Category: Barthes

In Mythologies Barthes proposes a new layer – ‘‘a second-order semiological system’’ – in the use of the concepts developed by Saussure. The sign defined at the language level (the first-order) becomes the signifier of the myth level (the second-order). At the myth level, this signifier is associated to a signified ; their association resulting in a new sign.

By example, at the language level, ‘fox’ (the signifier) represents the concept of a given type of animal (the signified). When we hear ‘fox’, this animal come to mind and there is therefore the presence of a sign. In a story, this sign (‘fox’/concept of a certain animal) may be associated with the concept of ‘ingenious’ ; and this new association creates a sign of second order. This concept would apply to totems since different qualities are inherent to different animals.

In the various parts of the text, Barthes gives plenty of examples coming from pop culture – from the movie Julius Caesar to touristic guides.

I really enjoy Barthe’s first examples using Mankiewicz’s movie. In the movie, Barthes observes that all Romans wear fringes and he argues that those are more than an hair-do. They actually signify that characters wearing them are Romans. The sign of first order becomes the signifier of the second and an association is made between fringes and Romanity. Hence, no confusion may survive in the viewer’s head ! Moreover, everybody in the movie (but Caesar) is in sweat. To Barthes, this sweat represents the conflict each character is battling inside himself.

The second example – soap-powders and detergents – is particularly important since advertising is an area where second-order associations are frequently made by publicists to convince potential customers that their product possess high virtues. Barthes argues that soap companies put emphasis on the idea of whiteness, since this idea is associated to that of purity. Hence, their product may help reach this high quality. In current advertising, we can see soups or sauces or chowders following mom’s recipes ; an association is here made between the mother and the concepts of warmth and comfort. Some soft drinks companies shaped their bottles like the woman’s body ; the specifically-shaped bottle is associated to sexual pleasure and satisfaction.

I believe this concept – second-order semiological system – is at work in most figures of speech. Also, Barthes’s theories are very important in the study and analysis of media where what is said and portrayed is not necessarely what is said and portrayed…

As a famous writer and philosopher, Roland Barthes is also a genius critic and thinker. Barthes is a versatile person, his ideas touched upon a wide range of fields, it’s hard to classify his categories according to the styles of his works. I’d like to talk about my impressions of several arguments of Barthes after reading 《Image Music Text》 and《Mythologies》.

In 《The Death of the Author》, Barthes mentioned that language reigns the work instead of author, language itself is the origin. As a general rule, we take the work as a “product” of the author, because the author turns his/her view into the language to narrate the story, the work should be connected with author’s biography, life and passions, all is connected to the author. Nevertheless, Barthes believed writer’s interiority is less important, the relation between writer and work should be diluted, the modern scriptor is born simultaneously with the text, is not the subject with the book as predicate. Writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original (P7). To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing (P8). And Barthes took one instance—in Surrealism, language desacralizes author’s image. Reader is the destination of a text’s unity which gives writing its future.

In 《From Work to Text》, Barthes summed up the characters of text and the differences between Text and Work, the fifth point of the arguments concerns the importance of writer. Work has to be finished in conformity with the author’s intentions, but the Text is a result of a combinatory systematic, it can be broken and read without the guarantee of the author.

Actually, I’ve been interest in the connection between author and literary works for a long while, but I have an intimate knowledge of the significance of language on literary works in this post-structuralist work of Barthes.

In addition, through the study of several articles in 《Mythologies》, I found Barthes is really talented and creative. He decomposed daily life problems and analysed the essence and connotations with an original view. Those specific problems or cultural materials, which seem very common and regular, could be cut apart to two parts–positive one and negative one— from different points of view. In 《The Romans in Films》, fringes and sweat were designed to express emotional sentiments, but Barthes took it as the most benign symptom, it’s ambiguous, shallow, intermediate and degraded, it’s a kind of sarcasm to regard itself as “nature”; in 《Toys》, Barthes thought toys are socialized, as a microcosm of adult world, they prepare the children to accept adult opinions instead of their own consciousness of inventing other original things, besides, artificial materials of toys instead of wood makes children far from the nature, Barthes thought this phenomenon is pathetic; in 《Soap-powders and Detergents》, through the comparison between the quality and nature of two objects, it turned out they are abrasive, people are always conceived by their own imagination; in 《The Blue Guide》 , Barthes thought it’s just a tool of keeping images of graceless landscapes and inane phrases without the bliss and significance of travel, it turns travel into a method of senseless approach instead of an art or a culture; in 《The Brain of Einstein》, from a different viewpoint, Barthes took Einstein’s death as the condition of myth in the universe signifying Einstein is still the most sublime representation of the human being. Barthes amplified the problem with a lively description and explicated its dual character as his critique, and he exposed how bourgeois values and motivations were asserted through those materials.

In Mythologies, Barthes defines the notion of myth as a second-order sign, building upon Saussure’s semiological system of signifier and signified. In order to avoid confusion and ambiguity, Barthes calls the signifier form whereas the signified is still referred to as concept. When combined together, we have the signification or myth. The reason for the change in terminology is that in the creation of myth, the sign becomes the signifier, which relates to a new signified, forming a completely new “sign”. (refer to diagram on p.81). As a result, a new meaning is created that goes beyond the linguistic meaning. According to Barthes, this serves two purposes: “it points out and it notifies, it makes us understand something and it imposes it on us …” (p.83).

One example cited by Saussure of how the notion of myth functions is through the front cover from Paris Match, showing a young Negro in a French uniform saluting with his eyes uplifted. The signifier (a black soldier saluting) and the signified (the idea of Frenchness, militariness) appear to convey the message that France “is a great Empire, that all her sons, without any colour discrimination, faithfully serve under her flag, …” (p.82). However, this is not explicit from the picture but seems rather to insinuate the myth of extreme fidelity as well as the puissance of France. Thus, the signification is formed from the combination of the signifier and an “imposed” signified. This makes clear the objective of myth outlined above in that it conveys a particular message that is in a way forced upon us. This often happens through mass advertising, propaganda or indoctrination.

I will now comment on “Soap-powders and Detergents” from the text. Barthes compares the advertising of two different types of soap: Omo and Persil in aims of showing how these products are sold based on what they signify. He essentially describes how each type of soap pertains to dirt. On the one hand, chlorinated fluids “kill” dirt and in some cases can burn the object. On the other hand, powders are “separating agents” and gently liberate the dirt from the object. There is a clear opposition in the respective relationships of signifier and signified. One agent is violent whereas the other is less aggressive. Persil Whiteness compares two objects, one of which is whiter than the other in order to appeal to a consumer’s concern for social appearances. Omo includes the consumer in the cleaning process emphasizing him as an “accomplice of a liberation”, removing dirt through a deep and foaming action. Although this analysis seems humorous and completely ridiculous, Barthes shows how consumers are often sold things based on mythical ideas that conceal the actual reality. Both advertisements portray soaps in a laudable way, relating foam to luxury, spirituality and miracle. But the reality is, soap powders involve an “abrasive modification of matter” (85).

The end proves to be ironic since although both products (Persil and Omo) seem to be competing against one another, they are “one and the same” (86) company: Unilever. This example shows how the simple change of a linguistic element (the signified) masks a premeditated motive for social and psychological control.

In Mythology Barthes addresses the myth as a semiological system that uses Saussure´s linguistic system as its base. The sign becomes the signifier which Barthes chooses to call form, and then a different signified is incorporated, this is called the concept. Finally, the result of the union of these two terms is the myth or signification.

Signification is nothing more than a further meaning behind the pure linguistic one. In the text Barthes gives plenty of examples from different kinds of representations. Perhaps, the most useful in terms of literature is this sentence:  my name is lion. This sentence has a simple straight forward meaning that anyone who is familiar with the English language can understand, however placed in a certain context it  can signify something more than the initial meaning . In this case, the sentence was found in a grammar book so the reader understands that the sentence is not only about a creature whose name is “lion” but it is also a grammatical example, the unification of these two notions creates a complete new “global signification”.

The example of the portrayal of Romans in film and especially the segment where Barthes explained what the sweaty foreheads of the Romans meant in one particular film, made me think about the exercise we made previously with Maupassant’s Toine. In the text’s example Barthes says that the sweaty foreheads of everyone but the Caesar are there to symbolize “preoccupation”, moral dilemma. With a little bit of knowledge in history one can easily understand why everyone is so troubled, except for the Caesar, but that is not the point. My point is that what Barthes did here is exactly what we did with Toine, we didn’t focus only on the linguistic meaning of the story we took the signs and gave them further signification. That was how Toine´s fatness and laziness signified a socio-economic system for some or the condition of peasants on XIX century France for others.

These train of thought led me to the following questions: How does one learn to understand these significations? Are significations different for everyone? Are there universal significations? Furthermore, according to Barthes signification should be represented either openly, intellectual and remote or deeply rooted and invented on each occasion. Failing to do so is considered deceitful. So in the case of literature, is the author always aware of the existence of significations in his text, of how they are represented? Are they there on purpose?