Safety Not Guaranteed: The Complexities Of Modern Relationships

Saftey1                       So I got drunk and watched the 2012 American comedy film: Safety Not Guaranteed.  I’ll say it now, i cried. Which was weird because i had seen this film before and wasn’t nearly as moved. Why was this? Probably because my former girlfriend left me with a bottle of scotch while she fell asleep on the couch; probably
because this is one of the most insightful commentaries on the profound complexities of modern relationships.  The story takes us on the journey of three individuals investigating a newspaper add to time travel. Through this narrative makes each individual confront and question their assumptions of love.


The story begins with a journalist and his interns writing a superficial article investigating a wanted add to time travel.  Darius Britt (Aubrey Plaza) is an antisocial pseudo intellectual whom interns at a major Seattle Magazine. Darius’s disposition is uniquely bland.  Her apathetic orientations to most things outside of journalism is representative of  her as already exterior to main stream acceptability. Her love for journalism, or finding a greater understanding about the world, seems to be the driving force in her life. Through her internship she is assigned to work under Jeff Schwensen (Jake Johnson) middle aged stylish bachelor. Jeff is ambitious, driven by his career and also his sex life. However, Jeff is aging and he knows it. This trip represents an opportunity for him to reinvigorate a past love.  Darius is accompanied by Arnau; a fellow intern just using his position as a resume booster. Arnau is a happy medium between these two opposites. Darius is a romantic pessimist whereas Jeff is an optimist. Arnau has little to know experience with love at all, so this whole plot becomes a right of passage in his life.  Saftey2

This is the article from where the movie is named. An unknown individual is seeking a companion to travel through space and time.  Symbolic both in the impossibility of time travel but also there is something to be said about the limits of what we could believe is possible. Attempting to travel through space and time is a leap of faith. Poetic. This hipster love story in disguise at first seems to be satirical and comedic in nature, however i felt it was much deeper. Maybe its the own experiences i have had with personal relationships, maybe its my own pessimism about the modern world; the idea of time travel enamored me. If you could escape all of your surroundings completely– open the possibility of creating a new life for your self, for your future. The operation of a journalist is to negotiate the truths in the modern world. The validity of that truth is flexible and journalism is an evolving process. I think its interesting the writers positioned the protagonist as an intern striving to speak truth into the world, and this interns opportunity to produce truth is dependent upon the implausibility of someone creating time travel. Darius natural pessimism yet her self-reliance  that there some greater obtainable truth in the world inspires odd thoughts in my head. Without getting into weird existential questions about the writing lets talk more about the movie. As i kept drinking the meta level meaning of the movie was inscribed upon my brain.

After receiving the assignment the crew heads out to find this mysterious time traveler.  Staking out the P.O box leads them to find local grocery man Kenneth Callaway (Mark Duplass). Jeff fails to convince Kenneth to reveal any information. Kenneth has a naturally standoffish demeanor. Odd, estranged, like an autistic genius who’s been cast aside, Kenneth operates in darkness. Having few people in his life and fewer friends, he appears to be an estranged hermit hell-bent on noble ideas. He’s a dreamer, an optimist, a romantic.  Darius seems to have some type of hipster magic she works on Kenneth. She is able to playfully fool Kenneth into thinking she is the partner he’d been looking for. Shortly after the first encounter with Kenneth Darius begins to invest herself into the story or at lest the idea of it. A moment of tension revolves around each of their reasons for going back into the passed; what they were going to change and what consequences would come. After multiple excursions Kenneth reveals that he wishes to go back to save the life of a loved lost girlfriend. The profound authenticity of Kenneths desire to reclaim the love of his life touches viewers and Darius.  She genuinely wishes to help Kenneth. All of the social implications fall away when they are together out in the woods. The seclusion leads to a status of vulnerability. This intimacy is something that has evacuated modern relationships. Continually the complexity of social standards, expectations and procedure have made it exponentially more difficult to produce moments of human authenticity. This moment is something i look for in myself, i think its something we all look for.

Stepping away from Darius and Kenneth, the sub plot involving Jeff and Arnau has rapidly evolved. Jeff’s main prerogative of the journalistic venture was to seek the companionship of his high school girlfriend. He was excited, pride full and arrogant when approaching the exchange. He would refer to her as fat and wondered if she would act as he remembered. Upon there reintroduction Jeff realizes he has a unique appreciation for domestic life. Soon after they reconnect Jeff ends up in the sack with is estranged lover; finding himself swept away in what live he could have had.  Jeff is disenchanted with this much prized life style, what if, he things.. What if. We’ve all felt that way at one point in our life or another– what if we could have made it work. What if we could have done something different and secured the love of our lives. However, life isn’t that easy and this story is no fairy tail for Jeff.  In the honeymoon period following their renewed sexual relationship, Jeff spontaneously ask her to leave everything and move in with him. This is a sporadic, unexpected and youthful proposition falls upon deaf ears. His old girlfriend politely rejects Jeff; who wouldn’t? Her reasoning is probably the same as all of ours would be; she’s got too much invested in the life she’s created for herself. She couldn’t just be whisked away to an entirely new reality. She was bound to the material and social location she had been in for years. She was bound to the time and place she and Jeff could not escape.

As jeff is confronted with the existential notions of love and modern lively hood Darius and Kenneth are grabbing life by the throat before it grabs them.  The couple has taken extreme steps in the construction of the time machine. Kenneth has created a plot to break in and steal lasers that are required for the time machines function. This is the point that Darius begins to fallout out of the delusional venture of time travel. What the fuck am i doing must have echoed thru her head a thousand times. They were breaking the law, they were endangering themselves and they were making steps the couldn’t backtrack upon. Its at this point she starts to question herself, this adventure and more importantly Kenneth.  If you recall earlier the whole point of this was to find love in his lost girlfriend. So Darius begins to vet her. After only a little searching Darius finds out Kenneth’s long lost love is alive and well. She goes strait to interview her. Belinda (Kristen Bell ) is well aware of who Kenneth is and his weirdness; she recants the tale of Kenneth which is far different that what we’ve heard. They had never dated, never even talked outside of work. Kenneth was weird but not her type. Kenneth finally grows the balls to ask her out and she flat rejects him; then in a rage Kenneth drives his car through her boyfriends window. He makes a fool of himself and is ashamed to show his face to her ever again.

To the common person, Kenneth’s actions seem crazy, estranged and criminal. To me, they seem like the process of a hopeless romantic lost in modern society. Rejection is something we all face in one form of another, however the ways we deal with it speak more about us as a person than anything else. Kenneth’s inability to digest rejection speaks to the affection that he feels for this women. The world is unforgiving, people are unforgiving, love is unforgiving.  Given he wont give up his quest for love, what is he supposed to do?  Just like Jeff’s old girlfriend, he cannot just leave and be transported to a time and place where he is love. Just like i cant be transported to a time and place where i’m loved… Or can he, can we all?

To those invested in the plot of the movie: Time travel is very important for this next part.  Darius is distraught, disappointed and discontent. She had found love in a hopeless place, she had found Kenneth. Now, all of her conceptions of his authentic nature were shattered. Maybe he was just some estranged, semi-autistic man working crazily to travel through space and time. Maybe.  She meets up with Kenneth and  exposes the truth; his girlfriend was a lie.  He acts as if this is completely new and things that something had worked. This is where time travel is key, if kenneth had been telling the truth, it means that the time travel had worked and he had altered the past in a way that kept his love interest alive and now instead he had different motives. What could these motives be. After she exposes that he was lying, Jeff and Arnau reveal themselves. Kenneth becomes shocked and paranoid running away. Darius is the only one able to keep up with Kenneth. As they make their way throughout the woods, the launch cite becomes apparent. There it sits, a real machine. It’s shinny and sophisticated. Kenneth rushes the machine as Darius stares in wonderment. He begins to power on the devices and gyroscopes begin to move.  Darius runs to him, and begins to confess, she was real; what she felt was real. He looks at her and says the most influential line in the movie, “The objective has changed, I’m going back for you”. She boards the ship, Jeff and Arnau look on as the events unfold. The machine powers up, Darius grasp Kenneth, Jeff raises a fist in solidarity. Just like that.. They’re gone.They’ve gone to a place where they can be free, and they can change the past and present.

SUBSAFETY-articleLarge

Safety isn’t guaranteed, in life, in love, or in time travel. We all have to risk something to achieve the unachievable, to travel time and space to create a new world with someone. This story is so moving to me because i relate to it… although i ended the film crying into my 5th glass of scotch, i think it states something profound towards the potentiality of modern love. Kenneth was able to escape the confined label of weird-o grocery clear and Darius was able to reclaim her own optimism within the world.  They were able to transcend the time and space to find love that Jeff’s old girlfriend couldn’t. They were able to leave this world, together, to find love; in each other. I wish i had a time machine so i could go back and right all the wrongs that i have made in the world. Treat people better, make people happier, make my self happier. However, thats just not true. The modern world is filled with so many hurdles and complications that its a nearly impossible feat to create an authentic dynamic of unconditional love. You’d need something as realistic of a time machine–  in the end, i find myself wanting what they have. The willingness to commit to each other fully, with no guarantees of it succeeding; literally facing the entire world side by side. We don’t know if they end up safe in the past; however i have faith they made it. I have faith, that Kenneth was telling the truth about his old love interest and had gone back to change history to be with Darius. I have faith in love.

Advertisements

Poetic Slurrings

Life

I was 21, so was the scotch flowing through my vains
i couldn’t stop living,
to save the life of me,
I couldn’t stop living.
Whats the point of it all if you don’t pull the seems,
tear at the edges,
peal away the crumbling wallpaper of the human before you.

To drink.
To gamble.
To steal.
To fuck.
To fight.
To love.
To Live on the thrill of the moment thats forever escaping us all.
Wouldn’t it be nice.
If that moment couldn’t bear the significance
we so humbly inscribe upon it

Bare

I get that I’m not perfect
But I’ll always try to be.
Strip me down
To that
bare
Honest
Truth.

Hotel bars

Old lonely fucks
Drunk at the hotel bar
Talking only About their children
A world away.

Her #2

Why do you torture me
With that figurative
Implication your
Dress would assume.

Blacking out

I never go out to
Hit the town
Somehow
always
the town hits
Me.

Scotch & Tonic

** Sorry Ya’ll i’ve beScotchGlassen Drankin***

My problem is that i find the smallest things the most profound. i ordered a scotch and tonic she looked at me with such disgust. It was amazing a girl of that quality could ever contort her face into that shape. Appropriate enough i was the one that gave her the vile elixer creating this response in the first place. She was beautiful, breath taking… Its strange in this grand world we live that we never pay attention to the acute dynamics surrounding ourselves. However, with her, it seemed that i was inspecting ever single gesticulation of her being. All of her movements became draped with passion and innocence. She was perfect. My perfect. The way her nose dimpled at the smell of the scotch; how her cut tongue escaped the enclosure of her perfect teeth in disgust of the vial drink i poured down her mouth. “I love it” I defended. “Of coarse you love it, you’re just as horrible”… She was right. Although i took so much pleasure in indulging this culturally acclaimed beverage, i was just as repaginate. Why should such a beautiful being spend a second in the presence of one who indulges in superficial shit.

I have no idea why i like scotch and tonic, maybe its a because i like pain. I thrive on the bitterness and sour flavor. I expect displeasure, i understand it i embrace it. I choose to harm myself because its how you gauge the satisfaction of living. I love her because she is all that could be satisfying. Why she loves me is a mystery.  I encourage her to drink Scotch and tonic and assure her of its reputation.  Her response is as expected… is she responding to me, to the drink, to the world we live in.  I only can come to one conclusion. The notion my love would undergo the endeavor of scotch and tonic in an attempt to please me is the definition of compassion. She is my assurance of humanity. She is the small instance that keeps the world thriving upon the assemblage of love.

Poetry Over A Bottle Of Merlot

Shotglass Post

Late Nights of Late

My
mind races,
My
Hearts’ been stopped.
My fingers
bleed.

 

Her

She said,
Im yours

He repeated.

They were already taken
by the
sea

 

The Edge

Here,
the edge is where i totter
drifting between opposing circumstances
containing fate.
Security
has long left my mind
my body
my home
my rationality

I always find myself running into such wild

uncertainty.

 

Madness

I can remember there was a time
when madness wasn’t liquified
in my veins.
Pumping threw me
alive.
Madness is a form of art,
a walk of life,
a nod of the head or
the shake of the hand.
Madness is a discipline
that tells you to dress well
to get a job-
to act accordingly
 
to create order;
or the thought order could exist.
Madness is a comfort
to the weary and disavowed,
to the lovers and the lonely
to the technocrats governing
us all.
Madness is a style,
a patter
a movement
to compare the legitimacy of riotousness
Madness is me
and i know it
i can escape it
I have succumb.

 

The Wake
My throat raw
My body aches
My soul Has dissappeared.
My mind wanders
Back to the point-
My ass hurts
My eyes squint
My life flashes before my eyes
The spark of radiation
Like the sun exploding.
I laugh at the turmoil
that has absorbed my
essence.

Game Of Thrones: Theon Greyjoy The Broken Man Of Westeros

3 Years ago millions were  baptized in church of Game of Thrones: a televisions drama based on George R.R Martins fantasy series A Song of Fire and Ice.   The television drama caused audience to  immediately  become completely addicted on the deceptive, cunning, sexual, political dynamics surrounding the world of Westeros.

 

 

theon-greyjoy-1024All viewers and readers are very well aquatinted with Theon Greyjoy, of the Iron Islands.  Theon’s story is not a happy one. Theon is the living tragedy that has inhabited audiences minds throughout the entire series.  At first introduction he seems to be living a life of luxury as a prince or a king. He consistently indulges in the finest Winterfell can provide; cloths, foods, horses, whores. Theon has great presence in the city of Winterfell. Not only because of his connection to Ned Stark but the alliances he has formed with Rob Stark.  However, origins of  Theons presence parallels the brutal nature of Westorian politics. During the war preceding the Television show, The Starks had defeated House Greyjoy to control the north. As result House stark executed all of Greyjoy’s heirs with the exception of Theon. Whom he kept as a squire and raised in Winterfell.

The purpose of Theon Grey joys narrative is to articulate the material, epistemological, corporeal, and psychological violences imposed by the vicious politics encapsulated in Game of thrones. The fundamentals that drive that drive the world of Game of thrones focus on loyalty, justice and honor. These innate values seem to circulate in some variation to all factions. Every competing kingdom is driven behind some meta-narrative of entitlement and pride supported by the sigil and other symbolic assemblages of power. However, between these boarders of houses, kingdoms armies, religions and loyalties; where does Theon Greyjoy find himself.

As noted above, Theons childhood is convoluted  with mixed senses of loyalty. Should he be faithful to his father that gave him up as a political agreement; or to the family that has raised him as their own all his adult life.  This question is constantly weighing throughout Thoen’s mind. For instance, at various points when Theon introduces himself to whores (at Winterfel and in rout to the Iron Islands) he hyperbolically emphasizes his title and heritages to the Iron Islands.  The fact that he only acts in this verbose manner only towards individuals with inferior status is a brief incite to the internal conflict plaguing Theons psyche.  Even though he seems in some sphere proud of his Iron-born decent, it seems in every other public realm he must repress and assimilate. This is a subordination of his own natal believes in favor of  loyalty to the Starks is the first  conflictual antagonism  in Theons identity Crisis.

This suppressed loyalty crisis comes to a head in the second season. When Rob Stark becomes king of the north he implores Theon to seek alliances with his estranged father. Theon becomes egotistically empowered by the thought he could reclaim the image of his house and bring the Ironborn to prestige.  However when Theon is greeted with his father the separation between cultures becomes clear.  Although Theon may posses Iron blood he hasn’t been raised in Iron born custom.  He please to his father to join alliances with the stark, encouraging that Rob would ensure his rise to King of the Iron Islands. His father adversarial and reminds Theon of war crimes passed. Through a vicious dialogue, Theon is ripped of all sense of entitlement he felt towards any house. His values are questioned at a fundamental level.

Theon had composed a letter to Rob Stark informing him of his fathers decision. However, poetically Theon burns the letter and sets in stone his predicted political alliances.  Upon his baptism Theon though the would claim his status and right as an Iron born. Quick to his dismay, his father has attributed no power or faith Theons endeavors. This becomes a problem for Theon.  The entailment is the antithesis of being iron born. His father disrespects his character on that fundamental.GreyJoy3

The Ego of Theon becomes the next fundamental tragedy of his identity. The ego amplified by his own sense of entitlement drove Theon to disobey orders and invade Winterfell. This is doubly symbolic in respect that his completely severed any alliance with the Stark House, in addition to overstepping the orders of his father. This rouge behavior marked Thoen as an object of disavowal. He became completely disposable towards the political mechanisms of Westeros. His actions lead to his mutiny and the close of season two disappears Theon from the political realm into captivity.

Theons next appearances is in a state of captivity. He has been taken prisoner by a nameless faceless presence. He doesn’t know who is with, where he has been or whats going to happen to him. Every sense of entitlement, material wealth, strength and power have been stripped from him. He has no loyalty, no fidelity towards anything by himself. His ego has self destructed both materially, socially and symbolically. He is stripped of his cloths, freedom and his soul.

Season 3 is largely emblematic of his ontological stripping. Through the process of Ramesy Snow inflicts upon thoe, his very conscience is stripped of purpose. he becomes deteriorated mentally, physically and psychologically. The gratuitousness of the torture  affectively implements the traumatic implications of his current status. He has become dirt.  However, the product of Theons torture isn’t actualized until season 4.

Theon Greyjoy has been compleGreyjoy1tely transformed into a mutilated creature named Reek. Reek has been reduced to slave like qualities. His assumptions of freedom, liberty, justice and loyalty have been deconstructed to the point of passivity. He is shaken, cowardice, empty.  More shocking then when Ramsey Snow had Reek Shave him in front of Lord Bolten, as a show of his obedience. In the most recent Episode: is where the appearance of the broken man becomes edified.

Alone in the night the walls of Herin Hall are broken. Insurgence of the Iron islands lead by Theons sister infiltrate the keeps and find him in the dogs kennels.  As the enter Ramsey Snow and selveral other Botlten men arrive and a vicious battle insues. Ramsey snow appears to be the best from House Bolten with a blade and preserves.  The moment when Theon has the choice to pledge his loyalty and run with his sister, or stay as reek and reclaim his status of submissive inhuman; he chooses the latter

This moment articulates the very horrors interwoven in the fabrics of Game of Thrones reality. The deep political violence that is dependent up identity based structures of feilty, loyalty and honor.  Theons honor was never a sound object. From a child he was estranged from his home, unable to touch what he could call his own. Forced into adult hood with a false understanding of whom he his. When returned to his family he is rejected, for he has become to soft. Then when he is taken captive, he is materially, ontologically and psychologically robbed of his being.

Jacques Derrida: Deciphering Difference

derrida1

Introduction To Derridean Ideology.

Jacques Derrida is responsible for some of the most radical political and philosophical commentary over the last 50 years.  Derrida’s unique departure from traditional paradigms of political and cultural philosophes reconfigured modern thought.  Although Derrida was traditionally trained in dominate concepts articulated by Kantian ideals he broke post-structuralist ground with his semiotic analysis of deconstruction (Powell 10) Derrida’s inquiry was not of the material world, but the metaphysical assumptions the world operates under. The evolution of western thought has constructed assemblages of ideals and values that have assumed a model for humanity that proliferated throughout law, religion and science. The resulting structures have created a rubric which different societies are able to operate.  Derrida focuses mostly on the assemblages of textual meanings and those implications knowledge and society.

In this essay I’m going to articulate Derridean public philosophies of ontology, epistemology, law and ethics. Derrida’s political philosophy questions the very fabric of society and how it has come to be.  Through a radical questioning of being, epistemology, government and ethics deconstruction is key to understand the symbolic organization of all aspects of modern society.  Applying methods of Unconditional hospitality and deconstruction we are able to decode difference and apply it to current geopolitical crisis.
Ontology: Approaching Difference  
            Derrida’s examination of human nature can be traced back to his own experience. Born to Sephardic Jewish family in a rapidly modernizing Algeria (Powell, 11).  The powerful influence advancing French Catholicism forced the Sephardic tradition underground. His families’ traditions and custom became external to the normal body politic.  Conflict embedded within religious, political, national and ethnic, identity exposes structural antagonisms that drive social conflict. Derrida’s own natal alienation and repression of his cultural heritage is a form of ontological violence. The disavowal of his own metaphysical framework in favor of another provoked a grander questioning of every philosophical structure.

Derrida contends these overriding metaphysical structures predetermine the potentiality for human nature. Ontological flexibility is limited by subjective experiences of the individual.  Ultimately every individual assumes some ideological standpoint to operate in the world. However, Ideological traits are acquired through the phenomenological engagement with social structures. This immaterial and material experience informs our ideological complexes. The separation between the material and ideological understandings of ontologies is where Derrida begins his discussion. The material symbols that inhabit our world have creates a semiotic rubric which identity is formulated upon. This framework positions difference in identity upon a hierarchical scale making the social value of some humans greater than others.

Derrida quantifies ontology through difference (Derrida, 264). The confrontation of difference exposes the distinctions of one ontology from another.  During the impasse of difference there is a calculative understanding inscribed upon the other. We create an ontological relation to it by attaching it with a signification.  This applies to both material things such as capitol or immaterial things such as pride. The formation of that relation creates dynamics that perpetuate grander ideological apparatuses and narratives. All ideologies, political or theological are extensions of universal models for humanity.

Derrida explicitly rejects the conception of a utopian universal ideology as the referent for human nature. Deconstruction is a process of negotiating the terms in which difference is encountered. This is both in terms of how symbols, text and culture inform our being but additionally how our being is compared in terms of difference.  The articulations of difference become focal points for corporal violence.  The nature of western metaphysics is colonializing and ontologically imperial.

Derrida suggests that we are required to embrace difference with unconditional hospitality. Unconditional hospitality would transcend things like nationalism, sovereignty, racism, sexism, and bigotry. A process of deconstruction through juxtaposition with no evaluative outcome bias or prejudice to truly understand the nature of the other. However, Derrida contends you will never know the full extent of difference nor when you will encounter it.  Thus its your duty to remain vigilant in order to maintain a constant state of radical openness.

Epistemology: Embracing Deconstruction

Deconstruction is meth to analyze the binaries, hierarchies, symbols, paradoxes and structures that have legitimized discourse within western culture. To deconstruct is to temporally rupture and radically problematize the epistemological foundations of modern reality.  By questioning the fundamental assumptions that drive our individual and political behavior we are able to renegotiate the terms in which culture, politics, science, religion and ethics operate.

Derrida rejects the traditional foundations of knowledge that has been collected and validated through the advancement of western society. Rather than assuming the universality of truth, Derrida believes in post structuralism conception of reality. In accordance with the fundamentals of deconstruction, derrida seeks to disassemble tropes of knowledge production.  In his essay, Of Grammatology Derrida uses the textual analysis to prove the fluidity of meaning (Derrida, Kaump). By showing how the text could easily be appropriated to a different understanding it disproved the assumption that truth is embedded within text.

Derrida contends that the text represents some trace of knowledge. However the evolution and amalgamations of the connotative and denotative understandings of words has changed their conceptual operation. Understanding the connection between material reality and the textual connotation and contextualization provides a map to understand social ordering. Through textual deconstruction Derrida was able to prove that the structuralism object understandings of ancient politics fallible. Supposing the politics of know share a trace with historical politics why should we presume one legitimate.

Derrida’s theory of epistemology is explained through the concept of presence and absence (Derrida, Kaump). The distinction with presence and absence is a separation, which distinguishes Derridean ideology from traditional Kantian philosophy. The assumption of presence relies on materiality to inform you ideological understands of world and would relate I materialist ontology. The notion of absence is the dialectical comparison, which opens the limits of possibility. Normative logocentric understandings of the world require presence in order to articulate the truths about the world. We understand that material structures, and we have created systems to operate within them. This eludes the possibility that there is a better system void of material requirements. Limiting the poseable questions towards modern knowledge production locks in a static state of being within the world.  Derrida contends we should focalize on the absence, in order to expose the faults within existing structures.

The process of deconstruction operates under the concept of the trace. Deconstruction cannot occur from nothing and has to have a starting point. Even if we were to strip every aspect of western society down to bare ontology it doesn’t provide any new orientation of thought. The trace becomes the point of referent (Presence) that we juxtapose to (Absence).  From this type of casual prediction based politic we’ve been able to manipulate the national and cultural structures within the United States and abroad. The trace becomes a cypher to unpacking the historical meaning and social significance of antagonisms involved in the prais of deconstruction.

Western metaphysics relies heavily on the logocentric understandings of objectivity. This means a textual signifier represents an absolute truth in the world and is able to form dynamics of human nature around it. Derrida rejects this chain of signification. One word, refers to another word, one signification refers to another. This complex assembled of understandings produces no authentic truth (Derrida, Kamuf). Because meaning is only articulate through the reading, there is no objectivity. Notions of politics are just one reiteration after another of what we have predetermined the best method for social organization. This regurgitation of morally superior ideals drowns out the possibility for radical democracy.

Derrida applies this idea of chain signification towards the idea of science. Science is supposed to produce the absolute concrete truths of the world. However, the method they discover, appropriate and prove theories to be truth all of the analysis is texualized in traditional concepts of western metaphysics. Why is a cell called a cell? Because we called it that and we have inspired a common reading of that text to most of western humanity.  What is the basis for that being absolute truth?  It is only true, as it exists in the connotative understanding in human dialects. Derrida’s criticism of social science is especially problematic for the operation of political science.  As students we are trained terms like hegemony, political capital, sovereignty—words that have only meaning within context to other content. This becomes the fundamental failure within these social sciences and why Derrida rejects them as political truths

Genealogy Of The Law       

 

Derrida’s assumptions of human nature and knowledge production fundamentally challenges the way traditional politics ought to be conceptualized. Both in terms of how we should act as citizens organize as communities and operate as a civilization.  Governments, nations, sovereignty are all social science terms that represent a signified concept.  Governments function on law and the operation of the law to form a form of social order. The social order obtains legitimate authority by relying upon a history of universalized under standings of justice that are built upon one school of thought after another. One articulation becomes appropriated to another, meaning is reformed and the social structure evolves.

Derrida rejects this assemblage of authority. Why should we as individuals accept some predetermined analysis of a legal doctrine? The law in and of itself is supposed to represent and assemblage of absolute justice. However, these structures of law represent a predisposed textual meaning that has an assumed historical value.  We operate within those textual guidelines because of the signifier it represents.  Materially and symbolically laws begin to both determine the model for the objective citizens.

Derrida argues the articulation of absolute justice is impossible. The laws that we put so much faith in to organize the collective of humanity are absolutely historically and socially constructed. The process of deconstruction exposes the impossibility of justice. Justice is dependent upon symbolic and material engagement with the other. The imposition of government action presumes the intrinsic nature of its laws is just (Derrida 451).  However the preformative enactment of the law is filtered through the lens of western metaphysics. This performance intrinsically perpetuates symbolic violence against the other.

However some ethics must be possible, we have to be able to interact with the world with some morality.  Recalling the concept of the trace we can elaboration on how the genealogy of terms, symbols has manipulated the efficacy of ethical standards.  Our understanding of ethics is also engrained within western metaphysics; at what point would deconstruct be able to de-link and create a true ethics? It can’t. The only ethical act is to deconstruct (Fuh 8).  Deconstruction isn’t an end point, but a process. In a analysis of axiomatic tendencies of western civilization the only consistent deconstruction provides a platform to understand the nature of difference and its relation to ethics.  In order to have a politics that is doesn’t perpetuate violence deconstruction must be the lens to view ontology and decode epistemology.

 

The Nature of Democracy

The only distinction between a terrorist and a patriot is perspective. Deconstruction plays a vital role in analyzing the recent development in the war on terror. With mass media hyper accelerating the transaction of semiotic meaning islamaphobia has stained American conceptions of the Middle East.  The war on terror represents an unending assault upon the other.  The ever present threat of the Muslim terrorist has create a cycle of  xenophobic racism which is ontological violent to Muslim individuals (Haddad, 30)

Derrida articulates this process as “autoimmunity” (Haddad, 30) in which the body politic attempts to immunities itself against what it perceives to be a threat. This is a self-replicating process that rhetorically and symbolically inscribes connotative violence on individuals. The abstract nature of democracy is assumed to provide equality in all aspects. However, when there becomes and omnipresent understanding of one ontological position as inherently evil democracy becomes impossible.  We must break with the structures that are perpetuation corporal  violence and adopt an ethic of unconditional hospitality.

 

Conclusion & Applications

Human nature becomes something that is informed by the symbols and structure around us.  Through the advancement of western civilization there have developed assumed philosophical truths. Derrida deconstructs those truths. By breaking down the semiotic and cultural hierarchies you are able to isolate violence.

Although the majority of Derrida’s writing is limited to the philosophical nature of the world around us its relation to textual understandings; his analysis provides a platform to analyze the symbols and rhetoric that function in every day society. This includes and is not limited to, political parties, communities, state and national governments, identity politics, capitalism, consumptive patters and ideas in of themselves.   Methods of deconstruction are a political necessity to navigate the complexity of the modern world.  In respect to the pragmatic conclusion of a deconstructed world I would imagine it to be parallel a pluralist dynamic both in terms of human nature but how individuals should embrace alternative cultural perspectives.

Derrida3

Works Cited

Derrida, Jacques. “Force De Loi: Le Fondement Mystique De L’Autorite,.” (1989-1990): 400-460. Hein Online Library. Web. 10 Apr. 2014. <http://heinonline.org.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/HOL/Print?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/cdozo11&id=934&gt;.

Derrida, Jacques, and Peggy Kamuf. A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds. New York: Columbia UP, 1991. Print.

Derrida, Jacques. “Differance.” Northwestern University Press (n.d.): 260-70.Project Lamar. Web. 10 Apr. 2014. <http://projectlamar.com/media/Derrida-Differance.pdf&gt;.

Fuh, Shyh-jen. “Derrida and the Problem of Ethics.” Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics 29.1 (2003): 1-22. KU Libraries. Web. 10 Apr. 2014 Dong Hwa University

Haddad, Samir. “Derrida and Democracy at Risk.” Contretemps 4 (2004): 1-16. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.Assistant Professor of Philosophy Associate Chair for Undergraduate Studies RH

Powell, Jason. Jacques Derrida : A Biography. London GBR: Continuum Internaional, 2006. Lib.Ku.edu. The University of Kansas Libraries. Web. 10 Apr. 2014. <http://site.ebrary.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/lib/kansas/docDetail.action?docID=10285123&gt;.LC Call Number: B2430.D484 — P69 2006eb eISBN: 9781441131720 pISBN: 9780826490018 Dewey Decimal Number: OCLC Number: 646806760