Representation

What is the above image of?

I believe that universally one would answer that the image is of a dog.

"Structuralism suggested that we know everything relationally. That is, we know something by what it is not" (Anderson & Schlunke 2008, p.262). So, accordingly we know that a dog is a dog because it is not a cat. Seems simple enough. However, have you ever wondered how we KNOW what this representation means? The insights surrounding structuralism suggested that limitations lie in the meanings we collectively make, and that underlying systems rule language and how we engage with it. Representation requires the 'reader' to communicate the meaning of any object based on the underlying cultural codes that we share. The shape determines what the object is, despite differing colours, styles, designs etc. Think of a pair of sunglasses... we can understand a pair of sunglasses by a shared cultural understanding, despite varied colours or styles.

Within structuralist thinking the dog becomes a site for explanation, rather then something that contains 'true meaning' (Anderson & Schlunke 2008, p.263). So, we then begin to ask ourselves how we understand the dog to be considered a 'pet'? What enables us to look at the cultural conditions of the dog and begin to understand its position of 'pet' in culture?

• That the owners have built a kennel for it to sleep in
• It is allowed inside the house occasionally
• It is domestic and not wild
• It wears a collar,with a name tag
• A market exists for supplies to keep the pet healthy and alive ie. dog food, toys, etc.

All of these points allow us to understand how the 'pet dog' is a recognisable category in Western culture.
However, that is not to say a different culture may view dogs in a different way. As mentioned, the idea of representation is relational from a structuralist view, and requires the sharing of certain cultural codes.
To note, structuralism also pointed out how these relational systems work with people ('subjects') and things (materiality). The ways culture enables the naturalisation of categories , leads to the power relations which certain categories have over others because they remain unseen. This points to ideas surrounding categories such as 'heterosexual'- never do we see specific markings pointing to these representations- they become normal where as gay/lesbian/transgender etc. all become the 'other'. Compared to heterosexual, using the binary oppositions which place power in the hands of what is 'normal' in culture.

As we move through the post modern, we have seen a shift to post-structuralism. Post structuralism and Post modernism have been used in interchangeable terms however we can define Post modernism as being 

“A cultural and intellectual trend of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries characterized by emphasis on the ideas of the de-centredness of meaning, the value and autonomy of the local and the particular, the infinite possibilities of the human existence, and the coexistence, in a kind of collage or pastiche, of different cultures, perspectives, time periods, and ways of thinking. Postmodernism claims to address the sense of despair and fragmentation of modernism through its efforts at reconfiguring the broken pieces of the modern world into a multiplicity of new social, political, and cultural arrangements” (http://fajardo-acosta.com/worldlit/glossary.htm). 

In ways we can understand how postmodernism has become much associated with post structuralism. The latter has been defined as “A doctrine that rejects structuralism’s claims to objectivity and emphasizes the plurality of meaning” (http://fajardo-acosta.com/worldlit/glossary.htm). This basically focuses on how there is no fixed meaning, and objectivity poses as a more suitable way of identification within reality. This is highly relevant to the study of semiotics. It is important to look past the underlying structure, and begin to explore how "language is a self-sustaining system in which words have no necessary relation to words" (Anderson & Schlunke 2008, p.263). 

So, the first aspect we can address is a basic definition of semiotics. We can understand that “Semiotics… is the study of how humans communicate. In particular, it is the study of how we created meaning and how meaning is understood by the people to whom meaning is being communicated. Semiotics is the study of how we use symbols such as letters and numbers to transfer meaning between parties” (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-semiotics.htm). It is a specific analytical practice that requires the reading of “direct and implicit meanings of texts in all media”(Anderson & Schlunke, 2008 p.317). Saussure believed that language, which is also known as La Langue was a structure that made itself readily available to every user, in terms of elements, rules and words.

Saussure goes further in his thoughts on the arbitrariness of language by discussing the ‘sign’. In a theoretical perspective, a ‘sign’ has two elements:

• a)    The signifier is the image as we perceive it, whether that is sensory or mental impression depends on the sign.

and

• b)   The signified, which is the mental concept to which the sign refers.

From this, we can gather how meaning can be produced between the signified and the signifier. 

 

"WORDS ARE NOT REAL" (?)

It is difficult for many to move past the idea that "many actions and social practices are relational in nature" (Greenwood 1991, p.15). However, thinking outside of the "a dog is a dog, because it is not a cat" idea, we can look at how semiotics shape the idea of representations. We can look at the social practice of tattoos in Western culture and how these texts can symbolise different meanings to different readers of the text.

Relating this back to tattoos, we can notice that the tattoo in the above image is of hands clasped in prayer, with rosary beads. From a Christian viewpoint this holds a very strong sense of religion, belief and values for many people. However, within a traditional tribe, such as the Hopi, a North American tribe, believed in a religion much different to that of Christianity. To them, the image of hands in prayer would have no meaning. Words, signs and symbols are not always cross-cultural. Therefore, we can understand how Saussure concluded that language is arbitrary, meaning there are different words for the same thing- the thing does not determine the word.

Post-structuralists believe that examination of the underlying structures, constructed by 19^th Century-early 20th Century structuralism and its theorists, is very bias in its approach, because the findings are based upon the conditioning of the examiner. It can be understood that the deeper meanings are not readily available to the everyday individual. The system of semiotics asks the reader to interact with the text and by doing so the reader brings their “cultural experience to bear upon the codes and signs which make up the text” (1001ART 2009, p.12).

This is only just a grazing perspective on the ideas surrounding representation, however, a lot can be taken away from this. 

• meaning can never really be fixed and that it can always be deferred towards further meaning
• deconstruction's are never really correct- it becomes a matter of perception and subjective understanding.
• Language is arbitrary