Week 13: 4 December Cultural Semiotics

Reading: Roland Barthes, ‘Myth Today’ Stuart Hall, ‘Representation, Meaning and Language’/‘Saussure’s Legacy’/’From Language to Culture: Linguistics to Semiotics’ (Coursepack) John Hartley, ‘Semiotics’/‘Structuralism’

Polysemy: the coexistence of many possible meanings for a single word or sign We reach here the very principle of myth: it transforms history into nature. (Roland Barthes) Language can never be a wholly private game. Our private intended meanings, however personal to us, have to enter into the rules, codes and conventions of language to be shared and understood. (Hall) Semiology has taught us that myth has the task of giving an historical intention a natural justification, making contingency appear eternal. Now this process is exactly that of bourgeois ideology. (Barthes)

We have already looked at how power effects culture thru. concepts like hegemony and ideology Thus, the particular interests of some are naturalized as the general interest Barthes offers a unique method that gives new insight into this process by applying the linguistic model of semiotics to culture ‘Myth’ is not just the stuff of fairytales but an ongoing everyday process whereby dominant power relations (which are historically contingent) get presented—or ’mythologized’ as natural (eternal, thus innocent) Thus Barthes proposes two levels of signification First-order: Linguistic system (Saussure—semiotics) Second-order: Myth (Barthes—ideology) Myth uses language as ‘raw material’ to build its own system of signification Key Themes and Concepts

1) Barthes and ‘Myth Today’

Initial Remarks on Images, Meaning, and Polysemy Barthes helped to demonstrate not only that meaning is polysemic but that it is conveyed by both text and images Be aware of how image-dominated our historical moment is with the myriad forms of ICT at our disposal Thus keep in mind Barthes’ contention that the image does not illustrate the text; rather, it is text that amplifies the connotative potential of the image

1 May 2003: (L) Bush arrives after helping to land jetfighter on aircraft carrier; (R) Bush declares the end of major combat in Iraq under banner ‘Mission Accomplished’ This was a carefully staged event, seeking to naturalize the myth of Bush as both a ‘heroic military leader’ and ‘successful President’ The caption or accompanying text—when the image first appeared—provides what Barthes calls anchorage Anchorage is this process of amplifying the meaning of the image as myth But history itself can undo the anchorage of a text

• i.e. the US is clearly not winning in Iraq, bogged down in internal fighting thy helped to create with no clear way out

• now it signifies the folly and hubris of an unpopular president The position of the ‘reader of cultural texts can also challenge or undo the anchorage of a myth

• i.e. race, gender, sexuality, political orientation In short, myth is not eternal; it only presents itself as such Next semester we will examine the polysemic nature of meaning

1) Roland Barthes: ‘Myth Today’ ‘Myth Today is the concluding chapter in an important book by Roland Barthes Mythologies (1957) That chapter makes a major contribution: it takes semiotics beyond the abstract study of language and uses it to ’read’ popular culture Thus he examined cultural texts and practices for their underlying rules and codes thru. which meaning is produced (just like Saussure’s did for language) There are two key insights by Barthes:

• 1) Signs are polysemic - meaning operates at two levels—the second is where power effects culture

• 2) Images and cultural practices—not just text—can function as a myth

- signification is happening everywhere (not just in language)

Ancient or not, mythology can only have an historical foundation, for myth is a type of speech chosen by history: it cannot possibly evolve form the ‘nature’ of things. (Barthes)

A) Cultural Semiotics To better understand Barthes’ concept of myth, we need to know what is both similar and different about his method compared to Saussure Barthes utilizes elements of Synchronic Linguistics—the structuralist method dvlpd by Saussure—in order to read popular culture

• both are interested in the process of signification (production of meaning)

Saussure dvlpd an abstract analysis of language

• no interest in the content • an abstract theory of language • what are the general rules ordering the production of meaning

Barthes applied the semiotic model to a political analysis of culture

• very interested in content • a theory of how power functioned in culture • how does ‘myth’ function in everyday life? • how do interests of dominant power attain ideological

expression—i.e. get naturalized in myth?

To the standard Saussurean schema: Sign=signifier + signified, he adds a second level of signification Barthes describes the implications of this radically expanded application of semiotics:

the first system [denotation] becomes the plane of expression or signifier of the second system [connotation]…The signifiers of connotation…are made up of signs (signifiers and signifieds united) of denoted systems

Barthes’ First level signification: Linguistic System (Denotation) N.B. For Saussure (i.e. when abstractly applied to language) the signifier is the site of denotation Barthes’ Second-level signification: Myth (Connotation) N.B. For Saussure, the signified is the site of connotation Saussurean semiotics ends at the ‘first level’; it provides the ‘raw material’ (signifier) for Barthes’ second level’ where myth is produced Thus the final term of the first semiological system (sign) becomes the first term (signifier) of the second semiological system What is different in Barthes’ model?

• two levels of signification (production of meaning) • Saussurean sign (signifier + signified in the linguistic system—or,

the first-level signification) becomes the signifier in the second level

• the second level is where myth is produced—and ideology expressed

Thus, for Barthes, the sign of the linguistic system is the raw material (signifier) which is then transformed (under the influence of dominant power formations) into myth/ideology

I cannot confuse the roses as signifier and roses as sign: the signifier is empty, the sign is full, it is a meaning. (Barthes)

Myth/ideology:

…a body of ideas and practices, which by actively promoting the values and interests of dominant groups in society, defend the prevailing structures of power. (Storey)

For Barthes, the production of myth equals the production of ideology

That is, dominant social, political, and economic power formations often have their interests expressed at the second-level signification, in the production of myth Myth is always an ideological expression—the key site where power functions through meaning

[Myth] appears both like a notification and like a statement of fact. (Barthes)

One of his most famous examples is the photograph of the Black soldier saluting the French flag (from Paris Match in 1955)

Shared cultural codes are necessary for the ‘reading’ of myth—i.e. connotation must be able to draw on already existing cultural meaning But myth adds to that already existing cultural meaning by presenting it as natural—Barthes calls this the ‘confusion of History with Nature’ a) Denotation (First level) The photograph itself works initially at first-level signification: denotation

• soldier saluting flag b) Connotation (Second level) But the photograph also functions at the second-level signification—connotation This is where the abstract values, ideas, and concepts evoked by that photo

• soldier demonstrating loyalty to France and thus naturalizes the legitimacy of France as a ‘great Empire

Connotation is easier to understand when we historicize signification and its denotation

• e.g. France was a colonial power in Africa • at the time that photo appeared it was waging a vicious against

independence movements in its colonial African states c) Myth (Second level) Remember meaning is polysemic Thus the photo also functions at the level of myth Barthes uses the term myth where many others would use ideology One o the keys to myth is that it has an ‘intentional force’ but is seen as being ‘neutral and innocent’ (history vs. nature)

…France is a great empire, that all her sons, without any colour discrimination, faithfully serve under her flag,' etc. (Barthes)

• France is the land of liberty, equality, and fraternity • even its colonial subjects are loyal to the French state • there is liberty, equality and fraternity for African subjects of

France Three readings of myth i) Producer of myth The ‘myth’ (image) is read as:

• symbol of French imperiality ii) Critical reader The ‘myth’ (image) is read as:

• alibi for French imperiality iii) ‘Myth-consumer’ The ‘myth’ (image) is read as:

• the presence of French imperiality • i.e. the image naturally conjures up the concept of French

imperiality (history) That the third reading is so commonplace is why Barthes developed Cultural Semiotics with its critical capacity

• i.e. to help us see how myth gets produced everyday, and in turn, naturalizes particular interests at the expense of others

Where there is only equivalence [rendering the historical as natural], s/he sees a kind of causal process: the signifier and the signified have, in the readers eyes, a natural relationship. This confusion can be expressed otherwise: any semiological system is a system of values; now the myth-consumer takes the signification for a system of facts: myth is read as a factual system whereas it is a semiological system. (Barthes)

iv) Mythologist The ‘myth’ (image) is read as:

• a ‘structural description’ • i.e. enables one to determine the means of ideological

production—how it transforms history into nature N.B. A dominant ideology always seeks to demonstrate that “the store of mythical signifiers is endless” What comes after Myth? We have learned how meaning functions at multiple levels We have learned how the interests of dominant power formations can be expressed on the second level of signification—myth Thus the production of myth is ideological But does power function in language only in a unidirectional fashion? What about the production of counter-myth? This points us toward a number of complicating factors which we will examine in the new year

• i) the location of the text • ii) the historical moment • iii) the cultural formation of the reader