Discussion of "Self" and "Subjectivity" from The Theory Toolbox, Nealon and Giroux

We tend to think of the "self" as that which is primary, untouched by cultural influences. We like to believe that our selfhood is the essence of our unique individuality, without regard to the circumstances under which we were born and raised. This insistence on selfhood often shows itself in many humanities, arts, and social science classes through the "theme" of the individual, often understood versus his or her society, as if the individual had to fend off cultural influence or definition to be truly authentic or unique. (36)

     In contrast, we understand the "subject" as anything but unique or untouched by social factors. By definition, the subject of a scientific experiment or the subjects in a monarchy could be anybody. The subject of a sentence or the subject of a police investigation is nothing other than a kind of position or placeholder, a role that, theoretically at least, anyone could fill. Just as any noun could be made the "subject" of a sentence, literally anyone could become the "subject" of a police investigation, regardless of his or her supposed intrinsic qualities of selfhood. The subject is defined by its place among various social positions: suspect, copy, student, teacher, doctor, patient, electrician. . . .

     We tend to understand the "self" as an inwardly generated phenomenon, a notion of personhood based on the particular (yet strangely abstract) qualities that make us who we are. The self is the strangely intangible core--the soul? the personality? the real me?--that we take for the cause of our lives and our actions. On the other hand, the "subject" is an outwardly generated concept, an effect, an understanding of personhood based on the social laws or codes to which we are made to answer. We recognize ourselves as subjects most clearly when a demand is made of us: show us your driver's license and insurance card, answer the question, enter your password, check the appropriate box, supply your student ID number. (37)

    The "subject," unlike the self, is always understood in reference to preexisting social conditions.  We don't get to choose social attributes like our gender, race, class, and ethnicity; nor do we get to vote on what those attributes mean in a given social situation.  Rather, we are subject to such roles: What these things mean is to a great extent decided before we come along to fit the category. For example, we learn what it means to be from a certain social class, just as we learn how to act like a "proper" man or woman. And, of course, we have to learn these things precisely because there is no absolute standard for what it means to be rich or poor, just as there is no simple or definitive answer concerning what it "really" means to be a woman or a man. (38) . . .

    That individuals are socially constructed is easy enough to say, but is a bit tough to swallow when you are the "cultural phenomenon" that's socially constructed, called before the law. (40)