Husserl on Transcendental Subjectivity and the Transcendental I

Husserl's thoughts on subjectivity changed over time. In Logical Investigations, Husserl refused to think of the "I" as something specific which is distinct from experiences. Meaning that the "I" or subjectivity are defined by their respectability to phenomena. This led him to reduce the “I” to the “unified totality” of experiences. This means that subjectivity is the phenomenon of the unity of consciousness in its intentionality of things. In simpler terms, the "I" for Husserl is that which manifests itself as intending things in the world. Another way to see this is to say that everything in existence is actually subjective since it is only through subjectivity that something can gain meaning. 

 

The I in Ideen

Husserl later developed a notion of a "pure" self. In his example, if we imagine intentionality, that is the active perception of things, as a "ray" emanating from us towards the world, than the "I" is the ray's point of origin. 

This new definition of subjectivity leads Husserl to understand lived experience as a two-way relation between to pole of the object and that of the subject. The only known pole, that on which the "ray" shines, is that of the object. This means that the point of origin, the "pure self", cannot be experienced or described. 

The pure or soon to be Transcendental self is the hidden base of all lived expriences. This type of "ego" according to Husserl survives the phenomenological reduction. Like in Descartes' Meditations, we can doubt everything we perceive, but not the fact that there is something percieved and therefore someone perceiving. 

 

Transcendental subjectivity and Habitus in Cartesian Meditations

In Husserl's Cartesian Meditations, to the concept of ego as the continuity of the self receives additional development. Here subjectivity is a manner of existing through the acts of signifying things as meaningful. Husserl calls this "Habitus" (like Bourdieu would) and defines it as an adaptable mode of being which can make reality its own. 

The self for Husserl is "natural" and therefore also "transcendental". It is natural in being a spontaneous attitude towards the reality, the immediate "lifeworld". There is also the side of the transcendental self as the reduced fact that there is an action of existing and perceiving. In simple world, the natural or "empirical” self experiences phenomena in the life-world, while the transcendental I or self is the fundamental abstract "screen" on which these phenomena are "projected". 

Read more on: Husserl's Natural and Transcendent attitude 

Consciousness in Husserl's Phenomenology

Heidegger's "Dasein" compared with Husserl's "transcendental I".

Back to:  Introduction to Husserl's Phenomenology

Check out: Subject Theory Explained

 

Summary of Notable Works by Gayatri Spivak

Here are brief summaries of notables works, books and essays by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Here is a general brief introduction into Spivak's thought.   

 

Three Women as Texts and a Critique of Imperialism

In her essay Three Women as Texts and a Critique of Imperialism, Spivak examines three novels written by women, Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë, Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys and Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. She shows that literature created in an imperialist social context does not undermine imperialism by being written by women. Thus the novels of Brontë and Rhys reflect the social mission of nineteenth-century women to domesticate and civilize the wild, animalistic males. In Frankenstein, however, this dualism is avoided; the binary construction of an English lady and a nameless monster is canceled here. The “Third World” (or what corresponded to it in the 19th century) was also a signifier in 19th-century literature written by women, which made us forget the “social mission” of the imperialist states, through which the Third World first came into being was made into what it has been ever since. There is a parallel to the capitalist commodity fetish , which allows the creation of the product to disappear in the labor process.

 

Can the Subaltern Speak

Spivak’s notable essay “Can the Subaltern speak?” deals with the situation of the Subalterns who are speechless in the face of the overpowering system of rule or who remain unheard and misunderstood. The knowledge production of western intellectuals prevents the subaltern from speaking. In this respect, Spivak also criticizes the eloquent representations of Western feminism and human rights, which have distanced themselves far from the underclasses of the Global South they protect, and counters this with a model of “subversive listening” that empowers reading and speaking. For her, narration is an important strategy in the fight against the injustice of the world, but the untold is not identical with the untold.

 

A Critique of Postcolonial Reason

The book A Critique of Postcolonial Reason (alluding to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason), which deals with many topics with recourse to Jacques Derrida's concept ofdifférance. The book begins with a critical-ironic analysis of the thoughts of Kant (about the "savages" from the Critique of Judgment ), Hegel (on the "mindless creative talent" of Indian art in the lectures on aesthetics ) and Marx (on the Asian mode of production). She understands these concepts as an expression of a patriarchal-Eurocentric discourse that considers non-Europeans to be ignorant, who only enter the realm of history and spirit with the European conquest, and completely ignores women. According to Spivak, there is no place in the thought systems of these philosophers for cultural or gender differences, which capitalism does not level, as Marx predicted, but rather produces it again and again. Marx's concept of the Asian mode of production stands for the question, which he also did not answer, as to why the whole world did not develop linearly according to the European model. This problem lives on in Stalin's speeches on the non-simultaneity of development, the question of nationalities and multiculturalism. Mao Zedong radicalized the idea of ​​making the superstructure independent of the economy by calling for a cultural revolution of the superstructure. The telos of increasing the tribute directed oriental economies was not capitalism but the colonial exploitation to which these economies have fallen victim to this day. In Europe, on the other hand, capitalism probably only developed because of a temporary weakness in the European feudal systems, as well as in the neighboring non-European ones, which had lost important military resources as a result of the Crusades. Marx also failed to recognize that the increase in the proportion of women in the capitalist labor process that he perceived was still largely pre-industrial domestic work. The abolition of the differences between the various categories of labor power did not exist in the form he postulated. However, Spivak's book also contains warnings about the limits of Cultural Studies, from a naive enthusiasm towards the Third World and certain excesses of the globalized culture industry. The book contains an ironic examination of various streams of postcolonial and cultural theory, e.g. with cultural nativism , elitist poststructuralism , urban feminism, linguistic hybridism, and white postcolonialism.

 

Righting Wrongs

In Righting Wrongs, Spivak criticizes the way in which unjust conditions are established by the Global North through the assessment and allocation of human rights. Since the local human rights activists of the Global South are largely descendants of the colonial elite, it seems paradoxical when the human rights activists demand that the subalterns claim it is their duty to demand human rights.

 

An Aesthetic Education in the Era of Globalization

Spivak made a notable turn in her collection of essays, An Aesthetic Education in the Era of Globalization (2012). She assumes that pairs of terms such as traditionalism and modernity, colonialism and postcolonialism are no longer sufficient to describe the current conflict situation. Ethics shouldn't be played off against aesthetics, the multitude of languages ​​shouldn't be wiped out by the media of global communication. Based on her experiences with teacher training in India she sees in this theory of aesthetic education, in particular in the deepening of the literary education of African and Asian intellectuals, an instrument for the production of more justice and democracy.

 

 More about Postcolonialism.

Gayatri Spivak's Theory Reviewed and Explained Briefly

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak is a highly notable and critical and feminist thinker. She is best known for her works in the field of Post-Colonialism, Subaltern Studies, Feminism and Critical Theory.

 

Overview of Spivak’s Theory

Spivak criticizes the negative image of colonized cultures portrayed by colonialists. She questions the functioning of colonial rule as well as rule over the underprivileged in general while seeking  ways to overcome it. A well-known quote by her is one arguing that western scholars must “unlearn their learning” which means “to unlearn their privilege as loss”. According to Spivak, the system of privileges can be overcome by critically questioning one's own positions, beliefs and prejudices. On the other hand, it defends forms of identity politics, which the underprivileged consider indispensable for asserting their interests. For them, this “strategic essentialism ” represents a politically motivated insistence on group-specific, “essential” traits that is linked to insight into the constructional character of cultural idiosyncrasies.

Like Homi K. Bhabha and Edward Said, and other notable post-colonialist thinkers Spivak does not conceive of the “post-” as an “end” of colonialism, but emphasizes its ongoing influence on contemporary identities and realities. Colonialism is not a thing of the past but rather a legacy which continues to shape our future. Although a proponent of the deconstructivist approach, which characterizes identities as constructed, Spivak sees the need for "strategic essentialism ". She stresses that it is politically necessary to think into identities - even if only temporarily and from a strategic point of view - in order to expose these identities as necessarily false.

Books and Essays by Gayatri Spivak

Spivak has an impressive list of publications, books and essays. Here you can find a summary of some of Spivak's main works. Here you can find a detailed summary of Spivak's Can the Subaltern Speak?.

More on Spivak

Strategic Essentialism

Meaning of "Subaltern" Explained

Understanding the Subaltern: Spivak and Who Speaks for the Marginalized?

Gayatri  Spivak on Globalization and the Politics of Representation

Spivak on Feminism and Postcolonialism

Constructionist and Essentialist Perceptions of the Subject - Psychoanalysis and Critical Theory

The term "subject" was conceptualized in different fashions is two usually related theoretical fields: critical theory and psychoanalysis. The constructionist approach, affiliated with thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Louis Althusser, Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler, holds that the subject is the product of cultural and social discourse fields, and in being so the subject is the result of ideology and power struggles which shape and operate him. The constructionist approach denies the possibility of a "universal" subject which is independent of historical context, society, culture, politics, economy, gender and so forth. There is no essential core of subjectivity which precedes its relationship with the social world.

On the other hand, psychoanalysis leaned towards a more essentialist perception of the subject, believing that there is a universal and fixed truth to man which exists in his subconscious. Freud, Jung and Lacan all thought that the human psyche has fixed components which precede experience (in linguistics, Noam Chomsky thinks the same). According to psychoanalysis, the truth of the subject is in the subconscious, and is the subconscious which determines how we fill and act.

What both takes on the nature of the subject have in common is a negation of the subject's autonomy, be it from within or from without. Psychoanalysis holds that the subject is not autonomous due to him being subjected to the subconscious. Critical theory holds that the subject is not autonomous since it is conditioned by cultural discourse. Viewing the subject as conditioned and subjected and as lacking autonomy undermines modern juridical discourse which relies on the concept of mens rea – criminal intention – in order to establish responsibility and penalty for a crime committed. This perception supposes autonomy of the subject, which both psychoanalysis and critical theory deny.

see also:

A history of the Subject – Subject Theory Explained - part 1

A history of the Subject – Subject Theory Explained - part 2

Michel Foucault  - "The Subject and Power"

Suggested reading:

A history of the Subject – Subject Theory Explained – part 2

Even before Kant philosophers have argued about the meaning of the subject. Is the subject autonomous? Does the subject have a stable essence? What conditions the subject? Does it abide by any laws? Is the subject rational? And what are the relations between the subject and society? Questions like these are all symptomatic of the philosophy since the Enlightenment began.

"Subject" is semantically related to "subjection", hinting that subject is something which is subjected to something else. The subjection of the subject was as source of interest for many critical thinkers who sought to explain how social and cultural forces condition subjective consciousness. The most fundamental example for this line of thought is that of Marx. These trends of relating to the subject subvert the modern perception of the subject as autonomous and independent.

According to the Marxist tradition the subject is subjected to material historical forces which determine his (false) consciousness. In psychoanalysis, the subject is subjected to hidden mental content which is hidden in the subconscious. In linguistics, de-Saussure points to the manner in which language conditions the subject's perception of reality. Structural theory, following de-Saussure, saw the subject is the product of social and cultural structures. Critical thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Judith Butler and Louis Althusser all see the subject as the product of cultural systems which shape what is falsely perceived as sovereignty, free choice and self-consciousness.

Here we can see the process which has eventually led to the announcement about the "Death of Subject", or the fragmentation of subject in FredrickJameson's phrasing. The subject moved from being a "master of its own reality", as it were, for Kant to being site of social conditioning and control for post-modern thinkers. Thus we can see how the term subject is a contested one that was born as free, autonomous, intelligent and aware and that has metaphorically died as subaltern, conditioned, controlled and unaware.

see also

A history of the Subject – Subject Theory Explained - part 1

Constructionistand Essentialist Perceptions of the Subject

A history of the Subject – Subject Theory Explained

The "subject" (with or without capital S) is a very prominent concept in the fields of critical theory, psychoanalysis and cultural studies. The use of the term "subject" has been known to be very diversified and non-unitary across literature. Subject has of course a grammatical meaning as the part of the sentence which carries out the action. In modern philosophy and psychoanalysis the subject is considered to be the human existence which is in a relational state with other existences. In its various uses, subject does not have a clear definition and its denotation is the subject of great debate.

The concept of subject can be traced back to Greek philology were it served Aristotle to denote the basic platform to which predicates can be attributed. The subject in Greek Philosophy was that which maintains its essence through change. This perception of the subject incorporates the object as well, and is not opposed to it as later perceptions of the subject believed.

The modern perception of the subject first appeared in philosophy in the works of early modern thinkers such as Descartes. Descartes' cogito is a reflexive consciousness and not just a platform for traits as the Greek philosophers would have it. Starting with Descartes the subject became an important term in philosophy which denotes the primary condition for consciousness. Kant spoke specifically about the subject as a unitary structure of consciousness which constitutes the objects perceived by it. According to Kant, it is the unitary nature of the subject which guarantees the unity of experience and allows reality to bear meaning. For Kant, the structure of human consciousness enables rational epistemology.  

Following Kant modern philosophy has linked subjectivity with rationality and awareness. The term subject was linked with that of "agency" and man was perceived as the sovereign of his own world, its meanings and content. In other words, the subject was the source of reality. This perception of the subject was instrumental is the formation of various principles in the philosophy of the Enlightenment, such as for example democracy.

see also:
A history of the Subject – Subject Theory Explained - part 2

Constructionistand Essentialist Perceptions of the Subject

Book you should check out: