? The first is existentialism: France in 1930s-1950s was an existential world, and existentialists paid attention to existence and consciousness, meaning and freedom;
? Then there is structuralism: in the 1950s and 1960s, structuralism shone brilliantly. Masters led by Levi Strauss, Foucault, Althusser, Lacan and later Roland Barthes joined forces to attack existentialism. They pay attention to the law and distinguishing system of phenomena, and pay attention to discourse and structure rather than essence.
? Finally, it became deconstruction: in the 1970s, the situation changed again. A group of former structuralist scholars questioned structuralism and turned to deconstruction. They also study discourse, but the focus has shifted from "comprehensive science" to "comprehensive questioning" (Jonathan? Kale), the function of discourse is to destroy its philosophical premise and dissolve all preset structures.
Among them, Roland? Barthes is a turning deconstructionist, and The Whisper of Lovers is a classic example of deconstruction. He started with Young Werther, quoted the classics, and carefully analyzed the imagination, desire and confession of lovers.
? Roland barthes's linguistic and semiotic characteristics determine that the writing style of this book is doomed to be different. Don't forget Lacan's famous formula: S/s, the signifier is above the signified, not the concept dominates the symbol, but the symbol dominates the concept and the language manipulates people. Therefore, in order to avoid the overflow of symbols, he chose "disorder" and "fragmentation" In Whispers of Lovers, there are irrelevant scenes and scattered narratives, which are more like a "love dictionary". The appearance order of different scenes is completely alphabetical, avoiding any "meaning system".
The same is true of his writing style, which is fanatical, unfocused and fast-paced, like delirium, nonsense and nonsense. It can be said that it is a purely detached "language utopia". This irrationality, fragmentation and fragmentation embody the characteristics of post-modern philosophy.
So how do lovers' words and symbols reflect their love? Bart began to chatter. ...
? Start with words.
What does "cute" mean? Why do couples always use it to describe each other? The simplest explanation is that you can't tell what your love for your lover is, so your lover has to use such a plain word: "lovely!" "
? Roland? Bart pointed out that, first of all, this is a tautology: infatuation constitutes love words, but it kills them. To describe infatuation is nothing more than this expression: "I am fascinated." At the end of the language, when the last word has to be repeated-just like the same sound is always repeated after the record is played-this linguistic affirmation intoxicates the lover and shows a crazy and strange subjective state.
? It also shows the particularity of desire: cuteness means that this is what I like, and it is the only one: "Yes, this is what I like". However, the more lovers feel the particularity of their desires, the less they can express themselves clearly. The accuracy of the target corresponds to the drift of the name; The particularity of desire can only cause ambiguity in expression. This language failure left only one trace: "cuteness".
? Don't forget the phrase "I love you" with the highest repetition rate! Bart pointed out that this specific situation does not refer to love confession or vows of eternal love, but refers to the repeated call itself intended to vent emotions. This sentence has the duality of emptiness and reality. It does not convey feelings, but is born with a specific situation: "the subject is suspended in the reflection of dissidents" (Lacan language). This is a vague phrase. It belongs neither to the linguistic category nor to the symbolic category: it transcends both and even has the nature of music.
What about the response? For the confessor, the deeper blow is not "I don't love you" (denying desire), but "no comment" (denying the language itself and denying the right to speak of "I"). Correspondingly, "I love you too" is more complete than "I love you too". It forms a * * * sound with the call, and the signifier and the signified coexist at the same time: this is what the confessor really wants to hear.
? And "I miss you"? What are the "subtext" of Acacia? Bart pointed out that lovers often regard the moment of separation as the key moment of abandonment, which will stir up waves in their hearts. ...
? Missing a distant lover is a one-way process, which is always shown by those who stay in place, not those who leave; I am all the time, only when I face you who will never be there, will it make sense.
? Missing has a suffocating meaning: not seeing each other is like my head being pushed into the water; I'm drowning. I can't breathe. After this suffocation, I re-recognized the "true meaning" I was looking for and practiced the indispensable insistence on love. Separation once again tested and forged love.
? Acacia lovers force themselves to forget: the way to endure separation is to forget. If lovers can't forget, sometimes they will be physically and mentally exhausted and overly nervous because of memories, and eventually die (such as Victor).
? There is also a prayer meaning behind missing: I pray for each other's protection and return: let each other come back and take me away, just like a mother who came to find her child, leaving this world of flowers and leaving these insincere feelings.
? then
? Don't forget, symbols are not just words! As a tool to carry meaning, symbols can also be behaviors and expressions.
? In fact, lovers quite like to symbolize facts and actions: from the lover's point of view, a thing cannot be underestimated because it will soon become a symbol; And a symbol is not a simple thing, but it can have consequences (can cause repercussions). The reaction I made is also a symbol, which makes the other party have to crack it.
? There is a famous joke on the internet: when a couple goes out on a date, the man is unhappy and indifferent, and the woman begins to think: Why is he not in the mood? Why are you absent-minded? Don't you have her in your heart? Did she do something wrong? He's outside. Is anyone there? Is there a rift in the relationship? ..... even went back and cried. What the man thinks is: Italy lost today!
? This is the fact symbolization: lovers are always chewing the meaning in the fact, the implication in the symbol, the signifier behind it … even at the expense of self-torture.
? Crying and tears can also be analyzed. People who love to cry not only regard tears as a "threat", but more importantly, they rediscover and recognize the baby's body in themselves through crying (after all, only children cry easily). However, our society has suppressed the eternal things contained in tears, making crying lovers a thing of the past. Bart said regretfully that stopping crying is for the "health" of society. Besides, tears can prove themselves, in order to prove that sadness is not an illusion: tears are symbolic symbols rather than expressions. Ta told a story with tears, laid a sad myth, and then supported herself on it.
? Physical contact is no exception. In the eyes of lovers, it involves fetish pleasure, and its essence is chewing and remembering the meaning of symbols, not sensory pleasure, and finally constitutes an interactive response system.
? So, can the whole process of love be analyzed as a whole? Miss Bart said, of course!
? Love comes from fantasy, which will erase the real object: in the process of language mutation, through a pure love transformation, lovers find themselves in love with love, not lovers. The other party became a vassal of his desire. So there is a sense of guilt-denial-gain-damage, which is constantly rationalized and deeply involved in the process of repeated cycles.
? In this process, negative dialectics also played an important role. When lovers meet the right person, they immediately affirm (the psychological state is infatuation, excitement and excitement, expecting a bright future), followed by a secret exploration in the tunnel: the initial affirmation is constantly bitten by doubt, and the criticism of the other party based on fantasy constantly endangers the value of love. During this time, I was depressed and full of resentment. But lovers must believe that they can get out of this tunnel; Ta can "survive" and will not be disappointed, fully affirming their first meeting. But there is still a difference. Ta is looking forward to the return of old feelings, not repetition. Ta said to each other (both past and present lovers): Let's start over!
? If there is no result, this relationship will come to an end. The ending signal is often fading and fatigue:
? In the decline, the other party seems to have lost all desires, and ta was swallowed up by the night. Tiredness is also a gift, and the other person may want to say: Tired, don't pester me; But maybe: I accepted you and put up with you, so I said I was a little tired and made a yellow light signal. But this is an unanswerable thing after all.
? In addition, Bart also deconstructed many scenes such as love at first sight, anxiety, jealousy, quarrel, gossip, guilt, cover-up, etc. Due to the limitation of space, I won't quote it here.
? In fact, Bart's deconstruction of every scene is not a standard answer. In the eyes of postmodernists, there is never a so-called standard answer. Every couple can give their symbolic words their own meanings, and every reader can also question Barthes' analysis. This ambiguity is exactly what he has been insisting on:
? "Author" is neither the source nor the ultimate of the text. He can only access text.
? This fuzziness endows the text with infinite charm. Therefore, whether it is a reader who has a strong interest in the form and structure of love, a philosophical lover who wants to find out the deconstruction text, or a lover who wants to make his love more transparent, this "Whispers of Lovers" is a masterpiece that must not be missed. In addition, if you (like me) want to have a holistic and interdisciplinary understanding of love, you can't miss it: it will be an indispensable puzzle.