Agency

Agency is a term with multiple and contested meanings and colorations that has been used to mean choice, action, autonomy, freedom and empowerment, among other things. For all of the themes and variations, it is fair to say that across a number of different fields— including sociology, psychology, anthropology, economic development and philosophy—scholars have used the term agency to account for what leads people to act in the face of larger shaping forces such as nature (neurobiology and DNA), nurture (socialization and upbringing), one’s social location and the constraints of social structure, whether proximal or distal. This entry will sketch out how agency has been viewed in sociology and psychology.

Generally, sociologists consider individual ‘agency’ in relation to social ‘structure’ insofar as a person’s ability to act is affected by his or her location in the social context, with its attendant rules, norms, expectations, roles or framing. Theorists have taken different stances on how they see the interplay of agency and structure. Apart from the extremes of complete determinism, on the one hand, and overstated free will (as in rational actor approaches where individual action is unencumbered by any positioning or social relationships), on the other, there are two more possibilities. First is a more macro-sociological tradition of viewing structure as predominant, constraining behaviour and then defining agency as people acting despite or independently of these constraints. A second perspective views agency and structure as highly intertwined, so that agency is the ability of the individual to act and even to transform the context rather than only reacting to it.

In a seminal article, the sociologists Mustafa Emirbayer and Ann Mische have described individual agency as a dynamic, unfolding, socially situated process informed by three elements: (1) past-oriented habit or routine, (2) present-oriented reflection and judgement and (3) future-oriented purpose or imagination. To exercise agency, one needs to be sufficiently immersed in the context to become habituated to or operate fluently in it. In addition, one needs to be able [Page 32]to take stock of the conditions one encounters, and then to think imaginatively about possibilities in order to plan going forward.

Psychologists have looked at agency in terms of people’s self-perceptions and self-understandings of their own self-efficacy, feeling themselves as able to make choices rather than being carried along by circumstances. In this regard, psychological agency is needed when habitual or automatic behaviour is disrupted or no longer suffices. Albert Bandura specifies four components of agency: (1) intentionality, (2) exercise of forethought, (3) self-reactiveness (as in self-regulation) and (4) self-reflectiveness (about one’s sense of efficacy).

Some scholars treat agency as a characteristic of the individual. An alternative is to consider agency as emerging or achieved under particular circumstances. In this regard, the qualities of the context or the social ecology that enables agency take on central importance.

Some unresolved questions surrounding agency: Does agency exist even if the act results in no changes in the world? Does agency exist if there are discrepancies between the intended and actual results?

...