Mmm. I wouldn't use "subjectivism" in a way quite symmetrical with
"objectivism." I still reserve "subjectivism" for the way it was used in
"Party talk," meaning talking things personally, or simply from one's own
point of view, not a theoretical standpoint at all. Nevertheless, there are
of course all sorts of ways people can over-emphasise or overestimate the
role of the individual, the will, the subject, etc., in history or
consciousness.
Andy
At 11:48 AM 31/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>Thank you for all these definitions, Andy. I have been finding your
>responses helpful. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss and
>compare these complex terms; ego, self, identity, cogito, psyche,
>spirit, consciousness, mind, agent, personage, habitus, hexis, etc.
>
>Before we let this thread dissolve, may I ask you yet another
>question, touching off from an interesting point you just made about
>objectivism. You state, pardon my paraphrasing, that the objectivist
>underestimates the roles that human self-awareness and self- determination
>play in human activities.
>
>I have been wanting to ask you about the other side of that issue.
>How do you describe subjectivism?
>
>- Steve
>
>
>On Jan 30, 2008, at 6:14 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>
>>I only know the concept form Bourdieu though I knew it dates back to
>>Mauss (and Aristotle actually). Whether the 1st definition is
>>correct in going so far as hexis "anchoring" habitus or it's just "a
>>part" of habitus is not important to me. I think it is arguable that
>>habitus is anchored in the body. It has always been something of a
>>natural wonder to me that within 2 seconds of a person walking into
>>the room, we usually know most of what we need to know about where
>>they are "coming from." (Mistakes in this respect are of course all
>>about habitus as well. I mean habitus is about the practice of
>>classification not objective truth.)
>>
>>Bourdieu is mostly regarded as an extreme "objectivist", that is,
>>someone who estimates as low as possible the capacity of the
>>individual person to be critically aware of themself as occupying a
>>particular social position and act accordingly. But I find that he
>>gives us concepts which facilitate a rational approach to
>>subjectivity, because "habitus" gives one an objective standard
>>against which to measure the degree of self-determination that an
>>individual exercises.
>>
>>Andy
>>At 05:21 AM 30/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Thanks, Andy. The definition of "habitus" in the Dictionary of
>>>Anthropology has an interesting sentence: "Habitus may be understood
>>>as a variant of culture that is anchored in the body."
>>>
>>>http://www.anthrobase.com/Dic/eng/index.html
>>>"Concept from Bourdieu (with roots going back to Mauss and beyond),
>>>denoting the totality of learned, bodily skills, habits, style, taste
>>>etc. Habitus may be understood as a variant of culture that is
>>>anchored in the body. "Hexis" is that part of habitus, where
>>>communication between people takes place through fine-grained body-
>>>language: tiny movements, micro-mimicking etc. Researchers like Hall
>>>have, from a completely different point of view, done work on similar
>>>problems."
>>>
>>>How do the meanings you assign compare?
>>>
>>>- Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>On Jan 29, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul Dillon may like to chime in on this one. Paul is far better
>>>>read on Bourdieu than I am and disagrees somewhat with how I see
>>>>habitus. I think the definition of habitus is a "social space" of
>>>>shared, unspoken dispositions or "classifications" (what is good/
>>>>bad, what we/they do, what is to be valued/decried, what is manly/
>>>>feminine, etc.) what mark out and constitute a class-fraction.
>>>>Although the word "habitus" is just the Latinisation of the Greek
>>>>"hexis", rightly or wrongly until I am educated accordingly, I use
>>>>"hexis" as in the phrase "bodily hexis" for the embodiment of those
>>>>dispositions in an individual. I guess the difference is slight.
>>>>I tend to associate "habitus" with Hegel's Subjective Spirit, in
>>>>contrast to Objective SPirit. I think any individual does have the
>>>>possibility to actively appropriate or challenge their habitus and
>>>>innovate it through their interactions with those around them, in a
>>>>way which I distinguish from the larger society occupied by law,
>>>>political parties, legal institutions, science and so on, which
>>>>constitute "objective spirit" though the two of course mutually
>>>>constitute one another.
>>>>Andy
>>>>At 09:43 AM 29/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>>Yes, it certainly is a huge and muddy territory. Thank you for
>>>>>your
>>>>>thoughts on these terms, Andy. I found your response very helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>>Part of what I am looking for, by thinking and asking about terms
>>>>>like
>>>>>ego and self and the others you touch on, is a vocabulary with
>>>>>which
>>>>>to describe a person's subjectivity in terms of their specific
>>>>>class
>>>>>and cultural experience. "Habitus" is one term that comes to mind.
>>>>>What does that particular term mean to you, and what terms do you
>>>>>suggest for endeavoring to create that kind of description?
>>>>>
>>>>>- Steve
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Jan 29, 2008, at 1:30 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Isn't this a huge and indescribably muddy territory, Steve? It
>>>>>>would
>>>>>>be interesting to hear the range of views we have on xmca about
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>usage of these terms. Can I just give you a one-liner on each
>>>>>>perhaps and let's see where it goes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"SUBJECT" as you mention I have tracked in
>>>>>>http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/the-subject.htm but the most
>>>>>>common relevant usage today is that dating from
>>>>>>Kant,
>>>>>>in which the subject is "nothing real", but that which is the
>>>>>>subject of all the predicates attributable to a person; it is both
>>>>>>that which knows and that which wills - being a nothing it is not
>>>>>>possible to differentiate between the two I think. Hegel rejected
>>>>>>this idea of the subject as a "nothing" behind cultural-historical
>>>>>>determination (though he also occasionally uses it just to confuse
>>>>>>things) and his notion is the origin of the idea of "collective
>>>>>>subject" when one talks of parties and classes as agents, but I
>>>>>>will
>>>>>>not try to go into it here. Hegel's subject is a kind of "node" in
>>>>>>social consciousness, cutting completely across the idea of
>>>>>>society
>>>>>>as a sum of individuals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"EGO" I believe is the Latin word for "I" and in German
>>>>>>philosophy,
>>>>>>e.g., Fichte, the word was "Ich" but translated into English using
>>>>>>the Latin word instead to make it sound better, I suppose. For
>>>>>>Fichte and Hegel the Ego was "pure activity." The Young Hegelians
>>>>>>developed the idea of the Ego as SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS a lot and I
>>>>>>think it became associated with extreme libertarianism. Freud then
>>>>>>so far as I know gave it the most dominant contemporary meaning
>>>>>>as a
>>>>>>certain neurological formation which is understood within
>>>>>>psychoanalysis:- EGO, ID and SUPER-EGO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"SELF" is surely the most neutral and vague of all these words
>>>>>>as it
>>>>>>can be applied to any process. Since it always plays the role of
>>>>>>an
>>>>>>OBJECT in a construction in which the Subject or Ego acts, it
>>>>>>can be
>>>>>>likened to Mead's ME, in his construction of the SELF as I/ME?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"IDENTITY" seems to have two shades of meaning and is highly
>>>>>>contested. For postmodern theorists, deconstructionists and so
>>>>>>on, I
>>>>>>think "Identity" is like an Althusserian subject position, it is
>>>>>>something imposed upon an actor from outside (a slot into which
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>are inserted), by "society" or the action of the structure, and in
>>>>>>general these people understand it in terms of binary, abstract
>>>>>>categories: woman, gay, working class, etc., etc. On the other
>>>>>>hand,
>>>>>>even this interpretation does not seem to me to close off the idea
>>>>>>that an identity or "subject position" is voluntarily adopted by
>>>>>>an
>>>>>>actor, even if only under determinate social conditions. The other
>>>>>>shade of meaning is what people sometimes call identity as a
>>>>>>"verb",
>>>>>>especially that process whereby a self-consciousness identifies
>>>>>>itself as an actor continuously throughout a lifetime as "the
>>>>>>same"
>>>>>>actor. This same idea applies well to "extended" concepts of
>>>>>>Mind as
>>>>>>well, e.g., the idea of the nation (or state, or class) as being
>>>>>>an
>>>>>>actor in history over an extended period of time, and an
>>>>>>individual
>>>>>>"identifying" herself with that extended Identity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"PSYCHE" I have tried to retain as a word for "CONSCIOUSNESS"
>>>>>>limited to the INDIVIDUAL moment of consciousness. Like Kant's
>>>>>>SUBJECT, the Psyche is not anything real, it is just a concept in
>>>>>>its individuality. One could say it is a "STATE OF MIND" if it
>>>>>>were
>>>>>>conceivable to talk of the "MIND" as something which has a certain
>>>>>>"state" or even had "contents" as in the ideas which are in our
>>>>>>mind, or psyche. (I would not accept any of these approaches as
>>>>>>scientific or consistent.) Nevertheless, "EXTENDED MIND"
>>>>>>notwithstanding it is inescapable that there is something
>>>>>>individual
>>>>>>and private about consciousness, and that I call PSYCHE. It is
>>>>>>not a
>>>>>>"brain state" though, do not misunderstand me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As to "SOUL", while it is quite possible to use the word in a
>>>>>>poetic
>>>>>>way, to me "Soul" connotes something separable from the body,
>>>>>>but of
>>>>>>course many have used the concept in a non-religious way. For
>>>>>>Hegel,
>>>>>>"soul" meant the feeling self, "awareness" what a human beings has
>>>>>>before or underneath any conception or communicative relation.
>>>>>>There
>>>>>>is also "SPIRIT", which I insist on continuing to use, as in
>>>>>>Zeitgeist (Spirit of the Times) or "Spiritual" meaning needs over
>>>>>>and above material needs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I use "COGITO" to designate a knowing consciousness, the implied
>>>>>>subject in "I know" as an aspect of Mind which is not necessarily
>>>>>>human, but is essential to humanness - the "subject" of Kant's
>>>>>>epistemology, suitably extended for Hegel and Marx.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is likewise "AGENT" which for Althusser is a mere carrier of
>>>>>>something, as in "The mosquito is the agent for the spread of
>>>>>>malaria" but I take it to be in the sense of moral responsibility
>>>>>>for an action, as when one signs a form on behalf of an invalid as
>>>>>>their "agent", acting on their behalf. Acting of a natural process
>>>>>>has to be distinguished from action by a subject who has moral
>>>>>>responsibility. So "the market" is a process without a subject and
>>>>>>cannot bear moral responsibility, but one could argue that capital
>>>>>>always has a personification and therefore the capitalist class
>>>>>>bears moral responsibility, insofar as there is a corporate
>>>>>>consciousness acting for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Marx uses the term "PERSONAGE" in "The 18th Brumaire" to indicate
>>>>>>the players on the stage of history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What do other people think are the key concepts here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At 12:36 AM 29/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>>>>Andy, (and anyone else interested) if I may take advantage of the
>>>>>>>momentary lull in xmca messages (or is my email
>>>>>>>malfunctioning?) ...
>>>>>>>and see if you would be willing to weigh in with some more of
>>>>>>>your
>>>>>>>interesting perspectives on human subjectivity. You have studied
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>colorful history of the term "subject" - I looked at an article
>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>wrote on this that you had mentioned a while back. Lots to learn
>>>>>>>there (perhaps you could summarize that study?). I am
>>>>>>>particularly
>>>>>>>interested in your thoughts on some of the other words often used
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>refer to individual selfhood and significant aspects thereof.
>>>>>>>I am
>>>>>>>thinking in particular about the words "ego" and "self." You
>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>adopted the term "identity," a term I would also like to
>>>>>>>understand
>>>>>>>better. Other terms also might be worthwhile taking a look at,
>>>>>>>such
>>>>>>>as "psyche" and "soul." And of course, there are other such
>>>>>>>words
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>terms - not to mention, of course, the many variations of these
>>>>>>>concepts in other languages. From the Hegelian-Marxian-CHAT
>>>>>>>perspective that you are developing, perhaps using the tripartite
>>>>>>>criteria you introduced in your paper, how might these words and
>>>>>>>their
>>>>>>>evolving meanings be better understood?
>>>>>>>Best,
>>>>>>>- Steve
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380
>>>>>>9435,
>>>>>>mobile 0409 358 651
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>>>>mobile 0409 358 651
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>xmca mailing list
>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>>mobile 0409 358 651
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>xmca mailing list
>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Thu Jan 31 15:01 PST 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 13 2008 - 12:33:27 PST