The theory of subjectivation, its basic concepts from the point of view of philosophy and pedagogics

Рубінська Броніслава Іллівна

кандидат педагогічних наук, доцент

Національний університет біоресурсів і природокористування України

ОСВІТА (Проблеми підготовки фахівців)

The theory of subjectivation, its basic concepts from the point of view of philosophy and pedagogics

It is well – known that the theory of the subjectivation occupies a central place in the European philosophy thanks to Rene Descartes. Since the 16th century, the Cartesian classical subject has been understood by a whole galaxy of philosophers and scientists of various ranks, which has contributed to the constant evolution of this concept and the growth of concepts that explain the nature and characteristics of the human subject. The greatest of them were G. Leibniz, I. Kant, S. Kierkegaard, F. Hegel, L. Feuerbach, the early K. Marx and others. One of the researchers who studied the subject was M. Foucault, who became the founder of the theory of subjectivation. The term accurately emphasizes what was so lacking in the Cartesian tradition, the very process of formation. The subjectivation’s theory focuses on what are characteristics of subject, how it carries out its activities, what it is capable of, what its tasks and aim is. The theory of subjectivation deals with explaining who to become and how to do so in order to have the right to be called a subject. The new postmodern culture, which was widely discussed in the West in the late 20th century, offered new areas of issues that continued to develop in the 21st century. Scientists go on debating changes in people’s behavior and what these changes mean when they go beyond “elastic” identity; scientists talk over the changing dimensions of subjectivation. [1]. At the beginning of the XXI century. the philosophical problem of subjectivation began to be actively developed in Ukrainian science (the works of A. Tabachkovsky, A. Pogonyailo, V. Palagut, etc who associated it with the transition from totalitarianism to “more democratic regimes, connected in the post-Soviet conditions with subjectivation not through consciousness / ideology, … but through desire” [2, p.66]. In the late 90s of the twentieth century a new conceptual question arises: the appropriateness of the functioning is not so much different forms of subjectivation, but the appropriateness of the process itself.

The main component of this problem, highlighted by many philosophers (M. Foucault, J. Lacan, J. Derrida, J. Butler and others), is a rethinking of the generally accepted traditional understanding of the subject as a holistic and self-identifying structure. Here we should mention the statement of Michel Foucault that “a universal form of the subject, which can be found everywhere, does not exist” [3, p. 301]. According to Foucault, the subject, not being an a priori form of existence of an intelligent person, is the result of the embodiment of various kinds of “games” of truths, i. e. practices of subjugation and liberation, practices of power, according to the terminology of the philosopher [3, p. 255]. Thus, we can assume that the concept of “subjectivation” in Foucault’s philosophy is the mechanism by which the researcher analyzes the process of formation of the subject as a social being. Foucault writes further: “I call subjectivation the process by which we obtain the composition of the subject, more precisely – subjectivity, which, obviously, serves only one of the given possibilities of the self-consciousness organization” [3, p. 284].

Foucault proposes to take as a basis for defining the concept of subjectivation the idea of historicity, which allows us to consider the conditions and grounds of the subject as such. In this regard, it should be emphasized that, according to Foucault, the subject is a multifaceted, polyhedral individual, which can include several types. Extreme importance in this process is given to “game”, i. e. the formation within the individual of different types of relationships, and therefore different forms of the subject, and the interaction of these forms with the practices (“games”) of power.

The formation of subjectivation is a complex and step-by-step process consisting of several so-called modes of objectivation in modern culture. Foucault distinguishes three main modes of objectivation of the individual into the subject: 1.the mode of transformation of the individual into an object of scientific knowledge (a subject that speaks in philology, a subject that acts in economics, a living subject in biology). 2.”separating practices”, the essence of which is the division of the subject both within himself and through others, where the process of such division contributes to the transformation of the subject into an object (for example, the subdivision of man on the sick and healthy, on the criminal and the law-abiding person).These two modes of objectivation constitute the outer side of subjectivation, the purpose of which is to form the subject as a complex, heterogeneous, multifunctional, multiple formation (for example, the criminal subject as a multiple subject is both the subject of the crime, and the subject of persecution, and the subject of detention, and the subject of guilt, and the subject of conviction, etc.) [3, p. 70]. 3.”self-objectivation”, i.e. the way in which a person has learned to recognize himself as a subject of sexuality [4, p. 161-162]. This regime is defined by Foucault as the inner side of subjectivation, the main task of which is to coordinate the internal needs, interests, desires of the individual with the current socio-historical situation through certain volitional, moral, intellectual and physical efforts of man himself.

Thus, the plurality of the subject is determined by the plurality of “subdivision of practices” as a characteristic feature of the multifaceted nature of the process of subjectivation. “self-objectivation”, i.e. the way in which a person has learned to recognize himself as a subject of sexuality [4, p. 161-162].

Thus, the process of subjectivation is closely interrelated with the process of objectivation, both of these processes pass into each other, transforming the subject into an object in accordance with the given relationship with the “games of truth” (practices of power), which, in turn, makes it possible to analyze the mechanism of formation of subjectivation as such, focusing primarily on social processes of its formation.

Foucault was the first to reflect the controversial subject of subjectivation in his works, but this topic later took an important place in the works of Yu. Kristeva, who created her concept of the speaking subject, and it became important for many further studies. Among them is T. Moi, who notes that, for example, there is always “someone” who speaks, acts, thinks, writes. This “someone” does not need to be depicted as a fully present, consistent intentionality. Thus, we understand that both motivational and value dimensions are extremely important for students-future teachers and interpreters. Professional value orientations include awareness of the values of professional activity, their differentiation according to the degree of significance, internalization, subjectivation and exteriorization in the process of educational and pedagogical activities. The main approaches to the professional values of the teacher are characterized by humanistic orientation and orientation of the individual to basic and universal values (anthropocentrism, self-knowledge, free development), values of pedagogical communication (tolerance, individual approach, friendliness, emotional stability) and values that define professional culture, tact, morality and responsibility).

Student’s subjectivation, on the one hand, is determined by external socio-cultural processes, when a person becomes the object of various programs and practices of society (state, various institutions, social groups, etc.), on the other hand – immanent processes of human self-development. Therefore, we understand the process of subjectivation of students of philology as becoming and realizing oneself as a professional, a specialist in the field of translation and education. A subject is a multifaceted, individual who can include several types at the same time. The main component of this problem is a rethinking of the generally accepted traditional understanding of the subject as a holistic and self-identifying structure. In the 21st century, in an era of extraordinary development of society and new technologies, rapid improvements, invisible due to its speed, it is necessary to put into practice all possible means to form a subject project as a social being, as a multifaceted being, ready for development. This is a very important stage in the preparation of a student of philology for future professional activity, because only after reaching such a stage of development, one  teach and interpret it to others. The next generation will change, the latest technologies will cease to be the latest, but by introducing as many of the latter as possible to the study of philology students, it is possible to take a step towards further changes.

References:

1. Gerchanivska,P.(2014)Subjectyvatsia ludyni v umovah ukrainskyh realii (Person’s Subjectivation in Ukrainian Realia Conditions), Naukovi zapyski Natsionalnogo Universitetu “Ostrozka Akademia”, Serya : Kulturologia, Vypusk15(2),3-8.
2. Hrytsenko, V.I., Artemenko, V.B. Artemenko,Ye.V. and al(2012).Novyi Informatsionnyi Tehnologyi v obrazovanyi dlia vseh(New Informational Technologies in Education for all)), NAN Ukrainy,Mezhdunar.nauch.- ucheb. Tsentr informats, tehnologii I system, K, Academ –periodika, 268.
3. Foucault, M.(2002) Intellectualy I vlast: izbrannye politicheskie statti, vystuplenia,I intervu).(Intellectuals and the Power: Chosen political articles, speeches and interviews),Moscow, Praksis,384.
4. Turkot, T.I. (2011)Pedagogika Vyshchoi Shkoly: navch. Posibnyk(Higher School Pedagogics: Tutorial).Kyiv, Kondor,628.
5. FES(1989)Filosofskiy Entsyclopedicheskiy Slovar. Moscow, Sovetskaya Entsyclopedia,215.