Return to Saussure

Introduction — “I Understand Every Word, But I Don’t Understand the Text” There is a peculiar experience that often accompanies the first encounter with difficult theoretical writing: the words are familiar, the sentences are grammatically intelligible, and yet the text as a whole seems strangely inaccessible. A reader opens Derrida, Barthes, or Lacan and recognizes text , writing , signifier , meaning , subject . Nothing appears to be written in another language. And yet, after reading a paragraph, the reader may be left with the unsettling impression that nothing has been understood. This experience can easily produce suspicion. Perhaps the writer is making a simple idea unnecessarily complicated. Perhaps the terminology is being used to create an appearance of profundity. Perhaps the whole thing is, as some readers have concluded, simply charlatanism. Sometimes such judgments may be justified. But there is another possibility worth considering. Perhaps the problem begins not w...

Introduction Why can a familiar word become difficult when it enters a theoretical framework? A reader encountering Derrida for the first time may understand text as a written document and writing as the production of marks on a page. In Lacan, signifier may initially seem to refer to one component of the linguistic sign, paired with the signified. Barthes's myth , meanwhile, may evoke a traditional story, a legend, or a widely held but false belief. Yet none of these familiar meanings is sufficient to determine what the terms are doing in the theories in which they appear. The difficulty, then, may not lie simply in the complexity of the argument. It may begin earlier, at the level of vocabulary. A theoretical text can take a word that already has a history of uses and place it within a new system of relations. The word remains recognizable, but its conceptual function changes. What makes the experience disorienting is precisely that the reader recognizes the word without y...

Introduction Carlos Alsina opened his radio monologue on May 26, 2026, by invoking the Battle of the Alamo. The episode quickly moved from historical summary to cultural memory: William Barret Travis, the siege in Texas, the famous letter in which he declared he would “never surrender,” and the later transformation of that episode into a foundational American myth. Between documented events and cinematic reconstruction, the Alamo has long oscillated between history and legend. Within that narrative space appears a striking remark attributed to Paco Ignacio Taibo II: “debajo de una gran mentira se esconden verdades tapadas” (“beneath a great lie, hidden truths remain”). The sentence carries immediate force. It suggests depth beneath surface, authenticity beneath distortion, something concealed by official accounts waiting to be recovered. Yet this intuitive appeal raises a more difficult question: what does it actually mean for truth to lie “beneath” a narrative? The archaeologic...

Pygmalion: Manufacturing the Ideal Self. AI image Thesis This article argues that Jean Baudrillard’s critique of “self-production”—the modern imperative to continuously construct, optimize, and perform the self—anticipated the structure of contemporary digital subjectivity. What Baudrillard identified as the productivist logic of late capitalism has intensified under social media, platform culture, and artificial intelligence, where individuals increasingly construct themselves as visible, measurable, and continuously optimizable entities within algorithmic systems. Production no longer functions merely as an economic category; it increasingly defines the conditions under which contemporary existence becomes legible, valuable, and socially real. Introduction One of the most striking aspects of Baudrillard’s early work is the extent to which it anticipated forms of subjectivity that would only fully emerge decades later. In The Mirror of Production, he argues that modern society no ...