Q: What do America, Marxism, and Dr. Phil have in common?

A: They are all eponyms. An eponym is a person who lends his or her name to a particular place, thing, or abstract idea. While the persons (Amerigo Vespucci, Karl Marx, and Dr. Phil) fit the more traditional concept of an eponym, from the greek word meaning "giving name," the named phenomena in an eponymous relationship is also frequently referred to as an eponym. Eponyms flourish in many important fields. They are quite easy to identify in science and math. Perhaps more relevant to the subject of this blog, we might point to their influence in literature, philosophy, and art. Take, for example, the numerous types of sonnets: Petrarchan, Shakespearean, Elizibethean, and Spenserian. Plato lends his name to philosophical perspectives on many subjects: Realism, love, ideals. And let's not forget R.E.M.'s greatest hits C.D. entitled "eponymous"--probably jokingly, since it is therefore not an eponym. A nice bit of theory-on-the-periphery comes in with Stephen Stigler's essay "Stigler's Law of Eponymy." In it, Stigler claims that "no scientific discovery is named after the original discoverer." In a nice self-referential, meta flourish, Stigler attributes the idea--not to himself--but to the prestigious sociologist Robert K. Merton. This has many theoretical implications. First of all, it is a resounding endorsement of post-structuralism: proper names are meaningless, illogical, and basically random except, perhaps, in how they influence our subsequent use of language and knowledge. To further augment this reasoning, one nearly need to remember that someone completely unrelated to an idea, or a completely fictional person, can also give birth to an eponym. Amerigo Vespucci certainly didn't discover America--that honor would have to go to the natives living there, the early norse explorers, or Columbus. Let's not forget that other famous television psychiatrist of "Frasier" fame. But this example is a good illustration of a second point. An eponym necessarily leads to aporia--a theoretical confusion where one is confronted with an interpretive fork in the road, if not a whole set of silverware. If "Frasier" the show refers to just the one character, are the others ancillary and of secondary importance. It might not be profoundly important whether the dog Eddie is or is not a necessary part of the show, but what about the guests on Dr. Phil who are not Dr. Phil? And what about the other people similar to Dr. Phil who are not Dr. Phil? Dr. Laura, Sanjay Gupta, and Dr. Drew must feel left out. An eponymous relationship naturally focuses on the person who "gives the name" to the detriment of others. It is no coincidence that epochs, Wars, and nations are often named after the leaders who founded them. There is, in fact, a Marxist tinge to Stigler's law of eponymy since Stigler explains the law by noting that the eponymous figure is often more affluent, recognizable, and socially accepted than the true inventors, discoverers, and creators. But according to Stigler's theory, eponyms are not generally haute bourgeoise thieves, searching for unnamed nouns with which to be associated. They are usually coined after the fact, by the literate portion of society as a whole, in order to lionize certain historical figures while forgetting entire classes. And yet, even here, reality can pierce through the most surreptitious, diabolical plans. After all, an eponym is only good as long as the entire eponymous relationship stands on solid ground. I'm sure Halley would be glad to know that, a few years after his death, a famous comet was named after him. Would he still be glad if it careered toward earth? I'm guessing he wouldn't, it's just common sense, and that is what Dr. Phil "is known for."

Dr. Phil's Text Messages

Here, for the first time, Deconstructing Phil. is in video form. Today's episode of Dr. Phil dealt heavily with the properties of language and it's subsequent interpretation as a couple getting ready for marriage started feuding and verbally fighting with the groom's mother. In order to examine some of the general structuralist, poststructuralist, and deconstructionist matters brought up in the episode, Roland Barthes, Ferdinand de Saussure, and Jacques Derrida are our guides as we consider what's so interestingly and complicatingly wrong with saying things like "her sorries are 'I'm sorry you took my words that way'" or "they're fighting before they're even related".