Session 11: 9 February
Cultural Semiotics
Reading: Roland Barthes, ‘Myth Today’
Stuart Hall, ‘Representation, Meaning and Language’/‘Saussure’s
Legacy’/’From Language to Culture: Linguistics to Semiotics’
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)
Barthes felt that ‘myth’ helped to preserve the belief in essentialism
• i.e. the Platonic Form
• a definition, formula, characteristics that stabilize objects in
the world
Barthes applying Saussure’s semiotic categories to cultural phenomena by
proposing two levels of signification
First-order
• Linguistic system (Saussure—semiotics)
Second-order
• Myth (Barthes—ideology)
Myth uses language as ‘raw material’ to build systems of signification
Barthes concept of myth is much closer to the Marxist notion of ‘ideology’ than
Levi-Strauss’s ‘myth’
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
Thus another important contribution is how he applies semiotic categories to
images, in addition to texts
Be aware of how image-dominated our historical moment is with the myriad
forms of ICT at our disposal
Barthe makes a somewhat counter-intuitive claim
We might imagine that the purpose of the image is to illustrate the text
Barthes suggest that it is often the image which is in the primary position
Thus, often it is the text that amplifies the connotative potential of the image
• ‘connotative’ as the deeper level meaning
1/05/03: (L) Bush arrives after landing jetfighter on aircraft carrier; (R) Bush
declares 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
Recap: Sign = Signifier + Signified
d) Sign (word/symbol and its meaning)
• anything—i.e. words, pictures, sounds, gestures—that stands
for something else in the production of meaning
• a core concept of semiotics
• i.e. the red rose + love
All signs must have physical form; refer to something other than itself; and,
be understandable
A sign has two components: signifier and signified
All signs have an arbitrary r/n to both a) signifier (the thing to which it
refers); and b) signified (the concept it represents)
e) Signifier
• the material thing represented by the sign
• i.e. the red rose—the flower itself
• this is the denotative level
The signifier denotes
Denotation is the literal meaning of something—the surface level
What is denoted is the thing itself
f) Signified
• the concept referred to by the signifier
• i.e. the red rose signifies love
• this is the connotative level
The signified connotes
Connotation refers to the ideas or feelings that the sign signifies—a deeper
level of meaning
What is connoted is the meaning of the thing itself
N.B. There is always the possibility that a given signifier has multiple
signifieds (i.e. many different meanings)
For example, in England, the ‘red rose’ also signifies the Labour Party
This multiple meaning is often called polysemy
g) Signification
• the output of signs—communication itself
• a concept of importance to Barthes
• he organizes signification into three levels: 1) denotative (a
tree); 2) connotative (tree connotes nature); 3) mythical
(nature is bountiful)
Back to Barthes
Barthes might apply semiotics to the rose in the following manner
First order
i) Signifier (roses) + ii) Signified (passion) = Sign (passionified roses)
Of course, we can only separate the sign into its component parts in analysis,
not in everyday life
Then he would take his semiotic analysis to another level
Second order
i) Signifier (passionified roses) + Signified (Valentine’s day) = Sign (rose as
commodity, consumption as romantic obligation)
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
• i.e. the Sign passionified rose becomes Signifier
• 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’
First order
Signifier (picture above) + Signified (fidelity to France) = Sign (Faithful black
soldier)
Second order
Signifier (faithful black soldier) + Signified (France as a great empire of
Equality, Fraternity and Liberty) = Sign (Ideology of colonialism and
imperialism)
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 of 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)
The ‘myth’ constructed thru. that photo
• 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 possible 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