The Dangers of Semiotics: Analysis of Importance of Signs

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Swastika
“Song of the South”
“Rebel Flag”
Bibliography

Introduction

The semantic importance of signs, as informational mediums, has been recognized since a long time ago. However, it was only at the beginning of the twentieth century that semiology (the study of sign process), has been formed as a distinctive scientific discipline by Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Sanders Peirce, despite the fact that the mentioned individuals had different views on the technical aspects of semantic meaning being channeled through signs. Saussure had insisted on the purely psychological essence of signification while suggesting that every sign consists of two integral elements: form and the concept. Whereas forms for signifying a particular concept can vary, the concept itself remains an objective category. At the same time, he admitted the process of signification is much more complex than simply a voluntarist attachment of semantic sense to verbal or visual constructions: “It is a great mistake to consider a sign as nothing more than the combination of a certain sound and a certain concept. To think of a sign as nothing more would be to isolate it from the system to which it belongs. It would be to suppose that a start could be made with individual signs, and a system constructed by putting them together” (Saussure 114). Charles Sanders Peirce, on the other hand, had come up with a so-called “triad system of signification”. According to him, the significance of just about any aspect of objective reality is being altered by our minds into a “secondary significance”, which differs from the original one. Therefore, the effectiveness of a particular form of communication depends on the degree of similarity between people’s mental perceptions of the original “representamen”: “A sign addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. The sign which it creates I call the “interpretant” of the first sign” (Peirce 228). It appears that, whereas Saussure’s theory is more applicable within a context of the process of linguistic signification, the one of Charles Sanders Peirce is more adapted to address the process of visual and mental signification. However, as we will show in the next part of this paper, the semantic message of certain signs simply cannot be rationalized, which nevertheless does not reduce the universal appeal of such a message. In its turn, this allows us to suggest that there are more factors at play, within a context of the process of signification taking place, than purely linguistic and psychological ones. The validity of this thesis is best substantiated by analyzing semiotics, commonly perceived as “socially dangerous”.

Swastika

There can be little doubt as to the fact that the history of the twentieth century has been heavily affected by semiotics, which is used to represent political ideologies. The most striking example of such semiotics is a swastika. The exposure to this symbol automatically triggers people’s subconscious reaction as to what the ideas of National-Socialism stand for. And, as practice shows, this reaction can never be neutral. Such effect can hardly be explained by the means of logic – after all, the mentioned ideology has long ago become a thing of the past. The fact that the practical application of Nazism had resulted in millions of people being killed, cannot fully explain this phenomenon, because otherwise, the public exhibition of the Napoleonic symbol “N” would also be triggering a highly emotional response, on the part of people exposed to it. After all – Napoleonic wars are believed to have caused at least 15 million people to lose their lives. Yet, the letter “N” is being widely used as a decorative element on champagne and vine labels, without people considering it as something inappropriate. The same can be said about the Communist symbol of a hammer and a sickle. It is now being estimated that the Communist reign in Russia alone, had resulted in the deaths of 50-60 million people. Nevertheless, the symbol of hammer and sickle is still being displayed on the flags of left-wing political parties, throughout the world, despite the fact that it fully fits into the definition of “symbol of hate” (After having taken over political power in Russia, Communists had embarked on physical extermination of representatives of what they considered as “parasitic social classes”). Moreover, students in many Western universities are now being indoctrinated to believe that Marxism is a “humanistic philosophy”, which had simply been wrongly interpreted.

At the same time, in countries of the EU, people are being sentenced to lengthy terms in jail, if found hiding a swastika flag in their closets, not even to say displaying it in public. Why is it? Apparently, the swastika cannot be thought of as simply a political symbol, as it is the case with the symbol of the hammer and a sickle – it is something so much more. In his article “Swastika Guilt”, Steven Heller says: “As a designer, I’ve long been fascinated by the unmitigated power of the swastika. As a Jew, I’m embarrassed by my fascination. This paradox is one reason why I wrote the book The Swastika: A Symbol Beyond Redemption? (Allworth Press, 2000). However, my working on it did not resolve my conflict. Instead, I’ve become even more obsessed with the symbol – more drawn to and repulsed by it. I have curious dreams about it” (Heller 30). There is something deeply mythical about the symbol of the swastika – it often produces a hypnotic spell on those who observe it. Despite the fact that swastika has been used as a decorative element by Indo-Aryan people, throughout the course of thousands and thousands of years, it is namely its association with German National Socialism, which now causes people to form their attitude towards it. In her article “Why did Hitler Adopt the Swastika Symbol for Nazis?”, Jane Buckley expresses her contempt with the fact that swastika has been used by “evil” Hitler, despite this symbol’s highly positive semiotics: “The swastika is an ancient symbol that has been used for over 3,000 years. Artifacts such as pottery and coins from ancient Troy show that the swastika was a commonly used symbol as far back as 1000 BC, to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck” (Buckley 2006). Apparently, it never occurred to the author that the concept of “evilness” is relativistic in its essence. Had Hitler won the war, it would be Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin charged with “crimes against humanity” (The bombing of Dresden alone, on February 13, 1945, cost 300.000 innocent civilians their lives). After all, Hitler’s social reforms did turn Germany into the happiest and most powerful country in Europe, within a matter of few years, which explains why the overwhelming majority of Germans were willing to fight for him until the very last days of WW2. Therefore, despite what is now being commonly assumed, Nazism’s interpretation of swastika was not much different from the original one: “As National Socialists, we see our program in our flag. In red, we see the social idea of the movement; in white, the nationalistic idea; in the swastika, the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work” (Mein Kampf 496). This explains why, when applied to the phenomenon of the swastika, both: Saussure and Peirce’s theories fail to rationally explain the mechanics of this symbol affecting people’s subconsciousness. According to Saussure, the ideas of Nazism could have been symbolized by just about any other sign with equal effectiveness, because these ideas are rational. Yet, it is simply impossible to imagine Nazism without the symbol of the swastika. Peirce’s theory also fails to explain a situation – the “second meaning” of the swastika in people’s minds appears to have uniform subtleties, which according to Peirce, could not possibly be the case. There can only be one answer to this – Nazis’ utilization of swastika for political purposes corresponded rather well with its original semantic meaning as the symbol of light, progress, physical beauty and intellectual exaltation. These ideals are conceptually opposite to the ideals of tolerance, equality, multiculturalism, and cultural relativism, professed by promoters of the neo-Liberal agenda. Therefore, the fact that displaying the symbol of swastika is considered a criminal offense in today’s neo-Liberal Western societies has nothing to do with Nazism being strongly associated with the deaths of millions of people (otherwise, displaying the hammer and a sickle, would be outlawed as well) – it is simply authorities’ reaction to the fact that the sight of swastika triggers racial instincts in racially unaware White people. The technical aspects of how it is being done, remain a mystery. Thus, we can say that the semiotics of swastika is undeniably dangerous but only dangerous within a context of modern socio-political realities when the importance of people’s racial affiliation is being denied altogether.

“Song of the South”

As we have mentioned earlier, the application of semiotic theories of Saussure and Peirce cannot provide us with a clear and comprehensible answer as to what causes the swastika to remain a powerful symbol. However, these theories come in very handy, when it comes to analyzing other semiotic symbols, which are now being commonly believed to pose a social danger. Disney’s feature film “Song of the South”, released in 1946, contains plenty of such symbols, which despite their subtle form, are still capable of sparking public controversies. In its turn, this explains why the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had accused “Song of the South” of perpetrating a racist message and recommended African-Americans to boycott movie premiers. The most controversial of them is the image of “tar baby” – which coveys the idea that Black people’s cultural refinement is skin deep and that their true existential mode is bestiality. In his article “Take a Frown, Turn It Upside Down: Splash Mountain, Walt Disney World, and the Cultural De-rac[e]-ination of Disney’s Song of the South”, Jason Sperb provides us with insight on film’s plot as being semiotically racist: “The tale of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby features the animated protagonist confronting a particularly rude black figure on the side of the road. The stranger is in fact made entirely of tar; Brer Fox and Brer Bear constructed him to trap Brer Rabbit. The plan is that the rabbit will become so enraged by the Tar Baby’s insolent behavior that he will start a fistfight with the figure, only to become stuck in the tar. The cultural implications, meanwhile, of both the rudeness and the danger of the black figure – this “racist icon” – would not be lost on many, like the NAACP” (Sperb 926). This is how spokesmen for NAACP explain the technicalities of “intentional dehumanization”, found in the “Song of the South” – when viewers are being exposed to the image of “tar baby”, their mind (independently of their will) constructs association “black=evil”; thus, creating a “second meaning” for the concept of Blackness, as necessarily counter-productive. From this, there is only one step to denying Blacks their humanity.

Therefore, there can be no doubt as to the fact that racial stereotypes, promoted by “Song of the South”, are not simply the product of “Liberal imagination”, as suggested by American Conservatives. However, it would be equally wrong to suggest that censoring movies on the subject of racial stereotyping, as it is being done today, can effectively solve the problem of racism in America, simply because, as recent sociological studies reveal – people’s racial attitudes are genetically predetermined, at least on the part of Whites. Jennifer Eberhardt’s article “Dehumanization and Discrimination against Blacks Linked, Study Finds”, suggests that White people are biologically pre-inclined to associate Blacks with apes, on a subconscious level. While referring to studies, which had taken place over the course of few years, at Stanford and Penn State Universities, Eberhardt says: “In a series of studies that subliminally flashed black or white male faces on a screen for a fraction of a second to “prime” the students, researchers found subjects could identify blurry ape drawings much faster after they were primed with black faces than with white faces. The researchers consistently discovered a black-ape association even if the young adults said they knew nothing about its historical connotations” (Eberhardt 2008). Thus, there is no doubt as to the fact that the semiotic symbols in the “Song of the South” (“tar-baby”) can hardly be referred to as socially appropriate, because they do create a “second meaning” of intolerance, by facilitating White people’s sub-conscious attitude towards Blacks as inferior beings. However, their attitude simply cannot be eliminated altogether. This is the reason why banning “Song of the South” did not increase the extent of inter-racial tolerance in America, just as it proved to be the case with the release of Hollywood movies that portray Black characters as solemnly computer wizards, upstanding politicians and particularly brave and intelligent cops. Even though that the social dangers of semiotics contained in “Song of the South” are quite apparent, it is doubtful of whether their legislative suppression might account for the effective way of dealing with the ideas, for which these semiotics stands, as they derive out of White people’s subconscious psyche.

“Rebel Flag”

The thesis, expressed in the previous part of this paper, also applies to the discussion of public controversy, surrounding a so-called “rebel flag” (Confederate flag). Even today, this flag continues to be incorporated into the state flag of Mississippi, which represents a direct challenge to the spirit of political correctness, which nowadays is expected to be embraced by all American citizens, regardless of their racial or social affiliation, simply because this flag is associated with the era of slavery in America’s South. In his article “Ghosts of the South”, Steve Lopez suggests that public display of a “rebel flag” can no longer be tolerated: “A coalition of business and civil rights leaders spent close to $700,000 arguing that the old flag insults African Americans and repels investment, but only 18 of Mississippi’s 82 counties voted to change it… The Civil War ended 136 years ago this month. Why are we still fighting?” (Lopez 65). Apparently, the author has a hard time grasping the simple fact that the official end of hostilities, does not necessarily mean that the war is over. For example, despite the fact that the truce between North and South Koreas has been lasting for more than 60 years now, both countries still consider themselves as being in a state of war with each other. The strong pro-Confederate sentiment still defines the existential mode of the majority of White Americans in the country’s South and hardly anything can be done about it, except for the physical extermination of descendants of slave owners. It is perfectly understandable why Black Americans do not like the “rebel flag”; however, it would be wrong to refer to the flag’s semiotics as such that are meant to incite intolerance, simply because the symbolical meaning of this flag does not seem to have uniform properties. Whereas for African-Americans “rebel flag” stands for slavery, White Southerners think of it as such that represents Southern tradition. Moreover, in recent years “rebel flag” became the symbol of White pride across America and the fact that representatives of racial minorities do not like it does not necessarily mean that it should be outlawed. Many White Americans do not like the fact that Mexican-Americans fly the Mexican flag while celebrating their Hispanic pride and while calling for the Spanish language to be given official status in this country; yet, this is what democracy is all about – citizens might not like each other, but the fact that they share the same country, necessarily prevents them from pursuing their racial, cultural or religious agendas as such that represent their foremost priority. Therefore, from a semiological perspective, it appears to be even more dangerous to actually idealize the symbolical intolerance of a “rebel flag”, while calling for its de-legitimization, then allowing it to fly freely over Mississippi’s state buildings. This is because focusing people’s attention on racial aspects of the “rebel flag’s” semantic message can hardly account for the effective method of increasing the levels of tolerance in this country. It is exactly after this flag became the subject of politically correct attacks that its popularity had significantly increased among White Americans – a good example of the practical effects of reverse psychology in action. It is not a flag that radiates racism but people associated with it, just as it is not the guns that kill people, but those who pull the trigger. Nowadays, for many “progressive” politicians and sociologists, the discussion of the issue of racism had turned into a full-scale occupation, out of which they actually derive a masochistic pleasure. For them, racism is like a skin rush – the more it is being scratched, the more it itches. However, their preoccupation cannot really be thought of as beneficial to the well-being of this nation. The public controversy, surrounding the “rebel flag”, allows us to suggest that nowadays, the semiotic significance of just about any “representament”, cannot be discussed as a “thing in itself”, as being proposed by the founders of semiology Saussure and Peirce. Apparently, the process of verbal or visual signification affects the objective subtleties of “referent” as much as it affects the actual “sense” (these are the essential components of Peirce’s theory of semiotics). Regardless of whether we want to admit it or not – racial factors play an important role, within a context of accentuating the semiotic significance of just about anything, as has been shown in this paper. The analysis of these factors will constitute semiologists’ foremost task in the future.

Bibliography

Buckley, Jane “Why did Hitler Adopt the Swastika Symbol for Nazis?”. 2006. Hellium.
Drummond, Steven “A Swastika Moment”. Education Week. (26) 36 (2007): 33.
Eberhardt, Jennifer “Dehumanization and Discrimination against Blacks Linked, Study Finds”. 2008. Medical News Today.
Heller, Steven “Swastika Guilt”. Print. (54) 4. (2000): 30-2.
Hitler, Adolph “Mein Kampf”. London: Mariner Books. [1925] 1998.
Peirce, Charles Sanders “Collected Writings”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958.
Lopez, Steve “Ghosts of the South”. Time. (157)17. (2001): 64-70.
Saussure, Ferdinand de “Course in General Linguistics” (trans. Roy Harris). London: Duckworth, [1916] 1983.
Sperb, Jacob “Take a Frown, Turn It Upside Down: Splash Mountain, Walt Disney World, and the Cultural De-rac[e]-ination of Disney’s Song of the South“. Journal of Popular Culture. (38) 5. (2005): 924-38.
Shiflett, Dave “Rebels Yell”. National Review. (52) 3. (2000): 25-7.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Dangers of Semiotics: Analysis of Importance of Signs

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)