tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post4471022929671871900..comments2024-03-15T01:11:32.832-07:00Comments on Bardiac: SubjectivitiesBardiachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11846065504793800266noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-20758288389866187102008-12-29T18:33:00.000-08:002008-12-29T18:33:00.000-08:00I guess, as a historian, this is one of those plac...I guess, as a historian, this is one of those places I've always had trouble with literary work. I assume everyone had subjectivity and agency. . . constructed and limited in various ways, but still there. So while I understand the literary theory part, when I connect it to real people, I don't get it. I haven't read the book -- I heard Fumerton give an early piece on some of this and (like all the historians present) thought it was terrible, but the book sounds interesting.Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716705206734059708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-202429464845445552008-12-29T06:28:00.000-08:002008-12-29T06:28:00.000-08:00Dr. C, Thanks, that adds a helpful perspective. ...Dr. C, Thanks, that adds a helpful perspective. She does criticize the work of others who've talked about developing subjectivities in early modern England, but mostly for working only with upper-class males. I'll have to reread some parts to check my interpretation.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again!Bardiachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11846065504793800266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17974015.post-16047656350508849252008-12-28T18:22:00.000-08:002008-12-28T18:22:00.000-08:00I haven't read Fumerton's work, but I interpreted ...I haven't read Fumerton's work, but I interpreted the second sentence as a kind of throwaway... Or well maybe that's the wrong word. To me, I saw it as a way of qualifying her insistence on the possibility for individuals to see themselves as "enduring subjects" even if, in light of contemporary theory, we question the idea of unified or consistent subjectivity. In other words, I felt like that sentence was in there not to posit unified or consistent subjectivity as a goal but rather to say that some form of enduring or coherent subjectivity is possible even if the cogito is nothing more than a construct. Not sure if this makes sense, and, again, I've not read her work, so I could be completely off base. I'm just thinking that if one were to write about the "enduring subject" today without that sentence that somebody would come along and say that she was saying that Edward Barlow had a unified or consistent subject-position, which isn't what she's saying, and so this sentence is about preempting that criticism.Dr. Crazyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12457967076373916629noreply@blogger.com