This document discusses different definitions of agency in young adult literature. It examines definitions from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Alice Mills, and Drew Campbell. Holmes defined agency as having both the capacity and responsibility to act independently. Mills' definition requires characters to consider options and make choices, but implies they must take action. Campbell argues characters have an obligation to change society, limiting their ability to not participate. The document concludes there is tension between individual agency and societal expectations for characters to create positive change.

1. Louis Wischnewsky
English 434: YA Literature
Dr. L. Bruce
13 Oct. 2014
Agency
Agency brings a dilemma to children’s and young adult literature. For adults, looking at a character
like the secret agent James Bond, it is easy to recognize his agency: he is an agent that works for the spy
agency, MI-5. For young adults, however, Jupiter Jones, Pete Crenshaw, and Bob Andrews, the trio that
made up the young adult investigate troupe of the Three Investigators, cannot be agents because they are
too young to be employed by an agency (Arthur). Likewise, in more recent young adult literature, the
character Christopher John Francis Boone of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time may scour
his neighborhood just like a real-life detective agent, but Christopher has no agency (Haddon). Worse for
Christopher, unlike Jupe, Pet, and Bob, he has no friends with which to form an agency.
As it turns out, the question of agency has been around for a long time; if not the word, then the
concept, dates as far back as the Romans, according to jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes (348). It may be
coincidental, but Holmes was tackling the issue of agency about the same time young adult literature,
identified then as juvenile literature, was coming of its own: the late 1800s (Hunt 42). The fact that Holmes,
arguably the most famous jurists in American history, was compelled to define agency should signal the
importance of the word. Troubling, though, is the realization there was a need to define such a common
word. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (hereafter, OED), agency has been around since 1600.
Agency was, in fact, in wide use during the mid to late 1800s. At least prior to Holmes’ encounter with
agency, the old OED meaning fit the James Bond mold mentioned earlier: “A person or organization acting
on behalf of another, or providing a particular service; the process of acting as an agent the position, role,
or function of an agent, deputy, or representative; an instance of this. [This use is] now somewhat rare.”
The OED gives numerous modern definitions to the word which gives rise to another issue. The two

2. Wischnewsky 2
definitions that come closest to fitting The Three Investigators and Christopher Boone do not appear to be
separable.
Consider these two inclusions to the agency entry in the OED:
Action, capacity to act; Ability or capacity to act or exert power; active working or operation;
action, activity.
and
Action or intervention producing a particular effect; means, instrumentality, mediation; Such
action embodied or personified; a being or thing that acts to produce a particular effect or
result.
In the first instance, there is such emphasis upon “action” one might wonder, why not just use “act” or
“action” in place of agency? Furthermore, an “intervention producing a particular effect” is nothing more
than a nuance of action in general: regardless of the effect, intervention is still action. The same nuances
exist between “capacity” and “means, instrumentality, mediation.” The personification of agency? That’s
still agency, no doubt, but just like “a thing that acts,” it does not define agency itself; it merely means that
agency is not necessarily a physical entity. Holmes calls that aspect of agency, a “fiction” (345).1
Aside from the ambiguities of the OED, the larger picture is the application of agency in the world
of young adult literature. Looking at Holmes’ dated definition of agency, Alice Mills’ preferred definition,
and one more definition of agency that Drew Chappell relies upon, what becomes apparent is a diverging
concept of agency. In Holmes’ case, the now-rarely used definition provided by the OED works, but is not
as complete as it could be. Mills borrows a definition that looks concise enough, though there is an
apparent option of application. Chappell’s definition is vague if not broad. Though broad, Chappell uses the
definition with discretion but is also able to use the word at-will no less than does Mills.
Holmes’ definition of agency is complex and for good reason: he believed that agency was largely
circumstantial. Though Holmes does not specifically identify his vision of agency, in the following passage
the definition becomes apparent: “That is to say, although it is contrary to theory to allow a servant2 to be

3. Wischnewsky 3
sued for conduct in his capacity as such, he cannot rid himself of his responsibility as a freeman, and may
be sued as a free wrong doer” (364).3 In other words, although under normal circumstances, the agent is not
responsible for his conduct – even if his free movement and capacity to choose allows him to act at will, the
agent cannot disassociate himself from responsibility if he is acting on behalf of his own free will. Thus, if
a character has agency, the agency upon which the character acts is not his own but that of the principal.
That is, unless the character/agent is also his own principal/agency, both willing and capable of accepting
responsibility for his own actions – or lack thereof.
The lack of a possibility of desiring a negative outcome is what makes Alice Mills’ application of
agency different from Holmes’. Mills directly quotes Pat Bowden’s and Jane Mummery’s idea of agency:
“having the power and capacity to act as one chooses … she has to be able to couple her needs and desires
to possible actions and, more generally, see the possibility for action, as well as weighing up pros and cons
and eventually deciding on specific actions” (qtd. in Mills, 292). The debate Mills battles is whether or not
characters in the Harry Potter series make choices of their own agency or whether they act out of
addictions. An example Mills provides is the final battle between Harry and Voldemort. When Harry
demands of fellow Hogwarts students side with either him or Voldemort, the crowd of students is
irresponsive. The lack of response, Mills argues, demonstrates a lack of agency (294).4 For, with no
apparent barriers to acting upon Harry’s demand, Mills assumes a decision for these students should be
easily made and easily acted upon: side with and help Harry.5 Thus, what Harry cannot see, Mills implies,
is that his peers lack the same level of agency he now commands.
While Mills’ definition of agency does not include the duty to act she expects to see from Harry’s
peers, Cambell’s definition does contain that element. Working off Henry A. Giroux’s definition of agency,
“the ability to imagine the world differently and then to act differently” (qtd. in Campbell 282), Campbell
concludes that the characters of Harry Potter do, in fact, have agency. More specifically, Campbell argues
that J.K. Rowling’s postmodern characters are distinctive from modern characters due to Rowling’s
characters’ agency (282). Campbell argues that Harry and his friends deconstruct established adult and

4. Wischnewsky 4
children/young adult institutions in order to rebuild those institutions to a broader, and especially, more
equitable utility to society in general (283-84, 291-92). Harry and his friends, Campbell claims, are able to
do this via fair inquiry and pushing the boundaries adults have instituted. This hypothesis fits the Giroux
definition of agency neatly: Hogwarts remains a teaching institution despite the scandals that nearly destroy
the school in the final battle Mills deals with above. An entirely new, idependent institution, in Campbell’s
agency, is not required – and, in fact, is precluded from possibility.
Holmes’ idea of agency may seem paternalistic, but consider the phrase Holmes inserts: “he cannot
rid himself of his responsibility as a freeman.” Transcribed, a freeman acts as an agent of his own agency
and is, therefore, singularly liable for any consequences his actions cause. What, though, is Holmes’ overall
idea of agency? Holmes does not stop with, “the capacity to act and the option to act.” On its own, that part
of the definition makes the character an agent sans sovereignty. The ultimate responsibility for the action,
good or bad, is where agency lies. The combination, the capacity to act, the option to act, and the
responsibility for the action, good or bad, gives the character complete, self-autonomous agency. The Mills
definition does not stray far from Holmes’ idea but where it does vary, the variation is significant. At the
end of the day, Mills requires the young adult character to take action – even though her definition clearly
makes action an option. While Mills may be correct in asserting that Harry’s peers lack the same level of
agency he masters, the problem is that the audience simply does not know what Harry’s peers are weighing,
if anything (Rowling 610). Campbell’s usage of agency removes the option to participate: young adult
characters have an obligation to change society for the better. The option to act only occurs in the when to
act. Under the broader Holmes definition, Campbell’s characters actually lack agency because they lack the
sovereignty to not participate at all.
There is a sort of irony that exists within agency scholarship today. The individual character who
acquires agency gains, potentially, unlimited resources to affect the world to his liking. Simultaneously,
however, there is a twenty-first century concept of individualism that is conflicting within itself.
Uniqueness is worshipped. Yet there is a moral expectation by society upon the individual character to

5. Wischnewsky 5
make the world a more equitable space for all that world’s inhabitants. Agency is just one place where
these conflicting values crash head to head. It is no accident that the last twenty years has seen an increased
frequency in scholarship surrounding agency. The potentially unlimited nature of agency for the individual
overshadows the dual nature of agency that is inescapable.

6. Wischnewsky 6
End Notes
1 Readers todaymay not grasp Holmes’ use of the word “fiction.” Jacques Lacan, in unrelated studies, would later touch
upon what Holmes calls a “fiction,” recoining it as “das Ding” (Hook 855, 861). Directly from German, “the Thing” is,
essentially, an ideal which cannot be realized. Ideas do not physically exist but are, nonetheless, nouns. With the
establishment of the Modern Language Arts institution, todaywe can be confident in calling and “idea” a noun whereas
Holmes probably felt restricted from doing so.
2 In today’s vernacular we would identify the “master” as the principal/agency and the “servant” as the agent.
3 I do, here, take the liberty of appropriating a jurisprudence definition for literary purposes. Literary theory has no validity
if it cannot cross disciplines. Crossing from legal theory into literary theory should be especially valid in an era where
fictional realism is in high demand.
4 Mills’ interpretation of the scene is questionable. To begin with, where would Rowling have had difficulty in writing the
scene so that all of the Slytherin students, collectively, betrayed Harry? While the Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, and
Ravenclaws all face the Slytherins, “all of them looking toward Pansy instead [of Harry],” the passage does not clarify
exactlywhat the Slytherins are doing. Some could be equally facing Pansy. Nor does the removal of Slytherin house from
the scene necessitate a lack of agency among its members (which Mills does acknowledge). The move is clearly
precautionary. Although everyone is expected to leave, not everyone does, true (Rowling 610). But the Slytherins are in a
precarious situation: whether their individual agency desires to side with Harry or not, remaining behind to demonstrate that
loyaltywill certainly be seen as the exact opposite – desire to dethrone Harry. Mills is right: the Slytherins lack agency in
the scene, but it cannot be said that their lack of agency is due to the lack of desire that Mills concludes.
5 In fairness to Mills, she also questions polar options, writing, “there appears to be no third option, such as a conscientious
objection to fighting” (294).While Mills’ third option is possible, it is not plausible: nowhere in the Harry Potter series do
any of Harry’s peers (other students) ever display ideas or characteristics of conscientious objection to fighting. Thus, here
she seems to be rather casual in her dismissal of other options – the most glaring other option being the one argued in this
text: the existential option of desiring the negative outcome of Harry losing.

7. Wischnewsky 7
Works Cited
"agency, n." OED Online. Oxford: Oxford U.P., Sept. 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.
Arthur, Robert. The Three Investigators in the Secret of Skeleton Island. New York: Random House, 1985.
Chappell, Drew. “Sneaking Out After Dark: Resistance, Agency, and the Postmodern Child in JK
Rowling’s Harry Potter Series.” Children's Literature in Education, 39.4 2008: 291-301. Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer, 2014.Web. 5 Oct. 2014.
Haddon, Mark. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. N.Y.: Random House, 2005. Print.
Hook, Derek. “The Powers of Emptiness.” Theory & Psychology. 20.6. 2010. 855-70. Thousand Oaks,
CA.: Sage. Web. 15 Mar. 2014.
Holmes, Jr., O.W. “Agency.” Harvard Law Review, 4.8 1891: 345-364. N.Y.: JSTOR, 2014. Web. 5 Oct.
2014.
Hunt, Peter. “Children’s Literature.” Keywords for Children’s Literature, Eds. Philip Nel and Lissa Paul.
N.Y.: N.Y. U.P., 2011. 42. Print.
Mills, Alice. "Harry Potter: Agency or Addiction?." Children's Literature in Education, 41.4 2010: 291-
301. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 2014. Web. 5 Oct. 2014.
Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows. N.Y.: Scholastic, 2007. 610. Print.