Debates over structure and agency have long polarized social theory between determinism and voluntarism. Structural accounts emphasize institutional constraint, while agency-centered perspectives stress human reflexivity and transformative capacity. This paper proposes a threshold model that reconceptualizes the relationship between structure and agency as conditional rather than oppositional. Structures are defined as constraint fields that shape perceptual salience, incentive exposure, and legitimacy frameworks. Agency is conceptualized as the capacity for perceptual reconfiguration under specific institutional and interactional conditions. The model introduces threshold dynamics to explain when structural clustering persists and when perceptual transformation becomes possible. By shifting the debate from metaphysical opposition to empirical conditionality, the paper offers a dynamic framework applicable to governance, polarization, and institutional reform.

The structure–agency problem remains one of the most enduring tensions in social theory. Structural determinism posits that institutional arrangements and material conditions largely shape behavior and belief. Voluntarist traditions emphasize human reflexivity and transformative will.

Both positions capture partial truths.

Yet framing the issue as a binary opposition obscures a more analytically productive question:

Under what conditions does agency meaningfully reconfigure structurally embedded perception?

Rather than asking whether structure or agency “prevails,” this paper advances a threshold-based approach.

Structural accounts correctly emphasize:

• Incentive systems

• Resource distributions

• Institutional framing

• Normative boundary formation

However, strong determinism faces three limitations:

1. It underestimates reflexivity.

2. It cannot explain rapid normative shifts.

3. It fails to model institutional transformation initiated from within.

If structures were fully determining, structural change would be inexplicable.

Conversely, agency-centered approaches risk romanticization. Appeals to human will, deliberation, or collective mobilization often ignore:

• Risk asymmetry

• Resource inequality

• Information stratification

• Institutional lock-in

Empirical evidence suggests that reflexive capacity is unevenly distributed and structurally mediated.

Agency exists, but not as boundless autonomy.

This paper defines structure not as rigid determination, but as a constraint field characterized by:

• Incentive landscapes

• Risk exposure patterns

• Salience hierarchies

• Legitimacy filters

Structures shape:

• What becomes visible

• What appears rational

• What is treated as inevitable

Importantly, constraint fields are adaptive and recursive.

Agency is reconceptualized as:

The capacity to reconfigure interpretive frames within and across constraint fields.

Agency depends on:

• Cognitive resources

• Cross-positional interaction

• Institutional support

• Reduced risk asymmetry

Thus agency is structurally situated, not metaphysically free.

The core contribution of this paper is the Threshold Proposition:

Perceptual reconfiguration occurs when enabling conditions surpass structural stabilization forces.

We model this as:

If (Exposure + Interaction + Reflexive Support) > Structural Lock-In
→ Perceptual Migration Becomes Probable

Below this threshold, structural clustering persists.
Above it, transformation becomes possible.

This explains why:

• Some deliberative forums fail

• Some reforms unexpectedly succeed

• Some crises catalyze rapid normative shifts

The model predicts nonlinear change rather than gradual drift.

The threshold model suggests testable propositions:

• Cross-structural exposure alone is insufficient without risk acknowledgment.

• High asymmetry environments suppress translation capacity.

• Institutional design can lower transformation thresholds.

Research designs may include:

• Cross-stratified deliberation experiments

• Network reconfiguration analysis

• Institutional case comparison

• Agent-based simulations

Failure to observe threshold effects would challenge the model.

The model avoids:

• Fatalism (structure always dominates)

• Romanticism (will always triumphs)

Instead, it supports conditional optimism:

Agency is possible, but only under identifiable structural configurations.

Institutional design thus becomes central to expanding agency capacity.

The structure–agency debate need not remain metaphysical. By reframing the relationship as threshold-dependent, we shift from binary opposition to conditional dynamics.

Social systems are neither inert environments nor omnipotent determinants. They are adaptive constraint fields within which situated agency may, under specific conditions, achieve perceptual and institutional reconfiguration.

Understanding those conditions is the task of empirical social science.

Debates over structure and agency have long polarized social theory between determinism and voluntarism. Structural accounts emphasize institutional constraint, while agency-centered perspectives stress human reflexivity and transformative capacity. This paper proposes a threshold model that reconceptualizes the relationship between structure and agency as conditional rather than oppositional. Structures are defined as constraint fields that shape perceptual salience, incentive exposure, and legitimacy frameworks. Agency is conceptualized as the capacity for perceptual reconfiguration under specific institutional and interactional conditions. The model introduces threshold dynamics to explain when structural clustering persists and when perceptual transformation becomes possible. By shifting the debate from metaphysical opposition to empirical conditionality, the paper offers a dynamic framework applicable to governance, polarization, and institutional reform.

The structure–agency problem remains one of the most enduring tensions in social theory. Structural determinism posits that institutional arrangements and material conditions largely shape behavior and belief. Voluntarist traditions emphasize human reflexivity and transformative will.

Both positions capture partial truths.

Yet framing the issue as a binary opposition obscures a more analytically productive question:

Under what conditions does agency meaningfully reconfigure structurally embedded perception?

Rather than asking whether structure or agency “prevails,” this paper advances a threshold-based approach.

Structural accounts correctly emphasize:

• Incentive systems

• Resource distributions

• Institutional framing

• Normative boundary formation

However, strong determinism faces three limitations:

1. It underestimates reflexivity.

2. It cannot explain rapid normative shifts.

3. It fails to model institutional transformation initiated from within.

If structures were fully determining, structural change would be inexplicable.

Conversely, agency-centered approaches risk romanticization. Appeals to human will, deliberation, or collective mobilization often ignore:

• Risk asymmetry

• Resource inequality

• Information stratification

• Institutional lock-in

Empirical evidence suggests that reflexive capacity is unevenly distributed and structurally mediated.

Agency exists, but not as boundless autonomy.

This paper defines structure not as rigid determination, but as a constraint field characterized by:

• Incentive landscapes

• Risk exposure patterns

• Salience hierarchies

• Legitimacy filters

Structures shape:

• What becomes visible

• What appears rational

• What is treated as inevitable

Importantly, constraint fields are adaptive and recursive.

Agency is reconceptualized as:

The capacity to reconfigure interpretive frames within and across constraint fields.

Agency depends on:

• Cognitive resources

• Cross-positional interaction

• Institutional support

• Reduced risk asymmetry

Thus agency is structurally situated, not metaphysically free.

The core contribution of this paper is the Threshold Proposition:

Perceptual reconfiguration occurs when enabling conditions surpass structural stabilization forces.

We model this as:

If (Exposure + Interaction + Reflexive Support) > Structural Lock-In
→ Perceptual Migration Becomes Probable

Below this threshold, structural clustering persists.
Above it, transformation becomes possible.

This explains why:

• Some deliberative forums fail

• Some reforms unexpectedly succeed

• Some crises catalyze rapid normative shifts

The model predicts nonlinear change rather than gradual drift.

The threshold model suggests testable propositions:

• Cross-structural exposure alone is insufficient without risk acknowledgment.

• High asymmetry environments suppress translation capacity.

• Institutional design can lower transformation thresholds.

Research designs may include:

• Cross-stratified deliberation experiments

• Network reconfiguration analysis

• Institutional case comparison

• Agent-based simulations

Failure to observe threshold effects would challenge the model.

The model avoids:

• Fatalism (structure always dominates)

• Romanticism (will always triumphs)

Instead, it supports conditional optimism:

Agency is possible, but only under identifiable structural configurations.

Institutional design thus becomes central to expanding agency capacity.

The structure–agency debate need not remain metaphysical. By reframing the relationship as threshold-dependent, we shift from binary opposition to conditional dynamics.

Social systems are neither inert environments nor omnipotent determinants. They are adaptive constraint fields within which situated agency may, under specific conditions, achieve perceptual and institutional reconfiguration.

Understanding those conditions is the task of empirical social science.