Barthes, Semiotics and the Revolt Against Structuralism
What this covers
You can find Barthes here https://amzn.to/3dunE74
This is the official YouTube channel of Dr. Michael Sugrue.
Please consider subscribing to be notified of future videos, as we upload Dr. Sugrue's vast archive of lectures.
Dr. Michael Sugrue earned his BA at the University of Chicago and PhD at Columbia University.
Source description (no synthesized summary yet).
Roland Barthes develops a semiotic critique that progressively undermines the possibility of accessing any substantial reality beneath signs, ultimately retreating into a Cartesian aestheticism where the critic becomes a creative artist with absolute freedom over textual interpretation, but at the cost of solipsism and the loss of any grounding in external reality.
- Barthes begins by demythologizing mass culture artifacts to expose hidden coercive meanings, but reflexively applies this same critique to his own demythologizing project, concluding that demythology is itself a myth
- The elimination of authorial intention and the collapse of any stable signification between sign and referent makes the text infinitely open to interpretation, which grants the critic complete freedom but also severs any connection to external reality
- This trajectory leads Barthes toward an ironic, solipsistic position where pleasure becomes the only justifiable standard for intellectual activity, and the self becomes contingent and fragmentary when disconnected from social and linguistic structures
This asset isn't compiled yet
You're seeing its claims, ranked. Compile it to build the argument threads, weight them, and check each claim against your library — the full view.
Myth dissolves the realm of history by making it appear as nature; it makes the world appear natural and given, disguising the message being proposed, which is the most important effect of myth that Barthes analyzes
“let's think about myth in particular that essay on myth today what happens in myth and the reason why myth is misleading is because myth dissolves the realm of history by making it appear as nature it makes the world appear natural and given it disguises the message that is being proposed and the most important of bart's examples of this which has been discussed ad infinitum ad nauseam and the criticism of bart is a the picture of the negro soldier”
Roland Barthes made a decisive break with structuralism and Marxism, organizing his investigations around semiotics (the theory of signs) which drove contemporary French culture toward post-structuralism and post-modernism
“he had broken decisively with the most important traditions in post-world war ii um western european thought particularly he made a decisive break with structuralism and with marxism and the result of his investigations which are organized around the theme of semiotics the theory of science served to drive the tendency of contemporary french culture and perhaps to some degree the tendency of contemporary high culture throughout the west towards post-structuralism and post-modernism”
Althusser tried to unify Marxism and structuralism as the last of the modernist paradigms—giant deterministic systems shown to operate simultaneously as part of a larger meta-system—but Barthes rejects this, arguing that structuralism and Marxism inhibit and prohibit human freedom and entail totalizing meta-narratives that people no longer believe in
“it's worth comparing bart's work to the work of some of the other structuralists or marxists to see the uniqueness of his sort of position and also to see how in some respects it all simultaneously expresses a general collective tendency in particularly french intellectual high culture one of his contemporaries altaser tried to unify marxism in structuralism and that in some ways is the last of the modernist paradigms we get these giant deterministic systems and then try and show that they both operate simultaneously and are both part of some larger meta system well bart knew altaser and just and his reaction to this was saying look this is the worst thing you can possibly do the reason we are giving up structuralism the reason we are giving up marxism is because these large deterministic systems first of all inhibit and as a matter of fact prohibit human freedom”
Barthes analyzes a French magazine photograph from the mid-1950s of a Black soldier saluting the French tri-color, arguing that the first level of meaning is simply what is depicted (a photo of a soldier saluting), but the second level of myth is an apology for French colonialism—it presents the image of a happy, content, loyal, docile Black soldier to reassure that there is no problem with colonialism despite its breakdown and the movement against it
“he's looking at some french magazine and what he sees in the mid 50s is the picture of a negro soldier saluting the french tri-color and apparently he's dressed in a military uniform and the idea is that on the first level on the first level of relation between the sign and the thing signified let's examine that photograph level one we have a sign which is this piece of paper which has a film of light and dark spots on it that's what a photograph is in a literal strict sense okay what that sign signifies is a picture it is the saluting negro soldier so that's level one that's the obvious surface level of what that photograph means but bart says you know what that photograph really means at level two... the mythological meaning is that america didn't lose the vietnam war we won the vietnam war... he says that's really exactly in other words he thinks all the artifacts of modern culture are like that and we are all under influenced by a sort of disguised coercion”
Barthes' reading of Nietzsche emphasizes aesthetics, a critical stance, and the outsider status of the critic, which transforms the critic into a creative artist and creates a new approach to human creativity that allows for questioning all previously established foundational discourses
“bart is offers us one possible reading of nietzsche in fact bart's reading of nietzsche which emphasizes aesthetics which emphasizes a critical stance which emphasizes the outsider status of the critic actually transforms the critic into a creative artist and in the process of expanding the domain of the critic and expanding the creativity of the critic creates a new sort of art form or if not a new sort of art form a new approach to human creativity which allows for the questioning of all previously established verities and allows for the undermining and interrogation of what postmodernists call foundational discourses”
Barthes undergoes the 'death of the author'—the author is abolished so that the critic has completely free play within the domain of the text; if the author objects that the critic's reading is not what was intended, the post-structuralist critic responds that the text is completely free and authorial intent has no authority over meaning
“what he's looking to do is undermine the authority of the author he describes this as the death of the author the author has been abolished and the reason why he wants to abolish the author and abolish authority is because that's what gives the critic completely free play within the domain of the text if for example a critic offers a reading of a of a poem or a play and the author happens to be around and he says to the critic well that's not what i meant bart and that sort of critic this quarter sort of post-structuralist critic the semiotic critic will say so what the text is completely free what you think it means has nothing to do with what it means as far as i'm concerned and there's no way you can legislate this for me the the mere historical contingent fact that you didn't mean that it's just not my problem i got the text and that's all that matters”
Barthes' initial project of demythologizing mass culture artifacts was designed to liberate readers from the tyranny of mass-produced consciousness by decoding hidden messages in cultural artifacts to discover who is generating them and for what purposes, usually coercive purposes rooted in Marxist tradition
“what he does is use semiotics which i'll explain in a bit to try and decode the artifacts of mass culture to discern what hidden messages are being generated in these cultural artifacts and who it is that's generating these messages for what purposes usually coercive of course because he at least starts out in the marxist tradition and ultimately the point or at least initially his point of demythologizing of finding the hidden meanings caught within the artifacts of mass culture was to liberate us from the tyranny of mass-produced consciousness so he wants to free us to liberate us and perhaps individuate us”
Barthes wrote a book called 'The System of Fashion' in which he analyzes ladies fashion and treats it as a semiotic system, analyzing the system of signs in fashion as a remarkable idea that can be applied to the entire human domain to break down every kind of communicative activity and sign
“bart wrote a wonderful book called the system of fashion in which he analyzes ladies fashion and he treats it as a semiotic system and he's right it is a system of science it's a remarkable idea so one of the utilities of this is that it can be applied to the entire human domain all kinds of communicative activity or every kind of sign can be broken down and analyzed”
In 'The Lovers Discourse,' Barthes states that the reason he wrote the book is because discourse is a discourse of profound loneliness, and he is continuing a theme developed in mid-20th century French culture of the lonely ego existentially operating in a void of meaning and coherence, deciding arbitrarily how to arrange and fix the world by constructing it
“he says in his in a piece called the lovers discourse which is a lovely book very half novelistic and half essayist it's quite a lovely piece he says that the reason why he wrote the book is because the discourse is a discourse of profound loneliness and in fact to continue bart is continuing a theme that was developed in the middle part of the 20th century in french culture the idea of the lonely ego existentially operating in a void of meaning in a void of coherence deciding arbitrarily how to arrange and fix the world in a way almost constructing the world”
Semiotics is defined as the science of signs or the theory of signs, a general science of science, and is a subset of structural linguistics founded by de Saussure around the turn of the century, viewing the human domain as the domain of symbols and signs and trying to read these signs and look for their internal coherence
“what he does is semiotics and symbiotics can be defined as the as the science of signs or the theory of science the general science of science is what decessor calls it it's a subset of structural linguistics which was founded and organized by diesel around the turn of the century and semiotics views the human domain as the domain of symbols as the domain of signs and what it does is try and read these symbols read these signs and look for their internal coherence”
In his essay 'Myth Today,' written 14 years after 'Mythologies,' Barthes becomes reflexive and ironic, reconsidering whether demythologizing is truly possible—suggesting that it may be 'masks all the way down' if there is no substantial reality behind appearance.
“at the end of it is at least in the english american edition is an essay that bart wrote 14 years after he wrote his book mythologies and that's called myth today and that's where he begins this project of ironic reconsideration of the demythologizing project where he says you know what it may have been that i was unable to pull off what i was trying to pull off because it may be masks all the way down if there is no substantial reality behind appearance then the possibility of de-mythologizing the world completely disappears just one myth after another”
Wittgenstein points out that the self, like language, is socially constructed, and when we try to remove ourselves from the external world, we end up talking to ourselves rather than engaging in genuine communication.
“may i suggest that as wittgenstein pointed out the self like language is socially constructed and that when we try and remove ourselves from this from the external world the result is that we end up talking to ourselves right”
Barthes argues that the external world is not given to us but actively constructed by us, which is a more radical derivation from Kant's project of showing we actively construct the external world, because Barthes extends this to argue that we construct not just the world of signs and society and history, but ultimately nature itself is a social and linguistic construct
“if you can see this in some ways a derivation from the kantian project or showing that we actively construct the external world but it's much more radical than khan's project because what bart is going to argue is ultimately that we construct not just the world of signs the area of society the domain of history also ultimately nature is a social and linguistic construct”
Barthes was a French intellectual who was simultaneously Protestant, homosexual, and without a terminal degree, which made him an outsider in the French academy, and this outsider status drove his demythologizing project by making him more sensitive to hidden coercions and hypocrisies in French intellectual and mass culture
“because barr was a french intellectual who was simultaneously protestant homosexual and without a terminal degree he had become ill when he was supposed to stand for his final examinations he was very much an outsider in the french in the french academy he was everything that most french intellectuals are not and for that reason i think that there were personal issues which tended to drive his demythologizing project which made him more sensitive to the hidden coercions to the hidden hypocrisies in the contemporary state of french intellectual culture but also particularly french mass culture”
Like an anti-Theseus, Barthes refuses to ask how to get out of the labyrinth, responding that there is no labyrinth outside—he is locked in his subjectivity and the domain of his universe ends at his fingertips.
“if shakespeare were to come to him and say i think you're misinterpreting one of my plays he would say well what does your opinion have to do with my freedom get away from my face right i have totally free play and what that amounts to is the idea that bart is a sort of anti-deadliest if you know the deadliest myth from greek mythology he's the one who found the way out of the labyrinth bart's reply is labyrinth what labyrinth i live here we're not trying to get out there is no out this is it you happen to be locked in your subjectivity and the domain of your universe ends with your fingertips and the idea that there is a way out of this problem that will allow us to find the way the world really is as opposed to the way the world is within the domain of our semiotic system is just the hopeless platonic dream of modernist meta of metaphysics from the time of the ancient greeks to the time of the moderns up to say levy strauss”
Barthes analyzes the brain of Einstein as a cultural icon embodying the myth that knowledge is a formula or container—Einstein's brain in a jar means knowledge is enclosed within space and physical matter, the opposite of a postmodern icon which would destroy the brain and break the box
“he moves to the brain of einstein which is a wonderful little essay and what he says is what the myth underlying that is that knowledge is a formula we have knowledge in a box here einstein's brain somehow inside that knowledge is enclosed within space see we have einstein's brain some day we're going to know exactly what makes this knowledge and exactly what makes us such a great brain but for now we're just keeping it in a box knowledge is in a box it's the opposite of a postmodern icon einstein's brain destroy the brain and break the box that's post-modernism”
Barthes' demythologizing project is formulated as a poetic protest against human limitations, but ironically takes the form of a demythologizing myth that is itself mythological
“we might want to say that bart created a poetic protest against human limitations and it's in the form of a demythologizing myth”
Barthes attended a world congress of detergents in 1954 in Paris and analyzed detergent advertisements as texts, finding that chemically identical products are differentiated through constructed myths: green vs. blue detergent, masculine (lumberjack) vs. feminine (housewife) imagery, creating contemporary myths where chemically equivalent products are made into different commodities through mythology
“the world congress of detergents in 1954 so apparently all the detergent manufacturers got together in france in paris which seems like an unlikely place to hold a detergent convention and they had all kinds of advertisements for the various kinds of detergents and what he did was he actually looked at the advertisements as a text and read them and he said what is this telling us well for example when we find out that uh that lux deep cleans linen what does that tell us well first of all tells you that linen is deep who would have thought that what does it mean for linen to be deep very odd stuff and he elaborates the carefully constructed distinctions that are being that are being created between roughly equivalent identical products one is green the other is blue chemically they may be completely identical we've changed the food coloring completely different advertising companion campaign connected to them one is appealing to i know the man of the house because it shows a guy lumberjacking and then washing his hands with the blue stuff blue is masculine if you got pink stuff and a woman is doing dishes pink is feminine chemically it may be completely identical but what we are doing here is constructing a contemporary myth”
Contemporary mythology is created by modern advertisers and manufacturers rather than Homer and Shakespeare, and people worship commodities like the new Cadillac because it represents myths of good life, ease, and luxury—the myth 'cadillac style' means 'good life,' and possessing a Cadillac has become an icon of contemporary life
“our new mythologizers are not homer are not shakespeare they are admin it's a real deep and caustic argument now he investigates striptease... imagine a cadillac commercial what you see is cadillac style right what this means is cadillac style what is the myth implicit there rich people happy people people who have good lives have cadillacs to be a to have a cadillac is to have a good life cadillac means good life right there are myths being constructed”
Using Rambo movies as an example, the first level of meaning is simply sylvester Stallone killing people and being invincible, but the second-order mythological meaning is an apology for American defeat in Vietnam—the myth of American invincibility constructed to deny historical loss through the fantasy of one American defeating 500 enemies
“rambo what is rambo well on one level it's a series of dots on a movie screen right and what it shows is uh sylvester stallone killing 500 people being the toughest guy around and being invincible he's something like the modern achilles now that's the first level that's the obvious surface meaning what's the second level the mythological meaning the mythological meaning is that america didn't lose the vietnam war we won the vietnam war was a strategic retreat and we're still strategically retreating from it by constructing works of art which say it wasn't really a problem one american can kill 500 of anybody we're the toughest people in the world we never die we never bleed we never worry we always get the job done in other words the myth of american invincibility is built into the rambo movies i mean it's impossible to miss it”
French intellectual culture has never been able to get out from under the shadow of Descartes; they all have a problem with either accepting their own selfhood or demonstrating the reality of the external world; it easily slips into solipsism if you start philosophical investigations from the inside, making it very hard to make the jump to outside stuff
“for some reasons that i think are clear they caught such a great thinker french culture has never been able to get out from under the shadow of descartes they all have a problem with either accepting their own selfhood or demonstrating the reality of the external world it easily slips off into solidism if you start your philosophical investigations from the inside it's gonna be so hard to make that jump to outside stuff it may be there but then again it may not”
Barthes tries to argue in 'Myth Today' that right-wing politics is more essentially and closely caught up with myths than left-wing politics, but this is done in obvious bad faith as an attempt to soft-pedal the mythic element of left-wing politics, revealing that he is constructing a new meta-myth supporting projects he happens to like
“towards the end of his essay on myth today he goes to great length to try and convince us that right-wing politics is more essentially and closely caught up with myths than left-wing politics but of course it's so evidently done in bad faith he's so evidently trying to soft-pedal the mythic element of left-wing politics that when you step back and look at it what's clearly going on here is the ironic critical construction of a new meta myth which supports the projects he happens to like”
Professional wrestling is dismissed by intellectuals as childish and pseudo-sport, but Barthes argues that working-class people who attend wrestling understand it is rigged and fixed, and go not as a sport but as a spectacle where they cheer personified symbols of cultural trends, creating community and social solidarity, similar to ancient tragic drama where the outcome was foretold
“he says wrestling is something that's laughed at by intellectuals all us professional smart guys with phds we look down upon professional wrestling and the people that go and really doesn't amount to very much because it's kind of well childish it's silly it's pseudo sport in fact bart has another reading it's a much deeper reading he says the reason why people working class people go to wrestling is because it's a spectacle not a sport they're not stupid they know full well this is entirely rigged entirely fixed so the question arises for bart which wouldn't perhaps arise in the minds of most intellectuals the hell do they get out of this what's the point of it why go to see this spectacle well bart has a real interesting way of looking at it he says this idea of a community spectacle where we already know the outcome and what we're cheering really is symbols or or the personified symbols of various kinds of cultural trends”
Semiotics corresponds to a shift in the conception of truth: it holds to a coherence conception of truth rather than correspondence theory, so if a symbolic system is internally coherent, there is nothing to judge it by external to that system because it is assumed that symbol systems do not mimic the world.
“semiotics holds to the idea of a coherence conception of truth if the symbol said is coherent it's very much similar to what rorty believes if the symbol said is coherent well then there's nothing to judge it by we can judge it by whether it reflects the world because it is assumed at the outset that systems of symbols do not mimic the world that mimesis is impossible rather their truth is to be found in the internal coherence of the systems”
Barthes reads plastic as embodying the myth of infinite transformation: plastic can be turned into anything, changed in color and shape, made to do all kinds of things, making plastic the ultimate postmodern substance with infinite freedom and infinite transformation
“finally plastic who'd have thought you could read plastic what a perverse idea well bart reads plastic and what he finds underneath the plastic image is the myth of infinite transformation you can turn plastic into anything you can change its color you can change its shape you can make it do all kinds of stuff plastic is the ultimate postmodern substance plastic has infinite freedom infinite transformation plastic in both its adjectival and noun senses”
The process of Nietzschean philosophizing with a hammer becomes intellectual vandalism when extended to all structures: the critic criticizes everything around it and then antsy starts to criticize itself, resulting in destruction where nothing is left except the ego, but there isn't even a complete self because structures of communication, knowledge, and linguistic interaction that give us hold to the external world are broken down
“in some respects uh i think it was a one of the the the artists involved in the data movement who constructed a machine that the first time you plugged it in it destroyed itself well that is very much this conception of culture you plug the machine in it criticizes everything around it and then when it gets kind of antsy it starts to criticize itself and that process of destruction that niche philosophizing with a hammer becomes a sort of intellectual vandalism and nothing is left except the ego but there isn't even a complete self because when we break down the structures of communication the structures of knowledge and the structures of linguistic interaction which give us some real hold to the external world it ultimately means that we're moving in the direction of solipsism”
Toward the end of Barthes' life (the last 7-8 years), his work becomes intensely personal and it becomes unclear whether he is writing a novel, literary criticism, essays, or a book; he completely gives up the idea of structure or form, and this breakdown of literary structure is analogous to the breakdown of external reality
“this is what we get when we get to the end of towards the end of bart's life the last seven or eight years his work becomes intensely personal and it's not clear at some times whether he's writing a novel or whether he's writing a piece of literary criticism or whether he's writing a series of essays whether he's writing one essay or whether he's writing a book formally like that of nietzsche or say the gay science where it's just a series of vignettes that don't really hold together he completely gives up on the idea of structure or form it all begins to break down and this breakdown of literary structure this breakdown of communicative or communicative form is analogous to the breakdown of external reality”
Pleasure is the only justification for any intellectual activity because intellectual activity cannot mimic the world, so all of human life is potentially the domain of freedom and creativity, which is art, and the transformation of life into art is one of the most powerful readings of Nietzsche
“and pleasure is the only justification for any intellectual activity because it can't mimic the world so all of human life is potentially the domain of freedom creativity which is to say art and the transformation of life into art is one of the most powerful and worthwhile readings of nietzsche”
Barthes withdraws into interiority and cultivates a carefully thorough self, and is the great philosophical exponent of pleasure and the pleasure principle in contemporary thought, moving away from the external world while trying to render it dubious, contingent, arbitrary, and dependent upon construction by the self
“what bart is doing is withdrawing into interiority to a very carefully and thoroughly cultivated self and bart is i would say the great philosophical exponent of pleasure and the pleasure principle in contemporary thought the sort of person that moves away from the external world tries to render it dubious contingent arbitrary and dependent upon construction by the self”
Barthes argues that myth has become a commodity and commodities have become myths, reversing the Marxist formula of commodity-money-commodity into consumer goods-mythology-consumer goods.
“what bard is saying is that myth has become a commodity and commodities have become myths in a way it's a it's a change in the old marxist formula cmc from from capital volume one uh commodity money commodity what bart is thing that we have is is uh uh consumer goods and then mythology and then more consumer goods and that can consumer goods serve the purpose in this function in this culture that used to be served by the transcendence of religious objects in other words we fetishize consumer goods”
Contemporary intellectuals misunderstand high culture by treating tragedy (e.g., Oedipus) as the greatest achievement of Athenian culture, but tragedy started as popular art—this judgment reflects modern prejudices about high vs low art, not the actual nature of Attic culture.
“it's a real put down or come down because it's characteristic of contemporary intellectuals to think of something like tragedy as the highest of high art what is a greater achievement of attic culture than oedipus well bart thinks that oedipus at least started out and we've transformed it but at least the way it started out was something like hulk hogan it was all the people the average man in the street or man in the agora would go in there and cheer away no one full well that oedipus has to get it in the end”
Barthes concludes that every limitation on human freedom is ultimately a myth, and in fact clarity (which makes mises possible) is one of the most dangerous myths, because signs, discourse, and communication are neither clear nor obscure—one should not generalize about it
“what bart says is something like this or the conclusion he ultimately comes to is that every limitation on human freedom is ultimately a myth and in fact clarity which apparently makes the mises possible is one of the most dangerous myths because in fact signs discourse communication is neither clear nor obscure do not create a myth of obscurity either that's not going to work right so he doesn't want to go either way he says you can't generalize about it he doesn't have any satisfactory resolution he's caught between a rock and a hard place”
Barthes explicitly states on the second-to-last page of 'Mythologies: Myth Today' that he has used trickery and found it painful to work on the evaporation of reality, so he has started to make it excessively dense and to discover in it a surprising compactness which he savored with delight, meaning the justification for critical activity is that he savors it with delight, not that it represents reality
“even here in these mythologies i have used trickery finding it painful constantly to work on the evaporation of reality i have started to make it excessively dense and to discover in it a surprising compactness which i savored with delight so the justification for this critical activity is not the fact that it truly represents the world because you can't truly represent the world the justification for it is that he really savors it with delight in other words this is the triumph of the pleasure principle over the reality principle”
The structuralist idea that everything has a secret algebra hidden inside it (in mathematics, crystals, biological life forms, literary constructs, anthropology) is itself a myth that structuralists made up to legitimize their discourse; the party's over for that sort of thinking
“he says no there's no secret algebra hidden in everything that's a myth that you people made up so that you could legitimize structuralist discourse he says the party's over for that we got so good at being critical we got so good at being negative and negating we negated the sort of structures which made this criticism and negation possible”
Barthes thinks the external world is socially and linguistically constructed and we could simply unconstruct it if it gets in our way, but this requires an amazing degree of egoism and wishful thinking, and ultimately the project fails: the snake eats its own tail
“bart thinks that this is another ideological construct and that the external world is socially constructed linguistically constructed and we could simply unconstruct it if it gets in our way it's amazing the degree of egoism and wishful thinking that you need to engage in before you can argue a project like this it is a it takes one set of presuppositions and radicalizes them take them as far as you can possibly go the problem is that the snake ultimately ends up eating its own tail and the whole project disappears”
The result of semiotic thinking is a world in which we are all profoundly lonely—we have whole societies composed of atomized individuals all united together through shared myths but not through shared reality
“and because they're incremental and untranslatable there's no necessarily conflict between freudianism and marxism it's just there's no privileged position from which we can decide that freudianism as opposed to marxism is the true semiotic system which discloses ultimate reality there's just no such thing there's an infinite number of perspectives all right and that means that we break down into a work into a world in which we're all profoundly lonely and we have whole societies composed of atomized and available and culture together”
By constructing this Cartesian aesthetics, Barthes makes readers little gods and gives them omnipotence over an infinite domain called the literary text
“what i would say goes on here then is that in constructing this cartesian aesthetics bart makes readers little gods and gives them omnipotence over an infinite domain called the literary text”
Barthes analyzes striptease and infers that it desexualizes woman because the process never goes the entire way into actual sex; it is an elaborate stereotype ritual that provides catharsis for men's sex drives, constructing the myth of woman as incomplete sexuality through the ritual form
“he investigates striptease and he finds out or he comes he draws the inference that the process of striptease desexualizes woman why because it never goes the entire way it never turns into sex it's an elaborate ritual in which we get a sort of catharsis for men's sex drives who are the vast majority of the people who make up the audience and it is a sort of ritual it is entirely stereotyped you could almost construct a formula for it and what he says is this is just the construction of the myth of woman and in particular the idea that sexuality is incomplete in this sort of ritual”
The domain of postmodern post-structuralist weightlessness offers two possible directions: moving toward the will to power (as Foucault does) with political activity, or moving toward the will to pleasure (as Barthes does) with aesthetic quietism.
“we can choose two ways to go in this domain of postmodern post-structuralist weightlessness we can move towards the will to power or we can move towards the will to pleasure foucault chooses the the first road he moves towards the will to power and towards political activity bart moves away from political power towards pleasure and in moving towards pleasure he withdraws into a sort of aesthetic quietism in which you can have political activity as a sort of hobby but you can't quite take it with the grim and determined seriousness that bart does he's involved too much in absorbing the pleasures of the text he's become an intellectual aesthete all right and pleasure is the only justification for any intellectual activity”
The critic's only remaining task is indulgence and gratification of desire for pleasure, increasing the domain of freedom to cover all communicative behavior and all signs, treating nature itself as a sign of external coercion to be mythologized and unconstrcuted.
“what is there left for the critic to do certainly he can't communicate any substance any reality about a text to anybody else because it won't be any more real than whatever they already believe whatever they already think the only thing he can do is indulge himself is gratify his desire for pleasure by increasing the domain of his freedom so that it covers all communicative behavior so it covers the whole set of signs nature for example is one of our signs for external coercion the externality of things well we can treat that as a myth as well the whole world then becomes a human domain constructed by human beings in society and constructed by human beings in language it is cartesianism raised to a social collective level”
Examples of semiotic systems include psychoanalysis, Marxism, clothing (the kind of clothes you wear), mass culture (advertising, MTV), and other linguistic systems that are separate and incommensurable from each other
“examples of semiotic systems are something like psychoanalysis or marxism right linguistic systems that are separate and incommensurable right and in addition things like clothing the kind of clothes you wear that's a semiotic system all right uh mass culture things like advertising or mtv an extremely powerful semiotic system”
The critic relates to the work of art the way the artist relates to nature—just as artists look at nature and creatively reconstruct it, critics look at artistic works and creatively reconstruct them, creating a new level of artistic creation.
“and the critic relates to the work of art the way the artist relates to nature in the sense that think about the plato's example from the feeders where or play this example from the public where he says uh an artist looks at a bed and draws a picture of it and then a poet will we'll look at that and take it a little bit further we have three levels of reality we have the ultimate bed in the sky form of the bed we have the bed down here and then we have the artist statistic reconstruction of it well bart wants to add a new level to that we have the critical reconstruction of the artist text it can be a painting it can be a literary work it'd be anything but he is just as free in how he interprets it so now we have a new domain for the artist to work in previously artists have been describing the physical world the social world well now it is possible for a new sort of critical art to choose as its domain the world of artistic creation itself it's a sort of the criticism then becomes a meta art right”
A sailor can read the clothing worn by women as a semiotic text: a nun's long black dress and crucifix signals one meaning ('hello sailor' means greeting), while a woman in red satin hot pants and see-through blouse signals prostitute and 'hi sailor' means sexual proposition, demonstrating that people are constantly doing semiotic analysis through reading the first-order meaning of signs
“a sailor gets off a ship comes into port two women come up and say hi sailor one of them is wearing a long black dress and has a crucifix around her neck and she's a nun and she says to the sailor hello sailor hi and what she's doing is saying hello to the sailor another woman comes out she's dressed in red satin hot pants right and a see-through blast says hi sailor now clearly that person is a prostitute not a nun and clearly high sailor means something very different in that semiotic system the point being that the way she is dressed is a text that the sailor is reading which is why he knows how not to proposition the none doesn't that make sense and we're doing it all the time”