The social semiotic context of the fashion show

1 A theoretical approach to social semiotics

Social semiotics is the semiotics of situations and of social interactions (Landowski 1989: 22). Social practices, arrangements, and institutions with certain characteristics, such as family, religion, education, economy, law, art, and politics, are among the specific areas under examination in social semiotics. These institutions are relatively autonomous structures because a particular society uses special transactional forms in their context. On the other hand, these institutions are in solidarity with each other to the extent that they are related to the same structure. All of them are among the imperatives of being social and of living together, and the individuals produce meaningful acts within those values. Briefly, social semiotics, which evaluates signification in the process of social deeds, is a field formed at the intersection of sociology and semiotics.

Semiotics is an analytical approach to interpreting the facts and incidents related to societies and cultures. For that reason, it is possible to define the approach as an art of signification of signs produced by people in different societies (Kalelioğlu 2018a: xv). In social semiotics, the analysis of form and content is in focus when evaluating the function and meaning of the signs used in the society. Both the society and the signs are involved in an interaction and affect each other. Social semiotics provides a systematic approach to the researcher in revealing the interaction, signification of signs, and social discourses. A method and a metalanguage are required to comprehend the society and to make sense of the discourses produced in its social spaces. In this respect, social semiotics has an idiosyncratic language and discourse to explain various social practices.

Different researchers define social semiotics, one of the subfields of semiotics, by highlighting its various aspects. Andrea Semprini asserts the close affinity of social semiotics and objects: social semiotics has the basic function of describing situations and the relations between members of society as an object. Saussure addresses the life of linguistic signs within social life, which shows that social semiotics is concerned with the interpretation of social signs (Semprini 1995: 164). As can be understood from Semprini’s definition, social semiotics is an analytical approach dealing with the social sides of objects and the discursive aspects of those objects. According to Landowski, the investigation field of social semiotics involves socialized practices, institutions, and regulations designated by signs (Landowski 1989: 15). The arrangement of discourse, the placement of discursive elements, and the involvement of the subject of enunciation in discourse are critical. The produced discourse participates in social perspective as practice. In Semprini’s work, “practice” is the key concept that creates the relationship between social appearance and semiotic appearance.

Social semiotics provides a symbolic resilience to social interaction that can be interpreted. Social discourse is a critical situation for an influential interaction. All forms of life, social practices, and tensions are among the areas of social semiotics which are worth analyzing. Examining and interpreting the interaction in discourse, which is the subject of semiotic analysis, is vital for social semiotics. Discourse should not be thought of only in linguistic terms. Instead, it is possible to accept any language that society uses in expressing itself as discourse. Meaningful use of the human body – clothing, demeanor, manner of speaking, hair and beard growth – is also a form of expression or discourse. It can be said that almost all similar attitudes or acts realized by individuals or societies in different times and places bears upon the field of social semiotics. All kinds of signs (language) are used to influence the receiver in a certain society. The effect of discourse, the impact on the recipient through actions, and the required situational change are also the subjects in discourse. The interaction has features to address the personality of social subjects. In this respect, Eric Landowski describes social semiotics as the study of signs used in social interaction and taking the responsibility for the discourses generated in a sociocultural context (1989: 9). Saussure addresses the life of linguistic signs in social life. In other words, social semiotics is concerned with the signification of social signs produced by communities.

Discourse in interaction can be handled in semiotic and tensive ways. First, discourse functions as seme and value, and second, it is used in communication as tensive and language skills. In the context of interaction, the correlation and comparison of the basic system with the performative, discursive, and enunciative systems is carried out by social semiotics (Boutaud 2004: 96), which can be observed in the rhythm and speed of used language. A certain impact is provided by the coexistence of semiotic elements in the language used. Tensive semiotics and interpretive semantics complement each other in the analysis of the rhythm. Tensive semiotics and semiotics of perception are also areas that can be used to examine interaction. Each sign – macro sign – regulates tensive games and thus differs from the others. Macro signs well up with the interrelation and association of values and semes in different planes with their various levels. Those assertions can be kinds of approaches that may bring new expansions to social semiotics.

Social semiotics interprets the universe formed by social actants (individual, community, etc.), the private situations of these actants, and the different types of relationships they establish. In doing so, it considers three important aspects, that is to say, there are three areas to be explored in social semiotics: the object to be analyzed, the subject using the object, and the necessary text or discourse for the representation of the object.

2 Analysis

Let’s go through how social semiotics is used to examine haute couture and the fashion show. The social space and collective subject, who puts umpteen acts into practice in that space, form the subjects of social semiotics. The garments, made by the art of haute couture, are in the field of interest of social semiotics as voguish and aesthetic objects. In that case, the way the object is presented, the space where the object is presented, the subject of enunciation, and the receiver of the enunciated utterance are vital. In other words, the utterance (demonstration of the garments or fashion show) is as critical as the discourse (garment).

The demonstration of the garments is at the center of the event. A fashion show or demonstration is a discourse which can be divided into segments, and the recipient is the person who can be affected by the discourse. Discourse in language consists of discursive elements and takes place with those elements. In this context, it can be assumed that social discourse, which is the subject of social semiotics, is realized through the discursive elements. The fashion show (discourse) comprises various objects (each piece of garment used in the show functions as a discursive element) that conjures up the words, which build sentences or sememes that generate semes. There is more than one garment representation in a fashion show. That is, there is a kind of collection throughout the show. Various garments in the same collection offer alternatives to the receiver (client). We do not have to compare everything to a sentence, but there is a similar situation in the relationships between words and sentences. For instance, it is not acceptable to arbitrarily put the words where we want in a sentence. The same is also true for a fashion show. It is not convenient to put underwear together with coats or put beachwear together with winter clothes, which can be considered as inconsistency. In the same way as in narrative discourse, the concepts of cohesion and coherence can also be mentioned in social discourse (Günay 2017: 75–109, 120–126).

If the fashion show is a form of communication, the recipient needs to respond during the presentation of the garments for the realization of the communication. Temporary communication is in the form of applauding the activity on the podium or not at that moment. The main reaction is to purchase one or more presented garments from the show. In this case, the receiver has multiple options. The presented garment is the value object created by the subject of enunciation (fashion designer), that is, the object is a discursive element (utterance) of the subject of enunciation. Or it is also possible to think that each garment is one of the utterances (discursive elements) that constructs the fashion show (discourse). These discursive elements (utterances) come together to form a coherent discourse. Perhaps the task of the receiver is to disrupt the consistency of the garments by purchasing one or more of them from the collection. Depending on the point of view, the act of the receiver can be seen as a negative action or perhaps an expected act (positive) in reality. The aim of the fashion designer, in fact, is to sell the haute couture garments they produced at a premium price. In the specified space, the receiver has the desire to compete with others to get the garment. In this case, the receiver is an active part of the discourse. Nowadays, there is almost no direct sale to the receiver in a fashion show. However, the basis of the show is to sell the garments as in sales by auction. The garments in the show are presented by the models. Then one of the receivers buys the garment via auction.

The conflict or the contract is realized toward the end of the verbal phase in political events. It is possible to mention a conflict in the process of exchanging the same value object between the subject and the anti-subject throughout the fashion show narrative. The object is the presented garment, and the subject is the receiver in the show. The conflict is among the receivers (clients) who struggle to buy the garment offered on the stage. In a sense, the performance stage in Greimas’s actantial schema is realized with various actions in different forms.

Every garment worn by the model is an utterance of the subject of enunciation (fashion designer). The fashion show is a discourse. In other words, the utterance of the subject of enunciation is produced in a real context. At this stage, the model who presents the garment is the subject of enunciated utterance as a narrator. In a way, the subject of enunciated utterance (the model) is the voice of the subject of enunciation (fashion designer) in the discourse (fashion show), as represented in Table 1.

The situation of the model is quite different because the model’s body turns into a subject of the presentation during the show. As the model sometimes becomes prominent, the model’s task is to be very careful to attract the attention to the garment being worn rather than to themself. Various limes of signification illuminate each other. The discourse (fashion show) in which the model takes part is an abundantly expressive discourse. The model is responsible for the presentation of the garment without prioritizing themself in the artificially formed space.

Much can be said about the client. On the one hand, the customer who is the receiver of the utterance keeps in contact with the sender (fashion designer). On the other hand, the client tries to practice strategies in relation to other clients to acquire the value object (garment). The customer who manages to purchase the garment only performs the act within the discourse. That is, the client functions both as a receiver and a subject of utterance (Legris-Desportes 2011). In this case, the customer specifies the communication process throughout the fashion show.

There are many discourse options in a fashion show. Social semiotics is a theoretical movement that performs content analysis while describing the social field. Social semiotics prepares the system of values that first forms the content plane (plan du contenu) and then the expression plane. There is a plastic level (niveau plastique) that provides the expression plane of values (plan de l’expression). The plastic sign is examined in terms of intensity or tensity in the area of plastic (plastique). The tensive relation (tensivité) takes place in the dynamic dimension of discourse at the center of the plastic level (Greimas 1984: 20).

Semiotics addresses social life, since signs cannot be separated from social life. Structural semiotics, as a theory, should perceive the meaning. Every meaningful structure in social life can form the subject of semiotics. However, social semiotics becomes involved when it comes to social space, philosophical space, or cultural space. The space of political discourse and the space of the fashion show are different from each other.

Artistic garments (objects) prepared by fashion designers are presented within the collection of haute couture. This collection corresponds with the discourse. Social semioticians evaluate all sorts of arrangements as a text in a broad sense (Chantraine 2019). As summarized in Table 2, the garment functions as an object while the garment show corresponds to discourse. The object (element of discourse) gains its meaning in discourse (garment/fashion show), and the fashion designer can be considered as a subject. Here, the subject (fashion designer) uses the voice (model) while conveying the discourse (fashion show) to the receiver (client). In that case, every model in the garment parade, in a way, is the voice of the author’s discourse.

Discursive competence determines the knowledge that the subject of enunciation (fashion designer) forms in the field and the practices engaged in before encountering the clients. Deconstruction, reconstruction, and various analyses are done by the fashion designer at the discursive competence stage. The stage in which each piece of the garment (discursive element) presented as a whole (discourse) is the performance stage. Accordingly, the first dimension is the competence dimension, which is knowledge-centered, and the second dimension is the performative dimension, which is action-oriented. In the first dimension, the knowledge of the subject is missing, whereas in the second dimension the knowledge of the sender is missing (Aslan Karakul 2014). Discursive competence becomes an act in interaction, and this act occurs depending on the description of the conditions.

Dressing, which especially depends on the garments prepared by a fashion designer, is also accepted as a kind of ideological approach. Dressing has functions that structure the common values of society through institutions and different classifications, as well as having semiotic dimensions that appear as meaningful practices via communication systems (Greimas 1976). Social discourse, which is dependent on the superstructure, is determined with its higher position and at the last stage and historicity (Greimas and Courtés 1986: 207). This overdetermination becomes visible with the emergence of different forms of discursive or institutional expression. Social semiotics analyzes the theoretical and ideological discourses, which concern social institutions and regulations within sociolinguistics. Ideology can be perceived in philosophical, religious, and institutional discursive structures (Greimas and Courtés 1979). Ideology forms the system of values which is interpreted by various social groups. It deals with the studies of recognition of ideology in discourse and semiotic construction of discourse.

Haute couture garment presentation, which is exhibited in a certain space and made for a limited number of clients, is not random and ordinary. The garment reveals itself in the community. The client who purchases the haute couture garment exists as a subject in the community. This new subject has different goals in the society in which they live. The subject has a strong desire to assert their own person in society. This can be done with a special garment, an expensive haute couture product. Dressing manifests itself in two ways in society. The first is in the way that ordinary people use casual clothes for their needs; the second is in the way that some people try to show their wealth through specially designed garments.

Ordinary people prefer clothes that do not contradict the norms of the society they live in. However, wealthy people choose expensive and perhaps striking clothes to show their social layer. Those two different situations are evaluated within the scope of the seriousness/unseriousness contrast, as in Figure 1. The beginning of being wealthy starts with luxurious and irresponsible way of clothing oneself. In the semiotic square, they are presented as unserious people. Ordinary people generally wear casual and comfortable clothes and are seldom concerned about the brand or the designer who produced the clothes. They are presented as serious people in the semiotic square in Figure 1.

Figure 1:

Social aspects of dressing.

Communities may not always develop through the efforts of serious or calm people. However, unserious people can help to contribute to the development of different commercial segments by spending more money than serious people. Bernard Mandaville compares two different beehives in his famous story “The Fable of the Bees.” The bees in one of the hives conduct an ordinary and submissive life, and the population of this hive has all the values for being helpful citizens for their community. The other bees in another hive lead an extravagant, wasteful, and inattentive life. They are materialistic and pleasure-seeking and do not care about anything related to others. However, from the perspective of an economist, while the serious “good” population struggles with poverty and unemployment in a challenging situation, the unserious “bad” one grows with extremely supportive activities in their hive. Personal extravagance inspires the necessary economic productivity for development (Rescher 2019: 187). Personally degenerating destructive consumption provides a socially beneficial level of production.

In clothing, there is a desire to protect the body against nature and hide the body from others in society. However, over time, the style of clothing reflects various ideological and connotative meanings, as illustrated in Figure 2. For instance, using a certain brand of the garment may have the function of self-protection against nature, but this function remains almost an accessory among other things. An expensive and famous scarf may not protect its owner, but the owner should protect the scarf because of its premium price, which determines the owner’s social layer. It is a kind of hedonism that gives enjoyment to people in their environment.

Figure 2:

Social layers and dressing.

It is also possible to consider the garments in different codes such as legal/illegal in law, correct/incorrect in science, and moneyed/free of charge in economy. In a fashion show, it seems that the garment presented on the podium does not fit the body sizes of the women and men in the audiences. However, someone who purchases and puts on the garment presented by the model has a subconscious desire to shape and regulate her body according to the model’s build as well. In a way, the person wearing the clothing presented in the show aims to show their superior position in society.

The garments purchased at the fashion show are capable of revealing the positional, cultural, and situational identity of individuals. The clients try to obey the rules of the community according to their position in it. In terms of cultural identity, the clients pay attention to complying with the cultural criteria of the society. They try to satisfy their longing for their culture in that way. From a situational point of view, the clients prefer garments that are suitable for their location. Finally, they have to purchase garments that fit their body size. Since their bodies are not like those of the models in the show, the garments the clients choose should be suitable for their own size and build.

3 Conclusion

A consumer society becomes perceptible with its used objects, generated discourses, specific practices, and distinct semiotic signs, which are difficult to characterize. The clients who watch or follow fashion shows contribute to the improvement of fashion by providing economic support. Social semiotics, which examines the subject of enunciation that interacts with social culture and values, examines the production rules of meaning in a particular culture and the formation of discourses. This approach tries to interpret the social message constructed in the context of subject, space, and discourse. Moreover, semiotics, especially, social semiotics interprets the meaning of human existence as a social being, the meaning of life, the meaning of humanity, the meaning of other, and the like. Each response allows us to better understand societies, the discourses they produce, the objects they use, the relationships between the subjects, and the space.