hbryster96
-
THE 25 KEY TERMS TO THEORETICS
The terminologies I will be defining, explaining, and all around utterly dissecting/applying are to be the following:
-SEMIOTICS-
- Sign
- Sedimented Sign
- Myth
-NARRATOLOGY-
4. Narrative
5. Genre
6. Linear/oedipal narrative
7. Interlocutor
-PSYCHOANALYSIS-
8. Cogito
9.Displacement
10.Repression
11.Oedipus complex (with explanation of the three stages)
12.Oedipus complex female/Hysteria (mainly for example/ focus on the female character)
13.Castration anxiety
14. Uncanny
15.Ideal I
16. Master/Slave Dialectic
-MARXISM-
17.CLASS: PROLETARIAT AND BOURGEOISE
18.Capital
19.Alienation
20.Reification
21.Ideology
22.Hegemony
-POST STRUCTURALISM-
23. Discourse
24. Panopticon
25. Orientalism
ANIMES OF FOCUS (Though sometimes there will be episodes of particular interest)
- Death Note
- Attack On Titan
- Your Lie in April
- Pokemon
- Inuyasha
- Sword Art Online
-
To Keep In Mind
Universals, and Particulars
The Roots to Literary Theory
-A universal is something that applies to all humans. It is a concept, or notion that we all share because we are human, and it is something we are all born with.
-It is what seperates us from being considered animals, but we as people, have no choice in this. There is a relative acceptence of not having change (I.e. history proves this)
-There is also an aspect of uniqueness to this, in the sense that it is something ‘special’ of its kind.
-However, there are differences because what’s to happen if you don’t fit inside the universal?
-Certain theorists, such as Barthes for example, does not like the idea of universals, whereas Arnold believes they should be embraced.
-A particular is the unique. It is not shared by all humans, and its’ contingence relies on the enviornment at hand.
-It is frequently used in cultural arguements, as well as individuality and prompt for change arguements (is the particular worthy of being deemed valuable? Why do they matter?)
-It may be too specific, however, in the sense that the common, or community bond, now becomes unimportant.
-It can prmote elitisism, or fascism
-
So… what is Semiotics?
Semiotics basically exists in order to study culture, and to do that, one must study the language of said culture.
Cultural phenomena demonstrates somethng about a culture, and it can bring people together. When one chooses to go against the culture, it ‘tells’ about said people who do, and do not, participate.
Words make meaning out of things, and knowing language and conventions gives insight into subject matter.
Some primary assumptions about language insists that it is merely an invisible tool, used only to describe things (ex: This is a cup. This is a chair. This is a rug. Nothing more, nothing less).
The aspect of invisibility comes in by noting that language is an unconscious function, and that words just ‘come out’.
But, what does this unconscious behavior of speaking tell us?
Words, and the things in which they represent, naturally seem to stick together.
Meaning is not determined by any specific nature or essence, but by a sytematic network of relations, in which we define things by assosiation.
With this, comes an inner structure of parts which follow(s) a specific means of operation. By studying this network, one can decrypt the structure of parts that conveys the overall meaning. Everything related is to the structure, or the system of relations, itself.
-
Visual Representations
-
Sign
The sign is the basic root of study in semiology.
The sign is anything that conveys meaning, and does not necessarily represent the sign itself, but rather the interpretation of it, which varies by person.
The sign is composed of two parts.
In semiotics there are only signs. The signs may reach new things (or concepts) through other signs, but this comes with a limit. You cannot break down the sign completely, you will just end up with an endless surplus of other signs.
The construction of the sign is as followed:
Sign = the signifier, over the signified (represented in terms of the tree in the prior image) This component, in turn, forms something which is called the referent, which is neither the SD (signified will now be represented by this term) or the SR (Signifier will now be represented by this term).
The signifier is the physical component of the sign. It can be a noise, a color, or any otherwise physical thing (For example the color red in a stop sign, or the shape of the sign, or the words STOP on the sign). This aspect of the sign is often overlooked, though it is just as important as the signified.
The Signified is the abstract idea attached by recognition to the sign itself. It is the meaning based on context (For example when you see the color red in a stop sign, you think ‘stop’.
The referent, also known as the form, is the ideal or purest simplification of the sign itself. In semiotics, this is inaccessable. You can’t gain access to everything by merely one word. It is usually the thing refered to when using the sign, but it does not represent all that the sign is.
(For example: referent of stopsign = all stop signs in the world // all the signs in different places we cannot imagine // the aspects of the stop sign, which we do not know [how was this made? Where? By who?] // essence of the stop sign // the meaning referred is to hault, but the sign is more than this [it is made of metal, and it is manufactured by people who may have a different point of view for this sign, and their own meaning will always exist] // the referent acts as a tool in order to look closer at the SD, or meaning, attatched to the sign itself)
The bar that is inbetween the SR and the SD represents/explains the link between the two things. It evolves/changes throughout the different schools of theory. In semiotics, it is the culture. In psychoanalysis it is the desire, or the unconscious. In Marxism it is the ideology and the base. For Baudrillard (in relation to post structuralism) it is power.
The sign relates to many other terms throughout semiology, as well as the mentioned theories above. The sign may be misread according to whatever culture it is conveying, which speaks for how the culture itself may work.
This term, initially brought to light by Saussure, has been adopted and interpreted (in semiological use) by: Culler, Barthes, and Dyer (from my class’ readings/course study specifically)
-
THE DEATH NOTE AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE SIGN
The death note acts as a good example for what a sign is.
The death note would be seen as follows:
Death note is the SR and the image of the death note is the SD
Through Light Yagami’s perspective the SD is the death note itself, while the SR may be seen as “cleansing tool”. Because Light uses the death note as a means to “purify the world,” he attatches this particular meaning to the book when he sees/uses it.
From the perspective of the Shinigami Ryuk, the SD would be the same, though the SR may be seen as “extension of life,” because when Ryuk uses the death note, it is merely to kill off a human life (earlier than their intended death) in order to replace the extra years the human should have lived, as an extension to his own. This may be in place for all Shinigami, because they all use the death note for the same purpose.
Again, this meaning would be different for L, because his attatchment, or SD to the Death note is “evil tool,” because he does not believe it should be used whatsoever.
-
Sedimented Sign
The sedimented sign is the rule that is built into the sign itself, or the behavior established in association with the sign. It is the unspoken code that goes with the sign. It is the planned behavior around the sign, which is seemingly invisible to us. Changing the sign seems strange, because the sign is built around specific rules. The sign becomes a universal.
Terms attatched to this are: La Parole, and La Langue.
La Langue is the system of language, or govering rules. It is a shared communication. It is social, and it is apart of the social contract. —> Same rules. Same guidelines. It is a different way in which the signs are organized.
La Parole is how the individual will use the sign. It is comprised of speech acts, behavior, individual use of the ‘la langue’ at hand, and it is heterogenous. There are no rules, and no system for meaning. Breaking the manifestations of the ‘la langue’ is your own la parole. It may be used as an act of defiance.
Breaking the rule may make breaking it in general meaningful.
Evolving through the schools of theory, the sedimented sign can be implimented for use wherever the sign itself may be seen. Just like the original sign, the sedimented sign is determined by the viewer.
This occurs when identifying yourself with the sign, and having no question of its’ sediment. You do it without thinking.
(We used in class the example of bathroom signs. The triangle dress to represent woman, does not even represent what an actual human looks like. Are you only allowed to enter if you are wearing a dress? It becomes so common to just go with the implications of the sign, more questions arise from why we decide to follow the rules, rather than what they actually are trying to convey)
-
Example for the Sedimented Sign
The pokemon gym is a ridiculously sedimented sign in the Pokemon world. There is an unspoken code that one may only enter, if they are to challenge the ‘gym leader’. This is a universal in the Pokemon world. Only people who own Pokemon can identify with this sign, and challenging the sign itself seems strange.
Team rocket challenges the sedimented sign, because they often enter the gym in order to steal Pokemon, or against the convention of attempting to defeat the leader, in order to obtain a badge, in order to go to the Pokemon league, where the same system is repeated (battle, defeat, move on). The fact that Team Rocket defies this rule, and break the sedemented sign, implies that they are using their own La Parole to do so. It speaks miles about these characters, because they are seen as ‘the bad guys’ for doing so.
On the other hand, the word ‘gym’ is an interesting use for interpreting the sign itself. No one physically trains their own bodies in the gym, and this is never questioned. No one thinks “oh this is the gym where I can train my body to get stronger!” but rather, “oh this is where I will train my pokemon to get stronger at physically being able to harm another pokemon better.” It is a curious notion that never gets brought up, and the code behind it speaks about the society of the Pokemon world.
-
Myth
Myth is a semiotics term, picked up and implemented by Roland Barthes. It does not have the implications that are typically used in connotation with myth (I.e. Greeks), but rather implies that culture phenomena ‘naturalizes’ the sign.
It is the cultural knowledge that makes the signifier more than just a simple dictionary definition. The sign becomes more than communication. It becomes an explanation of the way things are.
It works as the second order of the semiological system, which means that the SD is cleared in order to become the SR.
When you think of a particular image, or physical component (SR) it instantaneously attatches to a specific SD, which in turn acts as the first order. This entire first order (the SR AND the SD), gets placed on top of the second order, whereas a new SD may be attatched (and analyzed based on the culture which enacts this thought)
This, in a sense, makes the sign a political component.
This term can be attatched to Marxist aspects, because Barthes was a marxist himself.
Myth acts as a mask to the real spectacle at hand.
It relates to the terms big H and little h history, as well as the degraded spectacle
Big H history (in summation) is what the elites have determined as worthy to remember, whereas little h history is the actual living conditions of the people, or the often excluded from textbooks truth.
The degraded spectacle is often a sign that has been confused for its SD, and thus becomes the nature of the sign in general. It becomes so degraded, that the meaning becomes natural, even if it is inherently wrong, or immoral (think of how muslims are oftentimes associated with the term ‘bomb’). The word may not have the same connotation throughout history, and the SR changes over time.
This is one way that the myth may politicize the sign.
-
Example of myth
Pokemon in general are good examples of how myth functions in this animated world. The SR to the sign Pokemon is, well, Pokemon. The SD it is on top of would be something along the lines of ‘pet’ or ‘owned by a trainer’. This is the first order of the sign.
The second order would be the SR as ‘owned by a trainer/pet’ on top of the SD, or universal concept “Pokemon world belief”. It changes how the sign. Pokemon, can be read. There are evident problems associated with this myth.
For one, the real spectacle at hand is being masked. The ‘trainers’ literally capture wild creatures (in a sense they act as real world animals do), and use them for their particular talents, in order to harm or injure other species of pokemon, so that the trainer may obtain a badge claiming that he is a better enslaver than another (this may also be in connection with the master/slave dialectic used in psychoanalysis).
Pokemon get no say in what they are to do in this world, yet it is seen overall, or portrayed to the audience, as something normal. In this world you are supposed to get creatures to fight for you, in order to prove your greatness/worth in the world. Never is there a pokemon perspective, or if there is, the pokemon always appears to be happy with their trainer. It is not often that wild pokemon perspective is shown, so the audience believes that the captured pokemon is relatively happy in captivity.
Pokemon as a myth naturalizes the sign of ‘owned by trainer (SR)’ over Pokemon world belief (SD)’.
