Now, let's take a look at a theorist who straddles the line between structuralism and post-structuralism. French theorist Roland Barthes (pronounced "bart," fyi) made many important contributions to structuralist theory, but in his career also called into question many of the major assumptions of those same theories. That's why it's often hard to categorize him within one theoretical category or the other. In fact, that goes for many other structuralist theorists as well, including Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser. (By the way, have you noticed the trend that most of these important theorists were French...?) But what, specifically, were the new concepts Barthes introduced to this school of thought?
Well, we've learned about semiotics/semiology. We've learned about how structuralism can be applied to mythology. What do you think we're going to look at next? If you said, "applying semiotics to mythology" -- why yes, you're absolutely right! Barthes' work in his seminal text Mythologies was to do just that. Let's take a closer look at this idea.
Denotation and Connotation
You are probably fairly familiar by now with the difference between denotation and connotation if you've studied English and/or literature long enough. But since this idea is fairly important to what we'll talk about next, let's review it in terms of the context of semiotics.
While denotation is your basic literal, dictionary-type definition of a term, connotation includes the figurative or suggestive meaning. In semiotics we might identify denotation with the signifier, and connotation with the signified. Denotation describes where connotation suggests. For Barthes, connotation is where myth is produced.
Denotation
literal descriptive signifier
Connotation
figurative suggestive signified "realm of myth"
But why is mythology a form of connotation -- or, in other words, the signified? To put it in the fewest words possible, "Myth is a second-order semiological system." As they say, let's "unpack" this idea.
Myth as Second-Order Meaning
In writing about this concept, Barthes gives us the famous example that he apparently chose at random while sitting at the barber shop, contemplating semiological systems (don't we all do this?).
He encountered the now famous cover of Paris Match magazine, pictured to the left.
From our discussion of Saussure, we already know that language contains a system of signs, and each sign consists of a signifier and a signified.
Barthes added to this by saying that the resulting sign also constitutes a new signifier. The signified (connotative) meaning of this new signifier is what creates the second-order sign, which is the myth.
Okay. This will probably make more sense with a graph, right? Look below and all will become clearer. Graphs like this are commonly used to illustrate Barthes' analysis, and this one is adapted from one used in Dr. Sue Collins' lecture notes (a past professor of mine).
The top level of the graph is what makes up the sign in level #1, which is the level of language (though, in this case, it's imagery and not language). But sign #1 becomes the signifier for level #2, which is the level of myth. The myth in the case of this image, according to Barthes, is an endorsement of French imperial power.
Well, that doesn't sound like a very innocent myth, does it? After all, French or any other kind of imperialism has been pretty widely rejected worldwide as unjust and exploitative in practically every way. And this myth seems to be endorsing it. How does it do that?
Barthes explains that the function of myth is to utilize the ways people will commonly interpret or think about something (in this case, what they will think about the meaning of this image), and make them think that this is the universal, "natural" way of viewing it. Although it might not be as obvious to you now, if most French people at the time Barthes was writing this text were to look at this image, they would take its meaning more or less for granted. To them, the meaning has been naturalized.
In this way, myth promotes certain meanings and interpretations while deemphasizing or ignoring others. For example, one could conceivably interpret this or a very similar image as a critique of French imperialism, in which the young man is only saluting to mock French patriotism. However, this is not the interpretation that this image would have promoted in this particular context. It "anchors" the meaning of the image to just one realistic possibility.
All of this functions to promote certain invested interests. It's clear now that this image is propaganda. But who would benefit from this anchoring of meaning? Those who have an interest in maintaining the existing dominant power structures that have created this imperialist system.
Well. That's pretty heavy stuff. We're not talking about innocuous King Arthur myths here -- we're talking about the myths that reproduce oppressive systems of power.
On that note, maybe it's time for a little break. One suggestion I have is to find an advertisement (print, TV, whatever) or some kind of interesting image to analyze in a similar way to uncover the "myths" hiding beneath its surface. You will probably find that you always knew what the myths were, they were just waiting at the back of your mind to be revealed. After all, the myth doesn't mean anything if there is no one there in the context to take in its meaning. In a way, you are part of the whole myth process.
After that, as always, review your terms for this and all of the sections discussing structuralist theory. Why? Because now we're heading into even foggier territory. Post-structuralist thought, deconstruction, Derrida, and all, is coming up next. And you're going to need all of these terms and tools to get you through it!
Review Your Terms:
denotation connotation myth in semiotics naturalization