Change When Someone Walks In

subject

is (due to its function in language) that whose function is something distinct from anything to do with the psyche.

Why have I introduced the function of the subject as something distinct from anything to do with the psyche' I can't really give you a theoretical explanation, but I can show you how this has to do with the subject's function in language, and that is a double function (lacan 'my teaching' : 35)

is a 'bone stuck in the throat of the signifier'. That is to say, it cannot find its 'name' in the symbolic order or achieve full ontological identity.

This is why the Lacanian mark for the subject is $ (the 'barred', empty subject). The subject cannot find its 'name' in the symbolic order or achieve full ontological identity. Using Lacan's expression, the subject always remains as a 'bone stuck in the throat of the signifier'. (NET)

is a 'speaking being,' modulated by external codes and contact with its environment, it cannot possibly be perceived as an autonomous entity capable of free and independent action, as enlightenment philosophers believed.

Since, according to Lacan, the subject is a 'speaking being,' modulated by external codes and contact with its environment, it cannot possibly be perceived as an autonomous entity capable of free and independent action, as Enlightenment philosophers believed.' (NET)

is a basic constitutive void that drives subjectivation but which cannot ultimately be filled out by it. It is simultaneously the lack and the leftover in all forms of subjectivation.

But as Zizek has consistently stressed, the subject is neither a substantial entity nor a specific locus. Rather, the subject exist as an eternal dimension of resistance-excess towards all forms of subjectivation (or what Althusser would call interpellation). The subject is a basic constitutive void that drives subjectivation but which cannot ultimately be filled out by it (Zizek, 1990: 254). It is simultaneously the lack and the leftover in all forms of subjectivation.' (NET)

is a collection of multiple subject positions. Thus the single subject is not the same as the single individual.

In Henrietta Moore's description fo the post-structuralist gendered subject, each individual takes up multiple subject positions within a range of discourses and socail practices, so that a single subject is not the same as a asingle individual (1994:141) in (Merry 2006:184).

is a form (a being) as opposed to a substance (a thing). It is an active agent and a bearer of political rights and moral responsibilities.

Foucault explicitly states that 'the subject' is a 'form' as opposed to a 'substance' (1994: 10). Within the context of the Western philosophical tradition, 'a subject' takes the form of an active agent, an individual 'rational being', to use Immanuel Kant's terminology, that thinks about and acts upon the world (which takes the form of an 'object') and is a bearer of political rights and moral responsibilities.

is a form of power which subjugates and makes subject to. It refers, on the one hand, to being a subject of someone else's control, and on the other, to being the subject of own's identity by self knowledge.

There are two meanings of the word 'subject': subject to someone else by control and dependence... and tied to his own identity by a conscious or self-knowledge. Both meanings suggest a form of power which subjugates and makes subject to'.

is a grammatically induced illusion. Just because there is thinking does not mean there is something or someone that thinks. It is a mere effect of our grammatical customs which add a doer to every deed.

There is thinking: therefore there is something that thinks': this is the upshot of all Descartes' argumentation. But that means positing as 'true a priori' our belief in the concept of substancethat when there is thought there has to be something 'that thinks' is simply a formulation of our grammatical custom that adds a doer to every deed. (Nietzsche 'will to power' : 268)

subject, n.All

subject