Signifiers & Expectations in Holder of the World

Bharati Mukherjee’s novel, The Holder of the World, makes allusions to numerous other works—most significantly, Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. There are many different ways The Holder of the World alludes to Hawthorne’s novel. More notably, we see similar names, parallel themes, and a ‘hint’ at other broader overarching concepts. One of the most important parallels, however, is the concept of signifiers and signifieds. In her novel, Mukherjee toys with the idea of changing the meaning of the scarlet “A” to an “I,” changing the meaning from “adulterer” to “Indian lover.”

On of the first examples we see of this is on page 54 where one of the main characters, Hannah, renames the ‘meaning’ behind each letter of the alphabet as seen through her mothers eyes. Because of the way she was raised, Hannah interprets the things around her according to her background and personal experiences. She is definitely not a part of the nuclear family, such as Jane Juffer discusses in her novel Single Mother. Hannah provides a wonderful example of a character who does not follow the norms and regular expectations of society. Her mother ran away with her Indian lover (something that was unheard of during those times), and a conservative Puritan family then raised Hannah.

Relating back to Juffer once again, it is interesting to note the expectations placed on Hannah because of her situation. In her novel, Juffer mainly discusses how people hold single parents to certain expectations and many times a double standard. In The Holder of the World, however, we see that these same expectations and standards are applied to the child of a single mother. The community does not know how to deal with Hannah because they think that her mother was killed. No one knows the truth, but even without that piece of information, the community still seems to hold Hannah as separate from the rest of them. The family that adopted her even seems in some ways to be weary of her. And later on in the novel, as Hannah travels the world with her husband, she never quite seems to “fit in” in any given space. I think Juffer makes a good point about this and how many communities have already determined their own “norms” (whether they realize it or not), so it is all too easy for an outsider to remain feeling as such no matter how long they live in their new home.

Agency: the Power to Act

Naomi Klein and Jane Juffer have some great points about the economy, brands, and stereotypes. They also bring up very interesting, debatable topics; however, even if we agree with everything they say, how do we help to stop things such as child labor or horrible working conditions in third-world countries? To be honest, in some ways the situation seems hopeless. I am not saying that there is no hope—only that sometimes it can seem this way.

A lot of the power to change things lies at a level us “normal citizens” do not have complete or easy access to. I do not own a corporation, so it seems hard for me to dictate their actions. However, as many may have heard before, there is power in numbers. In some ways, I like to think of Juffer and Klein’s suggestions through the ‘pay it forward’ theory. Sure it starts small, but it also grows quickly. Before we know it we have started to change something. It may be small, or it may be only a single corporation that we change, but the fact is that we did change it. People are able to make a difference.

So what’s the first step? Honestly, I’m not sure. But I would say a good guess is to be informed. Information in the right hands can be power.

I also think one of the important things Klein mentions is that the brands need us. Not the other way around. The brand’s goal is to appeal to as many people as possible. They want to appeal to us. This also creates a unique paradox, because when you think about it many people talk about trying to take away the power of the corporation (or changing their under-handed dealings in other countries); however, these same corporations have given us power. We may feel helpless, yet the few abilities we have come directly from those corporations whose desire is to please us. What I think Naomi Klein is saying then is that people could (and should?) easily attempt to use this to their advantage the best they can.

Even though the problem may indeed be larger than just the corporations (it is implied that the government laws and regulations do not cover certain areas they should to prevent bad labor conditions and such), I agree with Klein’s argument that sometimes we must start out small. Changing the very fabric of certain government laws seems an extremely daunting task for any group of people; however, by starting with smaller things—such as a single corporation—people could gradually work their way up to accomplish a larger goal in the end.

And yet… there is still a double standard. Other companies swoop in after another’s downfall and claim to be better; yet the same thing is happening in the sweatshops they employ. So does this mean we are forced to look at the bigger picture? Is moving step by step effective in these situations? How can we tell? But if we focus on the bigger picture instead, it is hard not to feel helpless.

Reaching out to others with the same viewpoint, and staying informed seems like a good plan. After all—even if you move slowly, step-by-step it will still lead you in the right direction and you will eventually reach your destination.

Stereotypes & Perceptions

Jane Juffer brings up a very interesting argument in her novel, Single Mother, about the specific roles a mother plays in raising a son. Many who would argue against Juffer claim that the son needs a male role model in his life—if the boy does not have this, critics are afraid he could develop some sort of “Oedipal complex” or (possibly worse in their eyes?) grow up to be “too feminine.”

However, what is “too feminine”? What is just plain “feminine”? Doesn’t society determine what is feminine and what is masculine in the first place? These gender roles have been assigned years ago, and today they invade culture so much that they have become natural—“the norm.” The ‘inherent meaning’ of feminine does not exist outside of the contexts created by society. We are led to believe from a young age that this ideology of men being masculine and women being feminine is natural. Yet the whole conception that males and females must act different is a societal construction. Many people seem to argue that simply because males and females have physical differences, they must also act in entirely different manners. While of course these differences should not be entirely ignored, they should also not be completely separated.

This argument of differences also relates to the chapter we read recently in The Theory Toolbox about the influences things such as gender or status can have on one’s perception of the world (certain events or ‘signifiers’). However, could it be that these elements only affect our view because society tells us that they must? Or does coming from a certain part of town truly affect how you look at the world? In a way, each of these arguments seems to hold some truth.

For example, in some ways females could tend to view themselves in a certain light—somehow relating their ‘skills’ to things such as cooking, family values, etc (whether they excel at these ‘skills’ or not). But many of these ‘skills’ are a societal construction in the first place. Granted, these days, gender “equality” is becoming much more prevalent and less of an issue, but there are always small things that can be changed. Also I am not claiming that males don’t have to deal with stereotypes, as many can attest that they do. In fact, there seems to be no escape from the stereotype no matter where you come from or how you live. These stereotype perceptions are what seem to create the need to see things “differently.”

A question I pose to you then is this: do you think that everything we perceive is affected by outside influences? Or is there anything inherent within an individual that causes them to see things in a certain way?

Brands, Signifiers, & Single Mothers

While at first none of these things appear to be related, they are more closely linked than one might think. Both “brand” and “single mother” are signifiers themselves. In the case of each there are multiple aspects that go into the definition or meaning of the words. Of course, there is no single signified that corresponds directly to either of these phrases; instead, we get connotations, multiple meanings, and differing opinions depending on any given context.

Originally, many people seem to associate brand names with a “high-quality” product, an expensive good, etc. However, Naomi Klein encourages her readers to question this original perception of the brand as it leeks into previously safe spaces such as schools. It seems, then, that there are no longer any spaces where we can hide from advertising. Maybe eventually the only way to avoid it is to close our eyes, plug our ears, and so forth. Yet, as I spoke of in my earlier blog, can we really blame all the large companies? Well certainly yes a portion of the blame rests on their shoulders—but doesn’t some of the blame also fall on us consumers for letting things go this far? Klein addresses this issue in her book a bit when she refers to teachers and community members of schools. It is true that each person has a busy life and may not realize what is going on until it is too late. But then isn’t it our job to become informed of such things so that they will not slip past us? The brand has began to signify much more than it originally intended, and is so completely ingrained in our culture that many don’t give it a second thought. For example: have you ever asked someone to pass you a Kleenex? A “Kleenex” is not an object. Kleenex is a brand—yet the concept of it has become embedded with the name. Therefore we have come to equate the signifier (a brand) with it’s signified (the object).

Likewise, the signifier “single mother” has also come to be equated with its signified as being intrinsically related. In her novel, Juffer indirectly addresses stereotypes of single mothers and attempts to demystify the common portrayal of the single mother. Many people associate the phrase (single mother) with certain connotations and meanings that in the end seem to be no more than simple stereotypes. However, as Juffer clearly points out, there are many arguments as to what exactly constitutes being a single mother. It is one thing to begin to presuppose the signifier of an object onto the object—but what about when the signified is not an object but a person? One could not possibly fully describe the complexity of people in one sitting. So how can we say that a person is equated with a single signifier or signified?

These assumptions lead to stereotypes as well as more assumptions. The only way to avoid such things then seems to be education. We must constantly be learning of the world around us and do our best to prevent such stereotypes and presumptions. We must never forget that nothing has intrinsic meaning—in fact, we are the ones who give meaning in the first place.

Signifier vs. Signified in "The Minister's Black Veil"

Derrida argued that many times the signified “slips” under the signifier. There is no definitive, natural relationship between the two, and many times this can be the cause of multiple assumptions about any given work.

Although Miller does not directly address the “signified” and “signifier,” he creates a great example of Derrida’s argument. As Miller analyzes Hawthorne’s short story, he denounces other critics who try to read into the ‘deeper meaning’ of the minister’s black veil. He argues that one can find no proof in the text that would support a certain meaning behind the veil, because every time the narrator gives us insight as to the veil, there is always a maybe, possibly, or, think, etc. Rather than create a meaning, this wording actually makes meaning more indistinguishable.

Similar to his methods in The Scarlet Letter, Hawthorne words things very cleverly to play off the assumptions of characters as well as readers. Society has come to turn these assumptions into something we do ‘naturally.’ It seems that it has always been people’s instinct to judge first and ask questions later. Even those who argue they try not to judge cannot help the thoughts that pop into their heads upon meeting a new person, reading a book, or just experiencing life. Sure, we can filter those thoughts, we can restrain them and become educated to try and prevent such bias ways of thinking–But is there ever a way to completely get rid of any and all judging thoughts or assumptions?

One of the biggest signs Miller brings attention to in his essay is the minister’s face. I agree with him that the face can be a signifier of its own; however it also goes much further. The concept of a face as a signifier relates closely with Derrida’s argument also. People use their faces as methods of expressions constantly–even when others aren’t around to see the expression. Many times these facial expressions have a certain signified–maybe the person is trying to convey anger or happiness–but more often, it seems, facial expressions are easy to misinterpret, especially if one does not know the other person very well.

In this way, the face becomes a “slippery” signifier whose meaning is not always clear or direct. This also shows that the concept of the signifier and the signified are not always limited to language. The very concept of signification is hard to hold on to, as it seems nothing inherently contains meaning. The face becomes a wonderful example of a non-verbal signifier, and numerous people in “The Minister’s Black Veil” demonstrate the diversity of meaning a face can have–even if it is “signifying” by not being fully visible (in this case the lack of a signifier becomes the signifier).

Freud & Lacan on 'The Unconscious Mind'

“I think therefore I am.” This quote from Descartes has probably been repeated more times than one could count. However, it could also be said that many people recite this sentence with little thought as to what it really means–admittedly, I was one of these people not too long ago.

Descartes originally came up with this line of thought when he was trying to prove that he, in fact, existed. Starting with larger concepts, such as God or the world, did not provide the proof needed, as much of these things had been created or subjected to the will of humankind. Descartes thinking finally narrowed down to focus on the single entity “I.” If the “I” is thinking, it means he must “be” or exist, right?  Maybe, but maybe not.

Lacan seems to tear apart this philosophy a bit based on the two assumptions Descartes makes: that there is an “I” and that “I” can think. The “I” presupposes the idea that there is only a single autonomous being, but fails to include the influences on that being, the past, and other less controllable factors.

We can relate this discussion, then, to Freud’s analysis of dreams. While in some areas Freud appears to make valid points, similar to Descartes, he also makes small assumptions that can be hard to detect in the beginning. Freud speaks of the unconscious as if it were some uncontrollable part of our being that ultimately ‘directs’ or relates the conscious. He portrays it as something in the background. Freud then uses this idea to demonstrate how dreams during the unconscious reflect the conscious; however, Lacan might debate that his argument bases analyses solely on the premise that the unconscious and the conscious are “consciously” linked and that somehow one leaks into the other.

Lacan makes a valid point with his connections between the unconscious and language. Both could be signifiers, but that does not mean that they have to be. And when each does act as a signifier, the signified is not always definitive. In this manner the unconscious works in much the same way as language. Lacan argues this as a very large mistake that is common among other psychoanalysts. I found his example about the “gentlemen” vesus “ladies” interesting to consider within this concept. When taken out of context, it is only too easy for someone to misinterpret the signifieds of these signs. A person from a different societal or cultural background could also easily misconstrue these signs.

When we relate this to the unconscious then, we see that when dreams or other desires are taken outside of the context of the unconscious and brought into the realm of the conscious. When we take these things into the conscious realm, we then try to apply the laws of the conscious world to them. However, this action is based off the assumption that the conscious and unconscious function in much the same manner and therefore can be held to the same rules. Maybe then, instead of presupposing old rules on it, we should try to discover what exactly the new laws are that govern the unconscious. They could indeed end up being similar or even the same, but they could also be something entirely different.

Applying Reality to Dreams

Some would say that the interpretation of dreams closely parallels the interpretation of texts (such as novels), and I would have to agree with them; however, it seems that just as a text can be given meaning or over-analyzed so can a dream.

In an excerpt from Sigmund Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud discusses how in a dream, what we remember of the dream after we wake up is usually only a small part of the actual dream itself. He goes on to talk about how dreams should not always be represented by pictures, because they are so much larger than what a mere picture could describe. This could easily be applied to any work by saying that the physical words on the page are small representations of the greater meaning of the text as a whole.

However, Freud also states, “the elements of the dream are constructed out of the whole mass of dream-thoughts and each one of those elements is shown to have been determined many times over in relation to the dream-thoughts” (318). I think what he is trying to say here is that each “element” is created by multiple smaller, related “thoughts.” These elements and thoughts contained in the dream link to another idea or thought within the dream to create a giant web of interlocking thoughts.

An example of a dream...
What does this tree mean to you?

What I do not understand, however, is how Freud knows that dreams are created from “dream-thoughts.” If one is really asleep, then they are not consciously creating meaning from these thoughts while in slumber. Is it possible to presuppose the aspects of the conscious mind to a sleeping one? Could it be that the elements in our dreams can relate, but maybe they also contain entirely separate “meaning” or no meaning at all?

For example, let’s say that the setting of your dream has a small meadow with one tree. Is this one tree related to everything else? Does it have some greater meaning or symbolism? Maybe it represents your desire to become mature and settle down–be more confident in yourself… and maybe it is just a tree.

In The Scarlet Letter, Hawthorne follows Hester and Pearl into the forest to meet with Dimmesdale. Along the pathway there, the sun appears to only shine on Pearl; the moment Hester gets near it goes away. Is this symbolic of the sun’s fear of Hester’s sin? The sun refuses to shine on Hester because it is ashamed for her? Some could make that argument; however, it is more likely that Hawthorne is playing with our eagerness to ‘see symbols’ everywhere we look. So in this scene, the sun for all purposes is just the sun.

And while Freud has a valid point about the related aspects of dreams (and likewise works), as Hawthorne displays in his novel, there is also the human element in which we place our own meanings onto components of dreams when we wake up–which are then of course once again limited by our own knowledge and connotations.