Agency can be approached from the human case (anthropogenically) or coming from life
in general, with organisms like bacteria in mind (biogenically). Each perspective is biased:
the former approach tends to set the bar for agency very high, while the latter invites very
liberal attributions of agency. Such a polarisation is epistemically flawed. As a rectification,
this paper calls for a hermeneutical back-and-forth between opposite approaches to agency –
reducing excessive restrictiveness or pe…
Read moreAgency can be approached from the human case (anthropogenically) or coming from life
in general, with organisms like bacteria in mind (biogenically). Each perspective is biased:
the former approach tends to set the bar for agency very high, while the latter invites very
liberal attributions of agency. Such a polarisation is epistemically flawed. As a rectification,
this paper calls for a hermeneutical back-and-forth between opposite approaches to agency –
reducing excessive restrictiveness or permissiveness and combining the unique explanatory
strengths of both approaches. Five common research tasks are used to illustrate the merits of
such flexibility and the risks of rigidly clinging to any single approach. After questioning the
dichotomy between the two approaches to agency, the findings are summed up.
