OUR POOR INDIVIDUALISM

By Jorge Luis Borges

The illusions of patriotism have no end. In the first century of our era, Plutarch scoffed at those
who declared that the moon of Athens is better than the moon of Corinth; Milton, in the
seventeenth century, noted that God had a habit of revealing himself first to the Englishmen;
Fichte, at the beginning of the 19th century, declared that having a temper and being German
are obviously the same thing. Here, the nationalists swarm; According to them, they are
moved by the worthy or innocent purpose of promoting the best Argentine traits. They ignore,
however, the Argentines; in discussions, they prefer to define them in terms of some external
fact; of the Spanish conquerors (we could say) or of an imaginary Catholic tradition or of
“Saxon imperialism”. The Argentine, unlike North Americans and almost all Europeans, does
not identify with the State. This can be attributed to the fact that, in this country, the
governments tend to be lousy or to the general fact that the State is an inconceivable
abstraction; the truth is that the Argentine is an individual, not a citizen. Aphorisms like Hegel's
“The State is the reality of the moral idea” seem to him sinister jokes. The films made in
Hollywood repeatedly propose to admiration the case of a man (usually a journalist) who seeks
the friendship of a criminal to later hand him over to the police; the Argentine, for whom
friendship is a passion and the police a mafia, feels that this "hero" is an incomprehensible
scoundrel. He feels with Don Quixote that "there is everyone with his sin" and that "it is not
good that honest men are executioners of other men, not going at all in it" (Don Quixote, I,
XXII). More than once, faced with the vain symmetries of the Spanish style, I have suspected
that we differ insurmountably from Spain; Those two lines from Don Quixote have been
enough to convince me of my error; they are like the secret and quiet symbol of our affinity. It
is profoundly confirmed by a night in Argentine literature: that desperate night in which a rural
police sergeant shouted that he was not going to consent to the crime of killing a brave man
and began to fight against his soldiers, together with the deserter Martín Iron. The world, for
the European, is a cosmos, in which each one intimately corresponds to the function he
exercises; for the Argentine, it is chaos. The European and the North American judge that a
book that has deserved any award must be good, the Argentine admits the possibility that it
may not be bad, despite the award. In general, the Argentine does not believe in the
circumstances. He can ignore the fable that humanity always includes thirty-six righteous men
- the Lamed Wufniks - who do not know each other but who secretly uphold the universe; if he
hears it, it won't surprise him that these honorable men are obscure and anonymous... his
popular hero is the single man who fights with the gang, already in action (Fierro, Moreira,
Hormiga Negra), already in potential (Don Segundo Sombra). Other literatures do not record
analogous facts. Consider, for example, two great European writers: Kipling and Franz Kafka. At
first glance, there is nothing in common between the two, but the subject of one is the
vindication of order, of an order (the road in Kim, the bridge in The Bridge-Builders, the Roman
wall in Puck of Pook's Hills); that of the other, the unbearable and tragic loneliness of someone
who lacks a place, even the humblest, in the order of the universe. […]

Part I. Semiotics. (1 paragraph) Explain if Don Quixote can be interpreted as an icon, as an

index or as a symbol. You must give examples. Say whether a proper name like Martin Fierro is
a sign in terms of Saussure.

Part II. Pragmatics. (1 paragraph) Give an example of conversational implicature from the text.
Imagine that the author is narrating this text to you. Do not include a dialogue within the
paragraph. You can quote an exchange but in the form of prose, not dialogue.
Part III. Language and thought. (1 paragraph) Indicate if the text could be understood by any
speaker of Spanish or if there was an expression typical of the way we speak in our country
that could be understood differently in another Spanish-speaking country or would be very
difficult to translate and explain why.

Part IV. Discourse analysis (1 paragraph) Mention if the text above has coherence and cohesion
and explain why. Then refer to all the types of coherence and cohesion present in the text and
explain them. Indicate the types of textual coherence and the resources used to demonstrate
cohesion in this text. Provide clear examples of everything you mention and write them in a
paragraph, they should not be marked in the text. DO NOT ABBREVIATE OR LIST IN ISOLATED
SENTENCE

Part I. Semiotics
In semiotic terms, Don Quixote can be interpreted as a symbol. As a symbol, Don
Quixote represents the broader concept of chivalry, idealism, and the clash between
reality and illusion. His quest embodies the struggle against societal norms and the
disillusionment with reality, which transcends the specific narrative of the novel and
resonates with universal themes. For example, Don Quixote’s battles with windmills are
symbolic of his struggle against the illusory nature of his ideals and the harshness of
reality. A proper name like Martín Fierro, in terms of Saussure’s theory, functions as a
sign. Saussure’s theory posits that a proper name is a signifier that refers to a specific
individual within a particular cultural and historical context. Martín Fierro signifies not
just an individual character but also embodies the broader cultural and historical
narratives of Argentine identity and resistance.

Part II. Pragmatics

In the text, the conversational implicature can be illustrated by the way Borges contrasts
Argentine and European attitudes towards state and individualism. For instance, when
Borges mentions that "the Argentine, for whom friendship is a passion and the police a
mafia, feels that this 'hero' is an incomprehensible scoundrel," he implicitly critiques the
European values of duty and justice as alien to Argentine perspectives. This implicature
subtly conveys that the Argentine’s sense of morality and social interaction diverges
significantly from European norms, implying that the European valorization of state
duty is not aligned with Argentine values.

Part III. Language and Thought

The text could be understood by any Spanish speaker, but certain expressions might be
more familiar or carry different connotations depending on regional variations. For
example, phrases like "la mafia" to describe the police might have different implications
in various Spanish-speaking countries, where "mafia" might evoke different levels of
criminality or corruption. Additionally, terms specific to Argentine literature and
history, like "Don Segundo Sombra" or "Fierro," are deeply embedded in Argentine
cultural and literary traditions. These references might be less immediately accessible or
require additional context for speakers from other Spanish-speaking countries who are
not as familiar with Argentine literary figures and historical contexts.

Part IV. Discourse Analysis

The text demonstrates coherence and cohesion through various techniques. Coherence is
achieved by maintaining a consistent thematic focus on the distinction between
Argentine and European perceptions of individuality and state. Borges’s argument is
logically organized, with each paragraph building upon the previous to develop the
central thesis. Cohesion is facilitated through the use of cohesive devices such as
transitional phrases and repeated references to key concepts. For instance, the contrast
between European and Argentine perspectives is reinforced through recurring themes
and examples, such as the reference to Don Quixote and local Argentine literary figures.
Additionally, cohesive ties are evident in the text’s structure, with each paragraph
connecting back to the central discussion of individualism versus state identity. These
elements ensure that the text is both logically and stylistically unified, effectively
supporting Borges's critique of nationalism and individualism.

Relación entre los Elementos del Triángulo Semiótico

 Representamen (Bandera): La forma visual de la bandera, con sus colores y

diseño específicos, actúa como el signo.
 Objeto (Estados Unidos): El país en sí mismo, con toda su historia, cultura y
valores, es lo que el signo representa.
 Interpretante (Significado de la Bandera): La percepción que las personas
tienen de la bandera. Esto incluye no solo el reconocimiento del país que
representa, sino también la carga emocional y cultural que la bandera puede
tener, como el orgullo nacional, los ideales de libertad, democracia y otras
cualidades asociadas a la nación.

Relación entre los Elementos del Triángulo Semiótico

 Representamen (Don Quijote): El personaje tal como aparece en el texto, con

sus características, acciones y palabras.
 Objeto (Conceptos Representados): Las ideas y temas que Don Quijote
encarna, como el idealismo versus la realidad, la crítica a la sociedad y la
dignidad del ser humano.
 Interpretante (Significado para los Lectores): La variedad de interpretaciones
que los lectores atribuyen a Don Quijote, que pueden incluir la admiración por
su idealismo, la crítica a la locura, el análisis de los conflictos sociales y
personales, entre otros

MARZO

r. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Transformed Hollywood has defamed, for the third time, Robert
Louis Stevenson. In Argentina, the title of this defamation is El hombre y la bestia [The
Man and the Beast], and it has been perpetrated by Victor Fleming, who repeats with ill-
fated fidelity the aesthetic and moral errors of Mamoulian's version or perversion. I
shall begin with the moral errors. In the 1886 novel, Dr. Jekyll is morally duplicitous in
the way all men are double, while his hypostasisEdward Hyde-is relentlessly,
unredeemably fiendish. In the 1941 film, Dr. Jekyll is a young pathologist who practices
chastity while his hypostasis Hyde is a sadistic and acrobatic profligate. For the sages of
Hollywood, Good is the courtship of the chaste and wealthy Miss Lana Turner, and Evil
(which similarly concerned David Hume and the heresiarchs of Alexandria) is illicit
cohabitation with Fröken Ingrid Bergman or Miriam Hopkins. It would be futile to
observe that Stevenson is completely innocent of such limitations or distortions of the
problem. In the book's last chapter, he asserts that Jekyll's vices are sensuality and
hypocrisy; in one of his Ethical Studies in 1888-he tried to list "all the displays of the
truly diabolic" and proposed the following: "envy, malice, the mean lie, the mean
silence, the calumnious truth, the backbiter, the petty tyrant, the peevish poisoner of
family life." (I would add that ethics do not include sexual matters so long as they are
not contaminated by betrayal, greed, or vanity.) The structure of the film is even more
rudimentary than its theology. In the book, the identity of Jekyll and Hyde is a surprise:
the author saves it for the end of the ninth chapter. The allegorical tale pretends to be a
detective story; no reader guesses that Hyde and Jekyll are the same person. The very
title of the book makes us assume they are two. There is nothing easier than shifting this
device to the screen. Let us imagine any detective mystery: two well-known actors
figure in the plot (let us say George Raft and Spencer Tracy); they may use analogous
words or refer to events that presuppose a common past. When the mystery seems
inexplicable, one of them swallows the magic drug and changes into the other. (Of
course the successful execution of this plan would require two or three phonetic
adjustments, such as changing the protagonists' names.) More civilized than I, Victor
Fleming avoids all surprise and mystery: in the early scenes of the film, Spencer Tracy
fearlessly drinks the versatile potion and transforms himself into Spencer Tracy, with a
different wig and Negroid features. Beyond Stevenson's dualist parable and closer to the
Conference of the Birds, which Farid al-Oin Attar composed in the twelfth century (of
the Christian era), we may imagine a pantheist film, whose numerous characters finally
become One, who is everlasting. Jorge Luis Borges, "Dr. Jekyll and Edward Hyde,
transformed" in Selected Non-Fictions. England, Viking, 1999: 259-60. PART I:
SEMIOTICS (25 POINTS) 1- Departing from the sign doctor, explain in detail each of
the constituents of the sign according to the triadic theory of the sign by C.S. Peirce.
PARTE II: PRAGMATICS (25 PUNTOS) 2- Justify if the following inference is true or
false according to Paul Grice’s theory. Base your answer on the information provided in
the text and the theory seen in class. Borges does not seem to agree with the film
adaptation of R.L. Stevenson’s book as he thinks Fleming altered the structure of the
book unnecessarily. PARTE III: LENGUAGE, THOUGHT AND CULTURE (25
PUNTOS) 3- According to the text, mention if there are cultural and lexical references
(words, names) that may not be understood by someone in our culture (include
yourself). Explain why this is so according to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and
Benveniste’s theory of culture and language. PARTE IV: DISCOURSE (25 PUNTOS)
4- Mention the field, tenor and mode of the whole text. What is the global and local
(textual) coherence of the text? Do not just explain the terms, but rather, make concrete
reference to the text in question. Quote at least three examples of cohesive devices and
explain them Do not abbreviate or enummerate in isolated sentences

ChatGPT
Part I: Semiotics
In C.S. Peirce's triadic theory of the sign, the sign "doctor" can be analyzed through the
following components:

1. Representamen (Signifier): The representamen is the form that the sign takes.
In this case, "doctor" is the representamen, a word or term used to signify a
specific concept or profession.
2. Object (Referent): The object is the actual thing or concept to which the
representamen refers. Here, the object would be a person who has received a
doctorate or holds a medical degree. This includes individuals who are
recognized as medical practitioners or experts in a particular field of study.
3. Interpretant: The interpretant is the understanding or interpretation of the sign
by an observer. When someone hears or reads "doctor," they interpret it based
on their knowledge and experience. This could range from understanding the
term as referring to a medical professional, an academic with a doctorate, or
someone who has an authoritative role in a specific domain.

For example, if the word "doctor" is used in a medical context, the interpretant would
likely be someone who practices medicine. In an academic setting, it could refer to
someone with a PhD. The triadic relationship among the representamen ("doctor"), the
object (a medical or academic professional), and the interpretant (the understanding of
what a "doctor" is) encapsulates Peirce’s theory of signs.

Part II: Pragmatics

According to Paul Grice’s theory of implicature, the inference that Borges disagrees
with the film adaptation of R.L. Stevenson’s book because Fleming altered the structure
unnecessarily is consistent with the principles of conversational implicature. Borges
criticizes the film for moral and structural deviations from the novel, indicating that he
believes these changes were not justifiable and detract from the original work.
According to Grice’s theory, the implicature here is that Borges’s disapproval stems
from the belief that the film's changes were not in the spirit of the original text and were
unnecessary distortions. Borges’s argument supports this inference by highlighting how
the film adaptation fails to maintain the novel’s surprise and structural integrity, which
implies a critique of Fleming’s adaptation choices.

Part III: Language, Thought, and Culture

The text contains several cultural and lexical references that may not be immediately
understood by someone from a different culture. For instance, Borges references Victor
Fleming, an American filmmaker, and specific adaptations of Robert Louis Stevenson's
novel "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." The names and references to Hollywood, such as Lana
Turner and Ingrid Bergman, are specific to Western film culture and might not be
familiar to those outside this context.

According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, language shapes thought and perception,

meaning that cultural and lexical differences can affect how concepts are understood.
For example, Borges’s critique of Hollywood’s adaptation reflects specific cultural
attitudes and norms about literature and film that are rooted in both Argentine and
Western contexts. Benveniste’s theory emphasizes that language and culture are deeply
intertwined; thus, the cultural context of Borges’s references affects their interpretation.
In Argentine culture, the critique of film adaptations may involve different nuances
compared to other cultures, affecting how readers from different backgrounds
understand Borges’s arguments.

Part IV: Discourse

The field, tenor, and mode of the text can be described as follows:

 Field: The subject matter of the text is the adaptation of literary works into film
and the subsequent critique of these adaptations, specifically focusing on Robert
Louis Stevenson’s "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde."
 Tenor: The tenor of the text includes Jorge Luis Borges as the speaker or writer,
and the intended audience likely consists of readers interested in literary
criticism, film adaptations, and cultural commentary.
 Mode: The mode of the text is written discourse, characterized by a critical
analysis presented in a formal, evaluative style.

The global coherence of the text is maintained through its focused critique of film
adaptations and their divergence from the original literary work. Local coherence is
achieved through detailed comparisons between the novel and its adaptations, which
support Borges’s overall argument.

Three examples of cohesive devices in the text are:

1. Reference to Specific Works: Borges refers to “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” and
its adaptations to build coherence around his critique. For example, he states, “In
the 1886 novel, Dr. Jekyll is morally duplicitous” and contrasts this with the film
adaptation's portrayal. This helps connect his argument to specific instances and
highlights deviations from the source material.
2. Comparative Phrases: Borges uses comparative phrases to contrast different
interpretations, such as “In the 1941 film, Dr. Jekyll is a young pathologist”
compared to the novel’s depiction. This comparative approach helps maintain
focus on the differences between the original text and its adaptations.
3. Allusions to Other Works: Borges alludes to other works and figures, such as
“the Conference of the Birds” by Farid al-Din Attar and the “ethical studies” of
Stevenson. These allusions provide additional context and reinforce Borges’s
arguments by connecting them to broader literary and philosophical themes.

These cohesive devices ensure that the text remains unified and logically structured,
supporting Borges’s critical perspective on the film adaptations of Stevenson’s novel.