Showing posts with label structuralism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label structuralism. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Ghost of Octobers Past
Dan Shaughnessy at The Boston Globe is optimistic about the Red Sox. Their hugely successful stint in Fenway this past week suggests, as Shaughnessy claims, that their late season woes are finally turning around--just in time for the post-season. We'll see.
What's intriguing to me, if you'll permit me a really concrete distillation of structuralism, is the way that Shaughnessy deploys the trope of a puzzle to contextualize his article. Sure, it's a colloquial metaphor. However, it's interesting to read the team's season against the broader backdrop of a World Series Win--and against the broader backdrop of the recent Red Sox history--and against the even broader backdrop of Red Sox failures in the 20th century. In short, meaning for Shaughnessy absolutely depends on the structure coming together--on the pieces falling into all of the right places. Should the Sox fall short, should their season collapse, should they not win the World Series, than their efforts, if we follow all of this to (at least one) logical conclusion, will be rendered meaningless, as the pieces of their season collapse in fragments around them.
Again, this is sports, and so it's a cliche at best to claim that it only matters if you win. That said, the way that 2008's Rays were romanticized even despite their loss to the Phillies suggests that second place can mean quite a bit--perhaps even more so if you're a Sox fan.
What's intriguing to me, if you'll permit me a really concrete distillation of structuralism, is the way that Shaughnessy deploys the trope of a puzzle to contextualize his article. Sure, it's a colloquial metaphor. However, it's interesting to read the team's season against the broader backdrop of a World Series Win--and against the broader backdrop of the recent Red Sox history--and against the even broader backdrop of Red Sox failures in the 20th century. In short, meaning for Shaughnessy absolutely depends on the structure coming together--on the pieces falling into all of the right places. Should the Sox fall short, should their season collapse, should they not win the World Series, than their efforts, if we follow all of this to (at least one) logical conclusion, will be rendered meaningless, as the pieces of their season collapse in fragments around them.
Again, this is sports, and so it's a cliche at best to claim that it only matters if you win. That said, the way that 2008's Rays were romanticized even despite their loss to the Phillies suggests that second place can mean quite a bit--perhaps even more so if you're a Sox fan.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
What would Saussure say . . .
about Lisa Simpson's conversations with the inhabitants of Springfield's Russian District?
Saussure would say that Lisa can't interpret what the "signs" of the outward emotions of the Russian inhabitants and the unfamiliar objects, such as the squid for sale, "signify". This is because she is outside of the Russian culture and therefore isn't versed in its "codes". Get home safely Lisa, but it's all right, that Russian guy screaming at you isn't as scary as he seems!
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Arbitrary Limitations
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)