The linguistic turn continued to be felt in other areas of the profession besides intellectual history. Feminist, Marxist, labor, and postcolonial (particularly Subaltern Studies) historians have also considered the implications of narrative theory and literary analysis for their fields of study.25 In these fields, the question of agency (the intentionality and actuality of historical actors' individual and collective actions) and a desire to let suppressed and repressed historical voices enter into mainstream historical knowledge has fostered an interest in the nature of historical experience. As a historian of gender relations, Joan W. Scott writes, “we need to attend to the historical processes that, through discourse, position subjects and produce their experiences. It is not individuals who have experience, but subjects who are constituted through experience.” Contrary to the Pocock-Skinner schools of thought, context does not constitute causality. Any apparent homogeneity of cultural context, social structure and linguistic convention is trumped by the actual differences that characterize individuals and their inter-relationships. Scott advocates “changing the focus and the philosophy of our history, from one bent on ‘naturalizing’ experience through a belief in the unmediated relationship between words and things, to one that takes all categories of analysis as contextual, contested, and contingent.”26 The situational elements of power, desire, individuality and collective action are also historically contingent. Discourse analysis allows historians to see how the complexities of multiple layers of social interaction are expressed through language, silence, cooperation and contestation.