Two Micro-Essays by B-Rad

What's In A Name?

Why do we label things? Name things? The simple and obvious answer to this is that we, as intelligent beings, need to categorize and name objects, people, places, ideas—in short our whole world—in order to function. Labels aid in our daily functioning, so to speak, yet, how does meaning function in relation to labels? Usually, when we label something—say a genre of music—we do so in order to convey meaning, to communicate an idea. But can the word, that is, the label actually relate directly to the idea or concept? Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure’s account of how this relationship works comes in handy here. Saussure noted that the sign is made up of two parts the signifier and the signified. The signifier is the actual word that relates to the signified (i.e. the concept or idea).

A simple example would be the word “tree” (i.e. signifier) and image of the actual material tree we get when we hear the word “tree” (i.e. signified). This seems rather straightforward; except the problem is that the image the signifier evokes (i.e. the signified) is never fully connected to the word or signifier. That is, when people read/hear the word “tree” the image that is immediately conveyed by reading/hearing that word will be different from person to person. What this means is that while the signifier is the same (i.e. the word “tree”) what it signifies, the image that it evokes, is not consistent. Ask five people to draw a tree, and each person will draw a different kind of tree.

Photo/Matthew Filipowich

So what does this amount to? According to Saussure, this means that there is no concrete reason why a sign should directly link up to a concept. The signified is only conceptual, that is, the image, which is evoked by the word “tree”, is purely conceptual because we humans think of it. For this reason, Saussure thinks that the signifier/signified relation between the word and the concept is arbitrary. Labels, then, are subject to change and alteration. A perfect example of this is music genres. Why is it that many musicians today don’t like to be pinned down and labeled as x, y or z? Despite their attempts to defy genres and labels, we find a way to categorize them regardless—the problem is we can’t seem to agree on a definite label when it comes to music. Let’s take homegrown sensation Alexisonfire as an example. Are they considered metal? Thrash? Punk? Hardcore? Post-hardcore/punk/metal/screamo/emo? You get the point. Alexisonfire has been called all of these and then some, and fans have argued endlessly for or against all of them. Die hard fans seem to get physically upset over—what seems to them—a mislabel, but the point is that it is completely arbitrary. Does it even matter what we end up calling them? Does the label/genre take anything away from the music? The inability to accurately pin down a particular band is evidence enough of the arbitrariness of labels and names. The meaning of concepts/ideas always manages to escape the labels we give them. Ideas are never fully pinned down solely by labeling and naming them. The expression: “Love is just a word, it’s the meaning behind it that counts,” sums up my point.

At this point you might be saying to yourself: “But wait, Borna, we need to label and categorize things.” And you are right. Despite the arbitrariness of labels on a theoretical level, they do play a functional role in daily human practice. Saussure maintains that it is only through the consistency of the sign and concept that communication through language is possible. What we can take away from this is not to get too hung up on labels and names, especially when it comes to music genres. It’s important not to get carried away with labels because we tend to forget the most important thing, the music itself.

When I Grow Up I Want to Be [Insert Childhood Fantasy Here]

“Man’s desire is the Other’s desire.” - Jacques Lacan

What is the object of your desire? Is it material wealth? Fame? Everlasting, unconditional and eternal love? Well, regardless of what you desire, have you ever wondered how you desire? That is, how do we know what we desire?

“Man’s desire is the Other’s desire.” These words belong to French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, who claims that while we may think we know what we desire, the object of our desire—what we desire—is not our own, it belongs to the Other. For Lacan, our actual desire is to have our desires recognized by others. That is to say, while we may actually believe that what we desire is to look a certain way (i.e. thick black glasses, thick beard, indie clothes...), we only desire this look because it well get us recognized by others. The classical question of “What do I desire?” now becomes: “What does the Other want from me?” So whatever our desires actually are (i.e. a certain type/look we want, the foods we eat, the kind of music we listen to, etc), we only actually desire them in order to be recognized by the Other. But who is this ‘Other’, exactly? Lacan maintains that the Other (or the big Other) is essentially no one. The big Other does not actually exist, it isn’t any real person in particular— however it only exists psychically to serve our desiring function.

Allow me to elaborate: according to Lacan, the object of our desire is to be recognized by others. For this reason, what we actually do desire (types of clothes, music, etc), we only do so as long as it gets us recognized by others. However, it doesn’t matter if the Other(s) are real, actual people, for Lacan it is enough for us to merely assume that the Other exists. Here’s an example: let’s say I want to get my eyebrow pierced. According to Lacan, my desire to get an eyebrow ring is only the object of my desire insofar as it will get me acknowledged by others. So, I want to get my eyebrow pierced not because I think it’s cool, but rather that it will make me more attractive to a certain kind of person. The catch is that the person I want to be recognized by does not actually exist—it is the big Other— but it functions as the Other in relation to our desire regardless.

The recognition aspect is a cultural phenomenon. Our culture perpetually creates and promotes images through the media (T.V., Internet, movies, etc). We see these images as being desired by others (i.e. the image of Brad Pitt as embodying male beauty and consequently defining what a sexy man should look like). Or what constitutes as sexual femininity is defined by the culturally produced image of, say, Scarlett Johansson in magazines, etc. So, when we try to emulate the particular look/image we see being produced through our culture, we only do so because we witness those images as being recognized and desired by others (i.e. both Brad Pitt and Scarlett Johansson are considered sex symbols, etc). This works with any other cultural image—even the indie hipster scene kid who wears his little sister’s tight jeans and has a bang hair swipe is embodying a particular image only because it will get him recognized by a certain group of the Other. So, for Lacan, every single person is adhering to a cultural image, their desires belonging to the Other’s as they strive to be acknowledged and recognized. It’s important not to place any value judgments here. Whether you buy Lacan’s conjecture or not, it isn’t a good or bad, right or wrong. It is simply how Lacan accounts for human desire on a social level. I, myself, am trying to embody a particular image—i.e. intellectual 20-something that thinks he can write anything theoretically, etc— but I simply accept it. The question is, do you?