[the] ENGLISH-BLOG [.com]

Cecilia B
Dr. Lee Hobbs
ENG 435
18th February 2009
1. Concerning signs and signifiers, structuralists claim that human utterances are typically unambiguous and follow the simple signifier + signified formula. How do deconstructionists depart from this formula?
- Deconstructionists argue that statements are unstable and ambiguous because any one signifier can have a range of meanings. Thus, a reworking of the structuralist formula would resemble: sign= signifier + signified…+ signified (Tyson 252).
2. For critic Jacques Derrida, where does meaning lie in language?
- Meanings in words only appears through their distinction from other words (Tyson 253) and are a result of the differences between signifiers.

According to Tyson, what influences how I see the world? (The language I'm born into.)
Sub question: this is called the_____ quality of language. (Ideological)

According to Tyson, how is a culture's ideologies passed on? (Language) Do these ideologies exist independently of us?

For deconstructionists, do we shape our language or does it shape us?

Kristin Brittain

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

2/16/09

Deconstruction questions and answers

1. According to deconstruction how is language nonreferential?
A: Language is nonreferential because it consists of a chain of signifiers. It refers to neither things in the world or our concepts of things and it is made up of only the play of the signifiers.
2. How do binary oppositions support ideologies in the realm of deconstruction?
A: Part of deconstruction is exploring the ways language determines experiences. People tend to conceptualize experiences by using binary oppositions. Each binary opposition is hierarchal with one term privileged over the other. By identifying the privileged term within the opposition the ideology is discovered.

Sarah Tatko
Dr. Hobbs
Eng-435
18 February 2009
Deconstruction Reading Check
Q – What is Derrida’s view of language?
A – “It is not a reliable tool of communication” (241) which most people feel it is. Instead, he claims that it is loose and made up of experiences that ideologies have programmed into people and they do not even realize it.

Q – What are the two main purposes for deconstructing a text?
A – 1) “To reveal the text’s undecidability” 2) to unveil the ideologies that construct the text

Sarah Tatko
Dr. Hobbs
Eng-435
18 February 2009
Deconstruction Reading Check
Q – What is Derrida’s view of language?
A – “It is not a reliable tool of communication” (241) which most people feel it is. Instead, he claims that it is loose and made up of experiences that ideologies have programmed into people and they do not even realize it.

Q – What are the two main purposes for deconstructing a text?
A – 1) “To reveal the text’s undecidability” 2) to unveil the ideologies that construct the text

Travis Rathbone
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
17 February 2009

Deconstructionism Quiz Questions

Q: Practitioners of Formalism champion the equation sign = signifier + signified. How would Deconstructionists rewrite this formula? Fill in the blank: sign = signifier + _____

A: Sign = signifier + signified . . . + signified.
Communication can be explained as a sliding accumulation of signifieds (Tyson 252).

Q: What is meant by the phrase “language mediates our experience of ourselves and the world” (Tyson 253).

A: The language in which we are indoctrinated with determines how we interact with the world. For example, we might experience snow differently if we had fifty different words to describe it.

Jessica P.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
2/18/09

Short Answer Question:

Q: Like Structuralists, Deconstructionists analyze language through the break down of grammatical structure and communication elements. Both literary theories use the word sign to refer to a basic element of communication. What is this formula?

A: Sign = signifier + signified

Discussion Question:

Q: Why does language and literature have the same characteristics in deconstructionism? Bonus: What are these characteristics?

A: Deconstructionism analyzes literature through analyzing its elements—language.
There are three characteristics: dynamic, ambiguous, and unstable.

Wesley Johnson
Hobbs
Eng 435
22 February 2009
Précis 4: “The Will to Power”
The article “The Will to Power,” by Friedrich Nietzsche, is a philosophical discussion on the nature of truth. Specifically this article extends from the structuralist notion of objectivity as potentially subjective. However, Nietzsche delves into deconstruction as he explores how everything is subjective. Even “Truth” becomes scrutinized as a constructed ideal.
Initially, Nietzsche posits that, as humans, we are constantly seeking to categorize information. But, the problem with this is that we only have a few ways to catalog things. Therefore, we try to fit new things into old schemes. And, this is where we develop our notion of equality. If something new fits into an old category, it is equal. Also, Nietzsche emphasizes that from equality, we develop “Truth.” But, and this distinction is very similar to Derrida’s term différance, our “truth” develops from falsity. That is, we establish truth by separating it from falsity. So, in thinking that the false is knowable, the “Truth” is created.
However, Nietzsche goes on to show that human reason is not even a truth. Reason has been constructed by humans and what determines truth is agreed upon. Therefore, reason is not a viable way to dilenate anything. Here, Nietzsche illustrates the falsity of life. Though humans think that life is honest and clean, because our notions of reality, truth, falsity, and life in general are not “True” in and of themselves, life iteself is
a falshood. From this, Nietzsche’s overreaching point develops. If life is false, than the desire for humans to seek “truth” is simply a attempt to catagorize things. This is the will to truth. Looking for truth is an attempt to secure a constant in life. It is a passive act that can be done with ease and withought much thought. But, Nietzsche’s title, “The Will to Power,” comes into play in that instead of searching for truth, one should seek to make the world a better place. That is, instead of trying to secure the world in terms of constant “Truths,” humans should try to create a new world. Based upon different parameters and ideologies. We should create instead of catagorize.

Work Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich. “The Will to Power.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 72-75.

Sarah Tatko
Dr. Hobbs
Eng-435
23 February 2009
Deconstruction of Writing
Barbara Johnson outlines the different theories of writing in her essay “Writing”. Her main focus is the connection between writing and the theoretical “revolution” in France that occurred in 1967; yet, she begins by providing an overview on how writing was perceived by different theories throughout the years (Johnson 340). It is important to understand the history of the perception of writing because they all link together and progressively build off of one another.
Roland Barthes is a key contributor to understanding writing and he wrote a book entitled Writing Degree Zero in 1953 which charts literature’s movement into the “religious” status of Literature which actually lead to the death of literature because it caused a split between “work” and “text”. A work is defined as the classical idea of literature and is closed, finished, and only a “reliable representational object”; while text is a modern concept of being open, an infinite process, and the generation meaning (Johnson 341). Both of these concepts are perceptions of the written word. Barthes’ interest does not lie in the difference between the two but the tension between Literature as an object and text as a process. His theory of writing owes a lot to the theories of Marxism and psychoanalysis which is influenced by structuralism.
A brief overview of structuralism is it is based upon a system which is a set of relations governed by rules. There is the signifier and the signified which is a part of a sign and represents a convention whether it is societal or literary. This links to Marxism because it helps to create an analogy between the liberation of the signifier and the “rebellion against idealist repression” because the signifier is a symbol of a society’s ideals (Johnson 342).
The link to psychoanalysis lies in the relationship between unconscious manifestations and the signifier, the signifier is symbolic of the manifestations. The signified can only be determined through the “signifying chain” which resembles an unconscious foreign language and by following the chain then one can find insight into the meaning of the signifier (Johnson 342). These links between Marxism and the psychoanalysis theories are important to Saussure and structuralism because it is used to show that signifiers can “generate effects even when the signified is unknown” which leads to the idea that writing is more than simply the transaction of words.
Derrida responds to the idea that writing is more than words on a page and through his Deconstruction theory he points out that speech is not primary to writing, which is the common belief. He argues that speech cannot be privileged because even though the words go directly to a listener’s ear does not mean that meaning is comprehended immediately; rather, it lacks the immediacy that was originally thought to be there (Johnson 343). Derrida points out that many writings try to establish speech as the primary which only further establishes the paradox that speech is not privileged.
Derrida’s theory of writing is that the “other” needs to be taken into account during the act. This means that reading also explores the gaps, the differences, the margins, the figures, and the echoes that are present on the page; take all aspects of writing into account because “the reader’s task is to read what is written rather than simply attempt to intuit what might have been meant” (Johnson 346).


Work Cited
Johnson, Barbara. “Writing.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 340-347.

Ava Littlefield
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
22 September 2009

Supplementing the Signifier

According to Jacques Derrida, author of “Of Grammatology”, “writing in the metaphysical tradition is a recurring delinquent” (Derrida 300). Derrida implies that whenever a word is used, it is a direct result of something else. He argues that “writing is a signifier of a signifier” (Derrida 300). Derrida asserts that what writers like Rousseau did not understand are that “writing shares the same structure of supplementation as difference” (Derrida 300). What Derrida implies is that writing is a result of a signifier that signifies something else. Derrida noted that the definition of language was “a moment of presence that is prior to all significations” (Derrida 300). Derrida’s argument is that even language relied on a signifier. He argues that the presence of signifiers cannot be isolated from the characteristics of writings (Derrida 300).

Derrida’s deconstructive approach to writing was to “notice the a-logical, a-human processes that make our thinking possible while also making it other than what we think” (Derrida 301). He attempts to shift the focus away from the logo’s and place more emphasis on the fact that “our thinking is made possible by process of signification and by movements of differance that lie outside our subjective control” (Derrida 301). Derrida was concerned with finding out why we apply certain signifiers to the signified. He argues that the process of applying a signifier to the signified is flawed because the object, idea, written word, and signified that we are identifying with is a result of another signifier.

Derrida states that “writing or signification has always had a duel meaning” (Derrida 302). Writing, in other words, is not free from influence; “it is a secondary addition to ideas remembered” (Derrida 301). It is also represents inability to recollect the “truth of mental speech or ideas” (Derrida 301). The dual meaning of writing is one aspect of the way that writing can be deconstructed.

Derrida asserts that over the last twenty centuries that the “name of language has been transformed into writing” (Derrida 303). The problem, according to Derrida, is that the signifier now takes up a double meaning, “the signifier of a signifier begins to go beyond the extension of language” (Derrida 303). This transference of the signifier of language to writing “destroys the concept of “sign” and its entire logic” (Derrida 304). Language no longer represents language. It now represents the process of writing. This transference misrepresents writing because “the concept of writing exceeds and comprehends that of language” (Derrida 305). For Derrida, the natural signification that exists between language and writing is what he is attempting to expose.

Derrida also states that “the order of the signified is never contemporary” (Derrida 313). What he implies is that the ideal, object, or word being signified can never be new because they are always directly influenced by a familiar signifier. Something will always trigger the individual to associate the word, idea, or object with something else. It is “one illusion among many, since it is the condition of the very idea of truth” (Derrida 314). The point that Derrida is trying to stress is that everything is influenced by something else, and that the individual interpretation of anything is limitless.

Work Cited

Derrida, Jacques. “Of Grammatology.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. New York: Blackwell, 1998. 300-14.

Ava L.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
22 February 2009

Reading Check Questions on Deconstruction

1.What does Derrida consider to be the two most important characteristics of language?

A.The play on signifiers continually defers, or postpones meaning.

B.The meaning that it produces is a result of the way we distinguish one signifier from another.

2.Identify the three main points discussed in the chapter concerning the deconstruction of literature.

A.Language is dynamic, ambiguous, and unstable.

B.Language has no stable meaning, no center, and no fixed ground.

C.The identities that human beings assign to language are fragmented and are a result of what we choose to believe or invent.

Discussion Question

What does Tyson mean by “revealing a text’s undecidabiltiy and how is this accomplished?

A.Tyson is referring to the fact that the text may possess many possible meanings, so it cannot contain one meaning. In order to accomplish revealing the indecisiveness within the text the reader must recognize the various interpretations, show how these interpretations conflict with one another, and present how these conflicts produce other interpretations.

Jessica P.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
2/23/09

A Précis of Differance

Jacques Derrida states in his article, Differance, that differance is the root word for combining both meanings of the verb “to differ”. Separated from difference by a silent a, differance is multivalent, referring to differing as both an interval of spacing/temporalizing and of distinction. Not characterized by the passive or active voice, differance uses the middle voice and is placed in the present, linking the past to the future.

Differance is at the root of everything. In conjunction with Sassure’s philosophy, language is comprised solely of differences which are effects. Thus, differance links the play of differences within a language, assuming that an opposition exists between speech and language.

Differance is at the root of metaphysics also as the self-presence of consciousness is a force that is never present, only a play of differences and quantities. Furthermore, Freud states that all differences are involved in the creation of unconscious traces with which are named, moments of differance.

An inconceivable factor with which consciousness is comprised of, Differance existed before everything, even Being—God. Thus, Being stemmed from differance. The origin of differance is unknown, as Heidegger states that the difference between Being and beings has been forgotten by metaphysics, disappearing without a trace. However, Derrida claims that although differance is neither a word nor a concept, it the essence of everything, speaking through every language.

Works Cited
Derrida, Jacques. “Difference”. Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004.278-299.

Travis Rathbone
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
23 February 2009

Deconstructing Baudrillard: Simulacra and Simulation

Jean Baudrillard begins his critique of the authenticity of reality in his essay Simulacra and Simulation with a twist on a Borges story. In this fable, cartographers build a map of the Empire that is so intricate and detailed it covers the land from which it was modeled, and when the natural land begins to fall into decay, it is the map that remains intact and is mistaken for the real. Baudrillard declares this notion as a hyperreal: a real without origin or reality. There is no longer an original territory; there is only the map. The map now precedes the genuine, and this is the precession of simulacra. The point has been reached where the simulation is self perpetuating, and it no longer needs the real.

Baudrillard states that simulation (to posses what one does not) is dangerous and muddles the difference between what is true (real) and what is false (imaginary). When a simulation occurs, some (but not all) of the real traits are present in the simulated. For example, if someone feigns an illness he merely pretends to be ill. If, however, he simulates that same illness, he produces (within) some of the symptoms of the illness. Baudrillard defines four phases of simulacrum: (1) It reflects basic reality. (2) It hides and distorts basic reality. (3) It masks the fact that there is no basic reality, and (4) It no longer has any relation to reality: it is pure simulacrum.

To further his point concerning the phases of simulacrum, Baudrillard uses Disneyland as an example. He states that it is not the fantasy aspect of the theme park that fascinates the masses (though that aspect cannot be denied). Instead, what is intriguing about Disneyland is that it is a copy of Main Street USA. Park-goers can exist in a miniature “reality” which houses the ideologies and values of actual America. The warmth and authenticity of the crowds relate a more satisfying existence in the copy than the harsh, deserted parking lot of the real. This façade hides the park’s one truly sinister characteristic: because Disneyland is a copy of the real, it further champions the notion that the outside world is that much more authentic. In actuality, it is not real at all: it is simulacrum.

Work Cited
Baudrillard, Jean. "Simulacra and Simulations." Literary Theory: An Anthology, 2nd Ed.
Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 365 - 377.

Kristin Brittain

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

2/20/09

Précis of “Identity and Difference”

“Identity and Difference” written by Martin Heidegger differentiates between the metaphysical existence of being and being of existence. Being of existence “authenticates reason” and being always means the “being of existence” (271). Heidegger argues that when being is thought of different from existence and existence as different from being; being becomes an object. If an image is formed of being it becomes a difference which is reduced to a distinction.
Difference becomes an addition to existence, and both are discovered through its difference which is present within every thought; and thus, “being [is] thought of as emerging from difference” (272). Heidegger is concerned with the history of being within metaphysics, as an “issue in an oblivion which escapes even us” (272).


Work Cited

Heidegger, Martin. “Identity and Difference.” Literary Theory: An Anthology 2nd Ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1998. 271-272.

Cecilia B
Dr. Lee Hobbs
ENG 435
23rd February 2009
Précis on Jean-Francois Lyotard’s “The Postmodern Condition”
Deconstructionist critic, Jean-Francois Lyotard, revolutionizes previously held ideologies by announcing a new skepticism critical of modernity’s industrialization and subsequent transformation of the arts and sciences which Lyotard terms Post-modernism. In his article, “The Postmodern Condition,” Lyotard presents the idea of ‘metanarratives’ which are systems attempting to explain the whole of humanity and the world in one account (355). Lyotard draws examples from the religious and scientific spheres and specifically illustrates Catholicism and post-Industrial philosophies like Marxism as narratives which suppress smaller narratives such as an individual’s opinion. However, Lyotard argues many of these particular metanarratives strive to make their values prevail by imposing “a certain level of terror” (356). Yet the purpose of Post-modernity, Lyotard contends, is to debate endlessly and in spite of these dominant narratives rhetorical contests will always exist. As a result, Post-modernism strives to eradicate the idea of one definitive system of value. Lyotard also proposes the concept of legitimation and delegitimation of knowledge. Legitimation entails metanarratives creating truths, or ‘prescriptive statements’, to serve its goals and “allocate our lives for the growth of power” (358). Delegitimation, in the vein of post-modernity, liberates humanity from oppressive powers and allow anything from ideas to language to evolve into new forms without consequence from a dominant system.
Work Cited
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. “The Postmodern Condition.” Literary Theory: An
Anthology. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. New York: Blackwell
Pub., 1998. 355-364.

Wesley Johnson
Hobbs
Eng 435
25 February 2009
The empowering will of Fool for Love
Sam Shepard’s Fool For Love is a post modern love story. That is, there is a very unclear order of events and the reader is left with much uncertainty as to what actually occurs. Friedrich Nietzsche’s article “The Will to power” outlines the attempts of people to schematize new information into old categories (Nietzsche 265). Therefore, when presented with a new work, especially a post-modernist piece like Shepard’s, one is hard pressed to categorize the work. So, to apply Nietzsche’s notion of “the will to power” to Fool For Love, one need only examine some of the paradoxes in the story. In Fool For Love paradox is key; much of that action of the play is based on unsecure truths and secondary information.
Nietzsche describes the “will to truth” as an attempt of fear to make clean what is dirty (Nietzsche 270). That is, people atempt to catagorize events because they are scared into doing so. The characters within Fool for Love attempt to do this throughout the play. Most notably, the Old Man attempts to make his visions the ultimate truth or reality. And, as no one seems too concerned with what he says, he attempts to take his information and put it into the other characters’ schemas. For example, the Old Man describes a picture on the wall as “See that picture…That’s the woman of my dreams…She’s all mine. Forever” (Shepard 77). While this is the dramatic end to the play, earlier references of the old man to Eddie regarding this picture prove fruitless. As the Old man attempts to explain to Eddie that he is in fact married to the Barbara Mandrell picture; Eddie is unimpressed by this. But, the Old Man persists “Well…That’s realism. I am actually married to Barbara Mandrell in my mind. Can You understand that” (Shepard 27)? This question posited by The Old Man illuminates “the will to power.” Although he is a strange character, the old man is not content with simple truth. He sets out to redefine reality.
Also, the characters in the play attempt to understand what occurred in their lives. As one outlines their version of the story, the other one follows. So, as the characters attempt to understand new interpretations of events, so does the reader. In this way the play acts as a kind of practice for readers. Instead of searching for “truth” (which Nietzsche did not like), one may decide that the will to truth is not their desired path. Instead, the reader, like the characters in the play, will choose the “will to power.” That is, the readers can create for themselves a new ideal of reality or truth instead of just accepting the normative cultural values.

Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich. “The Will to Power.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd Ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 266-270
Shepard, Sam. Fool for Love & the Sad Lament of Pecos Bill. San Francisco: City Lights, 2001.