Bandura and Human Agency
I created this critical commentary for my graduate theories of human development class at the University of Rochester. The professor asked us to read "Toward a Psychology of Human Agency" by Albert Bandura (2006), which examines the importance of human agency. My critical commentary is below.
Bandura and Human Agency
Bandura in “Toward a Psychology of Human Agency” (2006) introduces Social Cognitive Theory, which places human agentic behavior at the center of psychology as it interplays to co-create interdependent interdisciplinary contexts.
“To be an agent is to influence intentionally one’s functioning and life circumstances.”
Bandura posits that psychology is not reductionist, it is a discipline bridging multiple other fields, including biology and sociology and has unique emergent qualities that can only be studied through the lens of psychology itself.
“Rather, human functioning is a product of a reciprocal interplay of intrapersonal, behavioral, and environmental determinants (Bandura, 1986).”
Bandura views humans as a generalist species, always changing, with technology amplifying the significance of our agentic abilities. For Bandura, this is why we need “personal efficacy”, and he cites examples in modern education, healthcare, politics and the workplace where an individual today must exhibit agency.
I liked the comprehensive nature of Bandura’s theory, integrating many aspects of the human condition, from agency, morality, individuality, collectiveness and diverse disciplines from not just psychology, but biology, physics, neurology, sociology, philosophy and politics. I like his idea of each field having emergent characteristics that must be studied separately, not reduced into a grand unifying theory.
To critique Bandura’s style, I felt his paper was not succinct enough and suffered from verbosity, circumlocution and an overabundance of jargon. His core ideas are not complicated and I wished for less complicated language to convey them. I offer three further critiques of Bandura’s ideas below:
Overemphasis on Agency - Bandura puts human agency and one’s ability to affect one’s own environment as central to the philosophy. Bandura’s theory risks valuing individuals by their societal impacts or agentic ability, potentially overlooking those who are content with their circumstances. Further, those who are unable to display agency due to limiting psychological, biological or social constraints, may be seen as inferior for lacking an ability to change. I see this as an incomplete way of looking at things.
Underrepresentation of the Unconscious - Bandura’s emphasis on conscious deliberate activity neglects the role of the unconscious. When I think back to split brain patients, who are shown an image in to the left eye (which connects to the right brain hemisphere), patients could not recall the image consciously, yet when asked to draw what they saw with their left hand they often could, much to the surprise of their conscious brain, draw exactly what they saw. We receive information all the time, and only a small portion of it is synthesized by cross brain communication across the corpus callosum to reach full consciousness. The rest of it is still in our brain unconsciously. The unconscious can be a powerful way to guide our behavior in the world. Bandura, does not sufficiently account for one following intuition or the unconscious, he considers unconscious human qualities as lesser, I see this as a flaw. “Without deliberative and reflective conscious activity, humans are simply mindless automatons.”
Practicality of Universal Agency - Advocating universal agency raises concerns about individuals' capacity for critical, informed decision-making. How do individuals decide what changes should be made? Motivating individuals to adopt agentic behavior, without giving them the tools to think critically may create legions of dogmatists and idealogues. In my opinion the wisdom to know what to do in life is more valuable than one’s agentic ability to carry out actions. Gaining this wisdom seems to me to be hard earned and a lifetime’s work. A better role, than being an agent, I believe, is to find a wise person and a community who truly loves you and follow their guidance, give up your agency to them, until maybe later in life after decades of learning, you are able to humbly truly take on effective agency of your own, at which time, find people you can personally invest in and help return the love to your community.
