Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
I like my Barthes hot.
I was reading Myth Today by Roland Barthes and I began to wonder - what was the difference between an ambiguous form and the idea of 'deformation' that Barthes discusses.
"The concept... is a kind of nebula... more or less hazy," Barthes says on page 122 of 'Mythologies' (1957), Barthes talks about this 'distortion' in within the framework psycho-analysis. This is a particularly exciting concept, because in my own research I am looking at critical thinkers who come to ideas of identity from a psychoanalytic tradition while also trying to take into account structuralism and post-structuralism. Yay! I thought. How does ambiguous form drift across these different schools of thought?
"The relation which unites the concept of the myth to its meaning is essentially a relation of deformation. We find here again a certain formal analogy with complex semiological system such as that of various types of psycho-analysis. Just as for Freud the manifest meaning of behavior is distorted by it's latent meaning, in myth the meaning is distorted by the concept." (pg 122, Barthes, 1957)
Within psycho-analysis manifest meaning is distorted by latent meaning, however this might lead to the idea that there is a particular latent somewhere waiting to be recognised by us. A Rorschach is a ink-splodge that is used in tests to reveal our unconscious minds - a card is pulled and we try to think of what the particular splodge looks like. While I do not believe this is a technique that reveals much about our unconscious minds except for our ability to recognise patterns and shapes, the concept of investing ourselves into objects is one that has been re-appropriated within a post structural context.
The process of investing in objects, in drawings, photographs or machines has been used by Sherry Turkle. By investing in a machine - though use, means that the machine (or other object of technology) has a task that it performs as well as a subjective affect on us. It changes the way we interact with the world and also our understanding of how we are in the world.
Barthes however describes a distortion that is ongoing. The form and the signified push each other along forever to infinity, both forward and backwards through time. The signified and the signifier activate to form a sign and then this is taken and it becomes the signifier which is activated to become a sign and so on. The 'Myth' is the "second order semiological system" (pg 114, Barthes, 1957), or could be described (perhaps) as the bit that happens next. 'Myth' accounts for a shifting (and constantly built upon) subjective understanding of language.
I wondered does psychoanalysis take part of this shifting terrain and say 'OK we'll start here.' Does it take the Myth at face value to some extent. And by drawing this line in the sand does it attribute more value to parts of the process of constructing 'Myth' by using a part to represent a whole?
The nebulous form of ambiguity or 'deformation' in psychoanalysis come when we reveal ourselves through a momentary lapse in concentration, a parapraxis (or slip) happens as our unconscious and conscious minds combine the meaning we were aiming for with a latent meaning. The nebulous/ambiguous form in 'Myth' is generated by the constant adjustment of meaning driven by context and proximity. The deformation occurs over multiple dimensions and the scope for the deformation is endless.
I think.
"The concept... is a kind of nebula... more or less hazy," Barthes says on page 122 of 'Mythologies' (1957), Barthes talks about this 'distortion' in within the framework psycho-analysis. This is a particularly exciting concept, because in my own research I am looking at critical thinkers who come to ideas of identity from a psychoanalytic tradition while also trying to take into account structuralism and post-structuralism. Yay! I thought. How does ambiguous form drift across these different schools of thought?
"The relation which unites the concept of the myth to its meaning is essentially a relation of deformation. We find here again a certain formal analogy with complex semiological system such as that of various types of psycho-analysis. Just as for Freud the manifest meaning of behavior is distorted by it's latent meaning, in myth the meaning is distorted by the concept." (pg 122, Barthes, 1957)
Within psycho-analysis manifest meaning is distorted by latent meaning, however this might lead to the idea that there is a particular latent somewhere waiting to be recognised by us. A Rorschach is a ink-splodge that is used in tests to reveal our unconscious minds - a card is pulled and we try to think of what the particular splodge looks like. While I do not believe this is a technique that reveals much about our unconscious minds except for our ability to recognise patterns and shapes, the concept of investing ourselves into objects is one that has been re-appropriated within a post structural context.
The process of investing in objects, in drawings, photographs or machines has been used by Sherry Turkle. By investing in a machine - though use, means that the machine (or other object of technology) has a task that it performs as well as a subjective affect on us. It changes the way we interact with the world and also our understanding of how we are in the world.
Barthes however describes a distortion that is ongoing. The form and the signified push each other along forever to infinity, both forward and backwards through time. The signified and the signifier activate to form a sign and then this is taken and it becomes the signifier which is activated to become a sign and so on. The 'Myth' is the "second order semiological system" (pg 114, Barthes, 1957), or could be described (perhaps) as the bit that happens next. 'Myth' accounts for a shifting (and constantly built upon) subjective understanding of language.
I wondered does psychoanalysis take part of this shifting terrain and say 'OK we'll start here.' Does it take the Myth at face value to some extent. And by drawing this line in the sand does it attribute more value to parts of the process of constructing 'Myth' by using a part to represent a whole?
The nebulous form of ambiguity or 'deformation' in psychoanalysis come when we reveal ourselves through a momentary lapse in concentration, a parapraxis (or slip) happens as our unconscious and conscious minds combine the meaning we were aiming for with a latent meaning. The nebulous/ambiguous form in 'Myth' is generated by the constant adjustment of meaning driven by context and proximity. The deformation occurs over multiple dimensions and the scope for the deformation is endless.
I think.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)