Semiotic and Marxist Theories: An Application Prepared by Ernest Francis Jones 14 November 2016 Introduction Page 3 An Overview Page 3 Semiotics and its Application by Media Organizations Page 5 Semiotics and its Application in the U.S. Agricultural Sector Page 7 Marxist Theory, Ideology and Stereotypes Applied to U.S. Agriculture Page 7 Conclusion Page 10 Sources Consulted Page 11 2 Introduction The aim of this text is to illustrate how the use of images and or text, within a semiotic context, are employed by media organizations to convey meaning, often extending beyond the literal significance to which a photo or text refers. Additionally, I will also elucidate how images are used to influence, positively or negatively, the perceptions held by U.S. urban dwellers and others of the agricultural sector. Moreover, I will exemplify how Marxist theory can be applied to analyzing images which can contribute to broadening the connotative context towards a larger ideological message. Furthermore, I will elaborate on a limited sampling of the numerous semioticians who have advanced Semiotic theory during the past century. For the benefit of the reader(s) of this text, I will provide a comprehensive overview of semiotics, tracing its origin to the theory’s co- founders. My motivation for providing an overview is attributed to “a recognized variation among semioticians and academicians as to what semiotics involves” (Chandler, 1994, p. 12). An Overview According to Baldwin, Perry and Moffitt (2004), semiotics can be defined concisely as the study of signs. Moreover, Eco (1976) further elaborates “a sign is implicitly a communicative devise taking place between two human beings intentionally aiming to express or communicate something” (p. 15). The University of Twente (n.d.) defines semiotics as “the theory of the production and interpretation of meaning” (p. 1). The origin of semiotics can be traced back to the period of antiquity, whereby semiotics is described as an intricate contemplation of intellection. According to Deeley (2001), during the years (A.D. 354-430), Augustine of Hippo or Saint Augustine defined a sign in the text De Dialectica as “anything which shows itself first to the sense and then indicates something beyond itself to the mind” (p. 221). Additionally, in the Book II of De Doctrina Christiana, Augustine of Hippo wrote “a sign is something that, beyond the impression it makes on sense, makes something else enter cognition” (Deeley, 2001, p. 332). Meier-Oeser (2011) asserts, despite not conveying a complete concept of signs, Augustine’s remarks are considered essential to the development of semiotics in subsequent periods. Modern semiotics is according to (Chandler, 2007), comprised of two dominant contemporary theorists and their models. The first theorist is the Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure, while the second is the American philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce, noting both theorists are generally recognized as the co-founders of what is commonly referred to as semiotics. The theorist Saussure named his theory “semiology” and was preeminently interested in the function of signs as part of everyday life, scilicet the nature of signs and the laws governing them (Chandler, 2007). Conversely, Peirce referred to his theory as “semeiotic” which was considered by Peirce himself as “a formal doctrine of signs which was closely related to logic” for which he developed an elaborate taxonomy of signs (Peirce, 2011, p. 7). Notwithstanding the important contribution of Peirce’s comprehensive body of work related to semiotics, this text is more closely aligned with the theory or model developed by Saussure. Saussure’s model is dyadic and is comprised of two essential elements: the signified and signifier. The signified refers to a concept in one’s mind which is conveyed using linguistic signs such as words. The signifier was the sound pattern (i.e. the 3 hearer’s psychological impression of a sound–not actually a sound) which conveys meaning by way of sensory impressions (Chandler, 2007). Recalling the various opinions as to what semiotics involves, Baldwin et al. (2004) adduce semiotics as being developed from linguistics, alluding to the model developed by Saussure. Moreover, the framework of language or langue is comprised of “rules that a culture – unconsciously – follows to shape the everyday communication” (Baldwin et al., 2004, p. 266). Furthermore, Baldwin et al. (2004) posit everyday conversation, encompassing “vocabulary, syntax, and grammar” is referred to as parole (p. 266). Concisely, Baldwin et al. (2004) allude each culture possesses its own langue and parole which, in turn, is representative of the culture. To distinguish langue and parole would be to consider parole in terms of lexeme, messages, and illustrations utilized to convey a narrative, while langue would denote a culture’s dogma and norms that influence their communication. The French philosopher, Roland Barthes, a fundamental intellectual of culture during the post second world-war era, advanced Saussure’s dyadic theory by defining a sign “as a combination of an idea or object (the signified) and an image of word that represents it (the signifier)” (Baldwin et al., 2004, p. 267). Chandler (2007) cites Barthes as among several philosophers that contributed to adding clarity to the original Saussurian model which was “understandably problematic” (Chandler, 2007, p. 64). Additionally, according to (Chandler, 2007), Barthes was of the opinion that the Saussurian model sufficiently embraced the notion of denotation, although subordinated the abstraction or notion of connotation. For example, denotation may be associated with the term literal whereas connotation, cites Chandler (2007), alludes to “the socio-cultural and ‘personal’ associations (ideological, emotional etc.) which are typically related to the interpreter’s class, age, gender, ethnicity and so on” (p. 138). Barthes is credited with incorporating the abstraction of connotation as a part of semiotics which can be associated with the transfer of meaning from a set of signs to larger ideological messages (Baldwin, et al., 2004). Prior to concluding this overview, I would like to highlight that Barthes was not without opponents, as the philosopher Voloshinov (1973) argued, adamantly, that connotation and denotation cannot be disentangled as implied by Barthes. While the salient work of Saussure and Barthes is fundamental to grasping how semiotics can be employed to analyze visual images, I am obliged to introduce the concept of codes which according to Irving (2005) are “learned rules for linking signs to their meaning” (p. 1). Likewise, Jakobson (1971) described codes as a “convention of communication” (p. 570-9). Whereas Saussure focused arguably on the code of language, he (Saussure) stressed signs pose little if any meaning by themselves but convey meaning when elucidated in relation to a set of signs (Chandler, 1994). Notwithstanding the above, Jackobson (1971) stressed the composition and comprehension of texts is dependent on the concept of codes, implying reading a text requires the reader to relate to relevant codes. Irving (2005) further asserts, in a semiotic context, “a code refers to a learned and shared concept linking signs to their meanings” (p. 1). Having provided a comprehensive overview of semiotics, I will now proceed to elaborating how images and/or texts are employed by media organizations to convey meaning. In commencing, it is imperative to define a media organization. The University of Washington (2016) describes media organizations as an individual or entity engaged in disseminating information to 4 the general public belonging to a democratic society utilizing social media, television, printed matter, radio or other forms of mass communication. Irving (2005) suggests meaning is not obtained from a single media source, but rather is obtained through the combination of media, implying from: voice, printed media, mass media images, music and digital media. Irrespective of the communication modalities applied, we, as individuals, are continuously interpreting meaning from one medium to another. Additionally, Desogus (2012) asserts the significance of a sign or signs can be thought of as an “outcome of a process mediated by shared knowledge, emanating from a wider, intricate system of knowledge which is, in turn, shared and renewed by interpreters and producers of communicative practice” (p. 1). Desogus (2012) further elaborates, Eco named this system of knowledge “encyclopedia”, conceivably ascribed to its wide-ranging spectrum. Concisely, Eco’s encyclopedia can be described as words, phrases, texts and the competency to link signs and symbols with meanings. The foremost prerequisite for a language, encompassing both text and images, to exist requires an agreement among people that one item will stand for another. The degree to which members of a culture partake in exchanging meaning is conditioned, in part, by a preexisting, but constantly changing body of knowledge or an encyclopedia, as referred to by Eco, retained in a culture’s memory. However, Irving (2005) clarifies the limited use of available signs and symbols within a culture is related to an individual’s ability or competence, and not a limitation of signs. To obtain cognizance of how large the landscape of semiotics is, it should suffice to reflect on the abundance of signs we, as individuals, encounter and use daily. Semiotics and its Application by Media Organizations One can argue coexisting with