In his A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking

writes that ‘when a body moves, it affects the

curvature of space and time – and in turn the

structure of space–time affects the way in which

bodies move and forces act’ (1988: 36). There’s

something so obvious about this learned com-

ment. Obvious, that is, if we truly consider how

we inhabit space. Can we ever conceive of

ourselves outside the space we inhabit? Do we

not at some level recognize the differing affects

that play upon and within us as we move through

different spaces? Profoundly, we experience our

subjectivities, the ways in which we are posi-

tioned in regard to ourselves as subjects, in terms

of both space and time. How can it be otherwise,

given that our bodies and our sense of ourselves

are in constant interaction with how and where

we are placed?

In this chapter, I want to look more closely at

how this happens. I will also argue that how we

experience ourselves is deeply structured by

historical processes that make us into subjects. I

want to draw out theoretical models that help us

to realize the complexity of the formation of sub-

jectivity. What is it that drags upon us as we

move through space? How are different spaces

historically formulated as conducive to some

subjectivities and not others?

To think about subjectivity in terms of space is

evident yet relatively recent. Popular concep-

tions of our ‘selves’ commonly place them as

somewhere deep within us. There is a long

legacy in western thinking that places the core of

ourselves as enclosed within. If subjectivity has

been lodged away as a pristine entity untouched

by the outward body, space too has a history of

being conceptualized as bounded and contained.

As Sue Best clearly argues, the pervasive

metaphorization of space in terms of the femi-

nine consolidates this ‘persistent desire to

domesticate space, to bring it within a human

horizon and, most importantly to “contain” it

within this horizon’ (1995: 183). Much of the

research in cultural theory over the last decades

has been directed at rethinking such conceptual-

izations. Thinking about subjectivity in terms of

space of necessity reworks any conception that

subjectivity is hidden away in private recesses.

What we hold most dear, as an individual inti-

mate possession, is in fact a very public affair.

Thinking about how space interacts with subjec-

tivity entails rethinking both terms, and their

relation to each other.

Much of the most exciting work on subjectiv-

ity has been influenced by feminist perspectives.

Feminists have raised crucial questions about the

relations of power that permeate how subjectivi-

ties are constructed and experienced. Contrary to

a long history in western thought that saw the

body as troublesome and as an impediment to

reason, feminists have argued that the body pro-

vides us with key knowledge about the working

of our subjectivities. The body then becomes a

site for the production of knowledge, feelings,

emotions and history, all of which are central to

subjectivity. As we’ll see, the body cannot be

thought of as a contained entity; it is in constant

contact with others. This then provides the basis

for considering subjectivity as a relational

matter.

To start with a simple question: what is sub-

jectivity? Often subjectivity and identity get used

interchangeably. This is understandable because

we think of ourselves as having an identity, or

several. For the purposes of this chapter, how-

ever, I use the term subjectivity and rarely

employ identity. This is because I want to outline

the way subjectivity relates to the concept of the

subject which, as we’ll see, is also associated

with the idea of ideology. While ideology is no

14

The Spatial Imperative of Subjectivity

Elspeth Probyn

3029-ch14.qxd 03-10-02 10:54 AM Page 290