These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
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