Kiwi, 11,22

This week I was only able to attend class on Tuesday because I was in Georgia for basketball… On Tuesday Professor cummings was there and talked to our class about Bourdieu. I have to say that I did not enjoy this class as much as class when Rog is there. No offence to Dr. Cummings but how she started class off and how she taught the class was not as interesting/exciting/fun as rog makes class nor was it taught in a way for us to have a better understanding. Having this class with a different professor really helped me to realize how happy I am to have Rog for a professor for this particular class and how much easier he makes things make sense just by the format of class as well as explaining and how he relates things to different ideas that I am more familiar with. Anyways… Dr. Cumming started class off first by giving a little background information on Bourdieu. She told us that Bourdieu argues that judgments of taste are related to social positions. She said that Bourdieu is a social scientist and he what he wanted to do was combine interviews, social science and methodology. He is listed as the second most cited author in the humanities, but he is a social scientist. It She said that is primarily because he is a public intellectual. And then explained that a public intellectual is someone who is recognized in actively engaging in public discourse. Bourdieu is recognized for his activism of Humanities( English primarily, philosophy, history) and social scientists ( sociology, anthropology, and political science.

After she gave some background on Bourdieu she then talking to us about how Bourdieu looks at TV and what it tells us. Dr. Cummings said that, “TV tells us what we already know and that is why networks like NBC,ABC, and CNN are as successful as they are. “ She then went in to discussing tropes and how tropes are made up of compacted information. After our class had this discussion I realized that what Bourdieu says also relates a lot to what barthes says and how he talks about tropes and how he also talks about structuralism. Boudieu can relate to Barthes notion of structuralism when he tells us that it is because of systems why we have censorship.

Overall I think that the structure of this class was different from previous classes we have had this year of how we learned the information and again not anything against Dr. Cummings but I am very happy for having Rog as my professor for this class because it makes me realize how this subject could perhaps be not as fun if it weren’t for Rog and how he approaches our class discussions with lots of spunk and questions that help us get more involved rather then just reading information to us.

Gwatter06, 11/22

This week in class we went over two very different theorists covering some pretty compelling topics and concepts that, in some cases, felt quite familiar and in other cases, were quite different from what we’ve been going over in class. Bourdieu was a fairly short read and I found that he was a bit more comprehendible than Derrida. I have to admit it was quite the same going over the theorist without Dr. Rog, I’m not saying that Professor Cummings didn’t do a good job on covering for Dr. Rog, but it just didn’t feel the same and the approach was a little different. I think that is why some of us were a bit shell shocked in the beginning of class when we were somewhat bombarded with questions and we were as responsive as we usually are. Either way, from the two theorists, I think we came away with more from Derrida, especially after going over the theorist in class. Going over Derrida had a feeling of Lyotard, Barthes and especially de Sausser with some of the concepts that Derrida covered. One of these concepts that related to both Barthes and to Lyotard was the concept of “trace” in which Derrida explains is the experience of filling something in based upon previous experience. This directly relates to Barthes concept of tmesis/gap and also Lyotards concept of rupture, both of which we have previously covered in the course. Believe this concept of “trace” is inevitable when thinking of obtaining knowledge of anything. I think a lot of things in society relies on this concept, just as de Sausser explained that language is understood and created through both text that exist and text that is missing. Are ability to understand something, like how Dr. Rog put up letters on the board in a sequence with no meaning but we were able to fill in the blank and understand what the letters were trying to create is quite remarkable.

Ron Burgundy, 11/22

This week we discussed one of the most complicated theorists, Derrida, and his concept of difference vs. differance. While reading the text I had an extremely difficult time understanding the points that were being made. In class Dr. Rog helped bring clarity to the concepts not only behind this single text, but to Derrida's theories as a whole. One of the most interesting things that we looked at in class was the idea of the "ur", or the beginning. Specifically we looked at the the "ur-text" which questions if we can trace a word or concept back to its beginning. We did this exercise to test this continually looking up terms in order to figure out the definition of "board". As we did this exercise we discovered the complexities of language, specifically english, where it is extremely difficult to get a complete understanding of a single concept. This is because the words that describe them often have several definitions and include concepts that when looked up, contain the same word we were originally trying to find. The dependency of language, words, on one another in order to understand, describe, them reminds me of Macherey's concept of intertextuality. According to Macherey, texts are only understood through their comparisons with other texts, their meaning is dependent on one another. We use other texts to understand the particular text we are reading, just as Derrida says we use other words, which are ambiguous signs, to understand a particular word. It seems difficult to grasp, and it is. But in a sense, a word is just a sign loaded with other words that explain its meaning. The english language is often the hardest language to learn because of this principle and the fact that most words in the english language have several meanings. Their correct meaning therefore, is only found through putting it in context, among other words. This once again connects to intertextuality as meaning is found through explanation of other words and among other words.

ESPN, 11/19

In reading Foucault I found it very difficult and even after class it was still a little dense. He does not seem to be as straight forward as some of the other theorist we have been reading thus far. It seems I was off a little in my pre class post in the notion of difference. However I believe I did have the right idea about the notion of language and the shell gas station example. It is not only interesting to see how language works but also how are brains work and how we have been socialized to see and understand things in a similar way. The notion of difference is still quite complex to me. The exercise we did on the board was really interesting. It is crazy how much there is to language and the difference between them. The difference is what I believe was trying to be portrayed. Furthermore, the definitions themselves are different then the words may mean and there are many different words that are the same but have different meanings. There were many words all over the board and it they all essentially go in a circle in that each word can be linked to another. It is like the quote states. “Every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by the systematic play of differences.” It may be a stretch but in regards to all the words on the board, I related it to Jencks instead of how one may have thought in relating it to DeSaussure, Barthes, or Macherey. I related it Jencks in his notion of disharmonious harmony in that there is a ton of things all different in their own way but they still come together and looks good and makes sense. It is like language in that that there are many different words in a definition but they still all come together and make the specific word make sense. It is also like in general conversation in that there are tons of different arbitrary words that come together to make conversation.

Teets, 11/22

Derrida was a confusing theorist to read, but Thursday’s class helped me understand it a little better. The exercise we did with the dictionary was one of the more hilarious/clarifying ones this semester. We took the noun board and looked up the definition. It came to pass that the definition was very redundant when we proceeded to look up the definitions of the words within the definition. This exercise reminded me of a quote by De Saussure. “Language is a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others” (7) You cannot define a given word without the existence of others words to do so. Language is completely dependent on itself to function properly.

The area, or word even, where De Saussure and Derrida really come together is difference. “In language, there are only differences” (DS 10). When my classmates were reading the definitions to words Dr. Rog was purposely misspelling them to drive home the point of Derrida. By sound you cannot determine how to spell a certain word, because there are many cases where two words spelled differently sound exactly the same. It is the context within language that determines how a word can be spelled, so we have to recognize the difference between these like-sounding words. Dr Rog. Posed a queston in class that asked what the first thing you need to know to communicate with someone effectively. Many people replied the person’s name. We were wrong, the most important thing to know first is what language a person speaks. Some people were asked to define words from a Hebrew or French dictionary, which obviously was meant to make a point. The differences between different languages create a barrier, a road block. I still feel like I would understand Derrida better if I understood or spoke French, but I feel like I can at least make a connection to De Saussure now.

FloRida, 11/22

Derrida was extremely difficult to understand the first time around and continues to be somewhat difficult to comprehend. After Dr. Rog explained not only quotes but the ideas behind what Derrida thinks and says. I really loved the explanation using the word HELL. When we saw the shell sign and then the word hell, almost the entire class felt as if there was the letter “S” missing from the beginning of the word. It really proves to me how closely images and words are interconnected and their relationship really corresponds to the way we learn and interpret things. There is also major interconnectedness between words with other words. The dictionary activity proved that. Almost every definition has one or more of the same words in the explanation of the meaning of the word. Derrida states that, “There never has been and never will be a unique word, a master name” (140). Every word can be related to another word and end up connecting through what they mean. A word missing a few letters is still understandable when related to something else, especially through a visual aid. We know what the word says and what relation it has to its meaning. Derrida speaks about the idea of “the trace.” The trace is a process of filling in information based on prior knowledge. Every signifier in our culture has traces of others. We use what we already know in order to fill in the missing gap. Previous knowledge is what allows us to be able to understand things within words. Derrida also talked about “logocentrism” which literally means being word centric. Everything in our society involves the use of words. Words give us meaning. This relates to DeSaussure’s notions about language. Language and words are what gives life meaning.

DoubleBubble, 11/22

In class on Thursday we talked about Derrida and difference. We also did an exercise in class with the word board. How do we know what this word means from the definition in a dictionary? We know because we know definitions of all of these other words. in order to fully understand it without knowing these definitions we would have to look up all the definitions of each word. this could take hours and hours or even days. throughout our lives we have gained the knowledge of all of these words in order to understand it. in a way we have already spent these hours of looking up words everyday.

Everyday within the lingo of AIM or Facebook we develop these new words with new understandings. For instance, LOL. That’s known as laughing out Loud, but how would we know that if we don’t know what laughing, out or loud meant right? we understand these new languages and words that we develop because of previous knowledge and education of these words.

This concept relates to Derrida because he talks about The Trace. We fill in new ideas and experiences based up on our previous experiences and knowledge. We wouldn’t know what LOL means or is without previous knowledge of what Laughing, out or Loud meant. If we did not know these from previous experience the concept of LOL would not mean anything to us.

Within the slide show there was a slide that said HELL and then we were shown a picture of a Shell station sign. When we see that image and then reflect back to the idea of what we see when we see Hell we now see Shell. I thought about this with the concept of how we use that in everyday life. What about when we are driving and see a store but the store letters have some of them missing because the light bulbs have blown. We still see the logo or some of the word and we understand, although some of the sign is blown out, what the store is. Our previous experiences and knowledge of the logo or lettering we understand what it means with someone missing. If we were driving and saw a sign for a store we were not familiar with we would not be able to put together the store if the lights were blown.

Our everyday experiences and knowledge allows for us to understand the everyday life things we either create or see, even if in a different way.

BiegieGo 11/22

"All good things got to come to an end"--Jackson Browne
We are very close to ending this wonderful journey of theorist. In the beginning of this class I had a very bad feeling that I was not going to understand a lot of what was going to take place but now late in the semester I am a confident student that has learned a lot! It funny to think back and see the entire list of theorist that have been learned and be able to relate something in my everyday life to one for them. I believe I am going to leave this class feeling brighter than everyone else in our school. :P. this week we learned about theorist Bourdieu and Derrida. Al though I was only able to attend one of the classes this week I learned that Bourdieu looks at TV and what it is telling us. Professor Cummings just reiterated what dr. Rog had told us in the beginning of the semester and that is that TV tells us what we all ready know and that is why networks like ABC, NBC, and CNN are so successful in the business.
People don’t like to hear what they don’t know. We feel I like it goes against our belief system and is challenges us and we don’t like to be challenged. We discussed what a trope was and it is some compact information. We also discussed systems and Bourdieu tells us that it is because of systems is why we have censorship. He also looks about how there is so much not being said on TV that our society does not see. What is the real? What is the truth? As Barthes would say, where is the structuralism in our world???

Ace Ventura, 11/22

Since I was unable to come to class this week due to the dreadful H1N1, it makes it a little difficult for me to write a post-class post. I looked over the power point presentations at the images that Dr. Rog provided and tried to imagine the connections that he would make between the images and the readings. While my connections were probably not as creative or accurate as the ones he made in class, hopefully the connections I made between the images and the meaning of the texts related in at least some sort of accurate way. On the Derrida powerpoint, the three images of symbols representing another language show the value of difference. (If these are even from the same language) they represent a culture even though they are drastically different in their form. One seems to be a traditional plain text image, another is a more modern interpretation by placing the text in a tattoo, and another is a large reproduction of text used on a rug of tile floor of some sort. All of these images and uses of the text differ but they all relate to a similar general idea and give the viewer an interpretation of the same kind of culture. The idea of deconstructing these images to see their similarities instead of their differences allows you to make the connection. If you only looked at them for how they differ you'd say "what does a rug, a tattoo, and tile image have to do with one another?" This relates to the symbol of the shell and the word Shell. Obviously they appear to be different, but they give the same meaning to the person that is interpreting them. This can be taken one step further and the image of the shell can also turn into something that our culture interprets as gas because of the Shell gas stations that we have become accustomed to. Clearly shell and gas have nothing to do with one another in reality but when you make a connection between differing things, you can create a meaning.

Elmo, 11/22

Something I found very interesting from class this week was that we are almost to our last theorist and a lot of the material is relating back to some of the first theorists we have learned about, it seems that we have almost traveled in a loop. Derrida’s idea of “the trace” seemed very familiar when we started discussing it in class. Derrida explains the trace by saying that within every signifier in our society is a trace of something else, something that has been left over some something else. This concept was exemplified when Dr. Roj showed us the word “shell” and then “s ell” and we still recognized it as “shell”. The trace of the “h” was leftover in our heads therefore enabling us to recognize “s ell” as “shell”. This is very similar with what we had learned at the beginning of the year with Barthes and Macherey’s ideas of rupture or the gap. They say we make meaning out of the gap by filling in what’s missing, similar to what we did in the “shell” example. Something else that Derrida talked about that seemed familiar was “logocentrism”. Logocentrism means being central around words, basically that everything in our society revolves around words and how we need words in order to make meaning. This concept relates to DeSaussure and his ideas about how words and their meanings help us to make meaning out of our lives and help us to better understand, without words we wouldn’t be able to know about or explain much of anything. Another relation I found was when Derrida said “there never has been and never will be a unique word, a master name” (140). I saw that this concept closely relates to the one of Adorno’s idea of sameness. Adorno says that everything today is the same and this is what Derrida is touching upon in his quote. It’s really cool to me that though all of these theorists are vastly different yet they still all have some similar ideas to relate upon.

Daisy, 11/22

It is amazing how we are able to see the glimpse of a logo or a word missing a few letters and able to fill in the missing information. We can tell exactly what the logo stands for and exactly what the word says. Derrida calls the process of filling in information based on prior knowledge, the trace. The trace is like Barthes idea of the gap, created by the writers and interpreted by the readers.
The trace is made possible by our previous knowledge. Derrida built on this idea of using previous knowledge by indicating that every signifier in our culture has traces of others. We can see this by how we use what we already know to fill in the missing gap, without the previous knowledge we would not be able to understand. In class, the dictionary exercise was a perfect example of the signification of words containing connections to hundreds of other words. To be able to understand the definition of one word, you have to know the definition of many. Derrida called this the “metaphysics of presence,” the possibility that every word has the potential to represent every other word. There is no unique word, because every word signifies something else, making it not unique.
So I am back to my pre-class blog question, was Derrida trying to tell us there is difference in language? I would have to say yes and no. While he did indicate that there are many different significations for words, like de Saussure, he indicated that all words are related. The only way for all words to be related is to have elements of sameness. Using previous knowledge, we can recognize sameness among things within our culture and create interpretations. This idea caused me to think of the theorist Jameson and his quote, “depth is replaced by surface.” As individuals we don’t have to know about something to recognize it; we only have to know of it.

Mongoose, 11/ 19

When I first read this unreadable (from an understanding standpoint) essay from Derrida I really did not take anything away from it. I tried to make some connections between his writing and the quotes from Barthes about the arbitrary – ness of language as well as trying to connect it to Macherey and his topic of looking at what is not present in words in order to study what is present. While these may not have been great connections, they were the best I could do when it comes to the difference between difference and differance. However, after we further delved into the topic in class, I feel that I may have a little better grasp on the topic, or at least some other connections can be drawn now.
One of these connections comes from Derrida’s concept of the trace; by the trace he means: “– the filling in of missing things based on what we’ve seen or heard before;” this sounds familiar? It should because it is basically the same idea as BArthes’ concept of tmesis. Barthes was referring to the gaps which we are able to fill in in words because we have heard it so many times that it sounds natural to fill in. we used the example ‘abso- f-ing-lutely’, we are able to fill in the gap because we know what falls into its place.
The other topic from clas which really caught my attention was Derrida’s quote “There never has been and never will be a unique word, a master name.” (140) what he means by this is that every words can be drawn back to any other word. All words end up connecting to each other through definitions and explanations. This concept also applies to advertisements, tv shows and movies; when we watch a movie, it happens quite often that we are able to predict the ending or outcome of a situation because we have seen so many other instances with the same predictable outcome.