"Who is the judge?" "The judge is God." "Why is he God?" "Because he decides who wins or loses. Not my opponent." "Who is your opponent?" "He does not exist." "Why does he not exist?" "Because he is a mere dissenting voice of the truth I speak" -The Great Debaters (2007)
In the last few weeks of classes some of us have been subjected to the grueling idea of post-structuralism (and wondering whether we really do exist if ‘reality is a matter of production’).In taking a double-degree, I find the Business course solid and pretty objective, while the School of Arts and Humanities offers many interesting discourses to chew on (and spit out). Nevertheless, the latter provides many lenses with which to look at life and to ponder about certain realities. p.s. Will post again after my exams (ending on 4th of Nov).
________________________________________
The idea of post-structuralism fits well in this age of expressionism. Prevalent in every form of written/oral communication are thousands of attempts to express emotions of some sort by individuals who desire to be heard and known. This very web page, an outlet of expression and thought, is no different from the millions of blog pages around the world- it only guises itself in a less personal way than the average Ah Lian blog. Some present their expressions in the guise of clever thoughts, some in profound pictures, some in narratives; but in essence, all have the same basis- to make a statement of some kind for others to be aware of. Otherwise, blog pages will not be blog pages- they will be saved Microsoft Word files safely stored in a personal folder.
Post-structuralism finds its roots in the fact that all meaning is reduced to language, for we cannot think without first forming our thoughts through the medium of language. Because no thought could be made without the inevitable influence of language, post-modernism says all meaning may be deconstructed. In summary, the 'truth' behind meaning is irrelevant in a post-modernist world because we can construct 'reality' by the use of language.
If this is true, the world we live in is one flooded with messages which bear unstable meanings, for they could be interpreted in any way and may be used in any way. This is daunting, because this negates any truth. More importantly, this means many things are ‘relative’ and non-absolutes.
Yet, this idea fits perfectly in our expressionist world, where the 'liberal' are glorified and the conservative, stoic ideas are perceived to be 'closed and narrow' ways. This is the convention of the world today- any truth could be seen in any way. Any code could be read in any way, and therefore, moral codes are not absolutes, for they have relative meanings and are to be interpreted in a relative manner. Individuality reigns supreme, and 'one man's meat is another man's poison'. We live in a relative world.
Where, then, can we find ‘truth’ in a post-modern world, where one's own rights are fought for (often out of sheer selfishness) and "human rights" are glorified (often excessively and naively) and where the righteous are always 'stiff and up-tight' while the liberal are always 'open-minded'?
After all, history itself has shown that humankind requires absolutes to function. From the dawn of time, laws have been made and re-made for one reason: to limit human activity and to draw the line. Humankind needs borders in order not to ‘cross the line’- and borders are absolutes to be obeyed. Why is it, that the immediate reaction to a ruthless case of rape is usually the demand that the perpetrator be punished severely according to the law?
The waves of this age of post-modernism may bring to many a sense of liberation from the 'weights of moral and social codes', but we must never be too enthralled by the spirit of liberation, especially when it is used loosely and when it is the excuse for decadence.
It was the 'weights', after all, that built the strong man, not the sense of liberation.
