From its earliest rudimentary forms in social philosophy to its emancipation from philosophy into a separate science, diachronical development of sociology and its object of study were characterised by increasing differentiation, heterogeneity and complexity. Parallel with scientific development and increasing complexity of socio-political processes, sociology was inevitably characterised by existence of opposite schools of thought regarding its study of social phenomena and events but also regarding the methodology appropriate to study them. It was the existence of sociological dichotomies that motivated this paper, which starts by analysing opposite theoretical concepts in sociology. Roughly summarised into genus proxmium, two popular orthodox theoretical approaches are microsociological and macrosociological. Whilst first orientation defines social phenomena as aggregate or sum of individuals, (i.e. their resultant product) and studies them exclusively in terms of individuals and their interactions, the latter defines society as an entity irreducible to individuals which are its component parts. Both approaches commit epiphenomenalism, however, a one-sided analysis of society in which one entity is given ontological priority at the expense of other. Microsociological approaches thus treat individual as an independent variable while society is treated as a dependent variable. Macrosociological approaches, on the other hand, treat society as an independent variable, while treating individual as a dependent variable. With the emergence of theorists and theoretical approaches in the works of Anthony Giddens, Roy Bhaskar, Margaret Archer or James Coleman and its adherents in analytical sociology, sociological dichotomies are being treated in an innovative way. Presenting key propositions and components of their models by which they analysed interaction between individual and structural ontological domains is a central goal of this work.