Subjectivity

What makes us who we are? Classically, in modern philosophy, we act in the way that Hobbes or Locke describe. The modern self is assumed to be:

• rational actors in the world (able to understand the world and enter into agreements)
• unique and intrinsic (that is, our nature lies within us)
• knowing ourselves first and best
• in control of our actions and choices (having a particular kind of free will)
• able to be held responsible for the results of our actions and choices
• untouched by (or prior to) cultural influences

Critical theory questions some of these (note - questioning might just mean that it deepens these categories or makes them more problematic. For some theorists, however, they are rejected).

The key, for cultural theorists, is to question the last one on the list. Is it the case that who I am precedes cultural influence? It is worth noting that this idea itself (that I rise above cultural influence) has a cultural history to it. It is not an idea that existed in this form in ancient or mediaeval times. Furthermore, it has a cultural place as well - not every culture holds this to be true. One of the often-quote tenets of African personhood, for example, is "I am because we are." The community is believed to be an intrinsic part of African selfhood.

So, does this belief mean that those in the West are more advanced than others? What if not all of those in the West, with a Western education, believe this? And, if only a subset of people actually think that we humans are as described above, doesn't this mean that we are bound to take culture into account at some level?

Of course, we might decide that we are unique, but that in itself doesn't undermine part of the point of critical theory. I might be unique, but the world might treat me as part of a group. As such, I have to react in those terms, either accepting or rejecting the characterization. Governments treat us as taxpayers, the university treats us as employees or students, traffic cops treat us as upholders or violators of laws, advertisers treat us as target audiences.

You might be inclined to think that being part of a group is a secondary aspect of our humanity. Here is an example which might make that harder to accept:

1. The families of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 now find themselves coming closer as a group. None of them chose to have this happen to them. Yet, now that it has, they find themselves treated similarly:

• Bureaucracy treats them similarly - there are forms to fill out to obtain aid.
  
  
• The press treats them similarly - they are always known as a family member of a 9/11 victim. Even if a story is done on an individual, that story becomes metonymic, that is, the part standing in for the whole.
  
  
• Social science treats them similarly, since it is the same trauma that all suffered.
  
  
• They see themselves as a group - they have political power, for example, over the nature of memorials, and over the design of future plans for the World Trade Center site.
  
  
• Furthermore, we might say that they have come to a kind of consciousness as a group. They do not all agree (there has been tension, for example, between families of different kinds of victims - professional workers in the buildings, fire fighters, police officers). Despite the tensions, though, there is also a group consciousness when it comes to things like the nature of the land use of the site. And, there is a strong sense that they understand each other in ways that no one can understand them.

In short, this event has forever given them an identity. This is so not just because of some random event in history, but because of the reactions to that event.