| Chapter : | Introduction |
|
|
Hence, binary oppositions crumble at the understanding that the meaning of one set in the binary will always be ‘infected’ or permeated by the meaning of its antithetical definition, a process by which the deconstruction of such oppositions may be effected. This cross-pollination is similar to Julia Kristeva’s allusion above; that is, if the foreigner is within the subject, if the subject is a foreigner, the dichotomy between subject and foreigner, or self and other, is totally meaningless, by which the binaries which attempt to preserve such a dichotomy irremediably collapse.
In their search for complete meaning, metaphysical systems of belief look for the transcendental signifier which would hopefully set all definitions into locked security, into Truth. The idea of God for Christianity or natural laws for science would provide such a security; however, meaning is also beyond these systems, in so far as, as poststructuralism claims, it is not caused by language.7 Therefore, “[i]f meanings are not given or guaranteed…it follows that they can be challenged and changed” (Belsey, Poststructuralism 87). For those who find solace in the belief that Truth exists, and therefore right and wrong can be discerned and applied to attitudes and modes of being, this idea might prove depressing. The thought that meaning is nothing stable, by which new meanings are constantly being produced; indeed, the idea that everything is subjective and objective at one and the same time, provides refreshing possibilities of transformation for those subjects who understand and accept their discursive nature. In other words, once we do away with the Free Subject of the West, subjects become freer (Belsey, Postructuralism 87).
The primary mode of expression of the subject, which I take to be narrative, is also susceptible to the idea of undecidability, as argued by Catherine Belsey: