It seems that agency is a concept that recurs in nearly every reading we encounter, and this is no less true with Anderson. Anderson correctly points out some of the assumptions of economic theory, namely that the "the individual is assumed to be given, with interests and preferences defined independently of and prior to her joining any group" (36.) This turns out to be an issue because certain groups of people, such as women in his example, have their roles defined externally, and have no choice about what to identify with. The implication is then that in many circumstances, women currently do not have the capacity to become individuals who make free choices. The way to attain this individuality is through social order, "defined by multiple, distinct spheres of social life...individual freedom of mobility among those spheres, and individual membership in multiple spheres." (36) Before those conditions are satisfied, Anderson argues that people's priorities are determined by the collective agency they are identified with. In most circumstances, people are identified by their 'ascriptive identities', such as class, gender, race, and sexual orientation, so Anderson's argument seem to also imply that all people with these oppressed identities lack an important aspect of agency. Anderson claims "the freedom to determine one's own priorities in committing oneself to various groups depends on those groups limiting their demands on their members in ways that enable their member to identify with and function as members of multiple groups" (36.) I am left wondering if anyone at all can be considered to have agency when this kind of cosmopolitan identification seems so far of from most people actually identify themselves in day to day life. Even those in dominant social roles are not necessarily there by choice; we are born into all aspects of ascriptive identity, how can we realistically transcend them and begin to chose for ourselves?
Hi Devon,
ReplyDeleteI was left wondering about very similar questions about Anderson's global conception after finishing the reading. While speaking about women's identities, Anderson notes that through seeking employment, women would thus be required to develop an "individual self" because their multiple identities would mandate a self "who is authorized to adjudicate the conflicts among its various constitutive collective identities" (35). The ability for women to gain these identities is dependent on mobility, and so Anderson claims that "we cannot assume that women around the world already function as individuals" (36). Since many women around the world lack this agency, Anderson's position is consistent with the claim that many women are not fully-functioning individuals.
This claim seems to implicate Anderson's later argument for a global system of cooperation. Anderson notes that for such a conception to become reality, the identity of a global individual would be one "who identifies with multiple collective agencies as well as with humanity as a whole, and who therefore accepts the multiple commitments, not grounded in individual preferences, as reasons for action" (37).
The individuals in this global system must have the ability to have multiple identities and use their global identity as reason for action. However, if women do not have the agency to have multiple identities in the first place, does this preclude them from entering such global systems? From Anderson's description of the necessity of mobility to take on multiple identities it would seem women would not have the ability to take on this secondary identity because they are confined to their singular identities as domestic.
This conception-- a global system only including those who have agency-- is hardly what Anderson seems to desire. She states that a global system should "secure the conditions for everyone being able to achieve an identity and agency as individuals" (37). Thus, I believe that Anderson would assert that a global system of cooperation would mandate a certain level of mobility for every individual. With this mobility, each individual would be required to develop a certain perception of the self, like women are required to create when they enter the workforce. I think that this requirement poses the true problem for Anderson's global system- in a place where people's mobility is highly constrained, they will most likely never be encouraged or allowed to develop this sense of self even if the mobility is available to them.
Hey Devon!
ReplyDeleteI like this post -- I found the agency portion of Anderson's (and I guess Sen's?) argument extremely interesting. Also love Nisha's response. I just have a quick clarifying question on the language you are using to describe how we identify with certain groups. You say:
"Before those conditions are satisfied, Anderson argues that people's priorities are determined by the collective agency they are identified with. In most circumstances, people are identified by their 'ascriptive identities', such as class, gender, race, and sexual orientation, so Anderson's argument seem to also imply that all people with these oppressed identities lack an important aspect of agency. "
It seems like Anderson isn't making an argument for what our identities are determined by, but that there are many different facets of our identity, and agency in theory should let us choose from among them. So it's not "the collective agency that they are identified with" (which implies some external actor is doing the identifying) but rather the collective agency they choose identify with. The problem arises when these identifications place too heavy burdens on those involved. "In most cases people are identified by their..." again implies this. I'm not sure that Anderson is necessarily concerned with how other people would identify you unless you are engaging in collective bargaining to answer the question "What should we do?" Which would require having a feeling about the group you identify with... Am I totally off?
Could a potential answer to this ambiguity be that there are external actors enforcing aspects of our identify that we internalize? This would undermine our agency, as you are saying... But to what degree can we accept that people's identities are enforced upon them?
To provide a slightly comical example of the kind of individual identity acquired through social order that is defined, and Devon noted by Anderson’s conception of “multiple, distinct spheres of social life” consider the film the breakfast club. For all intensive purposes all of the characters in the film have one identity like women Anderson discusses. Where the woman are members of a family, a wife or a daughter, many of the characters in the film are also members of a group: a nerd, a jock, a popular kid. It was only when these individuals identified with one another, and added a another “sphere of social life” that they developed a individual identity. In identifying as members of the “breakfast club” they added another social group, and in the process became recognizable as individuals beyond their original identification.
ReplyDelete