Linguistic construction creates our perception of reality in general through the speech that we reiterate in everyday life. Since language shapes the ideas and makes them ready to be expressed, thought is ordered by language, and thus Saussure argues that thought can not exist without language. Social reality is not something given but is constructed through the structure of language then analyzing any referent to the sociality could let to understand the ordered unity in the complexity.
One of the principal contributions of Saussure to our understanding of language is his observation on the constructive character of language. Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure stands out in the development of structural linguistics and structuralism in various fields. In the heterogeneous mass of linguistic phenomena Saussure defines an observable homogeneous subject matter, to constitute a systematic unity. He analysis the structure of the language with a differentiation between two elements namely, parole, actual usage of language and langue, underlying system of language. Since he is interested in language as a system, key unit of the system is the basic element the sign itself; and the meaning of any linguistic sign is found in the arbitrary association of two parts: Signifier - psychological imprint of sound, Signified – concept. Hence, the meaning of a sign is only arbitrarily linked to the sign itself, and the meaning does not derive from the sign itself, nor from the thing it stands for. The important feature of a sign is that it should differ from other signs that it should contrast with them. This idea of difference is the relation that creates the value of the sign, which is determined by the whole system of signs used within community. Additionally, Saussure examines language as a mean for thought to be expressed as sound, as a link, thus he states that the spoken form of language alone constitute the object. He asserts that our spoken words are immediately tied to our presence, whereas with writing we may not be present to accompany our words, and so writing is simply a means of representing speech.
To sum up, my theoretical critique is going to be about the relations of difference between signifier and signified the lack of individual influence on the construction of the structural differences, and inferiority of writing. The language of the community makes us to think, interpret in a certain way; indeed language is seen as a solution to meaning in a dynamic and chaotic world because language is based on negations (binary oppositions?) that provide a sense of order where order may not actually exist. Although the totalization of differences and abstractness of signifier and signified produces the positivity- the concrete meaning in its dialectical nature, this process eliminates the importance of individual actors to search for meaning. Hence our perceptions of reality are determined by structures of language, sources of meaning are the sets of oppositions, not the individuals’ experience of meaning. Isn't it a kind of submission to the authority of the structure of the language? On the other hand if the speaker, the individual can not construct the value of the word, if s/he is not the center or the source of meaning; then how can we accept that the presence of the speaker guarantees the value of the sign without the act of writing.
My opinion is that, in the Saussurean theory, the complexity of the world or the meaning can only be solved by the creation of slashes; these slashes promotes fixed, final meaning and draw rigid boundaries between definitions of the oppositions. So within the boundaries language makes possible certain ways of looking at the world and lead people to reach an absolute, final meaning that is encoded between binary oppositions. I am going to try to explain my second critique about Saussure's theory practically that is experienced in everyday life, by emphasizing the ambiguity of “Gender and/or Sexual differentiations, stigmatizations” that we face with.
“Dividing up all sexual acts under the opposite categories is not a natural given
but a social-historical process.” (Sedgwick, p.xvi)
How could we understand the deeper meaning behind human sexuality? Binary oppositions limit freedom and understanding, especially as related to sex, sexuality and in general to gender; and those oppositions sustain themselves in normatively heterogeneous structure. Heteronormativity legitimizes and maintains itself through the continual enactments of gendered roles within a given social, familial or legal rules. In the act of performing the conventions of reality by embodying those fictions to our actions, we make those artificial conventions appear to be natural and necessary for the order.
Saussurean linguistic theory does not provide a sufficient answer to the complexity of the dominant forms of sexualities and gender. As a simple example, femaleness does not produce femininity and maleness does not produce masculinity. What about the gender ambiguous people - female&lesbian masculinities (Tomboys&Butches), female to male transsexuals, or male transvestites- who do not fit the strictly defined boundaries of male and female that create a third space within binary oppositions? In what terms those identifications related with Gender- a set of signifiers, and its structural units (female- femininity and male- masculinity)? Could we equate high heels to vagina or mustache to penis?
“Why do not we have multiple gender categories and real life non male and non female
options for embodiment and identification?” (Halberstam, p.20)
When we look at the “sign” Maleness, what could be regarded as signifiers - psychological imprint of that socially – historically- culturally fixed sign? One of the most and the strongest signifier of maleness is “Masculinity”. How does masculinity promote itself, is there only one and single form of masculinity or could we talk about multiplicities? Masculinity can not be reduced down to male body and its effects. Masculinity in society inevitably evokes notions of power and privilege, and as a result, internalized relation between maleness and power emerges as the dominant form of masculinity. Masculinity is interpreted as the outfit of males within the culture, however masculinity is multiple and that far from being about men, the idea of masculinity engages, inflects, and shapes everyone. Therefore, we could say that masculinity is not the property of male bodies. Actually, in order to reflect that male masculinity as the real thing female masculinities are the rejected parts of dominant masculinity.
Saussure saw order and stability in the language systems; however language is something disordered and unstable. Since different context give words different meanings, the centered language system can not have a constraining power over people that Saussure think it does. Thereby as Derrida suggests we should extend Saussure’s understanding of language as a system of differences, arguing that meaning is not stable and always postponed; so it can never be finally fixed. To conclude, if a sign can only be altered by a change in the relationship between signifier and signified then Butler's analyze on performing signs / gender roles in different or complex ways by marking in-between situations is going to be an alternative reading-writing of the language on the gender theory. The truth can be so relative and these binary oppositions can exist together; and masculine females and/or feminine males are the important examples of this unification.
Yorum Gönder