DBA123, post class 4/14

From Tuesday’s class we learned that Derrida believed that “As human beings, we are locked into words, they absolutely control us, they define us.” We continued on to say how all people have a private name and a public name, and that most choose to only give their private name to those who are very close with them. As I thought about they more, especially in a school setting, I began to see how this could relate to our culture.
Many look at their name as a definition of themselves. I would consider our last name to be our public name and our first name would be our private name. When we are part of a larger group of people, last names are used to address one anther because they usually vary more, whereas, first names are used in intimate settings to address a person directly. Last names help identify a person, but a first name is usually more associated with who the person actually is, meaning their personality and other defining characteristics. Comparing us to those at a larger school, who are sometimes not evern referred to by last name, but by numbers, at a smaller school, we have automatically placed ourselves in a more intimate atmosphere, where we allow our private name to be known among more people.
Derrida also says that the words, word and name, are interchangable. If we go back to the paragraphs above and look at our name, especially our first, as defining ones self, then Derrida argument that “we are locked into words, they absolutely control us, they define us,” makes complete sense. In class we also discussed how our signature is our most personal reference to ourself. Noone can copy another’s signature perfectly (well maybe), making it more letters, that make up a word or words, that completely define us.