Barthes "Myth Today"
-from
Barthes, Roland. Mythologies (Tony McNeill's Introduction).
Trans. Annette Lavers. NY: Hill and Wang, 1972.
Provider:
Kate Liu / 劉紀雯
myth:
a type of speech; a system of communication(109), a mode of
signification,
--a second-order semiological system (111)
Semiology distinguished from Formalism (112)
Semiology is a science of forms, since it studies
significations apart from their content. "a little formalism turns
one away from History, but that a lot brings one back to it."
Three terms: signifier, signified and sign (form, meaning and
signification)--the signifier is empty, the sign is full (113)
We must here be on our guard, for despite common parlance
which simply says that the signifier expresses the signified, we are
dealing, in any semiological system, not with two, but with three
different terms.
rose as a sign ...on the plane of experience I
cannot dissociate the roses from the message they carry, as to say
that on the plane of analysis I cannot confuse the roses as
signifier and the roses as sign.
e.g. black pebble as a signifier can signify
in several ways (death sentence, etc)
signifier/signified/sign: signifier empty, sign full
Freud--the manifest meaning of behavior---its latent or real meaning
dream as a sign
The formation of myth The signifier of myth presents
itself in an ambiguous way: it is at the same time meaning and form,
full on one side and empty on the other. As meaning, the
signifier already postulates a reading...it has a sensory
reality...As total of linguistic signs, the meaning of the myth has
its own value, it belongs to a history, that of the lion or that of
the Negro: in the meaning, a signification is already built, and
could very well be sufficient if myth did not take hold of it and
did not turn it suddenly into an empty, parasitical form.
- When it becomes form, the meaning
leaves its contingency behind; it empties
itself, it becomes impoverished, history evaporates,
only the letter remains.--regression from meaning to
form, from the linguistic sign to the mythical
signifier. ...the form does not suppress the
meaning, it only impoverishes it, it puts it at a
distance...
|
1. Signifier |
2. Signified |
|
3. Sign
I. SIGNIFIER |
II.
SIGNIFIED |
III. SIGNS |
|
* A signified can have several
signifiers--true for linguistics, psychoanalysis, and myth.
* myth hides nothing: its function is to distort, not to make
disappear
*Myth has an imperative, buttonholing character: ...it is I whom it
has come to seek. ...
- For this interpellant speech is at the
same time a frozen speech: at the moment of reaching
me, it suspends itself, turns away and assumes the
look of a generality; it stiffens, it makes itself
looks natural and innocent
* its motivation The mythical
signification...is never arbitrary; it is always in
part motivated, and unavoidably contains some
analogy.
How to decipher myth
- If I focus on an empty signifier, I let
the concept fill the form of the myth without ambiguity, and I
find myself before a simple system, where the signification
becomes literal again: the Negro who salutes is an example of
French imperiality, he is a symbol for it. This type of focusing
is ..that of the producer of myths...
- If I focus on a full signifier, in
which I clearly distinguish the meaning and the form, and
consequently the distortion which the one imposes on the other,
I undo the signification of the myth, and I receive the latter
as a imposture: the saluting Negro becomes the alibi of French
imperiality.
- Finally, if I focus on the mythical
signifier as on an inextricable whole made of meaning and form,
I receive an ambiguous signification...I become a reader of
myths. The saluting Negro is no longer an example or a symbol,
still less an alibi: he is the very presence of French
imperiality.
[1. producer of advertisement;
2. critic
3. reader of advertisement]
- The first two types
of focusing are static, analytical; they destroy the
myth, either by making its intention obvious, or by
unmasking it: the former is cynical, the latter
demystifying. The third type of focusing is dynamic,
it consumes the myth according to the very ends
built into its structure: the reader lives the myth
as a story at once true and unreal.
...[myth] transforms history into Nature....for the myth
reader...everything happens as if the picture naturally conjured up
the concept, as if the signifier gave a foundation to the
signified...
|