Response 1 (Draft 8) Language and Literature: Exchange of Authority

When we look at the word ‘authority’, standing by its own self, we tend to correlate the term with the context concerning regulation, power, and all of its corresponding synonyms. However, if we do take the time to look further, we can take away the word ‘author’ for the term. It is indeed interesting because ‘author’ does contain a rather significant correlation with language, and especially literature. Nonetheless, these are merely assumptions, of mine that is, which I would like to uncover much further in the following paragraphs of this writings.

As an early precaution, I do not wish to intentionally or unintentionally emphasizes and specified the elaboration upon certain well-known issues like feminism, post-structuralism, colonialism, post-colonialism, and so on but it is merely an attempt to point out the correlating ideas within the references that is in association with the main concern that is concerning “authority”—again, not solely on its general meaning, but further. Yet I am not going to be able to restrict myself—entirely—from sounding like I am indeed emphasizing certain issue, the aforementioned well-known issues, even though it would also be difficult to separate such elaboration, explanation and preposition from the context of such, again, well-known issues.

Response 1 (Draft 7) Matters of Materiality: Skeptical Irony

Marx’s preposition on how “by producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life” (in Rivkin and Ryan, 2004: 653) which he did elaborate through his writings entitled “The German Ideology” (1846) can be perceived as one of the fundamental argumentation and explanation upon the importance of physical and/ or material matters alongside its significant correlation with humanity, of being men, of being human. It is fundamental in a sense that his emphasize towards the process of producing, ‘to produce’, already and obviously signifies both involvement of and association with ‘physical’ value, as the existence of a subject and an object will be required in such process, process of production, and also ‘material’ attribute, as every single elements of such process is indeed concrete—concrete subject, concrete process, concrete object. Nonetheless, later as the result of its further manifestation, development, etc. the preceding conception upon the ‘physical’ and ‘material’ existence ought to be considered as the basic point of view and perception that situates the so-called economic cultural theory or simply economic approach—and some may call Marxism, Marxist Criticism, or even Economic Determinism, etc. If I’m not mistaken. 

Its economic sense, economic value, economic matters, ought to be discussed in accordance to Marx’s further elaboration as he associated such point of view with labor, alongside its intricacies and intrigues, which later be correlated with the division of classes, or the social structure in general, as he did mention that “how far the productive forces of a nation are developed is shown most manifestly by the degree to which division of labor has been carried” (in Rivkin and Ryan, 2004: 653). The significance of productive forces is indeed obvious as it is a part of the whole structure of ‘producing’, and what has become more vivid is that its own development is in correlation with distinctive division of labor which later associates with the intricacies of social structure and classes.  

Though it was no explicitly explained, the intricacies that stood up to be the main concern of this writing is the defiance towards the idea of spiritual origin, the one-sided signification towards ‘mental’ process, actuated through the seemingly revolutionary approach upon materiality. Yet, it is not the generic act of defiance which such theoretical investigation signifies. It is an act of defiance, an act of distrust, disloyalty towards the preceding conception of spirituality. Such act is already able to be perceived as arguable symptom. A symptom upon the idea of skepticality. 

Response 1 (Draft 6) Feminine Textual Body and Its Skepticality

Hélène Cixous’ “Castration or Decapitation” (1981) has become, in my opinion, one of the most influential writings upon the never ending matter of feminism. Yet, to use such term as problematic as ‘feminism’ seems to be putting a misleading step over the following elaboration that I would like to point out, as the lack of overall comprehension upon such idea could induce contradictions, especially for the one who possess higher degree of understanding. Nonetheless, what have become one of the main foreground of this writing starts from an issue about how “women who write have for the most part until now considered themselves to be writing not as women but as writers” (1981: 51).

It has become more vivid that the ‘decapitation of women’—as in her enigmatic inability to speak, want and even to find her own place—persists and is perceived through the artificial and deceiving existence of women’s writing. Its association seems to be ironical, just like what Cixous has said; “most women”, referring to the so-called women writers, “are like this: they do someone else’s—man’s—writing, and their innocence sustain it and give it voice” (1981: 52). The attempt to be able to speak turns into one of the elements which later signifies the significant influence of masculinity; leading the formerly good intention to finally speak back into the unrelenting cycle of masculine interferences. All is caused by the sense of innocence.

As somehow an answer towards the preceding intricacies of women writings, Cixous has established a form in which women, or perhaps even men, are going able to infuse the significant value of femininity, without—hopefully—implying towards any non-feminine characteristics. A form which Cixous calls “a feminine textual body”.

“A feminine text starts on all sides at once, starts twenty times, thirty times, over” (Cixous, 1981: 53)

What has become the main intrigue upon such seemingly settling preposition is the idea of how a feminine texts begins on “all sides”, and even “at once”. It conducts an immediate correlation with the sense of arbitrariness. Arbitrary in a way that the possibility of involvement from “all sides” situates a high level of plurality, and possibilities. And that situation alone indicates another form of association with similar comprehension which contains slightly similar degree of arbitrariness, skepticality.

Response 1 (Draft 5) Manifestation of Skepticality in Language and Literature

“The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. Since I mean by sign the whole that results from the associating of the signifier with the signified, I can simply say: the linguistic sign is arbitrary” (Saussure in Rivkin and Ryan, 2004: 62).

Saussure’s idea about how language unit is “a double entity, one formed by the associating of two terms” (2004: 61) has become the pinnacle for the analysis, further approaches and studying towards language as it provides huge amount of both space and possibilities for one to uncover the arbitrariness that language carries. Even though, it is still difficult to comprehend its arbitrariness as the language system which is the seemingly most obvious apparatus to be exploited in dissecting and analyzing the arbitrariness is also arbitrary.

Yet this situation alone increases the level of intricacies that the language has; despite the irony that could be implied from the following condition, it widens the possibility for an analysis to be conducted as language is unrestrained from a bound that its own form provides. As Saussure mentioned, “the term”, as it refers to ‘arbitrary’, “should not imply that the choice of the signifier is left entirely to the speaker” (2004: 62), this proposition implies an existence of a gap within the aforementioned “choice of the signifier” as it situates an arbitrariness in a sense that it does not prohibit the option of particular presence of signifier, hence opening indeterminate possibility in choosing a distinctive signifier, or as Saussure has pointed out, “I mean that it is unmotivated, i.e. arbitrary in that it actually has no natural connection with the signified” (2004: 62). The adjective “natural” which was assigned to identify the connection between the two entities of language signifies that the correlation which a signifier and a signified situates is artificial in a way that the relation exists as a result from the arbitrariness that both of elements conduct.

Nonetheless, such situation has become a symptom on the idea that the arbitrariness of language has become one of the elements in an attempt deconstructing the structure of a language as its allow such amount of flexibility for one to relate any matter under the veil of language as long as it carries some level of ‘likeness’, contextual correlation, and any degree or type of connection between respective issues; such approach is possible to be organized as within general comprehension the word ‘arbitrary’ itself refers to the idea of unspecified issue or value, creating a chance for it to be specified towards particular ideas of problems under the framework of language.

Referring, yet again, Saussure’s elaboration upon such matter, it is indeed possible for us to put this conception in correlation with something that carries similar degree of ‘contradictions’ and ‘uncertainty’—in a way, similar sense of ‘arbitrary’. That something is the whole intricacies and intrigues which skepticism—along with the concept of skeptical mind-frame, and the existence of skepticality—does situate.