In critical theory and deconstruction, logocentrism is a phrase coined by the German philosopher Ludwig Klages in the 1920s to refer to the perceived tendency of Western thought to locate the center of any text or discourse within the logos (a Greek word meaning word, reason, or spirit). Jacques Derrida used the term to characterize most of Western philosophy since Plato: a constant search for the "truth."
Logocentrism is often confused with phonocentrism, which more specifically refers to the privileging of speech over writing.
Logocentrism is manifested in the works of Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Ferdinand de Saussure, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and many other philosophers of the Western tradition, all of whom regard speech as superior to writing (believing writing only represents or archives speech), but who more generally wish to establish a foundational presence of Logos or "reason" obtained from an origin of all knowledge (e.g., God or the universe).
----------------------------
Derrida believed Western thought has been riddled since the time of Plato by a cancer he called "logocentrism". This is, at its core, the assumption that language describes the world in a fairly transparent way. You might think that the words you use are impartial tools for understanding the world - but this is, Derrida argued, a delusion. If I describe, say, Charles Manson as "mad", many people would assume I was describing an objective state called "madness" that exists in the world. Derrida would say the idea of "madness" is just a floating concept, a "signifier", that makes little sense except in relation to other words. The thing out there - the actual madness, the "signified" - is almost impossible to grasp; we are lost in a sea of opposing words that prevent us from actually experiencing reality directly.
Derrida wants to break down the naive belief that there is an objective external reality connected to our words that can be explored through language, science and rationality. Any narrative we construct to understand the world will inevitably be built on supressed violence and exclusion. So, for example, the narrative of 'madness' has been shown by Derrida's colleague and friend Michel Foucault to be a highly elastic concept that is used to stigmatize 'dissidents'; it is a categry that serves the powerful. None of our words is immune to these power-games. There is tension, opposition and power in even the most simple of concepts.
Good stuff!
I may or may not have some thoughts on this later.
The first (naive) thought that popped into my head is the the tendency to centralising anything always seems to benefit the powerful, even in something as amorphous and complex as language.
I feel this is an over-simplification, and possibly also completely wrong, a statement which is fed more by my prejudices than by actually thinking about it.
Which I will do now.
I agree with the good Dr.
Centralization, in this case centralizing an argument on logos, doesn't seem to benefit the people in charge. The spiritualist encourages the view that the central meaning/central truth to any major question or issue rests in the "soul/spirit/god/other world". If you agree with that world view, then you're likely to let them (or at least the people they're listening to) tell you how to live with that truth in central focus.
If on the other hand, a person has a physical/materialist view, then they're likely to try to convince you that such a view finds the 'truth', the central meaning, in the purely physical chemical reactions, or synaptic connections etc. If you are convinced by their view, then you're likely to let them (or at least the people they're listening to) set forth your view on ethics, morals and perhaps politics.
This concept of everything having a center, locus or a truth value reminded me of a discussion I read regarding causality. In it the author argued that causality was merely a sjubective way of viewing things. Rather than Cause and Effect, reality has causes and effects, causes which are also effects and effects which cause new effects. So then we exist in a complex mess of things happening, but we look, in almost every incident, for the Cause.
The recent bank crisis, for example, could have been 'caused' by deregulation, and people with a specific agenda seem likely to focus on deregulation as the central issue, the truth behind the collapse. Other people might point to Bush and the past 8 years of Stupid and place the cause/center/truth there. Still others, particularly those who subscribe to a deregulated ideology, might point to dishonest consumers, organized crime, predatory lenders, 9/11 or the Democrats (I'm sure someone can figure out how they're a cause ;-) ).
In each of those cases, the people holding a specific logos gain power by convincing people that their cause is the right cause.
And in all of those cases, it seems like a selective choice of 'cause' rather than an objective view of why something happened. Could logocentrism be one of the leading causes of Black Swans?
In a broader sense, I think this fits in with the human drive to categorize and describe everything, whether that thing is really describable or not, shoehorning things in to words that aren't quite big enough to hold them.
So if Western thought is riddled with the idea of things having a center and being reason-based, what is non-Western thought riddled with?
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 16, 2008, 03:36:36 PM
And in all of those cases, it seems like a selective choice of 'cause' rather than an objective view of why something happened. Could logocentrism be one of the leading causes of Black Swans?
certainly, as Black Swans arise from an
lack of information or
misunderstanding of the universe.
We can be aware of the problem, but there's real no way to escape it, yes? We must continue to use language. Is E-prime [part of] the solution? Or is it just a clumsy patch on bad software?
Quote from: Cramulus on September 16, 2008, 04:00:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 16, 2008, 03:36:36 PM
And in all of those cases, it seems like a selective choice of 'cause' rather than an objective view of why something happened. Could logocentrism be one of the leading causes of Black Swans?
certainly, as Black Swans arise from an lack of information or misunderstanding of the universe.
We can be aware of the problem, but there's real no way to escape it, yes? We must continue to use language. Is E-prime [part of] the solution? Or is it just a clumsy patch on bad software?
Interesting metaphor ;-)
E-Prime has begun to appear as a iffy patch for bad software, to me. Particularly, because it often appears incompatible with systems that don't have the patch, in my experience. If we use E-Prime in a post on a given forum, the general response often seems to run more closely with derision and/or annoyance, rather than improved communication. If a model doesn't get the idea in our mind usefully over to the mind of of the audience, then the value of the medium seems necessarily questionable. Of course, we might also question the 'programming' of the audience, but that may be a constraint we have to deal with.
E-Prime appears to have been very useful for me personally. It seems like a great way to rebuild your internal models. However, except in situations where E-Prime has been applied to all of the neuro-linguistic systems involved, I don't think it improves communication particularly.
Does that make sense?
Yeah it makes sense.
I was in the car for two hours with a friend who ended nearly every statement with a clarification:
"But that's just me, I may be wrong."
[I will do x] "--to the extent I am able."
"This is just MY opinion, but--"
after hearing those phrases used every 25 seconds for several hours, it made me really start to grate my teeth. Maybelogic is great for helping people not confuse the map with the territory, but it can also make one sound really wishy-washy and indecisive, which is a worse trap in many contexts.
Back to Logocentrism --
I had a weird dream a few years back. In it, I realized I was dreaming. As I spoke to some dream aspect of myself, I said, "uhh so are you aware that you're just a dream?" and he scowled at me. "So what?" he said. "are you going to treat me differently because this might not be real?"
it echoes to me of that endless search for Truth. To some extent we're all trying to find what's real, and disregard what isn't real.
There's a lot of discussion on that note as to whether internet communities are real communities, or internet friends are real friends. We're in muddy, fuzzy territory here folks.
after hearing those phrases used every 25 seconds for several hours, it made me really start to grate my teeth. Maybelogic is great for helping people not confuse the map with the territory, but it can also make one sound really wishy-washy and indecisive, which is a worse trap in many contexts.
Yeah, this is tricky stuff. There's a lot of evidence which appears to support the idea that using definite statements of "What IS or IS Not" can lead to errors in thinking, errors in perception, and errors in understanding each other. E-Prime seems one way of removing that problem. However, because all of our standard programming is designed around certainty and ISness, then the intentional removal of seems false and fraudulent.
By trying to avoid the fault of the IS, it seems we might magnify the problem, by distracting the observer's subconscious. Rather than focused on what we are saying, is their subconscious desperately trying to figure out what we're not saying? Rather than "Why did they have that opinion?" the question seems to become "Why did they use that word?" or "Why did they add fifteen extra words to that sentence?"
E-Prime might be terribly useful in self-reflection, but not in communication. What tool would work similarly to E-Prime within communication, without being so distracting?
I generally find that being firm with your assertation is good enough, while also acknowledging opposing view points.
It demonstrates an open mind to things, and basically says "I may be wrong...", without actually distracting your audience or disrupting the flow of communication by doing so.
It also tends to seem less big headed and long winded.
Secondly, I am of the belief that I can never actually change someones mind, they have to do that themselves. All I can do is offer them the tools to do so. Communicating with that in mind certainly appears to make your audience less close-minded and/or defensive.
Communication can only be truly effective if both parties are willing to engage in it.
I don't know if that makes any sense, but it is a distillation of what I do without thinking when I'm trying to communicate.
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 16, 2008, 07:30:34 PM
I generally find that being firm with your assertation is good enough, while also acknowledging opposing view points.
It demonstrates an open mind to things, and basically says "I may be wrong...", without actually distracting your audience or disrupting the flow of communication by doing so.
It also tends to seem less big headed and long winded.
Secondly, I am of the belief that I can never actually change someones mind, they have to do that themselves. All I can do is offer them the tools to do so. Communicating with that in mind certainly appears to make your audience less close-minded and/or defensive.
Communication can only be truly effective if both parties are willing to engage in it.
I don't know if that makes any sense, but it is a distillation of what I do without thinking when I'm trying to communicate.
I think those are excellent points Payne.
So rather than trying to rebuild the flawed tool of language, you are trying to improve on its application, rather than make structural changes?
Sorta like figuring out that you need to save often to survive the blue screen of death, rather than assuming the Microsoft will ever actually fix it? ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 16, 2008, 07:34:09 PM
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 16, 2008, 07:30:34 PM
I generally find that being firm with your assertation is good enough, while also acknowledging opposing view points.
It demonstrates an open mind to things, and basically says "I may be wrong...", without actually distracting your audience or disrupting the flow of communication by doing so.
It also tends to seem less big headed and long winded.
Secondly, I am of the belief that I can never actually change someones mind, they have to do that themselves. All I can do is offer them the tools to do so. Communicating with that in mind certainly appears to make your audience less close-minded and/or defensive.
Communication can only be truly effective if both parties are willing to engage in it.
I don't know if that makes any sense, but it is a distillation of what I do without thinking when I'm trying to communicate.
I think those are excellent points Payne.
So rather than trying to rebuild the flawed tool of language, you are trying to improve on its application, rather than make structural changes?
Sorta like figuring out that you need to save often to survive the blue screen of death, rather than assuming the Microsoft will ever actually fix it? ;-)
Well, to continue to use the computing metaphor, I think it's more like stop doing the things that are likely to cause the blue screen of death, and find another way to do the same thing.
I leave it to other people to find and fix the problems with the hardware, until they do I adapt how I use the software.
Aha!
The problem isn't helped by the fact that different groups of people use words in different ways. The other day I was listening to the radio, on a general talk show. A guy called in to complain about scientists in general ans CERN in particular. His main point was that "they don't really know anything, all they have is theories!".
To a scientist, this at first sounds like gibberish, since the goal of science IS theory! But of course, he meant theories in the everyday sense which is something more or less like a guess. The scientific meaning of the word is something that has been tried a large number of time and has (so far) proven to be a reliable tool for predicting stuff.
So, while the criticism may sound reasonable to him, and probably to many listeners too, it is based on a misunderstanding.
Of course, part of the problem may be that scientists refuse to use words in the same way as other people. But it may also be that other people refuse to read up on things before they shoot their mouth off...
(The guy on the radio show turned out to be some kind of religious nut, BTW.)
Quote from: nurbldoff on September 16, 2008, 07:58:08 PM
The problem isn't helped by the fact that different groups of people use words in different ways. The other day I was listening to the radio, on a general talk show. A guy called in to complain about scientists in general ans CERN in particular. His main point was that "they don't really know anything, all they have is theories!".
To a scientist, this at first sounds like gibberish, since the goal of science IS theory! But of course, he meant theories in the everyday sense which is something more or less like a guess. The scientific meaning of the word is something that has been tried a large number of time and has (so far) proven to be a reliable tool for predicting stuff.
So, while the criticism may sound reasonable to him, and probably to many listeners too, it is based on a misunderstanding.
Of course, part of the problem may be that scientists refuse to use words in the same way as other people. But it may also be that other people refuse to read up on things before they shoot their mouth off...
(The guy on the radio show turned out to be some kind of religious nut, BTW.)
Sure, but in some sense... he's right. IN the really real part of reality, we only have theories (in the common layman terms) about what will happen. There may be a great hypothesis, based on scientific theories... but that's not the same thing ;-)
However, the variation in linguistics is something of a problem in many systems. Some words seem specific to the 'tribe' of people using them. Words like theory, in common English mean little more than 'a made up idea/guess... hopefully based on evidence', among tribes of scientists, as nurbldoff points out, it's a whole different thing. 'Locality' in common English is different than locality among the tribes of wandering physicists. Philosophy is so full of words that don't mean what most people think they mean, that its a wonder anything happens there at all, except for bickering. (Oh... wait a second...)
Distinct words for distinct concepts might go a long way in making things less confusing... but then that would require that each tribe make up their own new words, rather than hijacking existing ones.
Yes, I guess he's right in some sense, but I think he's missing the point. Scientists are making theories; that's the whole idea of science. His complaint was that they don't know the "truth", which apparently he does. But the whole point of building the LHC is to be able to get closer to the "truth", as it were. Just not his brand of truth :)
Physicists love making up new meanings for words. Thing is, most words are much too imprecise to be used in a mathematical context so they need to be straightened up a bit. Most of these meanings are close to their everyday meanings, but carry some extra qualifications. Words like "small" or "distant" can be adequate descriptions in a physical context.
Of course, all this doesn't help when trying to communicate with non-physicists. But many groups are guilty of this practise to some degree. The reason people don't just make up new words all the time is, I guess, practical. It makes the vocabulary much easier to learn. And as long as you're aware of the differences it usually doesn't present a problem, you just switch depending on who you're talking to and what the subject is.
In fact, every person has its own slightly different connotations to lots of words and expressions that sometimes make for confusion. A bit of sensitivity to context and awareness of this fact might go along way though.
Quote from: nurbldoff on September 16, 2008, 11:58:36 PM
In fact, every person has its own slightly different connotations to lots of words and expressions that sometimes make for confusion.
This is essentially what gives us different languages (and dialects) in the first place. It is actually incredibly rare for two people to speak the exact same language. This is extremely, extremely rare, and found only amongst best friends, couples, and siblings (and in none of these cases is it common at all.) The thing is that within a group where distance is small (or in other words, where frequency of communication is high), such as a single family, the differences in the use of language are so small as to be unnoticeable in all contexts - people in a single home will pretty much never have a misunderstanding based on semantics.
As the size and distance of the group grows and the frequency of communication between any two individuals becomes (on average) lower, the discrepancies in semantics grow. So whereas a single home experiences approximately zero "semantic friction", the small town they live in experiences it some times and silly semantic misunderstandings do happen amongst locals. They are rare - because the frequency of communication between the individuals is still high relative to say, their entire country - but they happen. Now as you zoom out to a larger and larger group, where the chance that any two random individuals will communicate becomes lower and lower (open a phone book and pick a person at random. what is the chance you have ever spoken with them?), semantic friction goes up. People develop their own person idiolect based on their limited field of experience and communication, and in a larger group, when communicating with others whose field of experience is difference, it is likelier that they speak in languages with more of a difference.
Now, because of the practical things that cause you to mainly communicate with people in your own country (i.e, that's where you are located, and the law and organizations across the border somewhat discourage you having your whole life in the other country) everyone in that country tends to form a group where the language is more-or-less compatible. But as you zoom even further out, you notice that in other countries people speak so differently you probably can't understand them at all without some effort - semantic friction is very high.
So far this is all obvious if you've given any thought to this matter at all, I think. But what this example with the radio show highlights is that some groups with high frequency of internal communication are based on profession or field of interest or memetics, rather than location. Scientists form, as Rata said, a tribe, and even though they speak a language that may be classified as "English", this does not at all mean that other "English"-speakers speak their language. Scientific English is a specialized brand of English that differs from the mainstream vernacular in a way that local dialects do not, but the basic reason this jargon exists is the same as the reason why dialects exist and why languages are not mutually intelligible. The main factor is simply how much the different idiolects (single people's languages) interact with one another and affect one another. If you spend time in scientific circles, or read scientific literature (which is a form of one-way communication), your idiolect may pick up elements of the other idiolects you come in contact with. Since scientists communicate about science primarily with other scientists, this tiny gradual effect gains weight through feedback loops - all in much the same way as people from the same region will speak in a similar way to one another.
The language of science: heavily accented english.
Many scientists do have a habit of explicitly defining their terms when there is the risk of misunderstanding, but of course in each field there is a basic vocabulary you're just expected to know. This certainly doesn't make it easier to read scientific papers if you're a layman, or even slightly out of your field... Also, each distinct language probably has its own "language of science", where terms are pretty much analogous to the english ones (being the primary language of international exchange). E.g. swedish speaking scientists don't habitually speak english to each other. I wonder how people whose languages are much more different from english handle this.
On the positive side, I suppose the (unconscious or not) practise of forming idiolects and subdialects might actually be a driving force for linguistic innovation.
I wouldn't call it a practice so much as a phenomenon. It is simply what happens when the frequency of communication (or entanglement) goes down within a given group of idiolects. (Assuming there is a random element in forming the idiolects themselves, which seems necessary for a view of language based on evolution.)
I agree with Payne on this, it is system that works well.
I guess I think a good solution is just taking what people say as opinion, no matter how it is worded, no matter if they are saying it as opinion or not. I guess, remembering that people are fallible, so will get things wrong, put spin on things, consciously and subconsciously, etc. Sought of like taking the concept of e-prime further (however without reconstructing language), saying everybody has a different experience of things, and acknowledging that. An opinion, say Sarah Palin is an idiot, can be taken the same as stating a fact, Sarah Palin is running for Vice President, because this is seen as a fact because we agree on it, as we both have the same sources of information, and it is hard to take what we are told on that in a different way.
Of course this is kinda just asking to be hit over the head with a barstool.
That said, I like idiolects, they add to a persons personality, and any restriction on them could just end up turning people more into robots.
Being aware of these things obviously makes it easier to communicate and the world suddenly makes a lot more sense. Still, there is the problem of being misunderstood by people who aren't aware of it. E-prime may be useful tool but it's no final solution. The mechanism that makes you believe in the stuff that fits your world view can't be fooled that easily. In fact, many people seem programmed to not listen to what you say unless you really appear to believe it yourself, in which case e-prime is kind of short-circuited.
I am feeling bummed that about all I have time for these days is skimming, because I get interrupted so often. I can tell this is a really good thread but I've been too busy/tired/distracted to sit down and do it justice.
I don't really like e-prime, I think if anything, language needs to be less controlled.
However that aside, the featured article on Wikipedia today seems relevant and interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada
I may have more to say when I finish reading it and have time to consider it.
Anekantavada, I think could absolutely be tied to the same line of thought as we're discussing here. The Elephant story appears in a couple 'discordian' themed books.
The Syādvāda appears also. It is one of my favorite bits from the PD.
The nature of truth is far more difficult to discern than it appears.
In your heart...
I think that part of why E-Prime gets a bad rap is because of a misunderstanding about how obvious it is. (lol) When I first read the article on E-Prime, I considered it to be quite lame, because I interpreted it as a simple, direct translation: X is Y --> X seems to me to be roughly equivalent to Y. I saw a youtube video of RAW speaking E-Prime, and found that in its original conception, it was a lot more fluid and a lot less obvious.
When he translates "Rock is better than rap" it didn't come out as "Rock seems to me to be better than rap", but instead, "I prefer rock over rap". That doesn't seem wishy-washy at all to me, and in fact seems more direct without mashing words into totally ambiguous globules of globulity, and stuff. :P
That said, a lot of statements are going to be significantly more difficult to translate, especially before complete rewiring. E-Prime isn't so much a patch, but a patch specification suggestion -- if you implement it well, then it should work just fine as a patch, but you'll have to work at it.
I quite agree with the idea that the diversity of language types is a force for innovation. That said, I'm sure there's a balance to be had between the progressively isolated low-propogation feedback networks (wherein a dialect becomes totally incomprehensible to someone one town over) and a highly conductive and homogenizing language network (wherein everyone speaks with a california accent from kansas to hong kong because that's how people talk on TV) -- and I think that's when you hit the sweet spot with lots of linguistic innovation and frequent intercultural crossfertilization.
Quote from: Enki-][ on November 10, 2008, 07:18:03 PM
I think that part of why E-Prime gets a bad rap is because of a misunderstanding about how obvious it is. (lol) When I first read the article on E-Prime, I considered it to be quite lame, because I interpreted it as a simple, direct translation: X is Y --> X seems to me to be roughly equivalent to Y. I saw a youtube video of RAW speaking E-Prime, and found that in its original conception, it was a lot more fluid and a lot less obvious.
When he translates "Rock is better than rap" it didn't come out as "Rock seems to me to be better than rap", but instead, "I prefer rock over rap". That doesn't seem wishy-washy at all to me, and in fact seems more direct without mashing words into totally ambiguous globules of globulity, and stuff. :P
That said, a lot of statements are going to be significantly more difficult to translate, especially before complete rewiring. E-Prime isn't so much a patch, but a patch specification suggestion -- if you implement it well, then it should work just fine as a patch, but you'll have to work at it.
I quite agree with the idea that the diversity of language types is a force for innovation. That said, I'm sure there's a balance to be had between the progressively isolated low-propogation feedback networks (wherein a dialect becomes totally incomprehensible to someone one town over) and a highly conductive and homogenizing language network (wherein everyone speaks with a california accent from kansas to hong kong because that's how people talk on TV) -- and I think that's when you hit the sweet spot with lots of linguistic innovation and frequent intercultural crossfertilization.
:mittens:
Quote from: Cain on September 16, 2008, 09:25:01 AM
In critical theory and deconstruction, logocentrism is a phrase coined by the German philosopher Ludwig Klages in the 1920s to refer to the perceived tendency of Western thought to locate the center of any text or discourse within the logos (a Greek word meaning word, reason, or spirit). Jacques Derrida used the term to characterize most of Western philosophy since Plato: a constant search for the "truth."
Logocentrism is often confused with phonocentrism, which more specifically refers to the privileging of speech over writing.
Logocentrism is manifested in the works of Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Ferdinand de Saussure, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and many other philosophers of the Western tradition, all of whom regard speech as superior to writing (believing writing only represents or archives speech), but who more generally wish to establish a foundational presence of Logos or "reason" obtained from an origin of all knowledge (e.g., God or the universe).
----------------------------
Derrida believed Western thought has been riddled since the time of Plato by a cancer he called "logocentrism". This is, at its core, the assumption that language describes the world in a fairly transparent way. You might think that the words you use are impartial tools for understanding the world - but this is, Derrida argued, a delusion. If I describe, say, Charles Manson as "mad", many people would assume I was describing an objective state called "madness" that exists in the world. Derrida would say the idea of "madness" is just a floating concept, a "signifier", that makes little sense except in relation to other words. The thing out there - the actual madness, the "signified" - is almost impossible to grasp; we are lost in a sea of opposing words that prevent us from actually experiencing reality directly.
Derrida wants to break down the naive belief that there is an objective external reality connected to our words that can be explored through language, science and rationality. Any narrative we construct to understand the world will inevitably be built on supressed violence and exclusion. So, for example, the narrative of 'madness' has been shown by Derrida's colleague and friend Michel Foucault to be a highly elastic concept that is used to stigmatize 'dissidents'; it is a categry that serves the powerful. None of our words is immune to these power-games. There is tension, opposition and power in even the most simple of concepts.
Current events which touch on this ---
Growing acceptance for trans people - this involves accepting the socially constructed nature of gender roles. The idea of Male and Female just being a floating concept, a signifier.
On the other side of the fence, you've got the American confederate flag. The flag is coming down all over the place, and so we're also seeing some disgusting defense mechanisms (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/theoval/2015/07/16/obama-oklahoma-city-confederate-flags/30228809/).
I listened to a John Oliver episode last night in which he described the flag as "objectively racist", and I flinched a bit. I think what a flag "really signifies" is a floating point, and we're never going to find anything "objective" there.
I think that the discussion about the flag's "meaning" is missing the point and should be avoided; we should be talking about its consequences. To me, it's not about whether the flag is racist or not, we should be focused on how people relate to and react to the flag. How black people feel when they see the flag is not up for debate.
Quote from: Edward Longpork on July 17, 2015, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 16, 2008, 09:25:01 AM
In critical theory and deconstruction, logocentrism is a phrase coined by the German philosopher Ludwig Klages in the 1920s to refer to the perceived tendency of Western thought to locate the center of any text or discourse within the logos (a Greek word meaning word, reason, or spirit). Jacques Derrida used the term to characterize most of Western philosophy since Plato: a constant search for the "truth."
Logocentrism is often confused with phonocentrism, which more specifically refers to the privileging of speech over writing.
Logocentrism is manifested in the works of Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Ferdinand de Saussure, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and many other philosophers of the Western tradition, all of whom regard speech as superior to writing (believing writing only represents or archives speech), but who more generally wish to establish a foundational presence of Logos or "reason" obtained from an origin of all knowledge (e.g., God or the universe).
----------------------------
Derrida believed Western thought has been riddled since the time of Plato by a cancer he called "logocentrism". This is, at its core, the assumption that language describes the world in a fairly transparent way. You might think that the words you use are impartial tools for understanding the world - but this is, Derrida argued, a delusion. If I describe, say, Charles Manson as "mad", many people would assume I was describing an objective state called "madness" that exists in the world. Derrida would say the idea of "madness" is just a floating concept, a "signifier", that makes little sense except in relation to other words. The thing out there - the actual madness, the "signified" - is almost impossible to grasp; we are lost in a sea of opposing words that prevent us from actually experiencing reality directly.
Derrida wants to break down the naive belief that there is an objective external reality connected to our words that can be explored through language, science and rationality. Any narrative we construct to understand the world will inevitably be built on supressed violence and exclusion. So, for example, the narrative of 'madness' has been shown by Derrida's colleague and friend Michel Foucault to be a highly elastic concept that is used to stigmatize 'dissidents'; it is a categry that serves the powerful. None of our words is immune to these power-games. There is tension, opposition and power in even the most simple of concepts.
Current events which touch on this ---
Growing acceptance for trans people - this involves accepting the socially constructed nature of gender roles. The idea of Male and Female just being a floating concept, a signifier.
On the other side of the fence, you've got the American confederate flag. The flag is coming down all over the place, and so we're also seeing some disgusting defense mechanisms (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/theoval/2015/07/16/obama-oklahoma-city-confederate-flags/30228809/).
I listened to a John Oliver episode last night in which he described the flag as "objectively racist", and I flinched a bit. I think what a flag "really signifies" is a floating point, and we're never going to find anything "objective" there.
I think that the discussion about the flag's "meaning" is missing the point and should be avoided; we should be talking about its consequences. To me, it's not about whether the flag is racist or not, we should be focused on how people relate to and react to the flag. How black people feel when they see the flag is not up for debate.
History and context are relevant, though.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 18, 2015, 06:24:44 PM
Quote from: Edward Longpork on July 17, 2015, 04:57:32 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 16, 2008, 09:25:01 AM
In critical theory and deconstruction, logocentrism is a phrase coined by the German philosopher Ludwig Klages in the 1920s to refer to the perceived tendency of Western thought to locate the center of any text or discourse within the logos (a Greek word meaning word, reason, or spirit). Jacques Derrida used the term to characterize most of Western philosophy since Plato: a constant search for the "truth."
Logocentrism is often confused with phonocentrism, which more specifically refers to the privileging of speech over writing.
Logocentrism is manifested in the works of Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Ferdinand de Saussure, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and many other philosophers of the Western tradition, all of whom regard speech as superior to writing (believing writing only represents or archives speech), but who more generally wish to establish a foundational presence of Logos or "reason" obtained from an origin of all knowledge (e.g., God or the universe).
----------------------------
Derrida believed Western thought has been riddled since the time of Plato by a cancer he called "logocentrism". This is, at its core, the assumption that language describes the world in a fairly transparent way. You might think that the words you use are impartial tools for understanding the world - but this is, Derrida argued, a delusion. If I describe, say, Charles Manson as "mad", many people would assume I was describing an objective state called "madness" that exists in the world. Derrida would say the idea of "madness" is just a floating concept, a "signifier", that makes little sense except in relation to other words. The thing out there - the actual madness, the "signified" - is almost impossible to grasp; we are lost in a sea of opposing words that prevent us from actually experiencing reality directly.
Derrida wants to break down the naive belief that there is an objective external reality connected to our words that can be explored through language, science and rationality. Any narrative we construct to understand the world will inevitably be built on supressed violence and exclusion. So, for example, the narrative of 'madness' has been shown by Derrida's colleague and friend Michel Foucault to be a highly elastic concept that is used to stigmatize 'dissidents'; it is a categry that serves the powerful. None of our words is immune to these power-games. There is tension, opposition and power in even the most simple of concepts.
Current events which touch on this ---
Growing acceptance for trans people - this involves accepting the socially constructed nature of gender roles. The idea of Male and Female just being a floating concept, a signifier.
On the other side of the fence, you've got the American confederate flag. The flag is coming down all over the place, and so we're also seeing some disgusting defense mechanisms (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/theoval/2015/07/16/obama-oklahoma-city-confederate-flags/30228809/).
I listened to a John Oliver episode last night in which he described the flag as "objectively racist", and I flinched a bit. I think what a flag "really signifies" is a floating point, and we're never going to find anything "objective" there.
I think that the discussion about the flag's "meaning" is missing the point and should be avoided; we should be talking about its consequences. To me, it's not about whether the flag is racist or not, we should be focused on how people relate to and react to the flag. How black people feel when they see the flag is not up for debate.
History and context are relevant, though.
Yes, they are. The flag may not be objectively racist, but it was objectively used by racist people for racist purposes, and there's quite a bit of evidence backing that up, given that it was a fairly recent time period. The one thing that I could see giving the flag a strong contender for an alternate meaning would be if an organization at some point down the line appropriated it in an entirely different context, for entirely different purposes, the way the Nazi party did with the swastika. However, like the swastika, I think this would need to occur centuries or possibly millennia after the fact.
I think at this point in history, it is unlikely that any group without a racist agenda would use the flag, and if they did, rather than changing its widely-accepted meaning, they would instead be suspected of racism. What's more, they would likely attract racists to their cause, and thus become a racist organization from the inside. So what we're dealing with is a symbol, yes, but it's a symbol with a very strong memetic pull, if it makes any sense to put it that way. Whoever repurposes this symbol, I think, will need to be far removed from its original context; I strongly suspect that if it ever is repurposed, it won't be by Americans.