Integrating the concept of historical agency into my courses has been a challenge. The graduate school readings I relied on a decade ago are certainly not a magic ticket. Still, teaching agency remains one of the most effective ways to push back against students’ tendency to view history as inevitable or predetermined. History is full of people making choices, and every choice matters. It’s not about who can or can’t shape history, but about how much each choice matters and under what conditions.
I had a breakthrough a few weeks ago, sparked by a webinar series I am participating in through the National History Day organization. The series is led by Dr. Christopher Hamner of George Mason University, who framed agency as part of a triad of second-level historical thinking skills, alongside perspective and hindsight. I was drawn to this framing because it felt like a fresh way to think about historical reasoning beyond the usual categories of causation, contextualization, and so on.
He defined agency as “the ability to make consequential decisions that affect historical events” while adding that “agency is an argument about power, relationships, and the reason things happen.” It is intimately connected to causation among other skills. When taught in the abstract students have a tendency to disconnect or struggle to see the significance of the agency. At the same time, there are numerous ways that students apply concepts of agency within their own lives.
Dr. Hamner used a sports analogy to build a conceptual bridge. After a major sporting event, fans often discuss who did something to contribute and deserves credit, or who failed to act or made a mistake and deserves blame. The ideas of credit and blame can help students recognize that they already understand the complexities of agency. Some players carry more credit or blame because they have more opportunities than others to impact the game. Politics provides countless examples of this dynamic, though those can be riskier for teachers to explore in the current climate. I have been thinking about additional analogies I can use with my own students.
Video games can provide another conceptual bridge. In a game like Minecraft (warning: I have never played it), a player can build, explore, or fight, but always within the rules of the system. These rules create a structure that is both real and limiting, yet still offers meaningful choices. A medieval peasant did not lack agency any more than a player in a game; they simply had fewer tools, higher risks, and a more restrictive structure within which to act. Their choices may not have had the same impact as those of a knight or noble, but the analogy highlights a different dimension of how agency operates.
Although this is not the direction Dr. Hamner took, this line of thinking connected to an activity I have used before to teach causation. With a few adjustments, it actually teaches concepts of agency. In this activity, students draw a triangle with each corner labeled Individual, Groups, and Conditions or Social Forces. They are given a series of events or developments and place each one somewhere on the triangle based on where they think it best fits. Was the event driven more by individual agency, group agency, or structural forces? There are no strictly right or wrong answers. The activity opens up discussion about how and why things happen, and the connections to agency are powerful. The slides below are from a workshop I am giving in a couple weeks.
In the webinar, Dr. Hamner used a number of think alouds to illustrate what he was talking about. The image below is from an advertisement placed in the Virginia Gazette on September 14, 1769, by Thomas Jefferson. Agency is not only about recognizing that Jefferson had the ability to own slaves and chose to place this ad in an effort to recover one, but also about recognizing the agency of the enslaved person who attempted to escape. This was a decision made not only for personal freedom but also as an act of resistance against the oppressive structures that constrained him. Examining different levels of agency helps unpack the roles of individuals, groups, and broader historical conditions. I wanted to bring this kind of primary source insight into my classroom.
In AP European History I had my opportunity with a lesson on French Absolutism. As much as I love simply talking through sources and concepts, that approach can be challenging even with the strongest students. Often, a few simple scaffolds or structures can help achieve the depth of analysis I’m looking for. In this case, I created a chart for note-taking built around four guiding questions that students used alongside primary sources. Nothing fancy.
- What is happening here?
- Who is trying to make it happen?
- Who is trying to prevent it?
- Why are events playing out in a particular way?
The more challenging task was selecting the right primary sources for the activity. The lesson focused on Absolutism in France, so I chose two sources related to Cardinal Richelieu and his service as Chief Minister to Louis XIII, along with two documents on Louis XIV. While these are not especially unique sources, the pairing worked well for the lesson’s goals. The documents and lesson resources are linked at the end of the post.
When analyzing primary sources, I want students to look “behind the curtain,” so to speak, and question what is really going on. Behind Document 1 lies a power struggle that Richelieu is winning. Document 2 provides further evidence of the Cardinal’s success in centralizing authority within Louis XIII’s administration while laying the groundwork for French absolutism. Students were able to discuss the debates, struggles, and power dynamics implied through the document’s word choice and tone. These were deliberate choices made by Richelieu, offering a window into both his power and the limits of his agency. The questions sparked some strong discussion.
Document 3 is a source from Louis XIV himself, written in 1661 about the state of France as he began his reign. It was paired with an excerpt from the Comte de Saint-Simon, who described Louis decades later in 1695. Together, these documents offer a view of a king in development. Discussing agency helps students recognize that behind Document 3 is a ruler who has not yet become the Sun King of “l’état, c’est moi” fame. There is struggle, a need to justify, and perhaps some self-doubt or concern. By the time we reach Document 4, that vulnerability is gone. Students see Louis XIV in all his glory. Saint-Simon is sometimes critical, but it is clear that Louis stands apart as a ruler unlike any other in Europe. Once again, the discussion led to strong insights about both agency and historical empathy. Students recognized that the Louis of 1661 was not inevitably destined to become the Louis of 1695. A series of choices and outcomes shaped what we now see as the “inevitable” rise of French absolutism. My hope is that these insights empower their ability to make arguments about causation as well as analyze primary sources.
This lesson went well enough that I plan to return to this simple activity and continue developing how I intentionally teach historical agency. I also plan to integrate the related concepts of perspective and hindsight alongside it. If you try any of this in class, I’d love to know how it works!