The World as Socially Perceived and Produced: a Feminist Approach to the Impossibility of Marginalized Worlds

In this essay, I will attempt to approach the social construction of the world and the extend to which the subject is allowed to experience, perceive, produce one’s world unconstrained, mainly through a critically feminist lens. The quote of Iris Murdoch is of great interest, for it acts as a theoretical trigger about the way in which the world is understood. For her, we are deceived by the world- an illusion- and great importance is given to the task of finding reality: Her approach assumes that there does exist a reality, one which is able to be pursued and- at least attempted to- be known. Whereas I would argue that no such reality exists- one which is true in an objective way-, and even should it exist, human knowledge could not be able to reach it, her approach introduces the central concern of this essay: Is there an objective, universal world or does the world merely exist in virtue of the way in which the subject is allowed to act as to have perceived it? Such question is one of vital importance, because the answer may point towards a critical approach to the experiences of different subjectivities, giving voice to their struggles and providing the necessary background for the legalization of marginalized lives.

The essay is organized around certain focal points. At first, the question is: What does it mean if the world is not something concrete, objective and universal, but it comes into being through the subject’s perception of it? If this is, indeed, the case, then can the subject’s perception- and, thus, one’s experienced world itself- be influenced by external, social contexts? Here, I will argue that there is no objective, completely universal world in which every subject partakes; instead, the experienced world- the world as it experienced partially and in an embodied way- of the different subjectivities comes into being by their perception and is constructed thus in a socially influenceable way. If the experience and perception of the world is dependent on social contexts, then- given that those contexts can be ones of exclusion and power relations and injustices- can every subjectivity experience and perceive in acceptable and valid ways? At this point, I will suggest that not everyone’s experienced world is socially acceptable and valid; certain marginalized subjects are having their ability to constitute knowledge about the(ir) world- in which I include the notions of the Self and the Other- rejected, which forces the subject into a vulnerable position.

To begin with, it is vital that the nature of the world be examined. One understanding about the world is that it is objective and universally real, independently of the subject’s perception of it. The world, in this sense, exists as is; the subject, thus, merely perceives that which is already there in a way that is the same for every subject, or, in other words, the subject attempts to understand the one and only reality and world that objectively exists. Such an approach to the world, however, is not a neutral one; instead, it reflects and hides power relations and injustices, insofar that that which is considered to be objective in the world is, usually, based on the experiences of dominant subjectivities; the objective, thus, is actually assumed to be so, because it is grounded on norms and experiences that exclude, forbid different ones.

I argue that the subject does experience and perceive the world and that the world is not something abstract, universally objective. It is, on the contrary, dependent on the subject’s hermeneutical understanding of it; the world comes into being through the subject’s perception and experience, through a process resembling performativity (Judith Butler); when the subject perceives the world in a specific way and lives it accordingly- acts as if this perception were true- then the world comes into existence, it is produced and it “becomes”, in accordance with the subject’s action.

However, the very subject which I mention is an agent that is produced through a process of interpellation, during which language and discourses that precede the “I”- they exist before the subject is created and before the Self is attempted to be perceived- produce the subject, influenced by social norms and matrixes of power relations. Moreover, the subject is able to perceive and experience the world, through one’s body, not from a “place from nowhere”, an abstract and universal position, but, instead, from a specific position inside the world and social contexts. The perception and experience become, thus, embodied, situated- in social contexts- and partial, insofar that the experienced world of one subject may differ from that of another, in virtue of the subjects’ different position in social contexts-matrixes of power. In this sense, it follows that social norms influence- and can even produce- the understanding of the world by the subject, insofar that those norms constitute an integral part of power relations and social contexts, as well as a producing aspect of the very subject.

In this framework, I argue that, even if a notion of reality as something objectively true were to be accepted, then the task of finding it would not be able to be performed, insofar that it would always be done by a situated subject, whose knowledge is partial and embodied, as well as influenced by norms.

At this point, a critical approach to the treatment of different- marginalized- subjectivities’ perception, knowledge and experience about their lived world is deemed necessary. Given that the world is constructed through the subject’s acting on one’s perception and experience, dependent on social contexts, then there exist injustices even in this construction, and even more in the way it is treated, insofar that social contexts- particularly those of white cisheteropatriarchy- are based on norms and power relations that “demand” exclusion of marginalized subjectivities. Because this is the case, the marginalized subjects experience an- epistemic, in particular- injustice, both whenattempting to- produc(e)ing their experienced world and when this world enters the public sphere and receives scrutiny and judgement of dominant constraining mechanisms and subjectivities.

The injustice at the production of the marginalized world is as follows: language is an expression of an innate human tendency- that of communication and thought- which is, however, constructed and used at a social level, inside specific social contexts. Therefore, it is subject to social norms which influence the way it is produced, created, used and which are also perpetuated through the use of language. It is also the case that the very subject is produced through this language and the subject’s perceiving the world is also performed dependently of language, insofar that perception is an activity of the mind, a thought process, and thought is structured accordingly to language.

However, language, reflecting social contexts of exclusion and injustices, as well as being made in accordance with the experiences and needs of the socially powerful, the dominant subjectivities, cannot provide the tools for marginalized, nondominant, different subjectivities to initiate their own perception of their experience and act on it to construct one’s experienced world; the marginalized subject must, therefore, use a language unfit to express oneself and one’s experiences. This is in itself a great injustice against the marginalized subject, insofar that it forces one to perceive the world through means made from others and for others- and, in many instances, tools made to exclude the marginalized subject-, which can lead to an unfit, strange, alien to the marginalized experience, perception and construction of the world; the subject must either reject oneself to fit with the biased tool or the subject must remain with an experience that is inconceivable by traditional, exclusive means of language and expression.

At this point, the injustice of the treatment of marginalized worlds will be examined. The assumption is that the marginalized subject, even with the constraining means, has managed to perceive- nonetheless inadequately- one’s marginalized experience. Furthermore, when I mention marginalized worlds, I refer to the world that is experienced, perceived, produced by marginalized subjects. This world can challenge the dominant narrative of what is considered to be normal and what is allowed to exist, insofar that it is constructed through experiences and by subjectivities of the margins, which are both ignored and silenced- a necessary action of the constraining system to perpetuate and maintain itself, and for the dominant subjectivities to continue existing as powerful and in possession of social privileges.

Because of the challenge this world potentially poses, normative mechanisms reject it, in virtue of being “unnatural”, “untrue”. This rejection, furthermore, takes place because when a testimony from the marginalized subject is publicly expressed, the subject is treated as not credible and with suspiciousness, in virtue of being a nondominant subject and expressing a testimony different, challenging of, opposing to the dominant ones; such testimony holds less credibility, because it is different from those testimonies grounded in dominant, privileged experiences and subjectivities which are often framed as objective, in virtue of belonging to those powerful subjectivities; power relations can, thus, affect the way in which testimony and knowledge is treated.

Here, it has been made clear that marginalized worlds can be rejected, or even prevented from even being adequately produced. This process of rejection and silencing is one which imposes onto marginalized worlds an impossibility; not only are the marginalized worlds framed as impossible, insofar that dominant narratives and discourses focus only on privileged worlds, thus working on- or constructing- the assumption that marginalized worlds do not exist, but they are also treated with injustice and, therefore, it is actively being made impossible for them to exist in a state other than that of constantly defending their existence.

This impossibility of marginalized worlds forces the marginalized subject into a position of politically and socially induced vulnerability and acts in a way that traumatizes one. It is the case that marginalized worlds exist, insofar that marginalized subjects exist and their perception, experience and action create those worlds. However, this means that the marginalized subject exists in a world that is framed, deemed as and at the same time attempted to be made impossible to exist; in this sense, the very subject is under a process of constant attempt to be made impossible or, in other words, to be erased.

Such process constitutes trauma for the marginalized subject; one is traumatized both psychologically, insofar that it can be damaging for the psyche to have one’s existence rejected, as well as physically, when the attempt of erasure takes physical form, through violence on the body, whilst at the same time the marginalized subject is having one’s ontological existence questioned, attempted to be made impossible. In this case, the impossible marginalized world is also a world of precarity, and the subject exists in a state of vulnerability which endangers one on many levels.

All in all, in the essay I have attempted to justify why the world should not and cannot be understood as universally objective, but as produced through the perception, experience and action of the subject. Moreover, it has been shown that the subject oneself and one’s perception is influenced by social norms and contexts, which reflect, perpetuate and create social injustices and matrixes of power, acting as constraining mechanisms, from which follows that the construction of the world is itself influenced. As such, it has been made clear that not very subject has the chance to adequately perceive one’s experience and consequently produce one’s world as well as that the marginalized subjects’ worlds are “impossible” and treated with injustice by having their validity revoked and rejected; this process, finally, has been shown to force the subject into conditions of precarity and trauma.

If so, then perhaps the important task in life is not to find an objective reality, in order to escape the illusionary, unreal world; it is to attempt to undo the injustices of normatively constraining systems, in order to allow for every subjectivity’s- partial, embodied and situated, experienced world to be made possible to exist.