Wed. Jul 24th, 2024

The Subjectivity of Semiotic

Roland Barthes is one of the semioticians who demonstrated new semiotic relations that allow philosophers and researchers to analyze sign fallacy. It is helpful to prove how nonverbal communication is open to interpretation of additional meaning. People can apply semiology to various communication contexts in qualitative research methods, such as media studies. In short, semiotics is one of the seven traditions in communication theory that Robert T. Craig first revealed. The theory views communication as a process based on a sign system, including language.

All things related to nonverbal codes, including one example. Sharing meaning crosses the gap between subjective points of view because people can never know directly what is a subjective thought. Other people’s feelings also play an essential role in all communication based on the use of signs. From one point of view, various communication problems that often occur result from misunderstandings. The difference is another example of giving meaning which the nature of semiotic codes influences. On the other hand, people can use the theory to virtually analyze various things that are part of the interaction field. Popular culture, organization, institution, and social are other scopes in the field.

The Modern Era, the Crisis of Thinking

When discussing misunderstandings in society, the crisis of thinking is one of the problems that global society faces in the modern era, based on the inability of individuals to analyze. It separates any information people get outside of themselves, regardless of whether it is good or bad. Such incompetence causes the emergence of a narrow or particularist paradigm in the theoretical side of man. In a paradigm, particularists influence how people see things that they get through an information system that keeps repeating gradually in reality.

In addition to the repetition of information, it affects the individual’s perception of believing the truth of such information. Without finding out beforehand, such a problem aligns with Barthes’ view. His theory of semiotics studies signs that are turbulent in human life. In his view, he interprets the sign as information that touches the feelings of the human heart. One example is the beauty of God or the longing for a peaceful life amid adversity. Roland Barthes is about elevating the semiotic relations rather than influencing how different fallacy is analyzed. He uses signs that are turbulent in humans with the term connotation, which is a word that affects the human condition. It sees a problem outside of each individual.

Structuralism and Semiotic Rules

Besides Barthes, Ferdinand de Saussure also played a significant role in the origination of the semiotic world, especially in structuralism. He also introduced the concept of semiology in the first place based on his opinion about language, which is a sign system. Language expresses ideas in the alphabetic sign system for the speech impaired, symbols in ceremonies, and signs in the military field. He also argues that language is a critical system formed in another science that studies signs in social life that are part of social psychology. Linguistics is a part of science that includes all signs where it can apply semiotic rules. On the other hand, Roland Barthes saw the semiotic of applying another fallacy of relations.

He has the opposite view to Saussure regarding the position of linguistics as part of semiotics. On the other hand, semiotics is part of linguistics because people can view signs in other fields as language. It expresses ideas, meaning meaningful, and is an element formed from signifiers. People can see it in a structure or system. Thus, Barthes’s semiology has levels of language systems. At the first level, language acts as an object; at the second level, language acts as a metalanguage. Object and metalanguage are mirrors opposite to each other, understood as signified, and outside the original signifier unity. On the other hand, connotations include language primarily social in terms of literal messages. It lends support to the second meaning of an artificial or ideological order.


Roland Barthes understands that the connotation present as a sign in human life does not have a basis for a literacy approach. In deep reasoning, the community gets the approach in its connotation. The first connotation Barthes examines through the lives of the people in the past by looking at the various myths that developed in their lives. Things like customs, the meaning of dreams in sleep, or black cats are the same as bad luck in the life of building a society without a literacy base of denotation or knowledge. However, it is more directed at the complicated feelings that people keep repeating until they become a sign of turmoil in humans.

People can know the relevance of connotation theory in Barthes’ semiotics with the growth of resistance through the lack of logical thinking in human life. Humans always tend to understand information through the feelings that stir within them without finding out the truth of such information. Knowledge base through emotional turmoil describes the emotional power within each individual. In the modern context, religion is one of the issues that people always mutter with various acts of rejection of the knowledge that one group has against another. As a result, information that is different from their knowledge will be limited by people and closed by looking at the knowledge as something wrong. When one group rejects teachings that differ from the knowledge that the other group believes in, they tend to move based on emotional direction.

Louis Hjelmslev

Louis Hjelmslev, another semiotician, did not ignore Saussure’s conception of language. However, he has redistributed his terms more formally. Within the language itself, he distinguishes fields. The first is a schema, which is language as pure form. He defines the field as phonologically based on the place in a series of oppositions. The second is the norm, namely language as a material form. He relates the field to the level of social realization but is still independent of such realization. In the field, language only acts as a set of customs that apply in a particular society.

In essence, norms determine usage and speech, determined simultaneously by usage and norms. Thus, schemas emerge that are integrated with linguistic forms and institutions. According to Hjelmslev, norms are purely methodical abstractions, and speech is a single concretion. In the end, society may find new uses or dichotomy schemes. It seeks to replace language pairs or redistribution without interest. The radical formalization of the concept of language allows an individual to put all the substantial and positive elements under a title. All that distinguishes under language eliminates one of the contradictory contradictions that Saussure’s distinction between speech and language carries.

The Rejection of Reality

One example is blaming teaching for necessitating violence in a social context. The belief in violence in a social context describes extreme practices as a characteristic of resistance. However, rejecting all knowledge outside of identity is a radical attitude that seeks social construction. All problems that occur in social construction are based on a thinking crisis. It increasingly leads individuals to behave freely regardless of wrong and sound values in such knowledge. In other cases, people often receive information without valid data. They always participate in disseminating the information without their knowledge base.

As a result, they end up with the actual practice of violence. It differentiates individuals with knowledge regardless of the wrong and sound values in a violent practice. However, receiving information without a basis for finding out describes the existence of modern society. It is not much different from the society in the past. They also believe in myths without a clear basis of knowledge. As Barthes explains, there is a variety of violent practices to self-closure. In human life, they are examples of many radical indications that occur in the modern era. Lazy thinking is the primary root of the problem, narrowly affecting human perception in thinking. It indicates the denial of any knowledge beyond belief. As a theoretical rejection, the rejection of knowledge will affect individual behavior. The behavior will commit violence as a rejection of the practical side of reality.


Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *