In his book “The Animal That Therefore I Am”, philosopher Jacques Derrida presents an anecdote of him walking naked in his home in front of his cat. While this may be seen as as a degrading and shameful act, it is important to understand how animals view the world as opposed to humans. Animals have a completely different way of viewing the world that humans may never be able to fully comprehend, as much as they try to. They do not have the same mode of language that humans do, so certain structures and labels do not have the same weight in the context of an animal. They have no conception of modesty and immodesty and the idea of nudity does not apply to them. There is no idea of being “naked” – animals are technically already naked, so there is no immodesty attached to it. Similar to Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis, when you are always nude, you are never nude. It is simply their way of being. From the perspective of Derrida’s cat, they may just see him as an equal rather than taking in his nudity as a failure, which is a common reaction from humans. This interaction can blur the boundaries between the human and the animal, similar to the nature of the title of the book.

The cat is also refusing to be conceptualized in human terms in this interaction. They do not bother applying human terms, limitations, or concepts. It is simply being. Without language (at least in human terms), animals lack the access to being “as such” of what it is. Because Derrida has the typical human language, he can label himself as an animal as seen in the title. The animal does not other itself in relation to the human in the way that humans may do to animals or even to other humans. They have their own signs and structures that we as humans cannot even begin to comprehend.

Derrida’s anecdote and analysis raises some important ideas regarding human and animal relations. It is important to acknowledge their lack of language and how that affects their experience in the world. The absence of humanly structures present great differences, such as the concept of nudity. By understanding these differences, we are also able to determine how we are similar to these creatures, and how we can peacefully coexist with them.

In “The Mirror Stage as Formative” by Jacques Lacan, a young child looking at themself in the mirror for the first time is the main image that sets off and forms the basis of his argument. This event is major to a child’s development, and allows the child to turn themself into an object that can be viewed by the child from outside themselves. By seeing themself as an outside being, the child experiences self-alienation through the mirror image. The child can either grow to hate or love this image, and it will have a major impact on the development on their character and sense of self. We are all affected by the mirror image, according to Lacan. The mirror image is a phenomena that follows us throughout the rest of our development and our lives.

What the child sees in the mirror, however, is not real. It is only a quick representation – a snap shot, if you will – of who they are. It is not a full representation of their person, but rather an idealized version. It does not show all aspects of who they are; it only shows their appearance, which is what we place a lot of emphasis on, especially in our modern world. It does not show their health (especially at an internal level), their relationships, their aspirations, their goals, their everyday thoughts and feelings, their day-to-day routine, how they view themselves, their failures, etc. Everything on your outer appearance, or what is seen in the mirror, can seem normal and put-together, while everything on your inner appearance, or what is not seen in the mirror, can be in complete chaos, and vice versa. Therefore, what the child, and what we see in the mirror are fictional. As much as we want to believe that what we see is real, we are only seeing a small particle of our entire being. We may never reach this idealized version of ourselves that we see in the mirror. This can also be applied to social media use in our modern world, as we craft our online personas, which are our “mirror images”. We want these personas to be who we truly are, even if they do not show the ugly and unidealized parts of ourselves. This ideal can never be fully realistically achieved as much as we try. As human beings, we cannot rely solely on the mirror image on our journey to self-realization.

In “The Wretched of the Earth”, philosopher Franz Fanon brings forth the idea of the “native intellectual” (1363). The native intellectual is someone who has emerged out of a nation that has been decimated by imperialism, where its true culture is at risk of being completely wiped out by the culture of the colonizer (usually a Eurocentric/Western culture). The native intellectual serves a very important social role in the struggle against colonial oppression. There are also strong attempts to embrace a culture that may no longer exist in a postcolonial world. Having a strong intellect or culture allows oppressed individuals to declare their right to exist in a world that suppresses their identities. Initially, the native intellectual may have catered his work to appeal to the eyes of the colonizer. This most likely resulted from an awareness that they can be lost within Western culture. By turning his attention to his own people, the intellectual can correctly capture the struggles that they face on a daily basis. A new facet of their culture can emerge from their struggle and fight for their identities. The native intellectual creates forms of expression that can cater to the masses, and give the people something that they can recognize as their own.

The work of the native intellectual can create a sort of “national consciousness” among the people of a colonized nation, which can be defined as a shared sense of national identity. A strong sense of national identity allows the emergence of nationalism within a region, which is the creation of a national identity separate from its oppressors. Having a shared national identity, as well as developed nationalism, allows oppressed people to assert their right to exist and fight for their place in the world against imperial domination.

A main issue that can arise is the valuing of a native culture within the framework of a dominant imperial force. For example, this can be seen in the presence of stereotypes in media, which always display an oppressed person in relation to their oppressor rather than as their own person. They are constantly reminded of their “otherness” rather than the achievements and beauty within their native culture. Through the process of decolonization, these people can see themselves in a new light, away from the perils of imperialism. The native intellectual works diligently to undo this framework and spread a strong sense of national identity within his culture.

In “Marxism and Literature”, Raymond Williams expands upon Anthony Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. The initial or more conventional definition of this word involves relations between states, where one state rules over another (108). Gramsci’s conception of hegemony pertains to elements of social, cultural, and political forces which lead to effective coercion of the masses indirectly through concentrated power and domination. Through a Marxist lens, the definition illustrates interactions between social classes, where a ruling or dominant class shapes the culture of that society. A concept meant to be purely political has now extended into the social sphere and aspects of everyday life, creating an intense imbalance between classes within a capitalist state. It also asserts that the ruling class is a uniform and indivisible faction of society. This imbalance shapes the culture of the society it is within, normalizing capitalist values that ultimately exploit the lowest denomination of that society.

Hegemony goes beyond Marx’s initial portrait of idealogy. While ideology may be seen as something only inside your head or within class parameters, it can affect every aspect of that society and culture. Williams brings up an important point, where the upper class just has a certain ideology as a result of their own lived experiences and values, whereas the lower class has nothing but the ideology of the upper class, which shapes practices in everyday life. The ideology of the ruling class is more widely accepted as a form of “culture”, presenting the idea that the ideals of the dominant are the only way toward the cultural formation. Williams describes hegemony as a “realized complex of experiences, relationships, and activities, with specific and changing pressures and limits” (112). While hegemony is not an established system like capitalism, it serves as an example of ideals put in place by fixed systems that can inform our everyday lives and how we see ourselves and others. The class that is most affected by this concept (the subordinate class) struggles to break away. Williams also reminds us that both hegemony and the ruling class are ever-changing processes that have “continually to be renewed, recreated, defended, and modified” (112).  In modern times, the ruling class is no longer as uniform as it once was during the time of Karl Marx. He also argues that it may be a bit restrictive to only think of culture and society strictly in terms of hegemony and that it should be adapted to more modern everyday practices.

In his essay, The Rhetoric of Video Games, video game designer and cultural theorist Ian Bogost challenges the typical interpretation of the idea of “play”. While play is commonly regarded as an activity of leisure and the complete opposite of a serious task, Bogost thinks of it as a more laborious concept. He quotes Eric Zimmerman and Katie Salen’s definition of play: “Play is the free space of movement within a more rigid structure” (2657). He introduces the image of children on a playground and explains how they can adapt to their environment and create new games and rules based on the limitations of that environment. The rigid structure is the playground and how the children interact with this environment is the play. In short, the children can work their way around the fixed rules of the playground. When playing, children can “renegotiate their relationship with a possibility space” (2657). In the context of a video game, the “possibility space” is the set of all possible outcomes from a fixed set of rules.

Bogost places this idea in the context of literature, where the “possibility space” can be the opportunities for expression formed by the rules of composition. Even if there is a rigid structure, such as that of a haiku, artists still explore different possible arrangements within the framework of that structure. They are simply playing within the restrictions of their form. Some artists have also changed the possibility space for literary expression by inventing or reworking concepts rather than adopting ones that were already in place (2657). This was seen in the artistic movement known as Oulipo in the mid-twentieth century, whose members are credited with the invention of new forms of literary expression such as the palindrome and the lipogram. Through their interactions with the rigid structure of literary expression, the members of this group created meaning by exercising free movement, similar to children inventing games on a playground.

This exercise of free movement can also be applied when playing video games. A player can produce a series of different arrangments within the system of a game, most likely to assign meaning. The nature of video games can be representative of real-world topics, and by utilizing the possibility space, players can discover new ways to explore these topics. This can be done for real-world issues and literary expression. By moving through the free space, or simply “playing”, we can learn to assign meaning.

In his critical essay, “On Truth & Lying In a Non-Moral Sense”, philosopher Frederich Nietzsche critiques the contemporary agreements of what qualifies as truth. Nietzsche begins the essay by examining the evolution of humanity’s knowledge, ultimately establishing that it is pointless and that there is no equitable universal truth. He raises the question, “What then is truth?” (pg. 756). His answer is: “A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins” (pg. 756). According to Nietzsche, truth is just another metaphor invented by human activities, or “anthropomorphisms”, rather than something literal. Although humans have invented the concept of truth, they have forgotten that it is only an “illusion” that was created solely to help humans assign meaning to the world around them. These perceived truths have also undergone a series of changes as humans have developed intellectually throughout history, and have moved humans further away from the objective truth. They have been heavily extended, or “embellished poetically and rhetorically”, as humans have discovered more about the world around them, but Nietzsche claims that this does not make them any more viable, and instead turns them into “metaphors which are worn out”. To summarize, Nietzsche defines truth as simply a socially constructed illusion.

While Nietzsche does raise some strong points regarding the social construction and embellishing of truth, it can be argued that not all truth is inherently incorrect. This can be true in cases of conclusions that have been drawn through years of research and testing in fields such as science. Similar to an experiment, a truth had to start as a hypothesis, and then go through a series of tests to eventually be declared a truth. Truths have also been derived from pure trial and error of the human experience. Humanity has developed immensely since the nineteenth century, so it is easy to declare that Nietzsche’s reasoning is a bit outdated. However, despite his argument having its flaws, Nietzsche offers excellent insight into the never-ending question of how human beings search for meaning in the world.