After my first reading of the article, I didn't quite understand what Campbell was trying to unpack. I was a bit overwhelmed by everything she was saying.At first read, I though that Campbell was trying to say that women had no agency; that they cannot act and therefore could never be agents; women were considered as merely an extension of men and because they were considered subordinate they don't possess all the right dispositions to be an agent. While I was preparing to do my second reading my main questions were: With the constraints that were place on women could they even be considered agents? How exactly can a woman gain membership to be an agent?
According to Campbell, “Agency is polysemic and ambiguous, a term that can refer to invention, strategies,
authorship, institutional power, identity, subjectivity, practices, and subject positions"(1). From what I gathered of Campbell's article, women were never attributed any of these things. My grasp of the reading is that the woman is the lesser of the two subjects, the man is considered the superior.The period to which Campbell refers, especially where she made connection to Truth, makes it clear that women weren't considered to have any of the qualities stated above, most of which can be linked to her propositions of agency. If she doesn't possess any of the stated attributes which are essential to agency, how can she be an agent?
Campbell's first proposition posited that " agency is communal and participatory". In 1851, the time of Sojourning Truth, though women formed organizations and held meetings, their voice was never truly heard and accepted by the polis. Why? Simply because "being subjected to gender, the self is sacrificed upon the altar of the polis, offered in the name of solidarity, order, harmony, peace" (3). Furthermore, whatever agency women attempted to push forward was constrained by forms of essentialism. Women had to battle against the force of the " community that confers identities related gender,race, class , and the like on its members and by so doing determines not only what is
considered to be “true,” but also who can speak and with what force" (3). With this kind of pressure and constraints held against them as a group it is hard to be any kind of agent. Though as women, they within themselves may consider themselves communal, the polis may take that notion away. From Campbell's standpoint, communal and participatory refers to that of the polis. "Whatever agency citizens had was derived from and
linked to the survival and well-being of the polis. This did not preclude debate or
disagreement, but it set limits, limits related to collective understandings and collective
goals (3)".The female organizations then, had to contribute to the well-being and survival of the polis, that which they didn't do. Henceforth, the women couldn't be an agent because they didn't contribute to the collective.
Campbell's article further discussed that "agency emerges in artistry or craft." After having read that statement I was puzzled by what it meant because I was thinking of craft as a skill, such as carving or painting. Eventually however , she explained what she meant, "when I refer to
artistry or craft, I mean all the heuristic skills that respond to contingencies, and for
which there are no precise or universal precepts". It is here that I made the connection between her explanation of artistry and a point she made earlier, "rhetorical agency refers to the capacity to act, that is, to have
the competence to speak or write in a way that will be recognized or heeded by others in
one’s community". The capacity to act, through one's craft will aid the emergence of agency. If one is competent to perform through her craft, and be recognized because of that act, then she can be an agent. This is served as a push factor to my conclusion. Sojourner Truth is in fact an agent.
Her agency emerged through her craft of speaking and her capacity to act. Though her suffrage may not have been considered communal or participatory, the fact that she possessed the capacity to act cancelled the need for a community in order to be an agent. In other words, because she is a woman was constrained by externals doesn't mean she cannot be an agent.
- Kelli
Hi Kelli,
ReplyDeleteI was also quite overwhelmed by Campbell’s reading when I first completed it. I was mostly confused on her beliefs regarding whether or not women can truly act as agents through language or writing. It seemed that the notion of the superior role of men shielded any spoken words of a woman, thus hindering the entire female population from being defined as agents. If this was the case, a woman’s designated role in society restrains her from ever truly speaking with an authoritative voice. However, when Campbell states that agency is “participatory,” I believe that she is simply referring to anything that allows an individual to personally act, and in doing so, become authoritative.
As you stated in your last paragraph, I agree with you in that Sojourner Truth was an agent of her speech. This can be quite a contradictory topic, considering that the role of men generally overpowered anything spoken through the eyes of a woman. Externals, such as laws, defined the role of a woman. However, Sojourner remained strong in her beliefs and sought to be heard, posing a mark in society to break these social norms and essentialism. Therefore, Campbell may be shedding light on the notion that women could in fact hold a voice and become agents of their speech through the simple act of speaking.
-Vanessa Coppola
Kelli, I told myself I wasn't going to participate on the blog, since it's really yours and the class's, so just consider this a brief comment rather than a full-out response. :) As Vanessa also noted above, I think you've definitely pointed us to an aspect of Campbell's argument that shows an agency construction -- perhaps an agency "invention" is a term she might use. Each time I read that essay, I'm always moved by this introductory line (and I've read this essay more times than I can count):
ReplyDelete"I imagine myself in my speech writer persona rafting down a river filled with rapids named Barthes, Derrida, and Foucault, at the end of which I must navigate a vortex of feminist controversy with Judith Butler, Seyla Benhabib, Nancy Fraser, and Michelle Ballif, which lures me toward hidden reefs as I consider whether the phoenix of female agency can emerge out of the ashes of the dead male author."
In this phrase, I see that Campbell is trying to find her own theoretical pathway in an ongoing discussion--or argument--about what's possible. We have read Barthes and Foucault, so we have some sense of how that conversation might go, and she probably sees it as a very rich and productive conversation. But that passage always gives me the sense that what she wants to know is whether we can invent an agent: whether a woman author can be re/imagined or re/created even after postmodern theorists have necessitated that the (male) author is "dead." (Campbell, "Agency" 1)
Okay, I'll stop. But the conversation already begun between you and Vanessa makes me want to write so much more. Still, I need to stop! I don't want to be that "voice" or that "Author" on the blog that makes people shy away from discussion.
-Prof. G
Vanessa,
ReplyDeleteEven when I was making my blog post, I was still unsure of what she really meant when she said agency is participatory and communal. I was still trying to disentangle what she meant while I was making the post. Even so, I didn't arrive at a clear understanding. I can say now however, that your interpretation of what she said makes it clearer than it was to me earlier. I do agree with you idea that participatory just "allows an individual to personally act ", and then gain authority. But even so, to be authoritative, wouldn't that authority have to be accepted and acknowledge by a certain communal? This is where I always get confused. I just think that an individual cannot be authoritative unless a community sees him/her as such.
Kellion,
ReplyDeleteI like your title because it captured my attention and it is the same thing that came to mind when I read the text. I kept thinking about agency and even in my own blog I discuss a similar topic. In case you didn't read my article, my main topics were concerning power and the effects women's writing can have on her audience. I think women can be agents and just as good as any male agent would be. You quote Campbell when she says: "rhetorical agency refers to the capacity to act, that is, to have the competence to speak or write in a way that will be recognized or heeded by others in one’s community". If women can successfully have the competence of the speak or write that is recognized by others then they too can be agents.