Brain Drain Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Ferdinand de Saussure’

CONJUNCTION JUNCTION: WHAT’S YOUR FUNCTION?

A Modern Day Rubinesque Example:
Kim Gritzke AND Tim Clune?Get Married?
Yes, the historical derivation of gender exists. We all have been molded to live it. Then you get married and things become more surreal than you ever expect.

Gayle Rubin’s The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex made me better understand Jacques Derrida. She mentioned him but briefly, yet I saw the cultural baggage we unintentionally carry in conjunction with examination of the role women occupy in society. This was profound for me. I was suddenly struck by how I’ve lived both theories without knowing. I teased this stuff out,?finding meaning?outside the text… or, in this case,?ritual.

FEMALE EXCHANGE RATE
My father walked me down the aisle, ?giving me away.? I didn?t think it was so applicable. I was LONG gone years before I ever got married. I consciously turned this event into my own liberation rather than exchange, and thus could accept the idea. I was walking away from my father – although that assumes he had me to begin with. When I look closely at how things panned out, nobody else was outwardly jumping on board my liberation train.

Linking Rubin’s idea to Louis Althussar’s, I learned that although I “thought” I was making a statement of individuality as a woman, declaring my own meaning for the father/daughter ritual, I was simply perpetuating the Ideological State Apparatus by including it in my ceremony to begin with.

IDENTITY – AS PROPERTY?
The idea of “name change” illustrates Rubin’s theory that, although the gender roles no longer serve the purpose they once did, we still keep them firmly in place without examination or challange. From my grandparents’ generation to present, patterns of social/tribal/genealogical alignment are difficult to reform, lacking any value of individual recognition.

I symbolically took my husband’s last name, not as a sign of his ownership over me, but to consiously break with?my crappy past and redefine?who I?am on my own terms. Tim was all for me keeping my maiden name… In fact, he tried to talk me into it. But, hey, what the hell do you do with Gritzke anyway? So, there’s my spiel.

Still, wedding cards and gifts came addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Timothy Clune. My name?ends with “im” but it starts with a big fat K, thank you very much. Unifying our last names to form?our family unit is fine. Being assimilated into my husband’s identity? That’s not okay with either of us. Really.?

ALLIANCE/SOCIAL CONNECTION
Then there’s the family perception. My family?wreaked of odoriferous abandonment, somehow embracing the thought that I had left the nest. Tim’s family immediately assumed ownership over me. His sisters?adopted me into their recipe circle, his father and brothers welcomed me into the family with only mild recognition that I had my own. When my side was mentioned, it was also joining theirs, not the other way around. His brothers, as best men, toasted my grand entrance into their tribe with, “Let me introduce the other side to what is so special about our side of the family.” Hurm.

SIGN OF THE WOMAN
As Ferdinand de Saussure says, the value of a sign (woman/wife) is accepted by society, not an individual. I was struck with the implications of something so ritualized as a wedding. We lose sight of what the acts mean. We see them so often that we forget to question. You can try to make things mean what you like, changing the”sign” to suit yourself, but society/family asserts their?definition anyway and you?must defend and redefine yourself repeatedly. Derrida is right. Intended meaning brings along baggage of social construct, often?without any awareness of it’s insertion.

The effect of marriage on your identity is not for the feint of heart. It is a topic rarely talked about. People always ask, “When are?you getting married??Where? What kind of dress?” They focus?more on the event than the impact, never asking, “How do you feel about this? What does it mean about who you are? What does being a wife?entail?” The older generation of women?is particularly eager to give you some odd advice about having dinner ready and doing laundry. I warn you now… Hold true to yourself. Think about what it is YOU want from marriage.

RUG-RAT REPRODUCTION
Okay, and now I come to the whole reproduction issue. Tim and I aren’t going to have kids. This realization came much to the dismay of?several family members. When we recently received our wedding video, we found we?had been?cursed with a wish?for triplets upon our house. Really, particularly?after reading Rubin’s theory, why would we submit our daughter – let alone three of them -??to such a society?just so she can become an economic?commodity of culture and capitalism??There is this inherent idea that one must have children to further human existence, perpetuating the machine that reproduces the effect to infinity. We’re not buying it. Over and out.

SUGGESTED READING
Copies of Rubin’s theory for everybody! Revolution abound!
I agree that culture needs a good toppling and that nothing will change without opposition. People need shaking up. Maybe it needs to be sudden, as in?”Let the dead monster fall.”

Women have been fighting and winning, slowly but surely. Changes are occurring in my lifetime alone. Most of my friends have kept their maiden names. The acceptance of women as individuals in that regard is far more prevalent than 20 years ago. Once the previous generations die off, maybe there won’t be any more Mrs. Tim Clunes.

As for the acceptance of?equal gender power, patriarchal religion would have to go. I can’t see it happening any other way.

So…
Topple culture!
Give birth to a new brain child!!
Equality and free love for all!!!

This assignment is interesting. I am not, nor have I ever been, a fan of comics, but I’m having fun seeing?echoes of Jameson all over the place. I can even see a bit of Saussure and the French duo, Deleuze and Guatarri.

Like the reflective walls of LA’s Bonaventure Hotel,?Watchmen?reflects the genre in which it situates itself, and yet it is certainly not a direct representation.?This is a comic book – kind of. The?format, like all comic books which came before, comes complete with crime,?super heroes and cartoon-like illustrations, yet Watchmen borrows?this traditional form to create something new, a graphic novel (as in pictoral AND graphic in content).?This gives?whole new meaning to the?recycling of comics.

I’m reminded of Jameson’s description of the Bonaventure’s confusing layout with entrances that aren’t clearly marked and with no directions within. Maybe it’s just that I’m new to the whole comic thing, but it took me some time to learn how to navigate through the narrative.?In the traditional sense of reading from left to right, I could enter into the story, but I needed to allow the text to carry me through?time (flashback with the actual use of a flash image)?and space (the use of color to designate East coast, West coast, Vietnam and Mars). Like the Boneventure’s escalators and elevators, the text required me to be?receptive and adapt to the space?within the page.

This is where Saussure’s sign/signifier/signified theory comes in. While he spoke solely of speech, I learned a new?visual language, one randomly assigned but accepted and understood by the comic community. Again, I’m reminded of how color represents place while images?of flash bulbs and fireworks signal flashback.?This only works if this is true of all comics. Perhaps the Super Man and Batman “Pow” is a better example of the sign we all know to signify a punch.

More directly associated with Sassure is the?necessity for societal acceptance in the adaptation of language. Minuteman Hollis Mason in Under the Hood also talks about?this happening in his lifetime?when he says:

The arrival of Dr. Manhattan would make the terms “masked hero” and “costumed adventurer” as obsolete as the persons they described. A new phrase had entered the American language, just as a new and almost terrifying concept had entered its consciousness. It was the dawn of the Super-Hero” (Watchmen 13).

(Uh, do I credit Mason or Moore?& Gibbons for this quote? I jest.?Ah, the technicalities of a new form…)

To return to Jameson here, I have to ask – Are the super dudes parody or pastiche? I?think?parody, although Jameson would disagree. One thing is clear. These guys aren’t super?heroes in the?traditional sense. Most don’t have powers at all, except for the tall, blue freak. (I?mean that in the nicest possible way.) These clowns (I mean that in the nicest possible way too) don’t even have morals to guide their mother-freaking mental ship. The Comedian is the ultimate satirical character. He isn’t funny and he doesn’t?seem to?find the world as funny as?he says he does. His superbly f*&!ed up power is to rape a fellow super hero and shoot a pregnant woman carrying his child. Aside from?the foulest of his transgressions, I think?he’s an amusing character… but I’m kinda sick like that.

To recall Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomes, this novel is certainly the organic orb to which the metaphor?refers. There is a pulpy center called Watchmen. Off to one side is?the offshoot of the?Comedian’s journal. To the other, there is a comic book within a comic book. And somewhere left of center is?Hollis Mason’s?autobiography. This is no typical, traditional, linear representation.

Jameson would have a field day with the fact that Watchmen looks back to a non-existent social and political?history.?This brings us back to?our discussion of capitalization on both the nostalgia and originality of a piece depending on the consumer’s generational perspective. If comics are for kids, and this is definitely not, does?this idea still?work? It seems that this book targets the same audience that was once interested in comics, although it targets them at an older age. And does Watchmen lose it’s comic critique in the face of the previously released Heavy Metal, an adult cartoon that similarly looks back on “future artifacts?” Does that make it pastiche – a dead language – something lacking indiviuality? I think yes. Sure, it won awards for what it accomplished, but so do pop songs and they’ve all been done before too.

In my Saussure post, I unfairly?present?my cat, Kringle, as a flesh eating monster.?I now?offer you?his?softer side, “Derrida Style.”?Decentralizing that singular murderous aspect, allowing for supplemental?information,?you can now?arrive at?a more accurate truth. Kringle actually has many sides. I can assure you that “centered” he is not. Enjoy!

This video has been?monitored?for Kitty Porn.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=1670222469463071964&hl=en]

If signifiers are randomly chosen to “stand in for an idea,” how do they accumulate?value in language? Saussure?believes that?the value of a word?is both conceptual and material.

SAUSSURE ON CONCEPTUAL VALUE
In his passage on 969,?Saussure says:

… all [sign] values are apparently governed by the same paradoxical principle. They are always composed :
(1) of a dissimilar thing that can be exchanged for the thing of which the value is to be determined; and
(2) of similar things that can be compared with the thing of which the value is to be determined.

CONCEPTUAL VALUE IN OUR OWN WORDS
Signs?gain value in two distinct ways. In one aspect, similarities help to define that sign and give it value. For example, the word cat?belongs to a?category containing house cat, lynx, puma, leopard, tiger, and lion.?These similarities help to define “cat” as having whiskers, fur, sharp teeth, and claws. But this is only half of the story.?

Each sign is?also given value by the differences it has from another. To refer back to a “cat,” we know that?house cats are smaller in relation to lions, a lynx has a wicked overgrowth of?ear hair, leopards have spots, tigers have stripes and, really, all but the house cat can eat you (unless it’s mine). The differences between each of these types of cat help to define the other by what they are not.

This is simply the idea of synonyms and antonyms operating simultaneously within the system of language to define each other. A word/sign has value on it’s own, but also gains value when surrounded by others. Together, they?both limit and enhance each other.

SAUSSURE ON MATERIAL VALUE
In his passage on 971,?Saussure says:

Signs function, then, not through their intrinsic value but through their relative position … it is impossible for sound alone, a material element, to belong to language. It is only a secondary thing, substance to be put to use. All our conventional values have the characteristic of not being confused with the tangible element which supports them. For instance, it is not the metal in piece of money that fixes its value. A coin nominally worth five francs may contain less than half its worth in silver. Its value will vary according to its use inside or outside a political boundary. This is even more true of the linguistic signifier, which is not phonic but incorporeal – constituted not by its material substance but by the differences that separate its sound-image from all others.

MATERIAL VALUE IN OUR OWN WORDS
Speech is?comprised of material sounds and yet uniformity of these sounds?is not solely what give?a word value.?Saussure?says that?the difference between sounds?is what separates the?sign from all others. We can enjoy the latitude of?pronunciation variation, whether?through?dialect or drunken slurring, and still be understood by the masses.?

To illustrate how a?sign’s value is not simply comprised of its parts, consider a painting. (This example has been brought to you by the oh-so-brilliant John Urbanski.) The canvas, gesso, paint and brushes used to create that painting are worth a certain dollar amount, but once hung in a gallery, the value of the completed creation increases significantly based on a social value system. Similarly, the value of words/signs must be accepted, understood and thus dictated by society,?yet some wiggle room exists for creative differences.

Professor Middleton says:

You might consider which words are more valuable in our society, and which are less valuable, based on their associations and synonyms/antonyms (as you discuss above). Can you think of a particularly valuable word? Or one that is less valuable? (which ones do we need, and which could we live without?)

?I nominate sign, signifier, and signified for the latter category. (Ba-dum-bum.)?Okay, seriously, what about our use of eeeevil “terrorist” vs. the good “freedom fighter.” Each are politically charged groups employing guerrilla tactics.?The label assigned?depends on cultural perspective. Or how about “escalation” (a rise) vs. “surge” (as in quick blast and retreat)??Both mean an increase in troops but the terms are being batted around to see which sounds more pallatable to US citizens. As for those words we can completely do without??Racial slurs win, hands down.

OKAY. SO WHAT!?!?
So,?the value of the sign is a positive fact based in differential definition. But what happens when lines cross and there isn’t enough difference to distinguish accurate meaning? On 973, Saussure says,

“Two ideas that are no longer distinct in the mind tend to merge into the same signifier.”

Dude, it’s a joke!?See the (lame) humor on?958?in the introduction to Saussure:

A homeowner answering the phone and hearing that “The viper is coming” might feel fear, but when the voice on the line explains that “he’s coming to vipe your vindows,” what had initially been a serpent becomes a benign household maintenance worker. A foreign accent?changes the sounds in a language without changing the system of differences.

Although?this seems to prove that Sassure’s value system is?a?good place to start,?is?societal?value?so absolute??What if?value?shifts slightly?between the process of?expression?and interpretation dependant upon the?individual’s world of reference.

In other words, as I write this, I know what?our group is?trying to say. The question is, as a reader, do you see?the message?as clearly as?we intended?

As a Star Trek: The Next Generation fan, Saussure’s “assimilation” grabbed my attention. Trekkies know this term well, thus, I refer to Star Trek for two reasons:

a.) First and foremost, Captain Picard’s superior intelligence is WAY sexier than Captain Kirk’s overactive libido

2.) and probably far more applicable to Saussure’s theory is this: The Borg Collective, arch enemy of Picard’s individuality, expands and grows through assimilation, much like Saussure’s definition of language.

Saussure says language is developed by society as a whole, employing a collection of conventions adopted by the social body. It is then assimilated through speech into the mind of an individual. Dude, the Borg would totally love this concept. But geographical dialects, institutional influence, Ethnology? These would be surely be assimilated, stomped on and disregarded?too. Speech? Sure, the Borg?use it, but not because it is “an individual and wilful act.”I guess the Borg aren’t much for literary theory.

So, the question is posed: Can speech exist without language? Saussure thinks no, although the two?certainly influence each other. But can language exist without speech? I think yes.? – Who cares what Saussure thinks (although he said it first). I am an individual. I WILL NOT BE ASSIMILATED. I have spoken! – Speech, like sign language, is just?an expression?of ideas through signifiers. This certainly begs the question of whether we have a natural instinct to use vocal chords rather than our hands to communicate, although Saussure says that’s only a secondary consideration. Linguistics doesn’t deal with that. Linguistics deals with tracing ALL manifestations of human speech, and when it can’t be studied aurally, texts are used to uncover the history.

Sadly, as the Borg have departed from this theory, I too must go. But stay tuned! After a word from our sponsor, I’ll be right back to spout more ridiculisciousness. (<- There. I just influenced language, although technically this only happens if you assimilates the word into your own vocabulary and influence the societal whole.)

PS: The last time I visited Border’s, I noticed the staff’s new little ear thingies used to communicate with other employees. I asked the guy behind the counter if this was part of the Borg Collective. Rather irritated, he was sure to tell me, “No. I am perfectly capable of thinking on my own.”

The Borg never did have a sense of humor.

How ridiculiscious.