I found this week’s reading to be very interesting, yet confusing, at the same time. The book states that we tend to think of the "self" as being primary and untouched by cultural influences. In contrast, we tend to think of the "subject" as, "anything but unique or untouched by social factors." The "self" is the internal core, while the "subject" is outwardly generated by social laws and codes.
It seems to me that the countryman is supposed to represent both the subject and the self. The countryman is kept subject to the Gatekeeper as he continues to refuse to let the countryman have access to the Law. However, I do believe that the countryman is in some way the "self", as he has remained untouched by the Law. Essentially, it costs the countryman his entire life and all of his worldly possessions to keep safe from the influence of the Law.
It seems to me that what the reading is trying to get across to us is that there really is no such thing as the completely "unique" and "untouched" self. While the countryman may not have ever achieved success in reaching the Law, his entire life and all of his possessions have been consumed by his desire to reach the Law.
1 comment:
AL: You are not the only one who suffers from confusion, but, you do make some excellent points. You do begin your argument saying the countryman is both "self" and "subject" but, I would argue, is he ever "self"? :EE
Post a Comment