"The bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary"
-Ferdinand de Saussure
What can we make of this?
To start off, we can identify the signifier verses the signified. The signifier, being the image or sound we see or hear, and the signified being the idea or concept behind the image or sound we see or hear. You cannot have one without the other; however there is no natural relationship between the two.
In a structuralism theory, we recognize the word spoon only because we know what not a spoon is. We know a fork and knife are not spoons, so therefore a spoon must be a spoon because it is not a fork or knife. However, this language of signs is arbitrary. Why a fork and knife? Why not a straw? Anything you can think of that is not a spoon then helps you to identify a spoon, forming no relationship between the signifier and the signified.
How would this bond between the signifier and the signified work in post – structuralism?
It would not. Post – structuralism reads the text against itself as opposed to finding an outside meaning. In structuralism there is a unified system of difference; day is only day because it is not night, whereas in post – structuralism, difference is not a stable cause and will not work. Philosophy is used in post – structuralism, making the meaning unstable in itself sing no facts only interpretation, unlike structuralism.
2 comments:
You posed some interesting points about the relationship between the signified and the signifier. Clearly there is no relationship between the two and it only became even more evident with your example of the spoon. It is interesting to see how these words that we have come to know truly mean nothing when placed or looked at through a post-structuralist thinking or even structuralist as well.
i think it is difficult to use the fork, spoon, and knife example because there are many different versions of those things. e.g. different sized knives, different types and brand names. SPOons come in different sizes and shapes with different names like serving spoons and soup spoons. Forks can have two prongs, three or four, even five. Within the categories their is difference and opposition and I think that we certainly recognize one, or many, because it is not another.
Think about when you learn to eat at a fancy restaruant and there are three forks and two knives and four spoons, we create orders to remember but each different item has its own defining name.
Post a Comment