Imagine a scene where Derrida, Barthes, and a hyper-politically-correct “Woke” hipster (a person who rigidly adheres to a checklist of “woke” ideals and is determined to call out any perceived infractions) meet for a discussion on language, meaning, and interpretation. The philosophers, with their nuanced approaches to ambiguity and irony, engage with Woke's absolutist, uncompromising stance.
The scene: Derrida and Barthes are seated in a minimalist café, deep in conversation, sipping black coffee. Woke enters, equipped with a tablet and a checklist of “Acceptable Topics and Phrasing for Inclusive Discussion.” They sit down with an air of determined self-righteousness.
Derrida: “Language, as I often say, is an endless play of differences. No concept is immune to reinterpretation. Words mean differently in different contexts—”
Woke (interrupting): “Actually, words have specific meanings, and it’s problematic to suggest otherwise. Suggesting that meanings are fluid could undermine marginalised voices who need stability in language for their truths to be heard.”
Barthes (smiling slightly): “Ah, but isn’t there something empowering in readerly freedom? A text can liberate its readers, allowing each person to find new meaning, maybe even meanings unintentional by the author.”
Woke: “Liberation? For whom, exactly? Reader freedom is fine until it leads to harmful misinterpretation. The author has a responsibility—how their words might affect others matters more than the individual reader's whims!”
Derrida: “Interesting. But can we truly control how language affects others? It is always haunted by what I call différance, an inherent slipperiness that resists fixed interpretation. Meaning is never final.”
Woke: “And yet, there are ethical boundaries! Some things must remain closed, out of respect. For example, we must avoid language that could reinforce colonial structures or perpetuate any stereotypes. Context matters, but it’s not an excuse to ignore harm.”
Barthes: “So, are you suggesting we need a universal guide for ethical interpretation? But then, where would individual agency lie? My Death of the Author argued precisely against an authoritative voice dictating all meaning.”
Woke (pulling out the checklist): “Agency is acceptable, as long as it aligns with inclusive, non-offensive guidelines. Take this list, for example. There are terms here we should universally avoid. It’s about creating safe discourse.”
Derrida (grinning): “But, ah, isn’t there a paradox here? By enforcing a universal standard, do we not impose a type of colonialism of language in itself? Even with the best intentions, we risk totalising meaning.”
Woke (frowning): “You philosophers always twist words. This isn’t about totalising anything; it’s about accountability. Words have power, and it’s irresponsible to dismiss how they impact others.”
Barthes (leaning in): “Is it possible, though, that this focus on responsibility could, in a way, limit voices? If people fear how they’ll be interpreted, they may hold back from expressing themselves entirely. Are we perhaps imposing our own power structures by making certain language taboo?”
Woke: “Silence is a privilege! The vulnerable rely on people like us to call out oppressive language. A controlled language isn’t a limitation; it’s an ethical obligation.”
Derrida (to Barthes, with a mischievous look): “It seems that by attempting to bring clarity to language, we have introduced yet another undecidable—an impossible choice between freedom and responsibility. The text of language itself remains slippery.”
Woke (sighing in frustration): “I don’t expect you to understand. You intellectuals are too obsessed with your ambiguities to see the real world. Words aren’t just abstract—they shape reality!”
Barthes (chuckling softly): “Indeed. But remember, in creating reality, they must first escape reality. A word is never only what it seems, nor is its meaning as stable as you might hope.”
Derrida: “Perhaps we must embrace both realities at once—an ethical commitment and a radical openness to meaning’s undecidability. But that would require acknowledging both the author’s intention and the reader’s freedom, wouldn’t it?”
Woke (huffing, closing the checklist): “You two can argue about your ambiguities all you want, but some of us are here to make a real change, not just philosophise. Language is a tool for justice—not an endless game of reinterpretation.”
Derrida (whispering to Barthes as Woke storms off): “It appears that justice itself has boundaries that must not be crossed.”
Barthes (nodding): “Ah, but Derrida, you know… every boundary is just another text waiting to be read.”
The End.
