Barthes "Myth Today"
Provider: Kate
Liu /¼B¬ö¶²
-from Barthes, Roland. Mythologies (Tony
McNeill's Introduction).
Trans. Annette Lavers. NY: Hill and Wang, 1972.
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...
|