Ken Ruffo and Baurdrillard

First off I very much enjoyed reading Ken Rufo's post on Baudrillard, as I really got into it. His examples were really easy to follow, which was a change because usually my head and mind are spinning with some of the essays we usually read.

After reading Ken's examples on Marxism I could really see the close relationship between the two. The idea/thought that came into mind was the emphasis our culture puts on name brand and designer lables. Now when these products are produced, say a pair of jeans, is a piece of material that a person has sewn together. We, as consumers, only see and think of these as a basic pair of jeans that we will wear to cover up, because that is what society tells us to do. It isnt until the label that says "True Religion" or "Vera Wang" is placed on it that the purpose of a pair of jeans has changed or we could say the 'sign value'. As Ken said in his blog, "Baudrillard is pointing to something that seems obvious to us today, namely that often what an object represents or signifies is more important than how much it costs or how high quality is its construction". The value of these jeans are now based on the name or designer that is stiched on them.

I guess from reading this post Ive and thinking of all the theories we have studied the idea of the 'real' has become a topic that I have been questioning. I do understand Ken's ideas of Baudrillards reasoning of the real. But what exactly is the real? Is it something that society creates, things we experience, or is there really no such thing as the real?

Language...its all arbitrary

For the past few weeks I feel like I have been sitting in class and feeling like I have not been comprehending anything. As soon as I thought I understood something it would just fly out the window so to speak. So finally, I think that by reading about post-structuralism I now understand structuralism.

How does any object whether it is a tree, a jacket, a shoe, or a bird for example have their particular name? Why cant a bird be called a 'wallet'? For the longest time this question has always boggled my mind. Now let me take a stab at this from a structuralists perspective.

Structuralists believe that reality is created through both language and construction of signs. We can see this by the relation between the signifer and the signified. As Saussure stated, "the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary."

Let me take the example that we had in class using a tree. The signifier was the word 'tree' as it is said and seen. The signified is the concept of the image of a tree. It is then through language we can agree on the sign.

I find it interesting that throughout all the different languages that exist in the world this 'equation' can still be applied signs. Though from country to country words for objects will change but they all represent a common sign. Without a language there would not be any meaning for anything, a reality wouldnt exist. And what is life without a reality? Basically nothing.