Baudrillard

Thank you Ken Rufo for sharing with us your understanding of Baudrillard and his theories. I wanted to take this opportunity in my blog to point out a couple of things that stuck with me while reading the entry. First of all, I found it rather interesting that Baudrillard could not really be categorized under one title. John Armitage looks at his work as a “tired form of post modernism.” Doug Kellner says he should have used his theories to more advance Marxist thought, because these ideas are the only thing worth while out of all of his contributions. From this we can take into account that Baudrillard is a difficult read, and it is hard to place his works under one specific title.

One idea from Baudillard often seen in American culture is the term sign value. Ken Rufo breaks it down very nicely for us in his post, using an example of the brand Tommy Hilfiger. This clothing line is very popular in our culture, which allows their prices to be sky high. Their merchandise is very similar to other brands, but it has that logo that makes it the best. Baudrillard had this notion early when he was more of a Marxists thinker. Sign value breaks more limitations of Marxism, explaining why these certain symbols have an effect on us. It is important to some to own certain types of products to show their style and class status as accepted.

The last concept that really struck me as interesting is the idea of television and media producing a simulation of insight instead of reality. Television has the power to speed up, slow down, pause actions for more dramatic effect. These events seen on film give us the viewers the sense of the emotions we see represented on television. When people are in a movie theater, reality seems far away once they are hooked and involved in what is being shown. Movies are great examples of simulations, because we receive artificial emotions, and translate these emotions to our own reality.

Death of the Author

Roland Barthes’s The Death of the Author mainly addresses the idea of the reader stepping outside of the barriers created by authors. If we relate so much to the authors specific thoughts and beliefs, we are only able to find one meaning. In the past literature has been known to most represent the authors emotions and beliefs. Aside from these traditional ideals, he encourages us to relate more to ourselves individually, identifying what the text means to us rather than comparing and contrasting to the author alone.

With this notion in place we are more apt to disregard the time it was written and look less into its historical meaning. It is more important that we come up with our own meanings from text in order to grow as readers and writers. It is better to be able to identify multiple themes because from this we are able to develop more theories, furthering our understanding of the study of literature.

Shakespeare’s Life and Times is a prime example how people can relate to his works centuries after the time it was written. We find meaning through the time period and language to receive a better understanding of this type of literature.

I do see Barthes’s points when looking into Shakespeare because in his writing we can take away many common themes. Shakespeare often brings up aspects of love, betrayal, humor; meanings we can relate to in everyday life. Although we can keep other ideals learned when studying literature, it is very important at some point to reflect on what the text simply means to us alone with less regard for the authors intentions.

http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/Life.htm

Derrida on Love

Derrida addresses the concept of love in his documentary, debating its true significance. Do we fall in love with someone based on the person or their qualities? People are to find love often based on finding someone with similar qualities to them. This relates to Derrida stating love as ‘narcissistic.’ This term is the idea of how we see reflections of others in ourselves, resulting in certain attachments.

Derrida raises a great point here saying that narcissism is the cause of many relationships. Although we all want to believe in fairy tale romances from movies and literature, there are still other factors playing into it. Sadly enough love can be based not only from personality qualities, but also from factors such as power, beauty, and financial stability. Derrida explains love as one of the most important qualities of life. How we find this love is the underlying question.

The opposing idea of where love comes from directly relates to his theories of deconstruction. Do we love someone for who they are? Do we love someone based on their qualities that enhance our own lives? In class we discussed new born babies, and how they are the center and everything revolves around them. After growing to understand what is around them, they realize that aside from themselves others have needs too. We never lose the attachment from other people, staying closer to the ones that benefit our own lives. It is simply human nature. I do believe that love is pure, but the many factors going along with it question how true love really is.

Relating to Structuralism

In the reading Saussure points out that in the aspect of language "signs function not through their intrinsic value but through their relative position"(40). With this statement he recognizes the structuralism view that one word alone cannot be defined. Something is made its own symbol because there is an opposing force contradicting that certain symbol.

I have come up with an example regarding the four seasons. Feel free to comment if I am misled. I feel as though in the theory of structuralism, Autumn is autumn because winter, spring, and summer are different seasons of the year. Without these together, the term "season" would be nonexistent.

On the contrary, in the theory of Post Structuralism symbols are unstable with or without opposing forces. In this case the four seasons are not really their defined meaning of spring, summer, autumn, and winter. In Post Structuralism there is not a center of meaning required.