On Agency

The vital piece of being human that is being left behind

I have noticed a trend whenever a writer discusses disparities between humans, especially groups of humans. Before the writer explains the disparity there is a mention that no matter what, people deserve dignity and respect. Generally, I agree with this sentiment. If we look at those two words, there’s not much to argue against, in my eyes. Giving people dignity allows them to be themselves and respect gives them the benefit of the doubt. These two ideals are virtuous even if they overlap quite a bit in a definitional Venn diagram. I have one small qualm with this statement, though. There seems to be built into this phrase an implicit message that people can’t do anything that deserves a loss of respect or dignity. I think there is a word that gives both respect and dignity to people who deserve it and allows people to face the consequences of actions that take it away: agency.

What is Agency

Respecting and dignifying someone allows them to be their own person, have their own thoughts, and make their own decisions. The piece that is missing when only respect and dignity are given is responsibility. I believe that agency gives all three. Giving people agency allows them to feel the full force of all the good and bad that they do. Something that is troubling in society today is the denial of individual responsibility for actions. Damaging behaviors — theft, drug use, and assault, for instance — are seen as the result of living in poor circumstances or being held down by society. They are not responsible for their behavior, society at large is. This claim denies these people agency. They are human, just as you and I are, and can make mistakes and bad choices. I don’t tend to subscribe to the deterministic belief that underlies this idea.

I don’t want to say that agency can’t be taken from people. It assuredly can. Slaves for instance have less agency than free people due to the heavy consequences of disobedience. In a less extreme example, children may feel pressured to do drugs, study, or play a certain video game by their friends. I would even go as far as to agree that people born in destitute conditions may feel the burden of their living conditions in every decision they make. But even with all these pressures or circumstances, humans can break free from those burdens. Frederick Douglass¹, and many others, escaped from slavery and lots of kids addicted to video games at the expense of schoolwork eventually graduate from college and get jobs. These were undoubtedly difficult things to do and took great personal fortitude (one far more than the other, obviously). But great things have been accomplished despite terrible circumstances for some people, regardless of whether that was self-inflicted.

It would be irresponsible of me to ignore the myriad programs that exist in societies to help people overcome poor circumstances. The details of such programs are outside of the scope of this essay, though I will briefly touch on them. These programs may or may not work as intended, though even if they did, there would likely still be disparities among those who benefitted. Each person’s decisions throughout their life would either help or harm their effort to break those barriers that they face. Among those who feel the same pressures, there can be vastly different outcomes depending on those choices. This is the beauty of agency. Those who make good choices are generally rewarded and those who do not make good choices are not. What makes a choice good or bad is based on the desired outcome which may be extremely delayed. If you want to lose weight, work out and don’t eat lots of sugar. If you want to get better grades, study more and don’t play video games. This is not a truism, and the wider culture is rife with phrases like “nice guys finish last,” “why do bad things always happen to good people,” etc., but I have found it to be well backed by the evidence.

So, in sum, agency is the culmination of giving people dignity, respect, and responsibility. It allows people to make their own decisions, live life how they wish, and face the consequences of their actions. There has been an insistence on denying people agency that I have noticed recently. I am not sure if this denial is intentional. Regardless, I find it troubling and I’m going to look at a few specific examples of this denial of agency.

The Control of the Patriarchy

I recently read The New Religious Intolerance by Martha C. Nussbaum. I picked this up during my current attempt to get through the books I have on my bookshelf before buying more books for my already full shelf (again, ask my wife how that’s going). In this book, Nussbaum lays out the debates that occur when religious restrictions are proposed and passed in America and Europe. She states often throughout the book that humans deserve dignity and respect. She argues on those grounds that if one partakes in a religious custom, such as wearing a head covering, he should not be ostracized for it. I agree. Nussbaum asserts further that anyone that is concerned with the possible objectification that comes from wearing a head covering doesn’t “know much about Islam and would have a hard time saying what symbolizes what in the different strands and interpretive traditions of that religion.” This is likely true. However, she goes one step further into troubling territory.

Nussbaum undercuts the idea that objectification is an honest concern among non-Muslims. She postulates that women in Western democracies also do certain activities for money or express themselves in a certain way that satisfies a patriarchal system. This includes everything from modeling and pornography to wearing sheer tops and tight jeans. I think that this comparison is a fair one if the goal is to point out cultural norms that are the log in the average American’s eye. In fact, this is a major theme of her book. However, in an attempt to argue against the possibility that coercion plays a role in Muslim women wearing head coverings, Nussbaum states that this assertion is “typically made by people who have no idea of the circumstances of this or that individual woman.” She is asserting that Muslim women control whether they want to wear a head covering or not, thus they have agency. She seems not to offer the same to the American models, though.

I can accept the notion that there may be different influences dictating how women act or dress in their cultural milieu. It is entirely possible that the need to show off one’s body in America and the need to wear a head covering are analogous. However, public opinion is divided on cosmetic surgery and it is unclear if there is personal benefit to such surgeries. There is no clear evidence that these surgeries are sought to assuage the patriarchy rather than to pursue the advantage given to more conventionally attractive people generally. It is also entirely possible that the standards for women are set by fellow women and not a top-down patriarchal autocracy. Furthermore, could it be possible that everyone, not just women, is affected by beauty standards? Are men that feel that steroid use is the only possible way to get the body they want also victims of the patriarchy?

As for the head coverings, there is no clear evidence about whether or not women in the United States are forced to wear head coverings. A Pew Research poll found that 44% of Muslims in America believe that dressing modestly is “essential” to being a Muslim. “Modestly” isn’t well defined. That could mean anything from needing to cover one’s hair and face or just an outfit a teacher would wear and everything in between. In several Muslim-majority countries, the same percentage believe that women should cover their hair and ears with a hijab. Though, I would suspect that this number is far lower in the United States. Head coverings are also often seen in America, mainly in left-leaning circles, as empowering rather than demeaning. Overall, they are a religious practice that may or may not be self-enforced.

All of this points to the fact that there are no overwhelming cultural or religious forces compelling women to act a certain way. That is not to say that these things have no sway whatsoever, people do not live outside of societal influences and norms. Nussbaum believes that Muslim women have agency over what they wear. I agree. She does not grant this same agency to non-Muslim women, though. That is the crux of what I find troubling with her arguments. If the vast majority of women, who are undoubtedly humans, cannot think or do anything other than what men want, how does this make them any better than dogs? It may even put them below dogs. Any dog owner will tell you that getting your dog NOT to do the thing they want to do is exceedingly tricky. I am not here to argue the morals of pornography or modeling or debate the tenets of Islam. I am merely pointing out that Nussbaum seems to grant agency to some, but not others, on a whim.

The Grip of White Supremacy

In an interview conducted by Coleman Hughes, Villanova professor Vincent Lloyd discussed the prison system in America. Lloyd argued heavily that criminals are products of their environment, and that community justice would help them change. This is a common train of thought among the progressive academic class. This assertion was, in large part, used as a pretext when many cities floated defunding the police in 2020. This thought process often extends to ideas like: thieves only steal to feed their kids and rioters are only expressing their angst at being ignored by society.  Some instances of theft and riotous behavior may take place for these reasons. I can envision a single mother of two stealing diapers or cereal for her kids. That is a much more complex issue that deserves examination later. But the vast majority of recent theft is not of that kind and is what I want to examine. The theft I am speaking of is the penchant for stealing TVs and liquor and expensive clothes, and burning down one’s own neighborhood.

People are shaped by their environment; cultural mores are often integrated into one’s life and they can shape their lens of the world. But people still have agency. We should not excuse wrongdoings just because they are in a group that is downtrodden in society. They can make their own decisions and should face the consequences of those actions, good or bad. People are not birds in a flock moving as a single ever-changing entity. We have thoughts, feelings, and dreams; we have free will. To take away the ability to make poor decisions, even in poor circumstances, takes away free will. The opposite side of this coin is the deterministic argument in which we are merely the result of our neurological impulses. This may be true, we don’t know, but we still can’t explain what thoughts are, why we act in certain ways, or how thoughts happen. This deterministic thought process should not be used when discussing the decisions people make. They reject the reality of the world we live in.

The end of both viewpoints is a world with no consequences and no punishments. In the modern world, the former argument is used most often, and it is used regularly when defending the actions of minority populations. I think this line of thinking is dangerous. This argument merely takes away the humanity of the people who live in these communities. It does not allow them to break free from the stigma that is placed on them by society. They are expected to act a certain way because of the community they live in and to deviate from that brings scrutiny. For instance, it is clear that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow have affected the black community. These policies are a disgrace to the founding principles of the nation and the damage done cannot be understated. But today, the issues in the black community are more related to fatherlessness, gangs, and drugs. These are likely linked due to long-lasting social and cultural effects. But there is a key difference between these two problems. The former was external, the latter internal.

I’m not here to talk authoritatively about what it is like to grow up as a black person in America. I will never know what that is like. I grew up in a lower-middle-class household. My parents lost their house, we crammed six people into a 1000-square-foot house, and I had to help pay bills. But, even with those hardships, I am sure it will be harder for the girl from Southside Chicago to get ahead in life. She has never met her dad, her brother is in prison for theft, and her mother works two jobs. However, despite all of that, with proper schooling², a job, and responsible relationships she can achieve far more than any time previously in history. I think that there are ways to help people get the opportunities to succeed. Most often the way that helps the most is to give that girl the confidence she needs to make a change. Claiming that she is a perpetual victim of circumstance and will never get a fair shake is not the way to inspire confidence. As I stated before, this way of viewing the world is dehumanizing, the actions of individuals are their responsibility. For better or for worse. This view of all minorities as victims of white supremacy is vapid and removes agency. This can happen even to minority populations that are successful in America.

The recent Supreme Court case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, made admissions based on race illegal. While there may be valid criticisms of the decision on legal grounds, most of the coverage did not deal with jurisprudence. The coverage was more focused on the effects that the outcome may have on the admissions of black students and a fear that this would further divide the haves and have-nots along racial lines. This is entirely possible, and more exploration of college admissions is surely needed. However, in this analysis, the actual plaintiffs in the case are largely ignored. Instead of focusing on the disparate impact affirmative action has had on Asian admissions, they focus on the disparities between white and black admissions. Even more troubling, some, including NPR, have gone further to erase the deny the Asian students of any agency.

A report that was published on NPR’s Weekend Edition posits that Asian students who were upset by the impact of affirmative action on their ability to get into elite schools were merely coerced by white lawyers. It is possible that, given the highly race-conscious world we live in, using non-white students could act as a crutch for a white lawyer to help his racial fellows. It is also possible that these students had been “used.” But this is not the case here. The main victims of these policies at elite universities were Asian students. This fact has been proven again and again. So, it seems evident to me that they would sue these universities to rectify this grievance. Instead of understanding why Asians may be upset, NPR, the New York Times, and even a Supreme Court justice blame white supremacy and completely erase the actual plaintiffs of this case. All these writers disallow diversity of thought between minority communities or even within them. They don’t allow these individuals to have their own opinions, fears, or objections. They trample on their agency.

Paternalism

This phenomenon is not unique to politics or our current society. Charles. C. Mann makes a similar point about agency in his book 1491, which I cited heavily in Episode 1 of Missing Pages. When discussing the fall of the Yucatan Maya around 1200 AD, he states that scholars far too often claim that factors outside of human control are used to justify the collapse. The human decisions that led to calamity are underrepresented as the cause. He views this as taking agency away from the Maya. They were able to build a grand society with massive public works projects, complex scientific understanding, and a written language. No one argues that outside forces did this for them. But, in their collapse, they are absolved of all wrongdoing. The main culprit is said to be massive droughts. However, the Maya in Chichen Itza survived centuries after their Yucatan counterparts. Those in Chichen Itza adapted to the rapid change in the environment, those in the Yucatan did not. He completes this point by comparing this collapse to the drought in the USSR in the 1980s. No one would blame the collapse of the Soviet Union on a few poor harvest seasons, and no one should do the same for the Yucatan Maya. Their failures are their own.

This expands further to the paternalistic idea of the noble savage or the peace-loving, tree-hugging native. Neither is accurate, and both are dehumanizing and bigoted. This paternalism finds its way into specific decisions that are made by the natives as well. There is a general idea that if the natives had only banded together against the Europeans, they would have been able to stop colonies before they began. This is possible, but it takes away the agency of the natives to determine the threats they faced. They may not have had the clearest picture of what was to come, but they made a decision based on their current understanding of the world. Those who fought the Aztecs on the side of the Spanish felt that the 200 or so white people were much less dangerous than their imperial masters. Let’s also not forget that the natives were just as coercive against the Europeans as the Europeans were to them. They were smart and capable of making logical decisions.

The removal of the agency of indigenous populations when they are encountered has led to untold suffering throughout human history. This trend goes far beyond the most recent colonization efforts whose effects are still felt today. It seems commonplace to deny those one feels are lesser agency of their own. This can come from a place of national pride, racism, xenophobia, or power. The natives become uncivilized, backward, sheep, misguided, or the pawns of a greater game. This is the game that was played by many European nations to justify colonization and imperialism. They have shifted today to say they don’t know any better, are oppressed and acting out, or it’s a part of their culture. Anyone would find objection to having these accusations thrown at them. So, let’s be careful not to throw them ourselves.

The Ethos of this Project

Look, I don’t want to discount the effects of the environment on how people act. Humans are social creatures and play off each other’s social cues. I also don’t want to discount individual suffering outside of one’s control or the environment one is born into. There are real people struggling with real problems in the world. But when push comes to shove the only thing that anyone can rely on to pull her through these circumstances is herself. As a society, we can decide where it is necessary to give some help and to whom. What should never be done though is to take the decision to make a change out of the hand of the individual. Each and every human on Earth deserves agency. We all live our lives as best we can with the knowledge and skills we have. The best we can give each other is agency to live life how we will and face the consequences, both positive and negative. Without this, we would never be able to break free from terrible situations or fail despite the odds in our favor. Our birth is not our destiny in America, despite the claims made by many people who assert that they are helping.

Taking away agency from people is more damaging than any other action one could do. It is what makes slavery, torture, and coercion of any kind so wicked and evil. There are also seemingly positive behaviors that take away agency just the same. Coddling, handholding, and removing any accountability don’t allow people to make mistakes, learn from them, and grow. It is part of life that we cannot go back and change the decisions we make. We can only deal with the situation we have made for ourselves and the cards we are dealt. Sometimes these situations are exceedingly difficult, so it takes help from others to break free. But the first step in taking control of your own life is realizing that you need to ask for help. Having agency does not mean you have to go through life alone. But you must be the one to make that choice.

We will witness a lot of decisions by people, groups, and nations throughout this podcast. Every one of these decisions was made by humans. These humans deserve respect and dignity, as Nussbaum and many others would say. But I believe we must go further than that. We must grant these people the most vital part of life. Let’s allow them to make their own decisions, no matter where they come from. Let them enjoy their successes, lament their failures, and face the consequences of both. Let them be who they want to be, whether that reinforces the culture or subverts it.

Let’s give them agency. Let’s give them their humanity.

1. My essay, “On My Mission,” discusses this a bit more in-depth. 

2. This is why I believe that education reform, and more specifically school choice, are vital American policies that promote success.