The Shape of the Signifier: 1967 to the End of History

by Walter Benn Michaels

The Shape of the Signifier is a critique of recent theory--primarily literary but also cultural and political. Bringing together previously unconnected strands of Michaels's thought--from "Against Theory" to Our America--it anatomizes what's fundamentally at stake when we think of literature in terms of the experience of the reader rather than the intention of the author, and when we substitute the question of who people are for the question of what they believe. With signature virtuosity, Michaels shows how the replacement of ideological difference (we believe different things) with identitarian difference (we speak different languages, we have different bodies and different histories) organizes the thinking of writers from Richard Rorty to Octavia Butler to Samuel Huntington to Kathy Acker. He then examines how this shift produces the narrative logic of texts ranging from Toni Morrison's Beloved to Michael Hardt and Toni Negri's Empire. As with everything Michaels writes, The Shape of the Signifier is sure to leave controversy and debate in its wake.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Theory

229 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2004

Reviews

[Josh Gathany · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really nice critique of identity politics from an anti-theory, but still Left wing and inclusive, POV. Eminently readable and entertaining, maybe one notch short of early to mid Zizek, a well written book. He's still a bit milquetoast in his politics, though.

[Nick Denardi · Rating 3 out of 5]

This one has been in my current reading probably for over a year, and that's because with Walter Benn Michaels, you can't pull any half-measures, reading a page or two here and there. You gotta go all in, which is finally what I've done.

Turns out, this is simply the more experimental, academic precursor to his pop-political book, The Trouble With Diversity, which I've already read. But it was interesting to see how he weaved the problem of identitarianism in connection with trends in literary theory.

The logic, which is never spelled out step by step, but which is built upon throughout the course of the book, is basically this (I'll try my best):

1. It's common practice for people to shy away from 'disagreeing' about what a book means, and instead 'respect' all interpretations, because how the book 'affects' you is more valid than what it means. (yes, everything has scare quotes, because I'm scared).

2. This, in effect, is one of the many ways that what he calls our 'posthistoricist' culture has shifted from a valorization of truth to a valorization of difference, and to the elevated position of 'who you are' versus 'what you believe'. In other words, when you read a book, who you are is more important to the meaning of the book than the book itself. This of course, put this directly, seems absurd.

3. (The meaning of the title) Every letter is a sign, and every sign is made of two parts: the signifier (the physical marking) and the signified (what the physical marking means). WBM is stating that we live in a world where the shape of the signifier, the raw physical presence of the marking, without any meaning, is more important than what it signifies. The shape of the signifier can only be experienced, not believed in, which means every person's experience will be different and equally as valid, but totally meaningless.

4. He goes through a lot more incarnations of this phenomenon, from Toni Morrison's Beloved, to the war on terrorism, but the founding point is the same: in a world without disagreements about ideology (our world, which is only petty squabbling under the globalizing umbrella of liberal capitalism, which is the only remaining ideology), we have assimilated this lack of meaning into every aspect of life, wherein the identity of a person, drawn up however this theoretician or that political figure decides, is everything about a person. But if we accept this, we accept that beliefs mean nothing, that books have no meaning except based on the identities of those who read them, and that having an equal number of black and white people in poverty is more desirable than eliminating poverty in the first place.

Yeah, he definitely ruffled some feathers with this one when it came out. I enjoyed it, but got lost many times. You sort of have to just keep going and hope for the best. I appreciate the massive cajones this man has, and the way he connects topics is pretty interesting, but none of that means it was an easy read. The lit theory parts were my fave, but the identity politics is old hat at this point. Pick it up if you want a challenge. 6.5/10

[Aurelio Guerra · Rating 3 out of 5]

After a fairly careful reading (I’ve filled almost an entire notebook with notes) and a deep one (I reread several sections multiple times), I reached the conclusion that Michaels advocates turning the text into a mark, an object—one in which the subject’s positions become irrelevant and in which the only thing that matters is authorial intention. Hence the importance of identities as opposed to ideologies, since this allows one to approach the work more objectively. Apparently, this is almost the opposite of what the book is arguing.

It wasn’t until I tried to consolidate my ideas—trying to follow that method that consists of verbalizing the book as a kind of summary or paraphrase—that I realized many things didn’t add up. Looking for help online, I discovered my mistake.
Going back over the text, I realized that the problem wasn’t me: Michaels rarely makes his position clear; he just states things. To understand this book, I believe, the reader must already know all the answers beforehand, because the book merely presents the arguments without offering the definitive conclusions about them.

[Donna Rae · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am about a third of the way through and it is confusing but makes some interesting points. Lets see how long b4 I finish it.

[Tony G. · Rating 1 out of 5]

subject positions can't disagree.