Touchy Feely

Before one gazes into a mirror, Lacan believes that the have a demented and fragmented idea of the self; for they have not come into contact with a cohesive and coherent idea of their body as a whole. The “self”, that includes the physical body and the mind, would essentially remain in bits and pieces until the subject is able to view the “self” as a whole, by means of their physical image in a mirror. This phase of development precedes what Lacan refers to as the “Mirror Stage”.

The “Mirror Stage” is an important and necessary phase in Lacanian psychoanalysis because it is the stepping stone for creating a whole coherent image of the self, which is necessary for one to become a part of socio-cultural society. Lacan uses the example, and the truth, behind a child seeing him or her “self” in the mirror or a reflection for that matter, for the first time in their lives. This reflection affects the individual to such an extent, that they “misrecognize” their reflection as real coherent “self” because in “actuality” it is merely just an image; therefore an illusion, an idea.

The child sees its own reflection in the mirror, and for the first time he or she begins to believe itself as a whole ‘self’. Lacan says this idea of a ‘self’ is an “illusion” which implies it is visual. For Lacan, the term ‘visual’ is essential to understanding what he calls ‘the Imaginary’ register, which constitutes the visual realm prior to the individuals ability to use language as a means for perceiving what is seen.
Therefore, ‘the Imaginary’ is a key component in the construction of language and building meaning. Prior to language, the infant can only distinguish what it thinks it is from what it is not by pure visual stimulation. This is Lacan’s explanation for ‘the Imaginary’ as being primarily revolved around sight and visual images that in turn allow the individual to distinguish ‘the other’ from ‘the Other’. Thus by seeing the image in the mirror the child sees ‘an other’, but “misrecognizes” this as its own ‘self’. However, this image still leads the child to the idea of ‘the Other’ as a structural possibility, and leads to ‘Otherness’, imposing a relationship that distinguishes things from other things; faces from other faces. Visual distinctions are in fact, what permit the child to recognize things that are not its “self”.

Complications arise when a blind person is introduced into the context of Lacan’s theory. If a blind person cannot see their reflection in the mirror then how would they be able to form any idea, or “illusion,” of a clear identity? Lacan does not seem to take this into account with his essay on the “Mirror Stage” because a key concept to this theory is the child’s recognition upon seeing itself. That is, this seeing itself, allows it to consider its “self” as a whole, and by recognizing this ‘whole’ the individual is capable of realizing that prior to the “Mirror Stage,” they were fragmented bodies in “bits-and-pieces”.
Since a blind person cannot make this visual distinction, and, therefore, does not have the ability to distinguish themselves as either fragmented, or as a coherent self, then theoretically they would be incapable of distinguishing “the other” from “the Other”, which in Lacanian theory relies solely on images. Without the ability to make this distinction a blind person cannot compare their image to that of “the Others”, which means they cannot form the idea, or “illusion,” that is necessary for the subject to create an “identity.”

What Would Lacan think about this objection to his theory? How does a blind person obtain any cohesiveness if they do not have any ideas for what things look like? What sorts of thoughts or images stream through a blind person’s mind when they are thinking?

In order to attempt answers to these questions, we must then bring forth the Lacanian idea that the individual exists within another register, alongside the “Imaginary” known as the “Symbollic”, where these two crucial networks intertwine to constitute the visual linguistic sense of the world. Since these two networks are intertwined it is crucial to note that ‘the Imaginary’ creates the visual apparatus that is described through language, and language itself is a structure known as ‘the Symbolic’. A blind person does not make this connection between the visual-linguistic of ‘the Symbolic’ because they lack the latter.
Yet, as said in Ashelys post, “human beings are constructed through, and as Language,” perpetuating the idea that language is what constitutes our close-to-being-true reality. Therefore, reality for a blind person would still consist of language, but it would not consist of the necessary visual element described as such by Lacan. What this implies is that a blind person cannot exist within ‘the Imaginary’ which is a necessary precursor for entering ‘the Symbolic’. Since a blind person does function within ‘the Symbolic’ without ‘the Imaginary’ in a visual sense, we can assume that they certainly obtain some type of cohesiveness from touch and phonic, and this ‘touching’ and ‘hearing’ constitutes their own, subjective form of ‘the Imaginary’. But since a blind person experiences ‘the Imaginary’ in a different manner from ‘normative culture’ it displays an experience that is subjective, which means their individual experience differs from the norm. However, Lacan states that there is no such thing as true subjective experience, that is to suggest that we all experience the “Imaginary” and the “Symbolic” in similar, highly determined and influenced ways. But then again, for a blind person to exist in this type of symbolic order, would be impossible, as Lacan leaves out, consciously, or unconsciously the recognition of other human senses. This example of a blind person illustrates how “the Imaginary” and “the Symbolic” are not as strict as Lacan makes them out to be, and can, in fact, be experienced differently. Thus this sort of Lacanian philosophy has the potential to become shattered due to the lack of universal structure that it attempts to contain.

So, if all a blind can do is “feel”, then do they have feel thoughts instead of visual thoughts? Is the feeling of feeling thus transposes in their mind to perform some sort of sensation that is unfathomable to the un-blind community?

Take yourself off the tripod

The film attempts to portray the notion of freeplay through it's camera work. If we take what is being filmed as 'reality' and the camera's lens as our own symbolic notion of knowledge (or our view of reality) we can then begin to understand what the film is attempting to have us understand. What is happening during the film would not necessarily be happening in Derrida's daily life. He admits to be very cautious around the camera lens and goes into a meditation about improvisation. He would not have done such without the camera, though he likely may internally meditated on the subject or not brought it to mind at all. So, the simple act of viewing changes the actions of the perceived. The individual would be present (in the world) regardless of a camera being present in the room. but it is strongly affected and altered by the simple act of presence and such affects the understanding of it. Much like the camera our individual perceptions of reality base our understanding of the world around what we see. While we take what we are seeing as being the absolute truth, our presence is actually affecting the very reality we are viewing, constructing it (as the camera constructs the shot its takes) much like we would construct the sign of 'tree'.
The rapid and fragmented camera angles serve as a parallel to Derrida's notions of the sign having infinite meanings because language is missing ' a center which arrests and founds the foreplay of substitutions'(Derrida). Such, we see each camera angle as representing a slight substation of the sign, which in this case is Derrida. This views Derrida in his simplest form, exterior looks alone, and thus forces us to grasp that even something as simple as exterior form, can take on an infinite number of meanings. Each person is their own camera angle filming 'reality'.
By incorporating mirrors we do not, as viewers, get a sincere and centered image of Derrida. Our eyes go left, our eyes go right, and at times it is even difficult for us to tell where he is positioned in the room. These images of Derrida being split into two different directions are editorial decisions that successfully perpetuate the philosophies within Derrida’s revolutionary text, “Structure, Sign and Play.” The mirror implies the belief that we exist within a decentered universe, and that no ideas about who we are, what we do, what we know, are at all fixed. So in these instances involving mirrors, Derrida’s physical existence at the time of these interviews can take place in several places; hanging from the wall, sitting on the couch, and we could even say, streaming through the mechanics of a camera, aiming “to show that the text is at war with itself”(Barry, 69).
Within this metaphor one might say that Derrida's deconstructionist attitude would be for each person to step back from the camera and analyze why they are shooting a scene in that particular way, that is to say, what causes one to view life from that particular angle. The mirror shots of Derrida with the camera behind him, give us a taste of just how interesting wandering down that path may be.

Take yourself off the tripod.

The notion of love that Derrida presents is extremely interesting. Is it the ‘who’ we love or the ‘what’? Is it possible to tell the difference?
The first thing that came to mind to help break down this question was the classic phrase ‘love at first sight’. Personally I’ve had moments where someone walks by and I become paralyzed. Its as if time stops and my brain goes on overdrive. My mind instantly ‘falls in love’. But thinking back on those moments, I’ve come to realize that when I say ‘fall in love’ I really mean, ‘attribute characteristics; that my mind has created, that I find attracted, and that I desire, to a woman.’
It is the ‘what’ that we initially fall in love with. Derrida says that all love starts with a seduction. This seduction is (in every instance of my own at least) always a revealing of this ‘what-love’ to be true. It is a characteristic which we attribute to our beloved as being true that they actually show as such (at least at first) which allows us to be seduced. From this point forward we find ourselves attempting to either find more characteristics within our beloved that we hold as being lovable, or find characteristics that they themselves have, which we try to 'learn to love'. We attempt to replace our original signified 'love' with a new signified and by doing so, either buy into ourselves and fall further in 'love, or finding out that we have done nothing but shift our own understanding/meaning of our 'beloved' find our center fall apart and in doing so fall 'out of love' with the person. 'It's not you, it's me' is an appropriate sentiment.
On the topic of love, the notion of the 'I' is also mentioned by Derrida. What Derrida is saying, is that if we strip someone of the what(that is, the "things" ie. what they wear, what they listen to, what kind of movies they watch, etc.) then we are essentially losing an entire impression of "who" that person is. So in a sense then, in response to what Derrida is suggesting here,  these "whats" are what construct the "I" in many ways, and they play important roles then, in defining who the "I" is in a universe full of other "I's". For example. I choose the clothes I wear, hoping that others will understand a more inner part of me that has the potential to be expressed somewhat outwardly by what I choose to wear; how I present  myself, is thus how I want others to perceive me as. This is just a small example, a very simple one. But essentially, the "I" that is mentioned here, is in fact both constructed and represented by the "what". Furthermore the "what" is a mere "supplement" of the self. That is to say, that these supplements are what we use to construct and further 'develop' the external notion of "I".

"We Don't Know Anything, We Are Nothing, Without Meaning"

“You can’t use a bulldozer to study orchids” exemplifies Saussure’s ideal that language is arbitrary. Saussure explains that, “the patterns and functions of language in use today depends on the emphasis on how meanings are maintained and established and how language functions in a grammatical structure.” In the lyrics of this song the meaning of the word love is illusive. A later mention of the group Holland-Doizer-Holland provides a particular definition to the word love. Holland-Doizer-Holland was a group that composed over 200 Motown hits, their favorite song topic of course being love. Just as Saussure says the meaning of a word depends on its relationship with other words you associate with it at the given time. The group outlined two main interpretations of what love means by pairing the word love with dissimilar words.
Take the song “Ain’t To Proud To Beg” by the Temptations for example. The writer’s link words like begging, pleading, and leaving with the overall theme of love. Listeners immediately link the concept of love with definitions of heartbreak, loss, and pain. While on the other hand their song “Baby Love” associates words like “sugar pie” and “honey bunch,” two words that we immediately link to desserts and flavors we tend to find enjoyable. While the first song leaves reminisces of misfortune and sorrow in regards to love, the other defines love as a longing and of something desirable.
Saussure’s mention in the song complicates this binary idea of love as something good or something evil. Structuralism points out that the meaning of the word love, or any word that remains in its own seclusion, will always be unstable. The word love standing on it’s own therefore meanings nothing at all. Each individual will integrate meaning to the word depending on previous context that they have instilled into the words meaning. This could be hearing that word in songs, seeing it portrayed on film, or from personal experiences one incorporates into its meaning.
The lyric “You can’t use a bulldozer to study orchids,” may stand to challenge the idea that language is not contained within the object but rather is associated with it. Perhaps Saussure is suggesting that you can’t use literary theory that deconstructs the educationally implied concept of meaning to study language. The only way that we as educated literary critics can analyze language and the use of language within these theories is to use the meanings that we have established to each word through it’s unique and random place within context. “You can’t use a bulldozer to study orchids,” plays with the illusive meaning of words in context that individuals may not normally recognize, though the meaning is implicit to the reader or in this case to it’s listener. It also implies through the previous lyrics, “no understanding, no closure, it is a nemesis,” that language is inescapable and forever. There is no outside of language and the structure of meaning because nothing can be understood without it. It would therefore be impossible to use anything but language to study language and meaning.

-Adrienne