Cocaine

My good friend Sean, who teaches at Bunker Hill Community College, introduced Freud by saying, "See you Monday. We'll be talking about Freud and why he did enough cocaine to kill a small horse." Now, as this statement would suggest, Freud was one crazy dude. However, his theories are quite interesting and humerous, which is more than I can say for some of the other theories we've studied. While people look at Freud's work with a certain skepticism, some of what he put forth is generally accepted. Yet, I do not understand how his theories are academically accepted. His notion of association is the concept that is most mindboggling to me. While I do believe that certain parts of dreams may be connected to your repressed feelings, giving critics the free reign to use this association in order to lend credit to their ideas is ludacris. You can use association to back up pretty much any claim you make, no matter how absurd it is. Using association is almost like playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. No matter what, you can always come up with a way to connect how the text is representative of what you say it is. Therefore, doing a Freudian psychoanalytic reading gives you free reign to posit whatever you wish.

My Brother, the American Idol

Since this is a somewhat open week, I’m going to start this post off with a conversation I had tonight with my brother (who graduated from Yale and who I consider to be generally smart).

Me: You know anything about post-structuralism?
Him: Um, no. Do you?
Me: No, it’s quite the problem
Him: Not much of a problem for me, really.
Me: Hey, my problems are your problems; you’re my blood. (I heard some guy say that on TV once, then his brother laughed at him and called him a dumb-ass).
Him: Haha. I've read some poststructuralist works I think. If they're the ones I'm thinking of they're really confusing. Barthes is a nightmare. I never really had to read any of them for classes
Me: That’s horseshit.
Him: Guess you should have majored in music!
Me: So what are you doing?
Him: Watching TV. Damn it, I hate American Idol. It's bad enough on its own but also no other channel ever puts anything good on against it so there's just nothing on TV.
Me: It was on last night too. They canceled House for it.
Him: I swear it's on every fucking night just to ruin my life.
Me: Well, as you said earlier, that’s really not my problem.

I exited this conversation feeling that I’d ended up the winner. However, I quickly realized that his problem of having nothing to watch on TV was nowhere near my problem of having no concept of post-structuralism and having to now dissect Derrida (or is it?). The one thing that I took out of this conversation was that yes, post-structuralism is in fact a nightmare. Turning back to my book, a sentence caught my eye.

“The function of this center was not only to orient, balance, and organize the structure – one cannot in fact conceive of an unorganized structure – but above all to make sure that the organizing principle of the structure would limit what we might call the play of the structure” (196).

When I was looking for structure in my life, I contemplated joining the Army. I see the Army as the ultimate symbol of structure and discipline in our country. However, at this moment in time, if you ask any U.S. citizen if they think our Army is organized, they will most likely laugh in your face. This made me think that you could conceive of an unorganized structure, but after a moment of contemplation, I finally figured out that this is merely one extreme of what Derrida would call the play of the structure. We are only able to see that the Army isn’t organized because its center (normal organization) roots it in the definition of structure. The fact that this central organization is being pulled so far just means that at this point, there is a great deal of play involved. This all brought me back to our class conversation when we talked about the idea of a system being a rubber-band which can stretch one direction or the other. For a second I almost felt like I was beginning to understand, but then I realized that I was completely off my rocker, and that there was more of a chance of me finding something good on TV than ever internalizing Derrida. And so, I traded in one problem for another.

My interpretation, since it's finally allowed

Movements and theories always bring about some sort of reaction or rebellion from society. Thus, at the root of post-structuralism is society’s reaction to structuralism. However, post-structuralism did not reject all aspects of structuralism. Post-structuralism retained the scientific aspect and systematic approach of structuralism. It is still reliant on observing the language, but instead of merely looking at things linguistically, it operates philosophically. Post-structuralism questions the language instead of accepting the arbitrary relationship between sign and signified. When studying a sign, you can not use tunnel vision and perceive only the signified. The perception of the signified is impacted by its surroundings, especially it’s opposite. Thus, when thinking about summer, you define it depending on the surrounding words. You inherently think about the other seasons in order to define summer. Therefore, signs can not have structured meanings. Unlike structuralism, post-structuralism relies on the interaction of the words and their interpretation. You must philosophically question the surroundings of a word instead of just the actual word. I think this is more of a realistic method than structuralism. I feel like if my interpretation isn’t necessary to find the meaning of a text, there is no reason for me to contemplate its meaning. Therefore, post-structuralism would have most likely been my reaction to structuralism as well.

Structural Importance

"the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary" (35)

While much of what Saussure writes did not hold particular value or meaning to me, I was somewhat intrigued by his concept of the “bond between the signifier and the signified.” As Saussure says, this bond is completely arbitrary. His comparison of the front and back of a piece of paper being the signifier and the signified was very fitting. Even if I try not to carry a certain connotation with a sound, my brain connects the sound to the meaning. What is even more intriguing is the fact that certain sounds can carry with them meanings far beyond the base definition of the word. For example, to take a “signifier” that has been altered lately, I think of the words Barry Bonds. This is merely a name, does not hold a definition, and yet when I hear it, my brain immediately has a connection. I think of steroids and dishonesty. The fact that a signifier is not only connected to a definition but is in fact responsible for word associations plays an important part in the method we use to choose such signifiers. One example of how this is used in every day life is in trial law. While a prosecutor might not be able to refer to the defendant using inflammatory and suggestive language, he is allowed to use words that carry negative connotations with them. Lawyers know that these signifiers have an arbitrary bond with the signified, which will lead jury members to lean toward the nature of the signified language. This concept is key to Saussure’s method of breaking down language because his point was that the placement and structure of a word carries with it the meaning.

Marxism

The Marxist perspective that literature is a product of the time and social class of which it is written is certainly a rational theory. When writing, I often include underlying things that are influential in my life without even realizing it. Therefore, it makes sense that an author would produce a work through the perspective of a social class from which he/she is in. It is much easier to write from a perspective which you have experienced; and even when trying not to, you usually let your societal background creep into your work.
However, the fundamentals of Marxism sharply conflict with those set forth in liberal humanism. If good literature is timeless, it seems that the time period in which it is written should not ground it. If text does have a base meaning, the time period or social class it is written for will not change its interpretation. Good literature is read by all classes and passes the test of time. While the author may have been influenced by his/her background, it remains a fact that good literature conveys that human nature is a constant. Therefore, while the context of this nature may change, its base result will remain the same. When contemplating Marxism, the scene where I’m sitting on the bench and Sean (Robin Williams) is lecturing me comes directly to mind- he says:

You presume to know everything about me because you saw a painting of mine and ripped my fuckin' life apart. You're an orphan, right? Do you think I'd know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you?

This makes me think that while you can read as many books as you want on a social class or setting, until you’ve actually experienced it, you really can’t understand its true magnitude. Therefore, the Marxist position that literature is defined by the author’s social class and time period makes perfect sense, as the author will portray the only true experience he has-his own.

Hi All

My past experiences with Literary Criticism are few and far between. I took Persuasive Strategies at Emmanuel and a class that resembled it at my former college. While I understand the basis and objective of most of the viewpoints, I often feel like they take their initiative a bit too far and in doing so, lose sight of any semblance of reason a piece may have contained. In this blog, I hope to gain a better understanding of just what is accomplished by deconstructing a piece to such levels and a greater appreciation for doing so. When reading for pleasure, I sometimes try to deconstruct a work with a certain criticism, just to see if it holds any weight when I do it for myself. While helpful on occasion, usually the only thing I end up deconstructing is my pleasure. While I can not fully relay the genius that Will Hunting is, I do hope to gain an iota of his swagger and intellect through blogging- while throwing in a few humorous anecdotes or quotes from Good Will Hunting.

While reading Barry’s background of liberal humanism, I found myself saying “duh” almost every time I turned a page. Yes, good literature is timeless. Yes, human nature is a constant. There are always certain reactions and behaviors that are foreseeable. Yes, a good author displays his points through actions instead of just telling his audience things. All these are valid points, and seemed rather obvious to me when reading them. However, upon a few moments reflection, I realized how many books there are that I’ve read where the author did just tell us things or misrepresented human nature. After realizing this, I was more concerned with the number of authors who don’t conform to these seemingly simplistic points. Thus, it made sense as to why theory is used to deconstruct works and analyze what they actually represent. Hopefully I will now be able to do so in this blog.