Derrida on Film

It is very clear that Derrida resists being interviewed. He does not resist or reject the interviewers. Instead, he makes it very clear to them that he will only be responsive in the way he wishes to be. An example of this would is when Derrida is questioned about his relationship with Maquerite, he said he would only provide "superficial" information, a response the interviewer did not want to hear. Derrida makes viewers feel as though the process of interviewing is irrelevant, as recordings are seen as an image or symbol. In the documentary, Derrida makes it known that we are too consumed by media and what is recorded can be labeled false. He states that we are always being recorded and watched and thus we have been accustomed to it. Derrida himself shows that he is used to being recorded, this is shown to viewers when a camera crew puts a mic on him while he is in mid conversation with guests at an event. Derrida acts as though he is not fazed. He confirms that we are always being documented and recorded.
At the near end of his career and his life, it is evident that Derrida took the opportunity to express to viewers what he thought was important. He made this clear during an interview where the sitcom Seinfeld was brought up. When the question of the show was raised, he looked at the interviewer in disgrace and said that society needed to get back to reading and studying. Proving what Derrida wanted from society all along, and that was to think.

My take on Saussure

“in language there are only differences without positive terms" (40)

Saussure is stating that the way to understand language is by having differences. We understand dark by understanding light. We know something and understand it by what it is not. For example, we understand happiness and joy by knowing that it is not sorrow. I believe when Saussure states that differences are without positive terms, he is referring to relativity. Saussure is stating that the structure of the word will stay the same but its value and meaning may differ. Thus, there can be no definitive term because it is relative to its society and likely to change in time.
It is also important to note the relationship between the signified and signifier when reading Saussure. The signified and signifier break down the linguistic structure and give value and meaning to language. The signifier relates to the sound or image and the concept or icon represents the signified. Thus the two representations give meaning. When Saussure references that differences are not positive, he is referring to the possibility of the signified (icon or concept) being susceptible to change and modification.
What I take from Saussure is that our understanding of language is based on binary opposition, understanding language by what it does not represent or symbolize. I understand Saussure and structuralism by simply viewing language in a contextual form, looking at pattern, symmetry and unity within the text.
I view the reading and discussion on post structuralism earlier this week as an aid to understanding Saussure’s statement. Post structuralism provides another theory to compare what Saussure was addressing. Saussure’s argument was based more on linguistics whereas post structuralists are more abstract and base their theory on philosophical terms.

Siding with Marx... this time

Liberal humanism seeks to interpret literature beyond the works’ historical and social context. In contrast liberal humanism seeks to explain literature through analyzing the work itself. When comparing liberal humanism to Marxist theory it is most interesting to look at one tenant of liberal humanism in particular: tenant five. Tenant five seeks to explain individualism within literature. The individuality that liberal humanists refer to in literature is that a character will transcend all outside forces, remaining unaffected throughout the work, and thus true to their innate self.
Marxism strongly challenges tenant five of liberal humanism. Marxist theory states that there is a base and superstructure which dictates all literature. Thus, literature is a reflection of historical, social and cultural influences. Specifically, Marx points out that culture is largely based and determined by the economy. The notion that a work is implicitly reflective of the economy and societal forces completely rejects liberal humanism in regards to human transcendence. According to Marx, it is impossible for a character to be unaffected by societal factors. Thus, according to Marx, a character’s true self or innate being will not visible within the context of literary work.
I must say that I agree with Marx on this one. Think back to your youth and how you were taught to approach a book in school. From what I remember of those days, we looked at literature from a cultural standpoint and analyzed character development within that format. I can think back to when I learned to read, some of the first chapter books I read where “The American Girl” books. These books were all based off of the American dream and the young female characters were representative of this. You may not be able to relate to that particular example, but think about the books your teacher assigned, often times they held significant historical meaning. Stories of the Civil Rights movement, the Holocaust, and the Revolutionary War were often integrated in our academic work in elementary, middle and high school. Thus, all of us were trained to study a character influenced by the historical and cultural factors of the time. We were not trained to look at their inner being that was supposed to remain constant in literature, instead we came in contact with characters that were molds of the society they lived in and typically remained changing and developing throughout the work due to overriding social factors.

As a student nearing the end of her undergraduate career- and not welcoming the end with open arms, I feel as though this class will prove to be one of the most important in my academic career. As a double major in English communications and sociology, I’m sure I will find that the theories studied in class will be pertinent to both majors. When studying theory, whether it is Marxism or Feminist theory, it tells the reader a great deal about society in the time in which the theory was first developed. In some of my sociology courses, I’ve had the opportunity to explore many theories, but I was mainly analyzing them from a sociological perspective, I did little with analyzing the theories in terms of literature. This course will be an opportunity to study theory in terms of literature. I’m interested to look into the developing of literary theory and how it had an impact in universities and the academic world. In this course, I look forward to learning in more detail about Structuralism and Poststructuralism. Though engaging in those theories may prove to be a bit of an obstacle, I look forward to the challenge.