Discuss Gi lyard ' s bubble theory , Royster ' s theory of su bject position and the relationship between them .

The question seeks to explore both Gilyard's bubble Theory and Royster's theory of subject position by juxtaposing the two. The bubble that Gilyard makes reference to is the seemingly impenetrable bubble of social inequality among members of present day society. Royster refers to these groups as insiders and outsiders. Outsider groups such as Blacks continue to be marginalized by a society which embraces the principles of White insider privilege. This barrier is upheld by the pervasive societal view of which makes no effort to challenge or ‘pop' this bubble. The meaningless discourse which stems from this ideology neither seeks to highlight the disparities which exist nor to develop new ideologies or ways of thinking in order to level the playing field. The only remedy for this is to seek contrasting ways of life and viewpoints in order to enlarge the bubble; to make it more inclusive and forward thinking so that the bubbly may one day be burst.
The salient point within Royster's essay is that " subject position really is everything". Subjectivity and subject position both speak to how a person is seen in the eyes of those around them and the place that society assigns them. Royster also highlights the disconnect between the qualities assigned to a person and the true essence of who they are. She speaks to the feeling of superiority that those around her hold on issues that she knows much more about because she's lived through them as well as the voice that they have assigned to her without knowing what she claims to be her true voice. The they in this scenario is the White Man, the final judge of what one's position in life actually is.
Both theories focus on American society and view African Americans as the disadvantaged group that they are. They also highlight the false ideologies that continue to be throughout communities and population and the need for new voices and information to be disseminated. However, while both writers call for persons to act, when given the opportunity to do so, Royster does not lead by the example her words tried to set.