BubbaNub : Foucault

As I read Foucault I can't help but utter the age old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. In this case, however, our chicken is the Repressive State Apparatus and our egg is the Ideological State Apparatus that Althusser spoke of. Foucault raises this question by showing us a progression from the end of the seventeenth century and the methods used to contain the plague to the Panopticon tower of a modern prison. His analysis is not one of mere buildings and customs, but extends to civilization and freedoms of privacy in the world. But just what makes the community listen? Is it a fear of death that unites and drives the community to leave their hands in an omnipresent power to rule in their "best interests" or is it the physical Repressive State Apparatus that tells them to hide themselves away for fear of punishment?
Foucault points out that similar to the leper community, these observed "plagues" showed considerable political promise in obtaining a more extensive permeating rule with stricter divisions. Does this opportune ideology reinforce the already present repressive state apparatus, or was it formed subconsciously around the ideological constructs to begin with? This circular question is never quite answered by Foucault, instead he chooses to reflect on its evolution and the direction in which such apparatuses are headed. As he discusses the Panopticon he describes a concept that is not as foreign as George Orwells 1984 used to be. With networks and organizations such as CCTV our society, not just our jails or community buildings, is being watched everyday. It is the ideology of this fear of our every move being watched that becomes the driving principle for the Panopticon's functionality. If we think we are constantly being watched, then they rarely have to watch us....right? That is the idea behind such a structure, one that if we look closely certain exists in America today to make us all domestic and complacent cattle.

Starfish 4/10

Thursdays class we covered a lot of material. We finished up Bordieu, and I kept making connections between his quotes and things we have discussed in CMC 200 this year. In researching media, we discussed how the news constantly says it is giving us what we want, but I as well as Bordieu do not agree with this. Who cares about Brittney Spears? When it comes to the news, the important things are not which celebrity is currently in rehab, but the things that affect us all. “The effect is censorship, which journalists practice without even being aware of it. They retain only things capable of interesting them and keeping their attention…and they reject as insignificant or remain indifferent to symbolic expressions that ought to reach the population as a whole” (330).

After going over Derrida in class, I finally could grasp what I had read the previous day and his ideas and theories make a lot of sense to me. In language and with signs or words, there is always something missing, “the gap.” We sometimes are able to see the gap, and sometimes we see it subconsciously. Derrida says we must look at what is behind the text or what is not being said. I link this to Machery, who said, “What is important in the work is what it does not say.” “It is the rupture (or the gap) which must be studied

Jiggy 4/13

The world as we see it is a construction of the human mind. Every image, word and thought is processed through a conditioning of the brain to except words as absoulte truths. The only truth is that there is no truth to the process of language. We see the world around us through the words we learn in different languages, seeing the words in direct relation to given image. Imagine if we stripped the world of all preconceived assumptions of "reality" through language. How would our clean slate of a brain react the millions of images seen daily. Imagine not knowing what the blue was, how would you describe the sky? If you didnt know how to say words and relate them to different things what would the world be? It is amazing the billions are able to communicate on this planet. With all the disagreements and world problems the issue of understanding one another has never really came up. We have translations for almost every language and there seems to be no people left on earth who cannot communicate through a learned and shared system of language. Think about if we had to come up with language today, in our day in age. If six billion people were dropped on earth the chances that we could all come together to understand and agree would be amazingly slim. The truth to our world lies in the miracle of communication. Without it we are just as primitive as the apes before us, its what seperates our species from all others. The world as we know it is a product of widespred knowledge build on a foundation of shared communication. Knowing the facts, that language is just made up like a puzzle, is a key component on understanding the facets of everyday life and the meaning to life.

BubbaNub 4/10

  I believe, after Thursday's class, that Derrida would view the dictionary as the pinnacle of differance.  The only way we give things meaning is by describing them in relation to what they are not.  This example, carried over from De Saussure and Barthes, was executed in class as we searched through a number of dictionaries in an attempt to define Cookie.  From cookie, we immidiately went to dough, and then went on from there to flour/flower.  I found this particularly interesting as we incorporated the previous notion of ghoti and the problems that arise phonetically within the trivial association of words and sound.  

Not only does Derrida tie together a bunch of older readings/concepts, he also goes farther into a theory he describes as the metaphysics of presence.  "We want desperately to believe in presence, that we can lock down the meaning of something, but that is an illusion" (127).  Derrida believes that we cannot cement the concept of presence, because contrary to Saussure and Barthes, he believes that the gap is not only found in the center but also borders every word and association that goes along with it.  These tometic intrusions all begin with a gap, an outline, a mere trace of context.  However, it seems as though this is where Derrida runs out of answers as he questions how we are able to see the outside of the text (139).  Being as the very nature of its being is to "threaten the authority of the as such" it becomes itself, unnamable.

romulus 4.10

I planned on doing nothing but going to bed early Friday, that was not my reality. A crush of mine that hates speaking on the phone and never calls, called me at approximately 8:30 p.m. We made a plan to hang out, however that was not my reality either. I had cleaned up the apartment and more importantly myself. I had snapped out of the lazy mood that I was in. At 10 p.m. the crush sends a text with his usual 'I'm tired and going to bed please don't be mad'. I replied 'you a**hole, stop pretending that you even want to hang out ever'. This got misinterpreted as 'I'm done with you'. 

The power of words and language can affect bonds formed through emotions. Language although universal, reflects the uniqueness of each individual. In this scenario, I see nothing wrong in the way in which I expressed myself. My disappointment and frustration with him and the situation was evident. I did not understand why his reply to my last text was, 'don't bother trying to make this up tomorrow, if u say ur done with me I'm done with u'. I immediately apologized assuming that calling him a name was the reason behind his anger but it was not. Carefully reading into what he said, I can see that his he is upset. Personally I don't take language seriously enough to ruin a relationship. Actions are supposed to be stronger than words, especially words sent through a text message. This has actually been an eye opening experience.

I realize that things said in text hold as much legitimacy as what is said face to face. It is also difficult to judge the seriousness of what is being said through this once unconventional medium. Texting requires bypassing body language in order to get the message across. As conversations take place they are saved. Technology has become central in maintaining relationships, keeping people subconsciously connected. At least once a month I would send or receive a text from a crush in Switzerland. Although it will be months before we can physically see each other, texting has kept us close. I coin this ear the age of digital dialogue.

kaymac 4.10.08

I think I'm even more confused after Thursday's class. I thought I had an idea of what Derrida was about walking into class but that was pretty much shattered. Through our discussion I became really intrigued with the concept of The Trace (sounds like a bad TV show). Everything in our society leads to clues about what everything else in our world is. So then what about love? Or emotions? How do we define those through what we don't know? Because we don't feel mad are we automatically happy? Or if we don't feel mad are we a multitude of other things that cannot be defined directly except by what we don't know about it?

This leads to our exercise concerning the cookie and how the definitions of the dictionary did not add up to a cookie at all, at least I think it does. The poor cookie was demolished, is that what we do to objects that are not tangible? And maybe that is why everything gets screwed up in our society.

Moving along, I’m still confused about logocentrism. I think I understand some of it, that we are subconsciously filling the gap with other things that make us aware of its meaning, but that’s about it. Do you need to get to the absolute center of a word to know what it means? But if you get to the absolute center of an object, which is represented by a word, then you get the nucleus of an atom, and is that what Derrida is trying to do with our language? And is that what logocentrism is?

Sgt. Pepper, 4/10

I'm still not cured of my confusion from Derrida's reading, but I have taken a few steps since my pre-class post on Monday. Derrida's perspective on 'the word' and his concept of differance look to me like de Saussure on steroids. Perhaps the most important quotation from our Saussure reading was, "In language, there are only differences." Saussure's thesis here is identical to part of Derrida's thesis--that words can only be defined by everything they're not. The other part of Derrida's thesis is that because of things like erasure and differance, there is no concrete definition of a word. As a word gets used over and over, it loses its meaning more every time. Therefore, when determining a word's meaning, we must consider its context, its history, and everything to do with the word. This is where the dictionary activity came in. By looking up the definition of a word, then looking up the words in its definition, we were illustrating how easily we've become so far removed from words' true definitions.

Now that I've hopefully proven that I understand the basic concepts of Derrida, I will share my criticism. (that's how it works, right?) What I do not like about Derrida's ideas is that he refuses to attribute any certainty to our language. While I do recognize the undeniable "differences" in our language, I feel like I'm aware of a certainty that Derrida seems to be missing. I recognize that we as people share so many of the same feelings. While language is obviously an abstract concept, with time and evolution, it seems to be getting more and more concrete. de Saussure said, "The community is necessary if values that owe their existence solely to usage and general acceptance are to be set up; by himself the individual is incapable of fixing a single value." And I think we've fixated many solid values within the words of our language.

Perhaps the same criticism of uncertainty could be given to each theorist we've discussed, but Derrida is definitely guilty.