I don't know whether any of this has any relevance to the current discussion of subjectivity or not. As far as I can see the best analogy for the modern discovery of subjectivity would be a fanciful hypothetical: Suppose someone announced triumphantly that the respiratory system of humans was one of the most important functions of human life, and proceeded to build a political theory on tha, a political theory aimed at undercutting all political theories grounded in the assumption of the importance of social relations. We breathe. We have subjectivity. So what?
Carrol
Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Catherine Driscoll wrote:
>
> > But, isn't there a significant difference between "individuals"
> > and "subjectivity", insofar as you could avoid individualism, but
> > not "subjectivity".
> >
> > Catherine
>
> It is exactly this insistence on the obdurate reality of "subjectivity"
> that intrigues me. The idea that people have unique subjectivities
> emerged in specific societies at specific points in human history; it
> is not simply human nature to conceptualize "subjectivities". To me,
> it's no coincidence that the insistence on the value and importance
> of subjectivity is most extreme in hypercapitalist societies like
> the U. S. To coin a hyperbolic slogan: capitalism produces
> subjectivities. Like most of the effects of capitalism, there are
> good and bad things about this.
>
> Miles