ABSTRACT
The question of agency in contemporary social and rhetorical theory might best
be seen as a response to the failures of the philosophy of action and its humanist
social actor. In cultural studies, the question of agency is an attempt to theorize
the possibilities of radical, counterhegemonic action, especially in the face of
powerful cultural formations. Here we might think of Gayatri Spivak’s (1988)
argument in “Can the Subaltern Speak?” and more recently in A Critique of
Postcolonial Reason. In this formulation, agency becomes a question of whether
and how the subaltern can make her voice heard and achieve political legitimacy;
that is, how she can (re)constitute her identity and (re)position herself within
the public sphere. In rhetorical theory, we might rephrase this as a question of
how rhetors effect social change. Or, more generally, how people enter into and
effect arguments and debates, recalling that in order to participate in a debate,
a speaking subject must first be recognized and able to enter the discussion. This
last, rather mundane, formulation of agency moves us away from the inter-
ventionist politics of cultural studies, a move we make consciously, if also
temporarily and conditionally. This broader formulation of agency also provides
a strategic perspective on the theoretical issues at play. That is, as one of us has
argued elsewhere (Herndl & Bauer, 2003), while we would like to reserve our
theory of agency for the activist political positions with which we align ourselves,
an adequate theory of agency must account for rhetorical and cultural action
across the political spectrum.
