Comments on: Question 1

By: jhogu3ep

jhogu3ep — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:16:31 +0000

Like smaloney said, it is very important to Elbow to be able to break away from the “norm”. People cannot tap into the power they need to fight a system unless they can break out of that system and find their real voice. In finding his real voice, for example, Malcolm X would have to be able to move beyond the “obvious” and “natural” restrictions placed upon him and his language by society. Only then would he, as the minority, be able to overcome the majority. It is different from (post)structuralism in that Elbow requires his followers to figure out how to work outside of the system which (post)structuralists would restrict them to.

By: sallen

sallen — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:48:46 +0000

From Heather:
I found this question to be very interesting and at the same time very intriguing. I personally think the answer is “yes.” I believe post- structuralist would strongly bicker over how a word’s definition was adopted and also examine how societal-views affect that definition. Post- structuralist believe that we as a society experience only limited aspects of the world and because of that we form falsehoods that affect our every day thinking and beliefs. This would definably account for a word’s definition being construed.

By: eliz1

eliz1 — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:57:52 +0000

Dictionaries are supposed to be prescriptive, simply recording the language as it is used in society. Would post-structuralist theorists argue that if a dictionary changed a definition before the usage of the word changed in society, then society would adapt and use the word that way?

By: smaloney

smaloney — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:13:31 +0000

The question of opposition comes into play when trying to figure out how to fight with the “structures already in place.” To overcome, to fight the majority creates opposition. It creates the stigma of black verses white. With no “outside” the system, every one becomes the majority. For post-structuralism no individual can break away. For Elbow this is problematic. To have a true voice and to find one’s self it is essential to break away from that “norm.” Elbow would argue that to grow and develop one must leave the majority and find the individual. When dealing with oppression, the way to succeed and get past the natural beliefs/associations is to break away and redefine everything for oneself.

By: ebald2np

ebald2np — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:21:00 +0000

I think that the definitions were really interesting. It’s pretty intense to think about how the connotations of words are formed. Language really infiltrates our opinions and view of society. I think the amelioration of words is also proof of the arbitrary nature of language. In the article Belsey gives an example of ‘nice’ but words change a lot, fall in and out of fashion. Not only can words improve in meaning, but like the many different definitions ‘black’ has, the definitions of words can expand to be applied to be applied to other things. Also, People make up new words all the time. If these definitions were inherent and natural they would be changeing all the time. But Why are some new words accepted and others not? Why do people change their use of a word?

By: sallen

sallen — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:54:01 +0000

To the question of Malcolm X (or anyone for that matter) using the language of the majority (those in a position of power) to overcome that majority…

In (post)structuralism, one might argue that there’s no “outside” of the system (the system of language or of society, of ideology or of discourse). To fight oppression, we must fight within the confines, within the structures, that are already in place, already working. As such, the individual is located within those structures; s/he cannot transcend them and fight from the “outside.”

How is this different from the voice theory we’ve studied in Elbow’s work?

By: hshott

hshott — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:22 +0000

In the movie Malcolm X, the two main characters were able to find definitions to the terms “black” and “white” in a library dictionary.
In the movie, the dictionary defines “black” as: darkness, gloomy, dirty, forbidding, wicked, and even disgraceful. Just because something is black doesn’t mean it embodies this same associations.
In the same dictionary “white” is defined as: pure, opposite of black, innocent, without evil intent, and honest. The same theory applies to this definition. Just because something is white doesn’t mean it represent these listed words.
Obvious beliefs are that black represents dark and evil, whereas white is soft, beautiful and pure.

It was obvious by the defintions located in the dictionary that it was written by a white, high-society individual who wanted to get his own views expressed in his literature. These views represent society at that time.

By: katiewalsh

katiewalsh — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:16 +0000

The obvious and natural beliefs of “black” and “white” are that one is better than the other. One is evil while the other is pure. One promotes the concept of darkness and disgrace, while the other brings about feelings or sensations of purity and innocence. The truths are based on the assumptions of one social class, which makes these truths particular. They are not, necessarily, a wholly accepted universal truth.

By: epapo6ci

epapo6ci — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:09 +0000

In the Malcolm X scene we just watched in class, it is obvious to note that the language/definitions documented in the dictionary were clearly socialized constructions. Meaning making is always social according to Belsey, so what might be “obvious” or “natural” to the white man writing these definitions is going to be extremely different from the perception Malcolm X is going to receive from the language. Malcolm and his inmate friend, are obviously and righteously offended by the exclusive and racial binary drawn between the two definitions “white” vs. “black.” Where as the term “white” was defined as things such as: pure, innocent, honorable and square-dealing, blatantly contrasts to the definition of “black”, which was described as soiled, dismal, wicked, and forbidding. Because in this social context and specific time period, there were in fact, obvious racism between whites and blacks, that was considered socially acceptable and the “norm” to many. Obviously in this particular scene, both black men are outraged by the language and overt discrimination that resides behind each defintion.

By: liz11

liz11 — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:48:12 +0000

One part of the definition of “white” as seen in the Malcolm X clip, is “the color of pure snow”, which may appear to be a sort of “obvious” definition. However the other definitions that are mentioned such as “innocent”, “pure”, “honest”, and “well-meaning” are clearly “natural” definitions that have been severely tainted by the authors who chose to write that particular definition. Even the modifying word “pure” in front of snow is not an “internally consistent” word used by everyone to mean the same thing. It is in effect placing a sort of moral meaning onto a a word whose most basic meaning should exclude morality altogether.