[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Structure vs. Agency

Jorge, this came up on xmca in November 2007:

 http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2007_11.dir/index.html

It is an undeveloped idea.
On one hand you have Althusser or Levi-Strauss arguing that no individual has any real impact on the course of history and to think you have agency (in the real sense) is self-delusion. On the other hand you have people (probably including people on this list) who reduce the problem of agency to having an effect within your own immediate social circle (or field or figured world) but obviously according to rules not of your making and for aims not of your choosing.
Both responses to the problem of agency are unsatisfactory. Each elevates one exreme to the absolute. A societal/social dichotomy allows two alternative self-evident answers to be given. So rather than asking "Do individuals have agency?" I ask "Over what radius does a given individual have subjectivity?" I introduce the word "subjectivity" because agency is one-sided. One can act only to the extent one has moral responsibility and knowledge of the consequences of your own actions. This is always finite, but never null. An individual may aspire to extend the radius of their subjectivity. At the same time, I hold that subjectivity (including agency) is semiotically and socially _mediated_. EG I bear responsibility for my country's war in Afghanistan, but that is obviously relative to my understanding and social position in the nation. etc., etc. I can't draw a sharp line between my responsibility for an act of war carried out by someone I voted for (or failed to prevent being elected) and my responsibility for doing a bad thing to my partner at home.
So the idea was to create terms in which agency could be sensibly discussed. I think David and Paul Dillon were the only people who took any notice, so far as I know at any rate, 

Andy

Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns wrote:
Andy, Could you elaborate. once more, on the idea of radius of subjectivity? 

Jorge

Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
Profesor Asociado y Director
Departamento de Psicología
Universidad de los Andes







On Sep 25, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:


An example of the dangers of polysemy, David, is that archetypal structuralist, Louis Althusser, means by "agency" what we mean when we say that germs are the agents of disease - the exasct opposite of what most CHATters mean. As you recall, I resolved this conundrum with the idea of "radius of subjectivity."

Andy

David Kellogg wrote:

After they introduce the "boundary" concept Jahreie and Ottesen introduce two terms from mainstream sociology: "structure" and "agency". I'm not a sociologist, and I've only read a bit aroung the edges of this opposition. But I have the following questions, which are really "dubbio", suspicious doubts, rather than questions:
a) The ETHNOMETHODOLOGICAL, microgenetic "dubbio". If boundaries are "constructed in interaction" (in the ethnomethodological sense), can we say that they are "structure" as opposed to "agency"? Doesn't "constructed in interaction" imply the (microgenetic) emergence of structure out of agency? Or is there somehow a pre-existing blueprint implicit in interactions that can be made explicit, through, say, conversation analysis?
b) A CH/AT, ontogenetic "dubbio". Leontiev insists that society cannot be seen as confronting the individual as something hostile, something alien in psychological substance, something irreconcilable, and a lot of Vygotsky's objections to Piaget can be read in this light too (development cannot be seen as the red liquid of socialized thinking forcing out the white liquid of egocentric thinking). Doesn't this suggest that what we are describing here is boundary construction rather than development?
c) Finally, a GENERAL, methodological "dubbio". Andy suggests that we need to be pretty careful about what goes into our mouths and minds, because some concepts out there mean very different things from what we think they mean. As a foreign language teacher, I wholeheartedly agree with this (children who call me "David Teacher!" are actually TRYING to be very respectful, but you need to translate literally into Korean to understand that). Can we really use "structure" and "agency" in opposition to each other without CREATING the boundaries that we are supposed to be studying? Can we use these terms at all? Don't they imply EXACTLY the kind of ahistorical Saussurean view of a "system" that Wolff-Michael criticizes in his editorial (this issue)?  David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education
David Kellogg


     _______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca






--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca