"You will not certainly die,” the serpent
said to the woman.
“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will
be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
(Genesis 3: 4-5)
The word “blue” can only mean ‘blue’ if there is also not-blue. The word “good,” anticipates and implies that
“evil” exists; “male,” “female,”; “day,” “night,” and so on with every
word. Language, by nature, separates. Paired
binary oppositions, relying on each other for meaning, are called “binary
oppositions.” To know, by some philosophical perspectives, is ‘to have words
for.’ In this light, Adam and Eve’s
eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the moment they acquired
language.
Linguists Ferdinand de Saussure and Jacques Derrida wrote extensively on this dynamic, showing that language “privileges” or gives "dominance" to one of each pair. Using a numerical analogy, we would then have
the privileged, dominant word as numerator and the subordinate word as
denominator:
good male day
evil
female night
Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote, “To imagine a language is to
imagine a form of life.” Binary oppositions, as all words do, embody the
history of how they were used, including the prejudices and power struggles of
those who used and use them. Notice that
“male” is favored over “female” in too many languages; and “good,” assumes a
common or dominant view of what “good” means. Even though, for some, day is a
dangerous time, and night, as for nocturnal animals, a refuge, English privileges
“day” over “night.” Here is another pair that often, insidiously, reinforces destructive
prejudices:
white
black
The expression “it’s not
all black and white” normally assumes “black” to be negative and “white”
positive. In her book White Women Writing White, R. Curry
shows that, for example, Sylvia Plath regularly uses the image of blackness to
depict evil. In our racially rich and
diverse world, we cannot afford to reinforce in our daily language the hegemony
of white people over people of color. It behooves us to become aware of these
patterns and to both undermine and abandon them. A long time ago I abandoned
using the word “black” pejoratively in contrast to “white.” Instead, I prefer the neutral “it’s not one
extreme or another.”
Traditionally,
literature was interpreted through a standard identification of conflicts. Note
the gender bias:
Man
against Himself
Man
against Man
Man
against Society
Man
against Nature
Man
against Machine
Man
against Fate
Man
against the Supernatural
These are much too general
and, at the same time, restrictive. On
the other hand, identifying binary oppositions to explore is a generative way
to engage with and to interpret literature—inspiring surprising points of entry
and creative perspectives. We can
clearly see how our language favors the numerator and decide to favor the
denominator as our point of entry.
Here, for example, is a core binary opposition cited by Derrida:
presence
absence
Let’s see how we can favor
not what is present in the text of a piece of literature, but what is
absent. For example, in Bran Stoker’s Dracula, there is a scene in which three
vampire women are descending on Jonathan Harker, an as-yet not undead
protagonist, to sexually and hematologically ravage him. Dracula rushes into the
room and says, “Get off him. He’s mine!” The text at this point goes blank. When the words resume, we are off onto
another topic.
The absence of what might have happened between Dracula
and Harker is significantly more evocative and tension producing in the reader,
than any explicit scene might have been, and can produce more interesting
interpretations that will then enliven the reading of the rest of the text.
Hence, we privileged “absence” over “presence.”
Similarly, the absence of a mother in “Cinderella,” and in its
structurally parallel King Lear, can
provide us with new and textured interpretations to enliven of our readings of
the works.
The Bible, as popularly interpreted, creates this binary
opposition,
Adam
Eve,
with Eve having all the
denominators in the language attributed to her: Evil, instead of Good;
Disobedient, instead of Obedient; Weak, instead of Strong; and more. Let’s rehabilitate her, favor her over Adam,
instead, as the one who was courageous and insightful enough to embrace
language as our source of power and civilization. Because of her, we left the paradise where
survival was enough, to enjoy a world in which, through language, we can be
co-creators of our lives.
In another post, we will consider how we can use various
critical perspectives to manage binary oppositions. For now, next time you read a piece of
literature, see a film, or experience a personally dramatic situation, name
some binary oppositions you might use to interpret it. Privilege the denominator as your source of
power and meaning, and notice the freedom you enjoy, thereby.
Works Cited
Curry, R.. White Women Writing White: H.D., Elizabeth
Bishop, Sylvia Plath, and Whiteness. Westport: Greenwood, 2000.
Stoker,
Bram. Dracula. Ed. John Paul
Riquelme. Boston: Bedford, 2002.
Wittgenstein,
Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. 4th Ed. Indianapolis: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000.
