Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying... ?

A post over at Evil Bender's blog got me thinking about what it is to signify. EB linked to posts about the blogtroversy (I apologize for that, Lord) surrounding author/theorist/jerk Jeff Goldstein, whom I don't especially want to link to here because I just wasted half an hour of my life by reading several of his long, rambling blog entries and I would like to prevent others from sharing my pain. Goldstein's argument, as I understand it, is that meaning is fundamentally created by the signifier at the time of inscription rather than by the reader at the time of interpretation.

As a naive student of literature and language, I have a number of problems with this theoretical construct. First of all, while I must admit that the act of signification provides the potential for meaning to be created, I would argue that it does not comprise the Author creating a meaning. Rather, it is the user of an arbitrary, physical, symbolic system using that system to record an approximation of whatever meaning exists in her head (how "meaning" is generated there is another question entirely). There is no meaning inherent in those symbols except as they exist in a historical relationship to the user who generated them and to other users of the arbitrary system. Thus, we really can't say that any meaning "exists" independently of those who can interpret it.

Furthermore, since a symbolic system is necessarily a faulty approximation of "actual" meaning, no two users of an arbitrary symbolic system will interpret it in the same fashion. User A will interpret a signification in one manner (which depends in large part on his historical moment and prior experience with the symbolic system), whereas User B generally will interpret it in a different manner (although not always in a manner that is incompatible with A's interpretation). Since the person who first generated the signification made a point of choosing which symbols and systemic features to use, we can presume that she had a specific purpose in mind for her choice of each. We cannot, however, assume that her interpretation of the signification is somehow more valid or meaningful than anyone else's. Why not? Because meaning is generated by users who are familiar with a system.

There is nothing especially privileged about the creator of signification, except that her creation has some potential to remind her of what she was thinking when she created it. The general purpose of a communicative symbolic system, however, is to allow the generator to create a shared perception with others who are familiar with the system. Thus, in order for such communication to be successful, the generator and interpreter(s) of the signification must share some degree of expertise in the use of the system. If either side is somehow deficient, the communication will not work. Thus, if no one could understand or benefit from Shakespeare's writings, then Shakespeare would be, for all practical purposes, an insignificant author -- regardless of what he had written.

From here, I could go on rants about aesthetics or political motivations for linguistic theories, but I want Chiptole, so you just forget about it, mister.

Gay Marriage and New York's Constitution

There's an interesting legal battle over gay marriage in the Empire State. Several gay couples are suing for the right to marriage licenses, claiming violation of the state constitution's due process and equal rights clauses. According to the New York Sun, some are dead set against the court's right to weigh the evidence in this case:

The chairman of the state's Conservative Party, Michael Long, said a decision in favor of gay marriage would amount to nothing more than activism on the bench. The party filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the defense side several weeks ago.

Long is essentially denying the judicial branch's right to interpret the state's highest law. Now, I'm no legal scholar, but if a state law could possibly violate the state's constitution, isn't it the judicial branch's responsibility to determine whether it does (and take appropriate action if it does)?

This seems like another case of people who claim to support the rule of law being hypocritical and covering their tails with a strict constructionism that conveniently overlooks important legal principles. One of these principles is that since the constitution is a higher rule than individual pieces of legislation, it should be able to automatically negate any law that attempts to controvert it.

And that's the problem with so many calls against "judicial activism" -- its opponents refuse to acknowledge that interpretation of laws -- and constitutions -- is necessary for just enforcement of them.

Just When You Thought The Intelligence Community Couldn't be Scarier...

Apparently, President Bush has given John Negroponte authority to waive SEC rules. Yeah, you read that right. So now, if our esteemed intelligence czar deems a threat to national security, he can tell publicly traded corporations that they don't have to provide an accounting for their practices and transactions. Don't know how that could possibly go wrong.

Another concern: the FCC, the government agency in charge of regulating communications and the use of airwaves, says it cannot investigate complaints of the NSA collecting call data... because, duh-nuh-nuh, it would violate national security to do so.

I'm getting the feeling that "National Security" has become the intelligence community's version of "9/11."

"Sorry, we have to spy on you because of national security."

"I'm afraid we're going to have to print these incriminating photos of you in a compromising situation with a clown because of national security."

"Bill of Rights? Nope, that's a violation of National Security."

And so forth.

How Much Do We Hate Hamas?

Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.

The answer? Enough that our spite kicks their UN Delegation out of the country and essentially isolates the Palestinian government from any international community except the Islamic one.

The New York Daily News reports that

The House overwhelmingly passed a measure yesterday that would effectively kick the Palestinian UN delegation out of the country.

A bill which aims to make it illegal to send any funds to Hamas included an amendment that would designate the Palestinian Authority - now headed by Hamas - to be a terrorist group and force it to leave the country.

Let's just go ahead and file this under "least useful political moves ever."

Those Poor, Defamed Catholics

Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.

An Op-Ed in the New York Daily News laments the plight of that historic underdog, the Roman Catholic Church:

The bias against Catholicism is palpable. No other segment of society is continuously the target of vicious jokes by the likes of Penn Jillette or Bill Maher. No other segment of society is subjected to the obscene assaults like those "South Park" delivers over and over again. And no other segment of society is routinely held up to derision on college campuses.

I beg to differ: I would argue that Scientology is at least as hated as Catholicism -- perhaps more hated!

Seriously, how can anyone argue that an economic and political engine like the Roman Catholic Church is being oppressed by free speech in the form of artistic expression? The columnist cites other examples of "oppression," including Madonna's new show that involves a mirrored cross and a crown of thorns, Kanye West's Rolling Stone cover in which he used Christ iconography, and The DaVinci Code. Yes, apparently the entire book.

There are several problems with these claims.

First, a socioeconomic organ as influential as the RCC should not be surprised if it provokes imitation and mockery, especially if the mockery has a basis in actual institutional problems.

Second, the RCC does not have a monopoly on Jesus. I believe in the historical Jesus, and I'm not an adherent of the Pope. I don't really have much of a problem with any of these depictions of Christ or Christianity because I recognize them as just that... depictions. I would even argue that there is value in them and that the church should pay closer attention to how their message is coming across to people outside the faith.

To say that Catholicism is being oppressed is like saying that modern masculinity is being stifled -- it's simply untrue.