JamesHeartfield,TheDeathoftheSubjectexplained,2002

TheDeathoftheSubjectexplained

ByJamesHeartfield(2002)
(Prefaceand2ChaptersofPartOneonly)

Contents:
Preface:WhoistheSubject?
PARTONE
Introduction:DegradingtheSubjectinTheory
ChapterOne:TheBeginningandtheEndoftheSubject
RescuingtheSubject
ThePosthuman
ChapterFive:TheErsatzSubject(p.28)
TheIdentityParade
MethodologicalIndividualism
ConclusiontoSectionOne:Morethanatheory(p.32)

Part1,pages111

Preface

WhoistheSubject?

ThefreelywillinghumanSubjectisthecornerstoneofcontemporarysociety.Every
aspectofourcivilisationtakesthefreeSubjectasitsbasicassumption.

InBritaininApril199927millionmenandwomenhadenteredintoacontractwith
anemployer;in1997justoverhalfoftheadultpopulationhadenteredintoa
contractofmarriage;16millionhomeswereprivatelyowned,therestofthe20
millionhomesrented.In1998goodsandservicestothevalueof843.7billion
weresold;in1998nearly20millioncarsareprivatelyownedandin1997private
motorisedroadtransportaccountedfor616billionkilometrestravelled,whilea
further85billionkilometreswerecoveredinbuses,coachesandbyrail;inMay
199730.5millionpeoplevotedinageneralelectionfollowedby26.8millioninJune
2001.1

Ineachandeverysingleoneofthesebillionsofrelationships,theprincipleisthat
thesemillionsofpeopleareconstitutedasfreelywillingSubjects.Toundertakea
jobofworkforpay,tomarry,tobuyandsell,todriveontheroadsandtovotein

1
18052/2
theelectioneachpersoniscastasaSubject.AsaSubject,oneassumes
responsibilitiesandexpectsrewards.ButmostpointedlyasaSubject,oneexpects
todecideforonesselfexactlywhatoneisorisnotpreparedtodo.Voluntarism
istheguidingprinciple.Coercionwhetherinslavery,forcedmarriage,economic
monopoly,arbitrarypolicingorthesuspensionofdemocraticrepresentationis
reviledasanevil.Ofcoursenobodybelievesthatfreedommeansthatwhatever
youthinkoughttohappenwillhappen.RecognisingourselvesasfreeSubjectswe
recogniseothersasfreeSubjects,withtheirowngoals.2 Meetingtheresistanceof
othersdoesnotmeanthatfreedomisnullified.Itonlymeansthatonemustengage
theagreementofotherstoadvanceonesownends. 3

Eventhosecoercivepowersthatareacceptable,onthegroundsthattheydefend
ourliberties,thestatespowersoftaxation,requisition,detentionand
imprisonment,areheavilyqualifiedwithsafeguards.Wherethesearebreached,as
intheinfamousmiscarriageofjusticecasesinBritaininthe1980s,the
reverberationsareprofound.Thecoercivepowerofthestatederivesinprinciple
fromahighervoluntarism.Onlythehigheraggregationofthecollectivewillderived
ultimatelyfromparliamentmayoverridetherightsofindividualpropertyasin
taxationorcompulsorypurchase.4 So,too,dotheexceptionalpowersofthepolice
derivetheirauthorityfromelectedgovernment.Whereindividualsaredeniedtheir
freedom,theargumentgoes,theyareheldtoanimpliedcontractwithsocietyto
upholdthelawsoftheland.

ThefreelywillingSubjectisthepresuppositionthatmakesalloftheserelationships
possible.Withoutengagingthevoluntaryactionsofthevastmajorityofitscitizens,
societywouldcollapse.Ifjustafractionofthebillionsoffreelywilledobligations
takenonbythesemillionsofSubjectswerenothonoured,theeffectswouldbe
disastrous.Jobswouldbeleftundone,productsunsold,shopsemptyorlooted,
childrenabandoned,carscrashed,governmentexposedasasham.Sinceallturns
ontheaxleoftheautonomousSubject,ifthataxlebreaks,thefinelybalanced
wheelsofallthesesocialrelationswouldbreakfree,clashingandgratingagainst
eachotherlikethegearsofabrokenengine.Bothactivelyandnegatively,society
needstoengagethepassionsandambitionsofitsmembersintheirown,freely
willedactivity.Thosepoliticalregimesthathavesoughttocrushfreedomand
supplantthedemocraticwillhavebeenmarkednotjustbyviolentrepression,but,
perhapsmoreappallingly,byaslowdegeneration,asthepopulationwithdraws
consent,turnsinward,refusestoengageandceasestoproduce.5 Subjectivityisnot
anoptionalextra.Itisthebasisuponwhichcontemporarysocietyreproducesitself.
Noregime,nomatterhowefficient,couldhopetosubstituteitsownplanningfor
themyriaddecisionsandchoicesindividualandcollectiveofitscitizens.

Theintegrity,sustenanceandgrowthofcontemporarysocietydependupon
subjectivityasitsfoundationandprinciple.Theprinciplesofafreesociety,of

2
18052/2
democracyandtheruleoflawareuniversallyembracedbyallserious
commentators.Therearepreciousfewwhowillactivelyandvocallyembracea
programmeofrepressionanddictatorship.Eventhosemarginalorganisationsof
thefarrightmustpaylipservicetotheprinciplesoffreedom,howeverperversely,
intheguiseofRightsforwhites6 .

ThisSubjectthenisthefoundationofsocietyand,sayHobbes,LockeandRousseau,
hehasbeenaroundaslongManhas.Forthegreathumanistthinkersofthe
seventeenthandeighteenthcenturiessocietywasthecreationofindividual
Subjects.Forthem,weareallnaturallyindividuals,withappetitesandfancies,and
anaturalliberty.Ifwetradeournaturallibertyforcivilrights,itisbecausewecan,
beingalreadyfreeSubjects.TheSubjectisamanofaction.Hechallenges,he
contests,hedefeats.Resistanceisanobstacletobeovercomebyhim,andfailurea
disgrace,stillmoresoacquiescencewhichthreatenstodestroyhimaltogether.The
Subjectisalsothoughtfulandreflective.OurGlassyEssence,theinnerlifeof
thoughtandconscienceisdividedfromtheouterworldintheSubject.TheSubject
withdrawsfromtheworldintohisownthoughts,toconsiderandplanwhathe
oughttodo.TheSubjectworks.Workisnotashametohim,butasourceofpride.
Hardworkenduredislikeaherosquesttohim,orabattle;hecomeshome
exhausted,butglad.Makingthingsisthebest(thoughhemighthesitatetocallit
anythingsoexpressiveascreativity).TheSubjectsrelationshiptonatureisdouble
edged.Heisanaturalman,butheaimstomasternature.Heisfascinatedby
nature,andtortureshertomakehersurrenderhersecrets.7 Hemastersnatureto
makeheryieldupherfruits.Natureishisdomain.TheSubjectisperhapsmost
importantlythebearerofrights.Libertyishiswatchword.AgainsttheChurchand
theKingheassertedhisownrighttodeterminehisfuture.Theindividualsfreedom
ofconscience,8 speech, 9 association, 10 fromarbitraryarrest 11 andofprivate
property 12 wereallassertedbytheSubject.WithsuchfreedomstheSubjectbuilt
ourowncivilisation.

TheSubjectispolitical,understandablyseeinghimselfreflectedinthoseancient
politicalanimalsofAthens.ButthisalsoimpliesthattheSubjectmaybeacollective
Subject,aswellasanindividual.ApeopleisthecollectiveSubjectofanationalepic,
aswellaspartytoacontract,asintheopeninglineoftheConstitutionofthe
UnitedStatesofAmerica:We,thepeopleoftheUnitedStates.Othercollective
Subjectsinclude,notably,corporations,which,whilsthavingabadpresslately,are
quitepointedlyrecognisedaslegalSubjects,withrightsandobligations,and,
thoughlessinevidencethanbefore,tradesunions,whosedemandforfree
collectivebargainingwasattackedinthe1980s.Therearestillothers,suchas
juries,(whosedecisionsarenottobedisarticulatedintoseparateopinionsby
investigation),orfamilies.

3
18052/2
Inthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury,thepoliticaloppositionofleftandright
generallyfoundeachsidepressingoneversionofSubjectivefreedom.Fortheright
individualrightstookprecedenceoverdemocracy,whilefortheleft,collective
decisionscarriedmoreweightthananyonemansselfishinterests.Thesepolitical
oppositionsweretheorisedbyColdWarliberalslikeIsaiahBerlinontheone
hand13 ,andcollectivistslikeCBMacphersonontheother. 14 Buttheseparation
andcounterpositionoftheindividualandcollectiveSubjectsisamoderntrend.In
treatingthetwoasonlyrelativelyopposed,butessentiallysimilar,Ifollowthe
earlierorthodoxyestablishedbyHegel,inhisPhilosophyofRight(wherean
undifferentiatedWillisthebasicbuildingblockoutofwhichallrightismade),or
RousseauinhisSocialContract.Ofcourse,thegeneralwillcananddoescontradict
theindividual,aswithtaxationorimprisonment.Similarly,theindividualwillcan
(andmust)dissentfromthecollective.Butthesearerelativeoppositions.Intruth,
botharemutuallydependentprinciples.Acollectivethatwasnotmadeupoffreely
willingindividualswouldbeincapableofdeliberativedecisionmaking.Anindividual
whowasoutsideofallsocietywould,asRousseauunderstood,haveanatural
libertybutnocivilrights.

ContemporarycriticsoftheEnlightenmentarenotsoimpressedbytheclaimsof
theSubject.Theydoubtthatsocietydependsuponhimandreckonhehasonly
beenaroundaslongasHobbes,LockeandRousseau.Thegreaterrorofthe
Enlightenmentwastotakeitsowneighteenthcenturybourgeoiscitizenasthe
modelforallpeopleinalltime,asthoughtheIroquoislivedonlytoopenashop.
Today,thereisapowerfulquestionmarkovertheSubject,thatcentralcharacterof
thefreesociety.Thedoubtsoverthepossibilitiesoffreesubjectivityarethe
subjectmatterofthisbook.Thedoubtisthateveryoneispayinglipservicetothe
ideaofafreeSubject,notjustthefarright.Imaginethattheprinciplesoffreedom,
ofcivilandpoliticalrights,ofcontractsandpromiseswerebeingobserved,not
honestlyorwithconviction.Instead,considerthepossibilitythattheseare
observedratherinthemannerofroutineetiquetteorritualaritualthathaslost
itsmeaning,butpersistsoutofforceofhabitandthelackofanobviousalternative.
Thewordsfreedom,libertyandrightsspringreadilytothelips.Buttheyare
wornthin.Politiciansandsalesmenaretoowillingtoturntheseringingwordsinto
advertisingslogansandsoundbites.In1994opponentsofBritishgovernments
proposedCriminalJusticeActtooktothestreetstoprotestitsrepressiveagenda.
ButatthemomentwhentheircausehadthenobilityofthePeoplesCharteror
WomensSuffrage,thecampaignersweregrippedbyanironicselfdeflation,shown
bytheadoptionofthesloganFightfortherighttoparty.Itisasifitwasjusttoo
gauchetostandupforcivillibertieswithoutaknowingwinktotheaudience.

MartinAmishaplessauthorRichardTullproposesaHistoryofIncreasing
Humiliation:itwouldbeabookaccountingforthedeclineinthestatusandvirtue
ofliteraryprotagonists.Firstgods,thendemigods,thenkingsandgreatwarriors,

4
18052/2
greatlovers,thenburghersandmerchantsandvicarsanddoctorsandlawyers.
Thensocialrealism:you.Thenirony:me.Thenmaniacsandmurderers,tramps,
mobs,rabble,flotsam,vermin.15 AmisisdescribingthewaythatthehumanSubject
hastravelledfromtheperipherytothecentre,onlythentobedecentred.Ifthe
emergenceofthenineteenthcenturynovelsherocorrespondstotheemergence
ofahumanSubject,thenthemodernageisoneinwhichtheSubjectislosingits
centrality.Increasingly,itseems,theliteraryprotagonistisotherpeople,people
whoarealientous,maniacsandmurderers,tramps,mobs,rabble,flotsam,
vermin.

Whatifthefreesubjectivityatthecoreofoursocialorderisallusedup?Inthepast
repressiveregimessenttankstoputdownarebelliouspeople.Thecomplex
paraphernaliaofintimidatingpolicingroundinguptheringleaders,spiesand
informants,makinganexampleoftroublemakers,censorshipanddirtytricksisall
designedtodealwithpeoplewhoaredeterminedtobefree.Theirownstruggle
informsthespecificcharacteroftheirrepression.

ThelateJeanBaudrillardproposesawittyreversalofthemodelofrepressionand
resistanceinhislittlebookIntheShadowoftheSilentMajorities.Thereheimagines
thattheindifferenceofthemasses,ratherthananyrebelliousness,istheirmost
potentforce.Onebeginstoforesee...thatwithdrawingintotheprivatecouldwell
beadirectdefianceofthepolitical,aformofactivelyresistingpolitical
manipulation.16 Thismass,is,accordingtoBaudrillard,anopaquenebulawhose
growingdensityabsorbsallthesurroundingenergyandlightraystocollapsefinally
underitsownweight.Ablackholewhichengulfsthesocial.Theincreasingly
feverishattemptstoarticulatethemassesambitionsanddesires,whether
politicallyorinmarketingslogans,meetsonlywithapowerfullysubversive
indifference.

Baudrillardsfantasyisnotaccurate.Itisitselfafatallydoomedandironicalattempt
toarticulatetheoutlookoftheSilentMajority,asifitwereastrategy,whichof
courseitnevercouldbe.Butitdoesindicatesomethingofwhatasocietyinwhich
hadlostitsconvictioninfreesubjectivitywouldlooklike.Suchasocietywouldbein
dangerofcollapsehavinghaditscornerstonechiselledaway.Aslongastherewas
nomovement,thestructurewouldstand,butattemptsatrepairwouldonlyexpose
thefaultandacceleratethecollapse.Thewholeedificeofoursocietyisbuiltupon
thiscornerstoneofthefreelywillingSubject.Thefamilies,homes,workinglives,
transportation,orderliness,lawfulbehaviour,politicalrepresentationtakesasits
startingpointthatelusivecharacter,theSubject.

Perhapstherealdangertolibertytodaycomesnotfromtheexpectedquarterof
theforcesofdirectrepression,butfromwithin.IftherightsbearingSubjectisbuta
shadowofhisformerself,thenwhowillbethebearerofrights?Arecentcollection
ofessaysaskedthequestion,WhatcomesaftertheSubject?.17 Overwhelmingly

5
18052/2
thecontributorsreplied,notwithanalternative,butwithadeconstructionofthe
questionitself.Whyshouldtherebeawhattheysaid,rightlyintuitingthatthe
formofthequestionimpliesanotherSubject.

Asweshallsee,theSubjectisunderattack.Inwordsanddeeds,theroleof
subjectivityisbeingquestioned.Thesovereignindividualisbeingknockedfromhis
perch.Maybehedeservesit:selfish,strutting,bantamcockthatheis.Andmaybe
thesocietythathasbeenbuiltaroundhimdeservestobeshakentotheground.
Perhaps,asisargued,thefreeSubjectisamyth,thatservestodisguisearealworld
ofrepressionandexclusion.Ifthatisso,oursocietyneedstobereappraisedfrom
toptobottom.Thisbookisanattempttostartthatreappraisal,andtoaskwhether
weoughttodumptheSubjectorresurrecthim.

SlovenianphilosopherSlavojZizekopenshisbookTheTicklishSubjectwiththis
pasticheofTheCommunistManifesto:AspectreishauntingWestern
academia...thespectreoftheCartesiansubject.Allacademicpowershaveentered
intoanunholyalliancetoexorcisethisspectre.18 SlavojZizeknamesfeminists,New
Ageobscurantists,postmoderndeconstructionistsanddeepecologistsasdiffering
intellectualtrendswhichnowcoalesceintheirhostilitytowhathecallsthe
Cartesiansubject.

InPartOneIexplorewhatZizekcallstheunholyallianceagainsttheSubject,in
theory.ThefirstthreechaptersdealwiththedirectcritiqueoftheSubject.Theidea
thattheSubjectishistoricallycontingentandredundantisdealtwithinChapter
One,whichalsoconsidersattemptstorescuetheSubjectfromtheeffectsof
relativism.ChapterTwoexaminesthesocialconstructionoftheSubject,
investigatinginparticularthesimilaritiesbetweenpoststructuralistand
communitarianaccountsofsubjectformationandcontemporaryfeministcritiques
ofthediscriminatoryexclusivityofsubjectivity.ChapterThreeisanaccountofthe
originsoftheOtherintheeliminationoftheSubjectfromHegelsMasterSlave
dialectic.

ChapterFouroutlinesthreeattemptstotheorisesocietywithouttheSubject:
Foucaultstheoryofpower,Habermassconceptofintersubjectivity,and
sociobiology.FinallyChapterFivelooksatthelimitationsoftwomodernversionsof
individualism,thetheoriesofidentitythatarosealongwithpoststructuralism,and
themethodologicalindividualismofPopperandHayekwhichwerethemajor
theoreticalinfluenceonthefreemarketconservatismofthelatetwentiethcentury.
PartTwochangesthepaceoftheinvestigationtolookattherealworldconflicts
throughwhichthesubjecthasbeencalledintoquestion.InparticularIam
concernedtoisolatethosefactorswhichhelpedtotakeantihumanismfromthe
marginsoftheFrenchleftin1968toitsplaceasoneofthekeyassumptionsof
mainstreamWesternpoliticsbytheendofthecentury.Thesetrendsareintroduced
bytwochaptersontheformativepoliticalexperiencesoftheFrenchintelligentsia,

6
18052/2
 whowerethemostinfluentialcriticsofsubjectivity.ChapterSixlooksindetailat
thepivotalroleofFranceswaragainstAlgeriainthedevelopmentofantihumanist
ideas.ThedoublefailureofFrenchrepublicanismandtheFrenchcommunistleftto
backthecauseofnationalliberationcastEnlightenmenthumanismastheagentof
repressionandtheAlgerianmassesasitsirreconcilableOther.InChapterSeventhe
keyeventsinthelifeofLouisAlthussergraphicallyillustratethepoliticaldynamics
ofthedenialofsubjectivity.

ChapterEightanalysesthecrisisoftheleftwhichdevelopedaftertheeventsof
1968.Itisparticularlyconcernedwiththecombinedimpactofthehistoricaldefeat
oforganisedlabourinEuropeandtheNewLeftscontemporaneoussearchfornew
agentsofsocialchange.ThefailureoftheNewRightinBritainandAmericato
revitaliseatriumphantindividualismdespitetheirdefeatoftheleftisthesubjectof
ChapterNine.ChapterTenanalysesthecharacterofpoliticsaftertheendofleft
andrightwithparticularreferencetotheThirdWayadministrationsofBillClinton
andTonyBlair.Thefocusisonthedevelopmentofpoliticsasaprocesswithouta
subject,onewhichcontrastssharplywithclassicalpoliticaltheory.

PartThreeturnsfrompoliticstosociety,andsketchesthesocialcontoursofaworld
withouttheSubject.Itlooksbothattheretreatoftheelitefromleadershipin
society,andattheinvolutionofsocialrelationsbasedondegradedsubjectivity.

IamindebtedtoPeteRamsay,EveKay,JamesPanton,AlexCameron,Sharon
KinsellaandGrahamBarnfieldfortheirgoodadviceandassistanceinthe
preparationofthisbook.IdedicateittoPatrickHughes,whoalsodrewthecover
illustration.

7
18052/2
PartOne,Introduction

DegradingtheSubjectinTheory

Inthe1960sand1970sanumberofdifferentthinkersstartedtoquestionthevalidityof
thehumanSubject.Theirideaswereaheadoftheirtime.Avarietyofdifferenttheories
aroseoutofthephilosophycalledphenomenologyandthesociologicaloutlook
influencedbythelinguistictheorystructuralism.Together,theseideascoalescedinto
anoutlookpopularisedaspostmodernism.TheoriginoftheseideasismostlyFrench,
butpostmodernismcaughtamoodamongstacademics,andmorebroadlyamongst
opinionformers,andtheculturatitoquicklygainacurrencyinintellectuallifeinthe
1980sand1990s.BytheendoftheMillenniumthenewpapalencyclicalfoundJohn
PaulIIembracingpostmoderndespairratherthangivingamessageofhope.Notingthat
postmodernnihilismhasbeenjustifiedinasensebytheterribleexperienceofevil
whichhasmarkedourage,thepopeassertsthatsuchadramaticexperiencehas
ensuredthecollapseofrationalistoptimism,whichviewedhistoryasthetriumphant
progressofreason,thesourceofallhappinessandfreedom.19 HisHolinesswarns
againstacertainpositivistcastofmindwhichcontinuestonurturetheillusionthat,
thankstoscientificandtechnicalprogress,manandwomanmayliveasademiurge,
singlehandedlyandcompletelytakingchargeoftheirdestiny.

ThePopeisechoingthejudgementofthepostmodernists.ItwasJeanFranoisLyotard
whobestsummeduptheassessmentofthemodernageanditsoverridingideologies.I
willusethetermmoderntodesignateanysciencethatlegitimatesitselfwithreference
toametadiscourse...makinganexplicitappealtosomegrandnarrative,suchasthe
dialecticsofSpirit,thehermeneuticsofmeaning,theemancipationoftherationalor
workingSubject,orthecreationofwealth.20 Rejectingthesedefiningnarrative
structuresofmodernity,Lyotardannouncedthepostmodernageinthefollowingway:
Idefinepostmodernismasincredulitytowardsmetanarratives. 21 Asisnowwell
known,postmodernismwasdefinedasatimewhenwecoulddoawaywiththe
ideologiesuponwhichwehadrelied,assomanytalltales,designedtomakethelistener
happyandsatisfied,butwithnogreatersignificance.Socialism,thefreemarket,
Christianity,thenuclearfamily,scientificprogresswereexposedassomanybedtime
storiestoldtolulluschildrenintosleep.

Itwasnotimmediatelyclearthattheimplicationsofthetheorycalledfirstpost
structuralismandlaterpostmodernismwerehostiletosubjectivity.Indeedtheopposite
appearedtobethecase.Thepostmodernistswerefirstandforemostchargedwithan
excessivesubjectivitythatjeopardisedobjectivity.Toscientistsandconservativesthe
hallmarkofthesenewideaswastheirscepticismtowardsasingularobjectivetruth.The
chargeofrelativismwasmadeagainstpostmodernists.22 Inacelebratedassaultonthe
postmodernists,scientistsAlanSokalandJeanBricmontwrote:Asecondtargetofour

8
18052/2
bookisepistemicrelativism,thatmodernscienceisnothingmorethanamyth,a
narrationorasocialconstruction.Totheircriticsitseemedasifsubjective
predilectionhadbeenelevatedoverobjectivefactinthisnewoutlook.Moral
philosopherAlainFinkielkrautparodiesthepostmodernreprobateassayingLetmedo
whatIwantmyself!.Finkielkrautcontinues:Notranscendentortraditionalauthority,
andnotevenaplainmajoritarianone,canshapethepreferencesofyourpostmodern
manorregulatehisbehaviour.23 Theshortcomingofthepostmodernists,then,was
thattheyresistedallauthority,inariotofsubjectivepreference.Thecriticspointedto
thepromiscuouswaythatthepostmodernistsdeconstructedeachandeveryscientific
andmoralcertaintyasifthesewerenomorethanbigstories,metaorgrandnarratives.
Butaccordingtothepostmodernists,suchmetanarrativestendedtoeradicate
differences,imposingalifelessuniformity.Wheremetanarrativesreducedcomplexityto
selfsameness,themethodofdeconstructionrestoredthefundamentaldifferenceof
things.24 Tothenaturalscientistsandconservatives,suchasingularelevationof
differencesuggestedathoroughgoingsubjectivism,inwhichobjectivitywassacrificedto
personalsubjectiveresponses.

Butthedeconstructionwasnotonlydirectedoutwardtowardstheobjectiveworld,as
thecriticsfeared.Theverypromiscuityofthepostmoderndeconstructionofallgrand
narrativesmeantthatthegrandestofallnarratives,thatoftheSubjectitself,wouldnot
remainuntouched.JacquesDerrida,forexample,insiststhatdifferenceissoprimordial
thatitcannotbekeptoutsideoftheSubject,butmustcallintoquestiontheSubject
itself:

Whatdiffers?Whodiffers?Whatisdiffrance?.ifweacceptedthisformofthe
question,initsmeaninganditssyntax(Whatis?Whois?Whatisthat?),wewould
havetoconcludethatdiffrancehasbeenderived,hashappened,istobemasteredand
governedonthebasisofthepointofapresentbeingasaSubjectawho.25

Derridasstyleiswilfullydemanding.(InOfGrammatologyheinsiststhathisintentionis
tomakeenigmatic...theverywordswithwhichwedesignatewhatisclosesttous.26 )
Butallowingforhisspecialisedvocabulary,themeaningisclearenough.Itisnotthat
therearedifferencesbetweenSubjects,heissaying.Thatmuchwouldsimplybea
pluralisticoutlook:differentstrokesfordifferentfolks.Butthatdoesnotgofarenough
forDerrida.Ifwewerejusttalkingaboutdifferencesbetweenpeople,thenwewould
havealreadyassumedtheexistenceoftheseunitarySubjectspriortodifference.And
thendifferencewouldonlybeapredicateofthesepreviouslyexistingSubjects.Butfor
Derrida,difference,ordiffrance,comesbeforetheSubject.Toaskwhatorwhodiffers
assumesthepriorexistenceofSubjectswhodiffer.Derridaisinsistingonthepriorityof
differenceovertheSubject.TheimplicationisthattheSubject,too,cannotbeassumed
tobeaunitarywholewithoutdifference,butrather,mustinturn,itselfbe
deconstructed.

9
18052/2
InOfGrammatology,Derridamakesitclearthathisdeconstructionoftheclaimsof
objectivitygohandinhandwiththedeconstructionofsubjectivity. 27 Justasclaimsto
objectivetruthareanarrativethatmustbedispelled,sotooissubjectivityamyth.Inhis
bookOfSpirit,hegoesonestepfurtherinrejectingsubjectivity.Thebookisadiscussion
ofthephilosopherandNaziMartinHeidegger.InitDerridaindicatesthatHeideggers
appealtotheSpiritoftheWestisaperverseoutcomeoftherationalSubjectof
Enlightenmentthinking.Derridagoesontocriticiseoppositiontoracism,
totalitarianism,toNazism,tofascismthatisundertakeninthenameofthespirit,and
evenofthefreedomof(the)spirit,inthenameofanaxiomaticforexample,thatof
democracyorhumanrightswhichdirectlyornotcomesbacktothismetaphysicsof
Subjectivity.28 Here,thenarrativesoffreedomanddemocracyarebeingcriticised
becausetheyimplytheemancipationofaSubject(inthiscaseapeople).InDerridas
eyes,thatappealtothemetaphysicsofSubjectivityputsthemonaparwithfascism,
becausefascism,asrepresentedherebyMartinHeidegger,alsoappealstoaSubject,
theSpiritoftheWest.

TheturnofDerridasargumentissurprising.Howreadilyheassociatesdemocracyand
fascism!Andthatthecommonstrandshouldbetheirsharedcommitmentto
subjectivity.ItistemptingtothinkthatDerridaissimplymakinganundulyformal
abstraction,whilecarriedawaywithacomplexargument.Perhapsonsomeplaneone
couldsaythatfascismanddemocracyarethesamesincebotharepoliticalformsof
organisation.Insuchacaseitwouldsimplybearatherforcedparallel,liketheinsight
thatHitler,StalinandSaddamHusseinallhavemoustaches.ButDerridameansmore
thanthis.Thecommonbondbetweenfascismanddemocracyisnotincidental,buta
fatalflaw;andthespecificbondthatDerridaalightsuponissubjectivity.PhillipeLacoue
Labarthe,anotherphilosopher,influencedbyDerrida,makesthepointmoreforcefully,
whenhewritesthatFascismisahumanism:

inthatitrestsonadeterminationofhumanitas,whichis,initseyes,morepowerful,ie,
moreeffective,thatanyother.TheSubjectofabsoluteselfcreation,evenifit
transcendsallthedeterminationsofthemodernSubjectinanimmediatelynatural
position(theparticularityofrace),bringstogetherandconcretisesthesesame
determinationsandsetsitselfupastheSubject,absolutelyspeaking.29

LacoueLabarthemakesexplicitthemeaningofthedeconstructionofthemetaphysics
oftheSubject.Selfcreation,onceavirtue,ishereseenasfascistic.Humanismisa
fascism,becausehumanismputsmanatthecentre,makesmansactivitythesubstance
ofhistory.Theinitialreactionagainstthepoststructuralistthinkerswastoprotestat
theirextremesubjectivismandconsequentdismissalofobjectivetruth.Butwhatthat
criticismmissedwasthattheSubjectwasalsothetargetofdeconstruction,perhaps
especiallyso.ImplicitinthisdoublemovementisthepossibilitythatSubjectandobject
arenotopposed,butmutuallysupportingterms.Ifthesingularobjectivegroundis
calledintoquestion,thensotooisthesingularandunifiedSubject.And,perhapsmore

10
18052/2
importantly,thedegradationoftheSubjectdestroysthebasisofasustained
investigationoftheobjective.Inprosaicterms,ifwecannotbesureoftheinvestigator,
therecanbenoinvestigation.

ItwasthepoststructuralistthinkerswhoturnedmostpointedlyupontheSubject.But
thistrendwasnotrestrictedtothoseFrenchresearchersaroundJacquesDerrida,
MichelFoucault,LouisAlthusserandJacquesLacan.Iftheyenunciatedthecritiquemost
directly,otherstoolenttheirowndistinctivequalitytothecritiqueoftheSubject.
Historiansandsocialcommentatorsweremoreoftenstruckbythelimitationsof
subjectivity.ItseemedtothemthattheSubjectwasexclusivelymale,propertied,white,
heterosexual,adult.Inthesecriticismsafinelinewasbeingdrawnoughtfree
subjectivitytobebroadenedtoincludethosesocialgroupsexcluded?Or,conversely,
wastheSubjectinanyeventsonarrowlydefinedastobeapoormodelfortheexcluded
toimitate?ItdidnotfollowthatthenormestablishedbytheWhiteEuropeanMalewas
therightoneforthosethatwerealreadysetapartbythatverynorm.Thatistosay,the
problemmightnotbethedenialofsubjectivity,butonthecontrary,subjectivityitself
couldbeintrinsicallydomineeringandexclusive.Ifthatwerethecase,thenthecriticism
ofexclusivitybecomesdirectlyacriticismofsubjectivity.Theclaimoftheuniversalityof
subjectivitywaschallenged,andexposedasitsopposite,partiality.Theuniversal
outlookofMan,wasrevealedtobebiasedintermsofgender,property,race,sexual
orientationandage.ThecentralityofManwaschallenged,preciselyforitsone
sidedness.HumanismwasshowntobeEurocentric,ethnocentric,andultimately
anthropocentric.HavingfoughttodethroneGodsandKingstotakehisrightfulplaceat
centrestage,theSubjectwasnowdecentredinturn.Inhisplacestoodtheexcluded
Other.

Inallrespectstheclaimsofhumanagencywereputtothetest.Thecentralcharacterof
thehumanstoryhadbeentakenforgranteduntilthispoint.Butnow,hewastobe
takenapart,ordeconstructed,knockedoffhispedestal,ordecentred.Agreat
involutioninthinkingwastakingplace.Therehadalwaysbeendisagreementsbefore
abouthowtolive,aboutmorality,aboutsocialandpoliticalorganisation,abouthowto
interprethistoricalevents.Butasaruleitwasacceptedthathumanfreedomwasa
venerablegoal,whateverdisagreementstheremightbeaboutachievingit.Nowforthe
firsttimeoutsideoftheextremesofConservativethinkingamisanthropicstrain
emergedthatquestionedwhetherManwasindeedthecentralfigureofthehuman
story,andwhetherhedeservedtobe.

11
18052/2
JamesHeartfield,TheDeathoftheSubjectexplained,2002

Part2,pages1232

ChapterOne

TheBeginningandtheEndoftheSubject

Asthearchaeologyofourthoughteasilyshows,manisaninventionofarecentdate.
Andoneperhapsnearingtoitsend....onecancertainlywagerthatmanwouldbe
erased,likeafacedrawninthesandattheedgeofthesea.30

MichelFoucaultsconclusiontoTheOrderofThingsisstartling.Intheargumentwhich
precedesthisconclusion,Foucaultdemonstratesthatthecentralityofmanisnota
universalhumancondition,butamodernpreoccupationthathasbeenwithusonly
sincetheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies.

Conventionalthinkinghasitthatpeoplethroughouttimehavebeenessentiallysimilar,
onlytheircircumstanceschanging.Naturallyenough,whentryingtoimaginethelivesof
peopleinotheragesyoudrawuponyourownselfimagetofillinthegaps.School
historyprojectsinvitepupilstoimaginewhatachildslifewouldhavebeenlikein
RomanBritain.Oftentheystartbyimaginingwhatlifewouldbelikewithouttelevision.
Butitismoredifficulttounderstandthatchildhooditselfisaninventionofalaterage,
andthatthedefinitionsbetweeninfancy,adolescenceandadulthoodthatstructureour
liveswouldhavebeenalientomostpeopleinmostages.Yetmoredifficultto
understandistheideathatthecentralityofman,astheautonomousSubjectofhistory
andsociety,isfarfrombeingauniversalconditionofthehumanspecies.ButinThe
OrderofThingsFoucaulttakestherelativelylatedevelopmentofthehumansciences,
economics,psychologyandphilology,asanindicatoroftheappearanceoftheirSubject
matter,thehumanSubject.Hewrites:

Theeighteenthcenturydidnothanddowntothem[thehumansciences],inthename
ofmanorhumannatureaspace,circumscribedontheoutsidebutstillemptywhichit
wasthentheirroletocoveroranalyse.Theepistemologicalfieldtraversedbythe
humanscienceswasnotlaiddowninadvance:nophilosophy,nopoliticalormoral
option,noempiricalscienceofanykind,noobservationofthehumanbody,noanalysis
ofsensation,imaginationorthepassions,hadeverencounteredintheseventeenthor
eighteenthcentury,anythinglikeman;formandidnotexist.31

Foucaultspointisthatthehumansciencesdidnotdiscoverman,asanempiricalfact,
waitingtobeinvestigated.Rather,heargues,theseveryscientificdiscoursesthemselves
broughtmanintobeing:TheyappearedwhenmanconstitutedhimselfinWestern

12
18052/2
cultureasboththatwhichmustbeconceivedofandthatwhichistobeknown. 32 Here
itisWesternculture,includingthehumansciences,whichconstitutestheSubject.More
conventionalthinkingwouldhavesaidthatitwasManwhocreatedWesternculture,
includingthehumansciences.Inthisrespect,conventionalthoughtfollowsthebasic
outlineestablishedintheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturiesbyHobbes,
Shaftesbury,LockeandRousseau:manexistsnaturallyasafreeSubjectfirst,only
afterwardsenteringintocivilsociety.Foucaultreversestheorderofthings,bymaking
civilsocietytheauthorofthefreeindividual.

HoweverprovocativeFoucaultsmodeofexpressionis,hewaspushingatanopendoor.
TheevidenceforthehistoricallylimitednatureofthehumanSubjectiswellestablished.
Agreatersensitivitytohistoricalchangeamongstnineteenthandtwentiethcentury
theoristsledtoacriticismofthenaturalrighttheoriesoftheeighteenthcentury.The
GermanphilosopherGWFHegelwasamongstthefirsttoquestionthefictionofthe
stateofnaturesuggestingthatinsuchtheoriesthedesiredoutcomeispresupposedas
ifitwereanaturalcondition.33 ThenineteenthcenturysocialistKarlMarxcriticised
Feuerbachshumanismpreciselybecauseituncriticallyadoptedthestandpointofcivil
whichistosay,capitalist,society. 34 FollowingMarx,theCanadianpoliticalscientistCB
MacphersonfaultsJohnLockeforhavingreadbackintothenatureofmenandsociety,
certainpreconceptionsaboutthenatureofseventeenthcenturymanandsocietywhich
hegeneralisesquiteunhistorically.35 WhatHegel,MarxandMacphersonarealldoingis
qualifyingtheclaimsoftheeighteenthcenturyindividualtoanaturalexistence.Instead,
theyaresuggesting,thischaracterhasahistory.Incertainhistoricalcircumstancesthe
possibilitiesofthefreeindividualcomeintobeing.Byimplication,thesecircumstances
canbeexpectedtopassintothehistoricalpast.Theabsoluteclaimofthenatural
individualhasbeenqualifiedhistorically.36

However,forpoststructuralistslikeFoucault,theHegelianandMarxistanalysesofthe
historicallimitationsofthebourgeoissubjectdonotgofarenough.The
poststructuralistsunderstoodthatthesehistoricalqualificationsuponthebourgeois
SubjectdidnotimplyarejectionofthehistoricalSubjectassuch.Rather,asthe
poststructuralistssawit,theseanalysestendedtocriticisethespecificformofthe
bourgeoisSubject,onlyasafeint,throughwhichanidealisedhumanSubjectcouldbe
promoted.WithHegel,thespecifichistoricalinstancesofsubjectivitywereseentobe
manifestationsofatranshistoricalSubject,theIdea.37 FollowingHegel,Marxalso
rejectedthespecificallytruncatedformoftheindividualbourgeoisSubjecttochampion
theworkingclasssubject:TheProletariataloneisareallyrevolutionaryclass,he
writes,theproletarianmovementistheselfconscious,independentmovementofthe
immensemajority,intheinterestsoftheimmensemajority.38 TheMarxistGeorg
Lukacs,deployingthelanguageofGermanphilosophy,arguesthatforMarx,the
revolutionaryproletariatistheidenticalSubjectObjectofthehistoryofsociety
meaningthattheworkingclassisboththeactivesubjectofhistory,aswellasan

13
18052/2
objectiveforce. 39 Asweshallsee,thepoststructuralistscouldneverbesatisfiedwith
thistrumpetingoftheproletarianSubjectofhistory,whichseemedtofallshortoftheir
criticalinsightintothehistoricalcontingencyoftheSubject.Theydidnotwantto
restoretheSubjectinamoreplausibleversion.TothemitseemedthatMarxin
particularhadsimplybacktrackedonthecritiqueoftheSubject,criticisingtheSubject
inthenameoftheSubjectandsmugglingtheoldreprobatebackin,disguisedwithclogs
andaclothcap.

JeanBaudrillardexplained:

Historicalmaterialism,dialectics,modesofproduction,labourpowerthroughthese
conceptsMarxisttheoryhassoughttoshattertheabstractuniversalityoftheconcepts
ofbourgeoisthought(NatureandProgress,ManandReason,formalLogic,Work,
Exchange,etc).YetMarxisminturnuniversalisesthemwithacriticalimperialismas
ferociousastheothers.40

MarxismBaudrillarddisparagesisthevisionofafuturefreedombasedona
consciousdominationofnatureandthereforeitisnotradicalbutleddespiteitselfto
reproducetherootsofthesystemofpoliticaleconomy,ie,capitalism.41 Here
BaudrillardanticipatesoneofthecentralmotifsofthedegradationoftheSubject,the
chargeofanthropocentrism.Mostpointedly,though,itisthechargethatMarxismis
contiguouswiththesocialsystemitsoughttochallenge,inpromotingtheideaofareal
freedom.ForMarxofcourse,thatwaspreciselythepointofthecriticismofthe
alienationofhumanpowersincapital,toinstitutearealsubjectivity,inplaceofthe
emptyhuskofthebourgeoissubject.Amongstpoststructuralistthinkersitwasonly
AlthusserwhokeptfaithwiththenameofMarx.Fortherest,theysoughtamoreradical
historicisationthanMarxorHegelcouldoffer.

FoucaultfoundhisradicalhistoricisminthenineteenthcenturyGermananti
philosopherFriedrichNietzsche.NietzschesGenealogyofMoralsinparticularwasa
model.Nietzschedrewupontheincreasinghistoricalandphilologicalevidence
regardingthemoralsystemsofothertimesandcultures,inparticularoftheancient
GreeksandtheearlyChristians.Moralityhadbeenseenasfixed:whatwasrightwas
rightforalltime.Nietzscheshowsthatrightandwrongarehistoricallyspecific
categories,arising,largelyfromtheslavementalityoftheearlyChristians.Moralclaims
thathadbeenassumedtobesetinstonewerebrokenapartbyNietzchescaustic
criticism.ThiswasforFoucaultamodelfordislodgingtheeternalclaimsofthenatural
individual.Indeed,Nietzscheanticipatesthedislodgingofthesubjectwiththisaside:
sciencestill...hasnotdisposedofthatlittlechangelingtheSubject.42 Itwasa
challengethatFoucaulttookuponsciencesbehalf.FoucaultwasadoptingNietzsches
genealogicalmethodinuncoveringthetransitoryandfleetingcharacterofMan.

Derrida,bycontrast,drewuponMartinHeideggersphilosophyasthebasisofhisown
approach,whichhecalleddeconstruction.Heideggerfeltthatphilosophy,especially

14
18052/2
hisownchosenfieldofphilosophy,thephilosophyofbeingorontologywasunduly
dominatedbyapreoccupationwiththeSubject,duetotheinfluenceofthe
seventeenthcenturythinkerReneDescartes.ItwasDescartes,whoenthronedthe
thinkingSubjectasthearbiterofcertainknowledge,whenhefamouslydeclared,ego
cogitoergosumorIthink,thereforeIam.Heideggerbemoanedthefactthatsuch
conceptsastheegocogitoofDescartes,thesubject,theI,reason,spirit,person
haveservedastheprimaryguidesbutremainuninterrogated.43 Undertheheading
TheDestructionofOntology,Heideggersaysthis:ifthequestionofBeingistohaveits
ownhistorymadetransparent,thenthishardenedtradition,hemeansthedomination
ofDescartesthinkingSubjectoverphilosophymustbeloosenedup...dissolved.We
aretodestroythetraditionalcontentof...ontology.44 ItwasHeideggerschosentaskto
stripawaythesuperficialoverlayofmodernCartesiansubjectivitythatDerridaadopts.
AswesawinthediscussionofHeideggersNazism,whereDerridafaultsHeideggeritis
forthelingeringtraceofsuchSubjectivitythathesuspectsstilllurksinthemasters
work.ItisHeideggersDestructionofOntologythatsuggestsDerridas
deconstructionistapproach.LikeHeidegger,Derridasetsaboutexcisingthemerely
recentexcrescenceofSubjectivity.

Oneshouldnotnecessarilymaketoomuchoftheoreticalsourcesthatthe
poststructuralistsdrewupontofoundtheirhistoricalrelativisationoftheSubject.The
poststructuralistswerethinkerswhowererespondingtoquitedistinctiveproblemsand
times.WhatisimportantisthatthesenseofManstransiencewasusefullyarticulated
byreferencebacktoHeideggerandNietzscheratherthantoHegelandMarx,whowere
compromisedbytheiroptimismtowardsthepossibilitiesoftheSubject,however
modified.ItwasHeideggerandNietzschewhoformulatedthedemandforthe
destructionoftheSubjectaltogether.Theirapproachwastosubstitutethetemporal
contingencyofthesubjectforanargument.MerelytospecifytheSubjecthistorically,to
situateitsemergenceintimealreadyseemstocallitintoquestion.Whythethingbeing
criticisedoughttoberejecteddoesnotneedtobestated.Itisthekindofcriticism
popularlyexpressedinthephrasethatssoold.

RescuingtheSubject

Somephilosophersandpoliticalscientistshavetriedtoseparatethequestionofthe
historicalemergenceoftheSubjectfromitsimpliedtransience.Inacunningfeintthe
AmericanpragmatistRichardRortyhappilyacknowledgesthatwearefreetoseethe
selfcentreless,asahistoricalcontingencyallthewaythrough.45 But,heargues,a
senseofhumansubjectivityasacentrelessbundleofcontingencies...iscompatiblewith
anysortofpolitics,includingliberalpolitics. 46 Rortyissayingthattheknowledgeofthe
historicalrelativityoftheSubjectdoesnotmakeapoliticsbasedonthefreeSubject,
liberalism,impossible.Itisadaringmanoeuvre.Heisjettisoningtheapparentlystronger
claimoftheeighteenthcenturyfoundersofliberalpoliticsthattheindividualisina

15
18052/2
stateofnature,bornfree.InsteadRortyoccupieshisopponentsground,acknowledging
thehistoricalfactsthattheSubjectisathingofrecentinvention,andsays,ajollygood
one,too.InthiswaythequestionoftheendoftheSubjectissidesteppedaltogether.
TheonusisbackonthecriticstomakethecaseagainsttheSubject.

Rortyexplainstherevisionofnaturalrighttheory:Evenifnothingelsesurvivesfromthe
ageofthedemocraticrevolutions,perhapsourdescendantswillrememberthatsocial
institutionscanbeviewedasexperimentsincooperationratherthanasattemptsto
embodyauniversalandahistoricalorder.47 Rortyissayingthatwedonotneedto
believethatlibertyisanaturalfacultyofMantobelievethatitisagoodthing.Wecan
justadoptitasthelast,besthopeofhumanity.GermanpoliticalscientistKarlOttoApel
makesasimilarobjectiontoRortywhenherightlyaskswhetherenlightenmentvalues
reallyhaveprovedtobeculturedependentnotonlybytheirgenesisbutwithregardto
theirvalidity?48 Heissayingthatbecausehistoricallyindividualrightshappenedtoarise
intheWesterncornerofEuropethatmightmeanthattheregenesisprovedtobe
culturedependent.ButitdoesnotfollowthattheyarevalidonlyforEuropeans.Rather,
heissuggesting,theyarevalidforallpeoples,whatevertheirculture.

Rortysumsuphispoliticalphilosophywiththewittyselfdescriptionpostmodernist
bourgeoisliberalism.HeexplainsthatIcallitbourgeoistoemphasisethatmostof
thepeopleIamtalkingaboutwouldhavenoquarrelwiththeMarxistclaimthatalotof
thoseinstitutionsandpracticesarepossibleandjustifiableonlyincertainhistoricaland
especiallyeconomic,conditions.AddingIusepostmodernistinasensegiventhis
termbyJeanFranoisLyotard,whosaysthatthepostmodernattitudeisthedistrustof
metanarratives.49 SothesenseofthehistoricalcontingencyoftheliberalSubject,for
example,doesnotnecessarilyclashwiththepostmoderndistrustofmetanarratives.
Rortyistweakingthepoststructuraliststailswhenhetellsthemthattheirhistorical
contingencyisowedasmuchtoMarxastoNietzscheorHeidegger.Buthesuspectsthat
theywouldnotbesatisfiedthatMarxshistoricalrelativisationwassufficientwhenhe
admitsthathispostmodernbourgeoisliberalismsoundsoxymoronic.50

LikeRorty,thelegaltheoristJohnRawlsseekstosavetherightsbearingSubjectwhile
concedingtheunlikelihoodofhisemergingreadymadefromthestateofnature.Rawls
wantstosavehisSubjectfrombeingthemereeffectofhisculturalcontext.Hewantsto
sustainthenotionofanunencumberedSelf,thatisaSelfthatcanstandapartfromany
vestedinterestsitmayhave,despitefindingthenaturalindividualimplausible.What
Rawlsistryingtodoistoridtheliberalorder,inwhichfreeindividualSubjectshold
sway,ofthechargeofpartiality,ofbiastowardsthewealthy,thosewhohavesucceeded
intheratrace.Rawlshasrecoursetothefollowingthoughtexperiment:imaginethe
socialorderthatyouwouldchoose,ifyouwerewhollyignorantofwhereyouwere
likelytoenduponthepeckingorder.Rawlssuggeststhat,frombehindtheveilof
ignoranceyoucouldbeexpectedtochooseasocialsystemthatfavouredlibertyand
thepossibilitiesofselfadvancementbecauseveryfewpeoplewouldwriteofftheir

16
18052/2
ownchancestogainbytheirefforts.Atthesametimehesaysthatsincemostofusfear
povertywouldbeafallfromwhichwewouldnotrecover,mosttoowouldprefertosee
asafetynetofwelfareinplace,sincebehindtheveilofignoranceonecannotknow
whereonewillendup.Thethoughtexperimentoftheveilofignoranceusefullyleadsto
theexpectedresult:thataliberalsocietywithawelfarestate,Rawlsown,istheone
thatmostwouldchooseifthechoosingwerefair,whichistosay,notundertakenfrom
onesactualsocialstanding,butfromadisinterestedvantagepoint.Theveilof
ignoranceisatheoreticaldevicethatsubstitutesforthestateofnatureinnaturalright
theories,asecular,nonnaturalbasisforindividualrights.Asweshallsee,Rawls
unencumberedSelfisopentomoreobjectionsthatRortyscentrelessself.

ThelateCorneliusCastoriadis,socialactivistandiconoclasticthinker,takesthehistorical
emergenceoftheSubjectasaxiomatic,butatthesametimeseestheSubject,likeRorty,
asworthynonetheless.Of[humansubjectivity]oneoughttosaythat,asarelatively
recenthistoricalcreation,itisvirtualineveryhumanbeing,butitiscertainlynotafated
process.Atwhichpointheisinfullagreementwiththepoststructuralistsperhapsnot
surprisingly,sincemanyofthem,likeLyotard,studiedwithCastoriadisinhisradical
groupSocialismorBarbarisminFranceinthe1950sand1960s.ButunlikeDerrida,
Castoriadisassociatestheauthoritarianregimesofthemidtwentiethcenturywiththe
extinguishingofsubjectivity,ratherthanwithitsreign.Recentandpresenthistory
offersmassiveandhorrifyingexamplesinwhichthelasttracesofreflectivenessandofa
willofonesown,whichhumanbeingscanpossessarereducedtonothingbythesocial
(political)institution.51

Indicativeofawhollydistinctivepoliticalengagementtothatofthepoststructuralists
whocameafterhim,CastoriadisseesfascismandStalinismasthenegationof
subjectivity,wheretheywouldseeitastheculminationofsubjectivity.Castoriadis
directlyanswersthechargethatanydefenceoftheindividualimpliesanaturalistic
theoryofindividualism.Theindividualshouldbeseennotasanaturalgiven,butan
historicalachievement.Isthereaunitytothesingularhumanbeingbeyondits
corporealidentityandthechronologicalcontainerofitshistory?,heasks.Thereisa
unitythatisaimedatorthatweoughttoaimat:theunityofreflectiveself
representationandofthedeliberateactivitiesoneundertakes.Andtorebutthespecific
chargeofahistoricism,headds,Unityheredoesnotmean,ofcourse,invariability
throughtime.52 Buteveninthatlastqualification,onecansenseacertain
defensivenessinCastoriadistone.

WithRortyandCastoriadis,theCanadianHegelscholaroftheoldNewLeft,Charles
TaylorseekstosubvertthepostmodernhistoricisationoftheSubjectwithhisbookThe
SourcesoftheSelf.Thebookisagreatcompendiumofthedifferinghistorical
contributionstomodernsubjectivity,ortheSelf,showingthedistinctivesources,from
theAtticlegacythroughtheRenaissanceandEnlightenmenttotheRomantic
modificationsofsubjectivity.Theeffectistolayclaimtoadeepunderstandingofthe

17
18052/2
waythattheSelfhasbeenhistoricallyconstitutedinanimplicitchallengetosomeofthe
moreglibstatementsabouttherecentinventionoftheSubject.Butatthesametime,
Taylorisdemonstratingthenobilityofthishistoricalachievement.Hisapproachto
historicaldevelopmentisHegelianandpositivistic,embracingtherealinallofits
development,ratherthanNietzscheanandnegative.Butasweshallseelater,Taylors
Subjectisboundedinotherwaysthanhistorically.

ForalloftheattemptstosidestepthehistoricalrelativisationoftheSubject,itisdifficult
nottothinkthattheseareposeddefensively.ThebeliefthatthehumanSubjectis
transientismoreofanintuitiveresponsethanarationalone.Itisnotnecessarily
susceptibletoarationalargument.TheclaimsofliberalsocietiesthatRortyandRawls
aredefendingarepreciselywhatarecalledintoquestioninthepresentimentofthe
transcendenceofthehuman.ConcedingthetransienceoftheSubjectbutdefending
liberalnormsisnotlikelytosatisfythecriticsofsubjectivity.ThesensethattheSubject
isintrinsicallylimitediswellexpressedinLyotardsintroductiontohisbookThe
Inhuman.Therehearguesthatthesocioeconomicdecisionmakerusesthediscourse
offreesubjectivitytolegitimatehisorheroptions:competitiveness,betterdistribution
ofcosts,democracyinsociety,enterprise,schoolandfamily.Eventherightsofmancan
beappealedtoinreinforcementoftheauthorityofthesystem.53 Withthisdegreeof
distrustandalienationfromfamily,democracyandschoolandeventheideaofrights,
themodestdefenceofliberaldemocraciesmadebyRortyandRawlsissimplymissing
thepoint.

ThePosthuman

InanessayonthefalloftheBerlinWallandthesubsequentwarintheGulf,Lyotard
expresseshisdistancefromthecompetingsystemsintheseconflictswiththe
observationthattheherointhisfableisnolongerMan.54 Instead,Lyotardsketches
afablenarratedbythesystem,inwhichenergydispersedinrandomparticlesinthe
vastnessofthecosmosundergoesinternaldifferentiationbeforeEntropyleadsto
randomdistribution.OnthesurfaceoftheEarthlivingsystemsreverseentropyand
developsexedreproductiongivingrisetothechanceofmutations(misreadings).
Aftersometime,thesystemcalledManwasselectedandaftersome[more]time,it
happenedthatsystemscalledliberaldemocraciescametoberecognisedasthemost
appropriateforthetaskofcontrollingeventsinwhateverfieldtheyoccur.Inliberal
democraticsystems,everybodycouldbelievewhattheyliked...providedthatthey
contributedtothesystemasenergeticallyastheycould.

Giventheincreasedselfcontroloftheopensystem,itwaslikelythatitwouldbethe
winnerinthecompetitionamongthesystemsallovertheEarth....Nothingseemedable
tostopthedevelopmentofthissystemexcepttheSunandtheunavoidablecollapseof
thewholestarsystem.55

18
18052/2
ThusfarthemeaningofLyotardsfableistoretellthehumanhistorywithoutthe
humansubjectexceptastheillusionoffreedominliberaldemocraticsocieties.By
makinghumanhistoryamereepisodewithintheinfinitelygreaterhistoryofthe
cosmos,Lyotardsucceedsinbelittlingmanandhisachievements.Butatthispoint,
Lyotardsfabletakesaninterestingturn:

Inordertomeetthispredictablechallenge,thesystemwasalreadyintheprocessof
developingtheprosthesisthatwouldenableittosurviveafterthesolarsourcesof
energy,whichhadcontributedtothegenesisofthelivingsystems,werewiped
out....researchwasdevotedtotheproblemofadjustingorreplacinglivingbodiesso
thathumanbrainswouldstillbeabletoworkwiththeonlyformsofenergyleft
availableinthecosmosthuspreparingforthefirstexodusofthenegentropicsystem
farfromtheEarth.

WhatMananditsbrainor,better,theBrainanditsmanwouldlooklikeinthedaysof
thefinalterrestrialchallenge,thestorydidnotsay.

Lyotardsspeculationsaremisanthropic,andbeartheimprintofasenseofhelplessness
andfutilitytowardsthehistoriceventsunfoldinginfrontofhim.Hisbleachedout
naturalhistoryofmancombinesthedumbessenceofsociobiologywiththe
dehumanisedsystemstheoryinfluencedbycybernetics.This,perhaps,isthe
culminationoftheradicallyhistoricisedtheoryofMan.Setinacosmiccontextsovast
thatallhissubjectivityisdiminishedtoanillusionfosteredbyaselfreproducingsystem,
ofwhichheismerelytheorgan.Butitistheconclusionthatiscompelling.TheEndof
theWorldisNigh,theoldlunaticwiththesandwichboardusedtowarnus.Butamore
bizarrefatenowunfolds.Evenextinctionoffersnoreleasefromtheselfreproducing
system,ashumanityistranscended.Thoughhedoesnotnameithere,itisthefigureof
theposthumanthathasarrived.

Youareposthumanandhardwired,singtheAmericanpunkbandManson,briefly
notoriousafterbeingscapegoatedforhavinginspiredthe1999ColumbineHighSchool
massacre. 56 Theimageofanevolutionarytranscendenceofthemerelyhumanhasbeen
withussinceNietzschesManandSuperman,andamainstayofadolescentculturefrom
theAmericancomicbookcharacterstheXMentotheseventiesBritishTVseriesThe
TomorrowPeople.Itisperhapsanormalenoughfantasytoimagineoneselfthemutant
originatorofawhollynewspecies,thenextstageofevolutionafterhomosapiens.
Thoseearlierbiologicalmutationsgenerallyaspiredtospecialpowers,telepathyand
thelike.Buttodaysposthumansdrawtheirinspirationfromtheinternetratherthan
genetics.

MaxMore,founderoftheExtropianInstitutesuggeststhathumanity'stimeisalmost
up:Notbecausewewilldestroyourselves,butbecausewewilltranscendour
humanity.Wearebecomingtranshumanpersonsintransitiontoaposthumanerain
whichhumanlimitswillhavebeenovercome.TheTranshumanistFAQpreparedbyNick

19
18052/2
BostrometalexplainsthatAposthumanisahumandescendantwhohasbeen
augmentedtosuchadegreeastobenolongerahuman.Lyotardsvisionof
research...devotedtotheproblemofadjustingorreplacinglivingbodiessothathuman
brainswouldstillbeabletoworkisembellishedintheTranshumanistFAQ.Themost
potentimageisthatofUploading(sometimescalledminduploadingorbrain
reconstruction)...thehypotheticalprocessoftransferringamindfromabiologicalbrain
toacomputer.Onecancopyanelectronicfileofdataontoyourcomputerfrom
anotherthroughthetelephonewires,whichiscalleddownloadingafilefromtheNet.
Thenetworkofpossibletelephoneconnectionsbetweencomputers,personaland
institutional,sustainstheillusionofarealmknownastheinternet,ormorepoetically
cyberspace.57 Uploadingreversestheimage,toimaginethatonesbrainwavesor
synapticpatterns(theimagesaredrawnfromdifferenterasofsciencefiction)couldbe
copiedintheoppositedirection,ontotheNet.Onceprojectedintothecybernetic
ether,thepersonalityhastranscendeditscorporealform,tobecomepartofthetraffic
ofinformationthatpassesthroughtheinternet.

DonnaHarawaysCyborgManifestowasanearlyinspirationtothecurrentgenerationof
posthumans.Harawayhasspeculatedaboutthewaythattechnologycouldbreakdown
thetraditionalSubject.Specifically,shelooksforwardtoanewraceofbeings,partman
andpartmachine,cyborgs.Inprinciple,sheissaying,thefutureisalreadyhere.
Pacemakers,prostheticlimbsandmodernwarfareallindicatethegrowinginterface
betweenhumanbiologyandtechnology.Sheisconsciousoftheironythatapositive
embraceoftechnologyspossibilitiesismoreusuallyassociatedwithnineteenthcentury
ideologies:Themaintroublewithcyborgs,ofcourseisthattheyaretheillegitimateoff
springofmilitarismandpatriarchalcapitalism,nottomentionstatesocialism.But
illegitimateoffspringareoftenexceedinglyunfaithfultotheirorigins....Fromone
perspective,acyborgworldisaboutthefinalimpositionofagridofcontrolonthe
planet,aboutthefinalabstractionembodiedinaStarWarsapocalypsewagedinthe
nameofdefence,aboutthefinalappropriationofwomensbodiesinamasculinistorgy
ofwar.Fromanotherperspective,acyborgworldmightbeaboutlivedbodilyandsocial
realitiesinwhichpeoplearenotafraidoftheirkinshipwithanimalsandmachines,not
afraidofpermanentlypartialidentitiesandcontradictorystandpoints.58 Technology,as
HarawayseesitcanbreakwiththepatriarchalanddomineeringtodissipatetheSubject
intofracturedidentitiesandcontradictorystandpoints.Pointedlytheposthumancyborg
sloughsofftheaccoutrementsofthemerelyhumansubject:

Thecyborgisacreatureinapostgenderworld;ithasnotruckwithbisexuality,pre
Oedipalsymbiosis,unalienatedlabour,orotherseductionstoorganicwholeness
throughafinalappropriationofallthepowersofthepartsintoahigherunity.Inasense
thecyborghasnooriginstoryintheWesternhumanistsense.Thecyborgisresolutely
committedtopartiality,irony,intimacyandperversity....Thecyborgwouldnotrecognise
theGardenofEden;itisnotmadeofmudandcannotdreamofreturningtodust.59

20
18052/2
Harawaysposthumancyborgseemsirreligioushere.Butthedesiretotranscendthe
merelyhumanformhasmarkedechoesofreligioussentiment.Thesenseofthe
historicalityofthehumansubjectbeganasaninsightintothewaythatmen,ratherthan
God,shapedtheirowncircumstancesandremadethemselves.60 Butincreasinglythat
insighthasbeenturnedintoitsopposite.Thesenseofmanstransienceintheworld
reversesthehumanistdethronementofGodinfavourofMan.Wherethehumanists
mademanthecentralcharacterinhisownstory,thetendencyofthehistorical
relativisationofmanhas,perversely,ledtoadiminishingofmansstanding.Nowweare
tobecowedinthefaceofEternity,ourownbriefappearanceonthatvastcontinuuma
merehappenstance.

InthefinalmovementofthetranscendenceofmaninthePosthumanwecanseethe
degradationofthehumanSubjectassumeafamiliarform.TheHigherSourcereligious
cultbelievedthattheHaleBoppcometcontainedaspaceshipthatwoulddeliverthem
toahigherevolutionarylevelaftertheyshedtheirbodies.InMarch1997,39ofthem
poisonedthemselvesalongwithcultleaderMarshallApplewhite.61 Theposthumanisa
playfulspeculation,butonethatexpsressesasenseofalienationfromhumanityanda
fantasydesirefortranscendence.Initsmostextremeform,itleavespilesofpoisoned
bodiesandreducesthehumanessencetoavideomessageleftforthoseofuswhostill
clingdoggedlytothehumanform.

ChapterFive

TheErsatzSubject

ThetheoreticaldegradationoftheautonomousSubjecthasbeenaccompaniedbya
recuperationofanersatzsubject,pallidandmorecompromisedthantheoriginalhe
displaces.SomethingmustoccupythespaceleftbytheevacuationoftheSubject.Inthe
followingweexaminetwoversionsofthetruncatedsubject.Firstwelookatidentity
theory,inwhichtheSubjectisdisplacedinfavourofanidentity.Thenwelookatthe
methodologicalindividualismadopteddefensivelybyrightstheoriststoshoreupthe
individualSubject,onlytofindhissubjectivityisexhaustedintheprocess.

TheIdentityParade

Perhapsthemostcogentassertionoftheselftobefoundincontemporaryconditionsis
intermsofidentity.Therighttohaveonesidentityrecognisedforitsvalidityisamong
themostcontentiousissuestoday.AccordingtoChrisGilligansestimatesofthe
occurrenceofthewordinthetitlesofacademicjournalarticles,identityhassoaredin
importance,ratingastable200orsomentionsbetween1981and1989,before
embarkingonasteadyclimbtomorethan700in1998.62 Despiteitscontentiousnature,
identity,sadly,isapeculiarlytruncatedsubstituteforsubjectiveautonomy.

21
18052/2
Identitytheorybeganasacomponentofpsychology,todescribechilddevelopment.
Theprocessofidentityformationwasseenasanimportantstagethatindividualspass
through.In1950theFreudiananalystErikEriksonwroteaboutthedifficultiesyoung
peoplehadestablishingstableidentitiesinhisbookChildhoodandSociety.63 Elsewhere,
thebehaviouristpsychologistErvingGoffmannwasdevelopingthetheoryofsocial
rolesandroleplayingtodescribethewaythatindividualsadoptedgivenidentitiesin
socialinteraction. 64 Thesepsychologicaltheorieshelpeddeveloptheterminologyof
identitytheory.Theseearlydevelopmentsinthetheorywereconductedinthemanner
ofobservationsfromtheoutside.Psychologistswerepreoccupiedwiththeproblemof
misidentification,suchas,famously,theAmericanPsychiatricAssociationsclassification
ofhomosexualityasamentaldisorder.65 Conversely,theywereconcernedwiththe
difficultiesofidentityformation,asinEriksonsdiscussionoftheyouthproblem.
Characteristically,thenormativeaspectsofidentitywereassumed(eg,heterosexual),
anddeviancefromthenormcategorisedandtreated.

Inthe1960sand1970sidentitytheorycameincreasinglytoadoptthestandpointofthe
fugitiveidentity.Deviancefromthenormwasnolongerconsideredpathological.Tothe
contrary,identitytheorytodaytakesasitsstartingpointthoseidentitiesthatare
formedinoppositiontotheoldnorms.Inthisversion,theconditionsofexclusionare
invertedtobecomeasourceofprideandstrength.Identificationsthatcarrieda
negativecacharereversedtobecomemomentsofselfassertion.Sociologistsin
particularweredrawntotheexpressionsofBlackPride,andlaterGayPrideasthe
creationofidentitiesofresistanceandoppositiontothedominantculture.66 The
emergenceoftheseapparentlyoppositionalidentitiessuggestednewwaysinwhichthe
priorityoftheidealtypeofthefreeSubjectcouldbecompromised.JulietMitchell
pointedoutthateachclasshasaspectsofitsownculture,whicharerelatively
autonomous.Thefactisillustratedbysuchphrasesasworkingclassculture,ghetto
culture,immigrantculture,etc,andbytheabsentphrasemiddleclassculture.
Thefactoftheculturesofexclusionlimitstheperceiveduniversalityofmiddleclass
culture.Wedontthinkofmiddleclasscultureassomethingseparateitsimplyis
theoverallculture,withinwhichareinsertedtheseisolableothercultures,Mitchell
objects.67 Asshesuggests,though,theveryfactoftheexcludedculturecallsinto
questiontheclaimofthemiddleclassculturetobethearchetypalculture.Ifthenormis
refused,thenitisnolongerthenorm.

Culturalidentityisasiteofresistance,andhenceofaction.However,identityis
markedlydifferentfromsubjectivity.WhereastheSubjectpresentsitselfaspure,
abstractanduniversal,identityisspecificandlocal.InHeideggerstypology,
determinatebeing(beingthere)takespriorityovertheabstractBeing.68 Thosevery
featuresthatwereportrayedasflaws,orevenimpuritiesbyEnlightenmentthinkersare
insteadheldupasabadgeofpride.Theparticularstancethatwasrejectedbeforeforits
partialityisnowrecognisedforitsspecialinsight.Andthatinsightispreciselythelimit

22
18052/2
pointofthepresumedgeneralityofthedominantidentity.Itappearsthatthenow
embracedidentificationhasapowertodisruptthenorm,revealingtheonesidednessof
whathadpurportedtobeallsided.

Asanidealofresistance,though,identityisflawed.Unliketheclassicalmodelof
Subject,identityiscontextualandsituated.Itdrawsitsauthorityfromitsgivennature,
ratherthanitsfutureorientation.Withidentitytheory,survivalitselfisthevirtue.The
conditionsofexclusionoroppressionareseenasasourceofinnerstrengthandnobility.
Itseemsasifweareinthepresenceofareturntothestoicalconsciousnessthat
endureshardshipwithequanimity.Wheretheprincipleofsubjectivityisself
determining,identificationtakesidentityfromitscontextandlocation.TheSubjectis
intrinsicallyundetermined,inthesenseofnothavingitsgoalsprescribedforitfrom
without.Itisnot,however,indeterminate,becausetheSubjectdeterminesitself(notof
coursemeaningthatallobstaclesareremoved,butinthesenseofdecidingitsown
course,whiletakingsuchobstaclesintoaccount).Bycontrast,identityremainsa
responsetoidentification.Itisaninnerreworkingofthoseexternallyimposednorms,
butstillremainsaresponse,andmore,acleavingtothoseconditionsofitsformation.I
comefromaproudheritage,IdentitysaystoSubject.DontaskmewhereImfrom,ask
mewhereImgoing,SubjectsaystoIdentity.

Withthedevelopmentofthetheoryidentityhascometobeseenasparadoxicalto
manyinthefield.Onfacevalue,identityisdisruptive,rebellious,achallengetothe
receivedorder.Butthismeaningofidentityisstrictlywithincontext.Asagainstthe
dominantmodel,theexcludedidentitiesaredisruptive,butintrinsicallytheyreproduce
theverylimitationstheyilluminated.JudithButlerobjectstothefoundationalist
reasoningofidentitypolitics.Shesaysthatthefeministweisalwaysandonlya
phantasmaticconstruction,onethathasitspurposes,butwhichdeniestheinternal
complexityandindeterminacyofthetermandconstitutesitselfonlythroughthe
exclusionofsomepartoftheconstituencythatitsimultaneouslyseekstorepresent.69
ShemeansthatoncetheSubjectofthemovementisdeterminedaswomen,thenthe
differencesbetweenwomengetcoveredup.Dostraightwomenhavethesamegoalsas
lesbianwomen?Notnecessarily.ItispointedthatButlerinsistsontheindeterminacyof
theterm,thetermfeminismwepresume.Butsurelythepointisthat,atleast
minimally,feministisadetermination,thatdelineatesandcircumscribesitsobjecta
movementfor,andof,women.Butlerwantstorecovertheindeterminacy,oropen
endednessthatcorrespondstotheideaoffreedom.Butidentitytheoryinitsnature
takesasitsstartingpointaboundedidentity,identitythatisidenticaltoitself.Itisborn
fromarefusalofuniversality,andmusttakeintoitselfthatcharacterofbeinglimited.

Overandoveragainwefindtheparadoxofidentitytheoryreplayed:itconjuresupa
feistyspiritoftakingontheworld,butatthesametimeitrevelsinitschains.Identity
theoristshavingbasedtheirclaimsupondeterminatebeingareconstantlylooking
aroundfortheundeterminedmomentthatiscontainedwithinidentitytheory.Howcan

23
18052/2
freedomberediscoveredwithintheslavecompound?Oneresponseistomultiply
identities.StuartHallwrites,forexample,thatthepostmodernsubjectiscomposednot
ofasingle,several,sometimescontradictoryorunresolvedidentities. 70 Furthermore,
identityisformedandtransformedcontinuouslyinrelationtothewaysweare
representedoraddressedintheculturalsystemswhichsurroundus. 71 Hallemphasises
continuousformationandtransformationtotrytoresurrecttheopenendednessoffree
subjectivity.Stabilityandorderwouldhardlyappeartobeambitiousgoals.Butinfact
thisindeterminacyisfalse.Itisnotindeterminacyforus.Ratheritistheunpredictability
ofouroutlyingconditions,ofthewayswearerepresentedoraddressed,whichisan
indeterminacythatisallthemorelimiting.AsHerakleitossays,themoreoneputs
oneselfatthemercyofchance,themorechancewillinvolveoneinthelawsofnecessity
andinevitability.72 Beingbuffetedfromonerepresentationtoanotherisnotan
indeterminacythatisopentoselfdetermination,butrathertheuncertaintythatmakes
freedomimpossible.Giveyourselfup,theculturalsystemshavegotyousurrounded!,
Hallmightbesaying.Norindeedisthemultiplicationofdeterminationsequaltoopen
possibilities.Itisjustmoreandmoredeterminations,ormoreexternalshaping.The
minimalfreedomofplayingoffoneimposedidentificationagainstanotherisa
peculiarlylacklustrealternativetofreesubjectivitycorrespondingtotradingfora
marginaladvantage.Thefactthatidentitytheoristsfeelobligedtotalkvaguelyof
indeterminacy,theunresolvedandsoon,isnottobetakenatfacevalue.Onthe
contrary,itisclosertothebadconsciencethatresistsfacingthedeterminateresolution
thatisidentification.

JudithButlerinparticularhasgrappledwiththemomentofclosurethatisidentification,
tryingtoholdontothesenseofsubversionofidentity.Theparodicsubversionof
identityindraginterestsherbecauseofthewaythatitturnstheimposedidentification
againstitself.ForButleradoptingagenderidentityinvolvesthecontinuousperformance
ofthemanygesturesthatmakeupthatidentity.Thisidentificationis,shesaysa
processofrepetitionthatenforcesitsrules.Allsignificationtakesplacewithinthe
orbitofcompulsiontorepeat;agency,then,istobelocatedwithinthepossibilitiesof
avariationonthatrepetition.Butlercontinues,itisonlywithinthepracticesof
repetitivesignifyingthatasubversionofidentitybecomespossible.73 Asagencygoes,
thisisanagencyofaremarkablylimitedkindvariationonrepetition.Thesubversion
ofidentityseemstohaveslowedtothepaceofnaturalevolution,andquiteatodds
withtheremarkablyswiftchangesinsociallyacceptableidentitiesinrecenttimes.One
wonderswhatthebarriertoamorefulsomerejectionofrepetitionis.Butlerexplains:

Thecriticaltaskforfeminismisnottoestablishapointofviewoutsideofconstructed
identities;thatconceitistheconstructionofanepistemologicalmodelthatwould
disavowitsownculturallocationand,hence,promoteitselfasaglobalSubject,a
positionthatdeploysexactlytheimperialiststrategiesthatfeminismoughtto
criticise. 74

24
18052/2
Todomorethanvarytherepetitionwouldbetorisksteppingoutsideofthe
constructedidentity.Suchconceitwould,disavowitsownculturallocation,whichisto
say,abandontheidentityascribedtowomen.Worsestill,itseemstosuggestthattaking
decisionsforoneselfistantamounttoinvadingsmallanddefencelesscountries.With
thisdegreeofcautionitisnowonderthatButlertalksdownthegoaloffreedom,
pretendingthatitisprettymuchthesamethingasslavery,anyway:Feminist
discourse,sheregrets,remainstrappedwithintheunnecessarybinarismoffreewill
anddeterminism.75 Drawingoutthelogicofidentitytheorysdisplacementoffree
subjectivity,shewritesthatthereisnoselfthatisprior...thereisonlyatakingupofthe
toolswheretheylie,wherethetakingupisenabledbythetoollyingthere.76

MethodologicalIndividualism

Inaverydifferentquarterfromculturalstudiesyoucanfindanother,quitedifferent
elevationofindividuality.Freemarkettheory,aschampionedbyFAHayekandKarl
Popper,hasfallenoutoffavourinrecenttimesbutretainsaninfluencefromitshigh
tideintheReagan/Thatcheryears.HayekandPopperwerebothhighlyideological
championsofthefreemarketagainstsocialism.InHayekscase,theargumentwasmore
purelymadeintermsofaphilosophyofeconomics,whilstPopper,lessdogmaticagainst
stateinterventionbroadenedouttheidealisationofthefreeeconomyintoanopen
society.IfitseemsthatPopperandHayekaremarredbytheirassociationwithsome
pointedofficialpromotionoftheirworkintheWest,manyofthemoreleftwingcritics
oftheirworkhavereluctantlyadmittedthattheindividualistcritiqueofsocialist
planninghasbeenvindicatedbythefailureoftheSovietbloc.77 Whateverthetruthor
otherwiseoftheplanningdebate,ourpurposeisservedbylookingattheassertionof
thepriorityoftheindividualoverthecollectiveintheirwritings.

ItwasPopperwhomostpoignantlysummeduptheprejudiceinfavouroftheSelfwhen
he,citingHayek,calleditmethodologicalindividualism.Happilyassertingthatthis
theoryisequallyapplicabletoatomicparticles,Poppergoesontoinsistthat
methodologicalindividualismisthequiteunassailablebeliefthatwemusttryto
understandallcollectivephenomenaasduetotheactions,interactions,aims,hopes,
andthoughts,ofindividualmen,and,headds,withapointedqualification,asdueto
traditionscreatedandpreservedbyindividualmen.78

Methodologicalindividualism,apresupposedbiastowardstheindividualoverthe
collectiveintheorymirroredanideologicalbiastowardsthefreemarket.Butitwould
befoolishtotaketheideologicalbiastowardsthefreemarketliterally.Hayekand
Popperbothtooktheviewthatfreedomwassynonymouswithamarketsociety,onein
whichthestateplayedassmallaroleasitcould.Theircriticismsofcollectivismwere
madeinthenameofindividualliberty.Hayeks1944tract,TheRoadtoSerfdomwasa
warningagainstwelfarism,thatlikenedittofascism.PoppersOpenSocietyandits
EnemieswasapolemicagainstMarxism.Onthefaceofthings,PopperandHayekwere

25
18052/2
botharguingthecaseforindividualfreedomagainsttheoppressivemightofthe
socialiststate.

However,theunderlyingthemeofmethodologicalindividualismwasapolemicagainst
manshubrisinpresumingtotakecontrolofsociety.Theimplicationofmethodological
individualismwasthatsocialknowledgewasanabsurdity.Thecomplexityofdeveloped
societiesmeantthatitwasimpossibletounderstandthem.Theconceitofthesocial
engineerwasthathepresumedtounderstandsomethingthatcouldnotbeunderstood.
Allactiononthebasisofsuchfalseunderstanding,then,wouldalsobedeluded.The
limitedconceptionofthesocialengineerwouldalwaysfallshortofthecomplexityof
society.Furthermore,planningdecisionsthemselves,inbecomingapartofthepicture,
wouldbetakenintoaccountinthemyriaddecisionsofindividualactors.Allgovernment
actionwouldbesubvertedbythewaythatindividualstookthatactionintoaccountand
soughttogetaroundit.Inotherwords,youcantbuckthemarket.

Thoughthefreemarketrejectionofsocialismwasmadeinthenameofindividual
freedom,itwassubstantiallyanargumentagainsttheSubject,namelythecollective
Subject.HayekandPoppersmethodologicalindividualismstartedwiththeassumption
thatcollectiveactionwasanimpossibility.Themoreargumentativesideoftheirideas
madeitclearthattheyweretryingtoattackareallivingSubject,thecollectiveSubject
oforganisedlabour,inthenameofanabstractSubject,thefreeindividual.WhenHayek
wrotethathehadsucceededinwinningtheintellectualargumentagainsthisstate
spendingrivaleconomistJohnMaynardKeynes,hewarned:Therewillbenomore
urgentneedthantoerectnewdefencesagainsttheonslaughtsofpopular
Keynesianism.79 Hayekrevealstheunspokenmeaningofthecampaignagainstserfdom.
Whilehefearedtheservitudeofthepropertiedclassesbeforeasocialiststate,the
workingclasseswereproperlyserfs,againstwhomonemusterectdefences.Inhis
essaysTheconfusionoflanguageinpoliticalthoughtandEconomicfreedomand
representativegovernment,Hayekarguesagainstdemocracyonthegroundsthat
representativegovernmentlimitsindividualfreedom.80 ThecollectiveSubjectofthe
PeoplewasofcourseanabsurditytoHayek,forwhomcollectivitiesaredelusions.

ItisinterestingthatevenasunashamedacapitalistideologueasHayekwasunableto
sustainapositiveattitudetowardsindividualsubjectivity.IntheFatalConceit:TheErrors
ofSocialismitisclearthatsocialismisonlytheexpressformofamoredestructive
conceit,reasonitself.Mindisnotaguide,butaproductofculturalevolutionandis
basedmoreonimitationthanoninsightorreason,hewrote.81 Whereashehadasa
youngmaninsistedthathisphilosophywasliberalratherthanconservative,theolder
Hayekwastobefoundarguingthattraditionisinsomerespectssuperiorto,orwiser
than,humanreason.82 Virtuallyallourbenefitsofcivilisation,andindeedourvery
existence,rest,Ibelieve,onourcontinuingwillingnesstoshouldertheburdenof
tradition. 83 FromwarningagainsttheRoadtoSerfdom,HayekappearsinTheFatal
Conceittobearguingforit.Thisis,though,tobeexpected.Methodological

26
18052/2
individualismwasneverwhatitappearedtobe.Superficiallyitwasthecasefor
individualfreedomagainstcollectiveenslavement.Insubstanceitwasthecaseagainst
theconceitofhumanreason,withreferencetothecollectiveSubject.Sincethe
substantialargumentwastheargumentagainsttheconceitofreason,wecould
anticipatethatevenindividualreasonwouldfallawayinthefaceofasubservienceto
traditionmoreinkeepingwiththecommunitarians.Furthermore,amethodological
individualismwouldhavetobetheoppositeofatrueindividualsubjectivity.This
individualismisnotattained,butpresumedattheoutset.Individualityisnotaself
assertionbutsomethingthatistakenforgranted.Thatcontradictstheverymeaningof
subjectivityasselfdetermining.

Anexampleofthelimitationsofmethodologicalindividualismcanbeseeninthework
ofPFStrawsonandhissonGalen,bothofwhomworkedintheanalyticalphilosophical
traditiononwhichPopperandHayekdrew.TheelderStrawsonsbookIndividualstook
individualsasaprimaryfactofexistence.Materialbodiesinouractualconceptual
scheme,hesays,arebasicparticulars.Personsareidentifiedbytheidentificationof
theirbodiesfirst,butalsobytheirstatesofconsciousness.Itisanecessarycondition,
hesays,ofascribingstatesofconsciousness,experiences,tooneself,inthewaythat
onedoes,thatoneshouldbeabletoascribethem,orbepreparedtoascribethemto
otherswhoarenotoneself.84 Thesocalledproblemofothermindshaspreoccupied
analyticalphilosophersformanyyears.Aphilosophythattakesasitsstartingpointthe
disaggregation,oranalysis,ofwholesintotheirconstituentparts,orindividuals,has
problemsunderstandingtheoverarchingmomentofcommunication.Strawsons
responsehereistoderivecommunityfromselfreflection.AsIseemyownmind,Ican
assumeotherminds.

Thisassumptionhasnotstoodthetestoftime.TheAmericananalyticphilosopher
RichardRortyreflectinglongandhardonthepossibilityofotherminds,cametothe
conclusionthathisownandeveryoneelseswasanillusion,ourGlassyEssence,
inventedbyDescartes.Intruthwewerepersonswithoutminds.85 Rortymeantthat
therewasnoneedtopresupposetheexistenceofahomunculusseatedsomewherein
thebrainbehindyouractions.Analysingaway,hedispensedwiththathypothesis.Galen
Strawson,alsohadreasontodoubttheexistenceofthemindasanindependent
motivatingforce.TheyoungerGalenraisesaBasicArgumentagainstfreewill:

1. Itisundeniablethatoneisthewayoneis,initially,asaresultofheredityand
earlyexperience,anditisundeniablethatonecannotbeheldmorallyresponsible
forthesethings
2. Onecannotlateraccedetruemoralresponsibilityforthewayoneisbytryingto
changethewayonealreadyisasaresultofheredityandpreviousexperience,
because:

27
18052/2
3. Thewayoneismovedtotrytochangeoneselfandthedegreeofonessuccess,
aredeterminedbyhowonealreadyisasaresultofheredityandprevious
experience.Furthermore:
4. Anyfurtherchangesthatonecanbringaboutin3.Abovewillbedetermined,
viatheseinitialchanges,byheredityandpreviousexperience.86

ThewaythattheyoungerStrawsonsargumentworksisbyastrictapplicationofthelaw
ofentailment.Thewayoneisatbirthiswhollygivenbyheredityandexperience.
Commonsensedictatesthatonewhoiswithoutresponsibilityforthewayoneiscannot
beheldresponsible.Clearly,weallknowthatachildisnotresponsibleforhisown
circumstances.Thiscommonsensestartingpointgivesrisetothelater,counterintuitive
conclusionthatadultsarenotresponsibleforhowtheyareeither.Strawsonsargument
worksbecauseitexcludesthepossibilityoftheemergenceofonethingoutofanother,
thatistheemergenceofadultresponsibilityoutofchildishirresponsibility.Theone
cannotentailtheother,becausetheyaresodifferent.Butonecouldjustaseasilyput
theargumenttheotherwayaround.Sinceweknowcommonsensicallythatadultsare
responsible,andweexcludethepossibilityoftheemergenceofadistinctivefactorout
ofgivenconditions,thenwemustassumethatinfantsareresponsibleforhowtheyare.
Ifonerebelsagainstthisabsurdconclusion,itisnolessabsurdthantheonethatdenies
theresponsibilityofadults.(Indeed,inotheragesandsocieties,theresponsibilityof
infantsandevenanimalshasbeentakenseriouslybutIdonotmeantoadvancethat
casehere).Strawsonsconclusionisfaultynotbecauseofitspremise,butbecauseofits
method,whichexcludesthepossibilityoftheemergenceofsubjectivity,intheprocess
ofeducationandencouragementthatisgrowingup.How,heisasking,canonebe
taughttothinkforoneself?Itisanabsurditytoformallogic,butnottoalogicof
development.

Moreinteresting,perhapsiswhattheyoungerStrawsonsrejectionofindividual
autonomytellsusaboutthefragilityofmethodologicalindividualism.Withthisnegative
assessment,themethodologicalindividualismofColdWarideologyturnsintoitsevil
twin,Sovietstyledeterminism.Strawsonsapproachischaracteristicoftheempty
contrastbetweenfreewillanddeterminisminanalyticphilosophy.Totheanalytic
philosophersfreewillandthedeterminedweresimplyopposed.Thephilosophical
answerwasgivenbyHegelinhisScienceofLogicinwhichhedescribesthe
transformationofSubstanceintoSubjectintheDoctrineoftheConcept.Aspopularised
byEngels,freedomistherecognitionofnecessity,butitisalsotheleapfromnecessity.
Likethedivingboardbeneathyourfeet,necessityisdeterminate,butitisalsothebasis
ofselfdetermination,whereonegivestooneselfthelaw.Jump;dontjump:itsyour
call.

28
18052/2
ConclusiontoSectionOne

MorethanaTheory

Inlayingoutthemanyvariedtheoriesofhumaninteractioninsofarastheytouchupon
thedegradationoftheSubject,thetendencyistominimisetheirdifferencesfromeach
other.Thedebatesbetweenschoolsofthoughtarepassedover,perhapstothe
detrimentoftheircase.Itispossiblethough,becauseofthiscommontrendtominimise
theroleoftheSubject.Throughoutavarietyofapparentlycontradictoryoutlookswe
findanunderlyingunityintheincreasingdiscomfortwiththeideaoftheSubject.
Engagingcriticallywiththeseideas,Ihavearguedfromthestandpointofthedespised
Subject,astheexcludedOtherofthesetexts,ifyouwill.Thedemotionofthefree
Subjectispresentedthusfarasifitwereanerror,sotospeak.Butthisisnotquitehow
itis.

Thesedifferentthinkersarenotmakingasimpleerror.Theirthoughtsarenotina
mismatchwiththeworld.Onthecontrary,itistheirsensitivitytothenewconditions
thatdrivesthemtodemotehumansubjectivityintheirthinking.Theyaresensitiveto
thewaythatintruth,theSubjectiswanting,ordegraded.Intheengagementbetween
thereceivedideasofthepast,theintellectualsystemshandeddownfromprevious
generations,thesetheoristshavebecomeincreasinglytroubledbythewideninggap
betweenthetheoreticalSubjectandthereality.Existingsocialandpoliticalthinkingis
orderedaroundtheSubject.TheSubjectisthestartingpointofsomanyintellectual
systemsfromAdamSmithsWealthofNationsandHegelsPhilosophyofRighttoLenins
WhatistobeDone?orSartresBeingandNothingness.FindingthisSubjectstill
stumblingaboutintherealmofideas,morecontemporarythinkersweredrivento
wonderwhetherhehadanycorrelateintheworld,orifheliveduptothepromisehe
offered.ThetheoreticalSubjecthadbeenhollowedout,madeethereallikeaghost.The
livingSubjectapproximatedlessandlesstothepromise.HeideggerianJeanGreisch
posesthequestionwhatarewetodowhenthatdoublepresuppositionarational
animalwhosehighestexpressionofvalueisfreedombecomesproblematical...?87
GreischistalkingaboutthemoralSubject,theautonomousindividualwhomakesmoral
choices.ButthatSubjectisinquestion,notjusttheoretically,butinfact.

ThereisakindofelantothecritiqueofSubjectivity.Itmovestentativelyfirst,likeachild
testingoutsomenewprofanity.Butfindingthatthereislittleresistanceitrushes
forward,pushingatanopendoor.ItisasifsomeoneworkedupthecouragetosayThe
Subjecthasnoclothes!andsuddenlyhisnakednessisrevealed.Suchsuddenshifts
encouragethecriticism.TheassaultontheSubjecttakesonthecharacterofarevolt,
likestormingtheWinterPalace.Thosethatdemurarereactionaryoldfuddyduddies.
Quitequicklythefugitiveoutlookofyesterdaybecomestheestablishmentviewpointof

29
18052/2
today.Postmodernismisnowanintrinsicpartofthesyllabusthroughoutthe
humanities.Eventhepopehasgonepomo.

Thereisofcourse,apricetopay,andaheavyone.Thetheoreticaldegradationofthe
Subjectisclosertorealitythananaivereassertionofnaturalrightscouldbe.Butitis
alsoanaccomplicetothepresent.Whilstthefirststirringsrepresentedsome
considerablelabour,gropingtowardssomethingthatwasfarfromclear,theworktoday
isjusttooeasy.Nosoonerisapropositionmadethanitcanbedeconstructed.The
questionofwhethertheprojectofdeconstructionistherightoneismoreandmore
difficulttoask.WhatisthedegradationoftheSubjectinfact,andoughttheorytobean
accomplicetoit?Thinkingoughttopayattentiontotheworld,butitdoesnot
necessarilyhavetocelebratethedefeatsofthehumanspirit.Totaketheargument
furtherwewillhavetolookmorecloselyattheactualityofthedegradationofthe
Subject.Notjustasitisreworkedinthought,butasitislived.

Footnotes

1
Office of National Statistics, Britain 2000: Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom, 1999; Robert Worcester and
Roger Mortimer, Explaining Labours Landslide, Politicos 1999.
2
A representative of the liberal outlook of the eighteenth century Immanuel Kant writes that the principle of rights
is to 'be a person and respect others as persons' (quoted in Avineri, Hegels Theory of the Modern State,
Cambridge: University Press, 1972, p137) or it is 'the equality of each member with every other as a Subject'
3
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their
regard to their own interest. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Penguin, 1987, P119
4
Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the whole body, which means nothing
other than that he shall be forced to be free, JJ Rousseau, The Social Contract, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972,
p64. Rousseaus forceful mode of expression alarms more individualistically minded readers, but he only means
that if you beat up old ladies you will go to prison, for your own good, as much as anyone elses.
5
See Hillel Ticktin, Origins of the Crisis in the USSR: Essays on the Political Economy of a Disintegrating System,
ME Sharpe: Armonk, 1992
6
A British National Party slogan of the late 1980s.
7
Francis Bacon wrote that building in the human understanding a true model of the world ... a thing which cannot
be done without a very diligent dissection and anatomy of the world. The New Organon, New York: Macmillan,
1986, Aphorism CXXIV, p113
8
See The Constitution of the United States of America, Article One, Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
9
Immanuel Kant Nothing is required for this enlightenment, however except freedom; and the freedom in
question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom to reason publicly in all matters. What is Enlightenment
in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, Indiana: Hackett, 1983, p 42
10
The Inhabitants shall have the right of free association and assemblance, Constitution of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, in Baron Asbeck (ed) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights And its Predecessors (1679-
1948). Leiden: EJ Brill, 1949.
11
See Habeas Corpus Act, 1679 (Great Britain) An act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for
the prevention of imprisonments beyond the seas in Baron Asbeck (ed) The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights And its Predecessors (1679-1948). Leiden: EJ Brill, 1949.
12
1. That all men are by nature equally free and indpendent, and have certain inherent rights, or which, when
they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the
enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety. Bill of Rights (Virginia) in Baron Asbeck (ed) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
And its Predecessors (1679-1948). Leiden: EJ Brill, 1949.
13
See Two Concepts of Liberty in Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford, 1969
14
See CB Macpherson, Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval, Oxford: University Press, 1983
15
The Information, London: Flamingo, 1995, p129,.
16
Semiotext(e), 1983, p39

30
18052/2

17
Cadava, What Comes After the Subject?
18
Slavoj Zizek, The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology, London: Verso, 1999
19
Reason and Faith
20
The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester: University Press, 1989, pXXIV
21
The Postmodern Condition, pXXIV
22
Intellectual Impostures, London: Profile, 1999.
23
The Undoing of Thought, London: The Claridge Press, 1988, p116
24
Jacques Derrida indicates the intrinsic nature of difference with his own concept of diffrance indicating not only
differentiation, but also the deferment of the moment of closure that is definition, and hence the perpetual play of
difference. Diffrance is the nonfull, nonsimple, structured and differentiating origin of differences. A Derrida
Reader: Between the Blinds, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester, 1991, p64
25
A Derrida Reader, p65. My thanks to Kenan Malik for pointing this passage out.
26
A Derrida Reader, pix
27
Of Grammatology, Maryland: John Hopkins UP, 1997, p16
28
Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question, Chicago: University Press, 1991, p40
29
Quoted in Luc Ferry and Alain Renault Heidegger and Modernity, Chicago: University Press, 1990 p2. I have
missed out a second parenthesis, a sideswipe at Stalinism.
30
Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: The Archeology of the Human Sciences, London: Tavistock, 1986, p
387. The striking image is drawn perhaps from this fragment of Herakleitos: History is a child building a
sandcastle by the sea, and that child is the whole majesty of mans power in the world. Herakleitos and Diogenes,
trans., Guy Davenport, San Francisco: Grey Fox Press, 1979
31
Michel Foucault, The Order of Things, p344
32
Michel Foucault, The Order of Things, p345
33
GWF Hegel, Natural Law: The Scientific Ways of Treating Natural Law, Its place in Moral Philosophy, and its
relation to the Positive Sciences of Law, Pennsylvania: University Press, 1975.
34
Karl Marx, Tenth thesis on Feuerbach, Early Writings, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984, p423
35
CB Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke, Oxford: University Press,
1964, p197
36
Of course, the coalescence of Hegelians, Marxists and poststructuralists by no means exhausts all possible
views about the existence or otherwise of the natural individual. An echo of the eighteenth-century theory of
natural right persists in some sociobiological theories, as well as in the free market theoreticians who follow
Frederick Hayek and Karl Popper. But, as we shall see in Chapter 5, even these defenders of individualism offer
only an anaemic and truncated support for the Subject. A greater sense of the contingency of social arrangements
is forcing the pace of the historical relativisation of the Subject.
37
It is in fact in the life of a people or nation that the Notion of self-conscious Reasons actualisation ... that the
Notion has its complete reality. The Phenomenology of Spirit, Oxford: University Press, 1977, p212
38
with Engels, Communist Manifesto, Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1977, p46, 47.
39
Georg Lukacs, Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat, History and Class Consciousness,
London, Merlin, 1983.
40
Jean Baudrillard The Mirror of Production, St Louis: Telos Press, 1975, p47
41
Jean Baudrillard The Mirror of Production, p67
42
Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, New York: Vintage, 1989, p45
43
Being and Time, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990, p44
44
Being and Time, p44
45
Richard Rorty, quoted in Questioning Ethics: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy, Edited by Richard Kearney
and Mark Dooley, London Routledge, 1999 p152
46
Richard Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others: Philosophical Papers, vol. II, Cambridge University Press,
1991, p197.
47
Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, vol. I, Cambridge University Press,
1991, p196.
48
quoted in Questioning Ethics: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy, Edited by Richard Kearney p158
49
Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth, p198-9.
50
Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth,, p199.
51
Cornelius Castoriadis, The State of the Subject Today, in World in Fragments: Writings on Politics, Society,
Psychoanalysis and the Imagination, Stanford: University Press, 1997, p 168
52
Cornelius Castoriadis, The State of the Subject Today, in World in Fragments, p 169.
53
Cambridge: Polity, 1991, p5
54
J-F Lyotard, Political Writings, London: University College, 1993, p122-3
55
J-F Lyotard, The Wall the Gulf and the Sun, Political Writings, p 122-3
56
Posthuman, Lyrics: Manson / Music: Ramirez, Gacy
57
Much of this imagery was developed in William Gibsons novel Neuromancer.

31
18052/2

58
In Charles Lemert (ed), Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classical Readings, Boulder: Westview Press,
1993, p599
59
In Charles Lemert (ed), Social Theory, p598-9
60
See Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, in Early Writings, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978
61
London Guardian, March 20, 2000
62
Chris Gilligan, unpublished paper, Department of Politics and Contemporary History, University of Salford,
1999. I have benefited from discussions with Chris in the preparation of this section.
63
Erik Erikson, Childhood and Society, New York: WW Norton, 1963
64
Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Anchor, 1956
65
See John DEmilio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, Chicago:
University Press, 1998, p324
66
See Stuart Hall and Tony Jefferson, Resistance through Rituals, London: Hutchinson, 1976.
67
Juliet Mitchell, Womans Estate, London: Pelican, 1971, p33
68
Martin Heidegger, An Introduction to Metaphysics, Yale University Press, 1989
69
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London: Routledge, 1990, p142
70
Stuart Hall, The Question of Cultural Identity, in Hall, Held and McGrew (eds), Modernity and its Futures,
Cambridge: Polity, 1992, pp276-7
71
Stuart Hall, The Question of Cultural Identity, in Modernity and its Futures, p277
72
Herakleitos and Diogenes, San Francisco: Grey Fox Press, 1979, ed. Guy Davenport, p 23
73
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London: Routledge, 1990, p145
74
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, p147
75
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, p147
76
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, p145
77
See Robin Blackburn, Fin De Sciecle Socialism After the Crash, New Left Review 185 (1991)
78
Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, London: Routledge, 1963, p 158
79
FA Hayek, New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas, London: Routledge, 1990,
p223
80
I have belatedly come to agree with Josef Schumpeter who 30 years ago argued that there was an
irreconcilable conflict between democracy and capitalism, New Studies, p107
81
Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, London: Routledge, 1990, p21. Defenders of Hayeks reputation protest
that the book owed more to its editor, WW Bartley III, than the by then elderly economist.
82
Fatal Conceit, p75
83
Fatal Conceit, p63
84
PF Strawson, Individuals, p 99
85
Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986
86
Galen Strawson, The impossibility of Moral Responsibility, Philosophical Studies 75, p 7
87
Questioning Ethics, edited by Richard Kearney and Mark Dooley, p 48

Course:PhilosophyandReligion

18052,Heartfield,DeathoftheSubjectExplainedSelection,2002,extracts

15763words

32
18052/2