Thursday, February 23, 2012

The Signifier and the Signified: Language as a System of Signs

In Hans Bertens's Language as a System of Signs,  he describes Ferdinand de Saussure's (1857-1913) ideas about structuralism and its relationship to language: Language should be seen as a system of signs. Those signs are inherently arbitrary but form meaning by becoming conventions as we begin to associate or assign meaning to them. The form of the sign and the meaning cannot be separated because if you change the sign, as from "day" to "ray," it completely changes the meaning. Saussure calls the form,or sign, the signifier and the meaning the signified. Berten goes on to explain how Levi-Strauss shows that these signs do not naturally signify an object or an idea because we are the ones that create the signified by culturally differentiating what it is not.

This relationship between the signifier and the signified reminds me of a certain chapter in Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues called Reclaiming Cunt, where the speaker tries to change the signified of the signifier "cunt" from something insulting to something sexually empowering. Click here to listen to a reading of Reclaiming Cunt. Last year I was in a reading group that focused on The Vagina Monologues and, at the time, this was probably the one chapter that I did fully not understand, feel comfortable with, or agree with. But after learning more about language and its system of signs, I see that Eve Ensler herself understood this theory and was right in calling out the arbitrariness between the word "cunt" and its typical connotations. I also now appreciate this chapter because, as it is signified today, "cunt" is typically derogatory and extremely insulting towards women.

But how people use "cunt" today is quite different than in the 13th Century and this illustrates how the signified is determined by convention. So theoretically, yes, Eve Ensler could completely reclaim "cunt" because if popular culture began using the word in a more positive manner, then the signifier "cunt" would take on a whole new signified because, as I said before, their relationship is absolutely arbitrary. Below is a video that really drives this point home and gives you two different perspectives to look at (Caution: "Severe" language).


Notice how the man in this video does not address the concept of language itself as a system of signs, as does the woman (and by the way I think she is really funny in this clip and her attitude reminds me of Hawthorne's sarcasm in The Custom House). Think of her as a theorist, and him as American culture. However, he does bring me back to a previous blog of mine about authorship and whether or not history and culture play an important role in meaning. And of course they do, you wouldn't want to call someone a cunt if it was offensive to them, just because, for you personally, the signified is empowering. Language does change over time, but I think it is a much more difficult process for curses or insults. At least, it is a difficult process to completely reverse the meaning, as Eve is attempting with the sign "cunt." For example the signifier "suck" used to be used as a derogatory sign insinuating oral sex (an act that deemed one lowly or vulgar). But now, children and adults alike use the word to signify when something is bad or goes wrong. So should we use the word "suck" this way? It seems to me that the time, convention, and culture do such an efficient job of changing language that a signifier can shed an old signified and create a new one. Unless you asked a scholar who has heard about the old signified of "suck," it is probably perfectly acceptable to use in popular culture.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Ideology in Disney's Pocahontas

Ideology is used as a way to mystify real, concrete conditions into intertwining beliefs that make possible certain kinds of cultural consensus or knowledge. Ideology tends to be prescriptive in that it contains notions of how things ought to be. Anything that is ideological in this sense seems to solidify our "common sense" notions of right and wrong in relation to various topics such as freedom, progress, justice, etc. . .even though our ideal notions usually do not reflect reality.

In this post I will attempt to demystify some ideologies portrayed in the Disney animation Pocahontas: peace and nature, intercultural relationships, beauty, and the concept of the heroine.

The song "Colors of the Wind" compares the Native American's appreciation for nature with the Western dominance and destruction of nature. As we learn, peace with nature is indisputably good, and anyone who doesn't agree is barbaric. And even though we can see the paradox that it is the western civilization that is barbaric and not so much the Native Americans, the lyrics to the song "Savages"  uses drama and racism and shows the savageness of both groups of peoples (as well as using offensive stereotypes). From this movie we learn an alternate version of history where these two different cultures, who aren't actually so different from each other, learn to respect each other as equals. But the true history of this time period (which I won't detail as I am sure you have taken classes in American History) demystifies this ideal of peace, love, and nature that Disney promotes. Especially relating to what I said above about how Disney portrayed both groups of people as savages, when really it was mainly the Westerners who massacred and took advantage of the Native Americans. Also, although the Europeans are portrayed as "wrong" or "bad" in the film, it is ultimately the Europeans who we are tricked into commending at the end of the movie for growing from their mistakes and learning how to treat the Native Americans with respect and equality.

Out of all Disney "princess" animations, Pocahontas is said to be one that progressively promotes intercultural relationships. Pocahontas and John Smith seem to overcome their differences and fall in love. But this progressive move for Disney seems to not be quite so progressive when Pocahontas is the one Disney "princess" that doesn't get to keep her "prince-charming" at the end of the movie. So although it's possible to fall in love inter-racially or inter-culturally, Disney tells us that a lasting relationship is nonsensical. Pocahontas must stay with her people and John Smith must go back to his.

Lastly for this post, the ideology of beauty and what that word means in relation to women and physical appearance is blatantly expressed here, as it is in all other Disney princess films. As it is portrayed here, "beautiful" means slender and big-breasted with long flowing hair: your standard barbie. Also in relation to women, while Pocahontas is an independent and strong heroine, the men in her tribe don't take her seriously, no one considers her opinion in an arranged marriage, and she is merely being shifted between different patriarchs (whether her father, Kocoum, or John Smith).




Sunday, February 5, 2012

Subjectivity to Culture Gives Importance to a Liberal Education

It is the opinion of Stanley Fish (shown to the right) that "all objects are made and not found, and that they are made by the interpretive strategies we set in motion" (331). To the right, Fish is giving a speech about the importance of a liberal arts education. In this video he emphasizes many points that he makes in his How To Recognize a Poem When You See One. Readers, and authors, are created from their cultural situations and this will always influence interpretive communities. Some think that readers make meanings, but it is also true that meanings make readers first. And since cultural meanings change over time, so do readers and the meanings of literature.

This is exactly why the liberal arts are critical in education. It not only teaches the history of meaning, but the way it transforms and holds importance now (Fish uses the example of Hamlet in the video) . Without this type of education, we lose out on that fantastic phenomenon and become prey to cultural influences. This may be consequential. For example, we wouldn't know when we were being manipulated by marketing or what that manipulation says about ourselves and our culture. If we can't analyze our past and present, how can we make anything productive of our future? In addition, if we don't know how to acknowledge the different opinions that diverse interpretive communities hold, how will we know opinion vs. fact if an authority figure only gives one cultural community's point of view?

I think that this is a major reason for continuing ignorance about racial, gender, social, sexual, etc... issues that people are faced with everyday. A lot of hatred in this world is a result of misunderstandings and miscommunications between different interpretative bodies (whether political or social) that have not been educated about where meaning and subjectivity comes from and why people hold different views about the same issues. The focus is aimed too much on the fact that they do think differently, not why or how an understanding could be obtained.

This is such an important topic, because even when one learns about the roles of the author, the reader, and culture it is still impossible to look at a work with complete objectivity because we are made subjects before we ever begin to interpret other subjects. Therefore, we will always still be influenced by culture in some way. For example: wearing one brand of clothing vs. another. We will choose this based on our opinion of ourselves and our opinion of others who wear the same brand and what that brand represents culturally. And even though we remain subject, at least we can be aware of it, and therefore aware of its meaning and what that says about us as selves. When we have the ability to analyze ourselves this way, we can change for the better!