Signifier & Signified

"The bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary" (R&W 35). This statement hold little meaning until it's main components are introduced. The "signifier" is represented by the sound of an image as well as the visual and hearing of the particular word. "Signified" is the actual concept of ideas. These ideas are not concrete without the combining of visuals and actual words  that represent a certain ideology of a concept or word. The relationship between the two is tied together through language. When we say that the terms are "arbitrary" we are basically saying that the meaning is agreed upon but there is no natural relationship. If we say the word "tree", without language, we couldn't connect the thought of tree with an actual image that fully gives the word its depth and overall meaning.

When we analyze this relationship, we run into the issue of differentiating value & signification. When I first looked at the two words, it was easy to consider them the same, but they're not. Signification is a pretty solid and non-conformed meaning. For value of a word, it can be exchanged and even compared. The value of a word is "determined by its environment". We go back to Saussure's sheep example. The French word "mouton" and the English word "sheep" are compared but hold different values. The word and concept of sheep is represented and has the same significance in both languages, but in English "sheep" can also mean other things and be represented with other words. In French this isn't the case. This is the same for several words or phrases. Two or more languages can have the same signifier, but not all languages are able to express it through words. For example if you tell a Spanish speaking person and an English speaking person to describe how their weekend was and they both attended a party, they both know the experience and the concrete visuals and sounds of "having a good time at a party", but one may not have the particular words within their language to describe that experience. 

When tying this back to Post-Structuralism, the relationship between the signifier and the signified is still arbitrary but this time it is considered stable. My personal understanding of this is that they are mostly going against structuralists' definition of difference: "we know what something is by what it is not". Our definition is stable because we accept the fact that there is more than one meaning within a text and that there is more than one overall distinction or "difference". This concept will not change and that is what makes it stable.

Hopefully I haven't further confused anyone. Just my gist of the lesson. Thanks for reading :)

Marxism vs. Liberal Humanism

This first week in the critical theory class has been quite "interesting" as I tend to say. The material covered consisted of Marxism and Liberal Humanism theories. I grasped Marxism pretty well but liberal humanism seemed to be a harder topic for me to understand. When given a prompt to compare the two I initially I was reluctant as i ask: "What am I going to say?" 

After re-reading the required texts, I slightly gained a better understanding of the beliefs of each theory and how they differed. The Marxist criticism seems to want to "change the world" by focusing on  a classless society and not focusing on ideologies as much as concrete views and ideas. It feels that "a writer's social class forms them and their views". It appears they feel that having a communism type society would make it so literature wouldn't focus so much on what is going on at the time, or reflect the class of the writer through language or perspective in a story. They rather not know the opinions of the writer/author. Anonymity is key to the success of a piece of literature.

The Liberal Humanist perspective has some similarities but differs in the areas of how the time period affects the piece of literature and the influences of individualism. As mentioned before, Marxism believes that social class or a particular time period forms a writer's views and can affect the  message and outcome of a piece of literature. On the other hand, liberal humanism feels that literature "transcends the limitations of age it was written in" because human nature is unchanging. Our emotions, interactions in society, and social events continue to repeat themselves throughout history and will always be reflected in literature. As far as individuality goes, Marxism seems to feel obligated to attempt to make the individuality of the author unknown, whereas Liberal Humanism welcomes individuality as it is reflected within the characters of literature and creates a relationship between them and the reader. It sparks interest and a connection, whether using common events, language or similar views.

I particularly feel that individualism has positive affects on literature. A main attraction between a reader and literature is being able to find a connection. Something that you can relate to and make it easier to engage in the message or storyline of a piece of literature.

Thanks for listening. Please comment. :)

~Ladii

~Hello~

~Hello Take 2~

Hello everyone, my name is Ladii. My blog is just a way of expressing myself through writing. My writing usually consists of poems in the form of spoken word, BUT this blog is for my Critical Theory class so, might not be as creatively expressive. I will be analyzing the topics/theories of the week. Should be "interesting". Not really my thing, but I will do what I can. Wish me luck!