“So we are out of the closet, but into what?”

Weird, odd, strange and not feeling well – the definition of queer. Clearly it is a term with negative implications, a term for something or someone out of place, someone/thing not normal. The application of this term towards those of the gay and lesbian community is an “instrument of regulatory regimes” according to Butler, it is a negative identity category. These identity categories are based on notions of the ideal. For example the ideal woman or the ideal man, is idealized by culturally set expectations, but in reality no such ideal man or woman exists. Without being classified within a category a person technically does not exist. Similar to the notion that the woman is passive or she doesn’t exist, the gay/lesbian “comes out” and identifies as gay/lesbian or doesn’t exist. This means that a person must subjugate themselves as a gay/lesbian in order to receive any identity, when in fact by doing so they must totalize themselves. The person then becomes defined by their sexuality. In this case, the person is placed in the less privileged section of the heterosexual/homosexual binary – they must identify in order to exist, but to identify they must totalize and become less of a person.

            The study of Queer Theory emerged from gay and lesbian studies and focuses on “deviant” categories of sexuality and sexual activities outside of the normative created by the heterosexually dominant world. Identity politics focuses on using the identity category to liberate the gay/lesbian community from the negativity and oppression. For example, the term “queer” which is a term with negative connotations, is used positively through Queer theory. The positive use of this word seeks to empower it and those that fall under the category of queer. It also is used to encompass all those who do not fit in the heterosexual normative. In addition it is used by some, including Butler, as a way to differentiate from the “gay/lesbian” term, therefore identifying in something undefined, due to the lack of a binary. This is one of the primary questions of queer theory: is sexual identity fundamental in a personal identity? Identifying with queer theory allows those like Butler to step back and theorize both the gay/lesbian subject position as well as the heterosexual subject position.

            There is a great deal of conflict within the identifying process, especially when the identity politics are rejected. Butler finds a conflict within the identity categories because she feels that part of a person is lost, tossed aside, by identifying as a lesbian/gay. The individual is totalized and seen as only gay/lesbian and nothing more. Butler also discusses the process or concept of “coming out.” To come out is to reveal and admit to the world that you don’t go along with the hetero-normativity, this making you different and incomplete. To “come out” of the closet you must also first identify as being in the closet, unaware of your own identity until that defining moment. The “outness” is only then maintained by “coming out” again and again. Therefore the question Butler asks is whether there is any benefit of identity politics, whether they really provide any freedoms, or if they just contribute to the oppression of the gay/lesbian community. Ideally, gays and lesbians should be out and proud, yet when they do so they become oppressed due to homophobia and lack of understanding.

A prime example that takes on this struggle of gay/lesbian identity in a dominantly heterosexual world is the movie Philadelphia. In this movie, Tom Hanks plays a homosexual man (Andrew) that is openly gay within his family, with his partner and within the gay community. What Andrew does not do is reveal his homosexuality within his work place. Therefore he has “come out” several times, but has not received full/true identity because of his lack to “come out” at work. He does not hide the fact that he is gay but does not reveal it at the same time. At the law firm where he works, he is a prominent member and is referred to by one of the chief members of the firm as “his buddy.” With the discovery of Andrew’s sexuality as well as the fact that he has contracted HIV/AIDs, he is dismissed from the law firm and his professional character and abilities are brought into question. (Philadelphia clip) Andrew becomes seen only as a sickly homosexual rather that a hardworking man that has a different sexual orientation than those around him. It is revealed later in the movie during court that Andrew was planning on revealing his homosexuality but he changed his mind due to homosexual jokes being told by his colleagues. Throughout the movie different stereotypes of the gay/lesbian community are tackled and revealed. The movie Philadelphia exemplifies not only the struggle of the gay/lesbian community but also the misunderstandings and stereotypes developed by the heterosexual community.

Hey! Hélène! Your gender binary is showing!

In reading the essays Sorties by Hélène Cixous and Gendered and Sexual Performativity by Judith Butler, it is clear that both theorists are establishing a feminist position on the treatment of women in society. Evidently, both agree that society is phallocentric. Throughout history, culture has operated as a male dominated, patriarchal society where men prevail, come in first or come out on top and women are left to haul the slack from behind. This inequality creates the objective of any feminist: a discourse for all genders to be respected and treated with unbiased opinion and equality. However, to the unread, average Joe, it may seem here that their argument splits – Cixous attacking societal hierarchies and Butler, then critiquing Cixous for reinforcing the gender binary. However, this is not necessarily so…

In Cixous’s argument, she uses the concept of active/passive hierarchy to demonstrate the oppression of the female gender by the male gender. Essentially, Cixous is saying that that language constitutes the binary of male/female so we are in no way able to escape it because language is all that we know, and it is how we construct our reality. (related back to Saussure: “there is no truth outside language.”) Now many people tend to misread Cixous’s theory as a misreading of Lacan, as does Butler. As a critique of her argument, Butler states that Cixous is reinforcing the gender binary and a patriarchal society because she voices that the binary is a natural concept, not as a societal and culturally created notion. This, however, being a misreading of Lacan, is not what Cixous is really arguing. Cixous is in agreement with Butler that gender is a performance and that binaries are not natural, but ultimately all genders and sexes participate in the reinforcement of binaries though language’s hegemonic construction.

Butler wants to theorize the performance of gender and language in that gender wants to break down binaries of strictly masculine/feminine. She uses drag as an example of the performance of gender and language. Drag is often associated with cross-dressing, where men dress “as women” and women dress “as men.” But what really does it mean to “dress like a woman or man?” Is there an essential truth to dressing like a male/female, or even being man or woman? No, of course not. In fact, we all participate in drag by assuming and naturalizing that sex is always tied to gender.

Now, let’s step away from these feuding theorists and look at something stated by our super conservative, political commentator “friend” Rush Limbaugh, in hopes that it will unite Cixous and Butler and what they are truly rallying for.

“Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.” – Rush Limbaugh, 1987

Ok Limbaugh...

Feminists, you’re up!

          What would Cixous and Butler have to say to a statement like this? Regardless of whatever Rush (who couldn’t sound more uneducated) may have been trying to convey about Feminism, this quote comes across as extremely sexist. Surely Cixous would bring to the table Rush’s binary of women as attractive/unattractive, essentializing that women are objects of sexual desire and should be valued in regards to aesthetics and not intellect – not like they are human or anything! Perhaps Butler would state how Mr. Limbaugh is perpetuating ideals, such as a patriarchal society, by saying that woman’s opinions should be kept out of the mainstream, or in the very least strictly censored!

How Deep Does the Rabbit Hole Go?

Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulations discusses what is known as “the loss of the real” which means that invasive images the come from film, TV and advertising in contemporary life has led to the loss of the distinction between real and imagined, reality and illusion. Baudrillard said we have a passion for what is real, but that we live in the hyperreal-“everything is a model or an image, all is a surface without depth”- rather than the real and we are cut off from the authentic yet believe that there is a reality outside of representation. If we accept the loss of the real and become aware that everything is a simulation we can be brought to euphoria; however, it is easy to lose the real in the quest for it. The Wachowski brothers’ film The Matrix dives into Baudrillard’s theories concerning simulation, representation, and simulacra, which is the system where “a sign is not an index of an underlying reality, but merely of other signs”. Some of the movie’s characters enter this awareness and reach euphoria.

Beaudrillard creates four stages of simulation that can be translated through an analysis of The Matrix. Stage one; the simulation stands in for reality. The Matrix, Neo’s life in his apartment, his job the city they are all part of a simulation for what is real; the Matrix stands in for reality. Second, the simulation hides the absence of reality. This stage is expressed when Neo believes he is having déjà vu, Neo still believes that he is the center, that his perception is what is real and his mind is in control; however, déjà vu is merely a glitch in the program-he is in the program and the sighting of two black cats, one after another, is more than déjà vu, it is a glitch in the program that exposes the structurality of the structure. Neo’s innate response is to rationalize seeing the cat twice and place it under the category of déjà vu, because something that cannot be explained-such as this-causes discomfort and to be able to feel comfort again Neo classifies it as nothing more than déjà vu. However, Baudrillard and The Matrix unbalance the accepted concept of reality in the loss of what is real. In the third stage simulation produces its own reality. Neo and Morpheus are fighting in the unreal and their bodies are being affected in the real, in other words the unreal determines what happens to their real bodies. The simulation determines what happens to the real. This leads into the final order of simulation, a viral or fractural stage in which the simulation no longer needs models; reality does not exist so there is no need for simulation. 

In one of the earlier scenes from the movie Neo is asleep amidst his technology until he is awoken by a call from Trinity “Wake up Neo”. In this scene Neo is visually surrounded by technology, the images of the screen are constantly changing and reflect onto his face, words such as “searching” and “manhunt” become one with Neo’s face, which happens to be the greatest persuasion of what is real-we believe what we see, but are the words reflected onto his face or is he a reflection of these words, which of course come from technology. The technology is overpowering Neo and he is literally surrounded. Neo is also listening to music; he is completely plugged in. The room around him is dark except for where we see the clutters of technology that represent the randomness of signifiers. The concept of “the one” is foreshadowed by the composition of this scene. The strongest light comes from the top of the computer screen and casts and light onto the sleeping Neo, as if he is being called to the light. Furthermore, the way his arm is draped across the table is the same arm we see in Michael Angelo’s “Pieta”. From the beginning Neo is associated with Jesus. When Neo finally awakes, the words “The Matrix has you” appear across the computer screen and Neo presses the escape button twice, however the words are stationary, this represents his lack of control and it shows that what is going to happen has already been determined, there is no way out-no escape button to press. Neo jumps from signifier to signifier as he follows the white rabbit, never actually landing on the signified.

These ideas are directly related to Baudrillard’s distinction between reality and illusion. Neo is under the illusion that he is in control and that the world he lives in is a reality, however the truth is revealed with the infamous words, “The Matrix has you”. Neo is originally in the control of the Matrix and in the first order of simulation, however after he is led to Morpheus, chooses the red pill and is awakened to the world that has been calling out to him, he reaches an understanding of reality and not only understands that the world he used to live in, the Matrix, was a simulation and he is now in an enlightened state of mind.

However, not everyone wants to live outside of the Matrix, some believe that ignorance really is bliss. In a discussion with Agent Smith Cypher says, “You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.” Cypher is seduced by the unadulterated comfort and sheer bliss of unreality and feels that too much reality is nothing more than a killjoy, he abandons the world of the red pill, he does not care if the pleasure is not real, he wants to return to the a world filled up of Simulacra and Simulations. Baudrillard and the Matrix speak to the notion that the world as we experience it is not real but the product of a kind of collective hallucination.

Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride

"I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me."

-Hunter S. Thompson 


Interview Summary:

The Paris Review’s interview with Hunter S. Thompson begins by establishing Thompson’s roots in journalism. He discusses how he got his start, and cites key people such as editors and fellow writers, that helped him get to where he is. Thompson talks about his style of “Gonzo journalism”, discussing its origins and how it manifests itself in his work. Thompson describes a few works in particular, noting how they came to be, and what people were involved in their creation. Thompson then talks about his peers in the writing world, focusing on the journalists and writers that influenced him as a person and journalist. The interviewer then asks a series of questions about Hunter’s writing process, focusing on idiosyncrasies that are associated with Thompson’s writing. The interviewer closes out the talk by discussing what Thompson would be doing if he wasn’t writing.

Hunter S. Thompson was a journalist famous for his works “The Rum Diary” and “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”. Thompson is thought to have invented and pioneered the style of  “Gonzo journalism” where the journalist involves himself in the action to the point where it basically becomes a first person narrative. Thompson’s journalism is characterized by its extensive use of satire and drug-induced stream of consciousness writing technique, particularly evident in his novel “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” which was primarily inspired by two drug-fueled trips Thompson took to Las Vegas. The novel describes the death of the American Dream, focusing on how Americans use drugs to escape the realities of life. The story blends fiction and autobiographical elements, making it a hallmark of Thompson’s “Gonzo” style of journalism. Much of Thompson’s work followed this format, and his journalism was inspired extensively by his own experiences, friends, and opinions.
        In Hunter S. Thompson’s interview with The Paris Review, the interviewer seeks to establish the connection between these finished works, and the inspiration behind them. The interview discusses the influence that Thompson’s peers had on his writing. Hunter cites people like poet Allen Ginsberg and author Ken Kesey as fellow “outlaw writers”, writers that were invested in things outside the law, the drug culture in particular. Thompson also cites journalist Tom Wolfe as an individual that showed him it was ok to “cut loose” from conventional journalism, and that one could actually get away with being this type of “outlaw writer”. Hunter makes the distinction that years ago one could be exiled for living outside of the law, yet he and his peers were able to get away with it. This outlaw culture was the subject for much of Thompson’s work, particularly “Fear and Loathing” as well as his piece on the motorcycle gang “Hell’s Angels”.
        To further this connection between Thompson’s finished products and the work that went into it, the interviewer seeks to obtain a grasp on Thompson’s writing process. Thompson discusses how he writes best when he is under a deadline and the influence of drugs, particularly alcohol. Thompson maintains that any writer who claims they can’t work under the influence of drugs or alcohol is lying. “Who the fuck do you think wrote the Book of Revelation? A bunch of stone-sober clerics?” says Thompson. Hunter’s use of drugs and alcohol furthers the notion that much of his work contains autobiographical elements. The drug use that he portrays in his writing reflects Thompson’s own drug habits, particularly the use of psychedelic drugs in “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”.
        The interview goes more in depth investigating Hunter’s writing process. The interviewer asks about everything from Hunter’s preference of the typewriter over a computer, to the kind of music Hunter listens to while he is writing. He asks if there are any particular mnemonic devices that help Hunter when deadlines are upon him, to which he satirically responds “bestiality films”. These types of questions that go behind the scenes of Thompson’s writing serve to inform the reader of how elements of Thompson’s own life influence his writing. These types of questions also serve another purpose. With Thompson being such an esteemed, iconic figure in our culture, these questions almost “humanize” Thompson, showing the reader that even the most acclaimed journalists still have to adhere to a deadline even when they wake up with a raging hangover.
        The rest of the interview covers Thompson’s rise to fame beginning with his time in the Air Force. Hunter discusses some of the works he completed throughout his career, citing how each one came into existence. Thompson appears to have a great deal of apathy for how he and his work are perceived. His novel “The Rum Diaries” was written in the early 1960s but wasn’t published until 1998 because it was rejected so many times. Thompson doesn’t seem to mind, which makes perfect sense for a man who warms up at his typewriter by sending letters out that read “Eat shit and die” and “Fuck you I wouldn’t sell that for a thousand dollars”. For a writer as influential as Thompson, he doesn’t need to care about what people think of his work.

   Hunter S. Thompson committed suicide in his home on February 20^th, 2005. At his funeral, his ashes we fired from a cannon on top of a 153-foot tower shaped like a fist holding a peyote button. Even Thompson’s funeral was no exception to his whimsical, satire filled personality. Thompson remains one of the greatest journalists in history, and he has achieved somewhat of a cult following across the world.  The inventor of “Gonzo journalism”, Thompson leaves behind a legacy of great writing and wisdom.

Pure Being: "It's like I'm here, but I'm not... so I'm not here."

To Jacques Lacan, the tenets of Freudian psychoanalysis are merely stepping stones for further analysis. Lacan took Freud’ psychoanalysis and looked at it through a different set of eyes. Using a Structuralist frame of mind, Lacan took the psychoanalytic theory to a new level of thought. We see the Structuralist thought through the idea that there is no signified, but only a signifier which, in turn, is defined by another signifier and another signifier, and so on and so forth. According to Lacan, our world, our truth, is restricted by language, meaning we only understand a word from its use and relation to another word, or words. He explains this through trace and simulacrum of a presence. Simulacrum, in simplistic terms, is a copy that has no original – a representation of a representation or an idea of an idea. A primary example of a simulacrum would be a dollar. The dollar holds a false representation of value though it imitates the “real” subject of value. In short, the dollar, as a signifier, becomes privileged by the signifier, value. Value is the signifier, being represented by a dollar, but is also a signifier of worth, which could be then signified by the dollar. This also explains and exemplifies metonymy, or the “word-to-word connection.” We place a value on the dollar and therefore categorize what something is worth in dollars. He further explains this through the use of the term spectre.  A spectre, or ghost, is a representation, or copy, of something that no longer exists. The living form that it represents is gone and no trace of the origin can be found. Through this process of metonymy we are able to create the illusion of meaning.
          The illusion of meaning is a broad simulacrum of anything that is “real.” An example of this is if we were to look in the mirror and see ourselves, we would gain a meaning of ourselves but what we see would be a distorted representation of what others might see when they look at us. There is no fixed meaning because it changes with each new perspective. In this case, there is no stable self and we are not truly able to form a coherent self, but we constantly seek to subjugate ourselves and create meaning for ourselves. This realm that we create and that creates us by doing so is the Symbolic. The Symbolic is, in a sense, a cage of language that we are born into and are unable to exit, except through death.  Without it, we are nothing; the Symbolic sphere gives us “meaning” and “value.” By taking the Symbolic and combining it with the Imaginary – image or ideal image, how we see ourselves and others – as well as the Real – that which cannot be represented at all – we create ourselves, we require all three in order to define ourselves.

We use the Symbolic to provide ourselves with the subject of “I” and create meaning for ourselves and produce ego. We use the Imaginary in order to create an ideal image and create the illusion of stability of the Symbolic by making a seeing/thinking connection. We require the Real in order to create something unattainable, something that cannot be understood or controlled because it exists outside of the Symbolic. This void creates a lack of oneness or completeness in our sense of being, so naturally we strive to fill this void, to find a center or origin. We do this through the act of desire. Though, this is unattainable because within the Symbolic everything is unstable and constantly shifting and changing; as a result, our desire constantly changes and shifts with it. This brings truth to the saying, “the grass is always greener on the other side,” meaning that once something is obtained, it is quickly tossed aside for the next thing. This can also be tied back to the signifier-to-signifier relationship where we move from one word to the other in order to find the root or origin of the word and fill the desire to complete the understanding of the word. In a sense, theory is created from desire.

We use theory to gain a better understanding of something – whether it is language, reality, or meaning – we use theory to fill the lack of knowledge and understanding. The problem is theory, like anything within the Symbolic, is on a constant circular track where questions are answered with more questions rather than answers. This means that theory is purely Symbolic. Theory is also part of the desire process by bringing us closer to understanding what we lack, that which is the Real. In understanding that we lack the Real, we come to the realization that “true” identity is not attainable. We then find another way to temporarily fill the void by distracting ourselves from the lack of identity. The process we use for this is called the “death drive.” In the death drive we do not literally kill ourselves, but figuratively kill ourselves; meaning that we release ourselves from the conscious struggle to fill the void. This occurs only during an orgasm, which Lacan calls jouissance. During jouissance, we experience the Real without actually being within the Real. For that moment we experience “blindness” and “nothingness” where thought, desire, and the Symbolic are lost for a moment. The Real exists outside of the Symbolic, and if the Symbolic is what creates meaning or an illusion of meaning for everything, then the Real, in essence, is nothing.

A wonderful analysis of the death drive is shown in a scene of David O’ Russell’s film I ♥ Huckabees. We can see in this scene that the “ball thing” or “pure being,” is exactly what the death drive is trying to achieve: an existence where nothing matters, just to exist outside the Symbolic, without language. “Its like I’m a rock, or a dish of mold. I’m whatever else is around, so I’m free to just exist.” In this scene, the process of “pure being” represents jouissance, or the orgasm; a state when we are able to experience nothingness. During this experience we are taken out of the Symbolic, something we are always trying to attain. However, the character Caterine Vauban, a French philosopher states, “You cannot stay in this state all day…It is inevitable that you are drawn back into human drama, desire and suffering; everything that exists in this imperfect world.” We will forever want what we do not have, exactly as Lacan states in his theory. “Existence is a cruel joke that entices in a form of desire.”
         This leads us to the idea of sexual identity, which is impossible to obtain. You cannot identify through sexual acts or sex because they subdue the desire to fill the void by momentarily relieving the subject of the Symbolic and bringing the subject to a brief state of “nothingness” which is a glimpse of the Real. The identity of a subject is impossible to truly obtain because we are constantly “becoming” something but never are able to truly become something. The search for identity moves away from the idea of the “nothingness” state by striving to seek a logical answer to fill the void. This path then leads back to the death drive. This meaning that sexual identity, like anything else within the Symbolic, is another continuous cycle.

"I suggest, turn off sitcom and read a book."

Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering Kofman’s chose to create a documentary featuring the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Trying to capture the “true” Derrida in a documentary film-despite the generic nature of a documentary- is ironic because Derrida did not believe in capturing any sort of “true” self. The directors play with this irony by including themselves in the film rather than trying to restrain themselves within the typical structure of a documentary. There is a scene in the film where Derrida is walking down the street with the directors and the audience is given an image of the videographer walking alongside and conversing with the philosopher about the peculiarity of being filmed; by presenting themselves in the film alongside Derrida they too are resisting what is expected of a biographical documentary. It seems that the directors understood that Derrida would not be a complying subject and went with a raw version in the already spontaneous genre of their work. The format of the documentary is informal and sporadic; the directors even include scenes where they are viewing already taped footage with Derrida as he gives his input and opinion on what they are watching. In acknowledging their own presence they seem to be poking fun at them being there and why they are there. Another scene where the directors include an image of themselves is when Derrida is picking out a jacket to wear and the woman says that the jacket does not need to match his pants because they are only shooting him above the waist. Again they poke fun at their project by presenting an easy informality in their images. Derrida’s refusal of an essential Derrida defers the meaning of himself. The directors attempt to achieve his refusal of the norm; while Derrida was setting the stage for post-structuralism they were trying to create a new kind of biographical film, perhaps the directors hoped they could mimic the genius of their subject.

There is a distinct image of Derrida when he is walking down the street smoking his pipe and he seems to be observing the world as though he is not a part of it. His slow motion walk paired with an impeccable music choice endows Derrida with an air of intelligence-not superiority-that separates him from the movement around him; he slows down and see what is going on, as though he is suspended in a quiet thoughtfulness. There are various images of Derrida: father, husband, grandfather, scholar and “celebrity”. When reading his work the reader makes assumptions about who he is and our image is in conflict with the representation we are given; would expect him to have a snobby formality about him and we are presented with an image of modest humility. We are presented with a man who keeps diapers and toys for his granddaughter in his son’s old bedroom.

Derrida resists the interview process, he acts as though he is uncomfortable with the attention and constantly draws the attention back to the camera. There is a scene in the documentary where Derrida is getting on an elevator and someone asks him if the camera bothers him, he replies that it used to be very difficult to ignore but he has improved. He acknowledges the camera’s presence when the crew asks him how he met his wife and he says “I can’t tell you everything with the camera here.” There seems to be a strong focus on the camera and what it means to be there. In another scene the director asks him if he regrets allowing them to videotape him and rather than giving a direct reply he asks, “Do you?” Derrida constantly avoids or twists questions to fit the answer he wants to give. “What philosopher would you want your mother to be?” is a question that makes Derrida smile, he even calls it a “good question” but then he does not give a direct answer. Instead he says that his mother could never be a philosopher because, to him, philosophers are only men, he ties a masculinity to the title. This struggle alludes to the directors’ desire to make a documentary about his ideas, however Derrida refuses to be classified in any constricted way and complicates each interview.  

The film does not outline Derrida’s ideas with a specific clarity. When the directors accepted that Derrida was not going to an easy subject, a reality they may have prepared for, they chose to hide his ideas in the film structure.  Derrida behaves in very post-structuralist way when he points out artificiality of trying to attempt to create meaning in a documentary. Derrida is shot sitting in front of a mirror and the audience does not know if we are seeing the actual Derrida or only a reflection. This deliberate style is an expression of deconstruction; the question of what is real emerges. Questions of what is real also emerge when the directors zoom in on a television interview with Derrida, because now the audience is watching a television on a television. The improvisation technique used to format the film is linked to bricolage.

“Jaques Derrida”- Scritti Politti

I'm in love with a Jacques Derrida

Read a page and know what I need to

Take apart my baby's heart

I'm in love

I'm in love with a Jacques Derrida

Read a page and know what I need to

Britain based singer/ songwriter Green Gartside’s “Scritti Politti” pays tribute to Derrida and his philosophies on deconstruction. The song suggests that after reading a page from Jacques Derrida’s book the singer learned how to deconstruct the structure-his “baby’s heart”. Now endowed with the ability to win over the girl’s affection the singer also finds himself in love with Derrida. He is then filled with gratitude towards Derrida for sharing his brilliance he falls in love with him as well. To read more about the song and Derrida’s dinner with Gartside click the link below!

file:///Users/francsi/Desktop/Scritti%20Politti.webarchive

"You are nothing, I am nothing" [without lanaguge] - The Death of Ferdinand de Saussure

The Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure states, “the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary” (35). In this case, the signifier is a word, or an arrangement of sounds, and the signified is the object the word represents. What he means by this is that language cannot adequately represent reality. Our system of linguistics does not have the ability to take the place of actual objects. Humans create words to symbolize ideas, but there is no real relationship between the actual concept, or object, and the word that symbolizes it. A word is simply a human construct made up of a series of characters that represents an actual, concrete thing. It doesn’t matter what word we use to describe an object, for the signified will not change in reality, even when we change the signifier. Check here for a more in-depth analysis of semiotics - the study of sign processes, or signification and communication of signs and symbols.

For example, we can have more than one word to describe something. A couch is still the same thing even if one refers to it as a sofa. A soda is still the same even if it is called a tonic. This arbitrary bond between the signifier and the signified is particularly evident when we consider slang terms. We have language that is the “accepted vernacular”. These are the signifiers that are politically correct and used widely amongst a group of people. Most people use the word “father” or “dad”, but “pops” and “old man” are two slang terms that refer to the same thing. The fact that we can come up with these crude words to replace signifiers that already exist renders the relationship between the signifier and the signified useless and arbitrary. Humans simply assign meaning to words and everyone agrees that they will refer to a concrete thing. These signifiers have no real value of their own, they are simply letters put together that represent an idea.

To further prove the arbitrariness of a bond between the signifier and the signified, one can also look at the differences between English and a foreign language; French for example. In fact, the existence of multiple languages proves that a bond is arbitrary in that, there are many words in different cultures for the same finite, objective, thing. In the English language when one hears the word “salad,” it conjures up thoughts of a plate, or bowl, filled with vegetables, and maybe coated in dressing. However, if translated into French, “salade” can mean two distinct things – our idea of salad, or specifically “lettuce.” A similar situation with the word “door.” In English, one thinks of a door being a hinged, or sliding barrier at the entrance of a room, car, etc. When translated the French, “porte” brings up two distinct images – what our “English” mind thinks of, but it can also mean a “gate;” as in the hinged barrier of a fence. The word “porte” has a different value than the word “door.”

As one can see, the signifier is completely subjective, and the sounds we use to distinguish the signified have no real connection or bond. An American saying or reading the word “door” has a different, subjective idea of a door than a French person reading or saying the word “porte.” To the French they have to distinguish between two different meanings. This arbitrary bond goes even further due to the uniqueness of each humans mind and experience. The way one experiences a door (the shape, the size, the color, etc.) will not compare to the way another person experiences a door. This shows that language is just specific sounds affiliated with a concrete object. However, these sounds have no relative meaning or importance to the reality and essence of that object.

In relation to Saussure’s idea of the arbitrary bond between the signifier and signified, and the literary theory of Structuralism, The Magnetic Fields, an eminent indie/synth Boston-based band, wrote a song called “The Death of Ferdinand de Saussure.” Along with the nostalgia-induced high that comes from listening and remembering my childhood of 90's television riddled with The Magnetic Fields, sprouts a new emotion of literary criticism and analysis though the lyrics. The songs lyrics tell a narrative of the “shooting” of Ferdinand de Saussure in which Ferdinand says “you can’t use a bulldozer to study orchids.” Structuralism, which theorizes that everything plays on a central structure, argues the privileged have a better understanding of a text due to the aesthetic effect. The aesthetic affect works on the cultured and uncultured, and is based on the inequality of those who can interpret and those who cannot. This inequality forms a binary of dominant/dominated, which plays back into the system of the state ideological apparatus (ISA).

When applying this theory to the lyric “you can’t use a bulldozer to study orchids” one could postulate the bulldozer to be the uncultured and the orchid, to be the cultured. The orchid is cultured, and thus dominant, because it holds beauty and sophistication whereas the bulldozer is uncultured due to its clumsiness and robotic aspects, thus the dominated one (it’s also controlled by a human, but that’s an analysis for a different day).
When including linguistics into the analysis, Structuralism theorizes that there is nothing, no truth or reality, outside the system of language. This parallels perfectly with the chorus of “The Death of Ferdinand de Saussure” –

"He said so we don't know anything
You don't know anything
I don't know anything
about love
But we are nothing
You are nothing
I am nothing
without love…

His fading words were
We don't know anything"

Now, if The Magnetic Fields were only to replace the words “about/without love” with “without language” this would, in essence, explain the Structuralist theory that nothing exists outside the system of language. Language is a system of differences with no positive terms. It’s certainly quite a stretch, however these lyrics do encompass some of the ideas of Saussure, language and Structuralism.

Communists Fuel Capitalist’s Fire

Walking into a trendy clothing store and finding a copy of Karl Marx’s book, Communist Manifesto, on a table with this year’s most fashionable jeans is ironic. As these jeans were most likely made in a sweatshop somewhere, having placed them next to a book whose fundamental purpose is to oppose the exploitation of labor is somewhat of a paradox. There is an ideological contradiction here, between communism, which seeks to make people equal by eliminating social class and giving people equal control of the economy, and the jeans which promote further the ideas of capitalism. Though on a small scale, the jeans are meant to set people apart as trendsetters, making them “cooler” than everyone else, they largely represent how society buys into the capitalistic mindset. While buying the jeans may set the purchaser apart from those that do not have the jeans; the buyer does not recognize the exploitation required to make them, which certainly does not encourage the buyer to take a stand against said exploitation. Thus by purchasing them, the customer unknowingly furthers the exploitation of capitalism.

Another example of this same irony is in the mass production of images of Che Guevara’s face. He appears on t-shirts, key chains, magnets, buttons, you name it, he’s on it. However, those that purchase these commodities clearly do not even know what he stood for. Che Guevara was a Marxist revolutionary, who participated in the Cuban Revolution under Fidel Castro. He fought for the values that corporate America constantly tries to repress. His image on mass produced commodities is a blatant contradiction of all he stood for. His image has become a product for consumers, attempting to show dissatisfaction of the inequalities within capitalist societies. Most people sporting his image believe that simply displaying his image is enough activism thus rather than starting a revolution, they purchase an item with a revolutionary idea. Through this small, insignificant act of “rebellion”, people ignorantly contribute to the hegemony of corporate capitalism.

Sporting events, along with the culture of being a fan of a particular team, are another outlet in which the hegemonic control by corporate capitalists. Working class people are targeted by sports advertising at games, in bars, sporting goods stores, and even at home. Working class people that are fans of sports teams focus a lot of their time, in addition to large sums of their money to support their teams. They spend money at stores to buy apparel and other items with their team’s logo, at the bar while they watch games, to purchase tickets to see live games, at live games, and on their cable bill to watch the games at home. Who benefits from all of this spending? Corporations that are constantly growing richer while consumers are distracted by being a part of their team’s fan culture. This shows how ruling class ideology (corporate capitalism) seeks to assure the satisfaction of the working classes, in order to maintain their power and dominance.

The article "Marxism and Social Hegemony in Sport" discusses how capitalists exploit different groups of people through sports. It brings up the point that athletes themselves are used to create entertainment in order to earn a profit for capitalists. It also discusses three main distinctions between the elite and the marginalized within the sporting world. First it discusses how female athletes are oppressed by male athletes due to the belief that males are more biologically suited to play sports than females, and are therefore better. Hegemony through sport also oppresses various races and African Americans in particular have been oppressed by the ruling class of white men. In the past, they were not given many opportunities to use first-rate sports equipment or facilities in order to practice and become better, furthering the oppressive nature of sports. Later, when they were better integrated within the field, the status they achieved through sports was still temporary and did not lead to upward social mobility. They were also given roles deemed by the ruling class to be acceptable for them, such as easy ones that required little thought. This oppression allowed the ruling class (whites) to maintain their dominant position in society. Lastly, hegemony through sport can also be seen in the class structure within the field. Sports initially became popular amongst those who had higher class. Lower class people had less time, money, and opportunity to use better equipment and play on better teams. By the time they had equal opportunities, the ruling class already had control of game formats, equipment, and locations, allowing them to oppress the working class. This article shows how the dominant class needs to oppress in order to survive, and has found various ways to oppress.

All of this ties into literature because one must understand the author in order to understand the author’s work. Literature may contain capitalist ideology and ideas that prioritize and side with the ruling class, without explicitly stating so. Whether it is the author’s intent to say these things or not, the author’s beliefs and ideas will come through in the undertones of their work. Texts express a logic in themselves, whether the author consciously takes a hold of its meaning or not. So, every text contains both dominant ideology and those that oppose it, even if the opposing ideas are not expressed in a straightforward manner.

Chris Craig’s post helped us realize that when looking at texts where the ruling class ideology is favored, the text demonstrates that though the values of the ruling class are not universal, it needs the lower class in order to survive. The ruling class keeps power relations between itself and the working class one sided. He exemplifies how many things are distractions for the working class to keep them satisfied, but oppressed at the same time. The working class is ruled under hegemonic control, because they are offered what they think are choices, while in reality everything is decided by the dominant class. Using Craig’s example, the working class purchases Che Guevara t-shirts in order to rebel against the dominant class of corporate capitalism, when really all they are doing is contributing to corporate capitalism’s wealth. They think they are acting independently and rebelling against capitalist ideas, when they are doing exactly what corporate capitalism wants them to do: contributing to their wealth.

Stockhausen 9/11 Comment

Society avoids rattling a moral normative because we are discursively produced to sensationalize anything horrific. That which becomes even more frightening than the thing itself, is the suggestion to resist that ideology which the masses has turned it into. In the circumstance of Stockhausen’s remark that the planes colliding into the World Trade Center was “the greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos” many were repulsed. Anyone who is being honest would say that their reaction is to turn away from this statement in horror; however, if we defy the sentimentalism that has been imposed upon us from the beginning, we can begin to deconstruct the meaning of Stockhausen’s words.

Stockhausen was looking at the composition of this terrorist attack because he is a renowned composer. He admired, not in a way of longing to be like the terrorists, but with a kind of awe that anyone would have the ability to shock and vastly change the lives of millions in a single act. He marveled at the planning and execution of such a composition that was so great, so enormous, that it killed those who were involved. He was not fond of the terrorists and was not trying to congratulate them with a proverbial “well done”, but he was able to deconstruct 9/11 without concerning himself with the stereotypes or worrying that his deconstruction would offend others.

Freud’s theory of the uncanning is the concept of an instance where something is simultaneously familiar and foreign, this causes immense discomfort and causes rejection, because it is easier to reject than to rationalize (Gray). Society as a majority does not accept Stockhausen and his comment but cannot help but cast endless judgment in his direction. We are horrified yet obsessed at the same time. There is a paradoxical nature of being attracted to, yet repulsed by what Stockhausen is tapping into. The cultural normative forces us into the motivational drive to reduce dissonance; however, in our discomfort and our dislike for the lack of harmony we find pleasure. Dissonance is the clash resulting from disharmony or unsuitable elements; or a lack of musical harmony among musical notes (Gray). Does Stockhausen purposely ignite cognitive dissonance in his comment or is it innate, the subconscious tendency of a composer, to create a new harmony? It’s possible that we all have a desire to create something that will not go unnoticed, whether the reaction from the public is good or bad. Do we merely need attention-any kind of attention- need to be talked about so that we know that people are listening? Isn’t it this push and pull between anti-intellectualism and deconstruction that keeps us moving forward? Or does it keep us from moving forward?

It seems that because of the sensitivity surrounding the issue, 9/11 has been constructed into an image rather than just an event. The media and society does not want to offend or upset people who are directly or indirectly connected to this day. We censor what is said and how it is said in order to avoid hurting someone’s feelings or coming across as lacking compassion. In addition, anyone who looks at 9/11 through a new lens runs the risk of seeming antipatriotic and undeserving of the title “American”.  This filtering effect that our every thought and idea takes place not only around us but within us-we are trained to tell our minds not to go to a certain place. We tell ourselves not to think this or that because it is dark and politically incorrect-without our knowledge society has grown to such power that it stops individuality before it even has the chance to emerge from within us. Stockhausen penetrates this control with his insightful words, not with the purpose to offend but to push us into a new way of thinking.