Diskurs und Identität. Subjektpositionen und Subjektivierungsweisen armer Frauen in wohlhabenden Regionen Deutschlands und der USA
On the basis of theoretical considerations concerning the process of subjectivation (e. g. Butler 1997), the dissertation addresses the two sides of this process from an interpretive empirical perspective. Referring to the term “subject positions” (Subjektpositionen), the dissertation asks: Which ways of being a subject does culture enable resp. which does it obstruct? Referring to the term “ways of becoming/being a subject” (Subjektivierungsweisen), it is asked how individuals are subjectivated within the scope of those possibilities (cf. Keller 2012). Underlying this perspective is the thesis that subjectivation takes place within the specific culture's context, but that, at the same time, it contains elements of partial autonomy. Thus, it is required to empirically reconstruct subjectivation, beyond mere determinism and at the same time beyond a too strong understanding of the subject and autonomy.
The broader research question is: What are relations between intelligible modes of subjectivation on the one hand and lived forms of subjectivation on the other? In particular, the focus is laid on life in poverty. It is assumed that in the context of such a precarious subjectivity, the phenomenon in question becomes particularly visible. In order to strengthen this perspective even more, the study concentrates on wealthy regions where poverty constitutes a deviation from the norm (Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and New England, USA). The study's emphasis is on women, because in both countries the poverty-related living conditions as well as the poverty discourses are gendered and disadvantage women to a certain extent (cf. e. g. Schaffner Goldberg 2010). A cross-cultural design enables to deepen and differentiate the findings regarding the role of culture and society. Because of certain similarities, such as international economic status and national poverty rates, choosing Germany and the US facilitates a comparison in the first place. At the same time, it provides a sufficient contrast because of relevant differences, such as the historical formation and current form of social and welfare systems (cf. Brütt 2011; Caputo 2011) and differing poverty discourses (cf. Chassé 2009; Somers & Block 2005).
In order to reconstruct the subject positions and the ways of becoming/being a subject, two kinds of information serve as data: On the one hand, narrative biographical interviews are collected with women who are defined as poor according to governmental classifications. The interview texts are analyzed regarding narrative identities as well as subject positions and ways of becoming/being a subject (cf. Bamberg 2012; Renn & Straub 2002; Straub 2002; Ricoeur 1995). The narration is understood not as representation of past experience, but as meaning production within a present social act (cf. Chase 2011). The interpretive “documentary method” (Bohnsack et al. 2013; Nohl 2012) which is based on a sociology of knowledge perspective serves as a tool for analysis. Secondly, contemporary fiction about female poverty is included as data. Assuming that autobiographical narrating is literalized and fictionalized, carving out thematic and formal parallels between the interviews and the fictional texts shall make visible that what is specific about the subjectivation which is expressed in the self-narratives. The latter are conceived as transforming the (experienced) particular into the general, whereas the fictional texts are regarded as transforming the general into the (fictive) particular. This perspective is grounded in conceptions of the relation between fiction and reality (Benkel 2008; Greenblatt 1982; Iser 1993; Kuzmics & Mozetič 2003; Ricoeur 1984; Stierle 1983).
As a result, the dissertation not only contributes to the research on contemporary poverty phenomena, it also offers an empirically grounded understanding of the relation between culture and the individual.