The structure of Personality and Language; Freudian theory of personality and Lacanian Linguistics.

An overview of freudian theory

Sigmund Freud began publishing his works towards the end of the 1800s shocking both the academic and clinical settings of the Victorian city of Vienna. Freud in fact advanced a developmental model of the structure of personality, consisting of a tripartite system in which human consciousness “the surface of our mind” stands as a marginalized and inaccurate representation of who we really are. Freud in fact presented individuals as possessing three composite layers that interact with one another to form our character; the Id, the Super Ego and the Ego.

The Id, perhaps the most important structure within this system, derives its power from biological and instinctual forces that according to Freud rule our thoughts and feelings from deep within. The id acts according to the Pleasure Principle; it seeks to have his needs satisfied. Comparable to a two year old child who lacks the teachings of socialization, the Id never takes “No” for an answer and acts out in despair when his cravings are not met.

The Super-Ego instead, develops around age five, as children become more and more exposed to the moral and ethical restrains that our family first, and then our society imposed upon us. The Super Ego values societal norms above all. It provides individuals a set of necessary imperatives that must be followed in order to become model citizens whatever our role might be in society. Confronted with the passions and impulses that spring from the Id, the Super Ego floods the Ego with anxiety and rebukes those instinctual thoughtscondemning their existence within the person.                              

The Ego, hit with contradicting messages from opposite directions assumes the role of mediator, negotiating between the two other layers of personality. The Ego acts according to the Reality principle regulating the pressure put forth by the Id transforming its satisfaction into a form of behavior condoned and accepted by the Super Ego.

According to Freud individuals are most healthy when the Ego is in charge. An overdeveloped Id or an overactive Super Ego can bring about those psychopathologies that Freud believes may be extinguished through the use of Psychanalysis.

 Lacan, a psychoanalyst himself, appears to have begun his own explorations of the human psyche going about the process form a Linguists perspective.  

As Ashley Shelden mentions in her blog post, Desire stands as an essential element not only for Freudian theory but also for Lacan’s understanding of human existence. Lacan in fact, exposes the connection between the system of Language (with its infinite pursuit of meaning) and human life (during which individuals strive for an unachievable Identity.) Both conditions result from the impossibility for humans to exist outside of the restrictive system of language and hence share an indefinite search for the inexistent center.

In Freudian theory also, desire plays a central role, as according to psychoanalysis human behaviors and consequently their existence as well is determined by irrational biological motivators that can only be censured by one’s Ego because deemed to be horrifying by societal conventions (and the Super Ego.)

In this connection I believe that, the Freudian Theory of Personality overlaps the Lacanian view of human existence that can be described as residing with the realms of the Symbolic, the Imaginary and the Real.

Accordig to Lacan in fact, human beings live embedded within the Symbolic world, outside of which there is nothing that we can understand as we are a product of that same language that shapes and creates our world. Yet, perhaps unconciously, we can sense the presence of the Real, that which cannot be represented and yet more closely resembles our memory of being a “body in bits and pieces.” First  experiecened as infants, then as toddlers this moment precedes what Lacan calls the “Mirror Stage” which instilled within us a desire for an illusory identity promised by our reflection of an Image. This Image, or idea of one’s own idenity exists only within the realm of the Imaginary.

Both unachiavable realms, the Imaginary and the Real, can be compared to the Id and Super Ego which  are also hidden underneath the executive Ego that dominates and constrains our personality’s behavior.

Perhaps Freud’s understanding of psychopathologies can shine some light on our everpresent desire to abandon the Symbolic world and live by our Ids, forgetting the superimposed image of the Imaginary realm that our Super Ego deceptively tells us must be pursued.  

Derrida and I are in love....

It is clear that Derrida stands in complete opposition to the documentary process by pointing out the various degrees of falseness behind the film. At one point a man speaking to Derrida says, for Americans, being filmed is a natural condition as they measure their existence by the amount of time they are watched on and off the lens. Derrida refutes this claim with the belief that the person or persons behind (and in control of) the filming process is essentially authoring a fictitious tale of a real life. Therefore, any existence one might have through a filming process is ultimately a false one and not their own.

An example of this falseness can be seen during moments in the documentary, when techno music is thumping behind Derrida’s slow moving body as he casually walks down the street. What is more interesting is that during this dramatic scenario, we also recieve a string of disheartening dialogue in a monotone voice that almost sounds emotionless, however, we are meant to feel the uplifting sensation of enlightenment through solidarity. Derrida is a real person! Who has had real experiences! He has argued with his parents and has gotten sick! He has been scared and has had dreams! He has lived as we have and, yet, according this this film, he is not as we are, because sprinkled throughout this cohesion of common ground there are instances of absolute foreignness that we cannot relate to (e.g. receiving a call from Heidegger, being asked to act in a movie, etc.). This entire scene uses the art of conflict in order to reach the audience in their attempt to display Derrida’s “conflicted” image.

In the documentary there are a few other examples that effectively display Derrida’s struggle in the interviewing process. As this struggle is coming from a disconnect between Derrida and the interviewer, it is extremely interesting to see the result of the process through the struggle. For example, when the interviewer is attempting to pry information from Derrida and his wife, we (as a gossipy western civilization that is used to 24-hour pop culture coverage) sit on the edge of our seats and wait for the juicy details that led this infamous philosopher and the heroine of his life to come together. But they give us nothing. They met, they fell in love, and they are together. That is all. You can practically feel an entire world of Derrida fans slouch back in their chairs full of disappointment while he sits there grinning, “Oh well”.

There is a second moment, however, when Derrida speaks of love in another frustrated manner with his interviewer. Once again there is moment of disconnect and Derrida is left to his wits. The interviewer plainly asks him of love and Derrida does not know where to start, but what he says is exceptionally clarifying to such an open ended question. He speaks of the “who” and the “what”. When someone is within the act of love, whether it be falling in love, falling out of love, or confused within the dynamics of love, the main dilemma always stands to be, the who or the what? Are you in love with that person as who they are? Or is it the individual qualities that attract you to them (e.g. beauty, intelligence, humor, etc.). Although love almost always starts with seduction and lust, love is always weeded out by “what” we don’t want as well. If the other person does not meet our standards by the qualities they don’t have, then we also reserve the right to say they do not deserve our love.

Although I would like to say that I completely understand what Derrida is saying by the who and the what, I cannot say that I do. In fact, if I had to choose with what made more sense, it would be the “what” only because I feel that the “who” closely relates to what liberal humanism calls “essence”. When essence comes to mind, permanent comes to mind. Essence is the essentialness of who you are. I feel that I am misunderstanding Derrida when he says you can love a person for who they are only because I am contrasting it to his “what” definition while simultaneously defining it against “essence”. Any help on the matter would be appreciated.

Another image we are being exposed to in this film is a deceased one. Unfortunately, Jacques Derrida passed away October 8^th, 2004. The man see walking around the cluttered corners of his home, is no longer walking around anywhere. He is no longer. With this in mind, the perception of image takes a deeper plunge into the dark mentions of death and how we live and correspond to it as ongoing beings. For most, the thought of death is fearful, not only for ourselves but for others. Derrida reinstated the point of “always already” by talking about cemeteries when discussing death. The fact that we are fearful, and that we will go and contemplate the location of our burial site before the time of our death proves that we are already thinking about it. From the time we are born, we are meant to fear death and from the time we are mature enough to take care of ourselves, we are meant to prevent death. It is buried in our mind to always be thinking about it, but to already prepared.

Scritti Politti- Jaques Derrida

I'm in love with a Jacques Derrida

Read a page and know what I need to

Take apart my baby's heart

I'm in love

I'm in love with a Jacques Derrida

Read a page and know what I need to

Take apart my baby's heart

I'm in love

This song is playing with Derrida’s stance on deconstructionism. While the lyrics state “Read a page and know what I need to take apart my baby’s heart,” the song is literally insinuating that after reading a page of Derrida’s work, the singer is endowed with enough knowledge to study the center of a structure (in this case, his or her baby/ love) in order to understand how they work. After doing so, not only do they realize they are in love, but they are in love with Jacques Derrida. Whether this is in appreciation or infatuation, I do not know.

It's all relative man

"the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary" (35).

According to Saussure, the signifier is a concept or an idea and the signified is a sound image.  The term signification denotes the bonding of a signifier and a signified (a liaison that is inseparable), resulting in a sign.  This sign becomes a part of a language, which is ultimately a system of signs used to represent ideas (through a collaboration of sound images and mental concepts) agreed upon by a community. 

Essentially, Saussure says that the sign of an idea has no relevance or connection to the phonic substance; it is selected with no rationale (which in itself is impossible to do, and further exemplifies how vague and arbitrary words and articles are).  When trying to comprehend what language does, Saussure proposes that it has a role to serve as a link between thought and sound, resulting in form and not substance. (35).  This statement explains that a sign does have a logical structure, but that the substance of that sign is not a result of the link between thought and sound, rendering it nonessential and random.  Take the word tree for instance; at some point, a community decided that “tree” was going to be what we call that huge plant-like tower of wood with leaves on it growing from the ground.  Calling it a “flog” wouldn’t change the concept we have of that image, nor would it change the image itself, it would only change what we refer to the image as.  The fact that words vary in meanings depending on the language they are spoken in is evidence that words do not represent pre-existing concepts.

For a practical understanding of Saussure’s proposition that language is arbitrary of meaning, a comparison of the meaning of words between other languages at any one time (concerning synchronic linguistics) can be an effective analysis.  The verb “regard” in English emphasizes “to consider”, “to think” or “to gaze”, “in a specific way”.  “Regarder”, en français, solely means “to look at” or “to gaze”.  The difference between the values of both words is the additional “in a specific way” for English’s “regard”, whereas “regarder” is the normal “to look at” in French. 

A further elucidating example of how the bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary is the universal understanding that language has been vastly altered over the course of three hundred years.  However, that understanding refers to diachronic linguistics, a post-structuralist view.

"you can't use a bulldozer to study orchids”

The Magnetic Fields - The Death of Ferdinand de Saussure

This lyric is from the Magnetic Fields’ “The Death of Ferdinand de Saussure”, in which the songwriter asks Ferdinand Saussure about love.  If you were to conjure the image of a bulldozer and an orchid trying to do what they do simultaneously, whatever that may be, would you not already have created a separation between the two?  Think of the adjectives you would use to describe the characteristics of each noun.  There is a high contrast between the two in each and every adjective being used to demonstrate their relations.  One is beautiful whilst the other is ugly, just as one is bright and the other is dark.  These binary oppositions can be translated into social, political, and familial relations through the concept of hierarchy, or domination.  If you’d like a more simple explanation, there is a relative difference present between the nouns.  This difference may also be regarded as applicable to all aspects of linguistic studies and semantics. 

The song itself is sung with a slight French accent in order to emphasize the phonetic influence of a signifier on the signified.  For example, the rhyme of three words in the first verse, “Saussure”, “so sure” and “closure” are additional to the slight accent that manages to fool the listener into thinking of “Saussure” when really “so sure” is being sung.  This concept delves more so into the material influence of phonic differences. 

Another apparent analysis of the song is the chorus about our (that is, “you” and “I”)’s relation to love:

“He said…
So we don’t know anything
You don’t know anything
I don’t know anything
about love
But we are nothing
You are nothing
I am nothing
Without love”

The Magnetic Fields ingeniously include Saussure’s proposition concerning the bond between signifier and signified as arbitrary by saying that although “you” and “I” don’t know anything about the idea of “love”, we are all considered to be “nothing” without “love”, exemplifying the interdependence of these ideas needed in order to produce the value of each one.  It further demonstrates Saussure’s notion that signs are arbitrary through the necessity that social community is needed to fix values.  The unity of a random sound and a random concept is not enough to formulate the term.  (35).  Saussure mentions the seemingly paradox propositions that a concept appears to be the counterpart of the sound image, while on the other hand, the sign itself is the counterpart of other signs of language.  Therefore it follows, validly, that language becomes a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of others.  (36).  Language is constitutive.

Moreover, the lyric relates to Saussure because the study of love cannot be understood scientifically the way language can be studied.  It is in opposition to his theory about language, which looks at its structure and not the content.  In order to understand love, we need to study content, love is not structured.

Pioneers! O Pioneers!

Dr. Craig's post on Marxism has me thinking about various advertisements and the lack of critical thought exhibited by the general public.  In all of my thinking, one recent advertising campaign in particular came to mind.

Last year, Levi's jeans launched it's "Go Forth" advertising campaign.  The campaign was released with the hope of revitalizing sales, as the economic downturn had affected revenue.  The gist of the campaign is centered around the egalitarian sentiment that no matter what economic or ethnic background we are, the world is ours for the taking.  So essentially, put on Levi's jeans and realize your dreams are well within your grasp.  In addition to this rather vague egalitarian sentiment, there are a number of other ideals presented in the campaign.  The most interesting, and arguably infuriating, segment of the "Go Forth" campaign is a streaming commercial that was shown on television, accessible here..  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG8tqEUTlvs.

The commercial is played with the words from Walt Whitman's poem, "Pioneers! O Pioneers!" in the background.  It features the youth of America, referring to them as pioneers and calling on them - "go forth!" - to unite together in what can only be seen as some sort of revolutionary movement.  The beginning of the poem (which you can access here.. http://www.daypoems.net/poems/1969.html ), mentions the youth of America picking up weapons and preparing for battle, and eluding to there being no time to waste; action must be taken now.  Only a few seconds later is there mention of the rest of the world depending on an "us" - "all the rest on us depend."  In the video, "us" is presented as the youth of America, and indeed I think they are very much included, but the "us" that the rest of the world depends on is intended, here, to be the working class.

This may be more obvious if you have seen the rest of the ads in this campaign, which focus more on the working class of America. (I'm sure they showcase stuff like this on their website, for anyone who wants to take a peak)  In fact, Levi's has chosen a town in Pennsylvania that was hit particularly hard by the economic downturn as a site for a few of their "Go Forth" ads.  To show their "support" for the working class, Levi's has strategically placed billboards and other ads with "inspirational" slogans such as: "Ready to work," "Everybody's work is equally important," and my personal favorite "We are all workers."  Yeah, maybe they will substantially increase the pay of all the workers in their sweatshops, too.  Doubtful.  Levi's has successfully linked their brand of jeans with support for the working class.  I can't think of a better or more current example of the ruling class' exploitation of the working class for profit.  The recurring myth of the "American Dream" is more noticeable in these ads that are specific to the working class, though I do see some of this in the commercial as well.  The ruling class's implantation of the American Dream is just another way to exploit the working class, convincing them that if they only work hard, success will be theirs.  While the working class is hard at work struggling to reach the "American Dream," the ruling class is reeking the profits of their work.   

But, back to the commercial.  The irony here is that Walt Whitman's poem, at the time it was written, was about Manifest Destiny, the expansion of America, and the actual physical taking of land that was not ours to begin with.  But here in this ad campaign, it is presented as spurring a revolutionary movement.  The uniting of the youth of America, a rising up in battle, no time to waste...sound familiar?  It may be a leap, but I think that Levi's is presenting this poem about Manifest Destiny as a vehicle to associate their own brand of jeans with communist and revolutionary ideals.  One of the viewers of this particular showing of the ad on Youtube says, "I always get this feeling of wanting to do something great and revolutionary when i watch this, a rare triumph for modern advertising."  This commenter was not alone in that feeling.  Many of the other hundreds of comments said the very same thing. 

I think this differs slightly from Dr. Craig's example of the Communist Manifesto on display with hip, new jeans in the clothing store.  In Dr. Craig's example, ideas of revolution and radical change are appropriated by the ruling class to mystify and alter the perception of Marxist ideology so that it may work in favor of capitalism and in turn reproduce dominant ideology.  The example I'm proposing is a little more complex.  Although I do believe that the ruling class is appropriating revolutionary ideas in a way that makes the consumer associate buying Levi's jeans with taking part in this youthful/working class revolution, I think it is complicated by the fact that Whitman's poem was originally about Manifest Destiny, an ideal that was part of the dominant ideology.  It may be that the ruling class is trying to also mystify Manifest Destiny, possibly due to the brutal history of Americans viciously taking land that was not ours to begin with (a fact that is very often left out of poems such as Walt Whitman's), in order for "cool" ideas like Communism to be associated with these words.  Or maybe, and by the look of the comments under this video it very well could be the case, they were banking on the youth of America not realizing who the words in the background belonged to, let alone what they stood for. 

Regardless, in this example the ruling class has spun one or more narratives in a way that prevents the working class from realizing that they are being subjugated and brainwashed.  Yes, buy our jeans so that you may take part in this Marxist revolution, in which the youth and the working class will unite and rise up together.  No, by our jeans so that we can continue to make a profit through exploiting you, and in the process appropriate different oppositional ideas as a way to reproduce dominant ideology.  What a nice byproduct.

I guess you could call me a Marxist

When analyzing Stockhausen's statement, cultural socialization is a variable that needs to be considered.  Stockhausen is German, not American.  He is also a composer.  Already, he is in a context outside of American realist ideology.

Art may be defined as symbolic elements that are constructed, arranged and composed to affect human senses, emotions and rationale through activities, creations and modes of expression.  Art is also a displayed skill of mastery.  Stockhausen sees art as a skill of mastery, as composers practice, practice, practice to produce the most exquisite or alluring performance that has been the goal of their life.  For Stockhausen, the performance of September 11, 2001 was mastered within a single occurrence.  In his eyes, the magnitude of this single occurrence exemplifies what could be seen as mastery.  Because of his cultural context differences such as narratives and ideologies, his comment is seen as grotesque to Anthony Tommasini, who was born and raised in the United States of America.  Interestingly enough, Tommasini shares the musical capacity as Stockhausen; however his cultural context has been highly influenced and set by American jingoism.  Due to the branded value of the aesthetic image of 9/11, Tommasini expresses his sentimentally infused outrage of the event.

In this instance we could speculate that Stockhausen views the orchestration as apart from the superstructure; as really “art” outside the realm of American ideology.  We can allow ourselves to see “art” as relatively autonomous.  Because Tommasini is influenced by the American narratives of sentimentalism (created by the commemoration speech of Bush and his branded “War on Terrorism”) and because the New York Times is a media controlled by like minded individuals, the very idea of referring to the event of September 11, 2001 as “art” in the eyes of a composer is outside the sphere of recognizing it as anything but.

According to Tommasini, “art” is outside the realm of reality.  However, Tommasini’s reality is not Stockhausen’s reality, due to cultural socialization.  In defense of Stockhausen, Tommasini is flawed in attacking Stockhausen through explaining how he does not recognize “art” to be part of his reality.  To take the event of September 11, 2001 into another context and intellectual criterion is to go beyond the barriers of the instilled American propaganda.  Politically and cross-culturally, this image has promoted a controlled opposition, the war of our age: the Western World versus the Islamists.  By politically and aesthetically analyzing the event of September 11, 2001 as “art” is to go against the labeled promotion for the American team: if you’re not (all) with us, you are therefore a terrorist.

As a result, “terrorism” is a term that has been created by American narratives and propaganda.  The cultural anthropology is the root to discerning the terminology; “terrorism” becomes a politically charged term.  It becomes significant to indicate that the international community, or the United Nations, has been unable to agree on the definition of terrorism, suggesting the contingency of the term.  In lieu with this subject, the deconstructed and most plausible explanation for the term may be identified as the characteristics that compose the legitimate incentives of political groups.  The complication of this signification is the disrespect it may allude to family members and relatives of those who were killed in the event on September 11, 2001.

There is a separation between the “greatest work of art” that Stockhausen has understood as the event on September 11, 2001 and the Terrorist Attack of 9/11 that individuals subjected to the controlled media have come to know.  Clashes of political agenda and human-tied emotions have charged the 9/11 image to the American public.  The American realist ideology has managed to take an event that took the lives of 2,819 people and stir it with sentimental notions and conservative moral values through repetitive images of the World Trade Center towers throughout American media in order to validate a war that has now killed 104,595 civilians in Iraq.   Yes, expression of indignation at Stockhausen’s commentary is clearly called for. 

-Micha

The “War on Terrorism” has become its own hegemony.  The Bush Administration took advantage of its ability to manage what we hear and see in the media and used it to influence our perception of what took place and what needed to take place.  Phrases like, “It changed us forever” and “Good versus Evil” were on the cover of every newspaper and magazine for months to follow.  The aesthetic images taken at the WTC were seen over and over again on every news station and bill board across the country.  These are examples of the Administration's tactics used to control the flow of information that we have access to, in its effort to manipulate us into supporting the war.  

We were "rhetorically coerced" into believing that the war was necessary.  American ideology is clearly influenced by the politicial elitists that run our country.  Tommasini's reaction to Stockhausen's comment and his inability to see 9/11 as anything but an "attack" or "terrorist act" is a direct reflection of how his perception of 9/11 has been controlled by American Ideology. 

The influence of our government over our perceptions of events and ideas continues to exist today which is why it is important for us to develop skills in becoming critical thinkers.   The Marxist perspective encourages us to do just that.  Our current social culture discourages individuals from looking beyond what’s directly in front of them.   As described in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”, we need look beyond the shadows to find the true form of what is really in front of us.

- Jessica