Representation

            In the world today, there is a great push for representation in corporate America.  Think about it, you cannot go anywhere without seeing a brand name on any item.  There are the big corporations that are representing themselves in ways that are outlandish.  In Naomi Klein’s book, No Logo, the problem with representation has been illuminated.  Furthermore, the agency of which the representation is intended is also addressed because it shows the purpose of the representation and why the corporation is intending that specific message.  Nathaniel Hawthorne, in The Scarlet Letter, utilizes the idea of representation and agency when he depicts the A that has been placed upon Hester Prynne’s garments.

Big corporations fighting

            No Logo addresses how representation of big corporations has weaseled its way into many different affairs that should be out of their jurisdiction.  Klein talks about how corporations have special agreements with many different organizations and schools to promote their product.  Big corporations have a tendency to target the agency of the youth. The youth are too blind and ignorant to realize the true goals of the major corporation or because they find it quick, easy or cheap to access.  Klein utilizes the example of a public school in Toronto that sold advertising rights to Pepsi.  Pepsi has invested large sums of money into these schools and are targeting the youth to promote their product.  In these contracts with the school, Pepsi blocks the school from selling any other competitive corporation’s product on its premises.  The youth of the nation have become “self-promoters” for these major businesses.  The young mind is easily conformed and is being shaped to admire these big businesses.  In order to win a competition, one school had a “Coca-Cola day” in which they brought in Coca-Cola representatives, and everyone in the school was forced to wear coke memorabilia or a red shirt.  One student was suspended because he wore a Pepsi shirt on this day.  It is quite apparent that there is a problem with major corporations because they are invading every aspect of our life to promote and to condemn us to their will.  Klein also writes about a Professor at Brown University’s research for a textile factory to investigate a few lung cancer cases.  The professor deduced that there were harmful conditions in the factory for the workers and that there should be certain reparations.  The textile factory (which was a large corporation) created a clause in the contract that the Professor could not go public with the information.  My guess is that the factory knew that they were creating hazardous working conditions but they did not want to admit it because it would ruin their image.  They wanted to be represented in a positive light so they tried to hush the professor by shutting down the professor’s research facility.  The representation of major corporations has taken its toll in America.  The truth is hidden and misconstrued because of the message that the corporations want to project to the world. 

            In The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne utilizes representation and agency when depicting the A that is placed upon Hester.  The A was placed forth upon her garments by the community in order to represent the sins of her flesh.  The A was a branding in order to scare the community from committing any sinful acts that would violate the sanctity of the community.  The A became a representation of evil and the community’s agency was to protect the people from evil.  However, as time passes, the A has a new agency because it represents Hester as an individual.  Hester wears the A proudly and does her daily tasks whole-heartedly and cheerfully.  The A is then represented by her having a good attitude and its agency changes toward a good ideal.  In this way, Hawthorne shows the means of representation and agency.

Derrida and Hawthorne

            Derrida argues that the signified slowly slips beneath the surface of the signifier because of the many interpretations of the signifier.  The signifier’s job is to reveal a meaning of what is being signified.  However, the signifier may have many different interpretations which can confuse the true meaning.

            Derrida writes, “The substitute does not substitute itself for anything which has somehow existed before it” (280).  Derrida is analyzing the significance of the signifier and signified.  The signifier is the substitute.  If you think about it, the signified is slipping out of our understanding because it is being represented by the signifier.  The signifier is simply an alternative representation of something that has already existed; which is to say, something that already has its own meaning.  The signifier does not derive its meaning from its own being rather it is derived from one main idea that has been created before the signifier takes on its role. 

            Derrida can be compared or deconstructed when you think of it in a theological sense.  In theology, God is the Creator of the universe and all that resides in it. He is the Origin for life as we know it.  However, humans claim the glory for certain aspects of life.  Many things that humans have created are not truly their creations.  They are merely discoveries of God’s creation.  Derrida’s ideas compare to this theological idea because of the role of the signifier.  The signifier has not its own significance but significance in the fact that it receives meaning by standing for something else that has already existed.  In the same way that humans discover God’s creations, the signifier is differentiating from that which is already signified.  The signified has already existed and the signifier comes to represent the signified.  However, over time, the signified may begin to slip.

            The signified may begin to lose its essence because of the signifier.  The signifier is the representation of what truly is but it is not the thing itself.  The signifier misconstrues the signified because it takes on many different interpretations.  Derrida’s theory about signs seem similar to Hawthorne’s because they show how the original meaning can be clouded by the other signs.  Derrida shows that the more signs that represent one center make the comprehension of that center difficult.  Hawthorne utilizes the same concept when he places the A on Hester’s bosom.  The A loses its meaning as the years pass because the original center is “forgotten” and it is being thought of as a symbol of Hester’s positive qualities.  The original connotation of the A was to degrade Hester and to embarrass her in front of the whole community.  However, as the years passed on, the A took on many more signs which clouded the original center of the A and took away from its original meaning.  This is an example of how the signified begins to slip because of the signifier.

            Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Minister’s Black Veil” shows Derrida’s argument in full scale.  In this short story, the minister places a black veil to hide his face from everything.  There is no explanation on why he does this thing.  The veil sets the tone for many interpretations of why the minister has hid himself from the world.  The veil becomes a signifier to the public’s interpretations and their attempt to deconstruct why he wears the veil causes them to place many stereotypes upon him.  The significance of the veil was lost (however, Hawthorne chooses not to divulge the true significance of the veil to the minister) because it had slipped because of the signifier.  The veil lost its own significance because that which it had signified has slipped due to the public’s perception of it.

            Derrida has a strong thesis about the signifier and signified.  It is prevalent in society that the slipping of the signified happens without much consideration.  Now that I think about it, it has really occurred a lot in my childhood about how things have taken on many different meanings with one signifier.  After some time, the signified is lost behind the veil of the signifier.

Lacan's argument

            Jacques Lacan is a famous theorist that uses Freudian themes throughout his thinking.  In this particular blog, I will discuss Lacan’s ideas of the signifier and the signified; I will also discuss Lacan’s utilization of Freudian themes as well as metonymy and metaphor to express desires and symptoms.  To conclude this blog, I will criticize a flaw that I see in Lacan’s argument and I will suggest an idea to better construct or finalize his argument. 

            Lacan discusses the signifier and its relevance to the signified.  The equation is f(S) * (i/s).  That is to say that the function of the signifier times the identity of ones’ self, divided by the signified. It may seem like a very complex equation but I think that it is quite simple once it is broken down.  The function of the signifier is dependent on the individual perception which illustrates the significance of the signifier.  I believe that Lacan should better structure his argument to say that the function of the signifier is dependent on the individual’s perception of the signal.  Therefore, I would argue that the correct formula should be I =  s/S.  In my formula, the identity of ones’ self is equivalent to the significance of the signifier.  Therefore, the individual’s perception will determine the significance of the signal.  In my argument, I would further my argument by criticizing the idea that the significance of a signifier is not only determined by the individual perception but the environment of the signifier.  The significance of a symbol may vary based upon the location so I need to further revise my formula.  I is equivalent to M+E because I represents the identity of the individual.  The environment of an individual is a heavy influence on how they perceive things so it is important to place it in the formula.  Therefore, in the equation I = s/S, you may substitute the I for (m + e ) because it is the same exact meaning. 

            Now that I have criticized Lacan’s ideas of the signifier and significance, I will discuss his relations to Freud and his application of literary features to explain his ideas.  In his argument, Lacan states that we as humans do not know what we want.  It is a simple case of metonymy for Lacan.  People desire objects because the objects themselves project a feasible concept of desire.  Individuals seek out these objects because they believe it is what they desire when in reality they do not know.  This concept can be compared to the literary feature of metonymy because it is substituting the meaning of ones desires toward an object when in reality it is the object that creates desire.  This is compared to Freud’s ideas of dreams.  Freud argues that there are two types of content in dreams, latent and manifest.  The manifest content is the imagery that is present throughout the dream whereas latent content is the significance of the dream.  I would argue that the manifest content would be the symptom of the latent content.  I will dive into this idea in the next paragraph while identifying the literary features.

            The manifest content is influenced by the subliminal urges of the individual.  Therefore, I would argue that the manifest content can be compared to metaphor.  The metaphor that Lacan utilizes is the metaphor I want x.  This x factor shows that the individual is not complete because he desires something to make him complete.  However, as previously stated, Lacan flips this phrase and shows that it is actually “x creates a wanting I”.  Therefore the desires are lying present in the object itself.  Therefore, the manifest content of a dream is considered to be the metaphor because it is showing the symptoms of our wanting.  The literal events of the dream are Freudian slips of the desires.  The latent content is metonymy because it is hidden behind the shroud of the dream. The latent content utilizes a signifier (the manifest content) to show the signified (the desires).  Metonymy is the substituting of another thing to show the same meaning.  Lacan shows that the desires of the individual in a dream are the latent content because it is hidden behind the shroud of the manifest content.

            Lacan shows that metonymy and metaphor can be used throughout the world to represent our desires and the symptoms of our pursuit of these desires.  He utilizes Freudian themes to illustrate this idea.  Lacan’s argument of the signifier and the signified are lacking a certain element to make them concrete.  I have presented an idea to help solidify them but it may not be the only answer to the solution.