The Holder of the World is a book that tells the story of Hannah Easton, born in the American colonies around 1670, who is a woman that thirsts for adventure and desires to expand her possibilities. Hannah was raised in a unique domestic environment compared to other children of Puritan society. Her mother, Rebecca, had a secret love affair with a Nipmuc (King Phillip), which is how she acquired knowledge of wild medecines. Hannah, too, learned from her mother and developed a unique personality. A series of other horrid events shaped Hannah's character into someone who is constantly moving, in search for new and exciting things, and a practitioner of unorthodox healing methods.
Changing Gears
Now, let me introduce the concept of Representation and Agency in the context of my blog. Agency can be defined as the state of being in action of or exerting one's power. A person who is wealthy most likely has more agency than others, as they may not be as limited as others who are not as priveleged.
Representation is the placing of something in the absence of its presence. For example, the senator of a state represents that state in the U.S. Senate because the entire state cannot be there. Representation also has many other definitions and functions: a novel's function as a representation of reality, an iconographic function (i.e Nirvana represents Grunge Rock), the representation of yourself to yourself, the representation of yourself in public.
Another very important function of representation is its function in media. The media represents many figures and groups in the media and has a strong influence in it. The representations of groups in the media puts people into roles. For example, 'a man should act the way a man is represented in the media.' A woman 'should act the way a woman is portrayed in the media.' Therefore, the way things are represented limits agency.
Back to The Holder of the World
Hannah, in the novel, moves from Salem to London, and form London to India, and from India to...well, I haven't got that far yet. These relocations all involve Hannah's desire from something new, adventurous, partially influenced by her unusual upbringing (as I mentioned before). She wishes to push herself to new possibilities. It is the need to find out who she is and be herself. Her desire, perhaps, comes from her desire to exert her agency beyond the limitations that her surroundings impose on her.
In Salem, when Hannah was living with the Fitches, Hannah's agency was limited by the representations of what a lady should be, a Puritan lady to be exact. If she was going to use some wild herbs from the forest for medecine, it was tabooed or alien. It was then that she married Gabriel Legge, which was an escape from Salem and its limitations.
In London, Hannah's agency was limited by her role as a wife, or rather, the representations of what a wife should be. And when Hannah heard the news of Gabriel's "death," she had more agency.
In India, the English women were to act in contrast to slave girls (Indian women). The identity of Enlish women as proper, upright, educated, elegant, is constructed by a public a space - or rather, the representation of an English women in the public space. The representation of what an English women should be limited Hannah's agency. She did not engage so much with Indians, at least for the middle section of the novel, though she desired to discover and learn new things. She did not venture to new places in India, since it was her role to stay in the house and wait for her husband.
I think the constant tension between representation and agency puts Hannah in these different spaces. Hannah doesn't seem to be satisfied with roles constructed by public representations.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Strategy and Tactics
We have seen the superbrands and multinational corporations. They are everywhere, from Gap, to Walmart, to Nike. With big corporations come big revenues, which yields power, and big production, which yields suffering. A lot of times we look at brand names, logos, and the discount prices, and we forget about what went into the products. It is no secret now, that what goes into the products of multinational corporations are unsafe, unfair factories, with numbers of underpaid and mistreated workers. As Walter Landon says in Naomi Klein's chapter The Discarded Family, in her book No Logo, "Products are made in the factory but brands are made in the mind" (195). It is unfortunate that these multicorporate products are made in such hostile factories. It is also unfortunate that there are those who do not have access to this information. And it is even more unfortunate that there are those who are aware of this information and don't believe it.
I remember watching a film in English class that illustrated the workshop conditions in Bangladesh. Mostly young workers (mostly women) were overworked in making clothing for Walmart and Disney. Sometimes, the workers weren't paid for the hard labor they put out. The hours were long, at times 23-24 hours, only getting 3 hours of sleep. Breaks were limited to only a few minutes. And with the conditions of the facility and machines they were working with, any form of health regulations or safety was thrown out the window. At times, the managers would abuse the workers. The workers are paid very little, not even enough to scrape by. Yet, they are providing for children and families at home. These facilities are everwhere around the globe, in third world countries and even China. Naomi Klein also gives an example in the chapter The Discarded Factory, in which Carmelita Alonzo died from 'overwork' in Cavite. Carmelita, along with other workers, were working a lot of overnights during a peak season for the V.T. Fashions factory. Carmelita was ill one night, and the manager refused to let her go to the hospital. Carmelita was eventually admitted to a hospital where she died.
This issue is undoubtedly unfair and unjust. But approaching the issue has proved difficult, even creating rifts amongst activists with different interests in approaching the problem. Some have approached the issue with the idea of not supporting the corporations that have such factories or attempting to run those companies out of business. For some, the strategy is to hurt these companies or run them out of business. Some of the tacticts that activists or unions have used is violence. The problem with this tactic, is that companies threaten to shut their productions down and follow through with their threats, as mentioned in the "Migrant Factories" section in The Discarded Factory chapter. Even though this result may be desired by some activists, it has more dire consequences in other places of the world. Poorer countries need the factories for jobs.
Rather, I think that the strategy should be to keep the corporations and factories, but improving the health and safety conditions of the workers, the policies, their work environment, pay, and holding corporate boss's responsible for severely unfair treatment. This is not an easy strategy, since its tactics involve politics, a very large number of people, heavy influence, and a lot of time.
I remember watching a film in English class that illustrated the workshop conditions in Bangladesh. Mostly young workers (mostly women) were overworked in making clothing for Walmart and Disney. Sometimes, the workers weren't paid for the hard labor they put out. The hours were long, at times 23-24 hours, only getting 3 hours of sleep. Breaks were limited to only a few minutes. And with the conditions of the facility and machines they were working with, any form of health regulations or safety was thrown out the window. At times, the managers would abuse the workers. The workers are paid very little, not even enough to scrape by. Yet, they are providing for children and families at home. These facilities are everwhere around the globe, in third world countries and even China. Naomi Klein also gives an example in the chapter The Discarded Factory, in which Carmelita Alonzo died from 'overwork' in Cavite. Carmelita, along with other workers, were working a lot of overnights during a peak season for the V.T. Fashions factory. Carmelita was ill one night, and the manager refused to let her go to the hospital. Carmelita was eventually admitted to a hospital where she died.
This issue is undoubtedly unfair and unjust. But approaching the issue has proved difficult, even creating rifts amongst activists with different interests in approaching the problem. Some have approached the issue with the idea of not supporting the corporations that have such factories or attempting to run those companies out of business. For some, the strategy is to hurt these companies or run them out of business. Some of the tacticts that activists or unions have used is violence. The problem with this tactic, is that companies threaten to shut their productions down and follow through with their threats, as mentioned in the "Migrant Factories" section in The Discarded Factory chapter. Even though this result may be desired by some activists, it has more dire consequences in other places of the world. Poorer countries need the factories for jobs.
Rather, I think that the strategy should be to keep the corporations and factories, but improving the health and safety conditions of the workers, the policies, their work environment, pay, and holding corporate boss's responsible for severely unfair treatment. This is not an easy strategy, since its tactics involve politics, a very large number of people, heavy influence, and a lot of time.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
A Cookie Cutter
I remember when I was ten, going on 5th grade, I moved in with my older sister and brother-in-law. My mom had reason to believe that the enivronment I lived in had a negative influence on my upbringing. So my mom had me move in with my older sister in her new house in the suburbs of Apple Valley, MN. There, it was intended for me to have resources and schooling not accessable to me in the Twin Cities. Apple Valley is where I spent a four year interval of my life, from 5th grade to 8th grade, which are the most odd years.
I remember the atmosphere of school those years. There were the 'pretty' people, 'not so pretty' people, and the middle people. Even though no one said it, it was plainly obvious. It was the way everyone organized themselves in tables at lunch, the way everyone talked to each other, what they ate, what they wore, what they did after school. The 'pretty' people only mingled/"dated" each other, and the same with the other classes, and any intermingling was weird or shocking. I never really 'hung out' with anyone after school. I was 'friends,' or rather, acquaintences with different people of different 'class.' It was weird coming from very diverse schools going into homogenous schools. In this environment, I felt out of place and insecure. I never really fitted in. And on top of that, I was not living with the 'nuclear family' at the time, which created a sense of space and isolation from my peers.
I remember when people would ask me about who I was living with at home, and I would have to go through a long explaination about my mom and older sister agreeing on bringing me to Appley Valley. I remember going to the grocery store with my older sister and her husband, and the way they felt somewhat embarassed having me around because it looked as if they were my very young biological parents. I remember how weird it felt at times when I brought my brother-in-law to conferences, when everyone brought their parents, and some of the discussions involved father-child or mother-child relations. I remember the father-son events, or mother-son events, in which I never attended. Even though I knew I was welcomed to attend, it still was socially awkward among my peers bringing my older sister or brother-in-law to these events.
My intention is not to complain or bicker, in fact, I had a lot of good times in my years in Apple Valley. The point of my blog is to question the nuclear family, and explore how the homogenizing of the 'nuclear family' can create isolation among individuals.
Jane Juffer discusses in the chapter The Corporate University, in her book Single Mother, of how the different aspects of different family structures (specifically single mothers/parents) can create isolation and immobility. Jane Juffer uses the example of how she cannot attend many social events because she is caring for a child at home, alone. Although it sounds like bickering, it is more so the reality of the situation: "What I am trying to describe, perhaps ineptly, is the feeling of isolation that derives as much from a general work climate as it does from a specific policy initiatives, or lack of policies. As most of the reports on academia and parenting studies argue, what needs to change in order for mothers to feel supported is not just the policies but also the culture, one in which admitting one's need seems like an admission that work will not get done. I believe there's a connection: that working with the university to adopt more family-friendly policies not based on the nuclear family will lead to a more communal environment" (95-96). It is important not to create a cookie cutter that shapes the same needs for everyone. In order to obtain true equality, we have to understand what is accessable for each person (which is complicated). The lack of non-nuclear-family-friendly policies and resources handicaps single parents from the same opportunities married couples or single people get. Even within the single parent branch, there is a difference in accessability among different classes of single mothers (poor, middle-class, rich).
I remember the atmosphere of school those years. There were the 'pretty' people, 'not so pretty' people, and the middle people. Even though no one said it, it was plainly obvious. It was the way everyone organized themselves in tables at lunch, the way everyone talked to each other, what they ate, what they wore, what they did after school. The 'pretty' people only mingled/"dated" each other, and the same with the other classes, and any intermingling was weird or shocking. I never really 'hung out' with anyone after school. I was 'friends,' or rather, acquaintences with different people of different 'class.' It was weird coming from very diverse schools going into homogenous schools. In this environment, I felt out of place and insecure. I never really fitted in. And on top of that, I was not living with the 'nuclear family' at the time, which created a sense of space and isolation from my peers.
I remember when people would ask me about who I was living with at home, and I would have to go through a long explaination about my mom and older sister agreeing on bringing me to Appley Valley. I remember going to the grocery store with my older sister and her husband, and the way they felt somewhat embarassed having me around because it looked as if they were my very young biological parents. I remember how weird it felt at times when I brought my brother-in-law to conferences, when everyone brought their parents, and some of the discussions involved father-child or mother-child relations. I remember the father-son events, or mother-son events, in which I never attended. Even though I knew I was welcomed to attend, it still was socially awkward among my peers bringing my older sister or brother-in-law to these events.
My intention is not to complain or bicker, in fact, I had a lot of good times in my years in Apple Valley. The point of my blog is to question the nuclear family, and explore how the homogenizing of the 'nuclear family' can create isolation among individuals.
Jane Juffer discusses in the chapter The Corporate University, in her book Single Mother, of how the different aspects of different family structures (specifically single mothers/parents) can create isolation and immobility. Jane Juffer uses the example of how she cannot attend many social events because she is caring for a child at home, alone. Although it sounds like bickering, it is more so the reality of the situation: "What I am trying to describe, perhaps ineptly, is the feeling of isolation that derives as much from a general work climate as it does from a specific policy initiatives, or lack of policies. As most of the reports on academia and parenting studies argue, what needs to change in order for mothers to feel supported is not just the policies but also the culture, one in which admitting one's need seems like an admission that work will not get done. I believe there's a connection: that working with the university to adopt more family-friendly policies not based on the nuclear family will lead to a more communal environment" (95-96). It is important not to create a cookie cutter that shapes the same needs for everyone. In order to obtain true equality, we have to understand what is accessable for each person (which is complicated). The lack of non-nuclear-family-friendly policies and resources handicaps single parents from the same opportunities married couples or single people get. Even within the single parent branch, there is a difference in accessability among different classes of single mothers (poor, middle-class, rich).
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Derrida on Animals
This posts is something I am writing outside of class. So those who are interested in my blog pertaining to Engl243, please look at the blog below.
I have great respect for Derrida, and I don't mean to undermine him in anyway (for all you hardcore Derrida fans). But Jacques Derrida made a comment about the usage of the word 'animal' that I disagree with. I have a video of Derrida's discourse posted below.
Derrida's discourse on the word 'animal' seems to be an attack on categorization. Derrida says that the use of the word 'animal' is theoretically ridiculous and a stupid gesture because the different species of animals is so vast. To put monkeys and ants in the same category doesn't make sense because they are obviously different. The act of categorizing is a violent gesture, which influences the cruelty humans exercise towards other living creatures.
I would agree to some extent, that the misuse of the word 'animal' can invite or turn a blind eye to cruel treatment towards living creatures. Any misuse of language can invite hostile treatment. However, Derrida goes on to say that he tries not to use the word 'animal' in general, which is explained by his arguments in the above paragraph. Rather than saying animal, he would say "this type of animal," or "such and such an animal."
By this logic, saying "this type of animal" like an ant can be categorical since there are different species of ants. Therefore, you would have to point out the specific species of ant. But that can be categorical too, so we have to point out a specific ant. By this logic, saying 'human' is a misuse of language as well, since we do not distinguish between male or female, different races, and different ages. We cannot even refer to a race, since there are different individuals among the race.
My point is that categorizing is practical. That doesn't justify any cruelty exercised on animals , but to say that categorizing IS a 'violent act' is something I disagree with. Yes, categorizing CAN be a 'violent act,' as any misuse of language can invite cruel treatment. The word 'animal' refers to all living organisms with voluntary movement, which includes humans. Using the word 'animal' is practical (without hostile intent) if a subject wants to refer to a general idea of living organisms with voluntary movement. Referring to the Chinese race is practical (without hostile intent) if someone is talking about homosapiens who are from 'this' part of the world and adapt 'this' kind of culture.
Categories are how we identify ourselves and things. We begin to categorize things when we are infants, as it is a natural process of thinking about things. We can identify ourselves through categories. I am aware that I am not under the category of lions, nor Africans, nor White. The misuse of these categories can lead to violence, but in a general context it is a part of identity. Therefore, saying 'animal' in general is not a stupid gesture, but the misuse of the word is a stupid gesture.
I have great respect for Derrida, and I don't mean to undermine him in anyway (for all you hardcore Derrida fans). But Jacques Derrida made a comment about the usage of the word 'animal' that I disagree with. I have a video of Derrida's discourse posted below.
Derrida's discourse on the word 'animal' seems to be an attack on categorization. Derrida says that the use of the word 'animal' is theoretically ridiculous and a stupid gesture because the different species of animals is so vast. To put monkeys and ants in the same category doesn't make sense because they are obviously different. The act of categorizing is a violent gesture, which influences the cruelty humans exercise towards other living creatures.
I would agree to some extent, that the misuse of the word 'animal' can invite or turn a blind eye to cruel treatment towards living creatures. Any misuse of language can invite hostile treatment. However, Derrida goes on to say that he tries not to use the word 'animal' in general, which is explained by his arguments in the above paragraph. Rather than saying animal, he would say "this type of animal," or "such and such an animal."
By this logic, saying "this type of animal" like an ant can be categorical since there are different species of ants. Therefore, you would have to point out the specific species of ant. But that can be categorical too, so we have to point out a specific ant. By this logic, saying 'human' is a misuse of language as well, since we do not distinguish between male or female, different races, and different ages. We cannot even refer to a race, since there are different individuals among the race.
My point is that categorizing is practical. That doesn't justify any cruelty exercised on animals , but to say that categorizing IS a 'violent act' is something I disagree with. Yes, categorizing CAN be a 'violent act,' as any misuse of language can invite cruel treatment. The word 'animal' refers to all living organisms with voluntary movement, which includes humans. Using the word 'animal' is practical (without hostile intent) if a subject wants to refer to a general idea of living organisms with voluntary movement. Referring to the Chinese race is practical (without hostile intent) if someone is talking about homosapiens who are from 'this' part of the world and adapt 'this' kind of culture.
Categories are how we identify ourselves and things. We begin to categorize things when we are infants, as it is a natural process of thinking about things. We can identify ourselves through categories. I am aware that I am not under the category of lions, nor Africans, nor White. The misuse of these categories can lead to violence, but in a general context it is a part of identity. Therefore, saying 'animal' in general is not a stupid gesture, but the misuse of the word is a stupid gesture.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
BAY! BAY!
The Jonas Brothers are a new Pop sensation, consisting of three brothers: Kevin, Joe, and Nick. I am not interested in the Jonas brothers themselves, (and if you are, excuse me) but their purity rings are something to take interest in. With a minister for a father, the Jonas brothers have put on purity rings as a promise to stay pure until marraige. The Jonas brothers agree not to fornicate, do drugs, drink alcohol, or mutilate cats (the last one I made up). I would say, "good for them!" but I think we should take time to think about this.
First, let's look at the binary oppositions. What seems to be the center of this ring situation is being pure. The binary oppositions would be what's pure and what's not pure. What seems to be associated with pure (in a Jonas Brothers, Christian sense) is: no fornication, drug free, alcohol free, no partying, no swearing, and so on. So what's considered not pure is: fornicating, using drugs, drinking alcohol, partying hard, and swearing non-stop.
Like a lot of bubble-gum boy bands before them (i.e. The Beatles, The New Kids On The Block, Backstreet Boys, Nsync, 98 Degrees, etc), there are sexual elements about these boy bands that earn them their popularity. A core part of Pop music is the selling of sex. Of course these boy bands don't admit it, but rather, they try and fight the accusations of selling sex. They do so by promoting their 'faith,' or by wearing purity rings. The Jonas Brothers' gesture of wearing purity rings is contradictory in itself, because the Jonas Brohers are a pop group.
I am aware that the purity rings are promises to not have premarraidal sex, and someone can argue that if they are not having premarraidal sex then they are doing fine. However, by suggesting the Jonas brothers are pure, suggests that they live up to all the other connotations of being pure: being humble, selfless, kind, innocent, etc. (Of course, these connotations of purity are influenced culturally by Western life, but the Jonas Brothers are from a Western upbringing). Again, the contradiction lies in what they are, a pop group. Pop music sells sex, boosts egos, and is anything but selfless. It is pop music's goal to sell, sell, sell, because it's a business. Therefore, the Jonas Brothers can be distributed with all the aspects of Pop music (sex, sex, sex), and still be accepted by parents because of their purity rings.
"The Boy Band Next Door." http://www.newsweek.com/id/105564. Newsweek
Check this video of the Jonas Brothers and their purity rings...it's, well...see for yourself:
First, let's look at the binary oppositions. What seems to be the center of this ring situation is being pure. The binary oppositions would be what's pure and what's not pure. What seems to be associated with pure (in a Jonas Brothers, Christian sense) is: no fornication, drug free, alcohol free, no partying, no swearing, and so on. So what's considered not pure is: fornicating, using drugs, drinking alcohol, partying hard, and swearing non-stop.
Like a lot of bubble-gum boy bands before them (i.e. The Beatles, The New Kids On The Block, Backstreet Boys, Nsync, 98 Degrees, etc), there are sexual elements about these boy bands that earn them their popularity. A core part of Pop music is the selling of sex. Of course these boy bands don't admit it, but rather, they try and fight the accusations of selling sex. They do so by promoting their 'faith,' or by wearing purity rings. The Jonas Brothers' gesture of wearing purity rings is contradictory in itself, because the Jonas Brohers are a pop group.
I am aware that the purity rings are promises to not have premarraidal sex, and someone can argue that if they are not having premarraidal sex then they are doing fine. However, by suggesting the Jonas brothers are pure, suggests that they live up to all the other connotations of being pure: being humble, selfless, kind, innocent, etc. (Of course, these connotations of purity are influenced culturally by Western life, but the Jonas Brothers are from a Western upbringing). Again, the contradiction lies in what they are, a pop group. Pop music sells sex, boosts egos, and is anything but selfless. It is pop music's goal to sell, sell, sell, because it's a business. Therefore, the Jonas Brothers can be distributed with all the aspects of Pop music (sex, sex, sex), and still be accepted by parents because of their purity rings.
"The Boy Band Next Door." http://www.newsweek.com/id/105564. Newsweek
Check this video of the Jonas Brothers and their purity rings...it's, well...see for yourself:
Monday, March 9, 2009
Metonymy and Metaphor
Metonymy:
The way metonymy works is displacement by contiguity (association). For example, the phrase “to fish for pearls” derives from the idea of fishing, or taking from the ocean. It doesn’t literally mean fishing, because we know that fishing involves fishing rods and bait. The contiguity from “fishing fish” and “fishing pearls” comes from the associations with the ocean and boats. Instead of saying, “taking pearls from the ocean,” it is rephrased as “fishing for pearls” by displacing “take” with “fishing” through contiguity (association). No new definition has been created; we have displaced “take” with “fishing,” but we still mean “taking pearls from the ocean.”
Example from: Dirven, René. Conversion as a Conceptual Metonymy of Basic Event Schemata.
In Jacques Lacan’s work, The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious, he aligns metonymy with the function of desire. Lacan presents the algorithm for linguistic science: S/s, which is the signifier (S) over the signified (s). In the nature of metonymy, the bar separating the signifier and signified is kept horizontal, keeping the separation in tact. Therefore, just like I explained about metonymy above, the signifier can be displaced by other signifiers along a signifying chain and the signified will remain. Meaning is never created at one point when one signifier is over the signified. Rather, meaning insists on the movement from one signifier to another. The nature of metonymy is similar with desire. If desire is what is signified, then the signifier is constantly displaced by other signifiers (the things we desire). Desire is always a desire for something else. Desire comes from a lack of something, because desire is constantly trying to displace the lack of something with objects of desire.
This video I’m about to show is a visual representation of metonymy. What seems to be a different set of lives (signifiers) are actually signify a similar movement, in which the different set of lives signify one life (signified) that is in the music video. Try watching the video with the nature of metonymy in mind.
Metaphor
Metaphor functions as displacement by substitution. I am going to use a similar example as I did for the Metonymy explanation. If we take the word “fishing,” and use it in a phrase like “fishing for information,” then we have taken the concept of fishing into a new domain. When someone is “fishing” for information, we don’t imagine someone near an ocean or on a boat searching for general information in the sea. Rather, we transfer the elements of the action of “fishing” (catching something that cannot be seen) into a new domain.
Example from: Dirven, René. Conversion as a Conceptual Metonymy of Basic Event Schemata
Back to Lacan’s algorithm: S/s, in which the signifier (S) is above the signified (s). In the nature of metaphor, the bar separating the signifier and signified is vertical. Therefore, the signifier is able to cross over the bar and merge with the signified, and a new signified is produced. This is what Lacan calls signification, in which meaning can only happen when the signifier and signified converge to create a new signified.
The way metonymy works is displacement by contiguity (association). For example, the phrase “to fish for pearls” derives from the idea of fishing, or taking from the ocean. It doesn’t literally mean fishing, because we know that fishing involves fishing rods and bait. The contiguity from “fishing fish” and “fishing pearls” comes from the associations with the ocean and boats. Instead of saying, “taking pearls from the ocean,” it is rephrased as “fishing for pearls” by displacing “take” with “fishing” through contiguity (association). No new definition has been created; we have displaced “take” with “fishing,” but we still mean “taking pearls from the ocean.”
Example from: Dirven, René. Conversion as a Conceptual Metonymy of Basic Event Schemata.
In Jacques Lacan’s work, The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious, he aligns metonymy with the function of desire. Lacan presents the algorithm for linguistic science: S/s, which is the signifier (S) over the signified (s). In the nature of metonymy, the bar separating the signifier and signified is kept horizontal, keeping the separation in tact. Therefore, just like I explained about metonymy above, the signifier can be displaced by other signifiers along a signifying chain and the signified will remain. Meaning is never created at one point when one signifier is over the signified. Rather, meaning insists on the movement from one signifier to another. The nature of metonymy is similar with desire. If desire is what is signified, then the signifier is constantly displaced by other signifiers (the things we desire). Desire is always a desire for something else. Desire comes from a lack of something, because desire is constantly trying to displace the lack of something with objects of desire.
This video I’m about to show is a visual representation of metonymy. What seems to be a different set of lives (signifiers) are actually signify a similar movement, in which the different set of lives signify one life (signified) that is in the music video. Try watching the video with the nature of metonymy in mind.
Metaphor
Metaphor functions as displacement by substitution. I am going to use a similar example as I did for the Metonymy explanation. If we take the word “fishing,” and use it in a phrase like “fishing for information,” then we have taken the concept of fishing into a new domain. When someone is “fishing” for information, we don’t imagine someone near an ocean or on a boat searching for general information in the sea. Rather, we transfer the elements of the action of “fishing” (catching something that cannot be seen) into a new domain.
Example from: Dirven, René. Conversion as a Conceptual Metonymy of Basic Event Schemata
Back to Lacan’s algorithm: S/s, in which the signifier (S) is above the signified (s). In the nature of metaphor, the bar separating the signifier and signified is vertical. Therefore, the signifier is able to cross over the bar and merge with the signified, and a new signified is produced. This is what Lacan calls signification, in which meaning can only happen when the signifier and signified converge to create a new signified.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Day, The Dream
February 20, 2007
I woke up around 8:40 AM and was too anxious to go back to bed. It was Friday morning, and the weekend I was slaving for all week was approaching. I got out of bed and took a shower, brushed my teeth, etc.
Class was more enjoyable than usual. I must have been on drugs or something. Everything seemed funny. We saw a clip from a movie; I forgot the name. I thought it was funny when the main character was having sex with his co-worker on the photocopy machine in his dream.
I had lunch at Sexton, the Reef was too full as usual. I decided to skip my 2:40 class. I had to make time to go down to the cities to pick up my band's equipment for our gig on Saturday at CSB. I kept receiving phone calls from Chakong about renting speakers for the performance. I left campus around 2:00 PM.
The drive home seemed longer than usual. It was such a struggle to stay awake.
I tried to look for my CD of Albert Hammond Jr tracks, I couldn't find them in my car.
3:15 PM I picked up Dave (my drummer) at the U of M Twin Cities campus. We then headed to my house to pick up my mom's SUV. My mom was apparently sick when I got home. My dad was fixing something for my mom to eat. We then headed to Dave's house to pack up the equipment. I bought some girl scout cookies from Dave's sister.
The drive back to CSB was very long. Snow was falling like ashes, and the sky was a deep purple. Dave and I would exchange words here and there about bands, music, girls, and life. The drive took around two and half hours.
We arrived at CSB and unloaded our equipment on the top floor of Gorecki. I exchanged a few words with friends on our way in. A girl named Anne was there, we looked at each other but never exchanged words. She must be shy or just cold.
When we finished unloading, rehearsals were still going on for the festival on Saturday. I was called over by the Japanese girls to say hello. "That girl" was there with 'that guy,' I decided not to say anything to her yet. I watched some of the rehearsals, the Japanese dance was the most interesting. I talked to "that girl" after she got off the stage. She seemed more in tune than usual with what I had to say, but I knew she was leaving with "that guy." Women are confusing, or I'm just clueless.
Dave and I finally set up our equipment. I was relieved when Dave and I found out how to work the P.A system. Dave and I decided to go to Wendy's to get something to eat. On our way back, the rest of the band members arrived at my sister's place in Saint Ben's.
Later on that night, we all gathered at Theo's place. Jak (the bassist) had an intense mohawk; I wasn't sure how I felt about it. Andy (the keyboardist/synthesizer) brought "Rock Band" for the Xbox 360. I found it ironic that a band was playing 'rock band.' Everyone had a good buzz going. I sucked at the quarter game; I can't seem to toss the quartar just right.
I sang Bon Jovi's "Living on a Prayer." I was chewing gum, and everyone buzzed on their beer bumped me. I accidently swallowed my gum, but when I said it out loud, it sounded like something dirty.
I went to bed around 2:40 AM.
The Dream
Most of my dream was set during night. The sky was a deep purple, but the lights along the streets and buildings were orange. There was a girl in my dream, around my age, who was someone I knew well. But in reality, I never knew this girl before. She told she wanted to do heroin; she wanted to see the world in new ways. My friends Theo and Jak also wanted to do heroin. I remember telling them not to do the drug, but they refused to listen. I gave them an ultimatum, to choose between the drug or our friendship. They chose to do heroin, and I remember deleting them from my contacts in my phone.
I remember walking fast outside, through some house parties. I missed the bus, so I decided to walk home. There were tents along side the road with lines of people waiting outside. I saw Gwen (from our class) waiting in line. I decided to wait in line as well.
I woke up around 8:40 AM and was too anxious to go back to bed. It was Friday morning, and the weekend I was slaving for all week was approaching. I got out of bed and took a shower, brushed my teeth, etc.
Class was more enjoyable than usual. I must have been on drugs or something. Everything seemed funny. We saw a clip from a movie; I forgot the name. I thought it was funny when the main character was having sex with his co-worker on the photocopy machine in his dream.
I had lunch at Sexton, the Reef was too full as usual. I decided to skip my 2:40 class. I had to make time to go down to the cities to pick up my band's equipment for our gig on Saturday at CSB. I kept receiving phone calls from Chakong about renting speakers for the performance. I left campus around 2:00 PM.
The drive home seemed longer than usual. It was such a struggle to stay awake.
I tried to look for my CD of Albert Hammond Jr tracks, I couldn't find them in my car.
3:15 PM I picked up Dave (my drummer) at the U of M Twin Cities campus. We then headed to my house to pick up my mom's SUV. My mom was apparently sick when I got home. My dad was fixing something for my mom to eat. We then headed to Dave's house to pack up the equipment. I bought some girl scout cookies from Dave's sister.
The drive back to CSB was very long. Snow was falling like ashes, and the sky was a deep purple. Dave and I would exchange words here and there about bands, music, girls, and life. The drive took around two and half hours.
We arrived at CSB and unloaded our equipment on the top floor of Gorecki. I exchanged a few words with friends on our way in. A girl named Anne was there, we looked at each other but never exchanged words. She must be shy or just cold.
When we finished unloading, rehearsals were still going on for the festival on Saturday. I was called over by the Japanese girls to say hello. "That girl" was there with 'that guy,' I decided not to say anything to her yet. I watched some of the rehearsals, the Japanese dance was the most interesting. I talked to "that girl" after she got off the stage. She seemed more in tune than usual with what I had to say, but I knew she was leaving with "that guy." Women are confusing, or I'm just clueless.
Dave and I finally set up our equipment. I was relieved when Dave and I found out how to work the P.A system. Dave and I decided to go to Wendy's to get something to eat. On our way back, the rest of the band members arrived at my sister's place in Saint Ben's.
Later on that night, we all gathered at Theo's place. Jak (the bassist) had an intense mohawk; I wasn't sure how I felt about it. Andy (the keyboardist/synthesizer) brought "Rock Band" for the Xbox 360. I found it ironic that a band was playing 'rock band.' Everyone had a good buzz going. I sucked at the quarter game; I can't seem to toss the quartar just right.
I sang Bon Jovi's "Living on a Prayer." I was chewing gum, and everyone buzzed on their beer bumped me. I accidently swallowed my gum, but when I said it out loud, it sounded like something dirty.
I went to bed around 2:40 AM.
The Dream
Most of my dream was set during night. The sky was a deep purple, but the lights along the streets and buildings were orange. There was a girl in my dream, around my age, who was someone I knew well. But in reality, I never knew this girl before. She told she wanted to do heroin; she wanted to see the world in new ways. My friends Theo and Jak also wanted to do heroin. I remember telling them not to do the drug, but they refused to listen. I gave them an ultimatum, to choose between the drug or our friendship. They chose to do heroin, and I remember deleting them from my contacts in my phone.
I remember walking fast outside, through some house parties. I missed the bus, so I decided to walk home. There were tents along side the road with lines of people waiting outside. I saw Gwen (from our class) waiting in line. I decided to wait in line as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)