One of my final exams at UPLB

1.      What do you consider the most radical claim or assertion of each of the following theories? Explain in 1-2 paragraphs per theory. (70%)

a)      Structuralism

            I guess it’s when Saussure said that words exist primarily in relation to one another, before they exist in relation to an object. In all the arguments, for me this sentence is the most radical claim of this theory and it makes sense to me the most. It makes sense that each word exists primarily for one another, that is why we used words based on the thought we wanted to deliver. We chose words appropriate for each other.

            In my own understanding, it’s like how the word beautiful has a direct relation to ugly, tree to leaves, door to windows, etc. Indeed, the marks are there, but our understanding and our impression of them is owed to something we cannot have an impression at all and that something is difference (Phillips, Structure and Semiotics). We identify words based on their difference, same on how we used them based on their relation to one another.

b) Post-Structuralism

            The most radical claim here is from Jacques Derrida and his deconstruction theory. He argues that all systems or structures have a center, a point of origin and that all these systems are created of binary pairs. All binary pairs work like this: light/dark, beautiful/ugly, good/bad (just like how I mentioned earlier in structuralism). However, Derrida observes that the first term is always valued over the second which is what happened to speech/writing. It’s because in speech somebody has to be there to be speaking (the center), favouring presence over absence.

            This is very radical, since it’s like questioning on which comes first in everything, (e.g. the reality and the word). It makes sense why post-structuralism suggest in erasing hierarchy and all be equal.

             

c) Marxist Theories

            Marxism places reality over idealism. The most radical assertion for me on Marxism is the symptomatic reading and material practice of Louis Althusser, where he said that literature speaks to us on an “unconscious level”. This explains how the books we read and the advertisements influence us. The writer’s depiction and representation of reality subject us which lead to consumerism.

            This theory is definitely true and experienced by everyone. It makes sense that anything can be an ideological product, like a tool who originally serves its purpose but since it was romanticize, it can have a special meaning (e.g. shampoo, its original purpose is for cleaning our hair but the advertisement shows that it can straighten hair. Since idealism replaces reality, as a person with a curly hair who wants to have a straight hair, you will buy it. Thus, the shampoo beside its original purpose can have a special meaning for those who want to have a straight hair). In the end, it may really be our idealism that really creates meaning far from the reality.

d) Feminist Theories

            For me, it’s the freeing of the self through writing by Helene Cixous. According to her, through writing, we can free ourselves from hierarchical structures. For her, to write from one’s body is to free reality. She defined woman as bisexual and that our sexuality and the language in which we communicate are inextricably linked.

            To write as a bisexual, to free oneself through writing away from any boundaries due to man’s oppression of literature are all opposites of what we came upon. It’s like rewriting history and giving new meanings to the whole world of women.

e) Reader-oriented Theories

            Although the intention of the author is incorporated in the text, it is still the reader who interprets the text; thus, the meaning is from the reader and not from the author. It’s a new argument for me since as a reader; the natural flow for me is when I understand a text based on how the author writes it.

            I suddenly realized that I did give a different or new meaning on a text too besides on how it was literally presented by the author. Indeed, even if I claim that what I understand is based on what the author says, still it is I who declared it.

f) Postmodernism

            Simulacrum is a representational image or presence that deceives; the product of simulation usurping the reality. As Jean Baudrillard said “There is no such thing as originality”. Today, we can even commit a mistake on saying that the imitation is the real and the real is a fake. The “first copy” is even rare to be found, since copying a copy is the trend.

            Works, personalities and words are being copied. It is happening, yet we don’t pay attention. We are even fascinated that all things can be copied easily, that no one is searching for the original anymore. Indeed, we are living our lives where we appreciate product imitations, gay impersonators and scripted “reality shows”.

g) Post-Colonial Theories

            Homi Bhaba argues that all cultural systems and statements are constructed in what he calls the ‘Third Space of Enunciation'. By exploring this ‘Third Space', we may avoid the politics of polarity and emerge as the others of ourselves. Embracing the hybridised nature of cultures steers us away from the problematic binarisms that have framed our notions of culture until now.

            As a Filipino, even though it has been hundred years already since we are colonized by the Spaniards and Americans, we can still see the impact they left in our language and culture. However, since we already embrace whatever they left us, it became a part of us already (e.g. our Filipino language with many Spanish words in it and of course our colonial mentality on imported products from America). These things became our own attributes already which I believe will not be erased anymore until our next generation.

           

2.      How would you explain the centrality of language and literature in the current critical enterprise? What is it about the theories of literature and language that are particularly relevant in explaining cultural and social phenomena? (20%)

      It only shows how important it is to further understand language and literature because it encompasses all disciplines. These theories are all relevant in explaining cultural and social phenomena because they give logical answers on the cause, structures and effects of such phenomena. We can also give recommendations for further studies using these theories.

      Another good thing is that on the process we may able to form a new theory based or opposite the existing theories that we have. With these theories, we can also understand ourselves better as a language user and a participant in literature. Here in the Philippines, some of the existing phenomena that were analyzed using these theories are Jejemon, Gaylingo, K-pop invasion, Internet sensation, multilingualism etc.

3.      Cite the value of your final paper in terms of our understanding communication and/or culture. (10%)

            My final paper is about a book of a Filipino woman who uses her wit and prudence in freeing herself through writing. She is a Chinay (half Chinese, half Filipina). Her book is all about her childhood memories, living with the traditional Chinese family of his father with her Filipina mother and all sisters, being the eldest daughter (her father didn’t have a son), her adventures and misadventures in relation to her first menstruation, being a molested child, the separation of her parents (how her father and mother’s word against each other affect her) and more.

             I believe that analyzing her book can give a further understanding to girls or women who share the same fate in one way or another. The way she communicate all of these experiences to her readers is very interesting too. Using feminism and other theories (if needed), I would like to better understand each sentence in her book, its underlying meaning and the impacts it gives to me as the reader.