Blog Assignment #2 - Inherent Meaning?

1. The keywords I'm going to try to informally explain in this post are: Culture, Signs, Subject, Construction, and Docile Bodies.


2.
Culture:  A cutlure is basically a group of people that have some things in common. Maybe it's a language, maybe it's an interest, maybe it's the region they live in. The word "culture" encompasses who these people are, what they are interested in, how they perceive the world, etc.

Signs: Signs are things that are in the culture that help you discover things about the culture. For instance, the thick coats of Eskimos tell you that this culture knows how to withstand harsh physical conditions. Anything that gives you information on the culture is a sign.

Subject: A subject is just a person within a culture. That's basically it. In the Eskimo culture example, an Eskimo would be a subject within the culture.

Construction: Construction is how a culture it "built up", or comprised of many interests, inputs, and ideas. Things that influence cultures take part in the construction.

Docile Bodies: Docile Bodies is the idea that a body is controlled by the norms of cultural life. In other words, what is defined as normal in a culture actually affects how someone treats their body.

3. The example I would like to use is a simple quote made by Susan Bordo on page 168 of the reading:

"The central mechanism I will describe involves a transformation (or, if you wish, duality) of meaning..."


This statement seemed to leap out of the page at me, because it strongly reminded me of the statement Robin put on the board in class about a week ago:

"Meaning is not inherent in the world"


I don't know if Bordo would agree with this, but at first glance, the statement introduced last week seems to be a necessary premise in order for Bordo's mechanism to actually take effect. For, in order to transform a meaning, surely the meaning cannot be inherent to begin with!

What I would like to call into question is the justification for the statement of knowledge "Meaning is not inherent in the world" (call this statement B), and thus call into question the very foundation of Bordo's mechanism. Again, if there is no justification for meaning being non-inherent in the world, then Bordo's mechanism will have a hard time finding ground.

For what justification COULD be given to support statement B? Surely no one could demonstrate that there is no meaning, or "telos", inherent in the world. How would one even begin to show such a thing? And if such a thing could not be shown, then statement B has no justification.
Secondly, surely statement B is called into question by our basic intuition. For most humans would not deny the value of human life or basic moral values as objective any more than they would deny the external world that they sense. If this is the case, then we now have an argument against statement B.

At best, then, statement B is unjustified, and at worst, it is known to be false. This throws into question Bordo's central mechanism as justifiable.