Here's the first of my endless supply of ridiculous irreverent posts:
So if we can agree that the signifier and signified are bound by arbitrary human convention, I submit the following to all of you as a test to gauge whether or not we want to buy into the argument that changes in human conventions can ultimately change the way signifiers signify. Take a deep breath, and click here.
We could--and will, probably--go on and on about what exactly the word king signifies. Derrida's Dissemination will endlessly deconstruct terms like logos, father, sovereign, and king, so I'm sure we'll be coming back to this topic at some point later on. For now, though, I'm making the following (arbitrary) call: Spencer Pratt is not a king. No way, no how. I can think of a whole bunch of other four letter signifiers that more accurately represent the essence of who he is. King, however, is not one of them. To date, our agreed upon convention has been to assign the signifier tool to Spencer. I humbly submit to you that said convention should remain unchanged.