1 Representation, meaning and language
At first we have to know that：
Representation is an essential part of the process by which meaning is produced and exchanged between members of a culture. It does involve the use of language, of signs and images which stand for or represent things. And surly it is not a simple or straightforward process. How this article exploring the concept of representation connect meaning and language to culture？ We will be drawing a distinction between three different account or theories：the reflective, the intentional and the constructionist approaches to representation. Most of this text will be exploring the constructionist approach with two major variants or models of the constructionist approach, the semiotic approach- Ferdinand de Saussure and the discursive approach- Michel Foucault. But we have to answer the question first：what does the word representation really mean？
1.1 Making meaning, Representing things
Representation is the production of the meaning of the concepts in our minds through language. There are two processes, two systems of representation. First, there is the system by which all sort of objects, people and events are correlated with a set of concepts or mental representations which we carry around in our heads.（like chair, table）
Second, Language is therefore the second system of representation.
(When we say we belong to the same culture, it is because we interpret the world in similar ways. That’s why culture is sometimes defined in terms of shared meaning or shared conceptual maps. However we must also able to represent or exchange meanings and concepts.)
The relation between things, concepts and signs lies at the heart of the production of meaning in language. The process which links these three elements together is what we call Representation.
1.2 Language and Representation
As people who belong to same culture must share a broadly similar conceptual map, so they must also share the same way of interpreting the signs of a language.
In the SHEEP example:
In order to interpret them, we must have access to the two systems of representation: to a conceptual map which correlates the sheep in the field with the concept of a sheep: and a language system which is visual language, bear some resemblance to the real thing of looks like it in some way.
The relationship in the system of representation between sign, the concept and the object to which they might be used to refer is entirely arbitrary.(Tree will not mind if we used the word Seert to represent the concept of them)
1.3 Sharing the codes
The meaning is constructed by the system of representation. It is constructed and fixed by the code, which sets up the correlation between our conceptual system and our language system in such a way that, every time we think of a tree the code tells us to use the English word TREE, or Chinese word 樹.
The code tells us that in our culture!
One way of thinking about culture is in terms of these shared conceptual maps, shared language systems and the codes which govern the relationships of translation between them.
Not because such knowledge is imprinted in their genes, but because they learn its conventions and so gradually become culture persons. They unconsciously internalize the codes which allow them to express certain concepts and ideas through their systems of representation.
But of our social, cultural and linguistic conventions, then meaning can never be finally fixed, we can all agree to allow words to carry somewhat different meanings. Social and linguistic conventions do change over time.
1.4 Theories of representation
In the reflective approach, meaning is thought to lie in the object, person, idea or event in the real world, and language functions like a mirror, to reflect the true meaning as it already exists in the world. We can also call it as mimetic approach.
The second approach to meaning in representation argues the opposite case. It holds that it is the speaker the author, who imposes his or her unique meaning on the world through language. Words mean what the author intends they should mean. This is the intentional approach.
The third approach recognizes this public, social character of language. Things don’t mean: we construct meaning, using representational systems. Hence it is called the constructionist approach.
1.5 The language of traffic lights
The simplest example of this point, which is critical for an understanding of how languages function as representational systems, is the famous traffic lights example. According to the constructionist approach, colors and the language of traffic lights’ work as a signifying or representational system. In the language of traffic lights, it is the sequence and position of the colors, as well as the colors themselves, which enable them to carry meaning and thus function as signs. It is the code that fixes the meaning, not color itself. This also has wider implications for the theory of representation and meaning in language. It means that signs themselves cannot fix meaning. Instead, meaning depends on the relation between a sign and a concept which is fixed by a code.
Meaning the constructionist would say, is relational.
2. Saussure’s legacy
In the important move, Saussure analysed the sign into two further elements. There was, he argued, the form, and there was the idea or concept in your head with which the form was associated. Saussure called the first element, the signifier, and the second element the signified.
Signifier： The word or image of a Walkman, for example
Signified： The concept of a portable cassette-player in your head
Saussure also insisted on what we called the arbitrary nature of the sign: There is no natural or inevitable link between the signifier and the signified. Signs do not possess a fixed or essential meaning. What signifies, according to Saussure, is not RED or the essence of red-ness, but the difference between RED and GREEN.
Signs are members of a system and are defined in relation it the other members of that system.
Furthermore, the relation between the signifier and the signified, which is fixed by our cultural codes, is not permanently fixed.
BLACK is dark, evil etc.
BLACK is beauty.
However, if meaning changes, historically, and is never finally fixed, then it follows that taking the meaning must involve an active process of interpretation. There is a necessary and inevitable imprecision about language.
2.1 The social part of language
Saussure divided language into two parts.
1.The first consisted of the general rules and codes of the linguistic system, which all its users must share, if it is to be of use as a mean of communication. Saussure called the structure of language, the langue. 2.the second part consisted of the particular acts of apeaking or writing or drawing, which are produced by an actual speaker or writer. He called this, the parole. For Saussure, the underlying structure of rules and codes was the social part of language, the part which could be studied with the law-like precision of a science because of its closed, limited nature. The second part of language, the individual speech-act or utterance, he regarded as the surface of language.
In separating the social part of language from the individual act of communication, Saussure broke with our common-sense notion of how language works…… The author decides what she wants to say, but she cannot decide whether or not to use the rules of language.
Critique of Saussure’s model
In his own work, he tended to focus almost exclusively on the two aspects of the sign-signifier and signified. He gave little or no attention to how this relation between signifier/signified could serve the purpose of what we called reference. Another problem is that Saussure tended to focus on the formal aspects of language-how language actually works. However, Saussure’s focus on language may have been too exclusive. The attention to its formal aspects did divert attention away from the more interactive and dialogic features of language. Later cultural theorist learned from Saussure’s structuralism but abandoned its scientific premise. Language remains rule-governed. But it is not a closed system which can be reduced to its formal elements.
3.From language to culture: linguistics to semiotics
The general approach to the study of signs in culture, and of culture as a sort of language, which Saussure foreshadowed, is now generally known by the term semiotics. The French critic, Roland Barthes, he brought a semiotic approach to bear on reading popular culture, treating these activities and objects as signs, as a language through which meaning is communicated.
In much the same way, the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, not by analyzing how these Amazonian peoples, but in terms of what they were trying to say, what messages about the culture they communicated.
In the semiotic approach, not only words and images but objects themselves can function as signifiers in the production of meaning. Clothes, for example. In this example, we have moved from the very narrow linguistic level from which we drew examples to a wider, cultural level……Barthes called the first, descriptive level, the level of denotation: the second level, that of connotation.
3.1 Myth today
In his essay Myth today, in Mythologies, Barthes gives another example which helps us to see exactly how representation is working at this second, broader cultural level. a.A black soldier is giving the French flag a salute.
b.The Panzani ad for spaghetti and vegetables in a string bag as a myth about Italian national culture. Think of ads, which work in the same way.
4. Discourse, power and subject
Already, in Roland Barthes’s work in the 1960s, as we have seen, Saussure’s linguistic model is developed through its application to a much wider field of signs and representations. Semiotics seemed to confine the process of representation to language, and to treat it as a closed, rather static, system…some people had more power to speak about some subject than others. Models of representation, these critics agued, ought to focus on these broader issues of knowledge and power.
Foucault used the word representation in a narrower sense than we are using it here, but he is considered to have contributed to a novel and significant general approach to the problem of representation. What concerned him was the production of knowledge through what he called discourse.
His work was much more historically grounded, more attentive to historical specificities, than the semiotic approach. As he said ‘relation of power, not relation of meaning’ were his main concern.
4.1 From language to discourse
Foucault studied not language, but discourse as a system of representation. By ‘discourse’, Foucault meant ‘a group of statements which provide a language for talking bout a particular topic at a particular historical moment….Discourse is a bout the production of knowledge through language.
Discourse, Foucault argued, never consist of one statement, one text, one action or one source. The same discourse, characteristic of the way of thinking or the state of knowledge at one time, will appear across a range of texts, and as forms of conduct, at a number of different institutional sites within society. However, whenever these discursive event refer to the same object,……, then they are said by Foucault to belong to the same discursive formation.
Nothing has any meaning outside of discourse.
4.2 Historicizing discourse: discursive practices
Things meant something and were true, he argued, only within a specific historical context. He thought that, in each period, discourse produced forms of knowledge, objects, subjects and practices of knowledge, which differed radically from period to period, with no necessary continuity between them.
The mental illness example
The homosexual example
The hysterical woman example
Knowledge about and practices around all these subjects, Foucault argued, were historically and culturally specific. They did not and could not meaningfully exist outside specific discourse.
4.3 From discourse to power/knowledge
In his later work Foucault became even more concerned with how knowledge was put to work through discursive practice in specific institutional settings to regulate the conduct of others. This foregrounding of the relation between discourse, knowledge and power marked a significant development in the constructionist approach to representation which we have been outlineing. Foucault’s main argument against the classical Marxist theory of ideology was that it tended to reduce all the relation between knowledge and power to a question of class power and class interests.
Secondly, he argued that Marxism tended to truth. But Foucault did not believe that any form of thought could claim an absolute truth of this kind, outside the play of discourse. The Gramsci’s theory has some similarities to Foucault’s position. Knowledge linked to power, not only assumes the authority of the truth but has the power to make itself true.
The Regime of truth!
Secondly, Foucault advanced an altogether novel conception of power. We tend to think of power as always radiating in a single direction and come from a specific source.
It is deployed and exercised through a net-like organization. This suggests that we are all, to some degree, caught up in its circulation- oppressors and oppressed.
4.5 Charcot and the performance of hysteria
The activity 7, look the figure 1.8 and answer the follow questions. (page 54.)
5. Where is the subject
The conventional notion thinks of the subject as an individual who is fully endowed with consciousness……it suggests that, although other people may misunderstand us, we always understand ourselves.
Indeed, this is one of Foucault’s most radical propositions: subject is produced with discourse.
Foucault’s subject seems to be produced through discourse in two fidderent senses or places.
First, the discourse itself produces subject.
But the discourse also produces a place for the subject.
5.1 How to make sense of Velasquez’ Las Meninas
5.2 The subject of/in representation
Look the Diego Velasquez’ Las Meninas, and follow the question in activity 9.
6. Conclusion: representation, meaning and language reconsidered
Representation is the process by which members of a culture use language to produce meaning. Meaning, consequently, will always change, from on culture or period to another. Because meanings are always changing and slipping, codes operate more like social conventions than like fixed laws or unbreakable rules.
In semiotic, we will recall the importance of signifier/signified, langue/parole and myth, and how the marking of difference and binary oppositions are crucial for meaning. In the discursive approach, we will recall discursive formation, power/knowledge, the idea of a regime of truth, the way discourse also produces the subject and defines the subject-positions from which knowledge proceeds and indeed, the return of questions about the subject to the field of representation.