Contested Meaning

1217 Words3 Pages

This essay is supposed to be on “contested meaning,” an argument over what is the true meaning of something, of someone. The only problem with that is that meaning is just something that humans make up. All of this “meaning” that humans talk about is just a bunch of connections that we have made through knowledge of other connections we have made. If we step far enough back in time we can take the example of an non-sentient creature. This creature has been imbued with some patterns that their ancestors have seen to not change throughout generations, and we have given these the name of instincts. But as a (draw good example to maybe a tiger cub learning and playing).

Wrapped inside this word meaning, we often attribute a value to go along with this meaning. It is very difficult as well as very rare for a single person or small faction to create any value in any single thing or concept. Instead, these meanings are handed down to the people from those who are above on the political ladder. This political ladder is the same one MacDonald writes of, referring to more of the “broad sense of the working of power” (190) and the hierarchy of such rather than electoral systems, etc. It is in this way that the “haves” execute their hegemonic power over the “have-nots.” This hegemony is fueled, supported and driven by the media and a certain control it wields and gives. As a result of the control of the media, the “haves,” due to the media’s selling of identity rather than product, create an ideal person that consumers strive to be. Kline states this in her documentary “No Logo.” By creating something that the consumer strives to be, they have invisibly flexed their controlling arm; if one is striving for something, they are c...

... middle of paper ...

...n a revolution. Would overthrowing this hegemony be possible or even beneficial? Could there be a movement toward a completely “Open source” language system, as there was with computer operating systems? Is the need to change not seen since we don’t pay for language as we do with operating systems? Well, we don’t pay with currency.

Language is just meaning and this meaning consists of nothing other than random connections that man has made to try to bring order to the chaos of the world. This assemblage of the signifier (the word) and the signified (that which the word is describing) has no foundation other than that inherited from tradition. Would the world be any worse off if the name for a cow was “duck”? Most of the human population is forced into only a certain set of actions by the media, by the man, by their own language. Is there any escape from this?

Open Document