Subjects and Objects: An Ethic of Representing the Other

  • Eric StewartEmail author


In this chapter I reflect on the challenges and paradoxes of representing the other in critical research. Particular attention is given to implicit configurations of subject/object or self/other in approaches informed by both rational/theoretical and caring/humanistic methodologies. Drawing on an extended qualitative study of ten women with traumatic brain injury, I explore the contradictory and often latent assumptions about researcher subjectivity and the possibility and meaning of knowing the object/other of research either through unity or through distance. Rather than resolving the ethical dilemmas and dangers posed by a field and a researcher/subject caught up in the will to know, the chapter concludes by pointing to the implications of ethical practice grounded in the fragmentary and unstable nature of the researcher as a “virtual self”.


Human Subjects Social scienceSocial Science Researchable Topics Arbitrary Closure Provide Proxy Consent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Christians, C. G. (2005). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 139–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Corker, M. (1999). Differences, conflations, and foundations: The limits to “accurate” theoretical representations of disabled people’s experience? Disability & Society, 14(5), 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crimp, D. (1992). Portraits of people with AIDS. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 117–133). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, L. J. (1997). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness, and the body. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. Harewood, S. (2009). Metaphor and the work of cultural studies. Policy Futures in Education, 7(2), 161–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hurst, A. (2008). Derrida vis-à-vis Lacan: Interweaving deconstruction and psychoanalysis. New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kogler, H. -H. (1999). The power of dialogue: Critical hermeneutics after Gadamer and Foucault (P. Hendrickson, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Lacan, J. (1979). Quatre concepts fundamentaux de la psychoanalytique. Paris: Editions de Seuil.Google Scholar
  10. Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity (Alfonso Lingis, Trans.). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Nelson, C., & Grossberg, L. (Eds.). (1988). Marxism and the interpretation of culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  12. Siebers, T. (2008). Disability theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith, B., & Sparkes, C. (2008). Narrative and its potential contributions to disability studies. Disability & Society, 23(1), 17–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stewart, J. E. (2014). Living with brain injury: Narrative, community & women’s renegotiation of identity. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Varela, F. J. (1999). Ethical know-how: Action, wisdom, and cognition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Venn, C. (2000). Occidentalism: Modernity and subjectivity. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yearly, L. (1991). Mencius and Aquinas: Theories of virtue and concepts of courage. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WashingtonBothellUSA

Personalised recommendations