Response 4: “Levinas and Laozi on the deconstruction of Ethics”

“Derrida insists that meanings are determined by the ‘play of differences’ in the words themselves, in the way they signify, and in the way we use them for our own purposes, whatever they may be. The play of differences, in turn, is made possible by the fact that part of the meaning of a word is the very thing, or things, that the word excludes, for example, the ‘day’ that ‘night’ excludes, the ‘oak tree’ that the ‘acorn’ excludes. Very often, what is excluded is merely deferred, like the day that is deferred from what now is the night, the oak tree that is deferred from the present acorn…What is deferred, or excluded, can be called upon to undermine the unity of meaning, to blur the sharp line that divides the two terms of a binary opposition, thus leading to a multiplicity of meanings. For many literary critics, this constitutes deconstructive reading (GT 135).”

I wanted to do a deconstructive analysis on a character from the TV series Orange is the New Black, called Red, and analyze what the presence and absence of certain indicators tells the audience about her.

The picture on the left is of Red before she goes to prison. The one on the right is after she has adjusted, and has even managed to thrive while incarcerated.

When she's still a free woman, Red's hair (although a dark red) is tame and in a neat half updo. Her makeup is toned down. Although Red and her husband have immigrated from Russia and run a small store, her husband is looking to get in with a successful Russian businessman. In his attempts to do so, he encourages her to get on good terms with the businessmen's wives. Even though Red's attempt to socialize with the women fails miserably, her clever business idea gets the attention of said successful Russian businessman that her husband had been wanting all along.

The second picture is after Red has become accustomed to life in prison. Her hair color, makeup, and nails have become more vibrant, and all three directly reflect her bolder personality. Red's hair is no longer in a neat updo, but is styled to make her look fierce and ready for attack (her experiences in prison have made her quick to react when provoked, and if she doesn't immediately retaliate, she will soon). In prison, Red doesn't forego the maternal role. Her hair, although fierce, is also in a style that brings to mind the image of a mother hen. She is quick to protect her prison "family" and she has certain rules that she expects them to abide by (such as remaining drug free).

The absence of fierce hair and bold colors in the picture on the left indicates her demureness. Although Red is wife, a clever woman, and a mother, it is her role as an obedient wife that is emphasized.

The absence of a tame appearance in the picture on the left reflects how much bolder and more vibrant Red has become. Although she is locked up, it is in prison that Red is able to showcase all of her strengths, without one role taking precedence over the other.


Image sources:
1. http://projectfandom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/red.png
2. http://beta.img.cbsnews.com/i/2014/05/16/ff074f19-1527-4bc5-8454-2c9865a2fa76/v0915oitnb-         s2busshelter67x455cemusany6red.jpg

Reading Response 3: "Derrida"

It was very interesting to read about Derrida’s childhood as a relative outsider and how it may have influenced his theories of deconstruction, and to contemplate the question of what would Derrida’s theories have been like without his experiences in Algeria.

However, there was a particular passage that caught my attention: “within familiar philosophical binaries there is always a violent hierarchy. One term of the binary is always superior to the other. It is the task of deconstruction to disrupt that hierarchy, the place the superior term under erasure” (GT 87).

From what I understand, terms in binaries are understood in how they differ from each other. For example: big and small, we measure how big something is in comparison to how small something else is. Or, sweet and bitter, we understand how bitter something is in relation to what something sweet tastes like. In instances like this, which binary is superior to the other?

In order to understand binary opposition better, I looked online for more detailed examples, and
found one on Wikipedia and I gained a surprisingly good amount of insight, especially regarding my
question of how a particular term in the binary is superior to the other.

  

It mentioned how  “the perceived binary dichotomy between man/woman, civilized/uncivilised, and white/black have perpetuated and legitimized Western power structures favoring  ‘civilized white men’” and even regarding “gender, class, sexuality, race, and ethnicity”, within them, there is an “an unequal binary opposition: bourgeoisie/ working class man; white/people of colour; men/women; heterosexual/homosexual”¹. Granted it’s not the most scholarly website, but it was very easy and clear cut to understand, and how in these examples, one has a societal advantage over the other in the binary.

It also talked about the complications of dichotomy, and even when we are talking about just heroes and villains, there are binaries associated, with even that, such as “good/bad, handsome/ugly, liked/disliked”¹.  It reminded me of our class discussion regarding how heroes are usually associated with lighter clothing colors, and villains are associated with darker colors, and it’s interesting to see how there are dichotomies associated within other dichotomies (in this case, regarding heroes and villains,  and lighter and darker colors).

References:

1.       "Binary Opposition." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2015.

Reading response 2: "Deconstruction and post-structuralism"

In a paragraph about deconstructionism from “Deconstruction and post-structuralism”, there was a mention of how meaning is always changing and that “this is what Sassure had argued by saying that signs are arbitrary, and that they only signify something because a cultural system has artificially constructed or assigned a meaning to them; there is no self-present, intrinsic value” (GT 74).

This got me thinking about how some colors have culturally different meanings. For example, in a lot of Western culture, women usually wear a full length white dress on their wedding day. In some cultures in Asia, for example, followers of Hinduism wear full length white garb when they go to a funeral/when they are in mourning.  Of course, the particulars would be different (a wedding dress is going to look a lot different than mourning clothes of a completely different culture), but the general symbol of what a woman in a white dress means is defined by the particular culture. So if the ‘signified’ is a lady in white, the Western parts of the world, the ‘sign’ would be a bride. However, if the same ‘signified’ was to be seen through the perspective of a Hindu, the ‘sign’ would indicate she’s probably a widow. The same thing can mean two completely different things based on culture and perspective, and is an example of how meaning is always changing.

It’s interesting to observe that what’s true in literature/fairy tales and literary theory can very well be applied to real life scenarios. 

Reading Response 1: "Two Aspects of Language"

There were two concepts that stood out to me from the reading, and they were both from “Two Aspects of Language.” The first one was about Aphasia and using it as a way to approach language; it’s a fascinating idea to learn about language and speech by observing the aphasic regression and looking at children’s language development (sounds, grammar etc.) in reverse. Not only that, it was interesting to observe this very technical process where linguists deal with “psychological and neurological data” and familiarize themselves “with the technical terms and devices of the medical disciplines dealing with aphasia” and work “with aphasic patients…directly and not only though a reinterpretation of prepared records which have been quite differently conceived and elaborated” (45). When one thinks about learning about a language, they may look at grammar or words/wording choice and this is a very different way of approaching that.

Another concept that fascinated me was the idea that that when a person is talking, or using language in general, he isn’t “a free agent in the choice of his words” (46), and that the words that he uses are from a “lexical storehouse which he and his addressee possesses in common” and they both share the same “prefabricated representations.” (46). This limitation is actually very true, and yet it’s a very different idea than what we’re used to; it got me thinking about the concept of freedom of speech and the belief that we can say/express whatever we want, however we want(which is true), but even while doing so that we are limited in a way.