La Tiere Galvan
E436 Theory & Criticism
August 2010
Wexler
Gran Torino, Semiotics and Linguistics through Saussure’s Perspective
What comes first the chicken or the egg? While that may be a more entertaining idea to analyze, lets consider semiotic relationships that more involve ourselves. What comes first, you or me? Everyone has subconsciously processed these ideas and it is through a system of linguistics and semiotic relationships that we are able to distinguish who we or I is. We can determine the value of ourselves and our condition based on our relationship to the things that encompass our surroundings. This concept of semiotics was derived from Ferdinand de Sassure. Saussure evaluates the system of language and its social influence. It is through his exploration of the “signs” and “symbols” in linguistics that he identifies the foundation for interpersonal relationships.
Like Saussure, I concur that semiotics and linguistics play a significant role in social interaction and contribute to some of the controversial “isms” that decay interpersonal relationships in contemporary culture.
Saussure’s ideas of semiotics and linguistics language can be closely viewed in the film Gran Torino. Gran Torino is a film centered on a widowed ornery, prejudiced Korean-war veteran named Walt Kowalski who resides in a predominantly Hmong neighborhood. The story develops following the attempted theft of Kowalski’s 1972 Gran Torino by his neighbor Thao. The young man, through the threatening pressure of his cousin, was ordered to perform the theft in order to become initiated into their gang; it is through his unsuccessful attempt that Kowalski develops a relationship with the boy and his family. In the film, Kowalski’s speech demonstrates a lot of the ideas that Saussure argues about linguistics and semiotic relationships. Kowalski, in his disgruntled nature, is consistently identifying people through words (specific insulting words) that classify them into a system of being.
When the movie begins Kowalski calls his new Hmong neighbors “chinks,” which is a derogatory remark used to represent Asians. Saussure presents this performative behavior by stating that, “It is the social side of speech, outside the individual who can never create nor modify it by himself, it exists only by virtue of a sort of contract signed by the members of a community” (Saussure; 850). This highlights this notion that speech has a social element that which is constructed or derived from a consensus or majority of consenting individuals in a particular location. If Kowalski lived in an area that condoned or did not discourage these prejudiced identifiers, than the term (derogatory or not) becomes part of a normal cultural representation. However, once Kowalski identifies this group of people by this racist remark, may not be able to “modify” it but it does in-turn have the potential to create controversy or violence. We are all too familiar with racial violence in contemporary society today and this is just one of the examples of how we can contribute to it. Saussure furthers his argument by suggesting that linguistic signs are primarily psychological. But he continues on to saying that the associations with these signs “bear the stamp of collective approval” and ultimately become “realities that have their ‘seat in the brain,” (Saussure; 850).
The catalyst for Saussures semiotic arguments are signs, signified and signifiers. Signifiers are the linguistic sign or symbol. They are an indication that they are in opposition to each other and are separated form “the whole of which they are parts,” (Saussure; 853). This is to say that two subjects are exist in a system of things as a whole but are oppositional to one another. It is through their binaries that realities are constructed and ideals are accepted. In the film, there is a scene in which a group of African American males surround the young Hmong woman. The men try to intimidate the woman and insinuate that they plan to harass her. During this scene they make sexist remarks and even go to the extent of calling her a “bitch.” The remarks made by both the woman and the group of men demonstrate a struggle for identifying their gender and superiority. The Asian woman insults the men’s intelligence and the men try to over-power the woman. While Saussure would evaluate the words to establish the semiotic relationship between a male and woman or Asian and Blacks, Georg Hegel would take this idea a step further.
In the Phenomenology of Spirit Hegel describes how the each subjects’ existence is distinguished through the existence of another subjects. He states, “Self-consciousness exists in and for itself when, and by the fact that, it so exists for another; that it exists only in being acknowledged,” (Hegel; 541). The struggle between characters to express their existence would employ Saussure’s argument on the value of things. In Course on General Linguistics, Saussure says, “a dissimilar thing can be exchanged for the thing of which the value is to be determined; and similar things that can be compared with the thing of which the value is to be determined,” (Saussure; 858). This idea is also evident in contemporary society. It is through the association we give things in existence that we install a value. This hierarchical consciousness causes us to differentiate what objects/subjects have great value or higher advantage or –simply put—are better than the things that are not it. In the film one of the male Hmong characters criticizes Thao for performing “woman’s work” when he is gardening. Both the body language and way in which he expressed his disproval demonstrated a sense of superiority of a male over a female in the types of work they perform. While the character is being belittled, there is also a woman in the scene. One might consider how this insult is internalized by the female character. Does this make her question her value in relation to a man? Is this type of behavior or linguistic interaction not reaffirming a cultural belief of female inferiority next to a man? Saussure states, “Relations and differences between linguistic terms fall into two distinct groups, each of which generates a certain class of values,” (Saussure; 863). Now in the 21st century we can see that the difference between two subjects is often divided and therefore inherits a certain level of value depending on the category it has been placed in. For example, we know that GOD vs. MAN is divided with one clearly associated with a greater value than the other. We can thus assume that one of these terms or subjects is inferior to the other. As human beings we do this with most things in life, including individuals. So we can infer that amongst groups of races, genders, or even religions we categorize things into classes which ultimately tags them with a greater or lesser value making one of the things more privileged than the other. For example, Black vs. White, Rich vs. Poor, etc.
With any contrasting elements there is a reference or association of something. But does this not pose a problem once we get into interpersonal relationships? If within culture there is a general or accepted assumption that men are inferior to women, does that not enable or pave the way for sexism? Women are more likely to be subjected to harassment or discrimination if they are seen as the “lesser” or “under-privileged” part in a whole system. If there is this subconscious notion that whites are more superior to blacks or any minority, does that not serve as a gateway for racism and prejudice in our society? Racism continues to be perpetuated through innuendoes, preconceived notions, speech patterns, etc. because these ideas have been mutually consented to by the superior group. Bell Hooks said it best when he stated that without the discontinuation of the notion of “authority” or “mastery over” there will be a continuance of expressing traditional-hegemonic societal views; there will also be a promotion of supremacist ideals and a construction of aesthetic ideas that don’t necessarily reflect an objects genuine experience. Hegel would characterize this as an “essentialist” idea. He states, “But the ‘other’ for it is an unessential, negatively characterized object,” (Hegel; 542). This shows that the inferior object (“other”) takes on the role of the less essential object or adopts a negative connotation or association. Langston Hughes touched on the idea when he described how a word comes to be the symbol for specific virtues if generally accepted. He stated, “ And so the word white comes to be unconsciously a symbol of all virtues,” (Hughes; 1193). If we believe that whites are superior to any other race then we are subject to correlate “white-ness” to the quality of other objects that are not white. But we must also consider that an object fails to maintain a value in its independent state, “both factors are necessary for the existence of a value,” (Saussure; 858).
Gran Torino exemplified many of the cultural “isms” in contemporary society that affect the function of interpersonal relationships. It is through linguistics in daily life and semiotics that we establish our existence. Through these notions of self we instill particular values through mutual consensus and enforce ideals. Upon enforcing these ideals we thus separate objects/groups into categories and allow them to become a part of a hierarchical system. It is through this system and reinforced associations with objects that allow for controversy to influence our social thoughts and interpersonal relationships. While establishing essential, inferior, superior or better distinctions between objects, it is inevitable that we are assisting in creating animosity between individuals as they struggle to validate their existence. This struggle for validation or to attain greater significance over the opposing object creates preconceived notions that lead to prejudice, discrimination, racism, sexism, misogyny and can even lead to larger scale conflicts such as war. This system of linguistics and semiotics that Saussure makes his claims on play a significant role in determining social relations. The clash between dialectics or oppositional elements constructs specific realities that will maintain social inequality. Social inequality will continue to decay interpersonal relationships as long as we continue to make these associations between words/terms. If we abandon these associations and arbitrary connection between words and ideas then we can reduce the level of controversy that is interwoven into personal interaction.
Works Cited
Hughes, Langston. “The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain” Ed. Vincent Leitch. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Second Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc, 2010. Print.
Hooks, Bell. “Postmodern Blackness” Ed. Vincent Leitch. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Second Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc, 2010. Print.
Hegel, Georg. “Phenomenology of Spirit” Ed. Vincent Leitch. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Second Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc, 2010. Print.
Hegel, Georg. “[The Master Slave Dialectic]” Ed. Vincent Leitch. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Second Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc, 2010. Print.
Saussure, Ferdinand. “Course in General Linguistics” Ed. Vincent Leitch. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Second Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc, 2010. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment