Comments on: Question 2

By: nitro

nitro — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:22:26 +0000

I think one thing we are also leaving out is history. It is out of history and tradition that these words snowball and take on new meaning undergo changes. Society is always changing and with that words meanings change as well. Especially truths! Once upon a time we thought the world was flat… and now… we know its round. Givens are generally accepted as social norms or “common sense” (not completely like Belsey but similar, I’m talking like ‘look both ways before you cross the street’ type of common sense) This common sense in conjunction with whats come before it are how words like ‘black’ and ‘white’ pick up these symbolic meanings its taught and then its used commonly. It takes something like an Equal Rights movement to change these notions.

By: sallen

sallen — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:01:27 +0000

Here’s a favorite of mine (Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense”): http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/tls.htm
If any of you decide to take my Creative Nonfiction course in the spring, you’ll have a chance to study this one.

By: madelinekelly

madelinekelly — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:01:23 +0000

Given the arbitrary nature of [most of] the definitions of ‘black’ and ‘white’, I am tempted to try to play the game in reverse. That is, we could just as easily apply reversed (but still arbitrary) definitions to the words. They might not stick in the culture at large, but it’s still possible. For example, white could be seen as the color of salt or of bleached things or of corpses. On the other hand, black could be seen as the color of rich soil, a clear night sky, or the uncorrupted color of brilliant obsidian.
I’m reminded, actually, of the jokingly called ‘brown foods movement,’ in which white and brown switch places in terms of their typical value. White was for so long viewed as the ideal—white sugar, bleached flour, white eggs, etc. (Maple syrup was actually encouraged to lose its wonderful flavor in favor of becoming more like refined cane sugar.) But with just a few changes, white comes to denote unnaturalness, like bleach, chemicals, or the harshness of salt. Brown in turn means richness (as in soil) and health. Just think of the allure of molasses, brown sugar, brown eggs, whole-wheat flour, whole grain bread, etc. It’s silly—consider eggs, for example: brown eggs and white eggs have exactly the same nutritional value, but the brown are seen as ‘healthier.’ Simply because ‘brown’ has been shifted to the positive with regard to food.
—–
Two more points leapt out at me in reading the responses:
(1) One comment alluded to the idea that every writer has a ‘truth’ that he or she puts into the text. Therefore, that text, in spite of inherent language troubles, nevertheless has a deliberate breath behind it. But I think the assumption being made here is that writers know their ‘truth’ ahead of time. Who has ever written something knowing exactly what the ‘message’ was? Is it even possible to divine your own full meaning? I think not. To assume that a text has an inherent meaning just because a conscious individual wrote it is faulty. By the simple nature of language, we are never fully aware of the weight of what we’re saying.
(2) Dictionaries are not to be trusted as ‘objective.’ That much is clear. But I have to ask: do dictionaries every claim to be objective? Or do they merely claim to record the language as used by people? Do we have the right to fault dictionaries for being biased? Dictionaries don’t create language—in fact, more often than not they’re years behind the actual usage trends of the society in question. That, I think, is the essence of their usefulness in studying linguistic bias. They capture language and we can study both the language they capture and the way they capture it. Both are useful views. But neither should condemn the dictionary. It doesn’t claim to be objective, merely the expression of a highly situated society.
As a final note, I think we could really benefit from reading Nietzsche. He has this one essay—I can’t remember the title—that talks about language as arbitrary metaphor. But the beauty of his work is that he destroys language—by revealing how empty it is—and then still manages to leave us with something hopeful. Language, though empty, is useful. It’s a neat essay. I’d definitely recommend it (and will try to track down the title).

By: Cassie

Cassie — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:58:21 +0000

You can’t. You can never control language. You may be able to step outside of the discourse and see how the langauge works, but you can’t control how others preceive it. Let’s take the word “feminism” for example. I may use the word “feminist” and mean it in a completely good way. I may be talking about how women should be treated equally, and it is important that they have the same educational social and economic opportunities as males. I could tell someone that “I am a feminist” as a way to express that and someone else might think that I am a manhater and an angry woman in general. I could even decide to “change” my language in order to change those assumptions. I may say that”I believe women should be treated equally socially and have the same educational and economic opportunities as men” and someone may think that I am saying that women are not being treated that way right now. They might think I’m a whiny feminist-who will never be satisfied. They may think that I am issuing a complaint. They may have different definitions of “socially equal” due to the cultural connotations attached to that word. They may have a different definition of men (like in Judaism where a 13-year-old is considered a man). There may be a difference of opinion of what “education” is. There are different feelings and connotations to each word in the supposedly simply sentence I wrote.
The only thing you can control is how you, individually, interpret the langauge used. Yet, I question our ability to filter every single word and strip it of all connotation.

By: kaseyd

kaseyd — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:21:10 +0000

It’s really nice to read Madeline and Sean’s posts. Both of them articulate what theory tends to bog down in my brain.

My next question though, when it comes to the meaning, assumptions, and “truths” behind language, is: how do we change it? How, as a member of society (and from both the oppressor and oppressed side of things), do I attempt to change the language I use and the language used around me? I think that’s why the situation gets to how it is. People don’t know how to NOT get sucked into assuming about “black” or “gay” or “female.” If one wants to remove themselves from the “truth” projected by their society, where do they go? A cave in the side of a mountain, hoping fellow advocates will join them?

How can we recognize this meaning-producing society and possibly accept it, when all it seems to do is put one group in power and push another group down?

By: sfinn2id

sfinn2id — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:32:52 +0000

In order to read the supposed “truths” not as givens or naturals a reader must be able to accept the influence society has on the reader’s perception. Society has a dramatic influence on language and meaning regardless on the fact of whether or not we choose to believe it. In order to believe these truths not simply as givens then we as readers must adjust our take on them according to the society and culture that surrounds us. One person’s perception on a word and situation is completely different than another’s because each one of us have grown up and been influenced by various cultures and society. It is hard to determine what should and can be considered an absolute “truth” because of this. This question is one which is hard to find an absolute right and wrong meaning and understanding because it various so much person to person.

By: angiek

angiek — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:16:11 +0000

I think in each society it is felt that every belief is a “truth”. No one ever thinks to step back and question those beliefs. The fact of the matter is that these truths were produced at some point and change as society changes. For instance, in the 50’s, the truth was that “good” moms stayed at home, took care of the house and did not work ala June Cleaver. Working moms were seen as bad. Now, the truth is that moms working outside the home is not just okay, but sometimes can be good for the family in many ways.

By: sallen

sallen — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:38:25 +0000

Good. Madeline, you have hit The question: the question that drives what Belsey calls “common sense realists” out of the conversation (and into a general kind of resentment of “Theory”); what drives structuralists to search out the structures participated in and deployed by that “who”; and what drives poststructuralists to look for the forces that are other-than-originating.
And Sean, you’re right on the money. Great example with gender. We can tackle this a bit in class — starting with the question of how concepts of gender are produced.
And Candace, yes! The givens are considered such b/c they are generally seen as natural. Anytime someone talks in terms of “human nature,” that individual is invoking the common sense realism line on meaning and language (and self).

By: seand

seand — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:50:35 +0000

Every society that creates a language has a certain set of values and norms that it constantly tries to reinforce through language. In order to create a coherent culture, the language of the speakers must reflect these values and attitudes that the society perpetuates. So, the ‘truths’ that one society or language values may not have any representation in another. So, dichotomies within any society, (i.e. gender) are clearly delineated and reflected by the ‘true’ associations the culture makes with a particular gender. The words, phrases and definitions associated with each gender reflect what that particular culture views as ‘true’ about them. The way that a society thinks about itself and its experience will create that ‘truth’ the language will inherently reflect. Therefore a society produces the meaning of language, taking away its ‘obvious and natural’ meaning because no construct of society can be unequivocally argued as natural.

By: madelinekelly

madelinekelly — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:59 +0000

I think the first step is to set aside the ‘straight-forward’ meanings of the words ‘black’ and ‘white.’ Yes, ‘black’ is the signifier for the signified ‘absence of light.’ And yes, ‘white’ is the symbol we’ve come up with for the color of snow. These meanings by themselves have pretty much no charged meaning. They just are.

So with those meanings set aside, we can distinguish the meanings that are based in metaphor and thus much more emotionally charged. ‘Black,’ for example, is listed as dismal, gloomy, soiled, foul, sullen, wicked, disgraced, culpable. The negative connotations are very strong. Working with each term individually—if you follow the thread of meaning as far as you can—it’s possible to get a good view of the cultural ideology behind the vocabulary.

‘Gloomy,’ for instance: Well, to start, we call the weather ‘gloomy’ when the clouds are black. (But why is cloudy weather a negative thing, and are those clouds even black at all? Aren’t they gray?) So when we scrutinize the source of meaning, it’s easy enough to see how arbitrary it is. Clouds and rain are not inherently tragic—they become ‘gloomy’ in the way they affect us and the way we interpret them to be dark, dreary, and black.

What’s harder to tell—and I don’t know how to deal with this—is the actual origin of meaning. When did ‘black’ become the umbrella for all things negative? Did dark clouds make us sad first, and then we projected that onto a whole race of people? (Oversimplification, I know, but I’m trying to prove a rough point here…) Where did this meaning come from?