The way that I see it is that agency can be both enabling and constricting at the same time, because it can be strong in some contexts and weak in others. Being a woman can be constricting in the business world these days as women make less than men do, and it may enable her to manifest her agency to change things. I keep remembering the point that was made in the book, "Our choices always are made in contexts that we do not control." It makes a lot of sense to the statement I'm debating in this blog- Constricting contexts that we can't control enable us to make choices- whether they challenge problems and make changes with agency or not.
With the relationship, it seems to me that when you're stuck in a contextual going-nowhere relationship, you're forced to examine why that is, to at least recognize that things aren't right. The situation, the constriction enables the person to use their agency to change things. That is the whole idea behind this book though, isn't it? It never really gives us any straight up answers to the questions it arises, but it does as us to pay attention and to re-examine, recognize the things that are going on around us--- ie. the constrictions of a government that hides things from us by limiting what we see on the news--- enables us, gives us the choice to use our agency to have a freaken voice and actually do something about it. Am I right or am I wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment