Campbell vs Heilbrun

As discussed in class, these two scholars may see eye to eye on some points, but have very different views on what agency is as a whole. When analyzing the two articles, I found myself wondering how two women could hold such different ideals. As for Campbell, she focuses on the author-function or agency in the bigger picture, taking into account everything that has ever, does ever, and will ever effect a text, a medium with multilayers. Heilbrun views the agency of a text based on what it the most authentic influence.

So what do each bring to the argument about what exactly is agency and what they support when put under the lens of feminism?


Campbell:

• Campbell has a valid point when analyzing the case of Sojourner Truth that we discussed in class, that it is not as much about the authenticity of Truth's original speech, but everything that has effected it throughout time.
• I view Campbell as more of a realist than Heilbrun, she recognizes the situation of a text as a whole and sees the factors that play into making it what it is (especially the gender influences).
• In Campbell's reconstruction of Gage's version of Sojourner Truth's speech raises questions about her standpoint on feminism. She blatantly disputed Gage's choice to change Truth's dialect to a deep southern accent, the very thing that makes the speech so popular and empowering to women.
• Campbell is very concerned with agency identity. She sees the author as a small portion of the bigger picture of the agency of a text, which could be influential depending on the author's positioning in the bigger realm of the text's agency. When talking about Gage's choice to change Truth's dialect, Campbell considers many subject-positions, such as the time the speech was given, Truth's history and the aftermath of the document's circulation (as well as the result of the actual speech itself). Campbell displays all of these factors as part of the speech's agency.

Heilbrun:

• Heilbrun is much more direct in her feminist standpoint.
• She is clear about the purpose of agency and differs from Campbell in her ideas.
• Heilbrun sees agency as both the author's intent and effect. She encourages women to pull away from passive autobiographies and being afraid to assert themselves in their writing.
• Agency to Heilbrun, is a medium in which to have your voice heard.
• Concerned with authenticity, but focuses on effects/influential power of rhetoric.

I believe that Heilbrun would have supported Gage's inaccurate portrayal of Truth's dialect. Though she is concerned with authenticity her primary focus is encouraging authors (mainly females) to use rhetorical power to their advantage. Campbell, otherwise, sees the author's influence as such a minimal part of the work's overall agency that the author's choice to harness rhetorical power does not seem to interest her, but instead historical and situational factors.

Overall these women both express monumental ideas about rhetoric and agency under a feminine critique.

Heilbrun, Carolyn. “Introduction.” In Writing a Woman’s Life. New York: Norton, 1988. 11-24.

Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. “Agency: Promiscuous and Protean.” Communication and Critical/Cultural

Studies 2.1 (2005): 1-19.