One Transcendental Signifier Away from Losing My Cool

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the MSU Exponent, its editorial staff, advisers, or Montana State University.

I may not have passed calculus, but enrolling in a theory class has taken me somewhere much more riveting. 

Theory seems to be more character-building than educational — the thousands of theorists before our time left us with lots of catching up to do. 

Why do we learn theory? Why study an unattainable abundance of knowledge? In defense of learning theory, we should all be thinking a little too much. Because a transcendental signifier is an abstract idea, we need theory to attempt an understanding of literature. 

In learning theory, we are merely skimming over someone’s deepest thought processes and building an understanding of their opinions. 

Linda Karell, who holds a Ph.D. in English literature, is teaching Literary Criticism and Theory this fall. I am taking the course solely because I saw she’d be the professor, though her intelligence seems to make the course more intimidating. 

During a lecture Karell read the line, “I am not wherever I am the plaything of my thought; I think of what I am where I do not think to think,” from our textbook “The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism,” which she followed with “What the f--k?,” acknowledging the grotesque prose used, where Lacan mocks his audience. How does one even begin to interpret such a complex sentence? 

Most analyses are extremely unhelpful, such as specific critiques in “Critical Terms of Literary Study” (CTLS) edited by Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin: “These are some of the possessive fears of the literary critics, but there is also a counter worry here,” page 155. There is always a but, always a counterargument. After diving into theory, it seems inescapable — I see the signified and the signifiers in everything. 

Cambridge Dictionary defines theory in literature as “a formal statement of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event, or how something works,” while our course textbook, CTLS, assumes there are no set definitions in language, just critical analysis through the study of theory. 

Definition cannot be uncovered because the signifier and signified triumph over one another as language is rolled out. Karell used woke as an example, where she identified the term from a more historical standpoint, referring to systematic oppression in African American culture. She then defined woke from a more modernist standpoint, meaning an individual is overly educated. 

Most theorists and critics I’m studying were around in the 19th and 20th centuries, hence a common underlying theme of blatant sexism. 

Freud has recently become the focus in Literary Criticism and Theory. His work in the realm of the unconscious is fascinating and disgusting. For example, Freud understood “The Sandman” by Hoffman to be literal.

CTLS quotes Freud, “So the unconscious belief (that castration is the necessary punishment) manifests itself (like all unconscious thoughts) indirectly (displaced) in the gouging out of the eyes,” on page 154. 

To dig himself a deeper hole, Freud also theorized that women are the weaker sex, hysterical and he often dismissed their trauma. Freud Museum London, and other contemporary organizations, still have not drawn the line between Freud’s misogyny and applicable framework. Is Freud’s work valid even after all the times he completely misinterpreted women themselves? What are we supposed to be taking from this? 

I’m not sure I really ever wanted to dive into a man's brain like Freud’s. Now I look over in class thinking weird things about the guys. I wonder if they really do fear castration or unconsciously want to kill their father. 

Then I remember Freud’s comment on young girls and penis envy, which brings me right back to reality. I have envied surely, but never a penis. Freud tried to cook, but the stove was out of gas. 

Freud isn’t the only insane guy we’re studying. Readers crave intensity, like Foucault and delicious deconstruction. A man who craved power so much that he feared the unknown in language — that's something worth studying. 

Karell's syllabus talks about how readings are often deliberately off-putting, dense and abstract. She reiterates in class it’s okay — and even expected — to always be confused. 

Theory is a vital part of education, if anything, these theorists and critics are opening doors for our imaginations. We cannot ignore these close-minded ideologies — ideologies that only prove how the effect of the patriarchy on society can be negatively influential. We can leave behind inaccurate language and unethical studies, instead focusing on avoiding polarization. Unless we find the tip of the iceberg entertaining, but I hope not. 

Don’t be a part of the Dunning-Krueger effect. It's much more fun on the flip side, making peace with the fact we cannot know everything, feeling like an idiot the more you learn. Meaning we hold on to reflect our values. Maybe it’s okay to sit with the why and just not know. It’s all in your head and that's the point.