Showing posts with label Saussure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saussure. Show all posts

Friday, October 31, 2008

A stretch of river LIV: "I am a"

I know I said yesterday that I'd be away from here, but while Scruffy and I walked about this early morning in a light fog and I reflected on that misty, hazy thing called Identity and thinking about Leopold Bloom in Ulysses who could not supply even a single word to complete the phrase you see in this post's title, I decided that I could not rest without expressing my deep envy of Rashid Khalidi and the fame/notoriety (you may choose) he has gained during the week.

Oh, to have a name that reveals to all one's essence, one's beliefs and prejudices and convictions without those people's feeling compelled to ask that person to confirm or deny! Does that not simplify matters for him now, as both a professional (no more vitae to submit!) and a human being? Oh, to have a signifier so firmly linked to the signified that is my person that I, like Khalidi appears to be, could also be a walking, living, breathing refutation of that silly Saussurean notion that that signifier/signified relation is arbitrary!

I am serious about this.

It's for that reason, as well as the fact that the Democratic Party's nominee for President has now made it safe for people with funny-sounding names to run for political office, that I feel compelled, in anticipation of my possible future run for an elected position, to begin explaining to my potential future electorate just who I am. Yes, "begin": for what person's life is ever completely written before his/her death? (Except for Khalidi, of course, that lucky guy!) As you'll see, it's a good thing I'm getting a head start on things.

Everything that follows is true (in the Wikipedian, somewhere-someone-has-said-it sense of "true"), and that is to my distinct disadvantage--hence the above-mentioned envy.

To begin: I have a Norwegian last name, but ethnically I am mostly German. But that's the easy part . . . ::cue ominous docudrama-style cellos:: . . . or appears to be, as you'll see. I have no conscious memory of being anything other than a Lutheran; yet my birth was first recorded in a Baptist church registry (it precedes by two days the date the facts of my birth were submitted by my parents to the State of Texas . . . and, you know, both those documents say I was born on April 25, 1962 in Austin, Texas, but who really knows? After all, the birth certificate that I have--state seal and everything--was issued to me in . . . 1981). Yet . . . the family story is . . .

. . . that the pastor of the church was initially resistant to enter my name in the registry because my first and middle name had, to his mind, an unfortunate denominational association. Mom told me once that before he entered my name he actually suggested some other middle names for me that she said were "awful." But, she stuck to her guns: after all, I had gone unnamed for a couple of days (she and Daddy had a girl's name all picked out but hadn't yet settled on a boy's name, and my arrival caught them flat-footed--I proved to be chromosomally uncooperative).

Well, thanks, Mom. You've made a mess of my religious affiliation for me and my future political biography: Who is this guy really? Is he liturgically-oriented? High church? Or does he latently prefer his pastors in a coat and tie rather than albs and stoles? Immersion or sprinkling? And wait till the Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod folks find out he's ELCA: they'll have a field day with that Communion-every-Sunday and full communion with the Episcopalians and UCC stuff.

And the name bit: Norwegian surname but mostly German ethnically?? Yup: My ancestors came to Texas from Norway in the 1840s; they had sons; about the only other Lutheran women to marry in Austin were Germans; and they (on what became my side of the family) kept producing sons, who found German girls to marry, who gave birth to more sons . . . you detect a pattern by now, I suspect. It's a mixed blessing that I've broken that pattern, having fathered two girls . . . with French first names.

(Hmm, my future opponents' robo-call scriptwriters muse: Norwegian surname . . . a bit of Quisling in him, perhaps, or is there some pagan (!) Viking yet lurking in him like some vicious mole of nature? Ethnic German . . . bet he loves Wagner. Heh, heh. So, he'd either sell his own people out or run roughshod over the mongrel races of the world. And the Lutherans didn't exactly cover themselves in glory when the Nazis came to power, Bonhoeffer notwithstanding . . . and that Luther guy was an anti-Semite, too, wasn't he? He's a walking, talking La Brea Tar Pit of ensnaring contradictions and nasty associations. Too bad that kids are off limits--otherwise, we'd have a field day with the fact that this guy gave them French names, of all things.)

Depending on one's viewpoint, my political future is looking either ever more hopeful or ever more audacious.

Well. That pretty much covers the circumstances of the hazy record of my birth, my ethnicity, and my religion(s). Never mind what I've said to people, what I've written, here and elsewhere (which, come to think of it, might provide still further complications, what with my academic interests in narratives of interracial relationships). I think I've amply demonstrated, by implication, why I so envy Khalidi. One look at my name, and immediately the questions arise. One look at his name, though, and many, many, many people, without knowing anything else about him, know everything they want to about him.

Read More...

Monday, September 03, 2007

A stretch of river XLII: Signs, signs, everywhere a sign


Illustration from Ferdinand de Saussure's "Course in General Linguistics"

I see no sign that the Five Man Electrical Band was or is especially enamored of structuralism--or, for that matter, of post-structuralism. Still, recently it's been very hard for Scruffy and me to go on our twice-daily walk without the chorus of "Signs" popping into my head, at least--especially the chorus's perhaps not-so-rhetorical question.

Long-time and/or attentive readers of this blog know that a persistent theme in these Stretch of River posts is trying to make sense of stuff that I see along the river. That is the central activity of Structuralism. No news there. Here's the thing I've been pondering: how to make the distinction between things that mean and things that simply are. This is the territory of Wallace Stevens, another source of inspiration for good old Blog Meridian. The recent mornings' cooler weather signifies the approach of fall because I am familiar with calendars and weather patterns for North America and, for that matter, in my own experience I recollect the past well enough that I know that every year about this time the mornings begin to turn cooler. But at another level, these changes signify what I say they do only because I say they do, not because, so far as I know, they have any meaning apart from me. It helps to confirm that I am not mad that the general consensus among my fellow human beings is also that, yes, Fall is y-cumen in, but that still doesn't mean that the cooler weather means anything in and of itself. The planet is tilted on its axis, and as its position shifts relative to the sun its surfaces will gradually warm and cool. Those things are simply, irreducibly so--there is no further why (though Milton in Paradise Lost says, in effect, Are you sure about that?). The search for meaning, or for is-ness, for that matter, at times, bears some similarity to trying to reach the horizon. In some sense, myth and science seek to do the exact same thing: find Thoreau's firm foundation and rocks in place.

For example:
does it "mean" anything that on Friday morning at about 6:00, as we passed by the office building on the river, that in one of the corner offices we could see a TV playing a black-and-white film having something to do with boxing? The minute I ask the question, I imply that it does. But does it signify prior to my asking it? Sure, you say: it does for the person who is watching. But I could see no one watching the set (the back of the desk chair was turned toward the window). We could see the set long enough to assume that its showing that film wasn't an accident, but, well, we were just passing through, Scruffy's business being a rather more urgent concern than the puzzling-out of this mystery. How long a time need we have dallied to determine the deliberate--or accidental--nature of the film's being shown?

The moment was and remains a mystery it for me: it lacks a fixed explanation. In post-structural parlance, it is indeterminate. But while that implies that there is something inherent in the moment that makes it so, it's actually my not knowing that makes it so. This is where occurs the work of narrative, (very) broadly defined: the establishing of a causality that seeks to explain and thus remove or reduce a signifier's indeterminacy. Darwin's pondering of finches' beaks and Joan Didion's pondering of "shimmering" images in "Why I Write"--it's the exact same starting point. Something's unknowability has nothing to do with the thing itself.

Read More...