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.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)