Dr.

Richard Clarke LITS3304 Notes 04B

1 ROLAND BARTHES MYTH TODAY

In this essay drawn from his book entitled Mythologies, Rola nd B arthe s s goa l is to ef fect a dialec tical (163) fusion of semiology (what more recent Saussureans would call Semiotics) and the ideological criticism practised by Marxists. His goal is to demonstrate the indispensability of an understanding of Saussure s notion of the sign to any act of interpretation, including that performed by Marxists, a school of though t very mu ch situate d within the m imetic o r realist para digm of interpre tation. In their de sire to understand the connection between any given social object and history, Marxists must, given Saussure s demolition of referential models of the sign, rethink their own simplistic and flawed notions of the relationsh ip betwee n the sign and the R eal. In a series of essa ys for which Myth To day acts as som ething of a theoretica l statem ent, Barthes applies Saussure's model of the sign to a wide variety of French cultural products (e.g. wrestling, soap-p owder, a n adver tiseme nt for cars , an exhib ition on the e volution of m ankind ) in an effo rt to understand their ideological function in perpetuating the economic and political hegemony of the bourge oisie. Barth es des cribes the function o f ideology in this r espec t as one o f transfo rming the "reality of the world into an image of the world, History into Nature" (154) and making "contingency appear eternal" ( Mythologies 155): What the world supplies to myth is an historical reality, defined . . . by the way in which me n hav e pro duc ed or used it; and wha t myth gives in retu rn is a natu ral im age of this reality. (Mythologies 155) Ideology functions, in other words, to naturalise what is in fact humanly constructed. (Human s have long used the adjective natural to justify their own fabrications.) By myths, Barthes intends all the interp retat ions (thes e m ay tak e sev eral fo rm s: na rrativ es, p icture s [the ms elves narra tives in that e ach is worth, as they say, a thousand words], etc.) which humans in general and the Bourgeoisie in particular impose upon events that are in and of themselves neutral in an effort to bolster their own social dom inance. B y mytholog y, Barthes mea ns both the proc ess by wh ich these neutral eve nts are m ade to con note som ethin g beyo nd th eir ov ert m ean ing an d the proc ess of stu dying a ll such interp retat ions in such a way as to underscore their ideological functions. Barthes sum mar ises Sa ussure s position th at any sign c onsists o f a signifier an d a signified . However, where Saussure as a linguist is interested purely in verbal signs, Barthes is interested in other kinds of signs (e.g. the interpretations or constructions imposed upo n flowers, clothes, cars, etc.). For a semiotician, any object becomes a sign once it is subject to interpretation. For Barthes, any such object has two levels of signification or, as Bathes puts it, in myth there are two semiological systems (165). At the first level, the sign rose consists of a signifier (r-o-s-e) attached to the mental concept of a particular kind of flo wer (the s ignified). Th e sign rose produc ed there by becom es, at the s econd level, a signifier to which a particular signified (passion) has come by convention to be attached. The sign produced thereby is the result of the process which Barthes terms signification (166). Roses are often used to signify (164) someone s passion. In and of itself, that is, a rose is just a rose but humans have come to attach a particular s ignification to a n inheren tly insignificant flow er (they bec ome passion ified roses [164]). Hen ce, th e follo wing sch em a wh ich I h ave c han ged slight ly from Barth es s m ode l: Sr (r-o-s-e) --Sd (flower called a rose)

Sr' (rose) --Sd' (passion) Myth/Connotation/Signification

Language-Object/Denotation/Meaning

In other words, a given flower becomes the paro le of a lo ver w ho dr aws upon an inh erited langu e wh ich is comprised of the different significations attached to various flowers (other flowers may signify death, for exa mp le). T his is h ow a sm all por tion o f the la ngu e of flo wer s ymb olism mig ht ap pea r sch em atica lly (again adapted from B arthes s model):

Dr. Richard Clarke LITS3304 Notes 04B

2 Lily (Sr) ------------------Death

Rose (Sr) ---------------Passion (Sd)

"`

"`

etc.

Barthes s point is that there has evolved an entire ideology of love involving a series of practices and a whole host of objects loaded with particular significances: for example, sending one s loved one flowers as a sign of o ne s love. Altho ugh this is m erely one c ulture s interpre tation of wh at it mea ns to be in love, a beloved immersed in this ideology might be forgiven for not believing that she were loved by her would-be lover if he failed to send her the required flowers. Barthes terms the first level of signification a linguistic system (165), the language (or the modes of representation which are assimilated to it (165) or, more precisely, the language-object (165) bec aus e it is the langu age whic h m yth ge ts ho ld of in orde r to bu ild its ow n sys tem (165 ). Sign ifican tly, Barthes argues that the semiologist is entitled to treat in the same way writing and pictures (165). They are both signs (165) in that they constitute, one just as much as the other, a language-object (165). He term s the sec ond level, w hat h e des cribe s as the myth itself (165 ), the me talan gua ge (165 ) bec aus e it is a seco nd langu age, in wh ich one s peak s abou t the first (165). Barthes draws a distinction between the meaning (166) produced by the first level of signification and that produced by the second order: the signification (166). Hence, the distinction which he draws between the meaning of the picture of a negro soldier saluting the French flag and what it signifies to me: that France is a great Empire, that all her sons, without any colour discrimination, faithfully serve under her flag, and that there is no better answer to the detractors of an alleged colonialism than the zeal show by this Negro in serving his socalled oppressors. (my emphasis; 166) To us e Barthe s s exam ple, Sr (the photograph itself) --Sd (negro soldier saluting French flag)

Sr (negro soldier saluting French flag) --Sd (negro soldier s loyalty qua justification for French imperialism and colonialism)

In other words, while the meaning (denotation) of the photograph is simply a negro soldier saluting the Fren ch fla g, its id eolog ical signification (conno tation) is m uch m ore im portant: this picture atte mpts to justify French imperialism and colonialism. That is, if a negro soldier can salute the flag in an act of adm iration , can colon ialism be as oppr ess ive an exer cise as its critics claim ?