Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:29:26 -0500 From: Richard Moodey <moodey001-AT-mail1.gannon.edu> Subject: Re: BHA: Agency chez Bhaskar Hi listers, One of my problems with "agency" is that it seems to be an example of the bias in English towards making more abstract nouns out of less abstract nouns, verbs, and adjectives, and then (often) attributing causal powers to these abstractions. A second problem I have with "agency" is that it seems to have the opposite connotation of at least one of the standard meanings of "agent," which is someone who acts for someone else, as in "insurance agent" or "secret agent." In our pomo world, "agency" seems to connote or denote the capacity to act autonomously. From reading the comments in this thread, it does not seem that Archer and Bhaskar merely stipulate different nominal definitions of agency. They have the right, of course, to tell us how they are using words. But I think they intend more than nominal definitions. For me, "agency" is not a good theoretical term, for which a valid real or explanatory definition is possible. (I do not think it is a good word to refer to generative mechanisms.) "Agent," however, especially in the way Voegelin contrasts it with "representative," is a good theoretical term. Collectivities act through agents and representatives. Our military forces in Afghanistan are agents of the United States Dubya (whether we like it or not) represents us. In saying this, I do not mean to be contentious, nor to presume to be skilled at interpreting Archer and Bhaskar. I am quite willing to read what people write about agency, or to engage in discussions in which the term is used. But I expect people to mean different things by it, and have found this expectation met in most discussions. Regards, Dick Moodey --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005