Paul Smith's "Discerning the Subject" (Book Note)

 

"Discerning the Subject," explores the theoretical frameworks of Marxism, deconstruction, psychoanalysis, and feminism concerning the concept of the subject. The author, David L. Smith, endeavors to revitalize the notion of human agency within the context of poststructuralist discussions on the "de-centering" of the subject. Critiquing both traditional humanism and poststructuralist perspectives, Smith argues for the importance of theorizing "resistance." While criticizing the former for its flawed epistemology, he challenges the latter on political grounds, asserting that an emphasis on the de-centered subject leads to an inert political culture.

 

Smith's political argument aims to lay the groundwork for a theoretically informed and politically active culture, but it encounters intellectual contradictions. The desire to simplify targets, particularly deconstructive thought, and the adoption of theoretically contradictory positions weaken the overall argument. The book begins with a critical assertion that current conceptions of the subject produce a purely theoretical subject divorced from political and ethical realities. Smith proposes a different concept of the subject, using the etymological pun of "to cern" and "to cerne." The former, meaning "to accept an inheritance or patrimony," aligns with the humanist notion of the subject, while the latter, meaning "to encircle" or "to enclose," symbolizes the subject's passive reception of discursive determinations. The central project is to discern the subject, arguing that the human agent surpasses the constructed subject in poststructuralist theory and opposing discourses.

Smith critiques both humanism and poststructuralism but views the former as crippled by its epistemology and seeks to incorporate the theoretical advances of the latter into a more flexible theoretical discourse. He introduces the concept of the "agent," a form of subjectivity allowing for resistance to ideological pressure due to contradictions and disturbances in subject positions. Smith, however, faces challenges in explaining the meaning and manifestation of resistance.

 

While expressing concern about totalizing critical positions, Smith hesitates to elaborate on the truism that totalizing impulses are connected with totalitarianism. Against deterministic Marxist criticism, Smith favors an Althusserian Marxism that acknowledges the permanence of ideology and diverse possibilities for subjective interpellation. He sees potential for change emerging from the plurality and contradictions of ideological discourses, exploring how the force of interpellation can fail to produce a compliant subject and examining the contestatory use of that failure. Smith's project aims to theorize agential subjectivity from the simultaneous non-unity and non-consistency of subject positions, emphasizing negativity as the productive moment in rewriting Althusser.

In his critique of Althusser, Smith praises Althusser for integrating psychoanalytic theory into Marxism but faults him for what he sees as an essentialism of the unconscious. Smith argues that Althusser's concept of ideology represents an imaginary relationship, akin to false consciousness, perpetuating a dualism that anticipates the liberal subject's Utopian promise of a total individual. He claims that the literary criticism following Althusser, especially that of Macherey and Screen writers, falls into a deterministic trap, neglecting the distinction between subject-positions in a text and the actual human agent engaging with it.

 

Moving to deconstruction, Smith analyzes Derrida's thought, criticizing it without a substantial engagement with Derrida's texts or acknowledgment of the performative aspects of writing. Smith summarizes Derrida's argument on the persistence of the signifier and the absence of an originary text in the unconscious. However, he misinterprets Derrida's stance as passive, overlooking the complexity of Derrida's thinking and reducing it to automatic writing. By neglecting the performative and contextual aspects of Derrida's work, Smith's critique appears one-sided and fails to capture the depth of Derrida's contributions.

According to Smith, Derrida and Derridean literary theory, which he playfully labels "Derridadaist" literary criticism, have contributed to the "textualization of all objects of knowledge." Smith coins the term "holotextualism" to describe this interpretive practice, which he views as dangerously solipsistic and nihilistic. He criticizes narrative theory for neglecting the relationship between narrative and subjectivity, as well as its impact on social formations. However, this critique appears untenable given the nuanced work of contemporary literary critics like Leo Bersani, Samuel Weber, and Franco Moretti, who explore these topics with sophistication.

 

Smith's assessment of narrative theory and narrative itself seems inadequate and reliant on clichés, particularly when dismissing classic realism as a "thoroughly constrained" form of artistic production. This theoretical glibness and rhetorical register raise concerns about the depth of Smith's engagement with these subjects. His wariness of narrative, possibly due to its libidinal allure, contradicts Lacan's understanding of the imaginary's role in psychic constitution alongside the symbolic. A notable strength in the book is Smith's critique of Althusser for reducing Lacan's ternary scheme to a dyad, neglecting the complexity of the symbolic and imaginary in shaping the subject. Smith advocates for a psychoanalytic approach that explores the ongoing interplay of the imaginary and symbolic in an individual's history as a source of resistance to ideological binds, avoiding reliance on abstract concepts like false consciousness and will.