Week 6 Discussion
From the lecture, what We understood is that Jacques Derrida’s concept of deconstruction challenges the idea that texts have fixed, unified meanings by revealing the internal contradictions and unstable binaries. Like, for example,nature versus culture. Derrida’s goal isn’t to destroy meaning, but to show how meaning is always in flux, shaped by language’s inherent instability, sort of how you deliver what you are trying to say. Derrida makes us rethink how meaning, identity, and culture are meant to be taken, like the process of things, and not as the finished product/outcome.
Another aspect we agreen upon was the idea that a work's central meaning is dependent as much on the reader's interpretations and impressions of the work as much as the idea is reliant on the author who creates the work. Readers and consumers will often form their own process and ideas of a piece of media whether it be tying it to an overall idea or even back to personal aspects of themselves as a way to better understand the content. Something a lot of us do.
We collectively think that Julia Kristeva’s work can be challenging to understand and can have you confused in some moments because it blends psychoanalysis, feminism, and structuralist theory in abstract ways. One confusing concept is her emphasis on the maternal body as a bridge between nature and culture. She describes the maternal body as “two-in-one” or “other-within,” which confused me a bit and I couldn’t visualize what she was trying to say.
We also agreed that Judith Butler’s theory about sexuality and sex as a product of social convention was abit challenging to understand. Butler introduced to us that gender is performative, performanced through repitition that makes it real. It migth make sense in a more in doeth context, but explained as a whole we all agreed the idea was confusing to piece together. Are we talking about physical representation? Or representation through other means, the wording is what threw our group off a bit.
The video the group found most interesting was the one about Stranger Things. We like how it takes other media from sources and makes it into the character. Like Eleven is kind of like ET, the character from that movie. Stranger Things basically demonstrates how intertextuality can be deeply meaningful when used with intention and emotional clarity. Another example would be when the boys from Stranger Things’ references to Dungeons & Dragons. They aren’t just nostalgic, but they’re also functional. They use those metaphors to understand their world, build trust, and navigate danger.
On another note, the looney tones parallel to structurism is one that is quite confusing. Perhaps it is the wording of the cartoon and trying to understand how it plays into our lecture. The removal from a crucial moment in time to another setting was a throw off just a little bit. It’s a concept that still confuses us or at least some of us.
Dylan, Lauren and Carmen Present Sidney could not make the meeting and we met on a zoom call on Wednesday @2pm
