Dear Jay et al,
Nice exegesis Jay, thanks!
One minor question: is it really true that the use of "subject" as a
grammar term precedes its use in philosophy? How do we know that? I'd
imagine it the other way around.
The book "Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies" has a
passage that makes *some* of the similar distinctions Jay makes talking
about "subject" and "subjectivity" as necessarily drawing some strength
of meaning from varying proportions of adherence to three main concepts:
(1) Notion of a "political subject" - one who is subjected to law,
authority, etc., whose freedom is prescribed by the powers to which one
is subjected. (this raises the social and/or collective and/or dominated
context of "subject")
(2) Subject as in idealist philosophy, as in the individualistic seat of
consciousness. (this raises a traditional psychological notion of
"consciousness" perhaps)
(3) Subject as in grammar - the speaker/subject in a discourse - "that
which the action is about or determined by" (this raises the issue of
situatedness in "discourse")
The passage which runs for a couple of pages elaborates on each of these
and their individual inadequacies and contributions in varying
proportions, depending on your proclivities, to, I suppose a hybrid
sense of "subject" - what Jay might call its heteroglossic meaning?
Just another, related view.
In Peace,
K.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT