Argument for Semiotics
1. All cultural objects convey meaning.
2. All cultural practices depend on meaning.
4. To "make use of signs" is to function like a language.
5. Thus, cultural objects and practices embody a Saussurean structure including
Problem: (4) is a questionable premise. Although cultural objects and practices are meaningful, they may not be meaningful in the same way as ordinary language. This is where the loose use of "language" can cause problems and lead to misconceptions. For example, language and visual perception may both play a role in communication. But the principles that govern the process may be very different and the sort of information they convey may be different. Ordinary language can assert a negative existential with no difficulty. (Cf. "There is no elephant standing next to me.") But visual images do not convey -- indeed may be incapable of expressing -- the same content. Thus, language and images are signs that function somewhat differently.
Barthes -- Poetics of Representation: A method for analyzing visual material
[signifier===code===signified]===code===connotation
[cut of cotton===code===jeans]===code===casualness
The important thing to keep in mind is that meaning
All this works in a broader social and nonlinguistic sense as well.
Clothing as signifier -- "fashion statement"
Examples:
All takes place within a discourse of fashion.
Discourse
Consider the following argument: Forms, material objects, movements, marks on a page or a wall, sounds, etc. have no meaning or value in themselves. These things acquire whatever meanings they have only through interpretation within a discourse. If this is true, then nothing has meaning or value "in itself" outside of a discourse. Thus, to have knowledge of a thing is to recognize the role it plays within the set of relations that constitute a discourse. It's always within a discourse that knowledge is produced.
If this argument holds, then it is crucial to understand what constitutes a "discourse". What's the nature of this concept of a discourse? What is its object? What does it bring into focus? What we need are some concrete examples.
"Brick"/Bricklaying Example
Suppose that I'm building a wall and I say to my assistant, "Brick". Then he hands me a brick and I add it to the wall. Two things have taken place:
Now, notice that there's more going on than just our two sets of actions. There's the linguistic and the nonlinguistic acts and, in addition there's the larger totality that we might refer to as the building of a brick wall. Seen in this light, the request for a brick and adding it to the wall are components of the total process. And, in an important sense, the process is logically prior to the component actions. It is within the process that the actions take on meaning.
The total process is what we call a discourse (or a discursive formation). The key point here is that the discourse is not reducible to the linguistic or nonlinguistic components, but provides the context or structure within which the actions are intelligible and constitute an identifiable and meaningful activity.
Also keep in mind that discursive relations are social. A diamond in the ground prior to its being mined is just a stone. But after it's removed and enters into the economic market discourse, it becomes a commodity. It is the same physical object in both contexts, but functions differently and has a very different meaning and function.
When is a brick not a brick?
When it's a weapon thrown through a window. Or when it's a work of art. Cf. brick used as part of an installation in a museum (Andre). In this case, the appearance and perhaps even the handling of the brick may appear to be similar, but the meaning is radically different. It is now within the discourse of art (and minimalist sculpture in particular) that the employment of the brick makes sense.
Cf. Duchamp's urinal; Richard Long's installations and photographs, etc.
Again, it is within a set of social relations (discursive formations) that things take on their identities and meanings. It is also in social formations (in discourse) that individuals find their roles ("subject positions") and create meaning out of their lives.