Sociopedia.isa© 2014 The Author(s)

© 2014 ISA (Editorial Arrangement of sociopedia.isa)

1

Introduction

In social sciences the terms subject, individual, agent,person or social actor are often used interchangeably.However, these concepts have different analyticalmeanings, and each of them is connected to differentsociological approaches; the degree of analytical speci-ficity of each of these terms is often therefore relatedmore to the perspective of the single author, than tothe output of a given sociological tradition.A good example is the reference to the concept of

individual, which seems to be the more theoreticallytransversal and the more widespread in the sociologi-cal literature. Indeed, in recent decades the idea ofindividual has been at the centre of debates character-ized by various theoretical approaches, first and fore-most, those around individualism, individualizationand methodological individualism. On the one hand,following the Durkheimian tradition, the idea of indi-vidual is related to that of singularity: the individual isa unit in a systemic, historical and collective process ofsingularization and specialization breaking away fromprevious holistic social relations (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2001; Dumont, 1983). On the otherhand, following the Weberian tradition, the idea ofindividual is related to the understanding of socialaction and to the intentionality of action: here the

individual is conceived as the reference unit of amicro-sociological approach (Boudon, 2003; Elster,1979). In the first case, there is always tensionbetween individual and collectivity, free will and socialorganization; while in the second case, the individualis the centre of sociological understanding, and inter-subjectivity is the basis of social networking. SinceWeber and Simmel, a considerable part of sociologyhas been persuaded that it is possible to study societythrough the single subjects involved in the process ofindividualization, and since Durkheim it has beenclear that the differentiation of functions, as well as ofpersonal pathways, was a systemic and irreversibleprocess.Although, in some cases, attention towards the

individual dimension has been mainly a consequenceof the crisis of the concept of society, or society asnation-state, in other sociological traditions the indi-vidual and the evaluation of his/her rational choicehas been, since the beginning, the main topic ofanalysis of meaningful action (Coleman, 1990). Yet,the focus on the individual, elaborated for instance bymethodological individualism, has been considered asa model of the rational actor – and criticized as tooinstrumental and insensitive to power relations –

abstract This article analyses the concept of subject, and its related associated notions of subjectivityand subjectivation. In social sciences the terms subject, individual, agent, person or social actor are oftenused interchangeably; however, these concepts have different analytical meanings, and each of them isconnected to different sociological approaches. Today research is moving towards an idea of subject andsubjectivity that takes into account cultural and gender differences, historical and situated processes ofsubjectivation, complex relationships with techno-scientific tools, contextual capacities of resistance andcreativity.

keywords difference ◆ domination ◆ social theory ◆ subject ◆ subjectivity

Subject, subjectivity, subjectivationPaola Rebughini State University of Milan, Italy

2

Rebughini Subject, subjectivity, subjectivation

while the idea of individual that follows theDurkheimian tradition of the individualizationprocesses has been regarded as a way of finding faultwith the weakness of both social bonds and of rela-tionships of recognition and solidarity in modernand postmodern societies (Bauman, 2001; Beck etal., 1994; Giddens, 1991). Hence, the debate aroundthe concept of individual, which has been particular-ly lively in France in the last 20 years (Dubet, 2005;Lahire, 2004; Martuccelli, 2010; Wieviorka, 2012),appears to be transversal to diverse sociological tradi-tions. This article analyses – necessarily in a selective

way – only the concept of subject, and its relatedassociated notions of subjectivity and subjectivation,which are fundamental to the relationships and theinterconnectedness of sociology, social theory andphilosophical reflection (Taylor, 1992). The articleexplores how the concept of subject stretches to verydifferent interpretations. It can be extended from anontological idea of mind and rationality – or, on thecontrary, from an idea of the body and its passions –to a purely textual, discursive or semiotic position; itcan be conceived as the result of subjectivation andinteriorization of domination, or that of an emanci-pating action based on free will; it can be conceptu-alized as self-referential or as relational, when thesubject is the result of the relationships he/she haswith other subjects and with the immediate environ-ment. More recently, there has been an attempt to over-

come both ontological and textual positions by rela-tional and reticular conceptualizations ofsubjectivity. The idea is to look beyond the notion ofsubject as a metaphysical foundation, or as a spectralpresence in the texts, and beyond the idea of subjec-tivation as the process of becoming a subject in anendless power/knowledge relation. Indeed, all thetraditional formulations and criticisms of the idea ofsubject have been called into question, and we arenow in a moment of redefinition of this fundamen-tal theoretical reference for social sciences: who is thesubject? And how, today, can we speak about thesubject? This article attempts to briefly describe thecontemporary debate.

Theoretical framework

Debates around the concepts of subject, subjectivityand subjectivation are more widespread in continen-tal sociology, especially French and German, whichis more sensitive to the discussions around thedialectics of freedom and domination; while they arealmost absent – or present mainly in the postmodernand poststructuralist critical wave – in the British

and American tradition, which is more focused onempiricist, rationalist and pragmatist approacheswith a prevalent anti-ontological sensibility. Forexample, the explorations of the Self of George HMead (1934) or Erving Goffman (1959) are neverontological or normative, and always focused on thecontingent setting of intersubjective action, onbehaviour, performance and role playing, not on thenature of the Self. The notion of subjectivity adopted by sociolo-

gists is mainly – often implicitly – related to the con-cept of subject, elaborated within the existentialistphilosophical tradition. As a matter of fact, the exis-tentialist tradition inaugurated by Heidegger – pre-viously designed by Kierkegaard – was the firstphilosophical system fully dedicated to the uncer-tainty of individuals faced with the contingency ofthe world, the unexpected social change, the necessi-ty to give meaning to actions. This philosophical tra-dition had an influence too on the sociologicaldebate concerning the relationship between subjec-tivity and objectivity, the centrality of the agent andhegemony of social structures (Giddens, 1982).According to the basic existentialist reference, thesubject is someone who has been thrown into aworld of languages and rules ‘already there’, andfinds him/herself entrapped in its phenomenologicalcontingency and social structuration. In sociologicalterms this idea of the subject has been essential to theconceptualization of the theme of domination, bothin social practices and social representations, so thatthe controversial mark left by existentialism on theconceptualization of subjectivity in the social sci-ences has been fundamental to the design of the per-manent tension between emancipation andconstraints (Touraine, 1992). In sociological theory, the reference to the inter-

pretation of the subject inaugurated by Heideggerhas been important in broadening the analysis ofdomination beyond the dialectical approach inherit-ed from Hegel and Marx, even though the legacy ofHeidegger has always been controversial. It has beenvigorously opposed not only by the Frankfurt School(Adorno, 1973), but also by Pierre Bourdieu, who, atthe centre of his sociological analysis, has attemptedto put an end to the dichotomy between subjectiva-tion and objectivation. Hence, it is not surprising that Bourdieu felt the

need to investigate Heidegger’s effect on Frenchintellectuals (Bourdieu, 1991). Besides his criticismof the political opportunism of the German philoso-pher during the Nazi regime, Bourdieu’s aim hasbeen mainly to analyse the limits of the existentialistidea of agency, by reinforcing his own idea ofembodied dispositions. Bourdieu is critical especial-ly of the existentialist philosophical hegemony in the

3

Rebughini Subject, subjectivity, subjectivation

France of the 1950s, and its consequences on thedevelopment of sociological thought. In line withthe Durkheimian endeavour to make sociology anindependent discipline, Bourdieu criticizes the mixof existentialism and Marxism promoted by Sartre,and he is fully convinced of the superiority of socialsciences over philosophy in critically contextualizingideas, values and behaviours (Bourdieu, 1990).The opposing theoretical path was taken by Alain

Touraine (1984, 1992, 2013), who was inspired bySartre’s attempt to set up a sort of ‘existentialist soci-ology’, for which the desires for both freedom andjustice are based on the ability ‘to look beyond thesituation’ and are constitutional to the idea of thesubject. Placing himself outside the poststructuralistand postmodern debate, Touraine has interpretedthe idea of the subject as the foundation of resistanceto socialization, giving to this concept a specific anti-social meaning. Though caught in the contingency,in the constraints and trials of the situation, the sub-ject always has the opportunity to deal with themusing his/her faculty of imagination and creativity. The sociological debate around the idea of sub-

ject is also related to the influential work of MichelFoucault, his critical interpretation of the existential-ist wave in France, his elaboration of the structural-ist approach, and his reflection on the production ofthe subject by the processes of subjectivation(Foucault, 2005). Foucault recognizes that in theexistentialist tradition developed in the 20th centu-ry, the subject – who is, at the same time, part of andreflexively detached from the world ‘already there’ –is for the first time the real focus of the analysis notonly in philosophy but also in social theory. The sub-ject is no longer an ontological being related to sen-sations or to pure cognitive reason; instead, he/she isalways ‘in a situation’, a part of the world and of theconditions of this world, so that the relationship ofthe subject to the situation is always open and unpre-dictable. Foucault also claims that this radical con-tingency becomes the only situational moment inwhich the subject can develop marginal emancipa-tion from the inevitability of the processes of subjec-tivation. The subject is someone who exists in thematerial world with his/her phenomenological andembodied side: the subject is not transcendental,universal or meta-cultural. This has become a matter of fact for social sci-

ences, for which it is not possible to refer to a subjectseparately from the historical and cultural contin-gency or outside the concreteness of singular biogra-phies and collective experiences. Hence, there is akind of historical, institutional and situated injunc-tion to become subjects: society and organizationsneed autonomous responsible individuals, capable of‘giving an account of themselves’ when faced with

institutions (Butler, 2005; Melucci, 1996). The French debate has certainly been the centre

of European reflections on the subject in the lasthalf-century, however on this theme the positionelaborated by Jürgen Habermas has been just asinfluential and related to a further interpretation.First of all Habermas was engaged in a long-distancedebate with Michel Foucault on the issues of moder-nity, Enlightenment and subjectivity (Habermas,1986). Habermas criticizes the ‘neo-Nietzscheanturn’ within postmodernism and poststructuralismand its destructive line as he still believes in reason-able subjectivity. He claims that reason, criticizedboth by the Frankfurt School and by poststructural-ism, has been reduced to instrumentality because ofa long-standing tradition of subject-centred reasonand philosophy of consciousness. Nevertheless,according to Habermas, the reference to subjectivitycannot be metaphysical, as it continues to be, heargues, in the work of Foucault. In his discussion,Habermas sheds light on some contradictions inFoucault’s approach, arguing that, in spite of his for-mal anti-subjectivist position, his analysis of domi-nation and hermeneutics of the self continues to bebased on an ontological idea of the subject(Habermas, 1987). Conversely, Habermas claims that the linguistic

turn and a focus on intersubjectivity and social rela-tions are the only instruments to put an end to thelegacy of a metaphysical and self-referential concep-tualization of the subject. Hence, the paradigm ofcommunicative action becomes a way of saving theanalytical reference to the subject and above all tohis/her reason, his/her capability to construct demo-cratic relationships, to engage collectively in the pub-lic space. According to Habermas anti-humanist andanti-subjectivist attitudes are incompatible with acritique of power and with the possibility of a dialog-ical ethic. The subject lives in the language but doesnot disappear into it; it is the fluidity of communi-cation and the intersubjective need of the other thatavoids a metaphysical vision of the subject. At this stage, we can see that, in spite of the cri-

tiques, the adjustments and the retrenchments, thenotions of subject, subjectivity and subjectivation arestill crucial when speaking about emancipation andrights, difference and recognition, body and prac-tices, and other fundamental sociological issues.Starting from diverse theoretical perspectives, socialsciences are seeking a fresh, innovative and non-metaphysical conceptualization of subjectivity thatcould simultaneously take into account the recogni-tion of difference in a pluralist world, an idea offoundation without essentialism, the opportunity ofa justification of rights centred on the autonomy ofthe subjects from which these rights derive.

4

Rebughini Subject, subjectivity, subjectivation

In contemporary social sciences however, thematter of the subject still has an ambivalent status, sothat if some authors have practically abandoned itcompletely, others have decided to make it the cen-tre of their reflections. Among the latter we findmainly those scholars interested in the theme ofpower and domination, in the processes of subjecti-vation and more generally in the political conse-quences of the conceptualization of subjectivity. Still,in contemporary social sciences the frameworkaround which the issue of subject and subjectivity isdiscussed presents a variety of interconnectedthemes: one more explicitly related to the politicalidea of subject as citizen; another focused on theembodied subject arising from feminism; yet anoth-er centred on the anti-ontological and anti-Eurocentric idea of the subject, based on thequestion of difference and inspired by poststructural-ism, postcolonialism, cultural studies and criticalstudies on racism; finally a further theme focused onthe anti-anthropocentric idea of subject related totechno-scientific studies as well as to biopoliticalinterpretations. All these topics stemmed from thecritique of the metaphysical subject of modernity:the enlightened, existentialist, European and bour-geois subject; all these areas of study are searching foran innovative way to conceptualize the subject incontemporary societies, for an answer to the ques-tion: who comes after the (modern) subject? (Cadavaet al., 1991).

The political subjectThe concepts of subject and subjectivity have beenimportant in social science debates since the turningpoint of 1968, when they ceased to be an object ofabstract philosophical reflection and became a mat-ter of political and sociological theory. This politi-cization of the subject concerns not only itsdemolition as ontological representation of thewhite, male, bourgeois and European emancipatedsubject, but it also concerns the renewal of the reflec-tion on the status of the subject as citizen entitled torights. These two tendencies have led to an ambiva-lence: how to conceptualize the subject of an actionbound by rights without reproducing an ontologicaland monocultural vision of his/her status? In the lastfew decades French social and political theory hasbeen the more active in reflecting on the first part ofthis ambivalence – the subject as citizen and boundby rights – while cultural theory and postcolonialstudies have been more sensitive to the questionsraised by the conceptualization of a pluralist idea ofsubjectivity.As mentioned previously, it is in France that the

idea of the subject has been more explicitly disman-tled and scrutinized by poststructuralism, decon-

structionsm and postmodernism – by the trio ofMichel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-FrançoisLyotard respectively – as well as by the structuralMarxism of Louis Althusser and the fragmented,nomadic subject of Gilles Deleuze. This importantreflection took place around the turmoil of May1968 and in correspondence with later social move-ments. In all of these authors the critique of theontology of the subject is first of all a critique of theself-sufficiency of the Kantian enlightened, rationalsubject and of the pursuit of the ‘authentic’ subjectby Sartre; indeed, the political interpretation of suchanti-subjectivist positions was a critique of more spe-cific individuals – usually in a socially stronger posi-tion – who have assigned to themselves the abstractqualities of the subject.While the critique of the subject developed from

the hermeneutic perspective and linguistic turn wasmore focused on the intersubjectivity of communi-cation – the subject is not totally autonomous andself-transparent since it is always engaged in inter-subjective relationships – the poststructuralist attackagainst the subject and his/her rationality was direct-ed towards the themes of autonomy and authentici-ty: the subject is not self-transparent and is alwaysentrapped in some form of domination and condi-tioning. This explains why, for Habermas or forGiddens, rules and the socialization to rules are notnecessarily solely a form of domination, but are alsoenabling instruments of action, while for Foucaultthey are, quite the reverse, always instruments ofdressage and subjectivation. More recently, the legacy of these reflections has

been developed by other French authors, who, start-ing from different theoretical standpoints, haveattempted to find a new configuration of the rela-tionship between the conceptualization of the sub-ject and that of human and social rights. Indeed, theissue of rights is fundamental not only as a moral andnormative problem but also in the conceptualizationof the subject in contemporary social sciences.Again, the problem is to look beyond a metaphysicaland universalistic idea of subject and natural rights,without accepting a pure relativist idea of rights anda total dismantling of the reference to the subject ofthose rights. Here we find authors with Sartrianascendancy such as Touraine (2013), as well asauthors with an Althusserian background such asEtienne Balibar (2011), Alain Badiou (1982) andJacques Rancière (1995). According to Balibar sub-jectivity, equality, universality and citizenship mustbe analysed together. As universality is too complexa concept to be considered homogeneous, so subjec-tivity should not be conceptualized as a unit, but astransindividual, impossible to evaluate without col-lective and intersubjective recognition. Following

5

Rebughini Subject, subjectivity, subjectivation

Arendt, Balibar claims that it is possible to think ofequality, democracy and rights beyond the nation-state, beyond a single culture and a monoculturalidea of the subject (Balibar, 2011). Also, accordingto Touraine (2013) a human being can be defined asa subject only in an open and democratic context,where social and human rights are guaranteed, a con-text able to think of diversity and equality together.The subject is no longer referred to as a single cultureor as a historicist process, and he/she is no longer acollective actor – such as the working-class move-ment – but a single and fragile individual, who canfeel his/her subjectiveness as a form of resistanceagainst socialization and injustice.

The embodied subjectAfter 1968 and the succeeding movements, the sub-ject starts to be conceived as a single-plural, nolonger monolithically conceptualized in the rationalmind of the white European male, but alwaysengaged in relational processes with other subjectsand with the immediate natural and technical envi-ronment. Feminism had a fundamental role in thischange, first and foremost for having shed light onan embodied idea of subjectivity. Women’s move-ments and feminist critical thinking have tried to gobeyond both the classical sociological insight ofrational action, and the interpretation of the publicsphere as fundamental aspects of modernity, toexplore the embodied, ‘private’ and emotionaldimensions of subjectivity (on this see also the entryon ‘Contemporary sociology and the body’ byMiriam Adelman and Lennita Ruggi inSociopedia.isa). An enquiry into the embodied sub-ject has been developed also by cultural and post-colonial studies investigating the issues of colour andthe racialized body, as well as by sociologies devel-oped in non-western countries (Connel, 2007). Feminism has been the more important turning

point for putting an end to enduring dichotomiessuch as body/mind, nature/culture and more gener-ally of the Cartesian and later Kantian ideas of con-sciousness. The subject is gendered, sometimesracialized, culturally defined, which means that sub-jectivity cannot be identified with the myth of theEuropean, rational, white male. This myth is basedon the priorities of sexuality and of colour in defin-ing subjectivity, so that a new conceptualization ofthe subject cannot but pass through a discussion ofsexualized and embodied subjects. This explains theprofound influence of Foucault on this debate, butalso the need to look beyond his legacy – againfocused mainly on sexuality – to expand the fields ofresearch (Irigaray, 1993). In recent decades a greatdeal of literature has accumulated on these topics,ranging from the cultural construction of the gen-

dered body, to queer theory (Butler, 2004), from theintersection between the raced, gendered and social-ly positioned embodied subject (Lutz et al., 2011) tothe naturalized body of coloured women deprived oftheir subjectivity (hooks, 2000). Other more recentstudies have attempted to highlight the complexityof the embodied structure of the subject, where thebody refers to a layer of corporeal materiality thatcannot be confused with issues of political subjectiv-ity (Braidotti, 2013). In this vein, in the last decadethere has also been an emergent affective turn insocial sciences – mainly inspired by Gilles Deleuze –that might be seen as a continuation of interest inthe body looking for further conceptualization of thesubject, more focused on vitality and emotions(Braidotti, 2013).Certainly, gender studies have been divided into

different theoretical perspectives, especially opposingliberal and deliberative approaches, more focused onissues of equality and rights (MacKinnon, 2006;Nussbaum, 1998), and other avenues of study, influ-enced more by poststructuralism, psychoanalysis ordeconstructivism, interested in redefining domina-tion and power relations, in addition to the contin-gency of emancipation (De Lauretis, 1999). Facedwith the incommensurability of these positions, athird way has been presented by other authors suchas Seyla Benhabib (1996) and Nancy Fraser (2009),who consider the radical deconstruction of the sub-ject unfit for a critique of gendered power relations,just as a pure normative and juridical discussion isinappropriate. Hence, an idea of gendered subjectiv-ity is considered a necessary basis for the claim ofrights in the public sphere and for not giving exces-sive weight to plural and rhizomatic identities overthe claim of equality and redistribution. The ques-tion is how to resituate subjectivity in a network ofinterrelated variables set alongside different axes ofsubjectivation such as race, culture, nationality, class,life-choices and sexual orientation. The intersection-ality of these axes is a relevantly new theoretical fron-tier of social stratification studies (Anthias, 2013;McDowell, 2012), besides being a way of putting anend to the previously fragmented method of study-ing gender, racial or class identities.

The subject of dif ferenceThe theme of cultural difference, of the constructionof subjectivity beyond the influence of western cul-ture, the question of colour line and racialization,have also been fundamental in shaping the debate onthe subject in recent decades. A generation of intel-lectuals born or working outside the western worldhas developed reflections and empirical studiesshowing that western conceptualization of the sub-ject can no longer consider itself the unique or

6

Rebughini Subject, subjectivity, subjectivation

authentic model. Starting with the pioneer studies ofSaid (1979), then Spivak (1988), Bhabha (1994),Dussel (1995), Chakrabarty (2000), Mbembe(2013) and many others, intellectuals coming fromthe previously colonized world have revealed the his-toricity and the cultural relativism of the westernmodel of subjectivity as well as its associations withthe colonial past. Prior to postcolonial and de-colo-nial studies, the works of Frantz Fanon and those ofthe African-American WEB Du Bois had alreadyraised the question of the ‘authentic’ subjectivity ofthe non-white individual and the impossibility of the‘coloured’ subject to be really free and emancipated. This focus on the embodied and political ‘differ-

ence’ of subalterns has been used as a critical stand-point against the ontology of the western, whitesubject, and it has been enhanced, again, by theinfluence of poststructuralism, psychoanalysis,deconstructivism, as well as by the heterodoxMarxism of Gramsci (Young, 2001). The aim hasbeen not only that of criticizing the abstract subjectbut also that of investigating the pluralism of subjec-tivities of all subalterns, such as colonized and racial-ized people. However, in spite of the heterogeneity ofthese theoretical sources and the determination todefine the subject in a new way, a certain attitude of‘negative dialectics’ is a common characteristic ofthese studies as in Adorno’s perspective: the accent isput on what is lacking, on what is not, on what wasagainst the law or mainstream signifiers, even thoughthe task is to find an autonomous and non-Eurocentric way to describe and express subjectivity.This attitude of negative dialectics has been contest-ed especially by Latin American de-colonial studies(Dussel, 1995; Mignolo, 2002; Quijano, 2000)which have insisted on the necessity of decolonizingknowledge, avoiding a passive assimilation of west-ern analytical tools, and finding an interpretation ofsubjectivity and emancipation in the hybrid cultureof subaltern strata of non-western countries, such asthose of indigenous people.A partially alternative path towards this goal has

been taken by authors who have faced the topic ofpostcolonial and post-racialized subjectivities fromthe reconstruction of the historical background.Scholars like Chatterjee (2011) and Bhambra (2007)have tried to show how a reconsideration of histori-cal events of colonization can be reconciled with theoriginal cultural hybridity of the very western idea ofsubjectivity. The western cultural legacy has beenconstantly contaminated and ‘translated’ by othercultural influences and by the combination of theseelements in empirical and contingent historical situ-ations. Hence, we cannot say that there is a trulywestern and non-western idea of the subject, becauseeven the Kantian or the Hegelian ideas of subjectiv-

ity are related to the historical events of their timesuch as colonization (Buck-Morss, 2000).The culturelessness aspect of the western idea of

subjectivity has also been criticized by cultural stud-ies, by their empirical research on migrations andpopular culture and their relations with racializationand discrimination processes (Gilroy, 2004; Hall,1997). Also from a more explicitly political stance –such as that of the New Left Review edited by StuartHall – the aim was to carry out a re-examination ofthe resistant subjectivities – not necessarily those ofthe white working class – against the hegemony ofcultural and economic elites. Here the focus was lesson an ontological idea of the subject to be disman-tled, than on the construction of subjectivities bymeans of emancipation. Everyday experience, cultur-al consumption, rituals, subcultures, social move-ments are the fields where ‘alternative’ and hybridsubjectivities are performed.

The anti-anthropocentric subjectAnother wave of contemporary studies around thesubject is represented by the attempt to overcome ananthropocentric view of subjectivity. The legacy ofstructuralism, poststructuralism, Lacanian psycho-analysis, deconstructivism – where the subject wasconceived mainly as a textual position or an interpel-lation – paved the way for the idea of a non-substan-tialist subject in social sciences. In this vein, we canfind at least two main perspectives: one is the devel-opment of Foucauldian biopolitics and governmen-tality approaches, which are indeed still close to ananthropocentric vision; the other is a more explicitlyanti-anthropocentric view, where the subject is dis-persed in the cognitive and material tools and net-works of techno-science, as well as in a broader ideaof life and nature. On the one hand, the focus is onthe control of life and the embodied subject bypower relations, and on the other hand, the aim is toshed light on the progressive undermining of theancient body/mind dichotomy in an environmentdominated by techno-science. In the case of biopolitics, as politics of life itself,

there is a criticism of the juridical and normativeconceptualization of the subject as an abstract visionof a person who has rights. Rights are rooted in pos-itive law, in power relations of the state and institu-tions, so that the law or citizenship rights cannot bethe real basis for emancipation (Foucault, 2004). Onthe contrary, the subject is connected to some sort ofvital substance but held in a world of controls, con-ditioning and constraints. From the biopolitical per-spective, immanent life is domesticated byinstitutions, cognitive-capitalism, warfare, so that itcan be subjected to power relations that transform itinto ‘bare life’ (Agamben, 1998).

7

Rebughini Subject, subjectivity, subjectivation

The approach of biopolitics remains concernedwith a horizon of future human freedom, sometimeswith a nostalgic and melancholic interpretation ofthe current destiny of subjects as human beingswhose lives can be annihilated. Hence, while criti-cized or reassessed, the theme of the subject is notabandoned, it remains the basis for resistance andemancipation, although the subject is no longer amonad in a privileged position, it is a life restrainedby the infinite mechanisms of power. Here the anti-anthropocentric vision concerns mainly the focus on‘life’ instead of a focus on ‘man’. The aim is to dis-cover an abstract site – vital life instead of the ration-al mind – where the subject cannot be captured andcan start to organize resistance against domination. An alternative interpretation of biopolitics – nei-

ther melancholic nor thanatological – is presentamong the authors who have developed the vitalistside of biopolitics, inspired mainly by Spinoza’s anti-anthropocentric legacy and its interpretation byDeleuze and Guattari (1987). Here, the generativeforce of life, Spinoza’s conatus, the force of affects,become the basis for an ethics of biopolitics (Greggand Seigworth, 2010). The work of Deleuze andGuattari has been influential also for the post-human side of this debate around the subject: thereticular, relational, molecular and anti-singular con-ceptualization of subjectivity as ‘becoming’ hasinspired an interpretation quite a distance from thatof governmentality. The subject becomes decentred,ex-centred, an assemblage, the comingling of diversematerials, where the subject/object modern dichoto-my completely disappears. The subject is no longerconsciousness or unconsciousness, but a plural, rela-tional entity, founded on positive creativity: the sub-ject is a machine désirante. In other less libertarian versions the anti-anthro-

pocentric subject becomes merely an actant made upof temporary networks and immanent experiences(Whitehead and Wesch, 2012; Wolfe, 2010). Thisview goes beyond the search for the contingency offreedom or Foucault’s practices of taking care of theSelf; instead, pure empiricism and temporary assem-blage become a new metaphysics without subject, asBruno Latour says in his actor-network theory(Latour, 2005). Practices no longer originate in asubject as an anthropological and ontological figure,practices and connections instead become the newontological data. If the post-human view is an anti-subjectivist approach, radically relational, diffidentto abstract ethics and the myth of the Greek polis, itcan also make a claim for a new cosmological andenvironmentalist view to face technological changes(Stengers, 2010). These reticular, pragmatic andprocess-oriented approaches try to offer an epistemic

way out from the search of the lost foundations ofthe subject.

Empirical work

That of the subject is not directly an empirical issueof sociology, it has instead a fundamental theoreticalstake. However, empirical investigations exist andcan be found practically in all of the approaches wehave analysed above. Usually the issue of subjectivityis not the direct and explicit theme of the investiga-tion, but it can be retraced in the theoretical frame ofthe investigation itself. Empirical research on thesubject as citizen concerns mainly social research onsocial movements; feminism has been central to thepromotion of research on the embodied subject, onsexuality and gendered subjectivities; the issue ofplural and non-Eurocentric conceptualizations of thesubject has been investigated mainly by research oncultural difference, racism and discrimination, aswell as by postcolonial studies; research into thesocial consequences of post-anthropocentrism andtechno-scientific evolutions has finally provided atheoretical base for environmentalism and the greensocial movements. Since even a succinct overview ofall of these fields of studies would be impossible, wecan only remind ourselves of the directions thatsome of this research is taking. Concerning the issue of the political subject as

citizen and entitled to rights, the theoretical reflec-tions continue to be confined mainly to political the-ory, even though there are frequent contacts andexchanges with studies of social movements. Inrecent decades research on social movements, such asalter-global movements for social justice or Occupy,has been greatly concerned with collective action asthe practice of emancipation and subjective resist-ance (Castells, 2012; De Sousa Santos, 2006; Farroand Lustiger-Thaler, 2014). In addition, eventhough other research on social movements is notspecifically focused on an investigation of subjectivi-ty, it constantly refers to the subject as a person act-ing rationally or emotionally to organize practices ofresistance (Goodwin et al., 2001). In the wide range of approaches and themes in

social movement studies, the issue of subjectivity hasbeen investigated mainly in research focused on thestruggles for rights and social justice as global andplural goals, but also in historical research on mobi-lization against colonial power and racist discrimina-tion, as well as in research on environmentalism andsustainable consumption. In spite of diverse theoret-ical frames of reference, there are common pointsbetween the active political subject of social

8

Rebughini Subject, subjectivity, subjectivation

movement studies and those of cultural and post-colonial studies (Chakrabarty, 2000; Chatterjee,2011; Mignolo, 2002). The broad constellation ofpostcolonial studies is particularly involved in thehistorical investigation into the subjectivity of thosewho tried to resist colonial rule and to the investiga-tion of the different cultural bases of the construc-tion of subjectivity (Nandy, 1983). In the case ofenvironmentalism, besides the analysis of the greensocial movements and of ‘deep ecology’ claims, sub-jectivity has been investigated mainly in its westernphilosophical and religious anthropocentric legacy –often related to androcentrism and ethnocentrism –unable to take into account the interconnections andfragile balance of human beings and the ecologicalsystems.Theoretical feminist reflection – at times explicit-

ly connected to postcolonial and environmentalistcriticism – has also been particularly inspiring for avast field of research on subjectivation that has inter-cepted both the research on biopolitics and that onpost-anthropocentrism. In this field the work ofBraidotti (2013) is a valid example of this comin-gling. Starting from a feminist standpoint, Braidottifocuses on an idea of the subject able to deal with thevital capacities of her/his body, without consideringthe body as transhistorical data. While subjectivityhas always had a contingent and a historical mean-ing, as well as a situated expression in local practices,it cannot be reduced to a simple product of power orof its own positionality. Rather, subjectivity is alwaysunfinished, related to immanent experiences, inter-subjective relations and affects but also to the mate-riality of the body. The nomadic subject of ourglobalized world cannot be conceived as unitarianand monolithic; instead, we should study the sub-ject’s capacities for multiple and non-linear connec-tions with other subjects (not only human),technological objects, with opportunities to resistcontemporary cognitive-capitalism and opportuni-ties to innovate.Finally, empirical research on the transformation

of the subject has been important also in social psy-chology, particularly in relational, discursive andcritical psychology, deeply influenced by the debatesconcerning poststructuralism, feminist critical theo-ry and postcolonial questioning of modernity(Collison, 1992; Henriques et al., 1984; Holloway,1989). This literature is mainly focused on methodsof investigating subjectivity from an embodied, rela-tional and historical point of view, with specificattention towards contextualized relational subjectiv-ities, in some cases held in gendered, racialized andpositioned dynamics, in other cases able to deal cre-atively with such constraints.

Assessment and future agenda

The dismantling of the subject organized by themaîtres du soupçon Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, byHeidegger’s Dasein, then by poststructuralism, post-modernism and deconstructivism seems to havecome to a close. The idea of the subject has beendeeply criticized, but never abandoned, at least as aconceptual and textual reference, and today theoret-ical reflection is attempting to redefine it as a crucialelement of social and political theory. Indeed, anidea of the subject is required in order to understandthe resistance and the dialectics regarding what cre-ates or surrounds the subject, hence it is necessary tosocial sciences as a critical and not merely a descrip-tive discipline. The concept of subject as social actor has been

dismantled by the criticism of what he/she is not:not independent, autonomous or emancipated, notreally rational and captured by the products ofrationality, too civilized and socialized to expressauthenticity and profound affects, too confined byhabitus, routines and common sense. And yet, forFoucault himself the power/knowledge relationshipscreate the subject but never in a complete or defini-tive way, so that margins of resistance are always pos-sible (Foucault, 2005). Furthermore, for an authornot fully confident in subjectivity such as Bourdieu,it has been necessary to adjust the hypothesis of inte-riorized dispositions by adding that of the habitushysteresis – the unfit between habitus and field –that can leave some opportunity for independentreaction (Bourdieu, 1990). On the side of those authors who have attempted

to redefine the concept of subjectivity withoutdestroying it, the Cartesian ontology of mind hasturned towards normative references – such as in theHabermasian case – or moral jusnaturalism – such asin Touraine – retaining a strong reference to Kantianideas of an enlightened, reasonable subject. In othercases this has turned towards new Hegelian consider-ations about reciprocal recognition of subjectivity(Honneth, 1995), or – conversely – towards theSpinozist elaboration of a vital, immanent andembodied subject. From all these legacies we under-stand that it is necessary to investigate the currentsocial and political implications of the concepts ofsubject, subjectivity and subjectivation, which alsomeans investigating where we ourselves are locatedwhen we use these concepts. The research seems to be going in the direction of

some sort of ‘light ontology’ of the idea of the sub-ject; free from a substantialist and essentialist refer-ence to the rational or emotional subject as thefoundation, but also free from a melancholic andnegativist mourning of the autonomous subject lost

9

Rebughini Subject, subjectivity, subjectivation

in language, the unconscious and power relations.The research is moving towards a conceptualizationof the subject able to take into account cultural andgender differences, historical and situated processesof subjectivation, complex relationships with tech-no-scientific tools, contextual capacities of resistanceand creativity. Today there is no room in theoreticaldebate for a monolithic, essentialist, self-referentialand Eurocentric vision of the subject; nevertheless, atthe same time this criticism no longer needs a totaland nihilistic refusal of the reference to subjectivity(Descombes, 2004). A new and broad field of theo-retical and empirical investigation is now open forsocial sciences looking beyond old dichotomies suchas body/consciousness, metaphysics/nihilism, deter-minism/voluntarism, imagination/reason.

Annotated further reading

Habermas J (1987) The Philosophical Discourse ofModernity: Twelve Lectures. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Touraine A (1992) Critique de la modernité. Paris: Fayard(English edition 1993). From a classical sociological standpoint, Touraineand Habermas have dedicated in these books indepth consideration to the theme of subject andsubjectivity, and its connection with modernsociological thought. Although their analysis isdifferent, they both share a strong reference toEnlightenment and its idea of reasonable subject.Among the theoretical reassessments of this theme, amore recent investigation is that offered by PippinRB (2005) The Persistence of Subjectivity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Braidotti R (2011) Nomadic Subjects. New York:Columbia University Press.

Braidotti R (2013) The Posthuman. Cambridge: PolityPress. From the relational side of the investigation onsubject and subjectivity a way to look beyondpoststructuralist deconstruction of the subject is thatoffered by the post-human reflection. The work ofRosi Braidotti is a valid example of the attempt tomaintain a theoretical reference to the subjectwithout being entrapped in an ontological self-referential approach. Gender studies and sociology oftechno-science are the main empirical fields of thisresearch.

Nandy A (1983) The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recoveryof Self under Colonialism. New Delhi and London:Oxford University Press.

Mbembe A (2013) Critique de la raison nègre. Paris: LaDécouverte. From postcolonial sensibility, Ashis Nandy’s book hasopened a reflection on the subjectivity of the non-European or non-white subject, on his/her degree offreedom and creativity, on his/her possibility of

finding an authentic Self. We find a similarinvestigation in the book by Achille Mbembe: thereasonable subject of Enlightenment is not neutral oruniversal and it can be translated into the pluralismof different possible subjectivities.

Subjectivity Review, at: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/sub/index.html. This transdisciplinary journal provides an interestingframework of discussion, from diverse theoreticalstandpoints, for the areas of contemporary socialsciences that are carrying out research on the topic ofsubjectivity.

References

Adorno TW (1973) The Jargon of Authenticity. Evanston,IL: Northwestern University Press.

Agamben G (1998) Homo Sacer. Sovereign Power andBare Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Anthias F (2013) Hierarchies of social location, class andintersectionality: Towards a translocational frame.International Sociology 28(1): 121–38.

Badiou A (1982) Théorie du sujet. Paris: Seuil.Balibar E (2011) Citoyen sujet et autres essais

d’anthropologie philosophique. Paris: PUF. Bauman Z (2001) The Individualized Society.

Cambridge: Polity Press.Beck U and Beck-Gernsheim, E (2001)

Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism andits Social and Political Consequences. London: Sage.

Beck U, Giddens A and Lash, S (1994) ReflexiveModernization. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Benhabib S (1996) Democracy and Difference. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bhabha H (1994) The Location of Culture. London:Routledge.

Bhambra GK (2007) Rethinking Modernity: Post-colonialism and the Sociological Imagination.Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Boudon R (2003) Raison, bonnes raisons. Paris: PUF.Bourdieu P (1990) In Other Words: Essays toward a

Reflective Sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress.

Bourdieu P (1991) The Political Ontology of MartinHeidegger. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Braidotti R (2013) The Posthuman. Cambridge: PolityPress.

Buck-Morss S (2000) Hegel and Haiti. Critical Inquiry26(4): 821–65.

Butler J (2004) Undoing Gender. London: Routledge.Butler J (2005) Giving an Account of Oneself. New York:

Fordham University Press.Cadava E, Connor P and Nancy JL (1991) Who Comes

after the Subject? London: Routledge.Castells M (2012) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social

Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge: PolityPress.

Chakrabarty D (2000) Provincializing Europe:Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference.

10

Rebughini Subject, subjectivity, subjectivation

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Chatterjee P (2011) Lineages of Political Society: Studies

in Postcolonial Democracy. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of Social Theory.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Collison DL (1992) Managing the Shopfloor: Subjectivity,Masculinity and Workplace Culture. Berlin: Walter deGruyter.

Connel R (2007) Southern Theory: The Global Dynamicsof Knowledge in Social Science. Cambridge: PolityPress.

De Lauretis T (1999) Soggetti eccentrici. Milano:Feltrinelli.

Deleuze G and Guattari F (1987) A Thousand Plateaus.Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.

Descombes V (2004) Le Complément du sujet. Enquêtesur le fait d’agir de soi-même. Paris: Gallimard.

De Sousa Santos B (2006) The Rise of the Global Left:The World Social Forum and Beyond. London: ZedBooks

Dubet F (2005) Pour une conception dialogique del’individu. Espacetemps.net 21(6): 1–8.

Dumont L (1983) Essais sur l’individualisme. Paris: Seuil.Dussel D (1995) The Invention of the Americas: Eclipse of

the Other and the Myth of Modernity. New York:Continuum Publishing.

Elster J (1979) Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies inRationality and Irrationality. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Farro A and Lustiger-Thaler H (2014) Reimaging SocialMovements. London: Ashgate.

Foucault M (2004) The Birth of Biopolitics. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault M (2005) The Hermeneutics of the Self.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fraser N (2009) Feminism, capitalism and the cunningof history. New Left Review 56: 1–9.

Giddens A (1982) Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory.London: Macmillan.

Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-identity. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Gilroy P (2004) After Empire: Multiculture or PostcolonialMelancholia. London: Routledge.

Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Every DayLife. New York: Doubleday.

Goodwin J, Jasper J and Polletta F (eds) (2001)Passionate Politics: Emotions in Social Movements.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gregg M and Seigworth GJ (2010) Affect Theory Reader.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Habermas J (1986) Taking aim at the heart of thepresent. In: Hoy D (ed.) Foucault: A Critical Reader.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Habermas J (1987) The Philosophical Discourse ofModernity: Twelve Lectures. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Hall S (1997) Representation: Cultural Representations andSignifying Practices. London: Sage.

Henriques JW, Holloway W, Urwin C, Venn C andWalkerdine V (1984) Changing the Subject:Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity. London:Routledge.

Holloway W (1989) Subjectivity and Method inPsychology: Gender, Meaning and Science. London:Sage.

Honneth A (1995) The Struggle for Recognition: TheMoral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: PolityPress.

hooks b (2000) Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center.Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Irigaray L (1993) An Ethics of Sexual Difference. NewYork: Cornell University Press

Lahire B (2004) La Culture des individus. Dissonancesculturelles et distinction de soi. Paris: La Découverte.

Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introductionto Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Lutz H, Herrera-Vivar MT and Supik L (2011) FramingIntersectionality. London: Ashgate.

McDowell L (2012) Post-crisis, post-Ford and post-gender? Youth identities in an era of austerity. Journalof Youth Studies 15(5): 573–90.

MacKinnon C (2006) Are Women Human? And OtherInternational Dialogues. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Martuccelli D (2010) La Société singurlariste. Paris:Armand Colin.

Mbembe A (2013) Critique de la raison nègre. Paris: LaDécouverte.

Mead GH (1934) Mind, Self and Society. Chicago:Chicago University Press.

Melucci A (1996) The Playing Self. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Mignolo DW (2002) The geopolitics of knowledge andthe colonial difference. The South Atlantic Quarterly10(1): 57–96.

Nandy A (1983) The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recoveryof Self under Colonialism. New Delhi and London:Oxford University Press.

Nussbaum MC (1998) Sex and Social Justice. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Quijano A (2000) Coloniality of power, Eurocentrism,and Latin America. Nepantla. Views from the South1(3): 533–79.

Rancière J (1995) La Mésentente. Politique et philosophie.Paris: Galiliée.

Said E (1979) Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.Spivak GC (1988) Can subalterns speak? In: Grossberg

L and Nelson C (eds) Marxism and the Interpretationof Culture. Champaign: University of Illinois Press,pp. 271–315.

Stengers I (2010) Cosmopolitics I. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Taylor C (1992) Sources of the Self: The Making of theModern Identity. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Touraine A (1984) Le Retour de l’acteur. Paris: Fayard.

11

Rebughini Subject, subjectivity, subjectivation

Touraine A (1992) Critique de la modernité. Paris:Fayard.

Touraine A (2013) La Fin des sociétés. Paris: Seuil.Whitehead N and Wesch M (eds) (2012) Human no

More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects, andthe End of Anthropology. Boulder: University Press ofColorado.

Wieviorka M (2012) Du concept de sujet à celui desubjectivation/dé-subjectivation FMSH WorkingPapers 16: 1–14.

Wolfe C (2010) What is Post-humanism? Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Young RGC (2001) Postcolonialism: An HistoricalIntroduction. Oxford: Wiley.

Paola Rebughini is Professor of Sociology at the State University of Milan. She has a PhD insociology from the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (Paris). She works on socialtheory, intercultural relations and social movements. Her recent publications include: Childrenof Immigrants in a Globalized World: A Generational Experience (with E Colombo; PalgraveMacmillan, 2012). [email: paola.rebughini@unimi.it]

résumé Dans cet article nous allons analyser le concept de sujet et les notions proches de subjectivitéet subjectivation. Dans les sciences sociales les références au sujet, à l’individu, à l’agent, à la personne, àl’acteur social sont souvent utilisées d’une façon interchangeable. Cependant, ces concepts ont des signi-fications analytiques différentes et chacun est lié à des différentes approches sociologiques. Aujourd’huila recherche est orientée vers une idée de sujet et de subjectivité capable de prendre en compte les dif-férences culturelles et de genre, les processus de subjectivation situés, les relations complexes avec la tech-no-science, les capacités contextuelles de résistance et créativité.

mots-clés différence ◆ domination ◆ subjectivité ◆ sujet ◆ théorie sociale

resumen El artículo analiza el concepto de sujeto y las nociones cercanas de subjetividad y subjeti-vación. En las ciencias sociales, muy a menudo, las referencias al sujeto, individuo, agente, persona o actorsocial se emplean indistintamente. Sin embargo, cada uno de estos conceptos tienen significados difer-entes y están ligados a enfoques sociológicos distintos. Hoy en día, se afirma la idea de un sujeto y de unasubjetividad capaz de tomar en cuenta las diferencias culturales y de género, los procesos de subjetivaciónsituados, las relaciones complejas con la tecnociencia, asi como la capacidad contextual de resistencia y decreatividad.

palabras clave diferencia ◆ dominación ◆ subjectividad ◆ sujeto ◆ teoría social