Jan. 31, 2000

One significant issue for me in this section is that of subjectivity, and I have come to understand this term in a few ways in the course of the reading. Each definition of "subjectivity" is not entirely discrete; the boundaries between them are messy and permeable, and one reading follows from the next.

First, I understand "subjectivity" rather like Heidegger's notion of "being-the-world": that the subject is concerned with her everyday existential relationship to the world around her, and develops dynamically in conjunction with her surroundings (rather than being conceived of as an ontological "thing" who is placed "inside" a world); this model of subjectivity has an "own-ness" to it which is unique to each individual (leaving aside, in this case, the question of "authenticity"). In this sense of the word, everyone is a subject because everyone has an existence. De Beauvoir works, to some degree, with this kind of existential concept of subjectivity, though she argues that women are not granted the same level of existential subject-ness as men despite the equal facticity of their actual existence. This reading of "subjectivity" is also present in some of the readings which deal with identity construction, since one constructs an identity to "perform" or "be" in the context of one's relationship to the world.

Second, I understand "subjectivity" as agency, or a kind of active translation of the world. In this sense, everyone again becomes a subject in that everyone mediates the world around them and makes choices from the options available to them. Humans are subject to, processors of, and creators of history and external circumstances. Again, there is no ontological self, but rather a mediating/processing/translating self who shapes and is shaped by internal and external circumstances. In this sense of "subjectivity", although humans have differing degrees of power and choice, they are not undifferentiated automatons but heterogeneous and contradictory beings whose relationship to the world is never fixed. Many theorists have fallen into the trap of assigning "object" status to the groups and people whom they study. For example, in Material Girls, Walters outlines the problems that occurred in the development of cultural theory when studies were conducted as if people were passive recipients of culture. Mohanty, in "Under Western Eyes", critiques the practice of Western feminist writing on the so-called "Third World", arguing that theorists denied a diverse and heterogenous group of women their subjectivity by constructing them as ahistorical objects of political and social processes. Braidotti's notion of "embodied subjectivity" is useful to consider here, for she develops a model of processing the world based on one's physical experiences as well as one's political consciousness. Thus mediation occurs on several levels.

Third, I understand "subjectivity" in the sense of one's conception of oneself as "coming to voice", or becoming a speaking self. Used in this way, "subjectivity" refers to an active process whereby an entity is empowered or enabled to engage publicly (and in large part, discursively) in social space; beings move from being unspeaking or voiceless (these two are different) objects to speaking subjects. If we understand "Self" as "subject" and "Other" as "object", then it can be argued that de Beauvoir also takes up this kind of "subjectivity" a bit in her model. Among the early works on the list, Woolf is the best example of the use of this kind of "subjectivity". Other readings, such as Women Writing Culture, are similarly concerned with issues of language, speaking, and so forth. "Subjectivity", in this sense, is often granted through access to resources and power.

Fourth, which develops from the third reading, I understand "subjectivity" not just as "coming to voice", but as an active self-definition as a speaking political subject. The work of Hill Collins, for example, is instructive in this regard in that she examines the process of developing an active "oppositional consciousness". I find the work of the feminists of colour on this list to be particularly instructive in this regard, because the ones I have selected all deal with questions of producing and living an active political subjectivity in the context of operating from a variety of conflicting perspectives: as academics who are granted institutional discursive power; as members of marginalized groups, etc. I find these works to be useful largely because "coming to voice" is not considered sufficient, and that they emphasize some kind of ongoing struggle over subjectivity. In addition, works such as The Feminist Standpoint Revisited engage actively with this reading of "subjectivity". This is not to say that other works do not deal with issues of active subjectivity, but that not all make this process explicit. Leaving aside questions of individual psychological motivation, I think one can make an attempt at reading each work as evidence of some conception of the author's sense of herself (conscious or otherwise) as a speaking political subject.

Although the works on the list are relatively diverse in theoretical scope, I find that to some degree the question of subjectivity, as understood in various ways, informs all of them. The act of writing involves some degree of active engagement with the world and with ideas and practices that are contemporary to the author. In one sense, I am concerned with the practice of making theory. What questions are considered important by each author? How do they develop their arguments? I propose that this process of making theory is part of subjectivity, so that each work can be read as a product of the author's active dialogue (pluralogue?) with the ideologies and practices which concern her. The works can be read both in relation to themselves, as individual texts whose internal content and processes can be subject to exegesis; and in relation to the other works on the list, not necessarily in a coherent or linear fashion (as in, Author A directly influenced Author B), but as participants in a discussion, conversation, or debate.

In thinking about subjectivity, one question I am interested in is how authors come to the project of making theory. As previously stated, I mean this not in a psychological or biographical sense (i.e. Author A felt motivated to write because in her childhood…), but in a more abstract epistemological sense. By virtue of being authors/theorists, these writers have already privileged the project of writing and making theory. Within the context of the work, how does the author position herself as a writing/speaking subject, for example? With what discourses and ideas does she engage? How does she situate herself in relation to other works and to her project? Thus I am not attempting to provide a complete critique of each work, but rather to think a bit about the theory behind the theory, and the process of developing subjectivity through making texts. What I hope to derive from this kind of inquiry is a sense of how subjectivity works to inform models of feminist theory, and what strategic implications this has for feminists.

(I have put a star beside the questions I'd prefer to answer)

1. *Develop the four given readings of "subjectivity" outlined above in relation to the works on the list. How do the works on the list engage with each reading of "subjectivity"?
2. As a body of theory that, in part, is developed within an institutional context, feminism comes into contact with other academic streams such as postmodernism. How do the readings on the list understand feminism's engagement with postmodernism? What advantages do they find in this engagement, and what critiques do they make of it, particularly with regard to how subjectivity is constructed?
3. While Brooks finds "postfeminism" a fruitful theoretical tool in its engagement with other discourses, Modleski (using a different reading of the concept) is critical of its implications. In what ways is the concept of "postfeminism" used in these and other works on the list? What concerns about this concept are raised in the readings, and which reading of the concept is most useful for feminist theory?
4. Many works on the list deal with the notion of developing "a standpoint". How do these works understand and use the concept of "standpoint"? What similarities do these theoretical models share, and what disparities exist between them? What implications do the standpoint models have for developing frameworks for feminist political engagement and theorizing?
5. *How do works on the list engage with the notion of the body, particularly in relation to the four readings of subjectivity given above? Braidotti, for example, suggests a model of "embodied subjectivity", while Irigaray (in Women Writing Culture) is concerned with "writing the body". What relationship to the body do the readings develop?
6. *Many works on the list, such as A Room of One's Own and Women Writing Culture, are concerned with the practice of writing as a significant form of women's self-representation. How do the works understand the role of writing in relation to the development of women's subjectivity, given the above four readings of subjectivity? In relation to feminist subjectivity?
7. *How do the works on the list understand women's relationship to cultural production, as objects and creators? How do different models of women's participation in cultural production use different models of subjectivity?
8. *Code, in What Can She Know, argues that mainstream epistemology and ethical theory has, by definition, excluded and marginalized women. She presents some alternatives to traditional theory. Of particular interest are the notions of "connected knowing" and "second persons". Explain these models (noting Code's critique), and discuss them in relation to the other alternative epistemological and ethical paradigms proposed by works such as Fighting Words and Women Writing Culture.
9. *Weedon argues in Feminism, Theory, and the Politics of Difference that "difference" has become a central organizing concept in feminist theory in recent years, although shifting meanings of "difference" have been present in much of feminist thought. How do the works on the list work with "difference", particularly in relation to subjectivity?
10. How do the works on the list engage with the issue of race and racism as part of a feminist project? What relationships do they observe between race, gender, and class, and how does their conception of these relationships inform their theoretical and strategic models?
11. How do the works on the list engage with the project of making feminist theory within an institutional context? What challenges and advantages do they identify? How do positionings of race, gender, and class inform what theory is made or not made? How does the relationship between knowledge and power shape theory projects?