Slave Labor and the U.S.

            It is mesmerizing to think that the United States is prized as one of the greatest nations in the world but I question if we should really have this title.  The past few days have been eye-opening for me as we have learned and discussed about the idea of the “brand” and how America exploits workers to make a profit.  I am not generalizing and stating that ALL of America has succumbed to such treachery rather I would state that a few if not the majority of major corporations have focused on giving jobs to women of other nations.  Oh by the way, jobs in this context is the equivalent of slave labor as these women are subjected to constant harassment, discrimination, poor and unsanitary working conditions, eighty hour work weeks, and they receive dismal wages.  This emphasis on slave labor for these corporations (of course, they would never admit to it) has allowed them to make an astronomical profit but it also takes away the basic human rights that the individual deserves.

            The ideal of the brand is to spread your name out throughout the masses so that you can better make a profit.  Major corporations have found a loophole to the United States’ laws on employment by expediting their work force to other nations.  These nations have certain sectors that target younger women.  Younger women are more susceptible to these terrible conditions that have been previously stated because they do not have a choice in some cases.  Some women are forced into this horrific atmosphere because they need to make money for their family to survive.  The women are restricted and forced to work their fingers to the bone for little to no money.  They do not have adequate time with their families and they suffer to make ends meet.  These major corporations need to have some sort of punishment rained down upon them because of their exploitation.

A Nike "Factory" in China.

            The major corporations are allowed to make a major profit because they barely have to pay their workers.  For example, if a woman in Micronesia works 16 hours a day and only makes $.50 an hour (that is if she is lucky to make that much).  She is only making eight dollars for that day of work.  Now compare that to the price that the corporation is selling the item for in the United States.  The product easily surpasses the amount of labor that the woman earns and it is not justifiable that the company leaves the woman with barely enough money to make ends meet but they have a 500% profit on one t-shirt or whatever the item may be.  This is the harsh reality that we need to face in America.

            America needs to wake up and see the error in her ways.  There needs to be harsher sanctions against the tyrannical exploitation of corporations.  These corporations can no longer go unopposed.  There must be a punishment for these heinous crimes.  Should America truly be considered a great nation because we turn our backs on the rest of the world so that we can make a profit while allowing those in poverty to suffer?  I believe that American needs to have drastic reformation in order to reclaim its own identity of a super power.  The United States is on a slippery slope and will no longer be the home that I want to live in if it does not fight for the justice of the poor and the justice of those in need.

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.

Metaphor and Metonymy

            Metaphors and metonymy are used throughout any type of literature that one reads.  Both these methods are used in daily life quite frequently without us truly realizing it.  In this blog, I will give the two major examples that I have come across in my life as of late while explaining the significance and meaning of a metaphor and metonymy.  Also, by using the examples, I will show how there can be confusion between metaphors and metonymy when the reader is left to interpret the meaning of the phrase or literature.

            Hayden White states, “Metaphor is essentially representational...in metonymy, phenomena are implicitly apprehended as bearing relationships to one another”.  These two ideas are very similar and have a few specific differences.  A metaphor allows for two things that are not similar to be compared and to show a resemblance.  Metonymy is utilized to pair a word’s meaning with another word while not using that specific word.  An example of a metaphor is ‘life is a journey’.  Life and journey are not two things that are used in the same context but they do have some resemblances so they are a metaphor.  An example of metonymy would be saying as White states, “a roar of thunder”.  A roar of thunder is a metonymy because the word roar is a substitute for the word sound.  Sound and roar have a relationship in which they both relate to the auditory sense. 

 There has been a metaphor and metonymy confusion that has happened in my life as of late.  For another one of my classes, the professor wrote on the syllabus “map of positions, stakeholders, audiences, and primary actors for issue” when referring to an assignment that he had assigned us.  The students took this in a metonymical way; we thought that we would be creating a map or a diagram of all these ideas.  However, the professor told us that it was actually a metaphor to something else.  The true assignment was writing a paper about the previously stated parts of the assignment.  The professor utilized metaphor in his assignments when the students interpreted it in a metonymical way.

I had another metaphor and metonymy confusion when I was reading for my Theology class.  We are studying the prophets of the Bible and I was reading from the book of Jeremiah.  Jeremiah 2:20 states, “Long ago you broke your yoke, you tore off your bonds. “I will not serve,” you said. On every high hill, under every green tree, you gave yourself to harlotry.”  On first sight, I was bewildered to see the phrase harlotry.  Harlotry means to fornicate with a prostitute.  I had taken a metonymical approach to the Scripture and had not thought about the use of language that Jeremiah had been utilizing.  In this instance, Jeremiah had been using a metaphor to depict the severity of Israel’s sin against God.  Metaphors and metonymy are very closely related and can be easily misinterpreted by a non-careful reader.

Metaphors and metonymy are used in daily life very frequently.  The individual must be careful to interpret the true meaning of each phrase that he or she reads.  Metaphors have a very specific relationship between two objects whereas metonymy has a relationship within the meaning.

Ideology Influenced by Culture.

            What is the relationship between culture and one’s ideology?  The very nature of a culture is dependent on its inhabitants and the environment in which you live.  In the same manner, the inhabitants are shaped by the culture in itself.  It is safe to say that culture is truly the individuals of a given area.  These individuals shape the culture that is present in their community that in turns shapes their actions and motives.  There is one thing that I find difficult to comprehend about culture, that is the idea that everyone in that area believes in the same ideology of that specific culture, and culture has either a positive or a negative influence on the individual’s ideas.

            Ideology is ones’ goals, expectations, and actions and I believe that these goals, expectations, and actions can be influenced by culture.  I have grown up in what some would consider the ghetto but to me it is home.  The culture that has surrounded me has given me a very specific perspective on life.  Culture influences ones’ ideology because it is the environment that you have grown up in.  The stigmas, that the ghetto is not a safe place, have shaped my actions dramatically.  They have forced me to be more aware of my surroundings and to watch what I say because it may cause some trouble.  However, it is not a bad thing because it is actually a very good life skill to know how to bite ones tongue at the proper moment.  I have also learned some of my life goals.  I have seen the pain and suffering of those that are less privileged in my environment and those that have struggled day after day to make ends meet.  I want to be able to help these people and to find a way to make their lives better.  Some say the ghetto may be a bad place to live but for me, I call it home and I find that it has shaped me into a tremendous individual that has the needs of others weighing on my heart.

            In class, we talked about Public Enemy’s song, “Don’t Believe the Hype”.  In this song, Public Enemy is talking about the stereotypes have been placed on African Americans.  Culture has placed these negative ideas (ideology) on the members of society.  This is a very strong claim by Public Enemy to rebuke the stigmas that culture places upon African Americans.  Public Enemy’s states, “They claim that I'm a criminal.  By now, I wonder how, some people never know.  The enemy could be their friend guardian.  I’m not a hooligan… Don’t Believe The Hype.”  Public Enemy is attempting to break down the barriers and is preaching the message that the culture’s ideology of African Americans is wrong.  Culture has a strong influence on the individual’s ideology. However, it can have a positive or a negative impact on ones’ ideology.

            Culture projects a specific message for a community in order to influence one’s ideas.  For advertising, it is said that sex sells.  I believe this is true because the commercials are always portraying a supermodel of some sort wearing little more than a skimpy bikini.  With this in mind, the individual may be more apt to buy the product because it is the thought of “that person is gorgeous so the product must work.”  In this way, culture can shape our ideology.  Please see this video for an example (I apologize for it being in spanish.)

            Culture and ideology go hand in hand.  Ideology is based on the image that a culture projects onto the individual.  That individual then bases his personal ideology on the ideas that society (culture) has installed.  Some ideas may be good while others may be bad.  It is up to the individual to decide whether he wants to believe the stigmas that culture projects or to disregard it and as Public Enemy says, “Don’t Believe the Hype”.

           

Interpret This?!

            When an author writes, does he write to entertain a specific audience?  When a comedian tells a joke, does he only expect a certain group of people to laugh?  I ponder these questions when I think about interpretations and how they can be misconstrued.  Different people have different interpretations from an intended meaning that the author has given.  I am contradicting my claim in my last blog but I can change my mind quite frequently.  I do believe that there is a specific meaning that the author of a statement or work is intending for his audience.  The audience may have many different interpretations for the same remark.  I will utilize an example from my daily life and I will also utilize an example from a daily comedian.

            In my daily life, I have certain jokes or phrases that my friends can pick up on because they have been around me for a long time (historical context).  For example, I would use certain phrases that they would think is hysterical because they understand the tone and the connotation that I am using the phrase.  However, I have learned that it is not always the same for each individual person.  The story begins with me talking to my girlfriend at the time (we have now gone our separate ways).  We were talking about a\her struggling in school and that she had failed another of her exams.  In a very sarcastic tone, I said, “Gosh!! What the hell chica?”  I used a Napoleon Dynamite tone which I have posted below.  My friends would have known that I was completely kidding and I did not mean it in the way she interpreted it.  She became quite furious with me and it proceeded into an argument over something stupid.

            I learned my lesson firsthand that interpretations can be taken into different context depending on the recipient.  My meaning was to cheer my ex-girlfriend with my sarcasm.  Obviously, it did not work because she was even madder and it caused an argument.  It proves the point that I am trying to make about interpretations.  Interpretations are dependent on the reader and are independent of the author’s intentions.  The reader can misconstrue the author’s desired meaning with a text because their own emotions may alter their opinion.  In this alteration, their personal interpretation has been constructed and differs from the author’s intentions.

            Interpretations can differ upon reading or viewing a work of art.  In this example, Gabriel Iglesias is telling his interpretation of Steve Irwin’s death.  The problem that I have encountered with this certain clip is how different people have perceived it.  I have shown a few people and they have all had different interpretations of the video.  Some people were very offended by Iglesias’ jokes about Steve Irwin because he had died recently.  However, other people saw that the comedian was making a joke to entertain the audience (author’s intent).  Here is the clip and you may decide for yourself on your own personal interpretation.

            I would also like to consider the words of Stanley Fish on the subject of meaning.  Stanley Fish states, “the self will simply substitute its own meanings for the meanings that texts bring with them, the meanings that texts “have”…” (Fish 335).  Fish states that the individual will project a meaning onto the text without consideration of the author’s meaning.  I agree with Fish that the reader will place a meaning onto a text while ignoring the author’s meaning.  The reader becomes more engaged with the text because he/she will become intertwined with the text because they will interpret the text in whichever way they seem fit. 

            To answer the questions that I asked to begin this blog, I believe that an author has a specific meaning in mind that may pertain to all but he is not necessarily writing to a specific audience.  I also believe that comedians tell jokes to make people laugh and they know that not everyone will find a certain joke as funny because of their own interpretations.  My concluding statement is that the reader can interpret and project is own interpretation onto a text or work of art without consideration of the author’s meaning.