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.
It's interesting how the meaning of a signified may change, but the signifier remains the same. In my opinion, this relates back to how different readers analyze a text (most have unique or slightly different interpretations), and how the same reader analyzes a text at different points in his or her life. It is also important to recognize how different cultures interpret signifiers (this different interpretation also leads to a different meaning for the signified). The relationship between the signifier and signified is not a relationship that I have ever given much thought to, but it certainly poses a lot of questions!
ReplyDeleteI like how you give a lot of examples to show us how Derrida's argument can be applied to different situations. Similar to the comment above, I also think it is interesting that the signifier does not seem to change over time, only the signified. Do you think it is possible for the signifier to change over time and still have the same signified? It also brings up questions about signifieds that have more than one signifier; however, each of these signifiers would probably have a slightly different connotation even if they are referring to the same thing. Then could it be argued that there cannot be multiple signifiers for one intended signified? Your blog brings up interesting questions–Great job!
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the signifier would change because it is a representation of the signified. I do believe that the signifier could start to signify a different thing (a new signified) over time but the signified that it was first a signifier for would still remain constant as its own center. I would argue that there can not be more than one signifier for each signified however like you said, there are different connotations for each so it would not be a true representation.
ReplyDeleteLBrown, as Tanner said, I too think that the signifier cannot "change" like the signified can. A signifier or symbol can change it's signifieds to have different meanings but if the signifier itself changes then it becomes a completely different thing. Do you see what I mean? If you change day to hay then they are completely different signifiers, changing a symbol means it is not the same symbol anymore. But you could "change" the signifier in the way that you are just using a different signifier to represent the same signified; these would be Synomyms: 2 words/signs/signifiers meaning the same thing.
ReplyDeleteTanner, when you are deconstructing Derrida in the second paragraph, arn't you actually arguing his point, That there is no true origin/center? Or is what you are saying that from a theological standpoint someone would argue against Derrida and say yes there is a center/origin and that is god?
In your post you state that: "Derrida argues that the signified slowly slips beneath the surface of the signifier because of the many interpretations of the signifier." Wasn't Derrida referring to the signifier/signified within the context of culture as whole, and not within the context of individual "interpretaton"?
ReplyDelete