I ran across a novel I read some years ago, SEVENTH FUNCTION OF LANGUAGE, by Laurent Binet. It is a playful, puzzle-box romp where characters like Michel Foucault and Roland Barthes solve a murder mystery.
I played with Chat GPT.
##
As in a formal college debate argue the pro and con. “Semiology is unseemly.”
##
Pro: Semiology is Unseemly
1. Obfuscates Meaning: Semiology, the study of signs and symbols, often complicates communication by analyzing layers of meaning that may not have been intended. Its tendency toward jargon and abstract theories, such as those of Ferdinand de Saussure or Roland Barthes, can alienate people, making it appear needlessly academic and inaccessible.
2. Overemphasizes Interpretation: Semiology can deconstruct texts and symbols to the point of absurdity, reducing them to arbitrary relationships between signifiers and signifieds. By doing so, it risks undermining the artistic or practical intent behind works, privileging subjective interpretation over clarity or purpose.
3. Fosters Elitism: The field is often accused of intellectual elitism, accessible only to those steeped in postmodern or structuralist theories. This detachment from everyday language and common sense reinforces a divide between scholars and the general public, making semiology appear insular and irrelevant.
4. Politicizes Neutral Media: By attributing hidden ideologies or power structures to seemingly neutral objects or texts, semiology can turn benign elements of culture into battlegrounds. This tendency risks promoting cynicism and mistrust in cultural analysis.
Con: Semiology is Not Unseemly
1. Deepens Understanding: Semiology provides a framework to uncover the cultural and psychological meanings behind symbols and signs. It allows us to explore how language, images, and gestures shape societal norms, thus enriching our understanding of human communication.
2. Illuminates Power Dynamics: By analyzing how signs are used to perpetuate ideologies, semiology exposes hidden systems of power. This critical lens is invaluable in fields like media studies, advertising, and politics, where symbolic manipulation is central.
3. Enhances Creativity: Far from being an obstacle, semiology fuels artistic innovation. By deconstructing established meanings, creators can subvert expectations, challenge norms, and produce works that resonate on deeper, symbolic levels.
4. Democratizes Meaning: Semiology teaches that meaning is not fixed but is instead constructed through social interaction. This insight empowers individuals to question dominant narratives and to reinterpret cultural artifacts in ways that reflect diverse perspectives.
Conclusion
The claim that "semiology is unseemly" depends on one's perspective. Critics may view it as pretentious and inaccessible, while supporters argue it is an indispensable tool for understanding and critiquing culture. Ultimately, semiology’s value lies in its ability to reveal hidden dimensions of meaning, though its application must remain clear and relevant to avoid alienation.
###
As in formal college debate argue the thesis and its alternative. “Roland Barthes was more obscurantical than de Saussure.”
##
Thesis: Roland Barthes Was More Obscurantist Than de Saussure
1. Prolific Complexity
Barthes’ extensive body of work spans semiology, literary criticism, and cultural analysis, often engaging with postmodern theories. His writing, such as S/Z or The Death of the Author, is marked by layered, esoteric language and intricate argumentation that is often difficult for non-specialists to access. While Barthes embraced this complexity, it often alienates readers, making his work seem deliberately opaque.
2. Shift into Postmodernism
Barthes’ move into poststructuralism and his embrace of postmodern ideas introduced more ambiguity compared to Saussure's structuralism. His later works, like Empire of Signs, indulge in fragmented and subjective interpretations of meaning, rejecting the systematic clarity of Saussure’s semiology. Barthes often revels in ambiguity, whereas Saussure sought to clarify and systematize linguistic structures.
3. Cultural Criticism Over Science
Saussure, as a linguist, aimed to build a scientific foundation for understanding language through a structured approach to signs (the signifier and signified). Barthes, however, applied semiology to cultural criticism in works like Mythologies, where he explored the symbolic nature of everyday objects and practices in a way that often required substantial cultural and theoretical knowledge to unpack. This made Barthes’ work more abstract and less straightforward.
4. Reflexive Style
Barthes’ frequent self-reflection on the act of writing itself, as seen in works like A Lover’s Discourse, adds layers of meta-commentary that can overwhelm readers. His tendency to intertwine dense theoretical language with personal musings makes his style appear more deliberately obscurantist than Saussure’s straightforward academic tone.
Alternative: de Saussure Was More Obscurantist Than Barthes
1. Abstract Foundations
Saussure’s work in structural linguistics, while foundational, is highly abstract. His conceptual framework—especially ideas like the arbitrariness of the sign, langue vs. parole, and synchronic vs. diachronic analysis—requires a significant conceptual leap to grasp. The abstract nature of Saussure's theories, coupled with his lack of concrete examples, creates barriers to understanding.
2. Inaccessibility Through Formalism
Saussure’s insistence on a scientific and formalist approach to language often sacrifices accessibility for rigor. His Course in General Linguistics reads as a dense theoretical treatise, with its emphasis on structural binaries and theoretical terminology like signifier and signified creating an intimidating framework for readers unfamiliar with linguistic studies.
3. Reliance on Secondary Interpretation
Since Saussure’s ideas were reconstructed posthumously by his students, the Course in General Linguistics lacks the clarity that might come from the author's direct engagement with his audience. This secondary interpretation adds an additional layer of complexity, leaving readers to decipher Saussure’s ideas through a potentially distorted lens.
4. Barthes’ Popularization of Semiology
Barthes, by contrast, applied semiology to popular culture, making his ideas more relatable and engaging to broader audiences. Works like Mythologies deconstruct everyday phenomena—advertising, wrestling, wine—offering insights that connect abstract semiotic theory to real-world examples. This practical application demystifies semiology, making Barthes arguably less obscurantist than Saussure.
Conclusion
The debate hinges on one’s definition of "obscurantism." Barthes’ reflexive, postmodern style and cultural criticism can feel impenetrable, but his efforts to connect theory with everyday life arguably make him more accessible than Saussure’s abstract, formalist linguistics. Saussure’s systemic rigor might appear clearer in hindsight, but the dense abstraction of his foundational concepts arguably places more barriers before readers than Barthes’ colorful, if labyrinthine, prose.
##
According to Laurent Binet, author of the seven functions of language, what are the six core functions of language and what is his seventh?
##
Laurent Binet’s The Seventh Function of Language is a fictional work that revolves around language theory, particularly influenced by Roman Jakobson’s linguistic framework. In Jakobson’s theory, there are six core functions of language, each corresponding to a specific aspect of communication:
- Referential Function: Language used to convey information about the world or a specific context (e.g., "It’s raining").
- Emotive Function: Language expressing the speaker's feelings or attitudes (e.g., "Wow, I’m so happy!").
- Conative Function: Language aimed at influencing or commanding the listener (e.g., "Close the window").
- Phatic Function: Language used to establish or maintain social interaction (e.g., "Hello, how are you?").
- Metalinguistic Function: Language used to discuss or analyze language itself (e.g., "What does this word mean?").
- Poetic Function: Language focused on the aesthetic or artistic quality of the message (e.g., a poem or a slogan).
In Binet's novel, the seventh function of language is a fictional addition that builds on these six. It is portrayed as the ability to use language performatively to manipulate reality and exert power over others, akin to a "magic function." The concept dramatizes the idea of language as a tool not just for communication but for control, persuasion, and shaping events in the real world.
This "seventh function" aligns with themes in speech-act theory (e.g., J.L. Austin's performative utterances) but is taken to an extreme in the novel’s fictional espionage and power-struggle plot.
##
