Skip to content

Distributing Agency Everywhere: TV Critiques Postcritique

Lisa Siraganian

Pages 595 - 616



This publication is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives 4.0. (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

This essay analyzes and challenges a group of contemporary responses to the discordance between intention and “distributed agency,” as it has become known in the postcritical work of Rita Felski and like-minded critics (typically self-identified as postcritics, surface readers, posthumanists, or new materialists). Although readers have tended to see such critical positions as distinct, they all share a set of essential commitments regarding agency that render intention—and literary interpretation, by extension—incoherent. The essay argues that postcriticism and likeminded theories rely on a two-part commitment functioning in the background: first, a commitment to intention as a performance that occurs in the mind, and, second, to distributing agency to other actors and “actants”—most crucially "readers"—as an obligatory result of this account of intention. To illustrate the analysis and critique, the essay considers brief but telling moments from some contemporary prestige television shows such as "The Americans", "Homecoming", and "Patriot". These readings help to clarify that the crucial postcritical error is not distributive agency per se, but the now-familiar account of "textual" agency. Exploring a similar set of problems about intention and interpretation, shows like "Homecoming" and "Patriot" take a far more skeptical stance towards the beliefs and strategies embraced by postcritique. Moreover, only a commitment to authorial intention makes that skepticism legible.

1 The Americans. FX, 2013-2018.

2 Anderson, Amanda. The Way We Argue Now: A Study in the Cultures of Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2005. Print.

3 Anscombe, G. E. M. [Elizabeth]. Intention. 1957. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1976. Print.

4 Anumanchipalli, Gopala K., Josh Chartier, and Edward F. Chang. “Speech Synthesis from Neural Decoding of Spoken Sentences.” Nature 568 (2019): 493-98. Print.

5 Barad, Karen. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2007. Print.

6 Bennett, Jane. “Powers of the Hoard: Further Notes on Material Agency.” Animal, Vegetable, Mineral: Ethics and Objects. Ed. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. New York: Zone, 2012. 237-69. Print.

7 ---. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2010. Print.

8 Bratman, Michael. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1987. Print.

9 Brown, Nicholas. Autonomy: The Social Ontology of Art under Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2019. Print.

10 Coole, Diana, and Samantha Frost. "Introducing New Materialisms." New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Ed. Diana Coole and Samantha Frost. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2010. 1-43. Print.

11 Cronan, Todd. Against Affective Formalism: Matisse, Bergson, Modernism. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2013. Print.

12 Enfield, N. J. “Distribution of Agency.” Distributed Agency. Ed. N. J. Enfield and Paul Kockel­man. New York: Oxford UP, 2017. 9-14. Print.

13 Felski, Rita. The Limits of Critique. Chicago, IL: U of Chicago P, 2015. Print.

14 Ford, Anton, Jennifer Hornsby, and Frederick Stoutland, eds. Essays on Anscombe’s Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2011. Print.

15 François, Anne-Lise. Open Secrets: The Literature of Uncounted Experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2008. Print.

16 Frey, Jennifer. “Analytic Philosophy of Action: A Very Brief History.” Philosophical News 7 (2013): 50-58. Print.

17 Fuente, Eduardo de la. “The Artwork Made Me Do It: Introduction to the New Sociology of Art.” Thesis Eleven 103.1 (2010): 3-9. Print.

18 Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Print.

19 The Good Place. NBC, 2016-2020.

20 Grice, Paul. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1989. Print.

21 Hornborg, Alf. “Artifacts Have Consequences, Not Agency: Toward a Critical Theory of Global Environmental History.” European Journal of Social Theory 20.1 (2017): 95-110. Print.

22 Homecoming. Amazon, 2018-.

23 Kockelman, Paul. The Art of Interpretation in the Age of Computation. New York: Oxford UP, 2017. Print.

24 Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

25 Levine, Caroline. Forms: Whole, Rhythm, Hierarchy, Network. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2015. Print.

26 Leys, Ruth. The Ascent of Affect: Genealogy and Critique. Chicago, IL: Chicago UP, 2017. Print.

27 ---. Trauma: A Genealogy. Chicago, IL: Chicago UP, 2000. Print.

28 Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. “Cézanne’s Doubt.” The Merleau-Ponty Aesthetics Reader: Philosophy and Painting. Ed. Galen A. Johnson. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP, 1993. 59-75. Print.

29 Michaels, Walter Benn. “‘I Do What Happens’: Anscombe and Winogrand.” Emory College of Arts and Sciences, 3 May 2016. Web. 16 May 2019.

30 Miller, D. A. The Novel and the Police. Berkeley: U of California P, 1989. Print.

31 Moi, Toril. Revolution of the Ordinary: Literary Studies after Wittgenstein, Austin, and Cavell. Chicago, IL: U of Chicago P, 2017. Print.

32 Moran, Richard, and Martin J. Stone. “Anscombe on Expression of Intention.” New Essays on the Exploration of Action. Ed. Constantine Sandis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print.

33 Orange Is the New Black. Netflix, 2013-2019.

34 Patriot. Amazon, 2015-2018.

35 Shuster, Martin. New Television: The Aesthetics and Politics of a Genre. Chicago, IL: U of Chicago P, 2017. Print.

36 Smith-Brecheisen, Davis. “What’s the Use?” Review of Toril Moi’s Revolution of the Ordinary. Emory College of Arts and Sciences, 3 May 2019. Web. 15 May 2019.­after-wittgenstein-austin-and-cavell.

37 Szalay, Michael. “HBO’s Flexible Gold.” Representations 126.1 (2014): 112-34. Print.

38 ---. “Pimps and Pied Pipers: Quality Television in the Age of Its Direct Delivery.” Fictions of Speculation. Spec. issue of Journal of American Studies 49.4 (2015): 813-44. Print.


Export Citation