The use of the subject-position in the [anti-]whaling discourse

The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse offers an examination of the anti-whaling discourse (in all of its slogan-wielding, science-leveraging, and morality-defining)* and its past and present opponent (in all of its nationalism-defining, commodity-trading, and identity-holding)*. Epstein presents the discourse as having "subject-positions," which can be distinguished from subjectivities and likewise from the actors themselves. This technique allows her to "draw the distinction between 'subject-positions' and 'subjectivity,' which . . . offers a way of analyzing state identities unencumbered by a host of issues unavoidably bundled with the concept of subjectivity" (Epstein 253). The use of subject-positions also allows a compelling third option to the structure-agency debate insofar as agent enters into and takes on a subject-position, but can change the course of the subject-position. We can see this interplay in the strengthening of the anti-whaling subject position when different agents with disparate interests begin to work together for a common purpose (or, rather, a common anti-purpose).

The use of subject positions is a compelling method for discourse analysis. It allows Epstein to fluidly travel from an interstate to state to intrastate to group to individual level of analysis, while still talking about the same thing. In each level of analysis, an actor has the potential to go through the distinctive motion of "stepping into" (14) a particular subject-position. The actor, therefore, takes on the identity of the subject-position, along with the I/we of the subject-position.

Subject-positions, in Epstein's reconstruction, are opposed to an "other." The anti-whaling discourse defines itself in relation to the pro-whaling discourse, and the anti-anti-whaling discourse defines itself in relation to the anti-whaling discourse. Epstein picks up on this idea of the construction of identities in relation to the "other," allowing an alliance to emerge between material and ideational co-constitution. She also uses this identity formation in her own construction of the book. She compares and contrasts the two subject-positions in order to highlight parallels and differences between them, allowing one to act as a foil for the other, and the discourse to act as a foil for the present and perhaps future direction of the discourse.

Three questions emerge from a reading of the book and an examination of the use of subject-positions. The first question concerns the research method: when is an actor's discourse (either through word or deed) considered a manifestation of the imbibing of the subject-position in question, and when is it considered outside of the scope of the subject-position? For example, in Epstein's discussion of science, she holds that while science becomes more marginalized within the discourse, it continues to hold a privileged subject-position because of the nature of its academic authority. When is science, however, a part of the science subject-position, when is it a part of the pro-whaling subject-position, and when is it a part of the anti-whaling subject position. Obviously, a statement on the endangerment of whales is a part of both the scientific and the anti-whaling subject-position. But what about a statement that doesn't necessarily fit into the pro- or anti-whaling discourse? Alternatively, how is the researcher able to determine whether a statement or action is a manifestation of the subject-position versus whether it is not initially, but is subsumed into the subject-position?

The second question concerns the opposition of the subject-position as the "other." There are two layers to this question: examining the self-identification of the subject-position as opposed to the "other," and examining the subject-position in relation to its "other" (the first concerning the subject-position's own identity, and the second concerning the researcher's performance in reporting their findings). Is this use of using an external reference to define a subject-position useful, and, more importantly, is it necessary? Is referential examination of subject-positions within a discourse a necessary part of discourse analysis? Put differently, is the examination of contestation (in meaning, in norms, in cooperation, in material things, in ideas) a necessity to discourse analysis?

Third, is the examination of discourse, and the use of the subject-position, able to indeed strike a compromise between the material and the ideational and between structure and agency? Epstein certainly indicates that the use of discourse analysis, examining the subject-positions within the discourse, renders these debates defenseless. Is it convincing?

*This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of Epstein's careful characterization of the whaling, anti-whaling, and anti-anti-whaling subject-positions.

Image by Roberto Mangosi, who can be found here.