"Thou art that"

Subjectivism is “a theory...that stresses the subjective elements in experience.” – Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

Interestingly (I tend to dislike him), I found Freud’s account delightful yet disturbing. He obviously took a great deal of joy in observing his grandson. Yet, there is something creepy about turning one’s own grandson into a subject for analysis. But, it does provide a simple basis for the discussions to follow. From Freud we receive an account of how a child may realize its individuality and reenact this painful discovery in such a way that it gives him or her pleasure. I took great pleasure myself in Freud’s account of the practice of art as a way of turning something painful into something pleasurable.

Like many of the readings that we have had so far, I found that some of these regarding subjectivity rang true to me, while others were almost impossible to follow. Additionally, the readings seem to follow some sort of an evolution. Subjectivity has elements of semiology and ideology within it. For example, Althusser argued that “all ideology hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects, by the functioning of the category of the subject,” in his discussion regarding ideology. I was reminded of this in Fanon’s discussion when he says that he realized he was being called on for “more” than to “construct a physiological self, to balance space, to localize sensations.” The construction of a physiological self, etc. seemed to me to be correlative with Lacan’s end of the mirror stage and the “inauguration” of the link of the I to “socially elaborated situations.” In semiotic terms the subject is the signified.

I found Kristeva’s essay to be almost completely undecipherable. However, I think she was talking about the way that semiotics works differently within certain social constructions. I suppose the way that this might relate to subjectivity is that the “signifying process” is a part of the defining of a subject and also a part of the way that the subject defines its place in society. (???)

It was difficult not to relate Foucault’s discussion about the system of the panoptic mechanism to what is happening with surveillance in the United States today. Within our system as it stands now, the panoptic system can be related to the internet and surveillance on email records and blogs. The central power can see us as it wishes yet we have no idea where or when it may be looking at us. Additionally, metaphorical walls separate us from one another. We may view some things, but others are blocked from out view or as Foucault writes, “The modern age poses the opposite problem: ‘To procure for a small number, or even for a single individual, the instantaneous view of a great multitude.’”

Foucault’s next discussion is about sexuality in the nineteenth century and how it became described in scientific terms. Here he describes the way that each “subject” could be defined according to his or her “confessions” of sexual behavior to another and how the interpretation of that behavior was based on that other person – not on the individual themselves. Thus, there was a hailing of who one was in a scientifically sexual manner.
Finally, Barthes discusses the subject in relation to what is not there or what is skipped over quickly in order to get to the conclusion. But, the pleasure of the conclusion is dependent upon what is not there or what is implied. This essay reminded me of Egon Schiele’s work in two senses. One in Barthe’s reference to the erotic as well as the pleasure gotten by what is not there. Schiele’s erotic success is based on what is visually implied. We are not given direct visual access parts of the body that we want to see – like the end of the novel – yet we know that they are there, and it is that knowledge that gives the pleasure. I am hoping that it works when I attach these two images by Schiele. If not, perhaps I will bring them in.