Why the “Signifier/Signified” concept is irrelevant to women
Posted in Current Affairs with tags saussure, structuralism on April 30, 2008 by auleliaIn structuralism, the signifier/signified concept is core to what theorists like Ferdinand de Saussure believed in. I think it can be applied to how women are oppressed in society. Let’s take the idea of chastity for example. My church, the Roman Catholic church, puts an extremely strong emphasis on people to be chaste before marriage. For women, chastity is rewarded and belief of not being chaste is punished severely as honour killings highlight. The signifier, in this case, the patriarchal societies that enforce chastity like the Roman Catholic church, ensure that the signified, women must subscribe to chastity et al.
According to this site, “ The thing signified is created in the perceiver and is internal to them”. Patriarchal societies like African and Middle Eastern ones that emphasise the importance of tradition thus create the neurosis of the signified, which in this case is the woman. Societies that emphasise the importance of a woman being a virgin and women working in “domain”, the kitchen, put women as the signified in an ambivalent position — why can’t women be the in position of power as the signifier ?
Jacques Lacan, the eminent structuralist thinker came up with the idea of the Symbolic. In his eyes, the Symbolic was the arena where social structures were created and notably, where the signifier was produced. It is also the order where sexual desires are repressed, according to this book. Women cannot exist as equal creatures in this Lacanian Symbolic simply because if we assert that women are the signified, how can they understand what it feels like or moreover, how can they enjoy the privileges of being the signifier ? Repression of sexual desires too denotes an emphasis on the heterosexual male experience of sexuality since women are seen to be the vessels in which repressed hetero desire is channelled and released.
I think womanhood operates in binary positions like “signifier/signified” because that is how humankind has conditioned itself to believe that there are men and women and that men oppress women. Women must strive to find relevant theories and lifestyles that ensure that oppression is at least decreased. The question is, even if we think structuralism is irrelevant, how can we argue that any theory from the canon of philosophy really is relevant when they such as structuralism, modernism, post-modernism have all overwhelmingly been created from the standpoint of privilege (white, hetero, male).
-Next topic: Is queer theory an apt ideology for hetero (black/asian) women ?






