Band 2011, Heft 183 - Semiotics and Postmodernity

The contribution describes the differences between modernism and postmodernism as historical periods of the twentieth century and establishes comparable differences between structuralism and post-structuralism as semiotic approaches. Like modernism, structuralism rejects traditional modes of thought, attempts to reconstruct academic disciplines on the basis of a few fundamental principles and strives to work with reconstructed terminologies and axioms. Like post-modernism, post-structuralism is characterized by the necessity of finding ways to continue research based on the fragmentary results left by structuralist projects. In the beginning of the twentieth century, structuralism itself had responded to materialism, atomism, historicism, and naturalism by introducing its own methodology built around the dichotomies of signified and signifier, paradigm and syntagm, synchrony and diachrony, langue and parole. Rather than rejecting this apparatus, post-structuralism explicated the paradoxes behind these dichotomies and tried to overcome them by under-mining the first concept of each pair. This change of perspective foregrounded the material, processual, and intertextual character of signs as well as the sense-producing function of interpretation. Rejecting rigidly fixed methods as well as general theories, and waiving the distinction between object-signs and meta-signs in favor of their joint reflection, post-structuralist semiotics became an alternative to conventional practices of academic sign analysis and now approaches the status of an art.

The aim of this article is to show clearly what the terms “object” and “objectivity” as used over the centuries of modern philosophy — from the time of Descartes down to the time of Wittgenstein and Husserl, i.e., from early modern Rationalism and Empiricism to late modern Phenomenology and Analytic philosophy — have obscured. Objectivity, far from being “the ability to consider or represent facts, information, etc., without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions; impartiality; detachment,” as the OED would have it, is fundamentally the condition of occupying the position of the significate in a triadic relation the foreground element of which is a sign vehicle conveying that significate to or for some third. Simply put, an “object” is a significate, a fact that common usage has come to obscure by sedimenting the influence of modern philosophy's reversal of the meaning of the terms “subjective” and “objective,” where the former has come to signify “private opinion” in contrast to “the way things are.” But this sedimentation to the level of common usage of modern solipsistic epistemology is precisely a usage that semiotic analysis of the linguistic sign overcomes, showing that in the expression “object signified” the qualification “signified” is redundant, for an object is nothing other than something signified! Thus “significate,” a term that modern dictionary makers resist, says clearly what the term “object” says obscurely; and a great deal of mischief in philosophy over the centuries after Descartes has been the result of this distinctively modern obscurantism in philosophy.

The creative imagination changes itself and the world in ways we cannot anticipate. This restless creativity gathers not just refutable facts; it hunts self-transforming revelations, semiotic prizes acclaimed and defended in the realms of inner awareness and political power. So doing, it eludes final description in any one set of signs. This means, I argue here, that sign systems must themselves give chase. Texts of this kind will not be the fixed embalmed arrays of signs and symbols that have sustained our civilizations to date. These texts will be a new kind of artificial life, creative agents that rewrite and re-express themselves on-the-fly, in ways unpredictable by their founding authors. The deconstructive turn in postmodern theory sought interpretive vistas and strange loops to be teased, once upon a time, from each embalmed text. Beyond postmodernity is an aesthetics and a critical theory of empowered texts — sign arrays never quite the same and that, like time itself, sit still for no one. After an initial push by us, they self-evolve. Human sociobiology, asking how culture rewrites the agenda of replicating genes, provides a first glimpse of this new adventure in semiotics and human self-discovery.

Mind has played the starring role in the West's arts, humanities, and sciences, while an embodied notion of oneself, others, and the physical world has been customarily pushed under the rug. In view of radical new theories, methods and techniques that have emerged during the past century and a half, the notion of complementary, sympathetic co-participation , and its accompanying re-enchantment , merits attention. C. S. Peirce is at the crossroads between modernism, enchantment, and misplaced concreteness, on the one hand, and postmodernism and its attendant poststructuralism, on the other. His categories of feeling, sensation, and thought, and his triadic, all-encompassing concept of the sign, can help bring all facets of human creativity, concrete living, and understanding into a proper balance. Three coined terms — homogeny, hierogeny , and heterogeny — serve to elucidate how Peirce's triadic vision can offer a middle path , a way of mediating between antagonistic modes of sensing, living, and thinking. This middle path follows traditional tenets of logic and reason — identity, non-contradiction , and excluded-middle — while at its fringes, it allows deviation — by way of process, inconsistency , and incompleteness (in concert with complementary, sympathetic co-participation ) — from the rigidity that lies therein. Studies of feminist postures and various cultural processes in Latin America bear out the premise that a dose of conformity accompanying a tendency toward resistance can synethnically help keep broad cultural processes on an even keel, balancing mind and body, conflicting theories and methods and modes of living, and styles of reason and unreason in equilibrium.

This paper lists and discusses the fundamental characteristics of tourism, suggesting it is essentially a semiotic activity. In this respect, it deals with works such as Dean MacCannell's The Tourist and Roland Barthes's Empire of Signs . Considering the relationship between tourism and postmodern theory, it contrasts the everyday and the exotic, discusses Baudrillard's theories on simulations and hyperreality as they relate to tourism, and compares modernist and postmodernist perspectives on tourism, critiquing the widely held notion that tourists always seek authenticity and situating tourism within consumer culture.

“Mega” tourist spaces are named as such because of both their physical scale, which encompasses many square miles of land, and their economic scale of billion dollar investments and profit-making. The paper examines two of the most prominent examples — Las Vegas, Nevada, and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Tourist locations seek to differentiate themselves using signs that distinguish one place from another through the symbolic mechanism of theming. This constant differentiation creates a sense of place for locations that, otherwise, offer essentially the same product such as opulent leisure activities and, in the case of Las Vegas, casino gambling. The semiotic process of differentiation through theming façades and décor has become the major tool of marketing to tourists who can always choose from among many alternative destinations. This socio-semiotic perspective stands in contrast to the thesis, often associated with Michel Augé, of uniform homogenization as the aesthetic imperative of contemporary global architectural practice. Examining the distinctive elements of the sign systems in Dubai and Las Vegas, the paper argues that Dubai is organized under the sign of excess, while Las Vegas's semiotic is more complex.

The aim of this paper is to review the main aspects of a major super-paradigm running through spatial studies, a paradigm that I have called “subjectivism” and that may also be called the “conceptual” paradigm, with emphasis placed on postmodern approaches to space; it is opposed to another super-paradigm, the “objectivist” or “materialist” paradigm. While the objectivist paradigm approaches space as a material entity, the conceptual paradigm studies the conceptual world of social subjects, either the meaning that spatial objects have for them or the ideas associated with them. Thus, the conceptual orientation is a semiotic orientation in the wide sense and hence a cultural orientation. Postmodern theorizing is only the latest subjectivist tendency in spatial studies, and there is a whole series of antecedents, which are thus a kind of “pre-postmodern” approaches. In this context, I discuss sociocultural human ecology, environmental psychology, behavioral geography, and humanistic geography from the Anglo-Saxon tradition, and structural anthropology and the semiotics of space from the French tradition. My discussion also covers the postmodern approaches to space in human geography (on the occasion of which I make a distinction between postmodern theorizing and theories of postmodernity), social anthropology, archaeology, and architecture and urban design. Subjectivism and objectivism in spatial studies are opposed and antagonistic paradigms. However, I believe that both of them are partial approaches that need to be articulated into a unified theory. Works of major authors show how this articulation may be realized, something which implies the integration of subjectivism with political economy.

Doors play a complex role in architecture. The very word, at least in Italian and French, illuminates the marking of the deliberate interruption of the act of foundation during the ceremony of the wall's enceinte tracing. The word porta indicates the action of portare . During the tracing of the furrow into the ground, the blade is lifted out of the ground in order to mark the place of the future entrance (or exit) to the city. Another significant role is the marking of the “exit” from this world and it is loaded with intense significance in funereal architecture. But if we look at the semantic “Mirror, mirror on the wall,” it will be easy to discover the other, complementary, and necessary role of the porta . The reading of Aristophanes' Lysistrata shows the explicit “hidden” metaphor of the door, which has been very well christened as the “Origin of the World” in the famous Courbet painting.

Contrary to the early media semioticians' claim that semiotics is a metalanguage of the media and the media are a metalanguage of reality, the present paper gives evidence of how the media represent a world that is itself highly mediated. It is argued that media representations involve self-referential loops in which communication turns out to be communication about communication, reports are reports about reports, and mediations are mediations of mediations. Self-reference in the media is interpreted as a symptom of postmodernity with its tendency towards historical self-reflection in scenarios in which even catastrophic current events are being interpreted as mere media events or even déjà-vu scenarios in a culture in which everything seems to have been said and shown before.

It is difficult to make sense of the notion of postmodernity, because “modernity” is clearly a shifter, in the sense of Jespersen and Jakobson: a term dependent for its meaning on its moment of enunciation. It is true that, from the Middle Ages onwards, several meanings of modernity have received an objectified reference. But in the arts, particularly in the visual arts, this is not true. Modernity has been defined as the ever-new transgression of norms established by the period coming immediately before. In another sense, modernity is connected to urbanity, as it first took place (or at least was observed) in the coffeehouses of the seventeenth century and the boulevards of the nineteenth century. This meant a close connection of individuals having nothing to do with each other from the point of view of family relationships. At the same time as this concept of modernity is overhauled by the perpetual presence of the mobile phones, it is confirmed and extended by the Internet. A third kind of modernity, perhaps closely connected to the second one ( but essentially opposed to the first kind) is that of thinking, as initiated during the Enlightenment, striving to go beyond the divergent doxa of different cultures to some kind of rational understanding. Taking into account the standing of rationality in the history of humanity, postmodern philosophy really amounts to some kind of mobbing of the poorest and most feeble members of the crowd.

This paper provides an overview of semiotic studies about advertising, beginning with the early work done in the 1960s. Advertising communication plays a particular role in semiotic studies in the second half of the twentieth century. Pioneering studies of advertising messages, in particular those of Roland Barthes and Umberto Eco, date to the 1960s and were carried out for the most part using the tools of classical rhetoric. Following a period in which semiotics displayed a relative lack of interest in advertisements, in the 1980s advertising texts were used as examples in applied narratological analysis by Jean-Marie Floch and others. This occurred at the same time as the so-called “passion turn of semiotics,” which stressed that the passions and emotions present in texts are crucial issues in textual semiotics, and it also seemed to offer fresh perspectives for the analysis of advertising communication. The passion turn took account of the evolution of advertising itself, since modern advertising is more and more interested in conveying passions and emotions. The effectiveness of an advert tends to be closely bound up with the presentation of sensations associated with a given product or brand. Recently, semioticians have begun to study more general features of advertising and marketing discourse.

Focusing with special intensity on scenes that feature still photographs in the Italian films Blow-Up, Three Brothers , and The One Hundred Steps , this paper traces a progressive return to the neorealist call for a cinema of truth-telling on the threshold on the new millennium.

“Postmodern” is an elusive concept that embraces a wide range of critical theories and attitudes. To borrow the assessment that the American poet Walt Whitman offered of himself, the concept is large and contains multitudes, various aspects of which often seem to be at odds with one another. Postmodern art likewise contains multitudes; indeed, it would seem that one of postmodern art's chief characteristics is the comfortable integration of apparently contradictory stimuli that, importantly, are sited less in the “work” itself than in the eye/ear/mind of the beholder. Grounded on the idea that postmodern music is defined not by composers but by listeners, this essay challenges musicological writing that since the early 1990s has sought both to illuminate an ideology of postmodernism and to identify elements of a postmodernist style. In particular, it counters the much-repeated statement that the first, and perhaps quintessential, example of musical postmodernism is the eclectic yet thoroughly linear and discursive 1972 Third String Quartet of the late American composer George Rochberg; the essay suggests that, if a prototype of the postmodern in music must be named, a better candidate would be Rochberg's palimpsest-like 1965 Music for the Magic Theater.

Strauss's opera Capriccio of 1942 may be viewed as pure escapism, a fantasy about the question of the primacy of words or music in opera, set in eighteenth-century France. It is, however, in several ways a denial of time: dramatic time, in that it has no plot or denouement; historic time, in that it ignores the crisis of war and violence contemporary with its performance; cultural time, in that its musical style is self-consciously reactionary and takes no account of twentieth-century developments. It is more than mere escapism, however. It represents an extreme form of the flight from the terror of time that marks idealist philosophy, Enlightenment rationalism, and Romantic aesthetics. On a trivial level, this flight may be connected with the “aesthetic politics” of 1930s Germany; but modern thought — for example, that of Habermas — has not broken free from the rationalist flight from time, and we must finally concede that Capriccio is supported by Romantic aesthetics, no less than the masterpieces of the Western tradition. If we are resolute it condemning it, we must also reject the whole conception of the masterpiece.

Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan (Faisalabad, 1948–London, 1997) was a foremost singer of qawwâlî . This Muslim devotional music, which is prominent in South Asia, has been developed since the fourteenth century by the Sufi circles of the Chishti brotherhood in order to preach and communicate the teachings of the saints. Inspired by mystic spirituality, Nusrat's music travelled through the East and the West, absorbing some of the features of the musical cultures with which it came in contact. It also travelled through time, transforming the traditional style of the ancient chanted poetry into new forms of musical expression. Nusrat's life and his artistic vicissitudes show the postmodern destiny of qawwâlî as a religious kind of music that apparently went through a process of desacralization and profanation as a result of multiple interpretations by different audiences. In order to discern the conditions of significance, semiotics reconstructs the relation between text and context of interpretation on the ground of structural pertinences. In this way, semiotics offers an analytical standpoint alternative to the postmodernist approach to postmodern cultural phenomena. By surveying the forms of listening that are structurally provided by the textual discourse, semiotics investigates the destiny of the musical and religious meanings of qawwâlî in relation to the process of intercultural translation.

Starting from defining the terms “linguistics,” “applied linguistics” (AL), and “postmodern,” I will show which different interpretations can be attributed to the compound expression “postmodern applied linguistics”: “applied linguistics today,” “applied linguistics from a plural(istic), anti-essentialist, antiuniversalistic, etc., point of view,” “explicit” versus “implicit postmodern AL,” etc. The discussion refers to AL as a “plural whole,” but also to a few of subsdisciplines such as translation studies, intercultural communication, gender linguistics, technical communication, educational linguistics, critical applied linguistics, and language policy. The paper will also discuss the role of a postmodern theory of science as a premise for theories in every scientific discipline. I will plead for a concept of plural theories that could often take more into account the complexity of “reality” than strictly monistic theories. Since AL should be the discipline that mediates between linguists and non-linguists, I will finally refer to the language awareness of lay people, which is still under the almost exclusive influence of “modern” rather than “postmodern” models of reasoning.

Since the late 1980s, the affinity between irony and postmodernity has been addressed in several studies that apply semiotic approaches to cultural postmodernity generally and to postmodern literature specifically. The following article contributes to the branch of semiotics of postmodern literature by proposing the notion of bi-paradigmatic irony as a special postmodern sign. Whereas mono-paradigmatic irony (as exemplified in Umberto Eco's notion of postmodern irony in his Postscript to “The Name of the Rose” ) establishes its ironic contrast within the same paradigm, in bi-paradigmatic irony, said and meant meanings belong to two different paradigms. On the basis of two semiotic paradigmatic perspectives (diachrony, synchrony) and three semiotic paradigmatic ideologies (communicationism, poststructuralism, structuralism), six types of bi-paradigmatic irony are possible. Two of the six types of postmodern irony are applied to theoretical-literary texts by Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes ( poststructuralist irony targeting communicationism) as well as to literary texts by the Austrian writers Christoph Ransmayr and Hans Carl Artmann (structuralist irony targeting communicationism).