Postcolonial Interventions, Vol. V, Issue 2 Can the Precariat Sing? Standing in Lotman’s Light of Cultural Semiotics Ariktam Chatterjee & Arzoo Saha In the most Biblical sense, I am beyond repentance But in the cultural sense, I just speak in future tense (Gaga 2011, n.pg.) In his preface to the Bloomsbury Academic edition of The Rise of the Precariat published in 2016, Guy Standing observes: …more of those in the precariat have come to see themselves, not as failures or shirkers, but as sharing a common predicament with many others. This rec- ognition – a move from feelings of isolation, self-pity or self-loathing, to a sense of collective strength – is 46 Postcolonial Interventions, Vol. V, Issue 2 a precondition of political action…It is organizing, and struggling to define a new forward march. (x) This is a noteworthy evolution in Standing’s formulation from the time this influential study was first published in the form of a book in 2011, and later in 2016, where the precariat was seen to be too diverse and divided to consolidate themselves into a class. It was calibrated re- peatedly as a ‘class-in-the-making’. The group was never a homogenous one. Constituencies were numerous and except for an exploitative and alienated relationship with a neoliberal global economic structure (itself in various degrees of gradation), there was no platform of shared interest. In many ways, it seemed to subvert the notion of shared interest, which was a hallmark of all prior class formation – or what constituted class formation. How- ever, Standing’s present observation betrays a sense that the class has become consolidated. That it is organized implies that it has somehow, imperceptibly, agreed on certain common shared signs of identification – that it has developed, in other words, its culture. Any agency is built around its culture, defined by its cultural signs, which it imbibes and produce in turn. This paper is an attempt to look at the precariat as a cultural group, and look at some of its cultural expressions. Later, it also ventures to expose the other side of this cultural consol- idation – the possibility of the state’s use of culture to anticipate and forestall the political action stated above. 47 Postcolonial Interventions, Vol. V, Issue 2 Max Weber was one of the earliest theorists to under- stand that the question of class and culture go hand in hand. One is defined by the other, and in turn, defines the other. Often the culture and the class become iso- morphic since the class is often identified through its perceptible cultural signs. If the precariats can be iden- tified as a culture group, then what are the typical man- ifestations of its culture. Since the question of culture comes up, it leads us like many questions related to culture do, to the question of methodology. Culture is identified by signs, and a sign by definition is something that stands for something else. A culture converts a sign into a symbol, a function sign, which takes on meaning generated within the cultural system itself. A symbol is difficult to define, since every epistemology, every disci- pline, defines it according to its convenience to serve its precise epistemological purpose; ‘symbol as an indefin- able term is suitable for conveying the cognition of the incognizable’ (Torop 2005, 161). The symbol in Sauss- ure’s linguistics, for instance, is different from Tillich’s understanding of religious language as ‘symbolic’. Then precisely what definition of a symbol will we station our- selves in? In other words, with what definition of culture will be followed in our investigation and draw our con- clusions? My answer would be to consider culture as a semiosphere as proposed by Yuri Lotman, one of the central cultural theorists from the Tartu-Moscow school of semiotics. The reasons for choosing this model over others is something I will try to explain below. But be- fore that, it would be appropriate to present in brief Lot- 48 Postcolonial Interventions, Vol. V, Issue 2 man’s understanding of culture as ‘semiosphere’ as first presented in his influential 1990 book,The Universe of the Mind. Yuri Lotman: Culture and/as Semiosphere The Tartu-Moscow school of semiotics is one of the prominent schools in studying culture, one of whose most representative works is Yuri Lotman's detailed exposition of cultural semiotics published in 1990, The Universe of the Mind. The particular significance of this text concerning our present enquiry resides in the fact that like Standing, Lotman often employs a spatial met- aphor in isolating his culture group. Deploying a spatial metaphor automatically entails the factor of spatial de- marcation, the forming of an ‘inside/outside’ paradigm. Standing is insistent that there is an ‘outside’ to the pre- cariat ‘inside’, from where it is demarcated; and there are ‘insides’ within the ‘inside’, stressing that the precariat is not after all a homogenous group. It is not very different from the way Lotman’s description of ‘culture’ as ‘semi- osphere’, a term that Lotman adopts from Vernadsky’s biosphere, as a space that is defined by signs, informed and is informed by signs (Lotman 1990: 123). The rela- tionship of a cultural text and its participants in a semio- sphere is analogous to the definition of an organism and its surrounding habitat, forming together the biosphere. Tartu-Moscow semiotics simultaneously refers to a noo- sphere, the pure world of ideas. A semiosphere can be understood as occupying the space between the two. 49 Postcolonial Interventions, Vol. V, Issue 2 Thus, with the biosphere, it shares a relationship both of an analogy as well as a gradation. Any mutual trans- action has meaning because it is always/already being performed within a cultural set-up, it is ‘immersed’ in it – and what it is immersed in is the semiosphere. Regarding the structure of the ‘semiosphere’, Lotman states: Throughout the whole space of semiosis, from social jargon and age group slang to fashion, there is an also a constant renewal of codes. So any One language turns out to be immersed in a semiotic space and it can only function by interaction with that space. The unit of semiosis, the smallest functioning mech- anism, is not the separate language but the whole se- miotic space of the culture in question. This is the space we term the semiosphere. (Lotman 1990, 125) It must be obvious by now that the question that is being asked is whether the precariat can be understood as a semiosphere? To answer this question satisfactorily, we can first take an overview of Lotman’s theory of semio- sphere as a cultural unit, and then see whether it matches our understanding of the precariat or not. Not unlike the Russian Formalists, who can be stated to be their theoretical predecessor, the Tartu Semiotics school applies communication theory as its point of de- parture in understanding language and then culture. This position is based on the premise, that language – as a model through which reality is understood and commu- 50 Postcolonial Interventions, Vol. V, Issue 2 nicated – provides the model for all epistemology. Com- munication, in its simplest and most basic sense, is the transmission of information. The first important step in defining culture is to ascertain the channel through which its information – the aggregate of the informa- tion that it provides in the form of heritage, and the forms it constitutes – is communicated. Lotman states that communication can be initiated and carried out through two channels. The first is the classic Jakobso- nian model of the ‘I-(s)he’ communication, which can be pictorially represented as: Message Addresser Addressee The scope of such a communication, where the entire message is with the ‘I’ and will be completely received by the (s)he is rare, and is carried out only at the most basic level of information gathering in natural language. At the other end of this communication, resides the sit- uation where the communication takes place through a collapse of the distinction of the addresser and the ad- dressee, in what is termed communication through the ‘I-I’ channel. Here the listener is in complete acknowl- edgement of the information which is being given by the addressee. An extreme form of this communication is poetic language. Let us stress here that this is not actu- al ‘poetry’ which is more complicated because it releases communication on both levels simultaneously. But as of 51 Postcolonial Interventions, Vol. V, Issue 2 now, the working of the ‘I-I- communication needs to be analyzed at some depth, following Lotman’s under- standing. The I-I communication (auto communication), typically takes the I – s(he) communication (natural communica- tion) as carries out a rhetorical shift. It is symbolic where the first is semantic. It translates the purely semantic into the symbolic. In many cases, this shift can be so complete, that the semantic is completely obscured by the symbolic – as we can find in abstract art. Rhythms, repetitions, patterns and symmetry are the impositions of auto communication over natural communication. In a cultural expression, the addresser typically distances herself from herself as the addresser and carries out this shift by putting the economy of natural communication into the rhythmic necessities of auto communication. However, in its entirety, this auto communication needs to be again presented as a natural communication to the addressee, who is now a third party to the process, the listener, audience – the recipient of this production, who needs to be familiar with the cultural code of this artefact to decode it. Thus, culture typically operates by simultaneously deploying its communication in the auto and the natural axes.