Derrida and Saussure, My Buddies.

Okay, so please bear with me as I am a layman and this is all very new to me and yet I feel that I should know it for some reason. Perhaps it is because I have practiced these theories nearly all my adult life yet am just now understanding and differentiating these terms like Structuralism and Post Structuralism. As far as I can tell, Structuralism is the term which was developed by Ferdinand de Saussure which sates that you must know evil to know good. This is the theory of binary opposites. I get this. Cool. Up and down, pain and joy, love and hate etc. Of course then there’s this non-essentialism nonsense which says that it’s not possible to truly understand what it is to be human because there are no known traits which could define a human. Lost? Me too. Maybe a banana is just a banana. But for arguments sake let’s continue. Then comes Jacques Derrida who is considered the biggest name in post structuralism and deconstruction. Let’s define post structuralism. It varies but can be broadly be summed up with this: it challenges the ideas of structuralism. It challenges the norm that you cannot judge evil by knowing good. That these terms are open to interpretation and that truth is relative - as according to Derrida. Okay. Lost? Maybe just a little. I felt like a deer in the headlights in class for several weeks and blurted out the dumbest things possible in an attempt to try to understand this concept. 

Structuralism was developed to give society and those thinking within it an understanding by defining language. This language was meant to be associated with an object. Like giving a berry with a blue color a blueberry. Yes, I know. But I’m new to this. If we accept this then we can call an onion which is colored red a red onion. I know. I’m reaching but it’s the best example I can come up with on such short notice. I procrastinated with my homework. Derrida comes along and says that these terms are relative. Truth in fact is relative. What can I say to that. I can go along. Let’s take a page out of Derrida’s book and apply it to Professor’s Wexler’s class. The class is called Pop Culture. Right? Nonsense. It is a philosophy class. Right? We discuss Derrida, Saussure and other nonsense like the Chiquita Banana lady and what her symbol means. But if Derrida is correct and truth is relative then this class could be an understanding of physical therapy. Perhaps this class is merely set up for our amusement? WH knows. Maybe this class is a gateway to another universe? Perhaps we are being tested? Lunacy? Yes. Derrida’s theories are just such. Theories which an average student just debunked. This class is good for several things. It allows for me to peel away the layers of preconceived notions and allows for me to think about what I am doing in this world. Thank you Derrida and Saussure. 

So. To Clarify. I make no claim to understand women any better than a pimple faced teenager and I am thirty five years old. Therefore, I was floored when I read Woman as Other by Simone De Beauvoir. Are women truly regarded as an other. Does sexism truly exist in a country where we nearly elected Hillary Clinton? IN the world of Margaret Thatcher? Angela Merkel? Christine La Garde? I can name many more. And yet something from within tells me that this is a false argument. the aforementioned names are but a few in a long history dominated by men. As De Beauvoir has eluded to - this originates to the Book of Genesis in the bible. This is a long stemming issue that has yet to be resolved and a clear resolution will not occur on this blog by my meager mind.

I wish to approach the situation with a degree of levity. Tongue and cheek if you will. I see man and women as co-cohabitants of this beautiful world in which we reside. One cannot survive without the other. that is a biological fact. Procreation. Yes. I said it. Men determine the sex of the child but women carry that child to birth and let me tell you that is no picnic. I have witnessed the birth of my son. His mother surpasses the regalia of any formal monarch in my eyes. The pain suffered during the process is one of which I am incapable of enduring.

I also recognize that I originate from a woman. My mother. Aside from the fact that she is capable of breaking a frying pan over my head (I say this because she is a professional chef - not a house wife!) I have the utmost respect for her. It takes great character to raise a child alone. It is the act, regardless of the physical prowess or size of the income which eventually determines character. The same can be said for a man. I suppose that what I am trying to say is that it doesn't matter if the person is a man or woman. Your actions define your character.

I submit you the following clip from a movie which is dear to my heart and relevant to the subject matter. Something's Gotta Give, written and directed by Nancy Meyers - one of the few successful directors in Hollywood (wink wink nudge nudge). The story depicts two clearly defined and radically different people, or are they? Both are successful. One has been married once and now divorced. The other is an habitual love them and leave them artist, yet was once engaged. Both are financially successful. Both are well respected in their respective fields. Both have dated younger people. Both are creatures of habit - meaning that they don't really care for change. What is their connection? They fall in love. One says "either you really get me, or you hate me." The other replies with "I don't hate you." This implies that they understand each other on a level that most people are unable to comprehend much less experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSjI-xiH7j0

I submit this to you because this movie takes the stereotype and turns it on it's huge head. These are two human beings. Both flawed. You could call either a male, right? And if you're feeling especially brave, either a female, right? I try to keep an open mind and try not to judge a book by it's cover. I am not always successful but I believe that if more of us made this effort the world would be a more accepting place for woman and man.

My First Blog...ever.

What is culture? What is pop culture for that matter. I acknowledge that every one's respective opinion differs slightly but we can all agree that we have a great deal of culture in our society. I mean, Los Angeles in particular is known as a melting pot due to how many differing cultures have come together. I suppose that we should define what we mean by culture. Is it a belief system practiced by a group of people? Perhaps similar to religion? Possibly. Is it a means to classify individuals into a categorized system? Maybe. I recently read an article by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan which makes an argument that there is a ying and yang approach to culture. A battle between the haves and have nots - if you will. I give weight to this theory. Yes, the corporate world does manipulate the masses through cultural icons like Lady Gaga and Fox News. We buy what they tell us to buy. We think like they wish for us to think. And I believe that the alternative voice also makes good communicative headway through a smaller yet relative style of communication. Think of Fox News versus  Front line. One is completely commercialized to sway a certain demographic and the other seems to merely inform. I'll let you decide which is which. So what is culture? I don't know that I am fully ready to answer the question as the term seems ever evolving but I know that it is cool to be considered cultured. Shallow? A bit, but I'm human.