Instructor: Dr.

Lorelei Caraman
Course: Text Analysis (Criticism and Theory)

THE essay about “Anything” and Anything, from a Deconstructionist and Psychoanalytical

Perspective

In order to write an essay about anything, that “anything” should firstly be assigned a definition.

The question remains how one could define anything. According to binary opposition (de

Saussure), (Sorcha. "Binary Oppositions". The Literary Encyclopedia) “anything” represents the

“counterpoint”, if one is allowed to express oneself in such a manner, of “everything”. Although

Deconstruction would state that there exists a plurality of meanings. “Anything” is not actually

anything, the same exact way “the centre is not the centre” (Derrida, Structure, Sign, and Play in

the Discourse of the Human Sciences). Interestingly enough, the concept of parallax proves that

“anything” comes to mean both “nothing” and “everything”, acting as the cure/antidote and poison

in “pharmakon” (Caraman).

By means of “exploding the binary”, one is able to demonstrate how the lexeme deconstructs itself.

If one were to apply the Western binary logic (Caraman), the privileged meaning of the term

“anything” is “nothing”, as in “I didn’t do anything”; however, upon a closer analysis, - and a

search through the dictionary as well -, one discovers that, depending on the context, more than

one situation exists in which the same lexeme comes to mean either its partial antonym,

“something”, used mainly in interrogative sentences, as in “Is there anything I can do to help?”,

“Do you want anything from the shops?” , “Would you like anything else to eat?”, or its perfect

antonym, “everything”, the following sentences serving as an example: “You can buy anything

you want.”, “From what other people were wearing, it looked like anything goes”, “Yes, of course,
anything you say”. (Longman Exams Dictionary, for Upper Intermediate - Advanced learners)

The aforementioned free play of signifiers thus leads to an undecidability on the reader’s part,

which could possibly be explained with the aid of Psychoanalysis and its concepts which could be

applied. From a psychoanalytical approach, an analogy could be drawn between the three

previously mentioned meanings of “anything” and the tripartite psyche. The human mind is formed

by three elements that represent one’s instincts - the id -, reality - ego - and morality - superego -;

“According to Freud's model of the psyche, the id is the primitive and instinctual part of the mind

that contains sexual and aggressive drives and hidden memories, the super-ego operates as a moral

conscience, and the ego is the realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and

superego” (McLeod, S. A. (2016, Feb 05). Id, ego and superego. Retrieved from

https://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html). Therefore, one might state that, depending on

the part or element which dominates one’s being, a distinct meaning of the same lexeme can be

perceived. Whilst the unconscious, dominated by the id, desired to have the control upon

everything, the ego, which accounts for the subconscious, realizes that control is possible to a

certain extent only and the conscious adamantly proves that there exists no such thing as certainty

regarding control over certain aspects.

That is the point where the psyche reaches the cognitive dissonance state. “Cognitive dissonance”

is a concept in psychology, consisting in a psychological unease that is led to by a sudden

realization that a previously unexperienced conjuncture exists in discordance with one’s former

beliefs and system of values (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance; Festinger, A

Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957)). One desires to have everything, strives in order to

achieve something and in the end is proved by life that they can remain with nothing at any given

time. Although the need for consistency will result in a series of self-induced thoughts in order to
reduce or eliminate the psychological discomfort, an adequate example being represented by the

utterance: “Being left with nothing cannot happen to me. From all the people on this planet, I

cannot be the one it happens to. It is impossible.” The question that nobody asks oneself is: “What

if it DOES happen?” What is one day the “anything” that one can afford to purchase because of

one’s desire to do so, becomes the “anything” that everyone is left with at the end of life, upon the

entrance to the Elysian Fields? This harmful practice results in a far worse mental unease and

failure caused by the lack of preparations for the less fortunate scenario, due to the aforementioned

justifications.

The same consequence is probable the moment when the social comparison theory is applied. By

means of drawing a comparison with fellow individuals, one manages to determine one’s personal

achievements and self-worth “against others they perceive as somehow faring better or worse”

(https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/social-comparison-theory). Although in some

cases this parallel serves as a factor of motivation for improvement, in most cases it leads to a

downfall and degradation, “negative feelings of deep dissatisfaction, guilt, and remorse, and

engagement in destructive behaviours, like lying and disordered eating”

(https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/social-comparison-theory). Therefore, a constant

comparison will be endlessly drawn between the one who possesses anything, the one that cannot

afford any thing and the one that does not own anything, this contributing to the self-value of the

individuals pertaining to the three distinct social classes.

In conclusion, “anything” and anything is only a matter of perspective, resembling a cube, whose

one single side is seen from a fixed position, but which displays multiple facets upon movement.

With the aid of an unprejudiced and accepting perspective, even the “sunset is only the sunrise
seen in reverse” and “we will learn to be happy admiring two sunrises per day” (The Motans -

Inainte Sa Ne Fi Nascut, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcaWGdvSFl8).

References:

1. Caraman, Lorelei. Text Analysis (Criticism and Theory). “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”

University

2. Sorcha, Fogarty - "Binary Oppositions". The Literary Encyclopedia

3. Derrida, Jacques - Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences

4. Longman Exams Dictionary, for Upper Intermediate - Advanced learners

5. McLeod, S. A. (2016, Feb 05). Id, ego and superego. Retrieved from

https://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance; Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive

Dissonance (1957)

7. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/social-comparison-theory

8. The Motans - Inainte Sa Ne Fi Nascut, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcaWGdvSFl8