Understanding Subject and Object in Humanities and Social Sciences
The relationship between the subject and the object has long been a foundational aspect of how we conceive and interpret the world around us. This relationship becomes especially illuminating when we recognize the original distinction between the two: the subject is seen as a conscious and thinking being, while the object is often reduced merely to its utility. To interrogate this relationship is to delve into what makes us conscious beings who are capable of knowledge, action, and positioning ourselves in relation to the world. It is also an exploration of the conditions under which knowledge is produced and the mechanisms of representation within the realms of humanities and social sciences.
The Latin etymology of both terms is quite revealing. The term 'subject,' derived from 'subjectus,' originally means "that which is placed underneath,” suggesting a foundation or support. In contrast, 'object,' stemming from 'objectum,' refers to "that which is placed in front of" or "opposed" to the subject. This etymological origin highlights a dynamic positional relationship between the two concepts: the subject as an anchor point, and the object as what stands in opposition to it. This tension, both spatial and symbolic, paves the way for multiple interpretations across various disciplines, including philosophy, literature, linguistics, pedagogy, and media studies, among others.
Since Descartes' *Meditations on First Philosophy* (1641), philosophy has persistently contemplated the duality between subject and object, regarded as observer and observed entity. This framework has indelibly influenced much of modern scientific thought, shaping our understanding of all phenomena related to knowledge (Lupasco, 1941). Kant’s reflections further extend this view by considering subject and object as two entities that exist independently of one another. This fundamental separation has been established as a sine qua non condition for the production of knowledge (T.W. Adorno, 1984).
While this perspective negates any relationship between subject and object, an alternative approach emphasizes the merging and porosity of boundaries, asserting the absence of distance between what Bruno Latour refers to as "subjective passions" and "objective facts" (2007). This results in a close interweaving within the scientific field between "the most exotic non-humans and the closest humans." In a similar vein, Maurice Merleau-Ponty posits that humans and the world share the same Flesh, the same fabric. Thus, should we maintain the fundamental separation between subject and object as the basis of knowledge, or should we reconsider their relationship through a lens of intertwining and co-constitution?
The subject/object relationship, which lies at the core of philosophical debates, resonates strongly in the arts and literature. In fictional works, the subject is often represented by characters, revealed through markers of subjectivity. The object, on the other hand, becomes a descriptive element reflecting various types of relationships between the two entities. It is perhaps in postcolonial literature that this issue finds its most intense articulation. Reevaluating this literary production in light of concepts such as otherness, identity, marginality, or hybridization allows for a renewed understanding of the relationship between subject and object. Edward W. Said refers to the dislocation of the postcolonial subject (1999). In her work, *Can the Subaltern Speak?*, Gayatri Spivak discusses a subaltern subject rendered silent, equated with an object. In this context, does postcolonial literature not illuminate a radical crisis in the subject/object distinction, wherein the subject becomes itself an object of domination and discourse?
In the field of pedagogy, depending on the analytical angle adopted, the relationships between the subject (learner or teacher) and the object (knowledge or learner) appear multifaceted, indirect, and profoundly mediated. Pedagogy, as a research discipline, studies content—knowledge and skills—as objects of teaching and learning referred to school subjects. It no longer confines itself to applying pre-established pedagogical frameworks; it demands an epistemological reflection from the teacher on the nature of the knowledge to be taught, as well as consideration of the learner's initial representations. Influenced by constructivism, notably by Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, the subject is no longer viewed as a passive receptacle, but as an active participant who comprehends the object based on pre-existing cognitive structures. Learning thus involves transforming these structures through cognitive conflict, enabling the deconstruction of errors and the reconstruction of more accurate knowledge. How then can we conceive of pedagogy that articulates the objective structuring of knowledge and the cognitive subjectivity of the learner without reducing one to the other?
In linguistics, the subject/object relationship transcends mere grammatical opposition to interrogate the relationship between the universality of structures and the singularity of expression. With Ferdinand de Saussure (1995), the distinction between language (an abstract and social system) and speech (an individual act) lays the groundwork for a methodological tension: the structuralist approach prioritizes the object by studying language as an autonomous system of signs, while the generative approach, championed by Noam Chomsky (1971), refocuses the analysis on the subject by highlighting its innate competence. Syntactically, the functional relationship between the grammatical subject and object (complement) establishes a variable hierarchy across languages, revealing different cultural ways of structuring reality. Furthermore, a methodological paradox arises when the linguist is both the analyzing subject and the user of the object studied, necessitating constant reflexive vigilance to avoid the projection of personal biases. A pressing question emerges: can linguistics truly objectify its object of study without interrogating the position of the analyzing subject that conditions its description?
In semiotics, the relationship between subject and object constitutes the very matrix of meaning production. In the Saussurean tradition, based on the binary of signifier/signified, the object is understood through a closed system of social conventions. The Peircean tradition, in contrast, introduces the triadic dimension of the sign and the role of the Interpreter: meaning becomes a dynamic process, a semiosis connecting the object and the interpreting subject. However, it is with the Paris School, particularly Algirdas Julien Greimas, that the subject-object relationship becomes the driving force of narrative analysis. The subject exists only through its quest for an object—whether coveted or rejected—and meaning emerges from the junction or disjunction between these two poles. Thus, every narrative structure relies on this axis of Desire, mediated by aiding or opposing forces, but fundamentally oriented towards the pursuit of the object bearing significance. Can meaning be conceptualized independently of the desire that binds the subject to its object?
In the media realm, questioning the subject/object relationship involves analyzing how information technologies transform our perception of reality. The media object is never the raw event; it results from a process of selection, framing, and editing that converts reality into a flow of images and signs. As Jean Baudrillard illustrated, the era of the simulacrum marks the moment when the image no longer reflects reality but precedes and substitutes it (1981). The media object abolishes spatio-temporal distances while producing a fictitious proximity, devoid of sensory experience.
According to thinkers from the Frankfurt School, the subject tends to be reduced to a passive consumer, subjected to a homogenization of consciousness and a form of alienation. With the advent of digital technology, the boundary blurs further: the subject becomes both producer and product, prosumer and object of data for algorithms. In Marshall McLuhan's famous formulation, the medium profoundly determines the relationship more than the content itself. Media, as extensions of the senses, thus reconfigure the perception of the object and saturate the subject's cognitive capacities, sometimes at the expense of critical distance and contemplation. In a universe dominated by the logic of the simulacrum and the algorithmization of reality, how can the subject still maintain perceptual autonomy and critical capacity in the face of a media object that tends to shape it as much as it consumes it?
Contributions may align with one or several of the following axes, though this list is non-exhaustive:
- Axis 1: Subject/Object: between epistemological distinction and interactions.
- Axis 2: Literature as a space for reflection and shaping the subject/object relationship.
- Axis 3: The subject/object relationship in linguistics: study of enunciation, discursive otherness, and mediation in language philosophy.
- Axis 4: Subject/Object in semiotics: dynamics and construction of meaning between intention and reception.
- Axis 5: Mediation and spectacularization: media object as a prosthesis of the subject; media, digitalization, AI.
- Axis 6: Subject, learning, and knowledge transmission: learning subject/teacher; transforming knowledge into a teaching object.
As reported by fabula.org.
