Second person : a point of view? The function of the second person pronoun in narrative prose fiction

This thesis looks at the functions and effects of the ‘second-person’ pronoun in narrative prose fiction, with particular focus on the fluidity and ambiguity of the mode that I will call Protean-'you.' It is a mode in which it is unclear whether the ‘you’ is a character, the narrator, a reader/narratee, or no-one in particular—or a combination of these—so that readers find ‘second-person’ utterances at once familiar and deeply strange. I regard the ‘second person’ as a special case of narrative ‘person’ that, at its most fluid, can produce an experience of reading quite unlike that of reading traditional ‘first-‘ and ‘third-person’ narrative. Essentially, this unique experience comes about because Protean-‘you’ neglects to constitute the stable modes of subjectivity that readers expect to find within narrative textuality. These stable modes of subjectivity, modelled on what I will refer to as Cartesianism’s hegemonic notion of the self, have been thoroughly formalised and naturalised within the practices of ‘first-‘ and ‘third-person’ narrative. The Protean-‘you’ form of ‘second-person’ narrative, conversely, is a mode of narrative discourse that puts readers in a place of doubt and uncertainty, its unsettling equivocations forcefully disrupting accustomed, mimetic explanations of narrative and denying us access to the foundational, authorising subject of classical Cartesian thought. Rather than founding a notion of ‘second-person’ narrative and narrative ‘person’ generally on Cartesianism's ‘self-ish’ logic of unified, privatised identity, I turn to C.S, Peirce's notion of the semiotic self and to developments in post-structuralist thought. Essentially, the conception of subjectivity underpinning my arguments is Peirce's proposition that the self is to be conceived of not as a cogito, but as a sign by which the conscious entity knows itself. It is a sign, moreover, that is constantly being re-read, reinterpreted, so that identity is never self-complete. This reconception of subjectivity is necessary because 1 will argue that the effects of Protean-‘you’ arise in some part from a tension between Cartesianism's hegemony and what philosophical pragmatism and post-structuralism glimpse as the actual condition of the human subject—the subject as dispersed and contingent rather than unified and authoritative. Most discussions of ‘second-person’ narrative conceive of the mode in terms of implicit communicative relations, in some measure instituting Cartesianism's notion of the intentionalist self at the centre of literary meaning. I contrast the paradigmatic address model that arises from this conception against a model that approaches the analysis of ‘second-person’ narrative modality in terms of a referential function, that is, in terms of the object or objects referred to deictically by the ‘second-person’ pronoun. Two principal functions of ‘second-person’ textuality are identified and discussed at length. The first is generalisation, which is rarely dissipated altogether, a situation that contributes to the ambiguities of the pronoun's reference in much ‘second-person’ fiction. The second principal function is that of address, that is, the allocutionary function. Clearly, although stories that continually refer to a ‘you’ can seem quite baffling and unnatural, not all ‘second-person’ narratives unsettle the reader. In order to make the ‘second person's’ outlandish narratives knowable and stable, we bring to bear on them in our habits of reading whatever hermeneutic frames, whatever interpretive keys, come to hand, including a large number of unexceptional forms of literary and ‘natural’ discourse that employ the ‘second-person’ pronoun. These forms include letter writing and internal dialogue (i.e., talking to one's self), the language of the courtroom, the travelogue, the maxim, and so on. In looking at the ways in which the radicalising potentials of ‘second-person’ discourse are contained or recuperated, I focus on issues of vraisemblance and mimesis. Vraisemblance can be described as the ‘system of conventions and expectations which rests on/reinforces that more general system of ‘mutual knowledge’ produced within a community for the realisation and maintenance of a whole social world’. All of the forms of the vraisemblable are already instituted within social, cultural relations, so that what vraisemblance describes is the way we fit the inscriptions we read-that is, the way in which we naturalise what we read-into those given cultural and social forms. I also look at the conventionalising and naturalising work done by notions of mimesis in explaining relations between the world, our being in it, and texts, proposing that mimesis provides a principle buttress by which the good standing of the metaphor of ‘person’ is preserved in traditional and pre-critical modes of analysis. Indeed, the critic’s recourse to ‘person’ is in some measure always an engagement with mimesis. Any discussion that maintains that mimesis is in some way productive of meaning-which this thesis in fact does-must identify mimesis as a merely conventional category within practices of reading and semiosis more generally, and at the very least remove that term from its traditional position of transparent primacy and authority. Some of the most interesting and insightful arguments about ‘second-person’ narrative propose that the ‘second person’s’ most striking effects derive from the constitution of an ‘intersubjective’ experience of reading in which the subject positions of the ‘you’-protagonist, reader-narratee and narrator are combined into a fluid and indeterminate multiple subjectivity. Notions of intersubjectivity frequently position themselves as liberating the reader from Cartesianism's fixed, authoritative modes of subjectivity, Frequently, however, they tend implicitly to reinstate Cartesianism's notion of the self at the centre of textual practice and subjectivity. I look at Daniel Gunn's novel ‘Almost You’, at length in this context, illustrating the constant overdetermination of the ‘you’ and the novel's narrating voice, and demonstrating that this overdetermination leaves the origin of the narrative discourse, the identity of the narrator, and the ontological nature of both principal protagonists utterly ambiguous. The fluidity and ambiguity of Protean-‘you’ in ‘Almost You’ is discussed in terms of ‘second-person’ intersubjectivity, but with a view to demonstrating the indebtedness by the notion of intersubjectivity to Cartesianism's hegemony of ‘person’. I then turn to a discussion of what might be a more ‘old fashioned’ if perhaps ultimately more far-reaching approach to the ‘second person’s’ often startling ambiguities. This is Keats's notion of negative capability, a capacity or quality in which a person ‘is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.’ I suggest that Protean-‘you’ texts will license all of the readings of ambiguity and fluidity proposed in my discussion of ‘Almost You’, but conclude that the instances of indeterminacy illustrate no more than that: the fluidity and deep ambiguity, and thus, finally, the lack of coherence, of Protean-‘you’ discourse. This has particular implications for how we are to consider readers’ experiences of narrative texts. More fundamentally, it has implications for how we are to consider readers as subjects. I suggest that unstable, ambiguous instances of ‘second-person’ narrative can tear the complex and systematic embroidery of ideological suture that unifies Cretinism’s experience or sense of subjectivity, leaving the reader in a condition of epistemological and ontological havoc. I go on to argue that much of the deeply unsettling effect of Protean-‘you’ discourse anises because its utterances explicitly gesture towards Cretinism’s notion of self. Protean-‘you’ involves a sense of address that is much more pronounced than we are accustomed to facing when reading literary narrative, alerting us to the presence of inscribed anthropomorphic subjects. At the very same time, protean-‘you’ leaves its inscribed subjects indeterminate, ambiguous. This conflict generates a tension between the anticipation of the emergence of speaking and listening selves and our inability to find them. I go on to propose that Protean-‘you’ narrative's lack of coherence is also to be understood as the condition of narrative actuality generally, but a condition that is vigorously mediated against by dominant practices of reading and writing, hocusing my discussion in this respect on the issue of narrative ‘person,’ I argue that narrative ‘person’ is constituted within texts as an apparent unity, but that it is in fact, produced as unitary solely within the practice of making sense, that is, Within our habits of reading, and so is never finally unified. I propose that this is the case for ‘first-‘ and ‘third-person’ modes no less than for the ‘second.’ Where ‘second-person’ narrative at its most radical and Protean differs from conventional ‘first-‘ and ‘third-person’ narratives is the degree to which each has been circumscribed by practices of tantalization, containment and limit, and, in particular, Cretinism’s hegemony of ‘person.’ It may be that the most significant insights ‘second-person’ narrative has to offer are to be found within its capacity to reveal to the engaged reader the underlying condition of narrative discourse, and more generally, its capacity to reveal the actual condition of the human subject-a condition in which, exactly like its textual corollary of narrative ‘person,’ the self is glimpsed as thoroughly dispersed and contingent.

Creative research : a radical subjectivity?

The struggles around notions of creative research are in some ways engaged with the return of the subject in face of post/structuralist moves that have tried to evacuate or dissolve subjectivity, or reduce it to an element in a structure. What this kind of subjectivity is, and how to define it, seems a matter up for grabs. What I suggest is that creative research is trying to stretch beyond its boundaries by advocating for a knowledge-producing subjectivity that rejects the methodological positivism of so called real research (which in many ways is centred upon the presuppostition of a transcendental subject), while negotiating the discourses of postmodernity and post/structuralism which are suspicious of, or radically dismiss, subjectivity as a category. I suggest that creative research might be a radical gesture, indeed a radical subjectivity, whose possibilities as creative/critical practices reveal the human content of the seemingly autonomous forms which are the outcome of the fragmentary world of capitalist social relations.

‘Else-where’ : essays in art, architecture, and cultural production 2002-2011

“Else-where”: Essays in Art, Architecture, and Cultural Production 2002–2011 is a synoptic survey of the representational values given to art, architecture, and cultural production at the closing of the twentieth century and the opening of the twenty-first. Written primarily as a critique of what is suppressed in architecture and what is disclosed in art, the essays are informed by the passage out of post-structuralism and its disciplinary analogues toward the Real (denoted over the course of the studies as the “Real-Irreal,” or “Else-where”). The essays collected in “Else-where” cross various disciplines (inclusive of landscape architecture, architecture, and visual art) to develop a nuanced critique of a renascent formal regard and elective exit from nihilism in art and architecture that is also an invocation of the highest coordinates given to the arts – that is, formal ontology as speculative intelligence itself, or the return of the universal as utopian thought “here-and-now.”

That tender discipline: spacing, structured nothingness & kumbhaka

In the discussion that follows here, I will attempt what I have decided to call an onto-poetic reading of the yogic practice of kumbhaka. I choose the double-barrelled nomination 'onto-poetic' since I would like to use my experience of kumbhaka both to think of certain current ontological paradigms and implications, and also to allow myself the flexibility and discipline that I associate with the poetic register. I will draw on three particular thinkers, namely Alain Badiou, Jacques Derrida and Luce Irigaray. Badiou makes very explicit metaontological claims that, I believe, have something to contribute to a reading of kumbhaka. Derrida, for his part, has written extensively about phonologocentrism and its inherent links with speech and breath in the history of phallocentric metaphysics. Irigaray, finally, demonstrates a way to think unity, breath and praxis so as to bring these conceptual strands together in a kind of elegant, but urgent, agency.
What can the very practice of kumbhaka help me to think? And how can such thinking impact on what happens when I practice pranayama that involves kumbhaka? Kumbhaka can be situated as a practice within the broader discipline of Yogic pranayama. Yoga, as it often encountered in this historical moment in the so-called West, can appear to emphasize physical posture (which are certainly as aspect of its breadth). Yoga, however, as a technology of existential and ontological inquiry, has often, throughout its long and meandering history, made use of the manipulation of, and abstinence from, breath. I will begin by cursorily outlining the place of pranayama itself within the yogic canon of practice. Then, I will go on to explain specifically the technology of kumbhaka, before embarking on my onto-poetic discussion.

Recognition, resistance and reconstruction : an introduction to subjectivities and social justice

The aim of this book is to examine new forms of resistance to social injustices in contemporary Western societies. Resistance requires agency, and agency is grounded in notions of the subject and subjectivity. It is a premise of this book that new and/or reconstructed forms of subjectivity are required to challenge social relations of subordination and domination.
Subjectivity is primarily based on lived experience. While subjectivity is sometimes used to explore individualistic strategies for personal meaning, we argue that subjectivity is central to political struggles against regimes of power. Thus, understanding how subjects are constituted is important in fostering the capacity of critical reflection and social transformation.
Our aim  is to understand the relationship between subjectivity and the wider social order. The relationship between the psyche and society is one of the most challenging issues facing social theory. While there is a variety of theoretical approaches to subjectivity, those that explore the links between the subject and society are the most promising in developing strategies for resistance. In this introductory chapter, we review and interrogate what we believe are the most important theoretical approaches to subjectivity, drawing upon Marxism, critical theory, feminism, postcolonialism and post-structuralism. Our aim in this book is not to develop a new theory of subjectivities. Rather, we are more concerned with investigating how diverse subjectivities are constructed and reconstructed.

Voice, post-structural representation and the subjectivity of ‘included’ students

Aligned with the broader movement from structuralism to the post-structuralisms [Lather, P. 2013. “Methodology-21: What Do We Do in the Afterward?” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 26 (6): 634–645; St. Pierre, E. A. 2009. “Afterword: Decentering Voice in Qualitative Inquiry.” In Voice in Qualitative Inquiry: Challenging Conventional, Interpretive, and Critical Conceptions in Qualitative Research, edited by A. Y. Jackson and L. A. Mazzei, 221–236. London: Routledge; St. Pierre, E. A. 2013. “The Posts Continue: Becoming.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 26 (6): 646–657], research in disability studies for the past two decades has found ‘the potholes’ [Miller, L., J. B. Whalley, and I. Stronach. 2012. “From Structuralism to Poststructuralism.” In Research Methods in the Social Sciences, edited by B. Somekh and C. Lewin. London: SAGE] of disability rights scholarship. In this paper, I offer a critical research framework in the field of disability studies in education that is theoretical, political and personal. Concentrating on the positioning of disability, I draw on the methodological tools of post-structural representation, subjectivity and constructivist grounded theory to study how discursive practices within (and around) secondary schools shape ‘included’ disabled subjects. In the paper I develop this framework and then demonstrate its application in ongoing research that critically counters the conventions that marginalize particular students in schools.

The plague and the Panopticon

Albert Camus's 1947 novel La Peste and 1948 drama L'État de Siège, allegories of totalitarian power using the figure of the plague (Part I), remarkably anticipate Foucault's celebrated genealogical analyses of modern power (Part II). Indeed, reading Foucault after Camus highlights a fact little-remarked in Discipline and Punish: namely, that the famous chapter on the 'Panopticon' begins by analysing the measures taken in early modern Vincennes following the advent of plague. Part III argues that, although Camus was cited as an inspiration by the nouveaux philosophes, he does not accept the reactionary motif of the total bankruptcy of the modern cultural and political worlds as hopelessly implicated in the totalitarian crimes. Indeed, Part IV highlights how Camus defends modern, descriptive scientific rationality against its totalitarian appropriations, alongside 'the power of passion, doubt, happiness, and imaginative invention' - positions which Part V suggests as Camus's continuing poignancy and relevance in the period after post-structuralism (Camus, 1952: 301).

An entrepreneurial adventure? Young women pre-service teachers in remote Aboriginal Australia

Following global interest in how pre-service teacher education might engage with social justice imperatives, this paper reports on interviews with three non-Aboriginal young women pre-service teachers taking part in a professional placement in remote Aboriginal Australia, and explores how their identity work reinscribes and/or challenges racialized forms of power. I argue that theories from the sociology of youth around 21st century girlhood can illuminate these young teachers’ identity work in useful ways that raise important issues and questions for teacher educators to consider. Simultaneously, I show how empirical research into teacher identity can enrich theory and research on young femininities.