The Archive

I know there is more to this subject than I am about to write about, but I'm going to try and discuss Derrida's mention of the archive from the film.

"The question of the archive is not a question of the past. It is not the question of a concept dealing with the past that might already be at our disposal. An archivable concept of the archive. It is a question of the future, the question of the future itself, the question of a response, of a promise, and of a responsibility for tomorrow. The archive, if we want to know what that will have meant, we will only know in times to come; not tomorrow, but in times to come. Later on, or perhaps never" - Derrida

To start off, an archive is a place of storage; the preservation of a collection of records and documents. Basically, an archive is a collection of information (that takes up space). Most archives are run by government. For instance, the Mass Archives over near the JFK Library and the Vital Records building all house records that can be accessed by the public.

The problem with archives though is that they only preserve materials that they see fit. The archive is a system, which organizes a system of keeping documents. What happens is that because only certain information is deemed appropriate to save, other information is left out. Since records recall events that have happened in history, does the archive write or create some parts of history? Who says what information should be kept, and what should be forgotten or destroyed?

The memory is an example of an archive at work. Our brains save and categorize information. This information or memories are either kept in the conscious (I guess you would call it that), which can be recalled a bit easier than a memory that is repressed in the unconscious. I was going to try and link the actual physical archive to the brain but I forgot how, so I’ll come back to that later.

So to move on to Derrida’s quote about the archive as a question of the future. I was thinking along the lines that it’s important to the future because it verifies whether or not the past actually occurred. Or maybe that it’s really the beginning of life for the archivable information, and not the death. Information doesn’t get archived because it’s dead and unusable; it gets archived for future use.

A question that I began to think about was that, do you think biography and archive are similar concepts? I mean, a biography fixes the meaning of what it’s about. And an archive fixes the meaning of the past it’s supplementing because some higher authority decided what was important enough to be preserved. Both are important to the future because tomorrow they will show us what we meant. But are we really learning what we meant, or what someone chose to mean for us?

EDIT 2/28: If an archive looks to the future and not the past, shouldn't a photograph look to the future as well? Are archive and photograph similar, because the archive isn't the death of something and yet a photo is?

"If I ruled the world, it would be a better place"

AP article Study finds students narcissistic.

Totalization and supplementarity

"Totalization, therefore, is sometimes defined as useless, and sometimes as impossible" (205).

Totalization is the idea that there can be a system that explains everything. In “Structure, Sign and Play” Derrida says that this system does not exist; there is no system that can explain absolutely everything. The two reasons why it is impossible are: there is far too much knowledge to master (classical reason); and because there is too much play (Derrida’s reason). When there is too much play the system is not fixed and therefore, cannot be measured. The reason there is infinite play is that the system is lacking a center; because when there is a center, play is limited and the system is stable.

The movement of supplementarity is the movement of play that is allowed because of the absence of a center. So then, a sign is needed to replace the absent center. This sign is called a supplement. What exactly happens because of the supplement? Does play become limited as if the original center was present? Is the supplement like a body double; it stands in to stabilize the system?

The only example I can think of that might relate to this is the relationship between speech and writing. Writing is subordinate to speech; it’s absent. Speech is present. Therefore, writing is a supplement to speech.

Also, how do totalization and supplementarity work together exactly; do they? I just assumed they somehow worked together because Derrida transitions from one right into the other in his essay.

Incest Prohibition...Kind of

'Kinship Detectors' Prevent Incest...In Some Cases

This article from LiveScience.com touches upon a small study that tries to gather some reasons why humans tend to not participate in incestuous relations. It's not exactly what we covered in class, but it's pretty interesting.

Post-Structuralism

Structuralism and post-structuralism are not defined by what they are, but what they are not. Structuralism is not post-structuralism because it is not philosophical; it is a scientific approach through linguistics to find meaning in texts. Post-structuralism disregards scientific reasoning for finding meaning and relies on a philosophical approach.

I feel like binary opposition is similar to Saussure’s view of language. Binary opposition relies on a word finding its meaning from what it is not, rather than what it is. Terms are associated with a positive or negative. For example, take the words good and evil. We would not know what good is without evil to compare it against. And our society considers good to be positive and evil to be negative.

Meanings of words are based on relationships they have with their opposites, therefore, meanings are not fixed because they are arbitrary and contradict each other (I think). Because meanings are arbitrary they are not permanent. This is why deconstruction rejects binary opposition. Deconstruction assumes that meanings are fluid and not fixed.

Structuralism implies that there is a center because it revolves around systems and structures; and systems have a point of origin. But deconstruction points out the lack of a center. This makes sense because structuralism is scientific; therefore it needs boundaries in order to preserve the meaning it gives to things. Without boundaries, the meaning and authenticity would be questionable because it would be unstable. But with post-structuralism and deconstruction, because there is no point of origin in a system, there are no boundaries. That is why meaning is fluid and not fixed. There is nothing holding the meanings of terms back, like in structuralism.

I understand post-structuralism and deconstruction, or at least I’m pretty sure I do. But what is really frustrating about it is that nothing is conclusive (or so it seems). Structuralism believes in structures and systems, but post-structuralism and deconstruction do not because they believe in the “decentered universe.” According to post-structuralism/deconstruction that means nothing is fixed; there is no origin. But, in a sense, isn’t post-structuralism’s structure, not following a structure? Post-structuralism still follows a method, even though it seems to claim not to.

I guess what’s most difficult is that the conclusion I come to is that there is no conclusion. Well, at least to me there seems to be, even though deconstruction says there really isn’t. Unless I’m interpreting it completely wrong.

A question I’ve thought of and can’t come to a decision about is that in structuralism if the system of language constructs reality, then in post-structuralism/deconstruction, is there no reality at all? Since there is no point of origin or center in a system, how is reality constructed?

Saussure: Take two

“Signs function not through their intrinsic value but through their relative position” – Saussure

Saussure means that the meanings of words are based on the relations they have to the presence of other words. “…value is made up solely of relations and differences with respect to the other terms of language” (39). Words cannot be independently defined; they depend on different words with similar meanings to determine their value.

I understand Saussure’s statement that signs function in relation to other signs. I don’t necessarily agree with the argument that a word’s worth is based on the similar meaning of a different word. The ‘hut’ example that Barry gives on page 42 clarifies what Saussure is saying, but I think it’s obvious that if the word ‘hut’ didn’t exist that a different word would encompass its meaning. I don’t think that the meaning of what a ‘hut’ is would go without a sign being assigned to it.

He explains that a sign’s value functions through its relative position by using an example of money. A coin’s value is not determined by the metal that composes it. Instead, it is the value we place on it. If it is used within its designated political boundaries, then it is worth the amount stamped on it. But as soon as it leaves those boundaries it is valued in, it loses its value. In terms of words, their meaning is fixed by the differences that separate it from other words.

Saussure’s idea supports his theory that the structure of language is a system of values. I have never considered the idea that a sign is defined by not what it is, but what it is not. I’ve always assumed a word gains its definition because of what it is, and not because of its relation to words of similar meanings. I think maybe language and literature could be compared in the sense that: in language the function of the word gives it value, so maybe in literature, it’s the function of the literature that determines its value.

If language is relational does that make literature relational?

Saussure and linguistics

While reading Barry’s chapter on structuralism I couldn’t help but notice that there appears to be an emphasis on language. The point I’m going to try and prove may be off course and not relate to the reading at all, but it was the first thing that came to mind while I was reading.

Ferdinand de Saussure’s views on language reminded me of an interview that CNN did with Frank Luntz. Luntz works primarily with the Republican Party, but political views aside, his take on what phrases to use and not to use is very interesting. He recently wrote the book; Words that Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear. He tells politicians to eliminate the usage of words that tend to have negative connotations in the sphere of politics, and replace them with words that have similar meaning but sound more positive.

It’s the style of discourse that applies meaning to words and phrases. For instance, an example from Time Magazine’s article about Luntz reveals that using the word “investment” in place of “spending” is more appealing. The words do not have the exact same meaning, but when politicians are speaking with voters, the word “spending” could be connoted with wasteful spending and higher taxes. Whereas, the word “investment” implies that the taxpayers money will be wisely handled and accrue overtime.

This ties in (I think) with Saussure because of his views on linguistic structures. He said that the meanings we give to words are arbitrary, relational, and that language constitutes our world. The example I have given above relates mostly to how language constitutes our world and meaning is designated by the human mind. Language doesn’t reflect the world we live in, but is a composition of it. There is nothing outside of language that can do this.

One of the conclusions I’ve made is that: the meaning behind a word influences how one perceives it, but people have preconceived ideas that also shape the meanings of words. In reference to Luntz, a word that may yield a negative meaning can be replaced by a word with a similar meaning that may be perceived as positive.

Saussure’s ideas about linguistics clarified, for me, how language works. I can see how language works independently, but now I’m unsure of how it works within structuralism.