Paper and Powerpoint

47. What Objects Mean, Second Edition by Arthur Asa Berger, 46–60. © 2014 . All rights reserved.

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture

Semiotics (from the Greek term for signs, sēmeîon) is the science of signs, and a semiotic approach to material culture regards artifacts as signs whose meaning and signi�cance have to be determined by the use of semiotic concepts. Signs are things that stand for other things or anything that can be made to stand for something. �ink, for example, of the American �ag. It is a sign that stands for the United States and for various values, historical events, and other ma�ers connected to the country. Words are important kinds of signs. �us the word “tree” stands for “a woody perennial plant having an elongated main stem.” Artifacts are also signs.

�ere were two founding fathers of semi- otics—the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Sau- ssure (1857–1913) and the American philos- opher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914).

What Objects Mean48.

Saussure called his science “semiology” and Peirce called his theory “semiotics.” It is Peirce’s term that has become dominant. In recent years, a number of semioticians, such as Roland Barthes and Umberto Eco, have used semiotic theory to analyze many dif- ferent things. Barthes’s book, Mythologies, uses semiotic theory and Marxist theory to “reveal” interesting things about contem- porary French culture, as his discussion of French toys that starts this chapter suggests.

Saussure on Signs

Saussure set out the fundamentals of what he called semiology in his book, Course in General Linguistics. �is book, primarily a collection of notes to his essays by his students Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye at the University of Geneva, was published in 1915. It was translated into English by Wade Baskin and published in 1959 by �e Philosophical Library and in 1966 by McGraw-Hill. In this book is found what might be thought of as the charter statement of semiotics (1966:16):

Language is a system of signs that express ideas, and is therefore comparable to a system of writing, the alphabet of deaf- mutes, symbolic rites, polite formulas, military signals, etc. But it is the most important of all these systems.

A science that studies the life of signs within society is conceivable; it would be a part of social psychology and consequently of general psychology; I shall call it semiology

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture 49.

(from Greek sēmeîon “sign”). Semiology would show what constitutes signs, what laws govern them. Since the science does not yet exist, no one can say what it would be; but it has a right to existence, a place staked out in advance.

Semiotics studies signs in society, which means it is a social science, and explains what signs are and how they function. �ese ma�ers are, it turns out, quite complicated.

Saussure o�ered a de�nition of a sign, which he explained was comprised of two parts—a sound-image and a concept (1966:66):

�e linguistic sign united, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound-image. … I call the combination of a sign and a sound- image a sign, but in current usage the term generally designates only a sound-image, a word, for example (arbor, etc.). … Ambiguity would disappear if the three notions involved here were designated by three names, each suggesting and opposing the others. I propose to retain the word sign [signe] to designate the whole and to replace concept and sound-image respectively by signi�ed [signi�é] and signi�er [signi�ant]; the last two terms have the advantage of

What Objects Mean50.

indicating the opposition that separates them from each other and from the whole of which they are parts.

From a semiotic perspective, objects are signs, or technically signi- �ers, and the task of the semiotician is to �gure out their various sig- ni�eds. �is is complicated by the fact that the relationship that exists between signi�ers and signi�eds is arbitrary, a ma�er of convention. So we always have to determine what an artifact signi�es and cannot �nd a “rule book” that explains the signi�cance of every artifact, just as we cannot �nd a dream book that explains the meaning of every dream.

Saussure also had something very important to say about the nature of concepts. As Wade Boskin, the translator of Saussure’s book, points out in his introduction to the book, “De Saussure was among the �rst to see that language is a self-contained system whose interdependent parts function and acquire value through their relationship to the whole” (1966: xii). As Saussure wrote (1966:117, 118):

It is understood that concepts are purely di�erential and de�ned not by their positive content but negatively by their relations with the other terms of the system. �eir most precise characteristic is in being what the others are not…signs function, then, not through their intrinsic value but through their relative position

He summed up his ideas on this subject by writing “in language there are only oppositions” (1966:120), and these oppositions aren’t between positive terms.

In essence, we �nd meaning in concepts (and other aspects of lan- guage and life) by se�ing up oppositions. So what this means is that— and this sounds like doubletalk—concepts derive their meaning from their opposites. �us, happy is only meaningful as the opposite of sad, and healthy is only meaningful as the opposite of sick. It is the relationships that confer meaning on concepts and, by implication, artifacts and objects that are part of material culture. I should also point out that oppositions are not the same things as negations. �e negation of happy is unhappy; the opposite of happy is sad. �ey are not the same thing.

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture 51.

W hat Saussure called a “sound-image” becomes an object or signi- �er. �e game is to discern what is signi�ed by this object. In some cases, to complicate ma�ers, an artifact can be thought of as a sign system, containing a number of di�erent signi�ers and signi�eds. For example, a photograph of a person may contain many di�erent signi- �ers: hats, eyeglasses, jewelry, shoes, a�aché cases, briefcases, purses, canes, and so on.

We can also consider objects in terms of their size, shape, texture, color, and grain.

Problems with Interpreting Signs

We saw in the Sherlock Holmes discussion in the �rst chapter that an object, such as an old hat, can contain a number of di�erent signi�ers,

What Objects Mean52.

so we might say that objects are to be thought of as signs and, in most cases, as sign systems—signs with many other signs contained within them. �us, the hat that Sherlock Holmes gave to Watson can be thought of as a sign system full of smaller signi�ers: the size of the hat, the material it was made of, and so on.

W hat follows is a list of artifacts or objects that function as signi�- ers, and what is le to be inferred by analysts is what they signify. �e signi�eds are all based on convention, and in many cases a number of di�erent signi�eds can be inferred from one signi�er, which makes analyzing signi�ers di cult at times. �ere are also the ma�ers of conventions changing and of lying with signs—wearing signs that give false impressions, a ma�er to be discussed shortly.

Signifier/Object Signified(S)

Bowler Englishman

Bow tie Intellectual

Cowboy hat Cowboy, Westerner

Baseball hat worn backwards Hip-Hop

Name brand eyeglasses Stylish, fashionable

Analog watch Old fashioned

Digital watch Modern

Suspenders Old fashioned

Black turtleneck sweater Arty? Beatnik?

Expensive handbag Style conscious, wealthy

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture 53.

We spend a good deal of e�ort in our everyday lives in observing signs and trying to interpret their meaning. W hen it comes to material culture, these signs involve body ornaments, clothes, shoes and other things— each of which, due to its styling, brand, cost and other factors, conveys di�erent things. For example, there is the ma�er of whether an object is a “top of the line” smartphone like an iPhone or a cheaper brand of smartphone that might cost the same amount of money as an “entry level” version of the more expensive brand. So we have to consider the brand, the cost, whether an object is contemporary or old fashioned, whether it is the real thing or a “knock o�,” and so on. �is means we have to have a certain amount of product knowledge and general knowledge in order to determine how to interpret an object from a semiotic perspective. We gain this product knowledge thanks to advertising and the media.

Peirce on Signs

Charles Sanders Peirce is the other found- ing father of modern semiotics and the person who gave the subject its name. He suggested that the universe is made up of signs and that the interpreters of signs have to supply some of the meanings, writing that a sign is “something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity” (quoted in Zeman, 1977:24). Peirce elaborated a trichotomy, saying that

What Objects Mean54.

there are three kinds of signs: iconic signs that signify by resem- blance; indexical signs that signify by cause and e�ect; and symbolic signs, whose meaning must be learned.

We can see these three aspects of signs in the chart below:

Icons Indexes Symbols

Mode Resemblance Causal connection Convention

Process Can see Can determine Can learn

Examples Statue of person Bomb fragments Crucifix, flags

We can combine Saussure’s and Peirce’s approaches to semiotics and use both approaches to analyze material culture. �us, we can see objects in terms of whether they are iconic, indexical, or symbolic, and we can see them as signi�ers that have signi�eds to be discerned.

Photographs and other objects, such as coins, which o en have images of important personages on them, are examples of iconic objects. Cruci�xes and �ags are symbolic in that their meaning has to be learned and are thus cultural in nature. Bomb fragments enable experts to determine what kind of explosive was used and in some cases where the explosive and bomb paraphernalia come from.

Jonathan Culler has explained the importance of semiotics as follows:

�e notion that linguistics might be useful in studying other cultural phenomena is based on two fundamental insights: �rst, that social and cultural phenomena are not simply material objects or events but objects and events with meaning, and hence signs; and second, that they do not have essence but are de�ned by a network of relations. (1976:4)

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture 55.

�us, a semiotic approach to material cul- ture involves searching for the way these objects function as signs and generate mean- ing to others. From a semiotic perspective, nothing has meaning in itself; an object’s meaning always derives from the network of relations in which it is embedded. �us, when we think about a watch, we have to consider whether it is digital or analogue; entry-level, mid-level, or high end; and how it compares to other watches o�ered by other companies.

Roland Barthes on the Semiotics of Objects

In Roland Barthes’s �e Semiotic Challenge (1988), he has a chapter titled “Semantics of the Object,” in which he o�ers some insights into the role of semiotics in analyzing material culture. He writes (168):

It is in this general context of semiological inquiry that I should like to o�er some rapid and summary re�exions on the way in which objects can signify in the contemporary world. And here I must specify at once that I am granting a very strong sense to the

What Objects Mean56.

word signify; we must not confuse signify with communicate: to signify means that objects carry not only information, in which case they would communicate, but also constitute structured systems of signs, i.e, essentially systems of di�erences, of oppositions and contrasts.

He points out that we conventionally de�ne an object as “something used for something,” and then adds (1988:169; italics in original), “�ere is virtually never an object for nothing.” �ere is a paradox, Barthes suggests, that involves objects (169–170):

�e paradox I want to point out is that these objects which always have, in principle, a function, a utility, a purpose, we believe we experience as pure instruments, whereas in reality they carry other things, they are also something else: they function as the vehicle of meaning. …�ere is always a meaning which over�ows the object’s use…there is no object which escapes meaning.

�e problem in studying the meaning of objects, Barthes cautions, is what he describes as the obstacle of the obvious. We have to move beyond what is obvious and an examination of the object detached from its role in the world. We must look at the way objects are used in advertising, �lms, and the theater to gain a be�er understanding of what they mean for people.

Barthes wrote his article in 1964, well before he was to write his most well-known book, Mythologies, and in his article on objects we can see he was beginning to examine aspects of French culture that would lead to Mythologies. He ends the article by discussing the way people convert objects into what he calls “pseudo-nature,” and that theme is to be of major importance in Mythologies.

On the Veracity of Signs

One of the problems with signs, that they can be used to lie, was pointed out by the distinguished semiotician Umberto Eco. As he wrote in his A �eory of Semiotics (1976:7):

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture 57.

Semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign. A sign is everything which can be taken as signi�cantly substituting for something else. �is something else does not necessarily have to exist or to actually be somewhere at the moment in which a sign stands for it. �us semiotics is in principle the discipline studying everything which can be used in order to lie. If something cannot be used to tell a lie, conversely it cannot be used to tell the truth; it cannot be used “to tell” at all. I think that the de�nition of a “theory of the lie” should be taken as a pre�y comprehensive program for a general semiotics.

Eco cautions us to recognize that signs can be used to mislead others, so we must always approach objects with a note of caution.

We can see how people can use signs to “ lie” in the chart that follows.

Objects Means of Misleading

Elevator shoes Short height is disguised

Wigs Bald person covers up baldness

Imitation crab Fake crab is much cheaper

Falsies Large breasts

Clothes of opposite sex Transvestism

It is obvious from this list that by using certain objects we can manipulate our identities and “lie” with signs. �is process, lying with signs, is found not only in our objects but also in other aspects of our everyday life—including the design of objects, facial expres- sions, body language and language itself. A great deal of what we

What Objects Mean58.

think of as “people watching” involves examining di�erent kinds of material culture that people are wearing or using: hats, jewelry, clothes, shoes, handbags, briefcases, and so on. One problem we face in “people watching” is that we have no way of knowing, most of the time, whether people are lying with signs—some blondes are really brune�es, that beautiful blonde you see may really be a man, and that handsome man may be a woman.

Denotation and Connotation

In semiotic theory, denotation and connotation play an important role. Denotation, when dealing with artifacts, involves detailed descriptions and measurements. Connotation, on the other hand, involves the cultural meanings and myths connected to them. Let us consider an important artifact—a Barbie doll. From a denotation perspective, a Barbie doll is 11.5 inches tall and has the following measurements: 5.25 inches by 3 inches by 4 inches. It was invented in 1959. �is material is all factual.

W hen we come to connotations of Barbie dolls then, we enter into the area of what these dolls symbolize about American culture and society, their cultural, symbolic, and mythic signi�cance—ma�ers that are quite controversial. Charles Winick in his book, Desexualiza- tion in American Life, o�ers an interpretation of the psychological and cultural signi�cance of Barbie dolls and other dolls like Barbie. He suggests that Barbie dolls re�ect a basic change in the way children are socialized. Instead of rehearsing for motherhood with baby dolls, li�le girls now learn how to become sexually a�ractive, practice how to have romantic relationships, and learn how to be consumers. If that is the case, Barbie dolls have changed the way girls develop and profoundly a�ected relationships between men and women. We see, then, that simple objects can reveal a great deal about many di�erent aspects of the societies in which they are found and can have a pro- found impact on these societies.

3. Semiotic Approaches to Material Culture 59.

The prototype teen or full-figured doll was introduced in 1957, and Barbie appeared in 1959, followed in two years by Ken, her male consort. Three Barbies have been sold for every Ken. An average of over six million mannequin dolls have been sold each year for a decade. A minimum standard wardrobe for Barbie costs an elegant $588. … What is the effect of these mannequin dolls on their millions of owners between four and twelve? Such girls may be much less able to achieve the emotional preparation for being a wife and mother that they received from baby dolls. Barbie is a sexy teenager. A girl who protects and sees her doll as a mother figure is seeing her mother as a teen- ager, which is certainly confusing. If the youngster identifies herself as the mother, then she is taking care of a child who is already an adolescent….

For the Barbie-weaned girl, a relationship with the opposite sex may not be marvelous and exciting; it could rather be a routinized aspect of our culture’s material assembly line, lacking mystery or momentum because of its predictable outcome. The Barbie girl may learn to expect to be valued because of her ever- increasing wardrobe and ability to manipulate her father and, later, husband into buying clothes and more clothes. During the latency years, she is being introduced to precocious sexuality, voyeurism, fantasies of seduction, and conspicuous consumption.

Charles Winick, Desexualization in American Life (1995:226–227)

Winick’s theory is that Barbie dolls, and other similar kind of dolls, reflect a basic change that took place in the socialization of young girls and led to a major change in the way girls thought about motherhood and their relationships to men. It is the connotations of Barbie dolls that are all important here. Barbie is, then, a signifier of considerable importance, and recognizing the signified aspects of these dolls is what is so revealing.

What Objects Mean60.

Conclusions

A semiotic approach to material culture o�ers us the ability to interpret objects and artifacts and, as the Barthes quote that begins this chapter shows, to explain how these objects tie in to cultural codes and such phenomena as the socialization of children and other social and cultural ma�ers. It is important that we recognize that objects play varying roles in society, and their meaning is not exhausted in their immediate function. As Saussure pointed out, semiotics is the study of signs in society. We must not forget about this important aspect of semiotic theory which suggests that interpreting material objects can teach us a great deal about the societies in which they are found.

This page intentionally left blank

Everyday life is crisscrossed by pa�erns that regulate the behavior of its inhabitants with each other and that, at the same time, relate this behavior to much larger contexts of mean- ing (such as…canons of acceptable etique�e, the moral order and the sanctions of law). �ese reg- ulatory pa�erns are what are commonly called institutions. Everyday life takes place within the enveloping context of an institutional order; it is intersected at di�erent points by speci�c institu- tions that, as it were, reach into it, and its routines themselves consist of institutionalized behavior, that is, of behavior that is pa�erned and regu- lated in established ways. Again, it is important to understand the reciprocal relationship of these two aspects of our experience of society: every- day life can only be understood against the back- ground of the speci�c institutions that penetrate it and of the overall institutional order within which it is located. Conversely, speci�c institu- tions and the institutional order as a whole are real only insofar as they are represented by people and by events that are immediately experienced in everyday life.

Peter L. Berger and Brigi�e Berger, Sociology: A Biographical Approach (1972:10)