Comprehensive Synthesis of Structure and Agency: Habitus, Structuration, and the Micro-Foundations of Social Reproduction

Comprehensive Synthesis of Structure and Agency: Habitus, Structuration, and the Micro-Foundations of Social Reproduction

I. Introduction: The Enduring Problem of Structure and Agency Synthesis

The relationship between objective social constraints (structure) and the subjective capacity for action (agency) represents the fundamental methodological and ontological challenge in modern social theory. Historically, sociological inquiry was characterized by an opposition between positivism, which tended toward structural determinism, and interpretivism, which maintained that action unilaterally creates structure.¹ In response, Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens developed sophisticated theoretical frameworks—Habitus and Structuration Theory—to overcome this reductionism by formulating mechanisms that allow for mutual influence.

Bourdieu's primary theoretical project focused on explaining the persistent reproduction of class stratification and social inequalities in the modern era without relying exclusively on mechanical economic determinism. Conversely, Giddens aimed to demonstrate that structure and agency are mutually constitutive and simultaneously enacted in everyday life. This divergence establishes a primary analytical cleavage: Bourdieu’s habitus is fundamentally designed to reflect and reproduce social structure ², with theoretical critics highlighting its overwhelming focus on reproductive processes that restrict human freedom.³ Giddens, however, insists on the duality of structure, a dynamic state where structure simultaneously enables and constrains, thereby preserving agency as the inherent capacity to "do otherwise".¹ Consequently, Bourdieu’s model excels at explaining structural stability (morphostasis), while Giddens attempts to capture the moment-to-moment dynamic balance of social life.

The theoretical limitations inherent in Bourdieu’s early formulation—where action often emerges solely from the internalization of norms and relational exchange, thereby largely blocking human freedom—have spurred subsequent conceptual adjustments.³ Sociological analysis suggests that revising the conception of habitus can protect the possibility of novel action. A dialogical conception of habitus, for instance, posits that intentional conversational engagement between agents allows for the gradual co-creation of novel action.³ This perspective aligns Bourdieu’s thinking more closely with the Aristotelian notion that rational agents ought to remain conscious of which habits to embrace, thereby granting human agents an active role stemming from engagement with virtuous habits.³ By introducing intentionality and dialogue, the revised habitus gains a crucial micro-link that facilitates integration with interactionist theories and models of transformative agency.

II. Foundational Theories of the Structure-Agency Nexus

A. Pierre Bourdieu’s Habitus: Embodied History and Practice

Habitus is defined by Bourdieu as a "system of durable, transposable dispositions".⁵ It serves as a mediating mechanism: it is profoundly shaped by an individual’s structural position (especially social class) and, in turn, generates specific actions and practices.² Bourdieu views habitus as the conceptual tool necessary for a "psychoanalysis of the social," elucidating how the "outer" (external social structures) becomes the "inner" (dispositions).⁶

The primary consequence of habitus is social reproduction. When individuals act and demonstrate agency within their social fields, they simultaneously reflect and reproduce the pre-existing social structure.² The system of dispositions operates largely as an unconscious principle of action—a deeply internalized set of schemas, ways of knowing, and dispositions located within cultural and economic fields.³ Since the habitus is structured by a person’s social class, it subtly influences the availability and perception of life opportunities, ensuring that the reproduction of social structures results from the cumulative actions of the individuals who compose the structure.⁵

Despite its explanatory power regarding stability, classical habitus remains heavily criticized for its deterministic leanings. The model posits that action emerges directly from the unconscious internalization of norms, making the agent behave like an automaton, thus blocking the possibility of genuine human freedom.³ Its conception emphasizes carrying forward existing rules and conventions, accounting for behavior regulation that is primarily reproductive rather than transformative.³ Even when Bourdieu acknowledges novel action, he tends to trace the "new" back to residual habits derived from earlier socialization.³

B. Anthony Giddens’ Structuration Theory: The Duality of Structure

Anthony Giddens’ Structuration Theory was designed to provide a comprehensive social theory of the creation and reproduction of social systems based on the analysis of both structure and agents, without granting analytical primacy to either.¹ Giddens’ central concept is the duality of structure: structure and agency are mutually constitutive, inseparable, and simultaneously enacted, akin to the two sides of a coin.⁷

In this framework, structures are defined ontologically as "rules and resources".¹ Crucially, Giddens argues that structures are not external forces but exist within the agents themselves, embedded in their memory traces. These structuring properties allow the "binding" of time and space in social systems.¹ The cycle of structuration describes the feedback–feedforward process where agents use these internal rules and resources to enact social systems, which in turn reinforce the structure.¹ Structuration thus gives attention to both the past (structural continuity) and the present (the avenue for innovation or reproduction).⁷

Agency is defined as the capacity to act intentionally or, more specifically, the capacity to "do otherwise".⁴ Giddens places significant emphasis on practical consciousness, which refers to the tacit, taken-for-granted knowledge and skills that agents possess and utilize proficiently in their everyday activities.⁹ This practical consciousness is vital for the continuous reproduction of social systems through ongoing social practice.⁴

C. The Locus of Structure and Methodological Divergence

A significant difference between the two models lies in the defined location of structure. For Bourdieu, structure is fundamentally external, defined by objective social fields and class relations which are then internalized as dispositions (habitus).⁵ This makes structure a historical constraint imposed from without. In contrast, Giddens explicitly argues that structure is not external to individuals; rather, it exists within the agent’s mind as cognitive resources, memory traces, and interpretive schemes.¹ This means that for Giddens, structure is an internalized resource utilized from within, which is simultaneously constraining and enabling.

This distinction determines the mechanism of change. Bourdieuian transformation, if it occurs, often implies a revolutionary disruption or significant shift in the external field dynamics. Giddensian change, however, is possible whenever agents intentionally use their knowledge of rules (practical consciousness) to leverage the tensions inherent in participating in plural social systems (e.g., prioritizing the domestic system over the economic system) to "do otherwise".⁴

Despite its elegance, Giddens’ concept of the duality of structure faces the severe conflation critique. Critics, notably Margaret Archer, maintain that by merging structure and agency simultaneously into a single concept, structuration theory sacrifices analytical clarity.⁸ This conflation is argued to reduce the analytical perspective, leading to an uncontrolled oscillation between structural determinism and extreme voluntarism, and thereby obscuring the causal analysis of how long-term structures are reproduced versus how they are genuinely transformed.⁸ The recognized need to maintain analytical separation between people and societal features provides a methodological justification for seeking alternative frameworks, such as Critical Realism, which maintain the ontic differentiation between structure and agency.⁸

III. The Psychological Mechanisms of Internalization (Micro-Foundations)

Both Habitus and Structuration rely on the concept of internalized social properties—dispositions or memory traces, respectively. Classical social psychological theories provide the essential micro-foundations that explain how these macro-structures are embodied and maintained.

A. Psychoanalytic Parallels: Freud’s Superego

Sigmund Freud’s structural model of the psyche offers a profound parallel to the sociological conceptualization of internalization. The Superego is the component of personality that incorporates internalized ideals, moral standards, and the rules acquired from parents and society.¹² It functions as an internalized authority that judges behavior, delivering mental reward (pride, satisfaction) or punishment (shame, guilt) for a person’s actions.¹² The Superego contains two components: the Ego Ideal (rules for good behaviors) and the Conscience (rules for bad behaviors).¹²

This psychoanalytic framework aligns with Bourdieu’s demand for a "psychoanalysis of the social," as the Superego embodies the mechanism by which external, inhibiting forces are internalized to form a dynamic structure that regulates behavior.⁶ The unconscious reproduction of external social fields achieved through habitus ³ mirrors the unconscious influence exerted by the Superego. However, the scope differs: Habitus is a class-based, broad system of tastes, aesthetics, and dispositions ⁶, whereas the Superego is primarily a moral agency focused on criticizing and prohibiting behavior based on established ideals.¹⁴

B. Symbolic Interactionism: Cooley, Mead, and Goffman

Symbolic interactionists detail the crucial moment-to-moment process of self-formation and social enactment, providing a necessary link between individual psychology and system-wide operation.

1. Cooley’s Looking-Glass Self (LGS)

Charles Horton Cooley’s concept of the Looking-Glass Self (LGS) describes the reflexive process by which individuals develop their self-concept based on their understanding of how others perceive them.¹⁵ This three-step process involves imagining one's appearance to others, imagining their judgment of that appearance, and resulting in a self-feeling, such as pride or mortification (shame).¹⁶

The LGS provides the immediate, reflexive, and profoundly affective feedback loop that reinforces dispositional practices. When an agent acts in alignment with their Habitus or Giddens' rules, the LGS confirms the appropriate performance through positive self-feeling (pride), thereby strengthening the habit and disposition.¹⁷ The deployment of powerful social emotions—pride, shame, guilt, and embarrassment, noted extensively in Goffman’s work—ensures that acting against the social script is psychologically costly.¹⁷ This emotional investment makes the reproduction of structural arrangements deeply resilient.

2. Mead’s Generalized Other (GO)

George Herbert Mead’s Generalized Other (GO) is the concept that represents the abstract, general notion of the common expectations and attitudes that others may have about actions within a shared social system.¹⁸ The GO is internalized when an individual progresses from the ‘play stage’ (adopting specific roles) to the ‘game stage’ (considering the attitudes of multiple players simultaneously).¹⁹

The GO functions as the foundational mechanism for the cognitive representation of structure in both Habitus and Structuration. It allows the agent to internalize the abstract structure (system-wide rules and resources) of the social field.¹⁸ This internalized abstraction forms the 'Me'—the self that reflects social expectations and norms.¹⁹ The GO constitutes the essential cognitive pre-requisite for Giddens' structures (rules and resources) to exist as embedded memory traces, explaining precisely how structure is made internal and "paradigmatic"—temporally present only in its instantiation.¹ The GO is therefore the most direct theoretical mechanism bridging the micro-interactional realm with the macro-social structure.

3. Goffman’s Dramaturgy and Practical Consciousness

Erving Goffman’s micro-sociology, particularly his dramaturgical approach, examines the detailed processes of everyday interaction and performance.²⁰ His work focuses on how agents utilize their internalized norms (derived from the GO and LGS) in concrete, situated practices.

Giddens explicitly recognized Goffman’s work as providing crucial inspiration for understanding the role of practical consciousness.⁹ The performance (dramaturgy) is the moment where Giddens' structures are instantiated.¹ Agents, equipped with practical consciousness, engage in social practices that bring people together into social systems, which are then reproduced over time through continued interaction.⁴ Goffman’s analysis demonstrates how individuals employ their keen practical consciousness to manage impressions and define the situation for others, affirming the ongoing, ritualistic nature of structural reproduction.²⁰

IV. Cognitive Development and the Embodied Basis of Structure

Integrating sociological models with cognitive and developmental theories provides concrete psychological grounding for the internalization of structure.

A. Linguistic and Cultural Schema Theory

Cultural Schema Theory explains that cultural frameworks for conceptualization and categorization are directly influenced by language and experience.²² As individuals acquire more experience, their cultural schemas become tightly organized and, critically, emotionally salient.²³

In this light, Habitus can be intellectually modeled as a collection of high-level, dominant cultural schemas specific to a class or field position.²³ These schemas provide the concrete, embodied blueprints for action, perception, and immediate judgment that Bourdieu terms "dispositions".²⁴ A revised conception of habitus recognizes the embodied nature of cognition, treating the habitus as the foundation for moral judgments of the self and others. This approach connects cultural influences on emotion and behavior with the way moral metaphors are structured by embodied cognitive schemas.²⁴ This perspective suggests that Habitus dictates immediate, intuitive moral judgments based on class position, explaining why class-based tastes and practices feel morally imperative rather than merely preferential.

B. Kohlberg’s Ethical Development and the Capacity for Critique

Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of ethical development offer a robust framework for assessing the cognitive potential for structural transformation. Kohlberg organized moral development into three levels.²⁵

1. Conventional Morality and Reproduction

The Conventional Level (Stages 3 and 4) involves conformity to social rules and maintaining social order.25

Agents operating at this level are primarily concerned with the "Good Boy/Nice Girl orientation" and the "Law and order orientation".25 This mindset perfectly models the action-generation necessary for Habitus's function. Agents at the Conventional level are focused on carrying forward existing conventions and rules, reproductive of social bonds, because they prioritize the existing status quo.3 This developmental stage provides a psychological explanation for the high degree of structural reproduction observed in society.

2. Postconventional Morality and Agency

The highest level, Postconventional or Principled Level (Stages 5 and 6), requires the individual to move beyond the immediate perspective of their own society and evaluate conduct based on universal ethical principles or social contracts.²⁵

This stage represents the developmental, psychological potential for transformative agency. It signifies the cognitive freedom necessary for the critical questioning or interrogation of an existing field or status quo.³ Transformation requires the ability to see rules as arbitrary and to apply universal ethical standards, a capacity that runs counter to the reflexive reinforcement mechanisms of the Habitus and LGS.

Kohlberg's research, similar to Piaget’s, indicated that not all individuals reach the highest levels of moral development, confirming that the Postconventional level is comparatively rare among adults.²⁶ If postconventional morality is the psychological engine for critical agency—the ability to critique arbitrary social structures—then the structural transformation of society is developmentally constrained. The prevalence of structural reproduction, central to Bourdieu’s thesis ³, is thus partly explained by the fact that the vast majority of agents likely operate within the Conventional moral framework.

V. The Possibility of Critical Agency: The Sociological Imagination of C. W. Mills

C. Wright Mills’ Sociological Imagination (SI) functions as a powerful conceptual intervention, providing a framework for critical consciousness that challenges the reproductive bias inherent in classical Habitus and structural functionalism.²⁷

A. The Sociological Imagination

The SI is defined as the capacity to see the relationship between one's personal difficulties (troubles or biography) and broader social and historical forces (issues or history).²⁸ Mills argued that understanding oneself necessitates recognizing the profound influence of structural and historical factors, acknowledging that individual agency, though significant, always operates within constraining societal contexts.²⁸

Mills’ project provided an essential intellectual tool designed to overcome the overwhelming feeling of being trapped by circumstance and the tendency to focus exclusively on individual change or responsibility.²⁹ The SI is the quality of mind required for the study of social processes, offering the correct conceptual relationship between agency (individuals) and wider social structures.³⁰

B. The Engine of Transformation

The Sociological Imagination serves as the intellectual engine for transformative action. It enables individuals to achieve the critical distance necessary to question social norms and, potentially, become "pioneers and developers of social change".³⁰ Mills’ work stands in clear opposition to structural determinism by asserting the potential for critical consciousness.³⁰

While Mills and Bourdieu shared a concern with domination, its reproduction, and the influence of Weberian sociology ²⁷, Mills’ SI provides the theoretical exit ramp from the reproductive loop. The SI requires a cognitive leap that parallels the transition to Kohlberg’s Postconventional stage, where critical awareness allows the agent to see structures not as eternal facts but as problematically constructed, thereby opening the possibility for transcendence.³⁰ By offering a framework that validates the transformative potential of agency, Mills bridges the descriptive analyses of Bourdieu and Giddens (explaining how things are) with the normative question of how an existing social order can be changed.³⁰ The development of the SI is positioned as a duty for sociologists, making the links between personal struggles and public issues, thereby countering theoretical models that minimize critical capacity.²⁹

VI. Beyond Duality and Conflation: Modern Theoretical Syntheses

The inherent difficulties in the structure-agency debate—Giddens' conflation leading to analytic ambiguity ⁸ and Bourdieu's determinism limiting accounts of change ³—necessitated more refined approaches. The goal of these modern syntheses is to maintain analytical clarity while simultaneously capturing the dynamic interplay.

A. Critical Realism and Analytical Dualism (Margaret Archer)

Margaret Archer’s critical realist approach, founded on an analytic dualism, provides the most prominent methodological resolution to the structure-agency problem. This approach explicitly addresses the tension between structure, agency, and culture (SAC).¹⁰

Archer’s methodology maintains the ontic differentiation between structure and agency: they are viewed as distinct entities in reality, a separation that opposes Giddens’ conflation.⁸ This differentiation ensures that the conditions of action (structure) are analytically separable from the action itself (agency), preventing the conceptual entanglements that obscure causal analysis.¹¹

The Morphogenetic Cycle

The morphogenetic-morphostatic cycle is the central mechanism of Archer’s theory, utilizing time as the analytic separator.¹⁰ The cycle breaks up the flow of social reality into three critical phases, demonstrating the temporal relationship between structure and agency:

1. Structural Conditioning ($\text{T}_1$ - $\text{T}_2$): The existing social structure logically predates the actions designed to transform it. Agents inherit constraints and enablements from structures formulated in the past.¹⁰
2. Socio-cultural Interaction ($\text{T}_2$ - $\text{T}_3$): Agents interact, strategize, and act within the inherited structural context, deploying their agency and reflexive deliberation.¹¹
3. Structural Reproduction or Elaboration ($\text{T}_3$ - $\text{T}_4$): The outcome phase, where the actions of agents either reproduce the existing structure (morphostasis) or transform it (morphogenesis/elaboration), which then sets the stage for the next cycle.¹⁰

This temporal approach avoids the circular co-determination dynamics criticized in earlier practice theories.³² By separating the conditioning (past) from the action (present) and the outcome (future), the model can precisely measure the causal role of each component. This non-conflationary analysis allows for a systematic exploration of how strategists' actions are simultaneously constrained and yet free, molded by deep structures while also counterpoised by improvised in situ coping.¹¹

B. Reflexivity and Strategic Action

Archer’s approach emphasizes the crucial role of the internal conversation and reflexivity in the modern world.¹⁰ Reflexive deliberation serves as the high-level cognitive function that allows agents to strategically engage with their structural context.¹¹ This ties the modern macro-solution back to the micro-mechanisms explored in Section III. The internal conversation facilitates the conscious evaluation of constraints and opportunities, enabling agents to consciously move toward the critical stance required by Mills' Sociological Imagination or Kohlberg's Postconventional Morality. It is the direct mechanism by which critical consciousness is deployed to generate strategic action that can interrupt the reproductive loop of habitus and lead to structural elaboration (morphogenesis).¹⁰

VII. Conclusion: Synthesizing Structure, Disposition, and Transformation

The analysis of the structure-agency relationship reveals a complex interplay between macro-systems and micro-psychological mechanisms. Habitus and Structuration Theory established the framework for sociological practice by defining how structure and agency relate, whether through primary reproduction (Bourdieu) or simultaneous mutual constitution (Giddens).

The limitations of these models are addressed by synthesizing them with social psychological theory. The theories of Freud, Cooley, and Mead explain the psychological fidelity of structural internalization: Mead’s Generalized Other is the cognitive abstraction required to internalize system-wide rules ¹⁸, while Freud’s Superego and Cooley’s Looking-Glass Self provide the deep-seated affective mechanisms (shame, pride, guilt) that make structural reproduction psychologically resilient.¹² Furthermore, the sociological concept of Habitus can be refined using Cognitive Schema Theory, viewing it as an embodied moral schema.²³

The potential for genuine change hinges on the capacity for critical consciousness, articulated by C. Wright Mills’ Sociological Imagination.³⁰ This critical capacity is developmentally constrained, correlating conceptually with the rare psychological achievement of Kohlberg’s Postconventional morality.²⁵

Finally, the most methodologically rigorous approach to studying the dynamics of structure and agency over time is provided by Margaret Archer’s Critical Realism, which, through analytic dualism and the morphogenetic cycle, maintains the necessary temporal and ontological separation between structure and action.¹⁰ This perspective allows researchers to move beyond the conflationary traps of duality and study how reflexive deliberation and strategic action lead to measurable structural change.

The following table summarizes the comparative strengths and limitations of the primary theoretical frameworks discussed:

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Foundational Structure-Agency Models

The synthesis demonstrates that structure and agency are interwoven at multiple levels. Sociological theories describe the macroscopic patterns of reproduction and change, while psychological and developmental models delineate the cognitive and emotional mechanics that grant these macro-patterns their resilience and, conversely, their potential for transformative critique.

Works cited

1. Structuration theory - Wikipedia, accessed October 27, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuration_theory
2. accessed October 27, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitus_(sociology)#:~:text=In%20Bourdieu's%20work%2C%20the%20habitus,reflect%20and%20reproduce%20social%20structure.
3. A dialogical conception of Habitus: allowing human freedom and restoring the social basis of learning - NIH, accessed October 27, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4060453/
4. Structuration Theory: Giddens and Beyond (Chapter 6) - Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice, accessed October 27, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-strategy-as-practice/structuration-theory-giddens-and-beyond/340D7DC1D4D0AB512187733326A99BF3
5. Habitus (sociology) - Wikipedia, accessed October 27, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitus_(sociology)
6. The relevance of Pierre Bourdieu's habitus for psychological research Auth - CORE, accessed October 27, 2025, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/161889602.pdf
7. Anthony Giddens and structuration theory - VU Research Portal, accessed October 27, 2025, https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/269854181/Anthony_Giddens_and_structuration_theory.pdf
8. Structuration theory amid negative and positive criticism, accessed October 27, 2025, https://thejournalofbusiness.org/index.php/site/article/download/10/10/19
9. Reading Goffman “Forward” - Sage Publishing, accessed October 27, 2025, https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/64382_book_item_64382.pdf
10. Critical Realism – Critical Realism Network, accessed October 27, 2025, https://criticalrealismnetwork.org/critical-realism/
11. PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION OF: Herepath, A. (2014). In ... - CORE, accessed October 27, 2025, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42414410.pdf
12. Freud's Superego in Psychology - Verywell Mind, accessed October 27, 2025, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-superego-2795876
13. Freud's Structural Model of the Psyche | Research Starters - EBSCO, accessed October 27, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/freuds-structural-model-psyche
14. Ego, drives, and the dynamics of internal objects - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed October 27, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4076885/
15. Looking-glass self - Wikipedia, accessed October 27, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking-glass_self
16. Charles Cooley- Looking glass self (video) - Khan Academy, accessed October 27, 2025, https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/individuals-and-society/self-identity/v/charles-cooley-looking-glass-self
17. (PDF) Looking Glass Selves: The Cooley/Goffman Conjecture 1(1) - ResearchGate, accessed October 27, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242486565_Looking_Glass_Selves_The_CooleyGoffman_Conjecture_11
18. Generalized other - Wikipedia, accessed October 27, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_other
19. George Herbert Mead: Taking the Role of the Other | Research Starters - EBSCO, accessed October 27, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/george-herbert-mead-taking-role-other
20. Erving Goffman's The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, accessed October 27, 2025, https://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/theory/Presentation%20of%20Self.htm
21. The Origin of Micro-Theories in Sociology: A Content Analysis of the Holy Qur'an - Preprints.org, accessed October 27, 2025, https://www.preprints.org/frontend/manuscript/22501c1d481fc47b84c610b9eba36291/download_pub
22. Language, conceptualization, and cultural linguistics. The role of culture in the formation of cognitive schemas in languages - ResearchGate, accessed October 27, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381630510_Language_conceptualization_and_cultural_linguistics_The_role_of_culture_in_the_formation_of_cognitive_schemas_in_languages
23. Cultural schema theory - Wikipedia, accessed October 27, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_schema_theory
24. Why the Sociology of Morality Needs Bourdieu's Habitus* - ResearchGate, accessed October 27, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gabe-Ignatow/publication/229628093_Why_the_Sociology_of_Morality_Needs_Bourdieu's_Habitus/links/5ce44094458515712eba56ed/Why-the-Sociology-of-Morality-Needs-Bourdieus-Habitus.pdf
25. Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development | Definition & Framework - Britannica, accessed October 27, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/science/Lawrence-Kohlbergs-stages-of-moral-development
26. Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development - Verywell Mind, accessed October 27, 2025, https://www.verywellmind.com/kohlbergs-theory-of-moral-development-2795071
27. 7.The Sociological Imagination: Mills Meets Bourdieu, accessed October 27, 2025, http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Books/Bourdieu.US/SV.7.pdf
28. Sociological Imagination Overview | Coconote, accessed October 27, 2025, https://coconote.app/notes/bae5e4f3-b393-4a3f-9827-cf13f45e666d
29. Revisiting Outcrits with a Sociological Imagination - Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, accessed October 27, 2025, https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1230&context=vlr
30. Mills' 'The Sociological Imagination' Summary | Free Essay Example for Students - Aithor, accessed October 27, 2025, https://aithor.com/essay-examples/mills-the-sociological-imagination-summary
31. Race, Class, and Cultural Reproduction: Critical Theories in Urban Education, accessed October 27, 2025, https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1607-40412003000200001
32. Agency as conversion process - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH, accessed October 27, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10241693/