Semiotic and Marxist Theories: An Application

Prepared by

Ernest Francis Jones

14 November 2016

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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 the media is an integral part of American lives and others’ lives. Rhodes and Irani (2005) assert images play an important role in society because of the positive and negative messages they portray. Images are often considered as a replication or copy of reality argues (Messaris, 1997), which can, in turn, markedly influence an individual’s or peoples’ perception. For example, when we, as individuals, see other human beings presented in the media, we quickly make judgments. As an illustration, we draw conclusions based not just on what we see, but also from a lifetime of experience of living and interacting with other people, coinciding with Eco’s encyclopedia and what Barthes referred to as the connotation we (as individuals) associate with images. The images presented below will be analyzed, applying Barthes’ two-tiered qualitative approach to visual analysis, encompassing denotation and connotation. The photos were taken by Bluecloud Castaneda (2016) during a campaign against the Dakota Access Pipeline1 (DAP) held on the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation in North Dakota. From a denotative or literal context, the photo immediately below is of armed law enforcement agents, while the second photo is presumably representative of a peaceful protest. 1 What is the Dakota Access Pipeline? It is a project to transport domestically produced crude oil across 4 states or approximately 1,200 miles which includes indigenous lands.

6

From a Barthian connotative perspective, the image on the left could portray law enforcement officials as combatants, alluding to an image one might associate with a dictatorship, as opposed to a democracy.

The photo on the right seeks to further reinforce this connotation by depicting authorities as being prepared to use force, if required, to quell a presumed pacifist protest. The photos may lead some viewers to conclude they are representative of a society where oppressive restrictions exist or are prevalent. According to the Smithsonian Magazine (2016), the controversy is centered around potential environmental risks associated with a presumed oil spill, noting the pipeline will pass under the Missouri river. However, one can argue that the pipeline project contributes to conjuring images of prior oil spills, and the extensive environmental impact caused. The recollection of the damage caused by prior spills may be considered analogous to Eco’s encyclopedia. Furthermore, the remembrance of images associated with prior oil spills may condition people residing in the areas nearby the proposed pipeline to rationalize the transport of oil via pipeline is unsafe. The two photos above, considered by themselves, do present a one-sided or tenably biased opinion, thereby negating an axiological approach. Notwithstanding the above, it is essential to stress the interpretation of images using semiotics is a fairly subjective process (Berger, 1987). The decoding of images varies notably depending on the person decoding them, taking into account Eco’s encyclopedia and individual limitations, as specified above. In sum, acknowledging two photos is conceivably too small of a sample to draw a decisive conclusion, taking into account the subjective aspects of image interpretation, the photos, nonetheless, do connect images to aspects of society, implying signs are a point of domination as well as definition. Concurrently, images such as these can be employed by the media to shape or reshape society’s understanding of an element, person, group, or action.

(Bluecloud Castaneda, 2016)

)

(Bluecloud Castaneda, 2016)

7

Semiotics and its Application in the U.S. Agricultural Sector

Above is an example of an image pertaining to a campaign in favor of labeling genetically engineered organisms. The denotation or literal context of the image portrays a ripe tomato attached to a vine being injected with an unknown substance. Concurrently, the text to the left implies either the tomatoes, the substance or both are new or untested. From a connotative perspective, the image together with the text evoke a sense or perception that genetically engineered organisms may contain substances which may be harmful or even toxic if consumed and should be further researched or tested. However, according to the FDA (2015), “credible evidence has demonstrated that foods from the GE plant varieties marketed to date are as safe as comparable, non-GE foods” (p. 1). Despite science unequivocally ruling out health risks associated with genetically engineered plants, images such as the one above and others have resulted in “more than a million people signing a petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking it (the FDA) to label GMOs, the most of any petition in the agency’s history” (Ball, 2014, p. 1).

Marxist Theory, Ideology and Stereotypes Applied to U.S. Agriculture

As highlighted by the Oxford dictionary (n.d. a), Karl Heinrich Marx was a nineteenth-century German political philosopher, economist and founder of Marxist theory. The origin of Marxism or Marxist theory can be described as a dyadic socioeconomic methodology to analyze societal relations of the two prominent groups of nineteenth century German society: the owners of production (capitalists) and the working class (the proletariat). The underpinning of Marxist theory relates to the notion that social and cultural power, within society at the time, was determined, in part, by capitalists or entrepreneurs who owned the means of production (Baldwin et al., 2004). Furthermore, the working class or proletarians were subordinate to the owners of production, to which Marx was opposed. Moreover, Baldwin et al. (2004) further cite, “as stated by Marx, ordinary people–the many–can be convinced to act and hold beliefs that they are not even aware of, attitudes that might even be against their own interests” (p. 261).

The Oxford dictionary (n.d. b) defines the term ideology as “a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy” (p. 1). The term, in the political sense, has been subjected to numerous modifications over the years. For example, recounts Skirbekk (2005), the theoretician, Destutt de Tracy, living during the French revolution employed the term to “denote a program for the scientific study of the spread of ideas” (p.3), whereas “Napoleon used the term of derision for impractical and far-fetched ideas” (p. 3).

(Lablegmos, 2016)

8

Furthermore, according to Baldwin et al. (2004), “Karl Marx referred to the term ideology as “unquestioned assumptions adopted by the populace” (p. 261). Additionally, ideology is also referred to the term social myth2, which Baldwin el al. (2004) describe “as rules and beliefs which members of a society follow and live by, albeit without consciously aware of what they are following and acting upon” (p. 261).

As reported by Gorham (1999), “stereotypes are often viewed as false overgeneralizations made by socially dominant groups about socially oppressed groups” which is seemingly analogous to Marxist theory or ideology (p. 1). Additionally, stereotyping is defined by University of Florida (n.d.) as “an oversimplified, usually pejorative, attitude people hold toward those outside one’s own experience who are different” (p. 1). Moreover, the University of Florida (n.d.) surmises the application of excessive generalizing within the context of social discernment can contribute to substantive inaccuracy. Mitchell (2002) employ the phrase parachute journalism, referring to assigning journalists to unfamiliar areas to report on a story with limited time to acclimatize which, in turn, contributes to stereotyping, or as more accurately described by Mitchell (2002), as “let the clichés and stereotyping begin” (p. 1).

On the right is an image portraying a stereotypical farmer which can be also construed as a working-class farmer, who may be subservient to the owner or owners of a farm. Additionally, the image may also conjure a recollection of someone who possesses limited knowledge which may also correlate to the Marxist conception of the proletariat. Sadly, I suspect this image exists up to this time in the minds of many despite widespread access to the Internet providing an infinity of online resources to learn about agriculture. Rumble & Buck (n.d.) posit public perception of agriculture no longer coincides with the realities of modern agriculture. According to Lester (1995), “what is reported…sometimes isn’t as important as how it is presented” (p. 92).

Furthermore, Lester (1995) elaborates images employed by the media can intentionally or involuntarily sustain or bring into existence stereotypes. Agriculture is often presented in the media, suggesting stereotyping is unavoidable. Messaris (1997) cites visual communication can establish implicit connections between images and ideas and evoke emotions by stimulating the appearance of a person or object. From a literal context, the image on the left portrays children participating in the harvesting of

2 Social myth can be described as a traditional story seeking to explain a social phenomenon typically false although widely believed.

(Partiescosture.com, 2018)

(Bartletti, 2014)

9

tomatoes. However, from a connotative context, the image may convey to some viewers, children being exploited by a farm presumably employing them. Alternatively, in a broader context the agricultural sector abusing children. Additionally, from a Marxist perspective, the image can convey the children workers as modern-day proletariats employed and/or exploited by a large agricultural conglomerate. Moreover, the image can also be perceived as the agricultural sector employing and or victimizing illegal or migrant children workers. Conversely, the image may exude, to some viewers, the brutal realities associated in satisfying a seemingly insatiable demand for tomatoes, resulting in sourcing tomatoes from Mexico and the subsequent exploitation of children laborers. Nonetheless, such a photo can contribute negatively to the tomato industry, resulting in a substantive loss of earnings while contributing to endorsing stereotypes associated with the agricultural sector. In sum, such images can undeniably enrich viewers’ negative perceptions of agriculture and the overall U.S. agricultural sector. Images such as the photo of children harvesting tomatoes can contribute to creating or reinforcing stereotypes, “whether right or wrong…imagination is shaped by the pictures seen…consequently images can lead to stereotypes that are hard to shake” (Lester, 1995, p. 100). However, according to Hébert (2011), exploiting text and image analysis tools, encompassing semiotics, can contribute to a finer understanding and improved evaluation of agricultural communication which can, in part, be utilized to change stereotypes. For example, the image on the right is representative of a small plant given water, which is overflowing from an individual’s hand. The image, while professedly appealing to some viewers, is associated with the perception of agriculture being extremely pleasant, pastoral or idyllic which, in turn, contributes to stereotyping agriculture in a positive manner. While associating agriculture with pastoral images may appear to some as a reasonable approach to diminish negative stereotypes of agriculture, such images may contribute to increasing inaccurate knowledge of agriculture. To convey agriculture realistically and positively would allegedly require deviating from the use of stereotypes and pastoral images of agriculture and cultivate a linkage between key practices of agriculture and the people involved. For example, a video by Common Ground (n.d.) presents women farmers answering customers’ queries in a supermarket, contributing positively, in my opinion, to conveying contemporary farmers realistically. The farmers in attendance are educated women who respond intelligently to the queries raised which, in turn, contributes to changing the stereotypical images associated with farmers. Additionally, the video serves to “reduce an acknowledged farm-to-plate knowledge gap between farmers and consumers by changing the perceptions consumers have about agriculture and the judgments drawn from images and how images impact consumers’ perceptions” (Rumble & Buck, n.d., p. 10). However, despite my optimism, current research “provides evidence that the stereotypes we hold can systematically alter the brain's visual representation of a face, distorting what we see to be more in line with our biased expectations" (New York University, 2016, p. 1).

(Singkham, n.d.)

10

Conclusion Acknowledging that a single photo shared on Facebook or posted on the Web may not change the perception of agriculture held by individuals with limited exposure or knowledge of agriculture, the significant role images play in shaping perceptions and stereotyping is undeniable. To bestow semiotics as a tool to alter perception would seemingly require a substantive cultural knowledge of the target audience to connect images to wider systems of meaning. While the application of semiotics may appear as straightforward, I think it is important to reiterate the use of semiotics is fairly, or perhaps more accurately, a very subjective process. A significant challenge associated with the employment of semiotics to analyze images is that they (images) may be decoded differently by individuals, which, in turn, is dependent on who decodes the images. Notwithstanding the above, I am of the opinion further research should be conducted to explore why stereotypes continue to exist despite widespread access to the Internet and other online resources, and how can semiotics be employed to reduce such stereotypes.

11

Sources Consulted Baldwin, J. R., Perry, S. D., & Moffitt, M.A. (2004). Communication theories for everyday life. New

York, New York: Pearson A&B. Ball, M. (2014). Want to know if your food is genetically modified? Retrieved from

www.theatlantic.com Bartletti, D. (Photographer). (2014, 7 December). Teenage migrant farmworkers pick ripe roma

tomatoes in Cristo Rey, Sinaloa. Paulina, left, 15, and her brother, Pablo Angel, 12, follow the harvest with their family [digital image]. Retrieved from http://graphics.latimes.com/product-of-mexico-camps/

Berger, A. A. (1987). Semiotics and popular culture. In T. A. Sebeok & J. Umiker-Sebeok (Eds.), The

semiotic web 1986. (pp. 355-361). Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Chandler, D. (1994). Semiotics for beginners. Retrieved from www.visual-

memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/sem06.html Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The basics. London, England: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Common Ground. (n.d.). Ask a farmer? Retrieved from www.findourcommonground.com Deely, J. (2001). Four ages of understanding: The first postmodern survey of philosophy from

ancient times to the turn of the twenty-first century. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press

Desogus, P. (2012). The encyclopedia in Umberto’s Eco’s semiotics. Journal of the International

Association for Semiotic Studies, 192(1/4). Retrieved from https://www.degruyter.com Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press FDA. (2015). Consumer info about food from genetically engineered plants. Retrieved from

www.fda.gov Gorham, B. W. (1999). Stereotypes in the media: So what? Howard Journal of Communications,

10(4). doi: 10.1080/106461799246735 Bluecloud Castaneda, R. (Photographer). (2016, 29 October). 30 powerful photos show standoff

between militarized police and Dakota Access Pipeline protestors [digital image]. Retrieved from www.ecowatch.com

Hébert, L. (2011). Tools for text and image analysis: An introduction to applied semiotics.

Retrieved from hhtp://pdfs.semanticscholar.org Irving, M. (2005). Media theory and semiotics: Key terms and concepts. Retrieved from

http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cwaters/Irvine.pdf

12

Jakobson, R. (1971). Language in relation to other communication systems. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton

Lablegmos. (2016). Resources: About GMOs: What are we eating? Retrieved from

www.gmofreeca.org Lester, P. (1995). Visual communication: Images with messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing. Meier-Oeser, S., (2011). The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy: Medieval semiotics. Retrieved

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/semiotics-medieval/ Messaris, P. (1997). Visual persuasion: The role of images in advertising. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage Publications, Inc. Mitchell, B. (2002). Parachute journalism. Retrieved from www.poynter.org New York University. (2016). Neuroscientists find evidence for 'visual stereotyping'. Retrieved from

www.sciencedaily.com Oxford dictionary. (n.d. a). Karl Heinrich Marx. Retrieved from www.en.oxforddictionaries.com Oxford dictionary. (n.d. b). Ideology. Retrieved from www.en.oxforddictionaries.com Partiescostume.com. (2018). Farmer costumes. Retrieved from http://www.partiescostume.com Peirce, C. P. (2011). Philosophical writings of Peirce. Justus Buchler (Ed.). Mineola, NY: Dover

Publications. Rhodes, E.B. & Irani, T. (2005). The stuff you need out here: A semiotic staff study – an analysis of

an agricultural company’s advertisements. Retrieved from www.newprairiepress.org Rumble, J. N., & Buck, E. B. (n.d.). Narrowing the farm-to-plate knowledge gap through semiotics

and the study of consumer responses regarding livestock images. Retrieved from www.newprairiepress.org

Singkham. (Photographer). (n.d.). Seed and planting concept with male hand watering young tree

over green background [digital image]. Retrieved from www.shutterstock.com

Skirbekk, S. N. (2005). Dysfunctional culture: The inadequacy of cultural liberalism as a guide to major challenges of the 21st century. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Smithsonian Magazine. (2016). Understanding the controversy behind the Dakota access pipeline. Retrieved from www.smithsonianmag.com

University of Florida. (n.d.). What is stereotyping? Retrieved from http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/

13

University of Twente. (n.d.). Semiotic theories: Interpretation of meaning - history and orientation. Retrieved from www.utwente.nl

University of Washington. (2016). Media organization. Retrieved from

www.com.washington.edu/graduate-students/areas-of-study/media-organization/ Voloshinov, V. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. (L. Matejka &R. Titunik, Trans.).

New York: Seminar Press.