The working question on page 264 in the Agency chapter really got me thinking. It basically asks about how our view of George Washington as americans differs from how, say, the brits would view him, pointing out that while he stands as a symbol of patriotism, and a noble war hero for us, the brits could reasonably view him as a terrorist. This led me down a stream of thought, from how we view people in power, to the dynamics of Game of Thrones.. so bare with me (**spoiler alert). After reading the agency chapter I think it is possible that heroism experienced in power- the kind we read about in our history books is an illusion. I have always thought that Game of Thrones is a good example of how humans handle power, and I think this working question puts my musings in to perspective. As season one of the show begins we are introduced to the Starks as somewhat of a protagonist family; they are honest, they are humble, and people like them, they have cool wolves, however the Lannisters, an insestuous mean family (with the exception of Tyrion), with little to no pets, manage to essentially destroy the Starks. Basically as the show goes on viewers realize that there is not nessecarily one person or group of power they should get too attached to; as we learned in season 1, in the scramble for the iron throne, the nicer they are the faster they die.
In keeping with the sentiment of Theory Toolbox, this parallel with GOT and real life power struggle, as well of this working question, make me suspicious of everything, but particularly the history we have come to know and accept.. lets just go with as americans. We grow up learning a certain set of important historical figures and events: George Washington, MLK, Lincoln, and across the pond, Gandhi, Henry VIII, and Hitler (what a Joffrey). Parallel to this we grow up learning a certain set of morals and values: to respect elders, respect authority, to be thoughtful, kind and fair. So when you think about this set of agents we learn about on the pages of history books, in comparison with our own agent-hood it becomes apparent that we are not really learning to realize our potential as agents, but to have gratitude for the agents that make things easier for us. I mean, when was the last time someone advised you to deny food to get what you want, or to bomb stuff because you wish you didn’t have to pay income tax. My suspicion also begs me to wonder how many values I actually share with these agents (both ‘good’ and ‘bad’) of historical power. If we were able to see these textbook figures in as much detail as we were able to view the dramas of the various families in Game of Thrones, I have to wonder if our perception of history be configured the same, if we would have statues for these figures, or holidays; and furthermore if our textbooks were published in Britain, or Russia, I would ask the same questions as well. In the same way that we speculate about celebrity lives in current day, we must speculate even more blindly in to the good will of history and its players. Though we must be cautious, for too much speculation may get in the way of fulfilling our agent-hood.
I leave you with a little modern british history. If nothing else, enjoy the GOT references
http://mashable.com/2015/04/30/uk-election-game-of-thrones-jon-snow/#uWRAxce7FiqE
Very interesting reflection on heroism (or anti-heroism) and agency. We do tend to put a lot of stock in these historical actors simply because they are in a position to sort of channel the agency of their subjects. This is made very literal in electoral politics (by voting, which is a demonstration of a kind of agency, we endow our representatives to act, or to be agents, on our behalf). In social movements, this taking-on of agency works in a powerful way as well: we put our hope and trust in those who are able to speak for those who are not in a position (of power) to speak for themselves. These figures become leaders of the disenfranchised (so, in your example, MLK and Ghandi). Then there are leaders who sort of re-direct the agency they often simply confiscated in the first place towards nefarious ends. Or, in the worst cases, somehow secure the buy-in from entire populations to enact mass murder and genocide (Hitler in your example). Nothing underscores our power as agents more fully than those to whom we cede our agency–these historical actors who, behind the curtains, act from motivations that are often very distinct from the rhetoric espoused.
I see a URL hyper-link at the end there. No need to muck up a great post with a bunch or strings of letters–use the “chain” icon to embed the link behind a descriptive phrase that will lead us to where you want us to go!