Ripe Peaches and Peach Schnapps

Until now, I wondered why the young men don't pass around bruised bananas in Church lessons...

Hey John - What church did you go to? In my ward, there was bruised fruit all over the place...

The main food item I remember from my church experience was that awful white bread for the sacrament, all miserable, squished and broken--much like the members.

A late comment and not in keeping with the gastronomical tone – sorry. In fact, doubly sorry since I’m about to speak social science-ese. But I have a colleague (details available, I don’t mean to plagiarize) who, in the context of looking at changing trade union strategies in the face of globalization, has come up with a taxonomy of degrees of agency. The terminology is a little confusing but I can’t suggest anything better off the top of my head. He distinguishes between “agents,” “subjects,” “objects,” and “phantoms.” He suggests that every social institution or practice delineates who can have voice and what kinds of choices are considered legitimate and feasible. The effectiveness of “voice” runs a range of possibilities from silence to policy making (in a broad sense, not just limited to government). The range of “choice” runs from servitude to entitlement. For him, a democratic system is one that extends the ability to determine what things are to be done and how to all the stakeholders and extends entitlements equitably. An “agent” is someone with strong voice and whose choices are enabling, rather than constraining. “Subjects” are less autonomous: they still enjoy some autonomy and entitlements but agents determine the range they operate in. This is akin to the idea of being “subject to the law.” “Objects” are regulated or protected but have no standing to defend or promote their own interests. Some one must speak for them. Children might be an example of this, in legal terms. “Phantoms” are produced through social processes but have no voice or choice, nor anyone who speaks on their behalf. My colleague develops this taxonomy as a way to discuss the political strategies of unions: who they organize, who they pressure, who is excluded. The categories are a bit confusing because they do not address theoretical issues raised by “agency” or “subjectivity” in the sense that these might be qualities that inhere in or are denied to each of the categories. And as it was developed to think about people in their working lives in relation to the legal and political institutions that confront them, it doesn’t map exactly onto the experiences of girls in training you describe here (are they ‘phantoms’ or ‘objects’? or do they slip between the two? or are they ‘subjects’ in that they can ‘choose’ between bruised fruit or schnapps or good behavior?). I just mention this because I like the way my colleague tries to give some nuance to the ways power can operate. I’m excited to read your article and maybe try to develop this thought.