Scrambling life

“Abso _ _ _ _ inglutely” – this is exactly what Dr. Cummings drew on our board on Thursday. What does it look like to you? Yup, that’s probably it. You knew pretty quickly, right? I did, too. Most of the people in our class did.

This made me think a little further about what that means – or what it signifies. Not the word itself, but the fact that most people would be able to fill it out in a few seconds. This experiment made me think back to a meme I’ve seen on Facebook a few times throughout the years:

It’s already pretty cool to consider that our brain can decipher a word like “Abso _ _ _ _ inglutely” when a big chunk of it’s middle is taken out, but I think it’s incredible to see that we can read an entire paragraph with all of the letters scrambled.

One interesting way to look at this is that everybody can see these words in a different way – literally speaking, their eyes will read them in a different way than we are. That’s another person’s reality. I had a friend with dyslexia who consistently reads words backwards – like one of the usernames on this blog, rolyat flow. Their eyes scientifically see the words differently, similar to de Saussaure’s scientific reasoning behind communication – semiology.

Research has actually been done – by Cambridge University nonetheless – on our mental capacity to see words put together this way (see http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/). This research stemmed from the Facebook meme, and confirmed it’s hypothesis that, as long as the first and last letter of a word were the same, most people would be able to understand it.

Moving forward with de Saussure’s psychological view on semiology, the idea that we only need two letters to understand a word could hint to the fact that we skim through words (and therefore through life). We worry about the beginning and the end, but the meat in between can still be all jumbled up.

The most important “sign” to me, though, connects this to another thing we discussed in class on Thursday: that ideology gets spread through language. This research, showcasing how we’re scientifically programmed to understand words even when they’re scrambled, also showcases that everybody can understand and interpret things differently than their intended structure or meaning.

My question stemming from this: Think about the most precise statement you could make. Is it possible to say anything so precise that everybody understands the same way? Is there any sign completely and unmistakably clear to everyone in the world?

Peace,

-UA191

(Late) Post Class Blog

My apologies for the lateness of my post class blog. I completely failed to remember it was due before Sunday. However, although the complexity of the material did not change, my perspective on the De Saussure, Barthes, and Macherey readings had after our class meeting last Thursday. I was able to see that the complexity of the material was the heart of the matter. In other words, it reiterated the idea that the complexity of language has everything to do with the power of language. 

If language is so complex... how do we understand it? We can't understand things without our understanding of the bigger picture, our experiences, and the presence of others(our community). De Saussure explains that language should be looked at as a science. Our text, "Critical and Cultural Theory Reader", states that “the community is necessary if values that owe their existence solely to usage and general acceptance are to be set up; by himself the individual is incapable of fixing a single value”(6). Saussure distinguishes between the individual utterance of language, parole, and the system of language(community), la lange. La lange is an abstract system that we all engage in daily. 

I found myself reflecting back on la lange and parole in a social encounter this weekend. My roommate along with several of our friends were relaxing in my living room last Friday evening when my roommate, Erin, asked what everyone wanted to do the rest of the day. Before anyone could answer she said, "All I plan on doing is being horizontal." Perplexed I asked "what do you mean horizontal?" She explained that it was something she started saying this summer insinuating that she physically wanted to be horizontal, whether that be lying on the group watching TV or just horizontal in her bed. I laughed, with a confused expression on my face and she proceeded to say "I just want people to catch on and for it to become a thing." I noticed here that Erin was exhibiting the individual use of language, parole, with her own quirks that nobody in the room collectively understood. 

A New Perspective on Tmesis (post-class blog)

(For this post-class blog reflection, I want to retouch on my pre-class blog from September 7th)

In my pre-class blog, I was discussing Barthes concept of tmesis. I thought I knew what I was talking about in my previous blog but after class on Thursday I came to a knew realization. In class, our professor defined tmesis as “filling in the gaps” and how important it is in understanding language. Our brain unconsciously and consciously processes things as we see them appear in front of us. I want to show the “short story” example that our professor used in our class to help show that I understand the concept. 

A short story

“A Short Story”

“A Short Story”

For Sale

“A Short Story”

For Sale:

“A Short Story”

For Sale:

Baby Shoes. 

“A Short Story”

For Sale:

Baby Shoes.

Never Worn.

Each line is given on a separate slide, so our brain can process and try to guess the result of this “short story”. Throughout the entire process, our brain is coming up with different stories and solutions in order to reach the answer. When the viewer first sees “A short story”, we start to think about what kind of short story. As we go down the list, the viewer sees that it is a short story about a child who was never able to wear his or her shoes. After reading through the whole thing, our brains finally conceptualize that the child may have died or may have never been born. 

What I’m trying to point out is that tmesis is the notion of filling the gaps. As humans, we like filling in gaps and spaces because it is somewhat of a pleasure. There is something about not being able to see the whole thing that feels erotic. As Barthes says, “Is not the most erotic portion of a body where the garment gapes” (Barthes 108). For example, Marilyn Monroe sets up the perfect picture of tmesis when she walks over the man hole in the film The Seven Year Itch. Her dress flies up, revealing her bare legs and lower half of her body, yet no one actually sees anything. 

I also have another more modern example that fits this category of tmesis. In my rFLA neighborhood class called Masculinity in Crisis, my fellow students and I watched a film called Basic Instinct. This film became very popular because of the interrogation scene with actress Sharon Stone. Stone is being questioned by all men detectives about a murder case, when all of a sudden she uncrosses her legs.  She then reveals to the detectives and to the audience that she is not wearing any underwear. Now, one can not actually see her actual woman parts, but it is this act of tmesis which causes all the men and viewers to "fill in the gap" and say they saw something.  It is obvious that she has no underwear on, but the directors make sure that nothing is actually seen in the film, just like Marilyn Monroe's man hole scene. 

As I stated before, tmesis is a space, a space in which needs to be filled. 

Absof_ _ _ _ _ _ lutely! (You have such a dirty mind. It's absof r e a k i n lutely). 

Here is a gif of the interrogation scene with Sharon Stone:

http://makeagif.com/8tlUlK

My week three brio

Roland Barthes said, “If I agree to judge a text according to pleasure, I cannot go on to say: this one is good, this one is bad” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 109).  This resonated with me on a deep level while reading all three of our theorists for today: Ferdinand de Saussure, Roland Barthes and Pierre Macherey. This reading was like being operated on. I am totally and completely unfamiliar with these kind of texts – so much so that I would pick up the textbook and put it down after reading about two pages. If I were to judge these texts on the basis of pleasure during those first two pages – with a long journey ahead – the innate pleasure would have been limited.

De Saussure, the first theorist I read, was likely also the most difficult to understand and relate to of the three. Although, two statements he made would prove helpful in my analysis of the remaining texts:

“Thought, chaotic by nature, has to become ordered in the process of its decomposition” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 6).

This statement helped me understand what De Saussure was trying to communicate: that our communication is a result of our inherently chaotic thoughts, put into order. So that’s what I’m trying to do in this blog – launching an investigation into the wide, wide spectrum of unclear thoughts I had after starting my theoretical journey.

The other statement:

“Everything that has been said up to this point boils down to this: in language there are only differences. Even more important: a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up; but in language there are only difference without positive terms” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 10).

Ok, first: what does he mean by “positive terms”????

Am I missing something obvious, and right in front of me (which happens often) or are you wondering too? It could be a slew of things.

Aside from that, I think this statement prefaces the rest of the texts well, and actually analyzes them! Generally, my struggle (and the reason this is comparable to starting an operation) is that I (painfully) don’t understand a lot of what these theorists are saying – about language – because of the language they are using!

Moving forward, the next reading was by Pierre Macherey, whom I understood slightly better than de Saussure. My favorite quote from Macherey, which he says early in the chapter, possibly to reassure conflicted aspiring theorists like myself is, “To know the work, we must move outside it” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 20).

I am outside of the work (understanding these theorists) at the moment – that’s for sure. But I think this applies across the board. I can think of lots of stories and situations in life where removing yourself from the situation proves to be helpful in long-term decision making and understanding. But is this possible in the long run? Can the theorists we’re reading remove themselves from their own field and texts?

Macherey talks a lot about questions like these, of which I have many! One of the most beautifully understandable statements he makes is, “Questions lead to more questions” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 19).

Macherey also puts an emphasis on questions in the context of theory. His “Second question” at the end of the chapter is: "The work is realized within the revelation of its secret. The simultaneity of the two questions defines a minute rupture, minutely distinct from a continuity. Is it the rupture which must be discussed” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 20).

I think I’m beginning to have a revelation of the secret of this work. Am I beginning to realize that the secret is really that the text applies to itself???? So far, this entire analysis has used the text to analyze itself. I have a feeling this is what theory is all about.

Concluding with Roland Barthes, I began to understand that theory telling us about more theory (and ourselves) is really what’s happening here (at least I think). One word Barthes brings up a few times is “Brio” – continuing with the emphasis he places on pleasure as I discussed at the beginning of this blog. I think the brio of these texts is realizing that “boldly skipping” while reading, not reading everything with the same intensity and imposing surface abrasions against the text (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 108) are OK!!

My favorite quote of all the readings so far is from Barthes:

“The pleasure of the text is that moment when my body pursues its own ideas for my body does not have the same ideas I do” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 111).

Whaaaaaaat?!???!!!! Yes!

Therefore, my brio really is that my body pursues its own (critical) ideas about these issues. When I first started reading, I was nervous about being confused and not knowing how to correctly interpret, but then realized the pleasure is in interpreting it in my own special way – as cheezy as that sounds – for my pleasure comes from “when my body pursues its own ideas for my body does not have the same ideas I do” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 111).

Peace,

-UA191

I found the majority of the reading assigned for this week to be puzzling. However, the assigned Roland Barthes reading bewildered me the most by far. Barthes passion for the written word was evident in his work. He proposes a sort sexual relationship between the reader and text, breaking text down into two components: the text of pleasure and the text of bliss. He defines the text of pleasure as text that comes from culture and brings you back to that moment of bliss. Text of bliss is text that stirs up feelings of nostalgia for the reader.

I found a strong connection between what Barthes meant by pleasure of the text, how it serves as a "flash back" so to speak, and music. I struggled for a while when attempting to apply my own literal interpretation of the word "text", and how the only text found in music is the lyrics. More often than not the instruments, sounds, and overall structure of a song is what normally "brings someone back" to a certain feeling or memory than just the lyrics alone.

During our first class meeting we were asked if we could define the word "text". In my head I thought, "of course? books, magazines, text messages...etc.". Dr. Cummings proceeded to explain that a text is anything that can be read. Music can be read. It allows people to return to a moment in time, a memory. Barthes explains that the pleasure in a text also brings pain to the reader once he or she realizes they cannot return back to that moment in time. The strongest example of this that I can think of was when the "American Airlines" song was played in class. Immediately I thought of the Great Gatsby and how that track was presented in the movie. I remembered watching the movie for the first time in high school. I remembered how much I enjoyed reading the novel my junior year. I remembered how young and free I was. My classmates opinions of the song quickly took me out of that reverie. Some annoyed by how brutal the American Airlines commercial was. Others smiling simply recalling where the song came from. I experienced both the text of pleasure and the text of bliss at that moment. I can't speak for my classmates because everyones interprets texts in different ways. What I do know is that there was clearly a relationship between the reader and text. It may not have been as "sexual" as Barthes would have hoped, but it was present.

Please Stop Poking at My Brain Barthes!

Before reading this pre-blog entry, I want to highlight that this is my first blog ever, so please forgive my informal writing. And with that, let us begin…

I’m not going to lie. The reading from this week was quite dense yet intriguing in many different ways. While reading through the different readings, I did notice one common theme reflected in all the pieces such as the concept of “differences”. Even though I would love to discuss all the readings from this week, I truly want to focus on Roland Barthes persuading debate about text and pleasure. I want to emphasize how Barthes piece influenced me to become a better reader, which will then lead to a better life for me. But before I dive in deeper into my rant, I want to explain the thought process that was occurring while reading “The Pleasure of the Text (1973)”.

As I was reading through Barthes text, I decided to start doing what every college student does and start skimming through the paragraphs. Now, please don’t think I’m a bad student because I skip lines, because I know you do it too. I’m just kidding, but in actuality I was trying to get the idea of the reading. As Barthes would say, I was establishing a rhythm in order to get to the great idea, also known as the antidote. As I was joyfully skipping sentence after sentence and word after word, I sudden noticed that Barthes was calling me out! I thought I was going crazy so I decided to reread the paragraph. After rereading the paragraph, I noticed that what Barthes was describing in his writing was what I had been acting out in reality. Words can’t even describe how I felt after this moment. I felt as if Barthes was tapping at my brain and writing the text right in front of me. 

Now, let’s switch gears from what I physically experienced to my rant.  

“The pleasure of the text is that moment when my body purses its own ideas - for my body does not have the same ideas I do” (Barthes 111). 

What is Barthes trying to tap at with this quote? I want to take a moment and examine this quote because it spoke to me. Barthes states that we seek text of pleasure. Why? Obviously that makes sense because who wants to read something boring. Text of pleasure, according to Barthes, fills and grants euphoria (Barthes 110). I find it quite interesting that people, feel a sense of delight when reading an article, narrative or even a fictional book. Without something exciting, who would want to read the text in the first place? On the contrary, I also find it fascinating that people, like myself, skip lines, paragraphs and even chapters to find the holy grail of answers. Why do we do this?

In my own words, the quote says that humans read texts of pleasure and texts of bliss. As humans we like to focus on the texts of pleasure because they are more fascinating and intriguing. In some ways it could be described as somewhat seducing. At that moment, when our body is entered into a mode of pleasure certain ideas and sensations flow throughout the body. Our body, in a weird way,  has a mind of its own. As Barthes says, “The pleasure of the text is irreducible to physiological need” (Barthes 111).

As humans read, we interpret things differently, our bodily sensations react differently, even our reading patterns are different. (There’s that common theme of “differences” again). As readers, when we are in the moment of reading something we all undergo Tmesis. Barthes describes this concept of Tmesis, as “the rhythm of what is read and what is not read that creates the pleasure of the great narrative” (Barthes 109). What I found most interesting about this reading was that I found Barthes argument to be true. No author can predict what the reader will read or what will be skipped, nor can the author “choose to write what will not be read ” (Barthes 109). I want to try Barthes technique of being an aristocratic reader because I believe it will lead me on a better path through life. According to Barthes, one must agree to judge a text according to pleasure (Barthes 109). This means that I need to go in with an open mind and not deem a book as bad or good. If I go into a reading judgment free than I will most likely read the entire thing. This will then lead to better grades and that will lead to more happiness for myself. In my opinion, it creates somewhat of a domino effect of happiness. A more joyful self is something everyone should strive for in their time on earth. Thank you Barthes for poking at my brain, calling me out and smacking me across the face with your text of pleasure. 

Below is a link to a mind-blown picture found on Pinterest, because that is how I truly felt when I read this entry by Barthes. 

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/5a/4a/1b/5a4a1b9778b5bda6abd955143925976c.jpg

Gaps, Spaces, and the In-between Bianca Silva., de Saussure, Barthes, Macherey

       The texts from this week were complex and at times difficult to understand, but otherwise thought-provoking. In “Course in General Linguistics”, de Saussure claims that language is the amalgamation of a “series of differences of sound” and “a series of differences of ideas” (de Saussure 11). The metaphor that assisted me in understanding or visualizing this concept was the sheet of paper in which the front is thought and the back is sound. You cannot separate the two from each other; both are necessary to produce what he defines as “form.” Perhaps this how we acknowledge that language is more than just a system of labeling. Indeed, concepts are understood not by their positive content but on the their “relations with other terms” (de Saussure 9). I speak both Spanish and English therefore I am able to see that indeed words are not equivalent to pre-existing concepts, because there are not always literal translations from one language to the next.

            I could not help but notice that in the readings their seemed to be themes of differences, spaces, and the in between. Macherey’s “A Theory of Literary Production” was the most challenging reading for me, however I enjoyed his exploration of explication and implication as well as silence in speech. He suggests that we should not only examine the “manifest” or the content that is formally present, but also the “latent”, which is the concealed content that can be found in the absence of words. Nietzsche questions what the concealed has to show; perhaps our prejudice or what we are predisposed to think. It is clear in the media that the explicit content is influencing us to perceive something a certain way. Maybe we need to take a step back from what we are being explicitly told and notice what the implicit is telling us. For example, there might be implicit racism, sexism, or other forms of discrimination that are not being blatantly displayed that show us how institutionalized they are within our society.

            Continuing the theme of gaps and spaces, Barthes suggests that the most erotic portion of a body is where the garment gapes. That is the body of text, in which “tmesis” is described as the gap where we tend to inject our own meaning. Similar to reading the implications of a text, “text of bliss” (the text that does not fill in all the gaps for us), propels us to challenge what we are used to. Barthes claims that “text of bliss” causes the destruction of culture and loss of selfhood versus “text of pleasure” which engenders the hedonism of culture and consistency of selfhood. Overall I imagine that on our journey during this course in which we examine all types of media and texts, Barthes and Macherey’s concepts will prove to be extremely relevant.