福柯，作为后结构主义理论家的代表，定义了主体性的文化和权力的产物，而不是那些谁认为这是天生的、自然发生的。在他的观点中，主语是一个结构[ 1 ]。它不是生来就具有全部的性质和范围，而是以一种初步的形式体现出来的，而是由社会中存在的广泛的权力关系形成和形成的。
因此在二十世纪的下半月理论的两大类：那些把主体的模型作为自由、自治、佛洛伊德和精神分析理论的拥护者，和那些看为主题的关系，构成了人类的背景下提出的，被称为后结构主义理论。本文旨在解释后结构主义者的角度对主体性，主要是著名的法国哲学家米歇尔·福柯和Pierre Bourdieu，参照绩效/操演和惯习的概念。本文从性能/ performativitybased对福柯理论的形成，与惯习布迪厄。文章的结尾做出了一个结论。
福柯，作为后结构主义理论家的代表，定义了主体性的文化和权力的产物，而不是那些谁认为这是天生的、自然发生的。在他的观点中，主语是一个结构[ 1 ]。它不是生来就具有全部的性质和范围，而是以一种初步的形式体现出来的，而是由社会中存在的广泛的权力关系形成和形成的。
本文介绍了后结构主义者的观点，根据法国著名哲学家两主体性，米歇尔·福柯和Pierre Bourdieu。解释说，主体性不是与生俱来的或自然发生的，而是由文化构建的性能/操演和惯习的主体进行了讨论后，福柯和布迪厄的逻辑。还举了一些例子，就这一观点进行实质性的论证。
悉尼Essay代写:后结构主义者米歇尔·福柯
This essay aims to explain the poststructuralists’ point of view on subjectivity, mostly of the prominent French philosopher Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu, with reference to the concept of performance/performativity and habitus. The essay scrutinizes the formation of performance/performativitybased on Foucault’s theory, and habitus on Bourdieu. A conclusion is made at the end of this essay.
Foucault, as a representative of poststructuralist theorist, defines subjectivity as the product of culture and power, as opposed to those who see it as innate and naturally occurring. In his point of view, subject is a construct[1]. It is not born with all its nature and scope embodied in a preliminary form, but is shaped and formed by the broad relationships of power existed everywhere in society.
There are two major categories of theories on subjectivityin the second half of the twentieth century: those that regard the model of the subject as free and autonomous, Freud and psychoanalysis being the advocates, and those that see the subject as made by relationships that form the human context, known as the poststructuralist theory. This essay aims to explain the poststructuralists’ point of view on subjectivity, mostly of the prominent French philosopher Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu, with reference to the concept of performance/performativity and habitus. The essay scrutinizes the formation of performance/performativitybased on Foucault’s theory, and habitus on Bourdieu. A conclusion is made at the end of this essay.
Foucault, as a representative of poststructuralist theorist, defines subjectivity as the product of culture and power, as opposed to those who see it as innate and naturally occurring. In his point of view, subject is a construct[1]. It is not born with all its nature and scope embodied in a preliminary form, but is shaped and formed by the broad relationships of power existed everywhere in society.
This article introduces the poststructuralists’ point of view on subjectivity according to two famous French philosophers, Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu. To explain the claim that subjectivity is not innate or naturally occurring, but rather a result of cultural construct, subjectivities of the performance/performativity and habitus are discussed following the logic of Foucault and Bourdieu. Examples are also raised to give a substantial argument on this point of view.
