Structure and agency are two theoretical terms used to explain the capacity to which we as people are able to be individuals and to what extent such influences limit our individuality. Structure refers to the ways in which a society is organized. Agency refers to the behaviors and actions of individuals within the social structure. Agency is limited by structure due to cultural barriers and inequities within the structure. In this essay I will present an overview of why critical theorists care about such inequalities and further identify problems within the system that contribute to unequal access to the public sphere, relating specifically to class and gender inequalities. stratified when considering social classes, i.e. upper class, middle class, lower class and working class citizens. That said, not everyone has the same access to the superstructure; thus creating tension. The biggest problem when considering structure and agency is the constant struggle and negotiation of power inequality. Among the power asymmetries there are two main disparities; class and gender. Thinking as a critical theorist, one must consider the individual's participation in the public sphere; “The word signifies a false worldview that is in the interest of powerful citizens in order to keep the lower classes oppressed” (Habermas, 10). Although the public sphere is virtually a democratic sphere in which ideas can circulate and opinions are formed, there are some restrictions when referring to the lower classes and women and therefore how their actions as individuals are limited. The public sphere has been falsely represented as a virtual place where opinions can be shared and discussed; ... middle of paper ... If the bourgeois class remains dominant, their male counterparts also continue to sustain their dominant status in our media-driven hegemonic society. Works Cited Habermas, Jurgen. (1997) The public sphere: Introduction. Roberts, J., Crossley, N. (2004) New perspectives on the public sphere: Introduction. Australia: Blackwell.Golding, P & Murdock, G. (2000) Culture, communication and political economy.Elaborated in Habermas,J (1989) The Structural Transformatin of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.Casey, B., et al. (2002) Television Studies: The Key Concepts: Genre. New York: Routledge.O'Shaughnessy, M., Stadler, J. (2009) Media and Society: An Introduction. Dominant ideology and hegemony. London: Oxford.Baran, Stanley & Davis, Dennis. (2009) Introduction to mass communication theory: critical theory. Massachusetts: Cengage Learning