Post-modernism: From surfing cows to Gollum as a lifestyle choice, pt. 4

We left off looking at where meaning comes from within the structure of language. If you missed the previous posts: PART 1, PART 2, PART 3

Having arrived at this catch-22 we can now see the direction that post-modernism would eventually take. The meaning of love, like any other word, comes from its position in the structure. This is based on usage, relation, association, etc. But where does meaning start? Good question. The answer in post-modernism is: Because we can’t get to some beginning, because there is never a true, blank-slate beginning, there is no use in looking for it. We accept that the structures we are given govern us and we see how we can deal with them, rather than going on a wild-goose chance to find some ever elusive ultimate origin. 

While not a goose chase, I think this counts as a goose race

While I disagree on aesthetic grounds (it would be satisfying to know), I acknowledge the ultimate futility of a quest for origin. Even if we found it, what would that mean? What could we do with said knowledge? We cannot revert back to an edenic (pure, innocent) state.

This idea of meaning being derived from never-ending relations was called deferrance by Jacque Derrida, one of the founding fathers of post-modernism. This (French) word is an amalgamation of defer and difference. The meaning of a word is based on its unique difference from other words, but of course a definition needs words. 

Jacques Derrida
Giving us "the smolder"

So let us look at my previous definition of love: an emotional attachment between two people. Ok, you might say, but what does emotional mean? Well: dealing with feelings instead of thoughts. Ok, what is a feeling? A sensation experienced in the body that does not derive from physical exterior stimulation. What does experience mean? And we could go on indefinitely like this. Thus love is defined by its unique place in the English language, created by its unique relation to other words. But we can never arrive at an ultimate beginning. We can only ever defer meaning to other words endlessly.

I am reminded of a game of picture telephone where the initial statement was "What is love?" (*Queue the song*) We ended up finding the answer: Love is pie and peanut brittle. 'nuff said. QED.

This brings me to my final introductory point: Post-modernism and language. In post-modernism, language is everything. It is not something we can escape. All of our meanings are negotiated in it and because this meaning is not derived from an essential relation to the outside world, all meaning is conventionalized within a society. Take an example I posed to my professor: What about a famous battle (let’s use Waterloo, because its anniversary was recently)? Doesn’t Waterloo refer to a real, actual event? Isn’t there an actual relationship between the signifier and the referent? The answer is yes, BUT. 

The Battle of Waterloo

Join us next time to hear more about but(t)s!

Click HERE for part 5