sec

Or, "Why Meaning Can Never Be Guarenteed"

Keep in mind that this explanation is incomplete and probably a misreading in
the old-fashioned sense of the word.

Signatures, events, and contexts are the normal ways we have of creating
limits or preventing undecidability. For example, a potentially ambiguous
phrase is supposed to become clear "in its context." A signature implies a kind
of presence or origin, and if we are present, then we certify that the document
came from us. We are its origin. An event supposedly gives an act of language
its meaning in the very act of saying something (i.e. "I now pronounce you man
and wife."). Derrida takes issue with the signature's, event's, and context's
ability to contain or determine meaning. He argues that despite our sincere
wish and desire for limits and determinacy, language inherently resists us.
Whether we like it or not, we cannot control language and how it's used. Does
this mean we cannot communicate? No. It does mean that we cannot
guarantee the meaning or result. As Collins and Mayblin point out, we lose
absolute assurance that we can say what we mean and know what someone is
thinking.

Key points...

1. Absence is always part of writing. That is, every sign implies what it is not.
"Cat" needs "mat" to be meaningful. This concept means that nothing is ever
completely absent, for "black" is present in a sense because it makes "white"
meaningful. Or, the memory of "black" makes "white" possible. Also, a sign
can always be cut free from its sender and its addressee. We can always take
something out of context. Nothing escapes this possibility. This concept has
everything to do with ...

2. ... Iterability which means repeatable. A sign to be a sign has to be
repeatable, but because it is repeatable it can be repeated elsewhere. For
example, it can be cited. I can read something and take it and put it in my
paper. I can graft it as well, by using a sentence or passage in other "chains of
writing."

A signature can be counterfeited or imitated. A signature also implies that we
are coherent, sovereign individuals that exist prior to history and culture. When
I write, "Barry," that does not mean that I existed before language. In fact, it's
the act of naming that gives me an identity, but I'm not the same every time I
sign my name. So, a signature doesn't guarantee anything.

To return to the idea of context, we could say that context can't totally limit
meaning or significance because...

(1) new or different contexts provide new or different meanings for the same
texts (re-read Tompkins' "Masterpiece Theatre")

(2) there is no original, unified context, for there is always a play of multiple
contexts that exist simultaneously (i.e. aesthetic, historical, cultural, ethical,
etc.), and

(3) what we call a "context" is actually a construct, something we create in the
act of reading. In other words, the "context" we refer to doesn't exist prior to
our creating it. It's a kind of circle we like to draw around events or time
periods, but it's just that--a circle we draw. On the other hand, one motto of
poststructuralism is "We must understand everything in its context." Is this
contradictory? No. Poststructuralists champion the idea of context because it
is an attempt to say that everything has relational value, not inherent or
transcendental value. They also do not want to be reductive a la the
structuralists by making different texts the same just because they seem to
share the same structure. As one poststructuralist proclaims, "each thing is
different but relatable to other things." In other words, poststructuralists are
thoroughly historical. Context matters, but context isn't limitable or totalizing.
More to come when we discuss cultural criticism.

Again, all of this doesn't mean that we don't communicate with each other. It
does mean that our communication isn't guaranteed. What about arguments
about what a word "originally" meant? If we follow that path, we will never
arrive at an origin, for all words refer to other words that refer to other words.
Is there intention? Sure, but it doesn't govern or control meaning. Is there
context? Sure, but it's unlimited. We could say that poststructuralism is
interested in the (im)possibility of limitations. In other words, we are never
without systems, but systems are never hermetically sealed, so there is always
the possibility for resistance. A totalitarian dreams of an air-tight system which
accounts for absolutely everything (a totalizing theory, a totalizing Nation
State, absolute control, total omniscience) and an "anarchist" dreams of a
place where there are no limitations, no constraints, no systems, no structures.
Both dreams (one fascist, the other idealistic) are doomed to failure, which is
simultaneously disappointing and encouraging.

So, whatever appears unified can always be taken apart. God, Self, Truth,
Reason are all subject to a radical undoing because none of these
transcendental terms are beyond a particular system. They can't be a founding
principle because their identity rests on their opposite. Can God be God
without something defined as "non-God"? The same goes for the Self, Reason,
and Truth. But, just because these huge concepts can be dismantled, that
doesn't mean we have to do away with them; we just have to reconceptualize
them. Instead of God, Self, Truth, and Reason, we get god, self, truth, and
reason.

Does all of this mean that chaos is the alternative? Critics of poststructuralism
want us to think so, but the alternative isn't necessarily chaotic. Instead of
grounding ourselves in some fixed, transcendental order, we acknowledge that
everything is negotiable, everything is subject to change, everything is done by
consensus, not mandated from above. We are admittedly on sand instead of
stone, but that doesn't mean we can't build shelter. We can have canons,
standards, criteria, etc. but we must always recognize that they are social
constructions, not prefabricated, transcendent, untouchable structures.
Canons, standards, and criteria are never neutral or innocent.

We could conceive of a kind of poststructuralist ethics (which is susceptible to
a deconstructive reading, right?) Poststructuralists seem to assert that we need
to ....

...give up the search for truth, certainty, knowledge, etc. and replace it
(sounds too much like a recentering, no? But that's inevitable.) with a desire to
place our desires, needs, values, etc. within a specific context (in the sense
that there is no transcendent truth). We will no longer ask, "Is this true?" but
we will ask, "What are the gains and limitations?" "True in what sense?" "What
is the effect on me and the community if I take this to be true?" "Why does
someone want me to accept this as true?" "How does one justify this claim to
truth?" "Why do I want (or not want) this to be true?"

...give up the need and desire for absolutes, keeping in mind that truth is
contingent and negotiable. Saying that truth is relative doesn't mean that
"anything goes." Instead, it simply means that truth grows out of a specific
situation and is never neutral. It doesn't mean that it's not binding. i.e. The
validity and truthfulness of child abuse laws are relative, but the laws are still
binding if we create the law together and agree to obey it for a certain period
of time. Of course, we need to question the very "making" of that "truth."

...recognize that we are all interconnected in some way, and as a result, we
have a responsibility toward each other and our environment. That is, we don't
have to say that we share some essential trait a la humanism to say that what I
call "me" is partially constituted by my experiences with "you." Acknowledging
complicity is vital to an ethical community.

...recognize that ethical behavior is the result of negotiation with all people
involved, not mandated from above.

...practice a degree of humility, for knowledge and authority are in a constant
state of negotiation and flux. What we know is always a function of how we
know, or how we know something determines what we know.

As you reflect on this set of ethical codes (my own construction, mind you),
you need to return to the first set of questions noted above: "What are the
gains and limitations of poststructuralist ethics?" "What is the effect on me and
the community if I take this ethical code to be true?" "Why does someone
want me to accept this code as true?" "How does one justify this claim to
truth?" "Why do I want (or not want) this to be true?"