The Subject of Subjectivity

A new subject this week-Subjectivity. To get myself grounded, I checked my dictionary and found subjectivity defined as “existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject” (Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1996). So began my journey into the topic of subjectivity. The introduction laid out the notion that subjectivity is in opposition to the humanist belief that the “human individual is conceived as a unified centre of control from which meaning emanates.” Subjectivity goes against the Descartes’ dictum “I think, therefore I am.” The readings show how factors such as history, society, and culture contribute to our individual identity. This is contrary to the humanist belief that “identity and being are mutually dependent factors of individual existence” (73).

Freud’s entry is interesting as he details our earliest thought process as chronicled through observations of his grandson. On the basis of one short reading, it’s hard for me to agree with Freud’s theory that we are seeking to master our loss but it’s clear that a young age we begin the thought process for whatever reason (I’d like to know how many other children he studied or if he based his theory on observations of his grandson alone). External factors contribute to what we think. I have the advantage of making similar observations through videos of my young nephew. He knows when he’s a good boy, a silly boy, or into something he shouldn’t be simply by the tone of my sister-in-law’s voice. This leads into Lacan’s discussion about the mirror stage. As evidenced by my sister-in-law and nephew, the inflection or tone of language affects our thought process and how we identify ourselves. When my sister-in-law says “You’re a silly boy” my nephew shakes his head and makes a face to show agreement or confirmation.

As Fanon demonstrates, we are not something until it is pointed out to us. We are not boy, girl, white, black until we are called those things. Something that went through my mind while reading these selections is the line from South Pacific about how “you must be carefully taught” to be prejudice. We do not notice or are concerned with our differences until others call them to our attention which for most of us happens at a very young age.

Institutional factors that influence our being is interesting. While reading Foucault’s description of “plague” control enforced in cities, I couldn’t help but wonder about the current administration and how they must wish they could enforce similar controls on us.

After this week's readings its hard to believe that our thinking and thought process is not influenced by our surroundings. It seems that the only way to keep with the humanist notion that we are the sole author of our thoughts we would have to be live in a vacuum, completely isolated from anything else.

I'll talk about my thoughts in class!

Subjectivity

Subjectivity is something that has been around us from the monument that we were born and according to these theorists is something that is always going to be around us. In the introduction the line that caught my eye human beings we are the authors of all we think and speak…we shape the world around us (73).

Freud helped me understand the meaning of this by creating the world of the Conscious and the Unconscious. The fact that he used an infant (his grandson for that matter) is interesting because when I last played with my nephew I hid his favorite toy. He did not like to loose this object however, I also noticed that he overcame this loss and moved on. As for the social subjects I though it was strange that we master the feeling of loss according to Freud.

The Lacan article confused me A LOT… I did understand that the three stages but it seemed to that just ran into one another. The three stages range from infant to the age of one maybe one and half we babies began to speak. According to him that is when we become an actual object? I understand that he created the theories of subjectivity however he did not make it very clear like Fanon did.

The article is more about the subject of race and how one his viewed by one color. He is saying that it is easier for one to be within his or her own race or as I like to think of like-minded people. I do not think of this as a race issue but of a thinking issue.

There are so many things that can be subjected to subjectivity that it does not stop or even began with one thing, person, or place. It is all around us and will forever be around us. As long as we think we will be here (I think therefore I am)

The "I" and the "I"

It appears that subjectivity is the relationsihp people have between the consciousness of the exterioir versus the unconsciousness of the interior. By consciousness, it is referred to in the readings as history, society, and cultures affect on human nature. By unconsciousness, we recognize that once we become social beings, we go into the dream state in search of what we have lost in order to attempr to get back to the unconscious state as a reality to the exterior world. In the contemporary work of Michael Foucalt, he attempts to determine the causes of subjectivity within social and historical discouse in order to try to understand the way humans are subjected in the exterior world.

Freud analyzes a child's game from the transition from passivity of the mother's leaving to the activity of the game of throwing his toys out of sight. As a result, Freud's observations bring to light the appearance and disappearance of the mother to be correspondingly the pleasure of the child's activity manifested unconsciously into conscious pleasure...I think:)?? Lacans of the "Mirror State" to show us the I of the imago and the I of the inner arena. Fanon informs us of the conflicts of try to live as a man among men in constant battle with being subjected to the Other, as well as Object, as a black man. Michael Foucalt makes us aware of how the system of surveillance segments societies into subjective categories based on the ruling classes decision on binary division and branding. Because of this subjective categorization, recognition and characterization is branded upon the I of an individual's conscious outward reality.

I was most interested in Roland Barthes The Pleasure of Text excerpt because of the way he subjects reading a book to take on a variety of meanings dependent upon how the subject reads a text; by reads I mean the selection of text and gap of text to bring out the subjective interpretation of text. By thinking about how each subject finds pleasurable subjection of a text, he poses the Nietzschean question: "What is it for me?" The way one reads a text is the way one reads a painting, sculpture, photograph, installation, film, etc. We take pieces to give a conscious subjective representation of what the art means to us.

Looking forward to class tomorrow.

"Somtimes I feel like somebody's watching me. . ."

Freud suggests that when trauma occurs people become subjection's of themselves. Trauma occurs in reality, and although people may try to block it out, it is then relived through the subconscious, making the individual subject to itself. I thought that the the example/study Freud uses of "children's play" was really helpful in illustrating this point. In the example, Freud studies the actions and habits of his grandson. The reoccurring "traumatic" event in his young grandson's everyday life is when his mother leaves to go out. He does not cry. Instead, he makes an attempt to gain control over the temporary loss of his mother on a subconscious level. Freud calls this "fantasy control". He writes that, "Identity both arises and is constituted on the grounds of loss. This is a loss, moreover, that can never be overcome except in and through the fantasy of mastery." (79) So, like the child playing his game of throwing toys about and then "finding" them again, he takes control of his loss (mother leaving) through the "fantasy control" offered by his own game. This need to gain control and make sense of his mother leaving is through the subconscious.

The painting above is called Retreat Syndrome, 2002, by Camille Rose Garcia. She did this particular painting and others like it after 9/11. Garcia focuses on the fear propaganda and conspiracy theories that were dished out to America through the media by the government. People felt the need to escape from reality and into their own fantasies. Garcia uses the example that people began taking more medication to calm anxieties. She takes the title Retreat Syndrome from a short story by Philip K. Dick. The character in the story undergoes a traumatic event, and compensates by constructing a fantasy world in his mind. He eventually realizes the fantasy is not true, and is faced with the reality he was running away from. I thought this was a good example of Freud's "fantasy control" and how it pertains to society today.

I also thought Frantz Fanon's excerpt from "Black Skin/White Masks" was interesting in terms of being subjected by ones own body through society. Fanon begins writing about the things he wants to accomplish and do in life, but then becomes aware of the blackness of his body. He loses his "self" and now sees his "self as a body." With this constant physical awareness of his body, he begins to try other ways to "whiten" himself or to make his ideas consistent with mainstream society since his body is not. Fanon terms this process "denegrification." Why? Is the need to become a part of society that strong that we constantly feel the need to prove ourselves so we're not shunned? Do we constantly walk around wondering if other people "know"or "notice"? At what point do we sign ourselves over? Are we given a choice? Is the choice fabricated? Do we have to be a part of society? Why do we want to?

Foucault writes about both the quarantine of the plague victims at the end of the 17th century and its need to form an ordered utopic society, as well as Bentham and his creation of the Panopticon. Bentham writes that "power should be visible and unverifiable." His Panopticon stays true to this point. Inmate's cells were organized around a tall central guard tower. The cells had windows so that each inmate could clearly see the guard tower (a sign of power and authority), although they could never actually see if there was anyone in the tower at any given point watching them. The inmates assume subjection simply based on the visibility of power and of the continuous thought or chance of someone watching them. Foucault writes, "He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraits of power; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection." (99) The prison society has conditioned their way of thinking and doing by making power central and visible. If the inmates were to make the choice to do something wrong, they know there is a chance that they are being watched. That awareness is constantly on their mind because they can see it and are thus reminded of the consequences of their actions before they do them. This reminds me of our own society and the constant surveillance of citizens allowed by the Patriot Act. Someone is always watching.

Foucault also suggests that in a regulated, disciplined society, everyone has their own place within to aid the overall functioning. People are subjected to rules and laws by jobs, at home, and of course, by the government. We ultimately subject ourselves to the rules of society, but what choice do we really have if we want to live within; if we want to be a part of the "group"? Do we then subject ourselves by choice? Foucault suggests that the individual is made within the society, that they are not lost. But does this mean that our individualism is fabricated by society? Are we made to think that we are truly individual, but in reality, just subjects within society?

"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.

We're All Subjected to being Subjects....

I would first like to begin with my perception of the readings on subjectivity and my understandings in a more narrowed simplistic version. The concept of subjectivity and what the authors, I’m presuming, are trying to analysis is where the beginning of the subject begins to be the subject, in Freud and Lancans case. That upon the birth of ourselves we are simply human nature in what we do, our actions, movements and it is interrupted with the concepts of history, society and culture constructing us with this individual identities that we seem to poses as we grow (Intro). Freud supports the theory of dualism of consciousness and unconsciousness, deducing that from infantry are minds are constantly processing what we experience and each individual has their variations in dealing. The boy may choose to deal with loss and abandonment by enacting his own game where he is the controller, rather than his mother whom he is acting upon this game in an act of revenge. What I’m curious is if Freud viewed this behavior as a bad sign, only later to deal with issues of suppressing his feelings? Or is this is the process that one must go through to find ones identity?
Lancans theory of ‘The mirror stage’ I found very interesting. What I comprehend is that we begin to identify ourselves and name ourselves with ‘I’ when we see the double image or imago and we can logically put ourselves in that image. This is the beginning of the ego, we then like in semiotics and according to Fanon; we compare and make relations to others. In his case he will forever more be a black man but he must be black in relation to the white man. We are constantly comparing our own identity to others, even when we’re not directly aware of it and through social teachings we recognize signs and symbols in people and we make distinct prejudging and characterizations before the truth is told. We are under constant surveillance (Foucault). Not only from our government, but also from the others that surround us. We have been taught to fear the ‘other’ from the beginning by isolating ourselves and creating this identity, there will always be the one that is not you. Foucault also enforces the idea that discipline brings the play of power. People are damasked, bodies together no longer respect for the individual space, all-abandoning the identity in which they were recognized for. There is the constant division between the normal and the abnormal, every individual is being subjected, he is referencing the plague, yet I get the feeling that in some way this is everyday life. Scary…

The Pain and Pleasure of Subjectivity

What has helped me to try and make sense of this week’s readings is to take as a starting point the Cartesian/humanist model “I think therefore I am” which implies a human being as a unified center, with agency, from which meaning emanates. (73).
Each reading that follows shows how far we have come from this human-centered Enlightenment view.

Freud introduces the individual whose identity is split between the conscious and the unconscious. Unacceptable drives and impulses are repressed and relegated to the unconscious. From infancy we move from “being” into “meaning” and take our place as functioning members within society. This constitutes a loss that we try to recover through substitution and games of mastery such as the fort/da (there/gone) game described in the reading. Of course, a return to wholeness is never completely possible so we end up with a divided self, built around a lack, an emptiness, a loss.

Lacan reiterates this. As I understand it, he defines the individual in negative terms. He says we should start with the misrecognition that characterizes the ego in all its stages (85). He describes this process of the formation of the subject in stages:
1. An infant sees no boundaries between the self and others, (a blissful state).
2. Between 6-18 months the “trotte bebe” discovers his image in the mirror and misrecognizes this image as himself. There is a split between the “I” as experienced, an out of control and fragmented baby’s body, and the illusion of the “I” as reflected in the mirror, one of wholeness and competency.
3. In the final stage of entry into the world of language and regulation which is identified with the father, the child becomes a subject with a place in a symbolic order. According to Saussure, language doesn’t just name things in the world but creates reality through a system based on differences. The child begins to recognize who “I” am through a discourse of difference between “I” and “not I.” What can be seen as objectionable about Lacan, which perhaps is not obvious from this excerpt, is his phallocentrism, and his emphasis on separation from the mother as the absence around which the self is constituted.

I found Fanon’s description of the annihilation of the self under bombardment from colonial constructs of the black “other” to be totally heartbreaking and true to life. But he rejects the objectification and fragmentation of self that the colonial system demands. I see this as an affirmation, a demand for and identification with something positive, and a denial of the lack at the core of being that stands at the center of both Freudian and Lacanian models of self.

Kristeva takes the Freudian concept of the split self and applies it to semiotics coming up with semianalysis. Within language which is an ongoing process, there exist simultaneously the laws which govern its operation and the elements that threaten to disrupt it. If I understand this correctly, the phenotext is language that obeys the rules of communication, a system we can understand through our experience as both a speaker addressing a subject and as the subject being addressed. The genotext is made up of those drives that are not reducible to language and that threaten to disrupt the system (similar to Freud’s unconscious). The two exist in opposition and the interaction between them makes meaning possible. So Kristeva is looking at how things come to have meaning through language, what resists or undermines this process, and the places within the system where transformation can occur. In her theory as I understand it, both language and the human subject constituted within it are split, unstable and are open to change.

Foucault gives us historical accounts of the formation of the ideal government created to counteract the plague, and the architectural model of the panopticon that ensures the success of a system based on surveillance. He also describes how a discourse of sexuality was constructed combining the religious act of confession and scientific inquiry resulting in the augmentation of ars erotica with scientia sexualis. Although he shows how institutional power structures create situations in which people subject (subjugate?) themselves without physical confrontation, I think these pieces could also have been included in the previous chapter on Ideology.

Barthes’ wonderful riff on the pleasures of the text seems a fitting way to end. It provides an alternative and certainly more upbeat theme for our chapter. From Freud’s attempt to reconcile traumatic neuroses with his concept of the pleasure principle, Lacan’s quote that “psychoanalysis may accompany the patient to the ecstatic limit of ‘Thou art that’ “(86), Kristeva’s implied pleasure in identifying those elements that disrupt a governing system and make transformation possible, Fanon’s possibility of a positive alternative to a colonially imposed identity as “other,” and Foucault’s description of a different kind of pleasure relating to sex: ”the specific pleasure of the true discourse on pleasure” (106), plaisir/jouissance is a (sometimes thin) thread that weaves its way through the readings.

P.S. thank you for your help in getting this on the blog!