Hello and welcome to module 2 of this series
of video lectures on cultural studies.
We completed the first module, which we will
do a quick recap.
We recall that in module 1, which was essentially
an introduction to cultural studies, we devoted
two lectures to understanding cultural studies.
This entailed a definition of culture, of
cultural studies, this entailed looking at
the scope of cultural studies, this entailed
looking at kindled fields like sociology,
anthropology and how these are different from
cultural studies.
And we looked at the crux of cultural studies
as a, as a,a, a political practice, in the
sense that, one does cultural studies with
a view to forming policies that would bring
about change.
So, we did, we did two lectures on understanding
cultural studies and then we, following Chris
Barker, we argued that we cannot, that it
is not profitable or it is not wise to, to
leave out the contributions from science
And we looked at evolution and culture, we
looked at evolutionary psychology and we recall
the five principles of evolutionary psychology,
we looked at the origins of the modern mind
and we looked at an analogy between cultural
transmission and genetic transmission using
MEMs and comparing or rather, drawing analogy
from genes in the theory of memetics.
Then, we went on to look at three theoretical
schools of, theoretical schools of cultural
studies with the caveat, that there are other
schools, which will be dealing with, we shall
be dealing with when we look at other modules,
because, though for instance when you speak
of gender, that is when feminism would come
in as a theoretical school.
So, just to give you an example of how people
theorize regarding culture, we took up these
three: structuralism, marxism and poststructuralism.
So, we devoted 10 lectures in module 1 and
quickly to look at what we did in the last
lecture, that is on poststructuralism.
We looked at this branch of philosophy called
epistemology and we said that epistemology
is a theory of knowledge that looks into the
origin on sources, the limits or the boundaries
and the state of status of knowledge, and
we saw how this, you know, going back to epistemology
is a key strategy in poststructuralism.
We also looked at belief and knowledge and
we said that in cultural studies or you know,
not in cultural studies only in epistemology,
sorry, belief is seen, a knowledge is seen,
believe that has been justified.
So, belief by itself, you know, very generally
speaking does not qualify to be knowledge,
unless it is justified.
Then, we saw that unlike structuralism which
looks at meaning as differential and relational,
and yet, yet says that there can be stable
meaning.
What happens in poststructuralism is that
'meaning' owing to the very argument of structuralism
that meaning is in a differential and relational
poststructuralist hold, that meaning is on
account of this, meaning is endlessly deferred;
so, there is what we call the impossibility
of arriving at meaning in a final sort of
a way.
So, meaning, owing to the fact that it is
by reference to relations in a system, a meaning
will always carry traces of other words, in
the whole differential system.
So, we looked at certain terms from Jacques
Derrida, the French philosopher and these
terms are deferral, substitution and supplementation.
When transposed to cultural studies, we could
say following poststructuralism, that identity
is continually, you know, recreated, in the
sense that identity is not as stable as you
would have it in structuralism, but identity
is always a shifting and it is contingent.
So, there is a provisionality of identity
looked at from the poststructuralist point
of view instructs in cultural studies.
Then we looked at Foucault and the important
term discourse.
We found that discourse gives, you know, has
the power to name, discourse can create what
we call a subject and today's lecture will
be devoted solely to subject, subjectivity
or, and subject position.
So, we talk about subjectivity in as if, you
know, it is a topic of the first lecture in
module two; module two as you know is devoted
to key concepts.
Well, culture has maps of meaning, more seen
on the poststructuralism as achieving just
a temporary stability through discursive practices,
something that is not there once and for all,
and we looked at later, Foucault who gives
us, you know, a way around these problems.
So, on that we have caught, we are slaves
of these discourses and he says in his later
work, the self-construction, reflection and
reinvention are the very tools with which
we can recreate ourselves.
And then, finally we saw that meta-narratives
and the global regimes give place to micro-narratives
and local regimes.
Well, now we come to module 2 and as I have
said, we are going to look at certain key
concepts that go into, is important for us,
you know, to know these concepts, is important
for us to kind of lay, lay them there, it
is important for us to talk about key concepts
and to see how various practitioners, various
theorists, various scholars have looked at
these key concepts.
So, we find heterogeneity of a meaning and
definitions and it is important for us to
look into them.
Now, to begin with, what is a concept or what
are concepts?
Where we could say that concepts are ideas,
concepts are ideas and there is always a certain,
you know, abstract quality about concepts.
If a concept has to be applicable in different
situations, if there are certain kinds, it
cannot be concrete because a concept has to
lend itself, concept has to lend itself to
various situation.
So, a certain, as I said, a degree of abstractness
is something that a concept will always have.
So, concepts, I have seen, as ideas and abstractions
and finally they have seen as units of knowledge,
units of knowledge or of meaning.
So, units are in the sense that concepts become
the building blocks, building blocks of any
knowledge system.
In order to have knowledge, in order to be
able to say something intelligible and further
applicable to other things and situations,
we would need concepts as the basic units
of building blocks.
Therefore, let us look at, you know, a few
of the concepts that we shall be dealing with
in, one of course subjectivity, the other
is representation, we also look at ideology,
we look at power, we looked at power in poststructuralism
and in the first 2 lectures in the last module,
but we shall come back to it in a more detailed
sort of way and we look at identity.
There may be a couple of other, you know,
guys be the, couple of other, other concepts
that I might bring in this module.
Fine.
So, we know, we know that our topic, the topic
for today's lecture is subjectivity.
What is subjectivity?
Subjectivity is basically, the process or
define it as a process of being and becoming,
for any person.
Being in the sense, you are a person, but
the fact that you are a person is not just
a given for, or you know, once and for all.
Even if you look at yourself as a person who
arrives today, you know that person has, there
are certain processing.
So, here this word becomes important - becoming.
There are certain processes that have gone
into making you as a person.
So, for the time being, we define this, you
know, as a beginning move we define subjectivity
as the process of being and becoming a person.
We will look at this closely in the next few
slides.
Now, let us first take, you know, a quotation
which you are really so phenomenon in the
sense, that, you know, is such a, so phenomenal
in when it first came up, it was so striking.
This is from the French philosopher, Simone
de Beauvoir and her book - The Second Sex.
The Second Sex, obviously, talks about woman,
and in that book, this is one of the most
celebrated sentences in that book.
She says, one is not born, but rather becomes
a woman.
Look at this, this in a way sums up really
what subjectivity is; one is not born, but
rather becomes a woman.
You may think that really when a girl child
is born, she is a woman, so how does she become
a woman?
In this whole process of becoming, see this
is a process; in this whole process of becoming
and in her study of this process of becoming,
Simone de Beauvoir is telling us that there
are outside of a woman.
Now, this is in the case of feminism, but
it applies everywhere outside a woman.
There are certain social and cultural processes
that make a woman; so, biologically one may
be born with, you know, as a girl child, but
the processes....
So, woman is not simply a sexual identity,
it is a gender identity.
So, as a woman one has a certain subjectivity.
So, this subjectivity is not simply as we
saw earlier; look at, you know, not just a
question of being, but this is also a question
of becoming.
Hence, this one is not born, but rather, becomes
a woman.
These are two terms, well, we can also understand
subjectivity visa vie or well, in opposition
to objectivity.
You will, you will, will understand that objectivity
is usually given a lot of importance.
Objectivity is seen to be a virtue and subjectivity
is not seen to be a virtue.
Science for instance, science till recently
was seen as something objective in the sense,
that if you are a scientist you do not bring
your inner world, your inner feelings, your
inner experiences into the study of science,
but no.
Today, are specially after the uncertainty
principle, especially after in a work done
by so many philosophers like Bruno, Latour
for instance, you cannot say that you are
completely objective as a scientist.
So, subjectivity becomes today very important,
even when I said, even in the study of science
and you know, what goes on in the laboratory.
So, the observer in observing the phenomenon
brings, you know, a certain picture into it.
So, subjectivity, then as I said, even in
science and technology is a concept, key concept.
It has come into understanding and revising
or understanding of the scientific practices.
Well, I will quickly, would like to look at
this further, look at this and this is from
the encyclopedia of philosophy.
The terms, now let us read this, the terms
objectivity and subjectivity, in their modern
usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject,
that is, a person and the perceived or unperceived
object.
Let us look at a piece.
Objectivity and subjectivity is about perception
and who perceives a subject?
That is, normally you are talking about a
person, a human being here; there is a subject
that perceives and there is an object that
you perceive.
So, they, it is a division that you create,
I am watching or looking at or perceiving
something else.
It seems as if, I am completely removed from
that object.
So, the object is something that, see, look
at this term here, presumably the object,
presumably will only presume that it exists
independent of the subject's perception of
it.
In other words, the object would be there
as it is, even if no subject perceived it.
So, in philosophy points, we have this whole
debate about, is there a world out there?
Is there a reality out there, outside of our
perception?
There are so many, so many views on this,
so many opinions on this, so many theoretical;
there were the arguments about this.
Hence objectivity is typically associated
with idea such as reality, truth and reliability.
And we saw in our last lecture that this is
a problematic issue, in the sense that reality,
truth and reliability, as something been out
there, outside of us, is, is a very contentious
issue.
Poststructuralism, remember we will say that
it is, you know, these are a linguistic creations.
We perceive the world as a particular subject
through our discourses and discourses are
what?
Discourses are, in the ultimate sense these
are linguistic exercises.
So, the point in bringing here, this here,
it is genuinely assumed that there is an object
and there is a subject.
There is objectivity about the object which
is there even if you are not looking at it.
Derrida, then let us look at what Derrida
say.
Derrida says and he acknowledges the importance
of subjectivity and the subject.
Derrida says, the question of the subject
and the living, who is at the heart of the
most pressing concerns of modern societies.
So, the subject and the who, to who is watching,
who is reading, who is perceiving, this today
is at the heart of one, some of the most pressing
concerns of modern societies.
So, we know that this is rendered a problematic
issue, something which is the key concept,
but on, on, on this concept so many people
have thrown light on it and all continuing
to do so.
So when we, now, there are three terms that
I wanted to look at.
Now, when we look, when we say subject, when
we say moment is a subject, there are kindled
terms.
Some people say subject, a subject is a self,
some people say a subject is a human being
or human or human nature.
So, these are terms that are related -- human,
self and subject.
Now, it is important for to us to, to look
at the thing, you know, differences among
these terms.
For instance, when you say human and when
you say subject, what is happening?
The difference here is, when we say human,
we refer to universal; something unchanging
nature.
For instance, human nature, the moment you
say human nature, we are in, you know, effect.
We are saying that there is something called
human nature, which is applicable to all human
beings, something that is unchanging, something
that is universal, you know.
This is a kind of thing that you know, deep
structures from evolutionary studies would
tell you.
For instance the eight emotions that we have
and the strongest of them fear for instance,
is part of human nature.
There is no doubt that this sort of thing
needs to be acknowledged of course.
When we look at deep down, you look at the
deep structures, definitely, there is something
called human nature.
But a subject is not, what not understood
as human nature, there is a difference.
So, if human is universal, unchanging subject
is imminent and cultural; so, it is important
for us in the beginning to differentiate when
you begin to talk about subjectivity.
We are now going to talk about humanness or
human nature in the universal.
The next difference, again as I said, is between
self and subject.
Many people would think that subjectivity
and selfhood are interchangeable adhesive;
to say that they are not exactly inter, you
know, the replaceable with, by each other.
When we talk about self, it is held by many
that self involves a certain interiority.
It is, it is about, about, about the interior,
your interior, not exactly in the sense of
intimate feelings, experiences, it is a inner
world; so to speak, is the inner world.
But when we say subject, we have to understand
that yes, it is about our inner world, but
the onus of the focus is on culture to be
specific, it would be like this.
The onus is on how does culture shape acts
as subjects, which in turn gives us an interior
world.
So, there are these very certain differences
between human and subject, self and subject.
So, we are not in the beginning, these are
different concepts; you see, self is a concept,
human, human nature is a concept and subjectivity
is a concept.
It is important for us to train ourselves
to make these certain divisions or distinctions
among various concepts.
Well, I am again quoting from Chris Barker
and this is again to do with self versus subject,
while subjectivity, you look at this, while
subjectivity says, is the social and cultural
accomplishment, our individuality, now this
is another, the fourth concept we come across.
So, for other concepts - one is subject, one
is human, of human nature, one is self and
finally a fourth one, individuality.
So, subjectivity is a social and cultural
accomplishment curve and individuality is
understood in terms of the specific ways,
in which the resources of the self are arranged.
Each of us is culturally constructed; we have
subject, but we arrange them in certain ways
and that is why, even though the cultural
situations are the same, none of us is the
same.
All of our inner worlds or inner feelings,
experiences, etcetera are the result of arrangements.
How the resources of the self are arranged?
and it is so beautifully put here by Barker
- that is, while, please look at the slide,
that is, while we are all subject to the impress
of history, the particular form that we take
and the specific arrangements of discursive
elements are unique to each individual, for
we have all had singular pattern, singular
in the sense they are of unique, singular
patterns of biochemistry, family relations,
friends work and access to discursive resources.
So, remember, subjectivity then is not as
Foucault have said, remember later Foucault.
Subjectivity is not something that is impressed
on to you once and for all or it is not a
one-way traffic.
We also arrange our resources according to,
look at this final term here, according to
the discursive resources that you have with
you.
Another shade of meaning of subject, if you
look at subject not as a noun, you look at
subject as a verb, in the sense of, it would
mean to be subjected to, mean to be subjected
to, in the sense of the way you see, you talk
about in feudalism.
You talk about say, Bessel's as and the, and
the kings in the situation of monarchy, we
are the subjects and there is a king who is
ruling us; the king rules over his subject,
in that sense, to be placed under.
As a work, subjectivity entails to be placed
under something; so, to be placed under in
ourselves, some cultural studies.
Now, all shall we looked at discourse, you
have looked at, you have looked at, you know,
you have looked at meaning, so it will be
easy for you to understand this.
So, we are placed under certain regimes of
discourse, do you understand?
So, we are subjected to discourse.
Another quotation here from Nick Mansfield,
you can look up this very interesting book
- Theories of the Self from Freud to Haraway,
is talking about how different theorists,
psychologists and where people from various
fields, have looked at the idea of, of, of,
of self.
Mansfield says, the word subject, therefore,
proposes that the self is not a separate and
isolated entity, but one that operates at
the intersection, look at the words that I
have given in bold and in red, operates at
the intersection of general truths and shared
principles; look at the two words - general
truths and shared principles.
It means simply that these come from our social
arrangements and from our culture.
So subject is not an isolated entity, you
may have an inner world, but you have to understand
where that inner world is coming from, is
not solipsistic, is not an isolated, separate
being, separate from social processes.
So, subject is save that comes about through
the operation of general truths and shared
principles from our socio-cultural arrangements.
Now, Barker therefore, as I said we are going
to look at various ways of looking at subject
from different persons, from different scholars;
so, in this case Barker here.
Barker looks at subjectivity are in three
dimensions - one is subjectivity is a condition
of being a person, subjectivity refers to
the processes that go into the construction
of the person and Barker also includes the
self-part of it, he says, subjectivity is
not just the condition or the state of being
of a person, subjectivity is not just the
processes.
Subjectivity is also the very experience of
being a person that inner world that we are
talking about, but the inner world not as
isolated, the inner world in, in connection
to culture.
So, subjectivity is the condition of being
a person, it is the processes that go in to
the making of the person, the construction
of the person and it is the very experience
of being a particular person.
So, again we bring in Foucault here and let
us look at these six points from Foucault.
a, Foucault says there are no universal subjectivities,
there cannot be a subjectivity that is common
to all of us in the in, in, in all senses
of the term, there can be many universal subjectivities.
All our subjectivities differ and remember
why?
Because we also contribute in the arrangement
of the resources of the self, as we saw, while
ago.
Second, subjectivity is an effect of discourse.
Remember, we saw in our last lecture, we looked
at the term discourse and we said that discourses
are regulated ways of speaking about something
and we, if you recall, we took the example
of man.
When we say, when we say man, there are various
discourses that try to define man, so to speak,
to pull man into their own discursive field
and to pin man down, down with their own terminologies.
For instance, religion is one discourse that
would define man in a way very different from
some other resource, sorry, some other, other
discourse, for instance, psychology or psychiatry,
economics for instance, politics for instance.
So, all of these, so to speak how is take
really in defining and delineating the boundaries
of what any entity is.
So, subjectivity therefore is an effect of
discourse.
So, if you have subjectivity as a religious
person, your subjectivity that is your experience
and your constructedness as a religious person,
is an effect of the discourse of religion.
Do you follow?
Now, that has made you, in another sense,
it has subjected you to the discourse of religion.
Now, if you are an atheist so person who does
not believe in God, in the existence of God,
your position, your condition and your, using
your experiences as an atheist are determined
by the discourse of atheism, so to speak,
in that sense subjected in the narrow sense.
In this case, this is the one-way traffic,
you are to be completely subjected, but we
also know that there is another aspect to
it.
Is that the discursive practices or the discourses
that we have, that you know of, did of course
do go into the making of your subjectivity,
but remember we also arrange in, in the manner
of later Foucault; we also arrange our subjectivities
according to the resources that we have and
I would, that is why, I would think, that
is good to inhabit as many discourses as you
can, so that you do not fall prey to any one
discourse.
Coming back to the slide, the subject therefore,
may be defined as discursive formation subject,
one; subjectivity is an effect of discourse
and it is a formation by discourse, and hence,
it is a discursive formation.
So, this next point, we already taken up;
discourse also subjects people to its rules,
so they remember what is a discourse?
Discourse is a rule bound linguistic activity,
in the sense, that there are, it is a regulated,
we are speaking, remember?
So, there are certain rules, you cannot go
outside of those rules.
So, if you are subject to its rules, then
the subjectivity of people is a result of
operating within those rules.
Next, it gives us subject positions, so you
look at this while later.
Discourse subjects us, creates us, constructs
us, gives us certain experiences and it gives
us subject positions or perspectives through
which we make sense of this world.
Therefore, subjectivity is historically and
culturally constructed.
Barker then comments, we have just seen what
Foucault says about discourse and subjectivity.
And let us look at, to read a Barker's comments
on Foucault.
Barker says, Foucault attacks what he calls
the great myth of the interior.
Now, the interior, remember the self, the
interiority.
Foucault says that it is a great myth; it
is a myth to think that you have an interior
that is isolated, that is separate from any
other thing, that is sort of sacrosanct to
yourself on which nobody has access, or on
which, to, for the formation of which nobody
has, has contributed.
So, Foucault attacks what he calls the great
myth of the interior, arguing that the subject
is a historically specific production of discourse;
not just you are produced by a certain discourse,
that discourse also has the imprint of history
important to us.
At which point in the historic, you know,
the moment in history has, and or the, what
is the conditions of that discourse in that
moment of history?
For instance, religion.
Religion is a discourse which has changed
from time to time; religion, their are people
who have brought in reforms in religion, well,
the main precepts may be the same or rather,
they may believe in a God, in a supernatural
being with the same.
What we know for instance, the Bhakti movement
in Hinduism, the Bhakti movement brought in
another aspect, the Arya Samaj movement for
instance, brought in another way of looking.
So, at any historical movement then the discourses
historically specified.
So, let us read it again, Foucault attacks
what he calls the great myth of the interior,
arguing that the subject is a historically
specific production of discourse with no transcendental
continuity.
There is no transcendental in the sense of,
something that is sort of, in all time, something
that is extra to historical and temporal and
spatial considerations.
There is, there is no transcendental continuity
from one subject position to another.
Then to speak Barker here again, to speak
is to take up a pre-existent subject position
and to be subjected to the regulatory power
of that discourse; this is Barker commenting
on Foucault, as we know.
In this conception, the speaking subject is
not be authored and this is very important.
When you speak you think that you are the
author, when you write, you, when somebody
writes, you recognize him or her as an author.
Foucault says, not so; the speaking subject
is not the author or originator of a statement.
Look at, this is a very important point, the
speaking subject - the one who speaks, is
actually not the author of his thoughts, not
the author of his sentence, or nor it is the
originator of the statement.
You say a statement using the where it is
my statement, I have authored it, I have said
something, that Foucault would say no, and
say, I as a subject feel something and I am
saying something.
He says no, you are not even, not only I am
not the author of what you are saying, you
are also not the originator of anything that
you say, why?
Because it depends on the prior existence
of discursive positions.
Discourse has already given you the words,
the terms, the sentences, the feelings, name
it; so, whatever statement you are seeing,
however new it may sound to you, is dependent,
as he says, on the prior existence of discourse.
You cannot speak outside of discourse even
if you bring two discourses together; you
are still speaking from the pre-existing structures
of discourse.
Now, these subject positions can be filled
by virtually any individual, when he formulates
the statement.
So, where is the concept of agency here in
a, in a strict sort of way, if you look at
the point been made here.
Any person can say what you are saying, any
person, you know, that these subject positions,
this position rocking from a certain position,
this position need not be you.
It could be filled by any person that virtually
any, any, any individual when he formulates
the statement.
So, the famous, you know, the famous say,
argument that discourse is everything in this
you know, way; it does make a lot of sense,
so you speak, from pre-existing discourses
and so you are not very, the author of what
you are saying.
And in, now, let us look at this, and in so
far, as one and the same individual may occupy
in turn the same series of statements, different
positions, and assume the role of different
subjectivities.
You, there is also you know, if you are, if
you inhabit different discourses, you can
speak from this different discourses; in that
case, you will have different subject positions.
According to postmodernism, this could be
a very libratory condition that you can hob
from one discourse to another and not be stuck
here.
Remember, it is because you are seen as somebody
who is subjected to a discourse.
So, there are times then, you should know,
according to this theory, you should be able
to occupy in order to release yourself from
discourses.
In short, as Barker says, in short, the process
by which we are constituted as subjects.
In this one, in which we are subject to social
processes that bring us into being as subjects
for ourselves and others, others are, are,
are watching us as we make certain statements
from certain discourses.
That is the way they are judging us and you
are doing the same for the other.
So, we are subject to social processes that
bring us into being; see, processes is the
state of becoming, which gives you the being
as subjects for ourselves and others.
Now, I would like to point to quotation from
Black Skin, White Masks and you have heard
of Frantz Fanon who, look at this, this quotation
from Black skin, White Masks, dirty nigger
or simply look a negro, Fanon says, I came
into this world anxious to uncover the meaning
of things, my soul desirous to be at the origin
of the world, and here I am an object among
other objects.
So, just before this, if you look at this
quotation here, look at this - that bring
us into being a subject for ourselves and
others.
The other who is looking at you, judging you,
for him or her you are the object, the person
is watching you, you are, is judging you;
you are subject of study for that person and
this process of being both, a subject and
an object is so beautifully put by Frantz
Fanon.
And this is the dilemma of anyone in an oppressive
situation, now be he or she a dalit person,
be he or she a woman in certain circumstances
or be he or she a black person or a Hispanic
in North America, for instance; so, you then
always a feeling for the Hispanics for, you
know, let us not name anyone in a situation
of operation.
That person following Fanon, that person,
look at this, is anxious to uncover the meaning
of things, that person has a subjectivity
of his or her own, his or her soul of spirit
is desirous once to be in the origin of world,
once to make meaning and then he says, well,
when somebody calls me a dirty nigger or a
negro, I understand that I have become an
object for the other person.
The subjectivity of that person is canceled
out in the sense that the person, now begins
to think that my subjectivity is something
that is been made by another person, you know,
what we call the gaze of the other, you know;
the other, the white man is now telling me
who I am.
Whereas, I have an inner world, I have a subjectivity
which you know an interiority, so to speak
you know, world my soul interiority, but also
wishes to be at the origin of meaning, at
the origin of the world; so I am being made
an object by somebody.
We then look at Judith's another, you know,
another very, very similar theories as far
as gender studies is concerned, and gender
trouble being one of her, you know, one of
the most celebrated works.
Now, Judith Butler tells this, if there is
something right in Beauvoir's claim, women,
Simone de Beauvoir and her book The Second
Sex published in 1949 I think, so Butler says,
if there is something right in Beauvoir's
claim that one is not born, but rather becomes
a woman, it follows that woman itself is a
term in process, why?
Remember, if you go back to the earlier slides,
we had one slide in which we said that subjectivity
is, you know, being a subject is a process,
it is a cultural process.
So, she says that if Beauvoir's claim is correct
that we become a woman, we are not simply
born a woman with all our behavioral, behavioral
patterns established from the day we are born.
She says that it follows, it logically follows
that woman itself as a concept, here as a
term, the term woman itself is a term in process,
it is not given once and for all.
What it means to be a woman is something that
is still, still in process.
It, the meaning of which to use the evident
term will defer, the meaning is deferred and
it is, it defers from, are this, things in
the system; the meaning of woman as a concept
is defer.
Follow that, woman itself is a term in process,
a becoming, not a being, and in sense given
once and for all, a becoming, a constructing
that cannot rightfully be said to originate
or to end.
Well, it is, as a process there is no originatory,
originally, sorry, movement of woman, of womanhood,
there is no end as a process; it is a process
without a beginning and an end.
Why without a beginning?
It must be, do not, simply, do not know and
why without an end?
Because it is a process that is always and
will always change.
Let us read it again, if there is something
right in Beauvoir's claim that one is not
born, but rather becomes a woman; it follows
that woman itself is a term in process, a
becoming, a constructing that cannot rightfully
be said to originate or to end.
As an ongoing discursive practice, this is
very important, it is open, the term woman
is open to intervention and resignification;
we have highlighted these terms.
If it is a process, then we can intervene.
If somebody tells you this is what a woman
is, it is not a process of becoming, it is
one of being something, that is a given, this
is what a woman is or this is what the woman
should be, we can recall it is a woman, is
a discursive you know, it is a discourse,
it is a discursive practice, just put into
practice; we can intervene, we can sort of
and we can intervene and we can say that well
this is not woman, woman is much more than
this or woman is very different than this.
Moment I say woman, I am sure you are not
going to think about the woman truck driver;
are you going to think about the woman truck
driver?
You are not going to think about, so you have
to intervene and next you have to resignify.
So, as an ongoing discursive practice that
category woman is open to intervention from
our side and it is open to re-signification,
it is in a signification process, no.
We have to, because it is a process, re-inscribe
woman, we have to make it, you have to resignify
the whole processes, it may be other signifying
or processes of signification.
So, I think this is a very, very similar,
very, very important contribution from Judith
Butler.
There are so many other points on Butler,
but this, the intervention and resignification
possible, when we looked at woman and woman
subjectivity as a process, that is you know,
open to re-signification and intervention.
Therefore, these are the terms.
Now, which will come in, in our understanding
of subjectivity, one is agency.
You think of ourselves as subjects, now let
us, you know, look at the just a sentence
from a grammatical point of view.
You know that a subject, a sentence can be
in a very elementary way divided into what
- two parts, a subject and the predicate.
A subject, the predicate part of a sentence
is what is said about the subject, for if
we say Rahul threw the ball; when we say Rahul
threw the ball, then Rahul is a subject who
is performing an action, that is, verb - to
throw and the object is a ball.
So there is certain agency, a certain doingness,
the subject as a doer.
So, you feel that as a subject I have agency,
as a subject I have, hear, free will.
The point here is, it is not so simple as
it looks, it is not just a grammatical sentence
we are talking about.
Our, how free are we again?
An essential question from philosophy, how
free are given I, to do things?
And how far are, are things determined?
So, as a subject, our free will and our agency
and I have complete free will and complete
agency, is an illusion.
So, also we would argue from cultural studies
that complete determination, complete determination
from social-cultural processes also is an
illusion.
Remember Karl Marx, what did Marx say?
Marx said that the relationship between the
base and the superstructure, your relationships
between the social, your consciousness and
your, you know, which comes in to social processes,
economy processes and your action, these are
you know there is a certain, certain you know,
there is a certain agency to it.
The point is, remember in a lecture Marxism,
we found that history has already given us,
so it is determined in the sense that there
is a impress of history, but there is if you,
there is a will in us.
So, even in cultural studies, it is understood
as a play between determination on the one
hand, an agency and will on the other.
So, our subjectivity is a result of determinate
forces, and at the same time, at the same
time there is you know, we have the freedom
to make arrangements, arrange are resources.
Therefore, Barker says in making sense of
cultural studies, that this constitution of
the subject as conceived by cultural studies
is cultural studies, thinks of the subject
as a discursive construction, proposes that
we are cultural and political agents.
And what is required is the capacity for switching
these, between these languages as appropriate
and according to our purposes.
This gives us the freedom from complete determinacy.
Therefore, the three disciplinary discourses
are now coming quickly back to Foucault, which
work through power, which is generative on
productive of subjectivity are, a, the sciences
which constitute the subject as an object
of inquiry; the technologies of the self,
whereby human eye turn ourselves into subjects
and the dividing practices, which separate
the mad from the sane, the criminal from the
law-abiding citizen, and friends from enemies.
Now, this I will take up in detail since we
do not have time here in detail, in my lecture
on power and we should talk about this generation
of subjectivity and these three disciplinary
discourses.
Therefore, quickly ending this lecture here,
subject position means this - at discourse
creates the subject and subjects the subject
to discourse, and the reader or the agent
occupies a position from which the world makes
sense through the specific discourse; therefore,
the subject position is a function of discourse.
So, orientation, placing, obligation and foregrounding,
these are, you know, certain terms which you
can replace subject position with; rather,
subject position may be seen as orientation,
placing, obligation and foregrounding.
Now, quickly I would like to skip a few points
which may need not be in this lecture, I will
take it up elsewhere, one is you go to the
discussion.
And we look at how, the first question, how
is subjectivity seen in relation to personhood?
Subjectivity is seen as both, the process,
you know, process, and an essence as being
and to becoming; and you say, becoming is
more highlighted here.
How could we differentiate between concepts
of self and subject?
Self refers for certain interiority and subject
is cultural.
How does Chris Barker define subjectivity
as the condition?
It is a process and it is an experience of
being a person.
Then we looked at Foucault's understanding
of subjectivity as an effect of discourse
and a discursive function, and discourse also
subjects us and subjectivity is historically
and culturally constructive.
So, the three disciplinary discourses which
I said I will take up later quickly sciences,
technologies of the self and the dividing
practices and finally Judith Butler, how,
what does Judith Butler, what does she has
to say about subjectivity?
When you take up women subjectivity, she says
that one following Beauvoir becomes a woman
and therefore, woman is a term in process.
And finally, the good news is we can intervene
and we can resignify what woman means.
So, we, today, we are looked at subjectivity
as a key concept and there will be other concepts
that we shall be looking at; of course, these
are not the only things and we cannot really
pack subjectivity into one lecture.
But my hope is that I have been able to, you
know, make differentiation between subject
and human, and you know, save from the one
end and also to be able to show you, how cultural
studies argues the subjectivity?
Experiencing a person is neither a given and
nor it is something stagnant.
There, you can also recreate or reinvent yourself,
and if you can manage your subjectivity by
managing the resources of the self and kind
of put your own individual unique stamp on
it.
So, thank you very much.
The next lecture we will be doing would be
something coming from subjectivity, something
related to it and that would be identity.
Thank you so much.
