Response Paper on Post Structuralism
The idea of meaninglessness that is tantamount to the belief of Post structuralism came into being with the ‘age without reason’, otherwise known as the post- modern era. While defying the possibility of a ‘structure’, it established a center of belief that there are only multiple interpretations, but never a meaning. A word may be interpreted in many ways; it may generate multiple sound images or represent a number of concepts, but until and unless all of them are congruent to each other, defining the ‘meaning’ of the word will always be impossible. If we take into consideration the ever famous example of ‘God’, the sign may lack a concrete signifier and/or a concrete signified which makes it impossible to be defined. There are indeed as many sound images (names) and concepts (beliefs) about God as there are functioning minds in the world, thus implying that what one may decide the ‘meaning’ of this word to be may never coincide with another’s. Hence the word’s meaning may never amount to anything as the sign of God for each person becomes a concept in her/his own mind which she/he may never be able to exactly convey to another.
In his essay Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences (1970), Derrida plays with the words and their meanings deliberately, to assert his point. He implies ‘traces’ of other meanings in his statements, making his essay a Post-structuralistic read. He adds to Saussure’s theory of a sign being made up of a signifier and signified, by insisting that a sign would also contain ‘n more no. of signifieds’ and thus even the sign in question as perceived by more than one person may never be the same and only be a ‘trace’ of that sign, whatever it may really be, that is, if it can be ever determined.
The Essay on Trojan: Gothic Architecture And Word Meaning Word
What Trojan hero did the Romans considered themselves descended from? – Aeneas. What Greek historian described and explained Rome’s rise to power? – Polybius Who were the legendary twin brothers who founded Rome in 753 B.C.? – Romulus and Remus What three things did Polybius consider the main causes of Rome’s greatness? Which Hellenistic philosophy taught that we should strive for “ ...
Derrida is against the ‘logo-centric’ attitude of Western Philosophers but he does accept the simple fact that one may never be rid of it. He aims to dig up the history behind and deconstruct social constructs by inverting common binary oppositions. For example, the uneasiness and fear of society’s reaction towards the idea of gifting a doll to a boy child showers light upon the hierarchies set up within society in the binaries of ‘man’ and ‘woman’.
He is also against the idea of the transcendental signifier because it can’t be defined without being differentiated from another transcendental signifier. But the idea of more than one center is not explicitly explained. The explanation of the fact that the existence of any structure is impossible without a center using the example of Levi Strauss’ work, however, seems wanting. That his discourse, both, “reflects itself and criticizes itself”, makes one understand Derrida’s technique of writing better.
He introduces the concept of ‘free play’ which attempts to ignite an idea without any center, if that is ever possible. This concept reminds one of Barthes’ idea of the ‘birth of a reader’ by the ‘death of the author’ which is only possible when one disengages oneself from the center of the author, who is away from the whole structure of interpretation.
MH Abrams in his essay The Deconstructive Angel (1977) seems to debate with himself for several pages about Derrida’s deconstruction theory and Miller’s adaptation of it, but concludes that the absence of ‘a’ meaning is rather a good reason for the continuity of healthy debate. He writes about the substantiality of errors that may or may not occur in a historian’s interpretation of another’s work, but fails to mention who should be the judge of them?
His essay is basically a reply to Hillis Miller’s review of Abrams’s book, Natural Supernaturalism (1973) and is replete with contradictions from both the critics. Miller asserts his belief in Nietzsche’s contradictory statements about the possibility of multiple interpretations and that of no interpretation. This also stands synchronous to the first paragraph written in this paper.
The Essay on Does dream interpretation really work
Dreaming is one of our most intimate experiences. Every dream, every night, is very unique. Our dream world, however confusing, frightening, or even sexy, reveals all of our secrets. Every human emotion and experience can be reflected in our dreams. They mirror our deepest desires, hopes, fears, and fantasies. Our hidden self, the one we try to keep from the outside world, emerges from our ...
Miller believes that Abrams can never be right in his interpretation and Abrams in turn, labels Miller a ‘deconstructive angel’ implying the same for him. Abrams also seems to misrepresent Derrida’s hold with the printed text as the ‘only’ truth.
Roland Barthes makes his point clear with the perfectly aimed examples of authors and artists like Baudelaire, Van Gogh and Tchaikovsky, framed within a small structured essay The Death of the Author (1967).
He questions the actual authority of the author, claiming that he is the ‘product of our society.’
The concept of considering writing as an explanation, or a means of ‘recording’ data, is dubbed old by Barthes who says that it is rather, a kind of a performing art which is ‘meaningless’ without a reader. He calls the claim to decipher a text futile, and the refusal to give importance to an ‘ultimate meaning’ (of a text, or even the world), liberating.
To see a text from the point of view of its author or even critic, that is, if their point of view can be ever properly deciphered, is to limit it and the possibilities of exploring it with one’s own interpretation. For this purpose, ‘death of the author’ is essential. However, what if the text contains an experience that may only be understood by the presence of the author? One can’t completely dismiss the author’s genius as a recycled ‘dictionary’ of language, culture and experience.
Similar to the approach of New Criticism, he stresses on the superiority of the text/work over that of the producer. Barthes finds faults in the method of understanding a writer’s ‘person’ to judge his work because of the very transition of an idea from the author’s mind to his culturally effected way of writing and then to a reader with a different perspective, being long and dubious. Language and its ambiguous nature is also discussed by Abrams. When considering a text, it is essential to differentiate between an author and a narrator as separate beings. Barthes praises Brecht’s thought and technique that he applied to theatre, to ‘distance’ the audience from the author.
Would a Shakespearian sonnet be as famous as it is if its author was anonymous or unheard of? But, then again, if there are multiple interpretations, who decides the piece of work’s worth? A work’s value may not only be evaluated for its own sake but also for what it ‘means’ to each reader.
The Essay on Author Text Reader Story
"The striking peculiarity of Shakespeare's mind is its power of communication with all other minds." This is the first quotation that really jumped out at me. I have always wondered what make some books really popular while other books tend to just fizzle out and never really get much acclaim. Why do books like The Da Vinci Code go to the top of the New York Times bestseller list while others like ...
