Abstract
Communication, as a social activity existing in and comprising almost any human action, cannot take place but as a mediated performance, given that it consists in the triadic relation between transmitter, message and receiver. Its goal is always the transmission of a message with the highest possible coherence and, at the same time, its simultaneous comprehension with the less possible deterioration of its original meaning. A basic assumption is that a potential difficulty in everyday communication is due for the most part to the existence of one or more parasites, which could be detected either in external factors or in the message itself. The question is whether a parasite could live in the signifier of a word and thus determine or alter its signified during an act of communication. This paper aims at exploring Serres’ view on parasite and attempting to identify its existence and function within the signifier of words we use in everyday life. To that end the terms of “democracy” and “polis” will be used as examples of hosts of parasites.
Highlights
First ArgumentFailure Even though perhaps most people would recognize the role of the parasite in everyday communication as an external factor, the above mentioned assumptions could be considered absurd or at least exaggerated
Communication, as a social activity existing in and comprising almost any human action, cannot take place but as a mediated performance, given that it consists in the triadic relation between transmitter, message and receiver
This paper aims at exploring Serres’ view on parasite and attempting to identify its existence and function within the signifier of words we use in everyday life
Summary
Failure Even though perhaps most people would recognize the role of the parasite in everyday communication as an external factor, the above mentioned assumptions could be considered absurd or at least exaggerated. A few pages later, he insists in this paradox and affirms that anything functions because it does not function well, while a system, in its literary sense, is falsely named that way, is something rare, it may not have ever existed; once the world was created, its transformation began (150) Applying this aphorism to language, we could tackle the question of the transformation of signifieds: a signifier signifies a signified because—and not —it fails to tell the truth about it, as Serres would claim. The same observation stands for language: communication based on standard signifieds is unattainable, because signifiers are domesticated hosts of parasites which forbid the repetition of same significations Exploring under this argument the example of “democracy”, we could claim that its use, as a pretext or as an essential cause all nations must serve, in rather negative actions, such as an invasion, is due to the fact that “democracy” does not mean what a democratic society is but what it is not. Let us come to a second argument based on ontology
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
