Milgram’s agentic state reads as dichotomous yet also holds a social constructionist account.

Evidence

The first time I read this, I was startled and appalled by what I took to be the odd and pseudoscientific/pseudophysiological concept of the agentic state, by the notion of the “trigger” that switches an individual between normal and agentic functioning, and by the dichotomous and all-or-nothing character of being in one state or another. And I continue to be. On rereading Milgram’s work, however, I also see that he gives an inherently more social and less dichotomous account of the agentic state. Milgram wrote: From a subjective standpoint, a person is in a state of agency when he defines himself in a social situation in a manner that renders him open to regulation by a person of higher status. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3934