The Subjectivity of Self
(from The Theory Toolbox, “Subjectvity”
Meaning is made, not discovered.
Subjectivity is not the opposite of objectivity (“there are no facts, only interpretations”)
Wherever we see a “fact,” an interpretation has already taken place.
In traditional Western thought, the “self” is viewed as that which is primary, untouched by cultural influences. We tend to think that our selfhood is the essence of our unique individuality; the intrinsic, singular qualities that define who we are. These intrinsic qualities preserve our unique individuality without regard to external factors. This insistence on selfhood is culturally pervasive and popular.
The subject is the opposite—anything but unique. The subject is defined by its place among various social positions. To be a subject means that one’s personhood is defined not by intrinsic or internal qualities but by external factors.
The “self” is generally viewed as an inwardly generated phenomenon, a personhood based on particular qualities that make us who we are. The self is the strangely intangible core (the soul?) that we take for the cause of our lives and our actions.
The “subject” is an outwardly generated concept, an effect, an understanding of personhood based on the social laws or codes to which we are made to answer. We recognize ourselves as subjects when demands are made on us.
“The “subject” is always understood in reference to preexisting social conditions or categories (gender, race, class, ethnicity. We do not choose our categories.
We tend to understand the “self” as always in the driver’s seat, whereas the “subject” is the passenger. The self is causing things to happen, whereas the subject is responding to things that happen. Yet the driver is already a passenger.
The fact that the driver feels like she is in control is a cultural response that’s been learned. Ultimately, the driver is like the passenger—always responding to things that are already there.
If we track the driver’s imaginary history, we will see that she’s been a “subject” much more often in her life than she’s been a “self”: subject to her family, her economic status, her ethnic background, her nationality, her education, her employers, the cultural expectations of her race and gender, event he language of her native country. All of these things preexist and outlast her, and her life is determined by the ways she responds to these social conditions., which she has little or no voice in determining.
Eminem, Dennis Rodman, and Rush Limbaugh? They’re supposedly unique “selves,” and if you buy their books or cds, imitate their actions, and follow their lead, you can learn to be unique too.
The self, our supposed driver, is already and always will be a “subject,” a passenger. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a completely unconstrained “self,” somehow free from its social contexts.
The meaning of a subject/ self (identity) always exists within a specific cultural context; the things that make us who we are are found in the context of where we live, where we’re from, and where we’re headed.
Our subjectivity (our inner self) is socially constructed, not mystically or naturally found.
There is no meaning or self that exists temporally before the law; meanings and selves are only articulated in terms of certain laws—linguistic, social, economic, cultural, scientific, etc.
Race is a culturally constructed phenomenon. The seemingly neutral or scientific categories like race are not in fact natural but are rather constructed along political and ideological lines.
Subjects or selves are constructed by being subject to certain social categories or definitions: race, class, gender, ethnicity, etc.
Identity is socially constructed.
The tricky thing that “subjectivity” adds to the vocabulary of the “self” is that the interpreter is herself also one of the cultural signs within the process of making meaning. The subject makes meanings, but the subject is also acted upon by meanings. An absolutely “free” interpreter—a wholly unconstrained self—simply doesn’t exist.
Identity is a product of culture, and thus inexorably dependent on social and cultural categories.
Who you are is dependent on the recognition of your identity by others. Our various identities (the various roles we perform) can only come into being with a recognition from others.
All meaning, and all identity, can only come into being through a process of social negotiation, which involves the recognition of others.
We are social animals, and one of the things we want from each other is recognition.
To be subjected to culture is a process known as interpellation. The individual is constructed or interpellated as a subject by the various institutions of contemporary life.
Our identities only take shape in response to already given codes.
Every time we recognize ourselves—every time we say, “yeah, that’s me—we confront not the freedom and uniqueness of our individual selfhood but rather the cultural codes of our subjectivity.
We cannot escape social categories, particularly labels. We can always quarrel with specific labels fairly or unfairly imposed in specific contexts, but the very act of labeling cannot be renounced. It is impossible to deny the act of labeling (the process of making meaning by using and revising existing cultural categories).
There is no “escape” to some place of perfect freedom where we are untouched by culture. In fact, the dream of such a place is one of the most