Agency, Rationality and Social Policy

Abstract

The recent concern to develop a radical but critical account of agency in social policy is to be welcomed. However this article questions whether the work of A. Giddens can provide an adequate foundation for such a project. Giddens's account of the welfare subject contains several weaknesses. It is voluntaristic and yet paradoxically it cannot offer an adequate understanding of radical change. It is also rationalistic and assumes the existences of a unitary and knowledgeable subject. As a consequence there is a danger that social policy develops a lop-sided model of agency which is insufficiently sensitive to the passionate, tragic and contradictory dimensions of human experience. A robust account of the active welfare subject must be prepared to confront the real experiences of powerlessness and psychic injury which result from injustice and oppression and acknowledge human capacities for destructiveness towards self and others. Only by exploring these different subject positions – victim, ‘own worst enemy’ and creative, reflexive agent – can we develop an understanding of the welfare subject which is optimistic without being naive.

The interplay between structure and agency in shaping the mental health consequences of job loss

“…Angas’ is one account highlighting why it may sometimes be extremely difficult for an individual to exercise creative agency in support of his or her health, as agency is bound up with internal conflicts as well as structural constraints [51]. Angas’ explanation suggests that he is just ‘getting by’ under Lister’s agency typology; engaging his agency to meet just basic needs.…”

“…Rosslyn’s and Raymond’s accounts illustrate Hoggett’s conception of non-reflexive, or impulsive agency, for by ‘lashing out’ unreflexively they reveal the potential for unintended consequences from the ‘human capacities for destructiveness towards self and others’ [51] p. 37.…”

“…Theoretical insights from two models of agency devised by Lister [50] and Hoggett [51] provide nuanced agency perspectives for understanding responses to job loss. Lister’s typology situates constraints to agency and participation within the context of existing social relations; highlighting the different actions individuals employ to overcome poverty or disadvantage.…”

“…It acknowledges the reality that individuals sometimes lack insight into things they may say or do in response to a range of emotional or life events [such as job loss], and the potential impact this has on the self or others. Hoggett’s agency typology emphasises ‘reflexive’ agency, mediated by a range of triggers that are grounded in material disadvantage, past experiences within diverse social relationships, and from dealing with a wide range of enabling and constraining structures [51] p. 48.…”

“…It also acknowledges a range of agency perspectives on a continuum from the creative ‘self-as-agent’ to the passive ‘self-as-object’. Hoggett [51,53] challenges agency definitions confined to rational behaviour that exclude non-rational actions often involving unintended consequences. Without recognising the importance of complex subjectivity and these forms of agency there is no adequate explanation for addictions, depression, or self-harming behaviours, unless attributable to genetic or physiological factors.…”