Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler

Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler
world which was reported by Jourard in the 1960s is noticeably different now. Saussure, of course,
focused on sychronic analysis and saw the development of a language as a series of synchronic
states. Similarly, Roman Jakobson and his colleague Yuri Tynyanov saw the history of literature as a
hierarchical system in which at any point certain forms and genres were dominant and others were
subordinate. When dominant forms became stale, sub-genres took over their functions. Historical
change was a matter of shifting relations within the system (Eagleton 1983, 111). Unlike Saussure,
the French historian of ideas Michel Foucault focused not on the 'language system' as a
homogeneous whole but on specific 'discourses' and 'discursive practices'. Each historical period has
its own épistème - a set of relations uniting the various discursive practices which shape its
epistemologies. For Foucault, specific discourses such as those of science, law, government and
medicine are systems of representational codes for constructing and maintaining particular forms of
reality within the ontological domain (or topic) defined as relevant to their concerns. A particular
'discursive formation' is dominant in specific historical and socio-cultural contexts and maintains its
own 'regime of truth'. A range of discursive positions is available at any given time, reflecting many
determinants (economic, political, sexual etc.). Foucault focused on power relations, noting that within
such contexts, the discourses and signifiers of some interpretative communities are privileged and
dominant whilst others are marginalized. The non-employment of dominant codes is a mark of those
who are 'outsiders' - a category which includes both foreigners from other cultures and those who are
marginalized within a culture. On the other hand people who feel marginalized are often very wellattuned
to analogue nuances within dominant social codes - if you want to codify stereotypical
straight male behaviour try asking a gay man to describe it.
We learn to read the world in terms of the codes and conventions which are dominant within the
specific socio-cultural contexts and roles within which we are socialized. In the process of adopting a
'way of seeing' (to use John Berger's phrase), we also adopt an 'identity'. The most important
constancy in our understanding of reality is our sense of who we are as an individual. Our sense of
self as a constancy is a social construction which is 'over-determined' by a host of interacting codes
within our culture (Berger & Luckmann 1967; Burr 1995). 'Roles, conventions, attitudes, language - to
varying degrees these are internalized in order to be repeated, and through the constancies of
repetition a consistent locus gradually emerges: the self. Although never fully determined by these
internalizations, the self would be entirely undetermined without them' (Nichols 1981, 30). When we
first encounter the notion that the self is a social construction we are likely to find it counter-intuitive.
We usually take for granted our status as autonomous individuals with unique 'personalities'. We will
return later to the notion of our 'positioning' as 'subjects'. For the moment, we will note simply that
'society depends upon the fact that its members grant its founding fictions, myths or codes a takenfor-granted
status' (Nichols 1981, 30). Culturally-variable perceptual codes are typically inexplicit, and
we are not normally conscious of the roles which they play. To users of the dominant, most
widespread codes, meanings generated within such codes tend to appear 'obvious' and 'natural'.
Stuart Hall comments:
Certain codes may... be so widely distributed in a specific language community or culture, and
be learned at so early an age, that they appear not to be constructed - the effect of an
articulation between sign and referent - but to be 'naturally' given. Simple visual signs appear
to have achieved a 'near-universality' in this sense: though evidence remains that even
apparently 'natural' visual codes are culture-specific. However, this does not mean that no
codes have intervened; rather, that the codes have been profoundly naturalised. (Hall 1980,
132)