation must be considered the result of some ‘structural’ force or another, otherwise women would feel no need to do it. Davis, a self-confessed feminist and proponent of women’s ‘agency’, constructs a superficially convincing argument, however, she presents her case studies as having had a 'valiant struggle for one’s self rather than capitulation to the norms or wishes of others' (1995: 133) and emphasises that “they were not compelled to have their breasts augmented and, indeed, encountered considerable resistance to their decision” (1995: 136). Davis posits these women within a 'heroic tale' (1995: 133), for they may be resisting ‘structures’ such as their husbands or partners and their family and exhibiting ‘agency’, whilst ultimately pandering to broader social ‘structures’ and 'particular notions of femininity' (Benson in Woodward, 1997: 70).

Giddens claims that 'the selection or creation of lifestyles is influenced by group pressures and the visibility of role models as well as by socio-economic circumstances' (1991: 82). This idea of ‘role models’ is of paramount importance and can be linked to previous points about the effects of media and advertising, whether it be ‘mainstream’ (fashion magazines) or ‘alternative’ (e.g. music magazines such as the NME) role-models. In regard to more ‘alternative’ role-models, Benson states that 'the image of the thin, svelte, youthful woman is not the only one available to women in the mass media. But it is certainly one of the most significant ways in which femininity is imaged, and one of the most seductive' (1997: 141). Giddens’ use of the phrase 'selection or creation of lifestyles' implies a degree of ‘agency’ and a rejection of a ‘hypodermic syringe’ style effects model, however, this is then partially rejected by the assertion of 'group pressures'. Giddens’ theory therefore agrees with the argument put forth in this essay; that individuals do have some choice in the formation of their own identity, but this ‘agency’ will always be influenced by social ‘structures’.

The notion of patriarchy as a dominant ‘structure’ which influences the formation of gendered and feminine identity is alluded to in Fen Coles’ piece on female ‘Bodybuilding’. She claims 'patriarchal ideology depends on and enforces the idea that sex, gender and sexuality come together "naturally" as a package, i.e. you are born female, therefore you must naturally be feminine and heterosexual' (1999: 445). Coles’s bodybuilders could be seen as exerting a sense of ‘agency’ in the way they choose not to conform to this image of femininity, however, her piece goes on to say 'in a bid to apologise for and to soften female muscle, repeated strategies are employed to ensex, engender and heterosexualise the female bodybuilder’s disturbing physique' (1999: 445). This apparent need to ‘apologise’ for a lack of femininity is clearly influenced by ‘structures’, in the form of the media, patriarchy, homophobia and indeed the bodybuilding industry itself; 'get feminine or get out of competitive bodybuilding' (1999: 446). The initial ‘agency’ which is exerted by a rejection of traditional notions of femininity and development of distinctly masculine coded muscles, is overshadowed by these women’s compliance with ‘structures’ which dictate that they must use 'passing strategies' (1999: 446). Female bodybuilders are encouraged to hide and disguise their muscles and ‘lack’ (we will not venture into a Freudian debate here) of femininity, with breast implants, make-up and brightly coloured bikinis, in order to pass as feminine as heterosexual in society; 'When the overt display of muscles is called for at competition time and the near naked body staged, feminine props/apologies are called in to reinscribe or ‘renaturalise’ the female bodybuilder' (1999: 446). These women must continue to respect the ‘structures’ that are forcing them to appear feminine, because demonstrating a sense of ‘agency’ and a refusal to conform would be detrimental to their professional careers; spectators outside the bodybuilding world would be unlikely to accept women who ‘disregard their femininity’ because they are themselves influenced by ‘structure’. Cole goes on to say that 'there are a growing number of female competitors who have not only no interest in pandering to conventions (in terms of muscle size), but who actively enjoy the confusion that their bulk provides' (1999: 449). This illustrates a minority growth in ‘agency’ for some competitors, but this rejection of accepted ‘structural’ norms again demonstrates an awareness and conscious rebuke of what is deemed acceptable ‘feminine’ behaviour and appearance. Therefore, ‘structures’ here are again dictating any ‘agency’, in the form of a rejection, rendering ‘structure’ dominant in the formation of identity.

Robin Williams (2000) perfectly and eloquently sums up the main argument of this essay, so I will take the liberty to quote at length; he claims 'the matter of identity is neither the subjective achievement of the rational individual subject alone or with others, nor the reflection within the individual subject of already existing stable collective attributes. Identity is a feature of human life produced – alongside other attributes of human subjectivity – as an affect of the operation of social and cultural structures which are necessarily prior to meaningful individual thought and action' (Williams, 2000: 38).

In conclusion therefore, ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ are intertwined; they cannot be feasibly separated into two distinct entities, because as this essay has argued, ‘agency’ is simply an extension of and/or reaction to social ‘structure’. An individual may possess, or indeed believe to possess some degree of agency which is demonstrated by personal choice in the decisions they make which formulate their identity, however, we must take into account the ubiquity and debatable omnipotence of social ‘structures’, namely, the media, family, friends and ideological structures such as patriarchy, homophobia and gender stereotypes. This essay has argued that ‘structures’ influence personal choice and identity in subtle, and indeed more obvious ways, further; ‘agency’ can be seen as simply a personalised front for ‘structural’ influences. It can therefore be argued that ‘true’ agency does not in fact exist, or indeed that any partial ‘agency’ can exist in isolation from ‘structure’, rendering the latter the dominant contributor to the formation of identity.


Benson, Susan, 'The Body, Health and Eating Disorders' in Woodward, Kathryn (ed) (1997) Identity and Difference. London: Sage.

Coles, Fen, 'Feminine Charms and Outrageous Arms' in Price, Janet and Shildrick, Margrit (eds) (1999) Feminist Theory and the Body: A Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Davis, Kathy (1995), ‘Reshaping the Female Body’: The Dilemma of Cosmetic Surgery. London: Routledge.

Giddens, Anthony (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity/Blackwell.

Goffman, Erving (1959), The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971.

O’Riordan, Marie (ed), Marie Claire. March 2006 UK Edition. London: IPC Media.

Shilling, Chris, 'The Body and Difference' in Woodward, Kathryn (ed) (1997) Identity and Difference. London: Sage.

Williams, Robin (2000), Making Identity Matter – Identity, Society and Social Interaction. Durham: Sociologypress.

Woodward, Kathryn, “Concepts of Identity and Difference” in Woodward, Kathryn (ed) (1997) Identity and Difference. London: Sage.

Woodward, Kathryn, “Questions of Identity” in Woodward, Kath (ed) (2000) Questioning Identity: Gender, Class, Nation. London: Sage.