Locke and Agency

Locke asks in his essay, "Who shall determine in this case [that of mixed modes known imperfectly] which are those that are to make up the precise collection that is to be signified by the specific name?" (821). And, speaking of gold (which we all love, don't we?), he wonders "who shall be the judge to determine" the meaning of the word (821). In the case of Locke's mixed modes, because the definition of the word is uncertain and based on collections of concepts, ideas, and archetypes, the meaning of the word is not objective, but subjective based on the perception of the person experiencing the word. Locke defines the "ends of language" as "to make known one man's thoughts or ideas to another" with "as much ease and quickness as possible" (825). But since there is no Language Cabal sitting in a tower being the person who determines the set of ideas and concepts one should hold in their mind while referring to a mixed mode, no one will interact with words the same way, and we can say one can never make one's ideas truly known to another.

I think this fits with our issues of agency. When the idea is being conveyed through words the speaker knows the meaning and thus holds the agency. But, when those words are processed by the listener a new meaning is imposed and the listener becomes the agent. It is much like Foucault's idea of agency being passed from author to reader.

This idea is also present in Derrida. Because words "represent the present in its absence" and "take the place of the present" (284), one could say words are dependent on one's perception of the present. If words are dependent on perception and are intended to replace a person's individual present, then the words are subjective and represent only one individual's reality.

Bahktin's concepts of fluid language which changes depending on society's use of the language shows even more the issues of power and agency in words. Words can become stratified and take on new meaning as they are used, and "there is... always present... a certain degree of social differentiation, a social stratification" in language (Bahktin, 290). In fact, "even particular significant artistic works and individual persons are all capable of stratifying language, in proportion to their social significance" (Bahktin, 290).

I'm glad I put off sharing what I found in Locke about agency, because even though I think I misplaced some important Locke quotes, Bahktin's opinions fit in very well with this and I'm glad I read him before blogging. One reason Bahktin's opinions are so important is because with my argument based on Locke, the agency in language occurred on a purely individual basis. I feel Bahktin opens it up to have a greater social meaning and demonstrate the way agency can be carried through cultures based on language.

Because of all our talking about language, I wanted to share this poem. I'm a sucker for slam poetry, and any poems that use words like this. It makes me think a bit of "Let us go then, you and I,/ When the evening is spread out against the sky/ Like a patient etherized upon a table", but more hardcore. I'd try to explain what I thought about it but I wouldn't make any sense. This is totally where poetry is going, though. :)