Interpretations of the Concept of "Subject": From Classical Traditions to Post-Modern Theories
Scientific picture of social world includes the two fundamental concepts: the concept of social reality and that related to the subject of action/cognition/power. These concepts undergo changes depending on the historical period in which certain ideas about the major features of social reality preva...
Збережено в:
| Дата: | 2015 |
|---|---|
| Автор: | |
| Формат: | Стаття |
| Мова: | English |
| Опубліковано: |
Iнститут соціології НАН України
2015
|
| Назва видання: | Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг |
| Онлайн доступ: | http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/142137 |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Цитувати: | Interpretations of the Concept of "Subject": From Classical Traditions to Post-Modern Theories / N. Otreshko // Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг. — 2015. — № 4. — С. 133-139. — Бібліогр.: 8 назв. — англ. |
Репозитарії
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
irk-123456789-142137 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
irk-123456789-1421372018-09-29T01:23:05Z Interpretations of the Concept of "Subject": From Classical Traditions to Post-Modern Theories Otreshko, N. Scientific picture of social world includes the two fundamental concepts: the concept of social reality and that related to the subject of action/cognition/power. These concepts undergo changes depending on the historical period in which certain ideas about the major features of social reality prevail among the subjects of cognition. Classical Western philosophy and sociology have introduced the concept of subjectivity in the theories of individualism and autonomy. Those theories, in turn, have interpreted an individual as a certain unchangeable construct. However, the common idea of two recent theories developed by Norbert Elias and Judith Butler is that we need a new sociology, the sociology not dealing with unchangeable constructs but studying processes and relationships between subject and power or discourse. 2015 Article Interpretations of the Concept of "Subject": From Classical Traditions to Post-Modern Theories / N. Otreshko // Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг. — 2015. — № 4. — С. 133-139. — Бібліогр.: 8 назв. — англ. 1563-4426 http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/142137 316.012 en Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг Iнститут соціології НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| description |
Scientific picture of social world includes the two fundamental concepts: the concept of social reality and that related to the subject of action/cognition/power. These concepts undergo changes depending on the historical period in which certain ideas about the major features of social reality prevail among the subjects of cognition. Classical Western philosophy and sociology have introduced the concept of subjectivity in the theories of individualism and autonomy. Those theories, in turn, have interpreted an individual as a certain unchangeable construct. However, the common idea of two recent theories developed by Norbert Elias and Judith Butler is that we need a new sociology, the sociology not dealing with unchangeable constructs but studying processes and relationships between subject and power or discourse. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Otreshko, N. |
| spellingShingle |
Otreshko, N. Interpretations of the Concept of "Subject": From Classical Traditions to Post-Modern Theories Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг |
| author_facet |
Otreshko, N. |
| author_sort |
Otreshko, N. |
| title |
Interpretations of the Concept of "Subject": From Classical Traditions to Post-Modern Theories |
| title_short |
Interpretations of the Concept of "Subject": From Classical Traditions to Post-Modern Theories |
| title_full |
Interpretations of the Concept of "Subject": From Classical Traditions to Post-Modern Theories |
| title_fullStr |
Interpretations of the Concept of "Subject": From Classical Traditions to Post-Modern Theories |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Interpretations of the Concept of "Subject": From Classical Traditions to Post-Modern Theories |
| title_sort |
interpretations of the concept of "subject": from classical traditions to post-modern theories |
| publisher |
Iнститут соціології НАН України |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| url |
http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/142137 |
| citation_txt |
Interpretations of the Concept of "Subject": From Classical Traditions to Post-Modern Theories / N. Otreshko // Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг. — 2015. — № 4. — С. 133-139. — Бібліогр.: 8 назв. — англ. |
| series |
Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT otreshkon interpretationsoftheconceptofsubjectfromclassicaltraditionstopostmoderntheories |
| first_indexed |
2025-07-10T14:12:45Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-07-10T14:12:45Z |
| _version_ |
1837269534347624448 |
| fulltext |
Natalia Otreshko
Interpretations of the concept of “subject”: from classical traditions to post-modern theories
NATALIA OTRESHKO,UDC 316.012
Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Professor of the
Chair of Sociology and Social Work at the Heydar
Aliyev Ukrainian-Azerbaijani Institute of Social
Sciences and Self-Government, Interregional
Aca demy of Personnel Management (Kyiv)
In ter pre ta tions of the Con cept of “Sub ject”:
From Clas si cal Tra di tions to Post-Mod ern The o ries
Abstract
Scientific picture of social world includes the two fundamental concepts: the concept
of social reality and that related to the subject of action/cognition/power. These
concepts undergo changes depending on the historical period in which certain ideas
about the major features of social reality prevail among the subjects of cognition.
Classical Western philosophy and sociology have introduced the concept of sub -
jectivity in the theories of individualism and autonomy. Those theories, in turn, have
interpreted an individual as a certain unchangeable construct. However, the common
idea of two recent theories developed by Norbert Elias and Judith Butler is that we need
a new sociology, the sociology not dealing with unchangeable constructs but studying
processes and relationships between subject and power or discourse.
Keywords: individual, subject, power, discourse
Conceptual Basis for the Research
The o ret i cal ba sis of any sci ence is a set of some philo soph i cal ax i oms, which
may be of ten not real ised by re searcher. A re searcher while be com ing a pro fes -
sional usu ally ac cepts these ax i oms on faith, since they seem to be con ven tional
and not re quir ing ad di tional proof. How ever, with the growth of sci en tific
knowl edge, the ob jects be ing stud ied dis play new char ac ter is tics that may con -
tra dict con ven tional knowl edge. This im pels a cog nis ing sub ject to change the
dom i nant world view for an other one, in or der to meet the stan dards of sci en tific
knowl edge.
Со ци о ло гия: те о рия, ме то ды, мар ке тинг, 2015, 4 133
Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz, a rep re sen ta tive of the Lviv-War saw school of log i -
cal pos i tiv ism, for mu lated the the sis that all judge ments which we ac cept and
which shape our world view are not un am big u ously de ter mined by knowl edge
gained from ex pe ri ence, they rather de pend on choice of the con cep tual ap pa ra -
tus (the to tal ity of con cepts) through which we in ter pret this knowl edge [Ajdu -
kiewicz, 1934: p. 259]. In other words, knowl edge ob tained through ex pe ri ence
makes a cog nis ing sub ject ac cept or re ject cer tain state ments de pend ing on con -
cep tual struc ture he/she uses. The choice of con cepts used for de scrip tion and
anal y sis of the re al ity’s pro cesses and phe nom ena has a di rect im pact on re sults of
his/her cog ni tive ac tiv ity. Con cep tual ap pa ra tus de fines a cog ni tive ma trix nec -
es sary, on the one hand, to ar range the ob jects of cog ni tion and, on the other
hand, to al low a cog nis ing sub ject to sub sti tute some what the re al ity.
The world view is a sys tem of rep re sen ta tions of re al ity ac cepted by cul ture in
a par tic u lar socio-his tor i cal space. It is formed by means of both ev ery day and sci -
en tific lan guages, thus pro vid ing a ba sis for per cep tion of the world by in di vid ual
as a sub ject of cog ni tion. The world view of a cog nis ing sub ject is com posed in a
spe cific way of in ter pret ing re al ity, which seems to him/her self-ev i dent.
Fun da men tal on to log i cal con cepts are some kind of ta boo in re la tion to other
sources of mean ings. The con cepts like “God”, “na ture”, “so ci ety”, “sub ject” used
in dif fer ent world views (be gin ning from the re li gious one) make re al ity, va ri ety
of life and ex is tence forms more sim pli fied and uni fied. Sub jects of ac tion (ac -
tors), in their turn, can more eas ily ori ent them selves in the world and socio-cul -
tural space where they live, cre at ing a uni ver sal pat tern of ex is tence for the so ci -
ety as a whole.
Con tem po rary phi los o phy of cog ni tion and sociolinguistics deal with a me -
di a tor in the mind of a sub ject of cog ni tion called a world view or pic ture of the
world. A gen eral frame of mean ings in dif fer ent world views is cre ated by fun da -
men tal philo soph i cal met a phors and as sump tions that have be come core truths
in dif fer ent cul tures.
Subject in Classical Philosophical Tradition:
Individualism and Autonomy
West ern phi los o phies in clas si cal tra di tion de vel oped the con cept of sub jec -
tiv ity in the the o ries of in di vid u al ism and au ton omy. The for mer de scribe the
sub ject whose ac tions are lim ited only by the ex ter nal law of nat u ral ne ces sity. In
the the o ries of au ton omy the ac tions of sub ject are rig or ously lim ited rather by
in ter nal mo ral ity and duty than by ex ter nal fac tors.
In the first case, the sub ject is ei ther an ti so cial or so cial un der com pul sion. In
the sec ond case, he/she will ingly ac cepts the bur den of duty and be come a cit i zen
of a so ci ety with ra tio nal be hav iour. The con cept of au ton omy de vel oped by Im -
man uel Kant is the idea of vol un tary sub mis sion of the sub ject for rea sons not de -
fined by law. What does the law pro vide for is not a mat ter of pri mary im por tance,
the main thing is vol un tary as sump tion of cer tain ob li ga tions to wards others and
so ci ety as a whole. Only such kind of obe di ence cre ates a clear per sonal iden tity
and al lows an in di vid ual to feel rather com fort able within so cial re al ity.
134 Со ци о ло гия: те о рия, ме то ды, мар ке тинг, 2015, 4
Natalia Otreshko
The ma jor char ac ter is tics of a sub ject in clas si cal philo soph i cal tra di tion are
as fol lows: con scious ness of the sub ject is clear and ac ces si ble to self-re flec tion,
mo tives of his/her ac tions are in creas ingly ra tio nal and util i tar ian, think ing is
the main form of his/her con scious ac tiv ity. Sub ject is formed as a sep a rate in de -
pend ent per son in the course of think ing.
De struc tion of the clas si cal con cept of sub ject be gan in Nietz sche’s phi los o -
phy and ended in post-mod ern con cepts of the “death of the sub ject”. A sta ble set
of per sonal char ac ter is tics of the sub ject or the sub ject’s au ton omy gives up its
place to duty in ter nal ised by the sub ject of de sire. The sub ject is per ceived as a
pro cess of con stant meta mor pho sis and changes cou pled with changes in the ex -
te rior world and in the sub ject’s sub con scious im pulses. In Jacques Lacan’s
post-structuralist the ory [Lacan, 1994: p. 13] and Louis Althusser’s con cept of
ide ol ogy [Althusser, 1971: pp. 129–186] the sub ject is vir tu ally ab sorbed. Ac -
cord ing to Lacan, struc ture of lan guage sub or di nates sub jec tive con scious ness to
con cep tual ma tri ces of per cep tion while Althusser as serts that sub ject forms
his/her own iden tity in re sponse to the call (“hail”) of power. In both cases, the
ex ter nal in de pend ent fac tors hide the sub ject’s readi ness for sub mis sion to
power, or games of the sub con scious mind.
Individual and Subject as a Constant Process of Becoming:
A Comparative Analysis of Theories Developed by
Norbert Elias and Judith Butler
Norbert Elias’ ideas are con sid ered to have sig nif i cant in flu ence on crit i cal
the ory and post-mod ern thought. In his book “The So ci ety of In di vid u als”
(1939) the scholar dis cusses a new dy namic per spec tive on the con cept of the “in -
di vid ual”. His idea of close re la tion ship be tween in di vid ual and so ci ety un der go -
ing per ma nent changes and trans for ma tions, has not lost any of its rel e vance. In
the au thor’s opin ion, the Elias’ “in di vid ual” re veals sim i lar i ties to the But ler’s
con cept of sub ject, since both au thors criti cise clas si cal mech a nis tic the o ries sep -
a rat ing the in di vid ual from so ci ety and treat ing them as static con cepts.
The ma jor char ac ter is tics of in di vid ual in ter preted by Norbert Elias are as
fol lows.
First, the in di vid ual is part of a larger whole be ing formed to gether with oth -
ers. In di vid ual con scious ness is not some thing so lid i fied and formed once and for
all. The sub ject of knowl edge or the sub ject of life can make an in de pend ent
choice whether to be open to new pat terns of be hav iour or not.
Sec ond, “the in vis i ble so cial or der of this form of liv ing to gether of fers the in -
di vid ual a more or less re stricted range of pos si ble func tions and modes of be hav -
iour” [Elias, 1991: p. 19].
Third, “func tions of the most dis pa rate kinds have made the in di vid ual de -
pend ent on oth ers and oth ers on him... He lives in a tis sue of mo bile re la tion ships,
which have by now been pre cip i tated in him as his per sonal char ac ter” [Elias,
1991: p. 21]. The ba sic frame work of in ter de pen dent func tions, their struc ture
and pat tern give a so ci ety its spe cific char ac ter.
Norbert Elias ar gues that it is nec es sary to give up think ing in terms of sin gle,
iso lated sub stances and to start think ing in terms of re la tion ships and func tions.
Со ци о ло гия: те о рия, ме то ды, мар ке тинг, 2015, 4 135
Interpretations of the concept of “subject”: from classical traditions to post-modern theories
He con sid ers such sit u a tion as a re sult of some ideo log i cal ste reo types that have
been uni ver sally ac cepted. For ex am ple, there are two ideo log i cal ste reo types in
clas si cal so ci ol ogy: “So ci ety is the fi nal pur pose and the in di vid ual only a means”
and “the in di vid ual is the fi nal pur pose and the un ion of in di vid u als into a so ci ety
only a means to his/her well-be ing” [Elias, 1991: p. 24].
More over, the scholar men tions “the gulf and the in tense con flict which the
highly in di vidu al ised peo ple of our stage of civili sa tion feel within them selves”
and which are “pro jected by their con scious ness into the world. In their the o ret i -
cal re flec tion they ap pear as an ex is ten tial gulf and an eter nal con flict be tween in -
di vid ual and so ci ety”. “The ad vance of the di vi sion of func tions and of civili sa tion
at cer tain stages is there fore in creas ingly ac com pa nied by the feel ing in in di vid u -
als that in or der to main tain their po si tions in the hu man net work they must al -
low their true na ture to wither” [Elias, 1991: p. 26].
The ste reo types ex ist ing in clas si cal so cio log i cal the o ries have been some -
what over come by Ju dith But ler in the the ory of sub jec tion. She con tin ues to
develop the the ory of the sub ject of power/knowl edge sug gested by Michel
Foucault [Foucault, 1983]. This the ory treats the sub ject as an en tity which is
self-aware and ca pa ble of choos ing how to act. Foucault was a con sis tent op po -
nent of the o ries arisen in the 19th cen tury and phenomenological no tions of the
uni ver sal and time less sub ject which was at the source of how one made sense of
the world and which was the foun da tion of all thought and ac tion. The prob lem
with this con cep tion of the sub ject, ac cord ing to Foucault and other think ers in
the 1960s, was that it fixed the sta tus quo and at tached peo ple to spe cific iden ti -
ties that could never be changed. Althusser’s doc trine of in ter pel la tion [Alt -
husser, 1971] clearly sets the stage for Foucault’s later views on the “dis cur sive
pro duc tion of the sub ject”. So cial cat e go ries im ply both sub or di na tion and ex is -
tence of the sub ject. Thus, the risk of death for sub ject is co ex ten sive with the
insurmountability of the so cial. Only re strict ing him self/her self with so cial clas -
si fi ca tion cat e go ries and terms, the sub ject can main tain his/her own ex is tence.
This in ter pel la tion is a form of misrecognition, as in Lacan’s mir ror phase [Ev ans,
1996], where an externalised im age is per ceived both as the self and the “other”. It
is “the po si tion we take is rel a tive to a more sig nif i cant, su pe rior and cen tral
‘Other Sub ject’, whether it is the state, God or some other ul ti mate au thor ity.
The per son-as-sub ject is thus de fined by the “other” and the per son re cog nises
them selves as an im age or re flec tion of the Other. This al lows the per son to claim
the qual ity of the Other but also re quires sub ju ga tion to the Other. To deny the
Other is to deny one’s own ex is tence” [O’Farrell, s.a.].
How ever, But ler thinks that the sub ject is not the fi nal re sult of socia li sa tion,
but an am biv a lent pro cess. At first, the sub ject be comes sub or di nated by power,
then the sub ject real ises his/her self-de pend ence and fi nally he/she feels the need
to vi o late the ban, to go be yond the bound aries de ter mined by power. The scholar
tries to re veal the fac tors ex plain ing an in di vid ual’s sub con scious in cli na tion to
obey au thor ity at the first stage of sub jec tion and the forces mo ti vat ing him/her
later to seek the ways of re leas ing from obe di ence to power and act ing in -
dependently.
The sub ject be ing formed in the field of dis course and power finds his/her
own so cial iden tity, even par tially typed, and gets the op por tu nity to act in the
136 Со ци о ло гия: те о рия, ме то ды, мар ке тинг, 2015, 4
Natalia Otreshko
field of dis cur sive prac tices. This is the first break point in the dis course of power,
and there arises a pos si bil ity of free dom for the sub ject. Any ac tion of the sub ject
en tails a se ries of un pre dict able con se quences, even if his/her pur pose and means
of ac tion were cho sen from a set of le git i mate aims and means. The act ing sub ject
may over step the lim its but can not evade the in flu ence of power. In other words,
the sub ject can not over come am biv a lence that he/she has built.
To day the power is not only be com ing an im per sonal power of dis course but
also los ing its le git i macy be cause of not be ing able to en sure sta bil ity and cer -
tainty of sub jects in the ev ery day world and to main tain their iden ti ties.
It would be ad vis able to de scribe briefly di a lec tic re la tion ship be tween sub -
ject and power. At first, the sub ject is nec es sar ily sub or di nated to the pa ren tal au -
thor ity, so ci ety, or cul tural tra di tions. The sub ject can not ex ist with out power.
Both the power has an in flu ence on the sub ject and the sub ject in a fig u ra tive
sense co mes into force thanks to the power. The power also ex ists in the form of
au thor ity vol un tarily ac cepted by the sub ject and re cog nised as a le git i mate gov -
ern ing body. The sub ject is ready to obey au thor ity both emo tion ally and ra tio -
nally. We should ac knowl edge that the power not only re stricts the sub ject’s
free dom of choice but also cre ates an op por tu nity for sub jec tive ex is tence in dis -
cur sive and coun ter-dis cur sive spaces.
The so-called con scious stage can be formed only if the sub ject him self/her -
self be comes a hin drance to his/her own de sires: (1) to live in sub jec tion and (2)
to de stroy him self/her self as real is ing that other peo ple have a real in flu ence on
his/her thoughts and be hav iour. If the sub ject is able to over come prac ti cally
both of these de sires (sub or di na tion and self-de struc tion), there co mes a break -
point in his/her life and a new form of power takes place. This is the con trol that
the sub ject ex erts him self/her self over his/her own de sires, thoughts and ac tions
as an abil ity to over come the lim its im posed by any form of dis course in clud ing
pa ren tal.
Ac cord ing to But ler, there are four main steps in the sub ject’s be com ing.
Firstly, the sub ject is formed in the field of dis course and power. “No sub ject
emerges with out a pas sion ate at tach ment to those or whom he or she is fun da -
men tally de pend ent” [But ler, 1997: p. 7]. This pas sion ate at tach ment be comes, in
turn, the ground of sub jec tiv ity.
Sec ondly, the sub ject re cog nises his/her de pend ence on so cial norms and
rules. “Con science is the means by which a sub ject be comes an ob ject for it self, re -
flect ing on it self, es tab lish ing it self as re flec tive and re flex ive. Re flex ivi ty be -
comes the means by which de sire is reg u larly trans muted into the cir cuit of
self-re flec tion” [But ler, 1997: p. 16].
Thirdly, the sub ject changes his/her at ti tude to wards the ear li est ob jects of
love — par ents, guard ians, sib lings, and so on. “That ac counts in part for the adult
sense of hu mil i a tion when con fronted with the ear li est ob jects of love — par ents,
guard ians, sib lings, and so on — the sense of be lated in dig na tion in which one
claims, “I could n’t pos si bly love such a per son” [But ler, 1997: p. 17].
Fourthly, the sub ject be comes a hin drance to his own de sires. As pre vi ously
men tioned, these are de sire to live in sub jec tion or to de stroy him self/her self
when he/she real ises that other peo ple in flu ence his thoughts and be hav iour. A
the ory of the sub ject should take into ac count the full am biv a lence of the con di -
Со ци о ло гия: те о рия, ме то ды, мар ке тинг, 2015, 4 137
Interpretations of the concept of “subject”: from classical traditions to post-modern theories
tions of its op er a tion. A power ex erted on a sub ject, sub jec tion is nev er the less a
power as sumed by the sub ject, an as sump tion that con sti tutes the in stru ment of
that sub ject’s be com ing.
In the au thor’s opin ion, there are two ba sic fea tures com mon to Elias’s in di -
vid ual and But ler’s sub ject. First, just as the in di vid ual ex ists in close con nec tion
with other peo ple, groups, or so ci ety as a whole, so the sub ject is formed in the
field of dis course and power. Sec ond, there are no “in di vid u als with out so ci ety”
and the sub ject does not ex ist with out power/au thor ity ei ther.
At the same time, there are some dif fer ences be tween these two con cepts. For
in stance, Elias thought of the in di vid ual as a re sult both of so cial con trol and
self-con trol pro cesses. In this re gard, it would be worth while to study how these
pro cesses in ter act with each other. How ever, But ler con sid ers the sub ject as
some thing which may be op posed to the power. There fore, we have to find out
how the sub ject formed in the field of power can de velop the de sire to be in de -
pend ent and abil ity to think on his/her own.
Conclusions
Meta phys ics is an epistemological ba sis for clas si cal pic ture of both phys i cal
and so cial world. Re jec tion of meta phys ics in pos i tiv ism has meant only seem ing
re jec tion of hy poth e ses or tem po rary sus pen sion of this level of anal y sis. How -
ever, it has not solved the main prob lem be cause an in de pend ent so cio log i cal ba -
sis for sci en tific anal y sis could not be formed. Al though pos i tiv ism ver bally re -
jects meta phys i cal tra di tion, in fact, it is noth ing but a di rect con tin u a tion of this
ap proach. Meta phys ics ac tu ally un der goes meth od olog i cal crit i cism only in phe -
nom en ol ogy and postmodernism. The cur rent stage in the de vel op ment of so cio -
log i cal thought may be con sid ered as a stage of over com ing ba sic hy poth e ses of
clas si cal West ern meta phys ics.
Post-mod ern so ci ol o gists pay close at ten tion to new in ter pre ta tions of the
con cept of “in di vid ual”; for ex am ple, to the “sub ject” con cept de vel oped by Ju -
dith But ler. This con cept can be an al ter na tive to the clas si cal con cept of per son
since the per son is a re sult of socia li sa tion while the “sub ject” is a pro cess of be -
com ing that never com pletes. Mod ern the o ries in ter pret the con scious ness of the
sub ject as a well-or dered in ter nal world op posed to the ob jec tive re al ity of the ex -
ter nal world, while post-mod ern the o ries ar gue that the sub ject’s con scious ness
is a thin shell which hides his/her cha otic de sires and im pulses. This chaos can be -
come a tem po rary im age of the in di vid ual due to his/her in ner will or outer in flu -
ences (e.g., socio-cul tural norms).
Post-mod ern con cep tions stress the role of in ner prac tices of the “sub ject”
who has made him self/her self as a per son al ity. “Sub ject” is not an ex ist ing re al ity
of think ing but a spe cific tech nique for un der stand ing one’s iden tity, a way to
one self. Ev ery body can pass this way, but very few ac tu ally do this. Al though the
sub ject is gen er ated by dis course of the global power, he/she is op posed to the in -
flu ence of power. De spite be ing sub or di nated to the au thor ity the sub ject has
needs for self-ex pres sion and free dom of ac tion. Power be comes vul ner a ble just as
the sub ject be gins to real ise mech a nisms of its in flu ence.
138 Со ци о ло гия: те о рия, ме то ды, мар ке тинг, 2015, 4
Natalia Otreshko
References
Althusser L. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an In ves -
tigation) // Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Part 2. — New York; London, Monthly
Review Press, 1971. — P. 129–186.
Ajdukiewicz K. Kartina mira i poniatiinyi apparat (The World-Picture and the Concep -
tual Apparatus (1934)) [Electronic resource]. — Access mode:
http://www.philosophy.ru/phil/iphras/library/phnauk2/SCIENCE8.htm.
Butler J. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories of Subjection. — Stanford: Stanford Uni -
versity Press, 1997.
Elias N. The Society of Individuals. — Oxford, UK; Cambridge: Mass Basil Blackwell,
1991.
Evans D. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. — London: Routledge,
1996.
Foucault M. The Subject and Power // Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and
Hermeneutics / ed. by H. Dreyfus, P. Rabinow. 2nd ed. — Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1983. — P. 208–226.
Lacan J. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis. — London: Penguin, 1994.
O’Farrell C. Key concepts. [Electronic resource]. — Access mode:
http://www.michel-foucault.com/concepts.
Edited by Olha Maksymenko
Со ци о ло гия: те о рия, ме то ды, мар ке тинг, 2015, 4 139
Interpretations of the concept of “subject”: from classical traditions to post-modern theories
|