Enframing theory requires contradictory assumptions about the observing subject

Evidence

Ultimately, the problem lies in the mutually contradictory assumptions about the nature of the observing subject implied by the notion of “enframing.” On the one hand, his body and mind are subject to the meticulous, minute manipulation of disciplinary power that leaves nothing unaffected by it including the very self of this observing subject. And at the same time, he is assumed to still retain the autonomy and “insight” that enables him to read through these devices some kind of inherent order, concealed plan, subterranean structure. These two kinds of subjects do not go hand in hand. “A subject on whom power operates through the incessant reading of textual inscriptions is sharply distinct from one whose mind and body themselves are nothing other than products of the workings of power.” — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 751

Categorization

• XREF: Sharpens the longstanding Foucauldian tension over whether subjects are fully constituted by power or retain critical autonomy. — connects to: Enframing produces the very split between material and conceptual realms