Promiscuous Agency

I know it's real original to start off this way, but the Webster's dictionary defines promiscuous as, "1. composed of all sorts of persons or things, 2. not restricted to one class, sort, or person, 3. not restricted to one sexual partner, and 4. casual or irregular."

So in our context of agency we can easily rule out definition number 3, but I really think the first two definitions are completely relevant to the discussion we had on the promiscuity of agency. In her introduction Campbell prefaces by saying agency is "communal...invented...effected through form...perverse." I think through our discussions it has been made very clear that capturing the absolute intention and function of agency is multifaceted and extremely decentralized. We've even traced out the concept of agency in rhetoric in a swirl to best indicate that the ideas fueling rhetoric and agency are ever changing and, "not restricted to one class, sort, or person."

Although in the context of the everyday the word "promiscuous" is often associated with a lack in morals (particularly in matters of sex), it accurately describes the puzzle that is agency, something we have been working on unraveling now in these first few weeks. We can't classify it, and we certainly can't nail it down to one solid definition. It's too broad to capture in one context, yet can also be chased down to such a narrow term that we wonder where we even began. It's ever changing and is the engine for continued exploration into critical thought.