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.