An orthodox dichotomy has come to dominate and shape debates regarding agency and this has led to a number of difficulties in articulating a coherent theory of practice for community development. If by asserting agency, one adopts a methodological individualism, particularly as expressed by an increasingly predominant rational actor theory, behaviour is reduced to the pursuit of self interest by relatively atomised individuals, and the notion of community and society appears to dissolve. In contrast, if social structures are to provide the starting point for analysis and practice, there appears to be little justification for recognising the agency of individuals and communities, because it is the structures that provide the explanatory and causal forces in society, with individuals appearing to be little more than flotsam and jetsam on the tide. A resistance to this false dilemma, in part explains why there has been a desire and need to move on from such discussions and why many in community development have found a great deal to be attracted to in the situated and networked theories of agency that seek to dissolve the structureagency dichotomy. However, as desirable as this attempt to move on may be, it is argued that at the very least, a note of caution needs to be heeded before the theory and practice of community development draws exclusively on situated and pluralistic perspectives. Instead it is argued that any 'rediscovery' of agency, should not only seek to resolve the rather strained debate between structure and agency, but offer a form of praxis resistant to attempts to co-opt the work of community development. It is argued that such an 'alternative' can be found in the literature and practice of those who seek to sustain an analytical dualism where agents are seen as being both potentially constrained and enabled by the social relations they occupy.