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).
In my opinion, peoples' emotions are a great example of how people can interpret things differently (something that makes one person mad might make another person happy), or how things can be misinterpreted (a person interpreting tears of joy as sadness). This relates to the signifier because a signifier can be interpreted differently depending on the person or culture and thus give a new meaning to the signified. For example, sticking your middle finger up at someone is offensive in America but not in other countries. Good comparison!
ReplyDeleteIs the signifier based off of an individual perception in order to find the meaning or is it more culturally construed?
ReplyDeleteI largely agree with what you are saying above, but didn't Miller try to point out that, instead of the face signifying how we express ourselve, the face is the way in which we represent or conceptualize the totality of someone's being? In "The Minister's Black Veil", it seemed the people were disconcerted because they could no longer see their minister's face, which they had previously used a representation or conceptualization for his being (his personality, etc.). They could no longer represent or conceptualize him because his face was obscured, and for this reason it seems they were afraid because they no longer had a reference point from which to judge him and then get to know him. But even if this is so, the face does not do an adequate job of representing the totality of one's being, it is merely a signifier, and they cannot even come close to totally encapsulating a concept; we merely use a chain of other signifiers as a reference, etc. I think that Hawthorne then was trying to demonstrate how signifiers can never truly get at the totality of something, and yet at the same time we need signifiers in order to function socially and culturally. To me, he showed this by obscuring the minister's face in the story and showed how this affected the lives of those living in the story's puritan settlement. However, I may be wrong about this.
ReplyDeleteTo LBrown and The Ramblings of an English Major, I think you are both right and you are both kind of saying the same thing actually. You both seem to be saying that people look to facial expressions or faces in general to try and get at either the emotion or the totality of a person (even if this can be misleading). This is what makes it so controversial or bothersome for the townfolk that the minister hides his own face.
ReplyDelete