Derrida on Love

In the film “Derrida,” the topic of love is brought up several times. Derrida first presents the idea of love in the beginning of the movie. He says that love is broken up into two parts, "the who" and "the what." When a person falls in love, they can either fall in love with the who and the what. The who is the person themselves. An individual loves everything about a person and just their general being. The other part is the what. The what are certain features that one is attracted to. The certain features that are loved are individualized. The features are separate from each other and the individual might not like or love other features about their counterpart. Is it possible to be in love with the who? Is there something that is dislikable in everyone?

I think that when you love someone, you love them for the what, not for the who. At the time, you might think that you love the who but there are always things about everyone that one doesn’t like. Instead, one falls in love with many whats that comprise an individual. There are several whats that you dislike in a person but it is so outweighed by the whats that one loves that they are disregarded.

Narcissism is later discusses by Derrida in which he talked about himself. He never liked the look of his face, unlike Narcissus. Narcissus was a man who loved his face so much that he kept looking at his reflection in the water. He eventually fell into the water and drowned. When the idea of pictures was brought up in the interview, Derrida commented on how he did not like the look of his face. This started off disliking his face as a child and the loathing of his look grew as he aged.

In Respnse to "Structure, Sign, and Play"

After reading Derrida‘s “Structure, Sign and Play” I was completely lost. During the past two class periods we discussed the reading and it answered some questions for me but also raised many. I believe that this is the point of the class and discussions between blogs. This main goal is to give an overall understanding of others views on the topic which is on hand and most importantly help work through any problems people might have.

I found the most interesting topic of the Derrida reading to be the nature / culture opposition. He then goes on to call this a stabilizing force. He steps out of culture to view it from above and believes that some things are natural and some cultural. The natural things are shared between many different cultures. They are universal in a way. The cultural are specific to certain cultures. They make cultures unique and differ from one another.

Many issues are shared to be immoral in many cultures. Levi Strauss says that if the action is bad in both universal and cultural then it is a scandal. This is where the idea of “incest taboo” comes into play. In just about every culture, people believe that sleeping with a relative is wrong and immoral.

This makes the incest taboo universal, in a sense. Strauss states that the only way that there can be a scandle is if one believes in the difference between nature and culture. People know that it is inherently bad to sleep with their relatives some choose to do it anyway. This brings me into the concept of social norms in nature and culture. In a way, social norms are the building block of cultures just like atoms are the building blocks of matter. So do the problems not lie in the culture but in the social norms? Since we all know that incest is wrong, what actually makes it wrong? This is all due to the concept of social norms and the role they form on culture.

A Response to Structuralism

The attachment of "post" to any body of theory represents the end of an era. Therefore, the idea of poststructuralsim means that structuralism had flaws. Poststructuralsim has one main goal which is to fix the problems that were evident in structuralism. In a way, it is in response to the general idea of structuralism. Poststructuralsim depends on structuralism but is a completely separate theory. They are similar in ways, the main being that they both view language as a system. Poststructuralism was formed as a criticism to structuralism citing counterpoints to the flaws in structuralism. An example of this criticism is the idea of binary pairs. In structuralism, an example of a binary pair is the comparison between two synonyms. The only way a word obtains a definition is in relation to a synonym. In response to this view, poststructuralsim believes that words are contaminated by one another.

The process of deconstruction uses both poststructuralism and structuralism to determine the center of a text. In poststructuralsim, there is a belief of a center. As said in class, deconstruction is poststructuralsim in practice. Deconstruction is reading the text against itself. As a result, the center of the text will be found. Therefore, poststructuralsim and structuralism largely effect to the process of deconstruction.

“The bond between the signifier and the signified is strictly arbitrary”

“The bond between the signifier and the signified is strictly arbitrary.” (Page 39)

Sausser is stating with this quote that the context in which a word is used makes the meaning of the word. A word can mean different things in different contexts. You can hear a word by itself and that word carries a meaning all by itself. The meaning of this word, when put in context, may change or remain stagnant. The true meaning of the word is given when it is put in context and established as having a true definition.

“Arbitrary,” in this sense basically means that it is a matter of individual judgment. The bond between the word, or signifier, and the meaning the signified is a matter of individual judgment. When a word is heard or read it could mean different things to different people. Therefore, the context in which it is said or written is of extreme importance because words can be altered to fit different definitions.
This affects the way I feel about language in many different ways. The whole meaning of a written work can be altered by the use of certain words. The way these words are put together and the location of the points and ideas in a text are important to make the text have a certain flow. Words have different meanings when standing alone but it is only when they are put in context that one meaning is prevalent. If not worded properly, the writer’s entire point of view can be misconstrued by a meaning of a word. This plays into the idea that the location and context of the word really gives the word a proper definition.