Something kind of strange happened…I really liked Barthes. I think I must have read something by him before, or maybe I just heard about the structuralist theory, because his writing sounded familiar, and it was not too difficult to grasp what he was trying to say. Language is symbols which represent real life, but real life is not inherently a part of the symbol. This arbitrariness (is that a word?) of symbols is how language is used to describe things that aren’t in real life. That’s why sarcasm is possible, and puns and metaphors…and myths.
Barthes uses myths to illustrate how symbols can come to communicate something other than their precise translation: how a picture can be more than ink that looks like a person doing something. Symbols can recommend something without saying it outright, and that’s what makes them so powerful. We think that a symbol represents one real life thing, and only that thing, without any meanings hidden underneath. So any meaning we derive seems to come directly from that real life thing. The meaning seems to be inherent in the symbol, so we take it to be truth. We can’t see the interferences from the communicator. Words can be twisted to show anything, without even directly expressing an opinion. It is possible to state a fact in a way that recommends an opinion, while giving it the appearance of objective truth. The same goes for photography. It looks like someone just recorded real life. No interference. But the photographer can leave out things, or can frame something in a certain context so that they are hiding propaganda behind real life things. Essentially, language creates real life by hiding meaning in things which have no inherent meaning.
Foucault latches on to this concept of language making real life instead of reflecting it…especially when he talks about discipline. You can make someone believe something is right, you can essentially make people police themselves, by framing reality in a certain way through language. You can fill symbols with meaning that isn’t there, but feels natural because it seems inherent in the symbol. Punishment might discourage an action by influencing people to avoid certain cause/effect situations, but it can never make them believe that an action is wrong or right. It can’t change their mind like language can. This is what I read into it after reading Barthes, but keep in mind this meaning is not inherent in Foucault’s writing.
So the question is, do we buy it? I like to believe that when I interpret a photograph or a fact to form an opinion, it's me who is interpreting it. Is it all in the framing, or can we see a reality that isn't masked by symbols?
I agree about Barthes, it was probably the first reading we've had where I said, "Yeah, I think I would have read that for fun!"
ReplyDeleteI think that our interpretation of symbols is a combination of framing from the message sender and our own personal experience brought into it. Of course the message sender has control because s/he is choosing which symbols to send, knowing that certain symbols hold certain meanings. I think the weight of this control depends on how well the sender knows the receiver. But on the other hand, no sender can entirely control how a reciever will percieve the symbols. And of course, behind every message, we see some of the sender's intent and emotions, so that is a level of reality.
Good points!