1. Derrida Response by Ryan Flores Can you find the center?

2. Before We Begin… I want to thank Ana-Lia for her awesome prezi presentation. I personally found Derrida very complicated, reading her slides beforehand really helped me grasp some of the concepts. Also, some helpful videos for those who might be struggling with all of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a2dLVx8THA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOMD0N7k9ZQ

3. So Structuralism… Had us all thinking language is made up of a nice, organized series of signs. You got a signified and a signifier, and together they make up a sign. We make sense of these signs by comparing them to other similar, yet different signs. You know this is a horse because we have other non-horse signifieds (like a donkey or zebra), as well as non-horse signifiers like hearse or hose, to help us contrast it with.

4. Saussure to Strauss With the simple structure made by Saussure we can supposedly find meaning behind a long series of signs. As Ana-Lia just explained, we rely on established differences to come to the decision on what makes a horse a horse. Claude Levi Strauss really liked this idea and decided to make it more “universal.” By comparing differences and similarities between cultures, Strauss was able to find meaning in a series of systems and rituals performed by different people. Unlike Saussure, Strauss wasn’t too worried about linearity, he just wanted to find those differences.

5. Which brings us to… Jacques Derrida. Signs and speech are nice, but he wants us to focus on the written language. He treats language like the universe: constantly changing with time, expanding, and in more ways than one. He argues against a “centered structure” of language and meaning (SSP 1). Any form of “totalization” in language: NO. Nothing about language is absolute.

6. Why is this Awesome? I see it like this: Structuralism is handy, but when we give language a structure what we’re also doing is limiting its form. Derrida looks between the signified and signifier and lets us know there is no meaning, because language is always changing, always adapting. You can’t find the center of the universe because it’s growing, and so is language. You also cannot find the origin of the language or the universe, but you can theorize and get so many steps closer to it. When we get rid of structure we end up with freeplay. Words no longer rely on limiting signs and binaries, but can now possess multiple meanings, symbols, and translations connected by a long, never ending chain of signifiers (the word “horse”).

7. Giving it a go… Binaries and signs give birth to discourses that hinder our ability “think outside the box”. Although discourses are treated as “facts,” we are taught to be suspicious. In the video Ana-Lia showed us, Derrida admits he could not think of his mother as a philosopher, because we imagine the philosopher as a masculine figure. This is really clever; he shows us how binaries and discourses have limited his own thought. While Derrida admits that his mother could never be a philosopher, he hopes to being a new form of thinking that would allow his granddaughter to be a philosopher. Under “Current” Discourses Binary: Mother---Father Feminine---Masculine Philosopher= Masculine Mother = Feminine =/= possible philosopher Father = Masculine = possible philosopher Under Post Deconstructive Phil. No binaries Son  inheritor  possible philosopher G.Daughter  inheritor  possible philosopher

8. Reinterpreting Language Words can be interpreted in various ways. Just like the word pharmakon can be interpreted as either “cure” or “poison,” we should be suspicious of the way words and language are used. An Example: Rammstein’s song “Du Hast” The title is a play on the homophones “Du hast” (you have) and “Du hasst” (you hate). Rammstein even went ahead and made an “English” version where “Du Hasst” becomes the main interpretation of the song. Although a minor change, the song’s original “meaning” is changed when translated to English, and with the new attacked meaning. For the curious: The Original and “English” Versions of the song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIvXxU7aqf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE--G7Y5PJk

9. Be Very Suspicious How is language used in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2j578jTBCY What are the binaries? What are the discourses? Does the fact that this is coming from Derrida change anything? If anything, what should we take into suspicion?

10. Let’s Try it Out? Pick your favorite song and listen to the way language is being used. Be suspicious of the “true meaning” behind the lyrics. Words carry multiple meanings, lines can be interpreted various ways, the way it’s performed, etc. Heck, if your song is popular enough, consider looking up a parody version, or a version performed in another language. Which lines are changed, and why? Who is performing it? How do the changes effect the original “meaning” of the song? An example: “Let It Go” in English (original) vs. “Let It Go” Any other language vs. “Let It Go” parody In English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bU In Italiano: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9HPQVrBLx4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9HPQVrBLx4