Bodies that Matter, Butler explains how the power of hegemony forms the understanding of our “bodies”. Being defined through the eyes of philosophers, psychoanalytic and fictional works. All change the way people get treated with their bodies.
A current event that ties into what Butler is mentioning is the resurfacing of the Roe vs Wade case and the decision for abortions for women.

Whether women have full freedom with their bodies or lose their right for making important decisions for their bodies. As she elaborates more on
right from wrong, she mentions that Freud argues that “the ego is first and foremost bodily
ego, “that this ego is, further, “a projection of a surface”. This perfectly defines how people perceive bodies as, whether from traditional household rules
or based on science.

In the Mirror Stage as Formative, Lacan believes that during our infant stage. We shape our own images based on a mirror and how we perceive ourselves as. What Lacan dives into is a belief I strongly believe. Staring myself in a mirror can shape my mood for the day. When I see myself looking fine and fresh, my personality is more expressive and courageous.

Even when I was a child, watching powerful heroes in movies, if I look in the mirror, I can picture myself wanting to be that person. Lacan mentions “The fact is that the total form of the body by which the subject anticipates in a mirage the maturation of his power is given to him only as Gestalt, that is to say, in an exteriority in which this form is certain more constituent than constituted”(1165).

My interpretation is that we illude ourselves into being that person or wanting to be that person. A perfect example is a child wanting to believe that he/she has absolute power and can demand their parents for their desires. Many infants when they begin to realize their surroundings, begin to experience many things that satisfy their wants/needs. As they begin to take in, they want more and more. Candy, toys, and other wants. They begin to shape this dominant attitude/personality and begin to believe that their world revolves around them.

Lacan perfectly describes this, “The mirror stage is a drama whose internal thrust is precipitated from insufficiency to anticipation – and which manufactures for the subject, caught up in the lure of spatial identification”(1166). Our self-images are formed based on what we’re lacking and we end up forming these attitudes based on our ego.

Our ego plays a major role in our self-made images. We get defensive about things that manage to break through our ego and we begin to act more cautious. Especially when children feel insulted at such a young age, they begin to become more distant and lean away from their parents, siblings, and friends. As I’ve witnessed an “ex-friend”, when a harmless joke was made (even though it had nothing to do with him) he would act quietly and not say much. This is a normal reaction as if everyone knew what he was hiding even though we didn’t. It’s as if he was preparing to attack when an intruder has breached through his defenses.

Lacan presents us with, “Similarly, on the mental plane, we find realized the structures of fortified works, the metaphor of which arises spontaneously, as if issuing from the symptoms themselves, to designate the mechanism of obsessional neurosis – inversion, isolation, reduplication, cancellation and displacement” (1167).

Lacan’s belief regarding the self-made images we based on in a mirror has impacted the way we see and begin to see ourselves. I’ve realized how we became what we are today and where did it all originate. Or at least one of the reasons that could’ve influenced us to become what we are and why do we behave in certain ways.

Higher powers such as governments and states have exploited the way people are paid and controlled. Especially in the workforce where people can work for long hours just for them to be exploited by getting paid less than what they earn. Or it can be deciding what the State wants its people to do, forcing them into living in these habits where they must work for a ridiculously long time to survive. In the reading Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Louis Althusser), he goes in depth regarding the conditions of production. Explaining that materials and workers both are needed to create material goods. With our Capitalist system that we are enforced in, Althusser elaborates on Law, State, and Ideology.

With the control of the Law being enforced by the State, this can lead onto the class system (that we still have this day), where we have those who are living in luxury and hold plenty of power (The High Class), we then have the people who are there to work for the upperclassmen, live in a decent place that is supported by the hard workers (The Working Class), and those who are struggling financially, not being able to maintain their homes/families (Lower class). One main idea that really stuck out to me was when he mentioned that all individuals are already destined to be a subject, even before they’re born. Which is a quote that I agree, you cannot control where or when you’re born. If we were all given a choice to choose where, when and who should we be born with, I think we’d all choose what we want most/desire (varies across people). But this also brings us to an infamous phrase “The Illusion of Choice” (Thomas Hobson 1544-1631).

One of the ideologies that Althusser brings up is that ideology operates its own people. This meaning that people will follow whatever they’re told to do by those who hold high power. They’re the ones who set the rules and conditions for the people. While the people believe that, that is the way it should be and the standards the people should follow. I think of this like a trend that people (even I) follow. We follow these trends to not feel left out of the circle. If we wear clothing that doesn’t match with our time, we begin to feel isolated from reality, maybe even get discarded by society.

Forming sentences to talk to a friend or family member is an action we consistently do every day. But what do our words mean? Why do we form them in this manner? Roman Jakobson‘s Linguistics and Poetics goes on to deconstruct our way of sending verbal communications. As we naturally say what we want to say, why do we choose these words? Words are like these puzzle pieces that we must attach to one another in order to construct a complete sentence. But how do we know what pieces to choose?

This connects to “code”. A code consists of specific keywords that we’re able to use to talk to other people. If you send off this code to another person, will they understand that code? Do they speak the same code as you? According to Jakobson, “No doubt, for any speech community, for any speaker, there exists a unity of language, but this overall code represents a system of inter-connected subcodes; every language encompasses several concurrent patterns, each characterized by different functions”(1147). By what Jakobson means, we humans only understand certain codes (which in this case is referring to languages). Whenever it comes to me talking to my mother, I have to use one of the two codes I know (English and Spanish). If I were to talk to my mother in English, she would not grasp my code, since it makes no sense, and cannot comprehend the pattern to whatever I want to say.

The way we see our own language is nothing more. But questioning why we choose the way we speak can be a bit complex. Talking from one person to another may be a simple task, but there are questions as to what is the message really about? There are 4 functions that are used: Context(What the addresser is saying), Message(Why is the message being sent, the reason), Contact(A physical connection or psychological connection allowing them both to hear the message), and Code(The language that is being spoken and can it be understood?). These steps are always used whenever a phrase or sentence is put into action.

I’ve had no idea that there were special concepts that are used whenever we talk in our everyday lives. We just speak as it’s normal to us and does not think about how are our words forged. After reading through Jakob’s texts, deconstructing sentences can further challenge the way we see/hear important speeches or readings that influence the masses. Some may interpret a speech as it is, while others analyze the intentions of the messages (while it varies differently and gets interpreted in numerous ways).

Mankind throughout the years has developed a sense of what “Good” and “Evil” should be defined as. For all we know, Good could mean performing positive changes to benefit oneself or others. While Bad could mean inflicting negative effects towards someone or something. As time moves forward, people have this ability to change the way society works, in a meaningful way that can alter the way we view history. Do sense and will have a connection with these words? How can one truly define Good and Evil? Was it meant to be questioned and have a never-ending answer?

Maybe in a couple of centuries into the future, what we view as “normal” in today’s world could be viewed as a terrible custom that our descendants will interpret as. Presented by the text, it mentions “The Latin malus may designate the common man as the pre-Aryan occupant of the soil of Italy who was distinguished most obviously from the blond, that is Aryan, conqueror race by his color” (30). Previously, many claimed that the Aryan race is the most superior out of all and should rule everyone else who is not/appears like them. During this time, this was a positive for the Aryans while being different (such as having dark hair) would mean that you’re evil or represent bad against the good (in this case, the Aryans).

This ties in strongly with some beliefs with religions. Believers and followers will be following the directions/teachings of their respective Gods and will have their own definitions of “Good” and “Evil”. Seeing as most people know that there are traditions in which followers will take upon an even where they must fast for a certain number of days (varies by religion). In Catholicism, we fast for penance for our sins. The Catholics, believe that this is a good deed in order to redeem oneself, for others this can be seen as a bad thing. One of the bad reasons could be harming ourselves by starvation.

Good and Bad aren’t defined by most of us, everyone defines those two words differently. Either those words are defined to us by experience (What satisfies or upsets us), wealth (The means in what money can provide vs how it can manipulate/change people), or even religion (What God believes is good for us and what he deems to be unholy).  But as time moves on, Good and Bad continue to be re-defined by the people on this Earth. No matter who tries to best define it, it seems as if these words will have a limbo for people to follow.

-Faustino Mendez