Compare between Foucauldian and Derrida’s critique of the Subject.
Compare between Foucauldian and Derrida’s critique of the Subject.
Share
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Foucault and Derrida, influential figures in post-structuralist thought, offer distinct yet interconnected critiques of the subject. Foucault, in his genealogical approach, critiques the traditional understanding of the subject as a stable and autonomous entity. He unveils the historical construction of subjectivity, emphasizing power relations that shape individuals within societal structures. The subject, for Foucault, is a product of discourses and institutional practices, lacking fixed identity.
Derrida, on the other hand, challenges the notion of a coherent and self-identical subject through deconstruction. He questions the stability of language and meaning, arguing that language inherently carries traces of undecidability and ambiguity. The subject, in Derrida's view, is decentered, and identity is perpetually deferred in a web of linguistic play.
While Foucault emphasizes the external forces that construct subjectivity, Derrida focuses on the internal complexities of language and the inherent instability of meaning. Both critiques converge in undermining the traditional, unified concept of the subject, emphasizing its fragmented, contingent, and discursively constituted nature within broader power structures and linguistic frameworks.