Asch's Agency

(backtracking a bit)
In "In Search of America", I found myself questioning not only the agency of the secondary characters, but also that of the writer.  Personally, understanding exactly what all is encompassed in "agency" has been a struggle for me this semester.  So as I initially read this piece, I thought that the secondary characters had no agency.  To me, they were there to strengthen Asch's piece and increase his agency, not add to their own.  Asch's motivation lies in enlightening readers to the horrors of America, but in acting as the vehicles in which this enlightenment is achieved, I wonder if the secondary characters hold the agency or if it still lies to Asch.  These characters have the power to sway his opinion and change his mind on certain topics.

While they lack their own agency of making themselves who they want to be, I do not think they are void of agency altogether.  There apparent lack of agency in current situation only adds to the agency in the power of education, or the dynamic/binary nature of the American public--creating a paradox within the reading.  In not having ownership over their lives or material property, these sharecroppers and farmers demonstrate just how much freedom they have.  They are not tied down by material objects but instead given the freewill to raise their children to be new individuals.  Yes, the children may grow to be sharecroppers as well, but the parents are actively using their lack of agency (or apparent slavery) in order to secure their child's agency (attempted education and greater possibilities); in the process giving the parent a new, deeper level of agency, one not contained by typical characteristics.  The lack of freedom/agency is their agency.  Does this make sense?

To be my own Devil's advocate, I could also argue that it doesn't really matter whether or not Asch's secondary characters have agency, especially because Asch creates them into being whatever he pleases.  Direct dialogue is given, yes, but how much of it and its context are often not revealed.  Asch, in being the writer, becomes the main agent, and any other agents from under him will have to follow this authority, and are subject to the rules he lays out.  So regardless of what initial authority the secondary characters have, by the time we as readers read their conversation, the authority of these secondary characters could have been well stripped away and molded into whatever Asch needed them to say. 

I think the greater question/problem of the piece is not determining who is an agent/who has agency, but rather considering the idea that none of us have agency, and every author puts of a facade of having agency in order to sway readers to certain positions.