Understanding the Subject/Object Dynamics in Human and Social Sciences
The relationship between the subject and the object has always been fundamental in shaping our understanding and interpretation of the world. This relationship becomes particularly enlightening when one acknowledges the original distinction between the two: the subject, as a conscious and thinking being; and the object, often reduced to mere utility. Questioning this relationship prompts a contemplation of what constitutes us as conscious beings capable of knowledge, action, and situating ourselves in the world. Furthermore, it invites an exploration of the conditions under which knowledge is produced and the mechanisms of representation within the fields of human and social sciences.
The Latin etymology of the terms reveals much. The word 'subject', derived from _subjectus_, originally means 'that which is placed underneath', alluding to the idea of support or foundation. In contrast, 'object', originating from _objectum_, signifies 'that which is placed before' or 'opposed' to the subject. This etymological origin highlights a dynamic positionality between the two concepts: the subject as the anchor point and the object as that which stands opposite. This tension, both spatial and symbolic, paves the way for multiple interpretations across disciplines such as philosophy, literature, linguistics, didactics, and media studies.
Since Descartes' _Meditations on First Philosophy_ (1641), philosophy has continuously reflected on the duality between the subject and object, perceived as the observer and the observed. This dichotomy has stamped a significant portion of modern scientific thought and seems to shape all phenomena related to knowledge (Lupasco, 1941). Kant's reflections extend this view by considering the subject and object as two entities existing independently from one another. This fundamental separation has been established as a sine qua non condition for the production of knowledge (T.W. Adorno, 1984). While this perspective negates any relationship between the subject and object, another approach emphasizes the fusion and permeability of boundaries, affirming the absence of distance between what Bruno Latour terms 'subjective passions' and 'objective facts' (2007). Consequently, in the scientific realm, there emerges a close intertwinement between 'the most exotic non-humans and the nearest humans'. In line with this thought, Maurice Merleau-Ponty asserts that humans and the world partake of the same flesh, the same fabric. Thus, should we maintain the fundamental separation between subject and object as the foundation of knowledge, or should we reconsider their relationship through a lens of intertwining and co-constitution?
The subject/object relationship, at the heart of philosophical debates, resonates powerfully within the arts and literature. In fictional works, the subject is often represented by characters through markers of subjectivity, while the object becomes a descriptive element that reflects various types of relationships between the two entities. This problematic perhaps finds its greatest intensity in postcolonial novels. Reexamining this literary production in light of concepts such as otherness, identity, margin, or hybridization allows for a rethinking of the relationship between subject and object. Edward W. Said discusses the dislocation of the postcolonial subject (1999), while Gayatri Spivak, in her book _Can the Subaltern Speak?_ speaks of a subaltern subject silenced and equated to an object. From this perspective, does postcolonial literature not illuminate a radical crisis in the subject/object distinction, where the subject becomes an object of domination and discourse?
In the field of didactics, depending on the adopted analytical angle, the relationships between the subject (learner or teacher) and the object (knowledge or learner) appear multiple, indirect, and profoundly mediated. Didactics, as a research discipline, examines contents—knowledge and know-how—as objects of teaching and learning referenced to school disciplines. It no longer confines itself to applying pre-established pedagogical schemes; rather, it requires an epistemological reflection from the teacher on the nature of the knowledge to be taught, as well as a consideration of the learner's initial representations. Influenced by constructivism, notably by Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, the subject is no longer seen as a passive receptacle but as an active agent who approaches the object from pre-existing cognitive structures. Learning thus consists of transforming these structures through cognitive conflict, enabling the deconstruction of errors and the reconstruction of more rigorous knowledge. How can one conceive of didactics that articulates the objective structuring of knowledge and the cognitive subjectivity of the learner without reducing one to the other?
In linguistics, the subject/object relationship transcends mere grammatical opposition to interrogate the relationship between the universality of structures and the singularity of expression. With Ferdinand de Saussure (1995), the distinction between langue (abstract and social system) and parole (individual act) establishes a methodological tension: the structuralist approach favors the object by studying language as an autonomous system of signs, while the generative approach, propelled by Noam Chomsky (1971), refocuses analysis on the subject by highlighting its innate competence. Syntactically, the functional relationship between the grammatical subject and object (complement) establishes a variable hierarchy depending on the languages, revealing different cultural ways of structuring reality. Moreover, a methodological paradox arises when the linguist is both the subject analyzing and the user of the studied object, which necessitates constant reflexive vigilance to avoid projecting their biases. A pressing question emerges: can linguistics genuinely objectify its object of study without interrogating the position of the analyzing subject who conditions its description?
In semiotics, the relationship between subject and object constitutes the very matrix of meaning production. In the Saussurian tradition, based on the binary signifier/signified, the object is understood through a closed system of social conventions. However, the Peircean tradition introduces the triadic dimension of the sign and the role of the Interpreter: meaning becomes a dynamic process, a semiosis connecting the object and the interpreting subject. It is with the Paris School, particularly Algirdas Julien Greimas, that the subject-object relationship becomes the driving force of narrative analysis. The subject exists solely through its quest for an object—desired or rejected—and meaning emerges from the junction or disjunction between these two poles. Every narrative structure thus rests upon this axis of Desire, mediated by supportive or opposing forces, but fundamentally oriented toward the quest for the object imbued with significance. Can meaning be conceived independently of the desire that binds the subject to its object?
In the media field, examining the subject/object relationship involves analyzing how information technologies transform our perception of reality. The media object is never the raw event: it results from a process of selection, framing, and editing that converts reality into a flow of images and signs. As Jean Baudrillard demonstrated, the era of the simulacrum signifies the moment when the image no longer reflects reality but precedes and substitutes it (1981). The media object abolishes spatial-temporal distances while producing a fictitious proximity, devoid of sensory experience.
According to thinkers from the Frankfurt School, the subject tends to be reduced to a passive consumer, subjected to a homogenization of consciousness and a form of alienation. With the digital age, the boundary becomes even more blurred: the subject becomes both producer and product, prosumer and object of data for algorithms. Following Marshall McLuhan's famous formulation, the medium more profoundly determines the relationship than the content itself. Media, as extensions of the senses, thus reconfigure the perception of the object and saturate the cognitive capacities of the subject, sometimes at the expense of critical distance and contemplation. In a universe dominated by the logic of simulacra and the algorithmization of reality, how can the subject still preserve perceptual autonomy and critical capacity in the face of a media object that tends to shape them as much as they consume it?
Call for Contributions
Contributions may be aligned with one or several of the following axes, though this list is not exhaustive:
- Axis 1: Subject/Object: between epistemological distinction and interactions.
- Axis 2: Literature as a space for reflection and shaping of the subject/object relationship.
- Axis 3: The subject/object relationship in linguistics: study of enunciation, discursive otherness, and mediation in the philosophy of language.
- Axis 4: Subject/Object in semiotics: dynamics and construction of meaning between intention and reception.
- Axis 5: Mediation and spectacularization: media object as a prosthesis of the subject; media, digital, AI.
- Axis 6: Subject, learning, and knowledge transmission: learner/teacher subject; transformation of knowledge into a teaching object.
As reported by fabula.org.
**Participation Guidelines**: Communication proposals must be submitted by August 30, 2026, in the form of a 300-word abstract to: [colloquesujet.objet@gmail.com](mailto:colloquesujet.objet@gmail.com). Each abstract should include the title of the communication, the author's name and surname, their status, the affiliated organization, and five keywords.
Conference Language: French.
**Timeline**:
- March 16, 2026: Launch of the call for papers.
- October 1, 2026: Notification to researchers.
- October 31, 2026: Submission of the communication text.
- November 26-27, 2026: Conference held in Casablanca.
**Scientific Committee**:
Includes a diverse group of academics from various universities, ensuring a rich interdisciplinary exchange.
**Organizing Committee**:
Led by Omar El Balaoui and Said Ouchari, among others, with the participation of doctoral candidates from the Laboratory of Narratology and Cultural Discourse.
