Derrida and Ethnocentrism

From looking at Derrida's Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences, we can see
similarities between both the theories of Derrida and Lacan (discussed in my previous post). They both argue that the signifier and the signified, totality and transcendental meaning, is always the metonymic play of figurative language. This includes metonymic desire specifically, even if we cannot pinpoint the exact center of that desire, Derrida argues that it is usually focused on discovering/defining Being as presence. Another similarity between the two theorists is that they think we understand ourselves through others, by what we are not, and this could be looked at as a violent action in many ways because we are loading signifieds onto signifiers in different cultures, species, genders, etc...in ways that may not be accurate  from a different viewpoint. It may actually be very prejudice the way in which we put meaning on things to differentiate ourselves from them.

In his article, Derrida says that ethnology "comes about within the element of discourse...the ethnologist accepts into his discourse the premises of ethnocentrism at the very moment when he denounces them." Derrida argues that in order to deconstruct something, one must integrate and borrow  from the heritage of the very thing that is being critiqued. What I want to look into here is the concept of ethnocentrism which dictionary.com gives two different definitions for: 1) the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture and 2) a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own. I think that today, a lot of people would like to either deny or ignore the fact that they, whether they realize it or not, practice this more often than they would like. In the United States it seems that we are at a time when more often than not, people are pushing for equality and reduction of prejudice and stereotypes, yet so much of it still goes on. I think a big part of this has to do with that fact that many people are looking at the world and at others through their own perspective or the perspective of their own culture. You may ask, well how else could anyone look at something if not from their own perspective? Education is the key here, if you don't understand a signifier that belongs to a different culture, if you haven't tried to understand the viewpoint of someone from that different culture, then it really isn't fair to judge.

This brings me to what I learned about the hijab and the abaya on my trip to Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Sharjah for a Conference on Women as Global Leaders. This topic was actually brought to my attention even before I went on this trip from this blog post by my professor on ninja women in Iran and Saussure’s theory of the linguistic sign. He explains my point perfectly when he says that "In European and American culture, the sign of the veil is typically understood as a symbol of Islam’s oppression of women. In this sense, the veil and headscarf is understood by the West as a sign of difference –how they are different from us. Many connotations are attached to this one symbol, and it is somewhat famously controversial, but the strongest connotation for Europeans and Americans is oppression." I personally, even if I didn't mean to, tended to view the hijab in the same way that most Americans do. I am so glad now that I traveled to the United Arab Emirates and was actually able to talk to and make friends with real women from the UAE that wear the headscarf and the abaya.

Although some women may not like to wear the hijab, my friends told me that they do not have to, although I would imagine there would still be pressure from the culture and families to do so. But all of the intelligent and strong women that I actually spoke with said they liked to wear the hijab and that it is not only an important part of their Muslim culture, but a very important part of their religious Islamic beliefs. Men that also follow their religious beliefs too wear their traditional clothing which includes the thawb (much like a long white robe) and a headscarf.

American and European culture tend to view the hijab as a sign of oppression only because it is not how they themselves choose to dress, and this is a form of ethnocentrism. And although many women of the Arab world do suffer oppression from the governments of certain countries (for example, in Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive or travel without a male escort) this really has nothing to do with their religious decision to wear the hijab. And since no one can or has discovered the center or truth of relgion, who is to say what religion is wrong or right or what people are wrong for following what they believe in. Women in the UAE make up more than 60% of college graduates and, after visiting and learning from women of the region, most do not feel nearly as oppressed or inferior in their culture as Americans and Europeans naively believe.

See the below videos if you would like to learn more about how actual women who wear the hijab view it:

Metonymic Desire

According to Lacan, in his The Agency of the letter in the unconscious or reason since Freud, the unconscious contains the whole structure of language and is not merely the primordial instincts (or the id) that many people confuse it to be. He talks about how language is structured by the signified and the signifier, the big Other and the little other, and he also demystifies Descarte's, "I think, therefore I am," but what most strikes me, and is most comprehensible to me in this difficult text, is his conclusion about psychological symptoms and desire. Lacan's thesis is that the symptom of existence is metaphor and desire is metonymy. We don't actually know what we really want and the objects that we think we want create the desire in the first place. Our subconscious is always produced by a metonymic chain of desire but we can never truly be satisfied because we will continuously look for the next desire, what we actually desire, and the next after that and the next after that.  The metaphor is how all these metonymies get condensed into objects of desire. We believe that we will be more complete if we fulfill the longing of X object, but the X itself creates wanting (desire or lack of having) in a person and leaves the person more incomplete than anything.

Human kind never seems to be 100% content, whatever they aren't or whatever they don't have creates a continuous chain of additional longings. This is very similar to Freud's concept of displacement in dreams and how Kate Chopin shows the metonymy of desire in her Silk Stockings.  The pair of silk stockings that this poor woman desires metaphorically represent wealth, comfort, stability, etc. . .(a lot of what Freud terms as Condensation). When she goes on her crazy spending spree, that she really can't afford, all the other objects she buys are not symbols of wealth, comfort, etc...only the silk stockings are. Each other thing is a metonymy for the silk stockings and represent an insatiable, metonymic chain of desire similar to Lacan's theory and, as I already mentioned, Freud's theory of how dream works are a type of constant displacement.

As I read The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, it seems that Lacan's conclusion about the metaphor symptom and metonymic chain of desire is evident in Hawthorne's analysis of Puritan society, or rather our analysis of what we think is Hawthorne's analysis. The scarlet A takes on several meanings throughout the text (adulterer, admirable, etc...) but the people of the story don't notice the metonymic chain of desire that this signifier implies. The townspeople desire to punish Hester for her sin of passion yet by putting themselves contrary to her, by positioning what they are by what they are not (like Hester), they also desire the same indulgent passion that is foreign to them. This can be seen in their desire to purchase Hester's rather extravagant embroidery symbolic of rich, sultry, "sinful" indulgence. Although they see the same signifier of embroidery on Hester's A, they do not see their unconscious, metonymy of desire for indulgence and sexual freedom in their desire for her embroidery. Also, we know that the Puritan society does deem her embroidery as some sort of sinful taboo because they won't use her embroidery for the white veils of brides.

Lacan says on page 171, "The intolerable scandal in the time before Freudian sexuality was sanctified was that is was so 'intellectual'. It was precisely in that that is showed itself to be the worthy ally of all those terrorists whose plottings were going to ruin society." Such "terrorists" (and I think Lacan is being funny here) as Hester Prynne who challenge the boundaries of society. This is exactly how the puritans intend to use the A to punish and restrict Hester, yet metonymic desires pop out throughout the text and this leads me to think that Hawthorne is making a critique of this Puritan mindset and persecution of otherness. 

Take Roger Chillingworth for example, his revenge against Dimmesdale, who wronged his marital bond with Hester, becomes a wrath that seems almost hyper-sexual and sinful. I think that, on the surface, Chillingworth wants to punish their crime done against him, but his metonymic, unconscious desire is actually driving him. It is possible that he is so wrathful because of his own sexual impotency, which is why he actually seeks to punish Dimmesdale phsycially (his health), as well as mentally and emotionally, because Dimmesdale shamed him with his "manhood"; satisfying and impregnating the wife that Chillingworth could not. Further, it is what Chillingworth desires to declare as other (Dimmesdale and adultery) that he really desires because it is what and where he is not. Addtional evidence for his sexual incompetence is his old age, his blindness and impassiveness at leaving Hester for two years, and his stated physical impairment. The story never talks about any sexual relationship between the two, we know he was a devout scholar and that was his only real passion, and we also know, obviously, that Hester was never impregnated by him. So, Chillingworth's desire to ruin Dimmesdale does not come from his superficial desire to avenge his marriage, but from his jealousy and metonymic desire to avenge his sexual impotency.

This video is a an interpretation of what is going on with Chillingworth throughout the story. I consider this song by Hoobastank in this sense to be addressing Chillingworth's unconscious desire. Notice how the song says, "what should I do...I don't understand what you want from me...I may never know the answer to this mystery." I think this reflects the continuous metonymic chain of desires that the wanting person can never realize or know and the demands and consequences felt by this person.