On the Concept of Home: Part III - How do we come to know what "home" is?
We have discussed the concept of "home" in the previous part, but it remains for us to find out how is it that we come to know what "home" is. That is to say, how do we know we are at home? If "home" is an imaginary space in which we create in our mind in order to satisfy our own needs to feel protected and belonged, how we come to know "home" seems to become some kind of circular argument: Home is where I feel belonged; I feel belonged because I'm at home. "Home" becomes a concept that is known only through intuition, and no discussion of "home" is necessary.
Perhaps we can tackle this circularity this way. Let us pose a sub-question for this inquiry: what is belonging? We belong to all kinds of different things: physical body, physical space, institutions, social, political and cultural networks, etc. All these things are of different categories, that is to say, some are physical areas, many are meta-physical constructions. But when we say we belong to any or all of these things, there is one thing that is common between all of them: by "belonging" we mean we are subjects of that thing - by being subjected one becomes a subject. We belong in so far as we can work within a system of signifiers (or symbols) and make use of those signifiers. These signifiers can be anything - from a word to an object to a rule. And being subjected allows you the freedom of subjectivity, to work within a given framework, with bounded freedom (if this oxymoron holds). For example, we are subjected to our own home as a physical space because it marks our functions: we cook in the kitchen, eat in dining room, sleep in the bedroom. But at the same time we are given the freedom to do otherwise: eat in our bedroom, sleep in the kitchen. In a strange place (your classmate's house, for example) you are not subjected to the same rules of your classmates' house: you are subjected to social convention of guesthood. In turn, of course, you are allowed to move within that greater, conventional framework (e.g. "make yourself at home"). Or another example: one is at home or belongs to a certain culture by having the ability to function within certain traditional framework, e.g. gender roles. Being in a certain gender role is, again, like a kind of bounded freedom: one is subjected to gender scripts, but one is also at the same time a subject (not an object) of that gender script, meaning having the ability to perhaps mis-act it or change it. This fluidity between the content and the boundary, the idea of "subjecthood" as both subjected and subjecting at the same time, I think, is the meaning of belonging.
Perhaps the simplest answer to our question in this part - How do we come to know what "home" is? - is that, we know when we feel we are subjected to certain signifiers, and by "subjected" I mean having the ability to both understand the sign-ificance (but not meaning; I will get to this) of the signifers and manipulate for sign-ification within the system. It is no wonder that "home" feels like an intuitive thing: none of us ever consciously function within a system of signifiers. We never, for example, stop and think about the very words, tools and living spaces we are using. We never pause in the middle of dinner and ask "why is this place the living room, not the dining room?" When we become self-reflexive, that is when the imaginariness of home comes to surface.
The reason that subjectivity is built on a system of signifiers, not signs, is because signs (if we follow Sausurrean linguistics) have both signifiers (the word) and signifieds (the meaning). But post-structuralists have clearly showed us that, if we accept the proposition that reality is ultimately textual, then there is no such thing as signifieds. All signifiers, when they are defined, are traces of other signifiers and never signified. More over, meanings are always marked off in relations to other signifiers. It has nothing to do with the intrinsic meaning of the signifier. And I think more importantly, the other thing about homeness as subjectivity within a system of signifiers is that the signifieds will never be reached. This is parallel to the fact that "home" is meant to be imaginary. It is something that can never be completely captured by a system of signifiers. It remains fragile and breaks once a system of broken down and shown its arbitrariness.
Perhaps we can tackle this circularity this way. Let us pose a sub-question for this inquiry: what is belonging? We belong to all kinds of different things: physical body, physical space, institutions, social, political and cultural networks, etc. All these things are of different categories, that is to say, some are physical areas, many are meta-physical constructions. But when we say we belong to any or all of these things, there is one thing that is common between all of them: by "belonging" we mean we are subjects of that thing - by being subjected one becomes a subject. We belong in so far as we can work within a system of signifiers (or symbols) and make use of those signifiers. These signifiers can be anything - from a word to an object to a rule. And being subjected allows you the freedom of subjectivity, to work within a given framework, with bounded freedom (if this oxymoron holds). For example, we are subjected to our own home as a physical space because it marks our functions: we cook in the kitchen, eat in dining room, sleep in the bedroom. But at the same time we are given the freedom to do otherwise: eat in our bedroom, sleep in the kitchen. In a strange place (your classmate's house, for example) you are not subjected to the same rules of your classmates' house: you are subjected to social convention of guesthood. In turn, of course, you are allowed to move within that greater, conventional framework (e.g. "make yourself at home"). Or another example: one is at home or belongs to a certain culture by having the ability to function within certain traditional framework, e.g. gender roles. Being in a certain gender role is, again, like a kind of bounded freedom: one is subjected to gender scripts, but one is also at the same time a subject (not an object) of that gender script, meaning having the ability to perhaps mis-act it or change it. This fluidity between the content and the boundary, the idea of "subjecthood" as both subjected and subjecting at the same time, I think, is the meaning of belonging.
Perhaps the simplest answer to our question in this part - How do we come to know what "home" is? - is that, we know when we feel we are subjected to certain signifiers, and by "subjected" I mean having the ability to both understand the sign-ificance (but not meaning; I will get to this) of the signifers and manipulate for sign-ification within the system. It is no wonder that "home" feels like an intuitive thing: none of us ever consciously function within a system of signifiers. We never, for example, stop and think about the very words, tools and living spaces we are using. We never pause in the middle of dinner and ask "why is this place the living room, not the dining room?" When we become self-reflexive, that is when the imaginariness of home comes to surface.
The reason that subjectivity is built on a system of signifiers, not signs, is because signs (if we follow Sausurrean linguistics) have both signifiers (the word) and signifieds (the meaning). But post-structuralists have clearly showed us that, if we accept the proposition that reality is ultimately textual, then there is no such thing as signifieds. All signifiers, when they are defined, are traces of other signifiers and never signified. More over, meanings are always marked off in relations to other signifiers. It has nothing to do with the intrinsic meaning of the signifier. And I think more importantly, the other thing about homeness as subjectivity within a system of signifiers is that the signifieds will never be reached. This is parallel to the fact that "home" is meant to be imaginary. It is something that can never be completely captured by a system of signifiers. It remains fragile and breaks once a system of broken down and shown its arbitrariness.
posted by Tristan at 11:45 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home