While discussing the ever complicating paradox of agency, first consideration leads one to believe that the battle for possession of legitimate agency is constantly between the writer, or speaker, and the audience; however, in an attempt to explain the concept, it seems that it is necessary to include a third contender: the interpreter. The interpretation of any speech or text will greatly influence an individual’s ability to understand the message that is being conveyed. Therefore, one is forced to think of several questions: who is the interpreter? What factors impact his or her comprehension of the intended (or unintended) meaning? In terms of interpretation, does the writer/speaker or reader/audience have greater authority in a given situation?
Although not directly, some of these questions are referenced in Agency: Promiscuous and Protean, by Karlyn Campbell and consequentially allowing conclusions to be drawn. For example, it is stated that, “we can never recover the authentic voice…inevitably that voice is transformed by those who record it as they hear it” (Campbell 13). So, in this instance, it can be argued that because the audience is the interpreter, those being given the information have the agency to form their own opinions based on individual perspectives and experiences. By contrast, Campbell also mentions how in certain cases, “performative text” or the way in which a message is conveyed, can oftentimes have agency “that is greater than historians’ facts” (13). In simple terms, meaning that the manner in which an audience is addressed can influence the interpretation, giving agency to the writer or speaker for they have control over how the information is presented so it can be interpreted in the intended fashion.
Ultimately, I feel that the reader and interpreter are often times the same person. Despite the speaker being able to alter the presentation of information, it is essentially the role of the audience to consider their morals, values and histories in order to form a valid opinion on an issue. Agency and perspectivism are inevitably intertwined. As Campbell alludes on page thirteen, the person receiving the form of text basically has the authority to transform it within their own mind and subsequently draw a conclusion or stance.
Melissa, you articulate something very clearly here that I struggled to articulate in a comment I made on another post. For Campbell, the role of interpreter does seem to be important, although I imagine we can write a whole other article on precisely who or what fits that role!
ReplyDeleteTo throw a little challenge your way (because I truly don't know the answer myself), what's to stop the interpreter from making "the wrong" interpretation? Are all interpretations necessarily agential? Would Campbell have said that Gage's interpretation was as productive as her own? How do you think Campbell would want the interpreter to be aware of the potentially destructive aspects of agency (7)? How would we know if were were being violent, in that sense?
-Prof. Graban