cupped my head after finishing the last paragraph on another but less technical and easily accessible essay on structure and agency. my mini-analysis of this article and the highly technical jargonized one yesterday are tucked the folio of draft chapters and supe comments.
these would be the guides in outlining the form and direction of this thesis. it helped. writing parts of a major chapter first. because the writing unearthed turning points in strategies and relationships (actor-oriented and thus, agency-focused) as well as the socioeconomic and political conditions under which these materialized (condition or structure-oriented).
initially, for the past three weeks, i couldn't find where i'm going to situate my findings and arguments. made diagrams, drew the linkages and environments enveloping the units of my analysis (households, urban poor organizations, Naga City's institutions), alongside studies on social capital and structural political economy.
finding out the 'structure-agency' framework was like being bitten by a snake. it has been there all along and my slow old mind was no longer that adept in discovering. in several ways, the tone of structure-agency parallels the building blocks and political pathways to social capital formation elaborated by Jonathan Fox (also one of the frameworks in which my chapter 5 was based).
so here i am, tired, somewhat prepared (braced for the challenge of 'defending' a framework against self-doubt) but happy. because now i have an anchor for which to ground and build the thesis. the structure-agency framework is like the foundation in which a house is built. it determines not only the size of house, but also whether it will be made by wood or cement, how many storeys can it support, how resistant would it be to nature and for how long the house could stand without considerable repair.
i know i can finish this thesis. i will.