After this week’s readings and class, I understand why one of the learning objectives in our course syllabus is “not to fear theory”. When I was reading the textbook, even for the passage I think I understand, it still feels very abstract and it is hard to make any connection with real life scenarios. Compared to my psychology classes’ readings which talk about interpersonal relationships that I can connect to on a personal level, these “theory” readings were a bit intimidating to read because I do not have any tangible example.
However, after the class discussion on Thursday, I understand the text much better, especially with the gas station example and the concept of intertextuality. I wonder if the examples themselves are “signifier” as well that signifying the theory we were reading. I do feel it is easier and more memorable to understand theory from concrete examples, so today at the cafeteria I was reading through the powerpoint while trying to make connections with signs/texts I was seeing.
I watched people in cafeteria and the ways they act and talk. I eat at the cafeteria everyday but as soon as I start reading the room like “text”, it looks very different. As I’m reading this sentence - “In order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said”, the word “culture” popped up to me. I realized that what is unsaid in a conversation is the “culture” that shared by people who are making the conversation. The unsaid makes more meaning than what they said. I saw some of my friends and greeted them, realizing how different I am in ways and content when I talked to different groups. Because each group of people have their own “unsaid” things, and these unsaid things make what this particular group say to each other meaningful.
I also understand better that “language is arbitrary” because language does not “feel” arbitrary. When I was watching groups of people greeting and interacting with each other, I realized that names are a great example of how language is arbitrary but does not feel arbitrary. When we call our friends by their name or seeing their names somewhere, feelings and memories of the friends were evoked in us and made us think the names are the friends themselves. But in fact, a name cannot represent a person. But without a name, a person is like the “uncharted nebula” that we cannot grasp on.
However, after the class discussion on Thursday, I understand the text much better, especially with the gas station example and the concept of intertextuality. I wonder if the examples themselves are “signifier” as well that signifying the theory we were reading. I do feel it is easier and more memorable to understand theory from concrete examples, so today at the cafeteria I was reading through the powerpoint while trying to make connections with signs/texts I was seeing.
I watched people in cafeteria and the ways they act and talk. I eat at the cafeteria everyday but as soon as I start reading the room like “text”, it looks very different. As I’m reading this sentence - “In order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said”, the word “culture” popped up to me. I realized that what is unsaid in a conversation is the “culture” that shared by people who are making the conversation. The unsaid makes more meaning than what they said. I saw some of my friends and greeted them, realizing how different I am in ways and content when I talked to different groups. Because each group of people have their own “unsaid” things, and these unsaid things make what this particular group say to each other meaningful.
I also understand better that “language is arbitrary” because language does not “feel” arbitrary. When I was watching groups of people greeting and interacting with each other, I realized that names are a great example of how language is arbitrary but does not feel arbitrary. When we call our friends by their name or seeing their names somewhere, feelings and memories of the friends were evoked in us and made us think the names are the friends themselves. But in fact, a name cannot represent a person. But without a name, a person is like the “uncharted nebula” that we cannot grasp on.
No comments:
Post a Comment