SEMIOTICS A N D

COMMUNICATION
• SIGNS, CODES, CULTURES

WENDY L E E D S - H U R W I T Z ^
 Contents

C o v e r photo: C u n a j a g u a r , i n the collection of the M í l w a u k e e P u b l i c

M u s ç u m , catalog n u m b e r 65951/28220. Photo by D o n L i m n e r ,
U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n - P a r k s i d e .
Acknowledgments vil

Prelude: W h y Semiotics? xi
C o p y r i g h t © 1993 by L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m Associates, I n c .
AU rights reserved. N o part of this book m a y be reproduced in
>>
i Introduetion: C o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d Semiotics xv
any form. by photostat, microfilm, rctrieval system, or any other
m c a n s , without the prior written permission of the publisher.

L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m Associates, I n c . , P u b h s h e r s 0 PART I SEMIOTIC THEORY AND

365 B r o a d way COMMUNICATION THEORY 1
Hillsdale, N e w J e r s e y 07642

* 1 I n t r o d u c i n g Semiotics 3

9 2 Signs 22

& 3 Codes 51

L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s C a t a l o g i n g - i n - P u b l i c a t i o n D a t a
PART I I FROM SEMIOTIC THEORY TO
Leeds-Hurwiiz, Wendy.
COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR 75
Semiotics and C o m m u n i c a t i o n : Signs, C o d e s , C u l t u r e s / W e n d y L e c d s -
Hurwitz.
p. cm. 4 F o o d as S i g n a n d C o d e 83
Includes bibliographical references and Í n d e x .
I S B N 0-8058-1139-7 ( c ) — I S B N 0-8058-1140-0 (p)
5 C l o t h i n g as S i g n and C o d e 104
I . Semiotics. 2. C o m m u n i c a t i o n . I . Ticle.
P99.L44 1993
302.2—dc20 92-923 # 6 Objects as Sign a n d C o d e 127
CIP

Books published by L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m Associates are p r i n t c d on acid-free PART I I I FROM COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR

paper, a n d their bindings are chosen for strengih and d u r a b i l i i y . TO SEMIOTIC THEORY 153

Printed in the U n i t e d States of A m e r i c a

7 Cultures 155
 vi CONTENTS

References I77

Author Index 203

Subject I n d e x 211

FIGURES AND TABLE Acknowledgments

F i g . 1.1 Vkrainian pjisanky. xxviii

F i g . 1.2 U k r a í n i a a basket w i t h pysanky. xxviii

F i g . 1.1 Ferdinan d de Saussure. 5

F i g . 1.2 Charles Sanders Peirce. 5

F i g . 2.1 Larg e reliquary. 24

F i g . 3.1 Armadillo groora*s cake from Steel Magnólias. 55

F i g . 3.2 D a r r y l H a n n a h as Annelle i n Steel Magnólias. 56

T h i s book has taken several years to w r i t e w i t h m a n y people p l a y i n g a role in
F i g . 3.3 T h e relationship between langue and parole. 57 the process. B a r n e t t Pearce played instigator by asking w h a t m y next book was
about before I was fully ready to answer that question. B y the time we finished
Table 3.1 Comparison of codes by type 67
talking several hours later, I k n e w w h a t I w a n t e d to w r i t e . H i s constructive com-
Fig. 4.1 Corntsh pasty. 93 ments o n several drafts are greatly appreciated.
T h e first three chapters were written w h i l e I was a Fellow at the C e n t e r for
F i g . 5.1 Mohandas G a n d h i attending the R o u n d T a b l e
T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y Studies at the U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin-Milwaukee , and I thank
Conference i n L o n d o n , September 1 9 3 1 . 121 the regular staff there ( K a t h l e e n W o o d w a r d , Director, a n d C a r o l Tennessen, Pro-
g r a m a n d Publications C o o r d i n a t o r ) as w e l l as the other Fellow s from 1990-1991
F i g . 6.1 K w a k i u t l bentwood box. 133
( M a r c u s B u l l o c k , G w y n n e K e n n e d y , P a n i v o n g N o r i n d r , M a r i n a Perez de M e n -
F i g . 6.2 K w a k i u t l copper. 138 diola, H e l e n a P y c i o r , R o b y R a j a n , a n d R o l a n d o R o m e r o ) for creating an en-
F i g . 6.3 Beaded sneakers by V i c t o r i a Fircthunder. 141 v i r o n m e n t conducive to t h i n k i n g a n d w r i t i n g .
W h e n I returned to the U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin-Parkside, m y regular academic
F i g . 6.4 T h e U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin System quilt. 146 home, m y students were presented w i t h a n incomplete draft of this volume as
F i g . 7.1 C u n a mola, 160 their text i n a n a d v a n c c d seminar o n semiotics. T h e y were r e m a r k a b l y patient
with the process, actively c o n t r i b u t í n g to it, both i n the originality of their i n -
F i g . 7.2 Flag of í n d i a . 162 sights a n d the questions they required me to answer. T h r o u g h the m a n y excel-
F i g . 7.3 T o y o t a L e x u s ad by T e a m One Advertising. 163 lent projects a n d final e x a m s they prepared , they demonstrated that
undergraduates can learn difíicult theory, i f only they are shown what to do with it.
Fig. 7.4 C u n a jaguar. 164 M a n y of m y examples are the result of class discussions of how to ground the-
F i g . 7.5 C h i a K e r L o r making a Hmong basket. 166 oretical concepts in specific data. W e applied semiotic theory specifically to wed-
dings, chosen because they are complex events, carefully planned a n d organized,
F i g . 7.6 Beaded sneakers by Melody Lightfeather. 170 yet readily accessible to analysis, a n d so weddings serve as a continulng theme
F i g . 7,7 I m í t a t i o n I n d i a n style beaded sneakers made i n C h i n a . 171 throughout this v o l u m e . T h o u g h it w o u l d now be difficult to identify each case
w i t h the originatin g student, I w a n t at least to name them ali a n d thank them
F i g . 7.8 " T h e C u p of T e a " by Alfred Stevens. 174
detail a n d three major types of codes are outUned; the majority of the chapter
discusses social cocUs, the type most relevant to c o m m u n i c a t i o n . Because the term
code has appeared frequently i n the c o m m u n i c a t i on literature, a brief review of
Chapter
how it has been used previously is provided, Past uses of the term are simila r
but not identical to that described here. H e r e the angle of visio n changes: T h e
object of study presented i n chapter 2 no longer appears alone i n an empty room;
the r e m a i n d e r of the r o o m , its proper context, is now visible a n d other objects
appear a n d can be e x a m i n e d as w e l l . ' Introducing Semiotics
T o g e t h e r these chapters are intended lo provide sufficient theoretical ground-
ing for the doing (the practice) of semiotics; the basics are laid out as clearly as
possible, the details ignored. E x t e n s i v e footnotes r e c o m m e n d i n g further reading
are provided for anyone w i s h i n g to follow up any of the ideas presented. I t is
not my i n t e n l to provide a complete overview of semiotics as it c u r r e n t l y stands;
others have attempted that, more or less successfully. Because semiotic theory
has its o w n agendas, not identical w i t h those of c o m m u n i c a t i o n , some paris of
semiotics are more useful to c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h a n others. I attempt to focus on
w h a t seem to me the most essential a n d valuable parts. O t h e r s w o u l d certainly
have chosen differently; they m a y yet write their o w n books. I t is important to
stress, however, that P a r t I of this book is not intended to stand alone. I t is but C o m m u n i c a t i o n is a y o u n g field, yet it covers a broad a r e a . R e c e n t l y , to resolve
prelude to the second part: a p p l y i n g the theory to concrete examples o f behavior. m u c h dispute a b o u í exactly w h a i conslitules the d e f í n i d o n of the field, C r o n k h i l e
A n y theory can be thought of as a tool k i t , a n d semiotics is no exception; ap- ( í 9 S 6 ) ^ p r o p o s e c [ ' 'the study of h u m a n symbolic a c t i v i t y ' ' as one emphasis shared
plying theory to data involves t u r n i n g passive knowledge about each tool and how by a l l subfields, H i s definition has been noticed a n d is gainin g accepiance, but
h functions into active knowledge of how various tools are actually used. Despite one obvious imphcation remains undeveloped: the connections between c o m m u -
the fact that theory alone is always a bit dry to read ( j u s t á s t r y i n g to memorize nication síxid semiotics, the theoretical area most directly idenlified w i t h the study
the names a n d functions of unfamiliar tools is difficult), it comes alive w h e n joined of symbolic behavior. W i t h others, it m a t e s sense to me that C r o n k h i t e ' s proposal
to examples taken from everyda y life (as one learns the names a n d functions of points to a reasonable focus for the field of c o m m u n i c a t i o n ; I have no problem
tools more completely through using them to b u i l d something n e w ) . A s w i t h the in identifying m y research as contributin g to the study of h u m a n symbolic activi-
first b i r d feeder a y o u n g carpenter makes, the edges of o ur semiotic analysis may ty. Y e t as others have previously studied this topic, we m a y find it profitable to
not be perfectly squared, but a homemade object c a n have value to its creator discover what the semiotic literature contributes to our understanding of com-
despite its flaws. W e l e a r n best i n the process of doing; so we must each eventual- munication.'
íy use semiotic theory ourselves to a n a l y z e behavio r i f we are 10 find value i n it, T h i s chapter briefly introduces semiotics: its origins, the definition of the
A t the same t i m e , j u s t as a good carpenter studies her tools before u s i n g them field, a n d the connections between semiotics a n d lhe related field of linguis-
the first time, l e a r n i n g their names and h e a r i n g their functions from someone tics, concluding w i t h closely related definitions of culture, c o m m u n i c a t i o n , and
more experienced, so I begin this foray into semiotics w i t h a n o v e r v i e w of theory. semiotics to demonstrate their á r e a s of overlap. Semiotics is u n c o m m o n l y broad;
this volume makes no pretense o f supplying a complete history even of the major
ideas, R a t h e r it presents a concise introductio n to selccted aspects, those that
NOTE seem to me potentially most valuable for the field of c o m m u n i c a t i o n, T h i s sum-
m a r y i n no w a y subslilutes for a more thorough reading of original sources,
1. F o l l o w i n g chis metaphor, chapters 4 through 6 e x a m i ne three different rooms in a single house.
but as an introductory synthesis, it m a y provoke interest i n particular authors
C h a p t e r 7 stcps back yet further, discussing the connections between these ( a n d potential other) or ideas.^
rooms, and the house as a whole.

3
ESTABLISHING T H E FIELD OF SEMIOTICS

Independentiy, but at approximately the same point in time, F e r d i n a n d de Saus-

~sure,'a l i n g u i s t i n SwTtzerláhd, a n d C h a r l e s Sanders P e i r c e , a philosopher'iii"ílíê"
U n i t e d States, described the need for a field to study the meanings conveyed
through signs a n d symbols (see F i g s . 1.1 a n d 1.2).^ B o t h f e l V s o m é t h i r i g l r n p o r -
tant was m i s s i n g i n the currentl y e x i s t i n g fields of study a n d wanted to remedy
the situation. F o r both authors the standard references are to books published
by others on their behalf after their deaths; as a result their i n í l u e n c e was greater
on future generations than on their contemporaries.
Saussure's statements i n t r o d u c i n g ÍCTTIÍO/O^)' come from a compilation of notes
taken by several of his students based on lectures given between 1907 a n d 1911,
published after his death as Course in General Linguistics. T h e quote most often cit-
ed as responsible for establishing the field follows:

A science that studies the life of signs within society is conceivable; it would be a
part of social psychology and consequently of general psychology; I shall call it semi-
ology (from Greek semeion " s i g n " ) . Semiology would show what constitutes signs,
what laws govern them. Since die science does not yet exist, no one can say what FIG. 1.1- Ferdinand de Saus-

it would be; but it has a right to existence, a place staked out in advance. Linguistics sure. Photo courtesy of the L i b r a r y
of C o n g r e s s .
is only a part of the general science of semiology; the laws discovered by semiology
will be applicable to linguistics, and the latter will circumscribe a well-defined area
within the mass of anthropological facts. (Saussure, 1916/1969, p, 16)

Note that he, being a linguist, proposed semiology as a science placing the study
of language into a b r o a d context; s i m i l a r concerns by others later led to the de-
velopment of pragmatics a n d sociolinguistics.
Peirce, unlike Saussure, wrote his o w n papers (enormous numbers of them,
in fact), though the majority r e m a i n e d unpublished d u r i n g his lifetime. T h e larg-
er quantity of available quotes from Peirce about semiotics ( w h i c h he actually used
in the singular, semiotic'), encourages disputes a m o n g his foUowers as to exactly
what he intended (as w i t h all authors, he changed his m i n d on a v a r i e t y of details
over the y e a r s ) . F r o m his w r i t i n g s , one c o m m o n l y cited j u s t i f í c a t i o n for estab-
l i s h i n g the new field, to be matched to that of Saussure presented previously,
follows:

Logic, in its general sense, is, as I believe I have shown, only another name for
semiotic, the quasi-necessary, or formal doctrine of signs. By describing the doctrinc
as "quasi-necessary", or formal, I mean that we observe the characters of such signs
as we know, and from such an observation, by a process which I will not object FIG, 1,2. C h a r l e s Sanders Peirce.
to naming Abstraction, wc are led to statements, eminendy failible, and therefore Photo couriesy of lhe Peirce E d i t i o n
in one sense by no means necessary, as to what must be the characters of all signs Project, I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y , I n d i -
anapolis.
used by a "scientific" intelligence, that is to say by an intelligence capable of learn-
ing by experience. (Peirce, 1931/1958, V o l . 2, para. 227)
6 1. INTRODUCING SEMIOTICS uE-pirsuNe, : b t , M l ( J i n J b 7

H e r e the study of signs is n a r r o w e d rather than broadened; it is related to logic i any sign, whether it is a traffic signal, a thermometer reading of 98,6° F , poetic
rather than the broader society. •..imagery, musical notation, a prose passage, or a wink of the eye, functions irv lhe
jmind of an interpreter to convey a specific meaning in a given situation. Broadly
A s is clear from these quotes, a fundamental distinction between the two ef-
defined, semiotics includes lhe study of how Sherlock Holmes makes meaning out
forís exists: P e i r c e studied logic; Saussure studied behavior. Despite this 3istinc- of Hansom tracks, how deoxyribonucleic acid conveys hereditary traits, how an
t i ó h j it should be obvious that logic is one part of w h a t gOi^rns behavior. A s a historían sees significance in an old church rcgistry, or how Baudelaire's view of
result, these two separately established fields of study have substantial á r e a s of the world can be approached through a pattern of words arranged on paper. (Wray,
overlap. I t has become c o m m o n i n the U n i t e d States to use the term semiotics 1981, p. 4)
to refer to the entire field (to a l l of lhe w o r k of Saussure a n d Peirce as well as
the followers of both), i n deference to the fact that Peirce devoied the greatest W r a y introduced two new terms, semiosis a n d semiotician. B r i e f l y , semiosis is u n -
amount of time a n d effort t o w a r d developing the groundwork of the discipline derstood to be the active form of the w o r d semiotics, more formally defined as
and in an attempt to consolidate rather t h a n d r a w fme distinctions between á r e a s ""the process of m a k i n g and using s i g n s " (Sless, 1986, p. 2 ) . T h e term semioti-
of related research.'' çiarj^rhoves outside the r e a l m of semiotic behavior to its study: I t is the name
W i t h i n the field of c o m m u n i c a t i on Peirce has been the more influential to date, for someone who studies semiotics. A n y o n e who performs semiotic analysis fígura-
a n d the P e i r c i a h tradition is proposed as potentially the most valuable in a recent lively dons a T - s h i r l reading " S e m i o t i c i a n at w o r k . " (Because everyone engages
argument by S w i t z e r , F r y , a n d M i l l e r (1990).^ Y e t I w o u l d recommend Saus- i n semiotic behavior, there is no need of a special w o r d for someone doing semio-
sure as the less obscure a n d m o r e readily applicable to actual behavior." Saus- sis). T h r e e ideas are particularl y noteworthy in W r a y ' s quote: ( a ) the facile equa-
sure's scant comments have been expanded by his m a n y followers, so there is tion of semiosis w i l h c o m m u n i c a t i o n , not u n c o m m o n for s e m i o t i c í a n s , though
no dearth of materia l available for inspiration . I n particular , there is an entire usually passing u n r e m a r k e d w i t h i n the field o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n ; (b) the basic
strand of related research by scholars k n o w n collectively as the R u s s i a n Formalists description of w h a i the study of signs actually i n v o í v e s (here described as study-
and the C z e c h Structuralists (surprisingly often ignored w i t h i n both current semi- i n g how something functions i n the m i n d of a n interpreter to convey a specific
otics a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n as studied i n the U n i t e d States), h e a v i l y influenced by m e a n i n g i n a specific situation); a n d ( c ) the breadth of activity included i n the.
Saussure, demonstrating a n early interest in applyin g semiotics to various aspects study of semiotic behavior.
of culture.^ T h e i r work is p a r t i c u l a r l y valuable when a p p l y i n g semiotics to W h a i is i m p o r t a m here is not merely that semiotics includes a lot of things
material aspects of communicative behavior, as proposed in Part I I of this volume, that other people would never have grouped together, w h i c h is interesting but
a n d is described in some detail i n the introduction to that section. T h u s , the ap- not terribly enlightening, b u i that it e x p l a i n s how they are s i m i l a r , I n each case,
proach followed i n this book technically is semiology, though the t e r m semiotics is whether it be a traffic signal or poetic i m a g e r y , something (the sigiT)~conveys
used, because it has found favor as the more general term . m e a n i n g — m e a n i n g that would not otherwise be obvious, or that we could not
otherwise present in such a condensed f o r m . Some signs have practical functions:
A traffic signal is a fast way for people to follow a set of rules i n c o m m o n , without
DEFINING SEMIOTICS spending a great deal of time a n d effort discussing these rules each time they find
themselves i n the same predicamen l (at a crossroads w i t h other cars going oiher
T h e accepted definition of semiotics today generally is phrased as either ' 'the study directions, needing a fast a n d easy w a y to arrange who should go w h e n , so the
o f s i g n T ' or "th e study of signa a n d sign s y s l e m s . " ( B r i e f l y , a^sjgn is sometinng cars do not c r a s h ) . O t h e r s have less practical function but no less significance,
present that stands for something absent, as a cross represents C h r i s t i a n i t y ; a sign Poetic i m a g e r y is less likely to prevent two cars from crashin g but can , for e x a m -
system, also termed a code, is a collection of signs a n d rules for their use.) D e f i n- ple, convey the essence of that experience to someone who was not present at
ing semiotics i n this w a y is brief but vague. W h a t does it mean to say one studies the time. So i i is not breadth of scope for its o w n sake, the mere a c c u m u í a t i o n
signs? W h a t exactly are signs? W h y are they worthy of attention in the first place? of exemplars, lhat Ís significam but breadth of scope for the s u r p r i s i n g fact that
W h a f d i í T e r e r i c e do they m a k e i n the world ? T h e s e are issues addressed by m a n y so m a n y different actions, objects, behaviors, i n sd m a n y different contexts, al l
authors. I n comments specifically intended for an audience of nonspecialists, W r a y appear to operate i n a similar fashion, t h ã t warrants attention.,
provided a useful beginning: B r e a d t h of scope has come to be accepted as one of the h a l l m a r k s of semiotics.»^!
A l t h o u g h the o r i g i n a l brief definitions permit this same breadth, it m a y not have
Semiocics is the study of signs, On that and little else, all "semioiicians" seem to been immediately evideni . M u l t i p l e lists abound; let me quote just one further
agree, Specifically it is the study of seiniosis, or communication—that is, the way author on lhe topic, H a w k e s :
 DEFINING SEMIOTICS 9
8 ], INTRODUCING SEMIOTICS

Human beings emerge from any account ol' semiotic structures as inveterate and one intends to fuss about the food served for dinner by the other, just that it might
promiscuous protlucers of signs. . . . Accordingly, nothing in thc human world can not have been expected.
be TTurely ulilitarian. . . . All fíve senses, smell, touch, taste, hearing, sight, can func- A s compiled by T J r n b ç r to E c o , a n I t a l i a n semiotician a n d one of the major
tion in the process of semiosis: that is, as sign-producers or sign-receivers. . , . Con- figures i n the fiejd,jhe_classic list of what is to be included i n the study of scmiotr
ceivably there is a langue of cooking, of which each meai is a parole, and in connection íçs is sonrte fíve pages long.. A m o n g other á r e a s n a m é d , those most direcdy of i n -
with which taste is the sense most exploited, although sight and smell also have their terest to c o m m u n i c a t i o n researchers include various channels of, nonverbal
role. Equally, there is no doubt a langue of perfume and, as Barthes has demonstrat- comriiunication as well.as mass communication a n d rhetoric(EÍco, 1976, pp. 9 - 1 4 ) .
ed at length (wilh complications in his Sysíhne de la Mode) of "fashion" and of writ- L i s t s do not convey thc breadth of thc field h a l f so well as particular examples,
ing about fashion at large. (Hawkes. 1977, p. 134)
however. T h e following abbreviated version of a quote from a newspaper article
by Pines e x p l a i n i n g semiotics to a lay audience, u n c o m m o n l y concise a n d v i v i d
T h c new vocabulary words here, langue a n d parole (the F r e n c h words íor language in its imagery, serves well as a n introduction;
^djpeech),,ãre adopted from S a u s s u r e ' s w r i t i n g s . T h e y refer to the distinction
normally made by linguists between a n entire langue or language (understood to
Everything we do sends messages about us In a variety of codes, semioticíans con-
include every possiBlc w o r d a n d scntencc uiterable i n that language) a n d any one
tend. We are also on che rcceiving end of innumerable messages encoded in music,
example oí parole or speech ( a p a r t i c u l a r instance of someone u t t e r i n g ^ a ^ o r d or
gestures, foods, rituais, books, movies or advertisements. Yet we seldom realize that
sentcnce or longer stre"fclióf t a l k ) . T h i s quote also demonstrates the w a y i n w h i c h we have received or sent such messages, and would have trouble explaining the rules
language generally serves as a metaphor for other systems of communication; here, under which they operate. . . .
cooking a n d clothing are assumed to follow the model of language I n that both Nothing seems too trivial or too complicated for semioticíans to analyze. Take
exist at one a n d the same time as a single langue, or presumed system, as well the matter of cowboy boots, for instance. A New Yorker who buys such boocs is
as through various examples of parole, or immediately available e x e m p l a r s T A s actually responding to well-established myths about the cowboy in our culture, and
w i t h language, we can never " s e e " or study the entire langue, but assume its ex- also to the new power of the oil millionaires and ranchers who support lhe Reagan
istence from the evldence oí parole. Administration, says D r . Marshall Blonsky. . . .
A n example oí langue Ís a ll of the food y o u ever ate at y o u r parents' house as " I n both myths, the wearer of cowboy boots handles the world masterfuUy,"
a child. I t would of course be impossible to prepare a complete listing of every says D r . Blonsky. " H e is virile, self-reliant, free to roam over lhe wide-open spaces
that New Yorkcrs lack, and has or supplies virtuaily limitless energy." Nobody cares
item of food a n d every m e n u from every tneal that you ate i n y o u r parents' house.
that real cawboys often lead humdrum lives, he points out. New Yorkcrs don't
F o r this TCdson, langue, by its nature, exists theoretically rather than concretely.
want real cowboy boots—^just the idea t)f cowboy boots. So they buy boots made of
T h a t does not imply a lack of significance but only a certaih ephemeral qijalTty. lizard or snake that serve as symbols or signs of cowboy boots, in which they can
Y o u know what you ate as a child, but it would be h a r d for you to m a k e me k n o w roam the city with a feeling of power, but wouldn't be much good for rounding up
it in the same w a y unless I too h a d participated i n all those meais. Pmqle isu&ed cattle. . . .
to refer to the particula r meai y o u ate last night for dinner. I t w o u l d be relatively The method of semiotics is, first, to separate an act, called "the signifier," from
easy to describe this, a n d so parole is understood to be quite concretç.- its meaning, called "the signified." When a man offers a woman a red rose, for
Part of what is interesting about restaurant food is that m a n y of thc items pre- instance, the signifier is the act of givuig the rose, but the signified is romance. The
pared are not regularly part of the langue of food eaten by the customers when rose itself has little importance. (Pines, 1982, pp. C l , C 6 )
they are not present. S o , i n fact, it sometimes becomes a m a r k e r of status i f the
restaurant serves food customers have only read about ( e . g . , fiddleheads—thc top I n bringin g together cowboy boots, advertisements, and films. Pines accurately
of the ostrich fern cut j u s t before it opens i n the spring, considered a delicacy represented semiotics as the broad field it generally intends to be. B y saying that
when included in a salad i n W i s c o n s i n ) , in addition or instead of food they know semiotics studies even thc t r i v i a l , she d i d not denigrate the field but pointed out
how to prepare a n d regularly eat. lhat even m i n o r details convey information and are worthy of serious study. T h e
A s this example demonstrates, it is helpful to have words available to describe example of cowboy boots conveys an appropriate í m p r e s s i o n of what semiotic anal-
ysis might look like , here specifically h m i t e d to the study of the m y t h s attached to
the distinction between the r e a l m of w h a t one n o r m a l l y experiences and considers
objects. T ^ Ç newj/ocabuJary words, signifier a n d signified, are criticai terms i n semi-
possible, a n d one's actuai experience on a particular occasion. S u c h words per-
otics. E v e r y sign has two components: the visible part, or signifier, and the absent
mit US to e x p l a i n j u s t what is special about expensive restaurants as well as to
part, or signified.^ ( D i v i d i n g a sign i m o parts has traditionally been a major sub-
describe such things as thc differences in family experiences between spouses raised
ject of discussion w i t h i n semiotics a n d is addressed i n greater detail in chapier 2 . )
in different parts of the country or different countries altogether. I t is not that
 lU

T h e statement that " t h e rose itself has little i m p o r t a n c e , " though overly..cute, the move so m u c h for granted it is essentially iost. W e see a rose, but interpret
is basically correct: T h e rose itself conveys less informatio n than the use of the rose romance, m o v i n g so quickl y from one to the other that we often fáil to realize
hy a particula r person w i t h i n a p a n i c u l a r context, i n this case a m a n g i v m g a íÊãt a visible instance of romance itself was not presented. A large part of semiot-
w ò m a n a red rose. T h e r e is nothing about the color red or the type of í l o w e r that ic ^ ^ ^ y s i s . c o n s i s t s , OJCjfiafning how to notice shifts of this sort. I f as participants >
tias to convey the message r o m a n c e , though by tradition m a n y people have come we generally we see A but interpret Z , w i t h a l l the steps between invisible b u t ^
to expect that red roses do convey that message. B u t even w i t h this assumption obvious, then as semioticians we m a k e explicit al) the invisible but essential steps (
i n place, a red rose g r o w i n g i n m y garden does not by itself a n d i n that situation m o v i n g US from w h a t we see to w h a t we interpret.
convey romance; only w h e n m y husband cuts it a n d hands it to me does it ac- ~ H á v i n g presented these explanations, it becomes possible to elaborate upon
quire the imphcation of romance. the previous brief definition of semiotics as the study of signs. T h e r e have been
T h e complete v e r s i o n of P i n e s ' s article s u m m a r i z e s a famous comment where m a n y complicated definitions proposed, each attempting to meet a specific need.
E c o defined semiotics as the study o f Jies, T h e o r i g i n a l quote elaborales on the O n e useful r e p h r a s i n g (adapted, obviously, from S a u s s u r e ' s original proposal of
idea. A s one of the more novel presentations of what constitutes semiotics, i i is " t h c life of signs w i t h i n s o c i e t y " ) has been put forth by U n g a r a n d M c G r a w ,
quoied at length here: suggesting that semiotics takes as its subject matter " t h e rnateriaj practices, forms,
and institutions of signs i n c u l t u r e " (1989, p. x i i ) . T h e i r w o r d i n g shifts focus from
society to culture, that i s , from institutions a n d structures to behaviors a n d activi-
1 Semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign. A sign is every-
ties, appropriate given today's understanding of these terms.^ Another definition,
^ thing which can be taken as significantly subsdtuting for something else. This some-
by T o b i n , suggests that semiotics is " a general philosophical theory dealing w i t h
I thing else does not necessarily have to exist or to actually be somewhere at the moment
I in which a sign stands for it. Thus semiotics is in principie the disciphne studying thc production of signs a n d symbols as part of code systems w h i c h are used to
, everything which can be used in order to lie. I f something cannot be used to tell communicate i n f o r m a t i o n " (1990, p. 6 ) , shifting the focus from individual signs
|| a lie, conversely it cannot be used to celt the truth; it cannot in face be used "to to their combinatio n i n code systems, i n larger sets or groupings of signs, a point
'\" at all. I think that the definition of a "theor>- of the l i e " should be taken as that is important later. T o b i n here separated symbols from signs, though not every-
' a pretty comprehensive program for a general semiotics. (Eco, 1976, p. 7) one does. Symbols are one type of sign, a minor distinction i n this chapter, though
a p r i m a r y topic of discussion i n chapter 2.
F o r the purposes of this book, the f o r m a l definition of semiotics adopted is lhe
iLinguists have suggested the abihty to lie as one o f the defining characteristics
original, most straightforward one ( " t h e study of s i g n s " ) , but it should be un-
of language.^ L y i n g as used here is to be understood i n the broadest possible
derstood to i m p l y at least the following assumptions:
sense, that i s , " t h e ability to describe things not c u r r e n t ly e x i s t i n g , " r a l h e r than
. the n a r r o w e r , more c o m m o n m e a n i n g of " t e l l i n g u n t r u t h s . " A s such, it supplies
a criticai component of o ur ability to analyze a n d change the current w o r l d . B y / 1. W e begin w i t h a n interest in discrete signs. (Specifically, we are interested
s t u d y i n g how we lie, we study as well how we b r i n g about change. W e cannot i n how signs function, which can be k n o w n , rather than in how people come
change the w o r l d u n t i l we understand it, so the more we come tõ understand" it, to create them, w h i c h is considerably more difficult to discover.)
the more we recognize the multiple connections between factors seemingly u n - /* 2. W e are interested i n how signs are organized into a n d operate w i t h i n larg-
connected, the better o u r chances of c h a n g i ng it. T h e social w o r l d has a n ecôlo- er groups ( w h i c h are termed codes).
gy, j u s t as the n a t u r a l one does, a n d it is j u s t as easy to b r i n g about a n imbalance
/ 3. W e are interested in how these code systems operate together a n d in still
inadvertently, despite good intentions. T h u s , semioticians might be described as
V larger groups ( w h i c h are termed cultures).
ecologists of the social w o r l d : T h e y study interconnections, seeking to understand
4. W e are interested i n ho w codes w i t h i n different cultures are related a n d
the system in its entirety, not any one part alone.
interact i n subde and complex w a y s .
T h e notion of a sign as " s u b s t i t u t i n g for something e l s e " proposed by E c o
merits clarification. Signs w o r k through their ability as pointers; that i s , they serve
as a k i n d of shorthand, pointing or referring to something absent. T h i s explains T h r o u g h the study of semiotics, we can l e a r n more about ourselves and others,
w h y even trivial details c a n function as s í g n s : T h e y point to larger,.mQre a^strac^ how we m a k e a n d convey meanings, h o w we understand w h a t happens i n thc
concepts. W e move from the present physical detail ( a rose) to the absent but world; by identifying w i l h the study of semiotics, we identify ourselves as interested
invoked abstraction ( a particuJar notioh of r o m a n t i c love) without effort a n d take i n understanding such issues.
lií 1. IN I K U D U D I J N U SKMIUIICJS

# r e t u r n i n g the emphasis to h u m a n activilies and the world as people make sense

CONTRIBUTION OF SEMIOTICS
of it, as it subsequently appears to t h e m . ' '

A s with every field, there is a related set of important u n d e r l y i n g questions: W h y It m a y not yet be clear that semiotics p r i m a r i l y studies relationships, rather than
study semiotics? W h a t does it have to offer? W h y do we need it? W h a t can it i n d i v i d u a l facts, texts, or objects. N o one fact, text, or object exists alone i n a
fâp us as researchers do that we cannot do so easily without it? P a r t of the an- universe unto itself; therefore, one cannot properly study it devoid of context.
swer to these questions has j u s t been provided: I t helps us learn about ourselves T h a t context is most appropriately made up of other simila r facts, texts, or ob-
and others a n d how we m a k e a n d convey meanings, surely a w o r t h y topic of jects, gathered together i n w h a t is sometimes termed a system of relations ( C u l l e r ,
s t u d y . M o r e of the answer lies i n a quote from E Ç Q , who said: ^'Every act of com- 1981, p . 2 6 ) . T h i s is the reasonTbr e x p ã n d i n g tfie definition to include codes (the
munication to OT between human beings—or any other intelligent biological or mechanical more technical term for systems of relations) afíd then to look at those codes i n
apparatus—presupposes a signification system OÍ its necessary condition" (1 9 7 6, p. 9 ) . relation to each other. T h i s point is criticai to the basic position taken i n this
Semiotics has the potential to serve a significam support role i n the study of com- volume; it is elaborated upon i n detail i n chapter 7.
munication. T h e logical steps are as follows: A n emphasis on the centrality of signs and their use in h u m a n c o m m u n i c a t i o n
has led some authors to create a new label for people stressing their ability.to
create signs as the criticai component in what defines h u m a n i t y (parallel to the
^ J . C o m m u n i c a t i o n researchers study c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
íéchriica] term for h u m a n s , homo sapiens, or " m a n the t h i n k e r , " more generally
2. C o m m u n i c a t i o n , i n order to occur, presupposes a c o m m o n signification
"people w h o t h i n k " ) . No one term has come to be accepted, though several have
system.
been offered: ( a ) homo.s^mbolicus, IhcralXy translated as " m a n the s y m b o l - m a k e r , "
3. Semiotics is the study of signification systems. more generally understood as " h u m a n s are those who make symbols";'* (b) homo
4. T h e r e f o r e , those who study c o m m u n i c a t i o n m a y find it useful to also study significans, " h u m a n s are those who signify";' ^ a n d ( c ) animal symbolicum, " [ h u -
semiotics. m a n s as] the a n i m a l who makes s y m b o l s . " ' ^ T h e s e terms share a n emphasis on
the centrality of signs (symbols being one type of sign) to h u m a n behavior. A s
As part o f a very diflTerent argument (critiquing semioticians for spending too m u c h Deely phrased it, " I n d e e d , at the heart of semiotics is thc realization that the
time discussing j a r g o n a n d too litde time actually studying h u m a n b e h a v i o r — an whole of h u m a n experience, without exception, is a n i n t è r p r e t i v e structure medi-
appropriate c r i t i q u e ) , D a v i d Sless wrote: " S e m i o t i c s is far too important a n en- ated a n d sustained by s í g n s " (1990, p, 5 ) . T h i s , then, provides the final answer
terprise to be left to semioticians" (1986, preface). A n y o n e interested i n how people to the question of the value of semiotics: I f we as researchers w i s h to understand
create m e a n i n g for themselves a n d others c a n put semiotic theory to good use. h u m a n behavior a n d how h u m a n s c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h one another, a large part
I f some who self-identify as semioticians become more interested i n arcane dis- of what we must study is the creation a n d use of signs; because that is precisely
cussions of j a r g o n than i n h u m a n behavior, that is a problem of where they choose w h a t semiotics studies, semiotic theory, by definition, provides a good starting
to direct their energy, not a problem inherent i n the theory, that theory r e m a i n s point.
available for others to adapt a n d use for their o w n purposes." I f this sounds like
a potentially large group, it is.
L I N G U I S T I C S AS A M O D E L F O R S E M I O T I C S
T h e transdisciplinary nature of semiotics is often stressed. T h i s has led to some
pretentious statements about the role of semiotics as the one o v e r a r c h i n g dis- L a r g e l y due to S a u s s u r e ' s role as a linguist, his early statements about semiotics
cipline.'^ O n e of the less provocative versions comes from a major figure i n are generally understood to i m p l y that language be taken as the model for other
F r e n c h semiotics, A . J . G r e i m a s ; semiotic syslems a n d that lingui.stics (the formal study of language) serves as the
model for how to study a l l semiotic systems. I n R o m a n Jakohson*.5 words, it is
The problem of signification is at the center of the preoccupations of our time. . . . generally assumed that " t h e basic, the p r i m a r y , the most important semiotic sys-
T h e human world as it appears to us is defined essentially as the world of significa-
tism is language; language really is the foundation of c u l t u r e " (1971b, p. 557).'^
tion, The world can only be called " h u m a n " to the extent that it means something.
T h e r e h a s T i é é n considerable discussion recently about the appropriatcness of this
Thus it is in research dealing with signification that thc human sciences can find
presumptive role of language as the preeminent semiotic system a n d whether l i n -
• their common denominator, (Greimas, 1983, p. 3)
guistics alway s serves as the best model for semiotic a n a l y s i s . ' " Such discussion,
though it will influence the future, does not change the fact that language has,
W i l h Sless, G r e i m a s thought the study of the m e a n i n g that results from semiosi;^
to date, served as the model for m u c h w o r k w i t h i n semiotics.'^
(here termed signification, a c o m m o n alternative) must be the focus of semiotics j
 Eco demonstrated the value of language as a productive model i n the fol- CULTUKE, COMMUNICATION, SEMIOTICS
lowing:
T w o concepts essential to a n understanding of semiotics are culture a n d communi-
I am speaking lo you. Y o u are understanding me, because I am following the rules cation. Definitions of both abound because they are central to the understanding
of a precise code (the English language), so precise that it also allows me to make a n d study of h u m a n behavior. T h e subject matter of semiotics is often described
use of it with a lot of phonetic and grammattcal variations. Its strong underlying as being c o m m u n i c a t i o n , as e v í d e n t i n some of the quotations supplied previous-
structure in some way acts like a lodestone which magnetizes and atiracts my devia- l y . T h o m a s Sebeok, the dean of semiotics in thc U n i t e d States, made this abso-
tions from the norm. Y o u understand me because there exists a code (a sort of inner lutely explicit:
compecence shared by you and me) and there exist possible messages, performed
as concrete utterances and interpretable as a set of propositions. (Eco, 1973b,
The subject matter of semiotics, it is often credited, is the exchange of any messages
p. 57)
whatsoever, in a word, communication. T o this must at once be added that semiotics
IS also focally concerned with the study oísignificalton. Semiotics is therefore classifi-
T h i s is the sense i n w h i c h I see language performing valuable service as the able as that pivotal branch of an integrated science of communication to which its
model for semiotic analysis; at the very least, it provides a n effective starting point. character as a methodical inquiry into the nature and constitution of codes provides
an indispensable counterpoint. (Sebeok, 1986a, p. 36)
C l e a r l y , it is not the only resource, but as it presents a good beginning, we
should not ignore it; at the same time, we^must not permit the b e g i n n i n g point
\p become the fmai goal. I t is already w e l l k n o w n that language w o r k s because I f Sebeok is correct that the subject matter of semiotics is c o m m u n i c a t i o n , and
its speakers share p a r t i c u l a r signs ( w o r d s , after a l l , are signs) a n d share a code he should k n o w , then the connection between the two fields is established,'^
(each language combines words through g r a m m a t i c a l structures) as well as shar- J u s t as consideration of several definitions of semiotics grounded discussion
ing understandings of how to use that code to convey m e a n i n g ( n o r m s of use of of the criticai points, similar discussion here of c o m m u n i c a t i o n definitions m a y
that particular language). L a n g u a g e w o r k s as a model for semiotic analysis inso- demonstrate the connections between the fields.'^^ R a y B i r d w h i s t e l í suggested an
far as linguistics presents language as potentially analyzable i n lerrns q f a hierar- early definition of c o m m u n i c a t i on as " a structural system of significam symbols
ç h y p f meanings: sounds ( w h i c h have no m e a n i n g ) combined into words_(which (from a l l the sensorily based modalitiesj w h i c h " p e r m í t ordered h u m a n interac-
have m a n y meanings ) combined into utterances ( w h i c h make clear w h i ç h word t i o n " (1970b, p. 9 3 ) , pointing to the importance oísymbols, to their combination
meanings are relevant a n d w h i c h can convey subtle shadings of difference). A l l in systems, a n d to the essential service provided by signification to h u m a n inter-
signs are integrated into progressively larger systems, comparable to language. action. A revision of this definition was presented by W o r t h a n d G r o s s , who saw
Not a l l sign systems need be as complexly structured as language for this general communication as " a social process w i t h i n a context, i n w h i c h signs are produced
model to r e m a i n v a l i d . T h i s proposal of h i e r a r c h y is not intended to imply un- a n d transmitted, perceived a n d treated as messages from w h i c h m e a n i n g can be
necessary rigidity or to encourage a n emphasis on structure to the exclusion of i n f e r r e d " (1974, p. 3 0 ) . W h a t they added is a n emphasis o n the context within
process. w h i c h signification occurs. I add but one more definition to these, that of J a m e s
A t the very least, there are some valuable lessons to be learned from lin- C a r e y , who proposed that "Communication is a symbolic process whereby reality is
guistics; we should be w a r y of casually tossing it asidc as our model before we produced, maintained, repaired, and Iransformed" (1975, p. 10) also stressing symbols
have learned a l l we can from it. J u l i a K r i s t e v a , noted F r e n c h semiotician and (and the more active form, symbolization) as the core of communication and n a m -
linguist, pointed to part of the reason w h y the study of language has loomed ing the social construction (here elaborated to include production, maintenance,
over semiotics: L i n g u i s t i c s was the first of the h u m a n sciences to develop a repair, a n d transformation) of reality as a central issue.^*
"scientific m e t h o d " of its o w n (1989, p . 298).^" She proposed that the other F r o m these definitions come several ideas: ( a ) C o m m u n i c a t i o n involves the
h u m a n sciences can l e a r n from the model provided by linguistics by treating use of a p a r t i c u l a r type of signs, symbols; ( b ) it involves the combination of s y m -
other aspects of h u m a n behavior as languages a n d put forth semiotics as the bols into codes; ( c ) it uses symbols a n d codes as a w a y to socially construct (produce,
u m b r e l l a term for the set of h u m a n sciences because they all study meaning m a i n t a i n , repair, transform) reality; a n d ( d ) it permits ordered h u m a n interac-
a n d sign systems. I n addition to the reasons that linguistics serves as the key tion. Connection s to the definition o f semiotics presented earlier are obvious.
to understanding h u m a n behavior for a v a r i e t y of fields, it remains central to These connections between semiotics and communication w i l l not surprise any-
semiotic theory due to the added historical connection, v i a Saussure and his one familiar w i t h the history of the study of nonverbal c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I n 1964,
followers.^' M a r g a r e t M e a d , s u m m i n g up her impressions of the Conference on L i n g u i s t i c s ,

15
IO NUIKS 17

N o n v e r b a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d Semiotics, pointed dut, " I f we h a d a word for Parallel to the understanding of c o m m u n i c a t i o n reached previously, the perti-
patteríied" c o m m u n i c a t i on i n a l l modalities, it w o u l d be useful. I a m not enough nent understandin g of culture includes the following notions;
o f ã sp^cíalist in this field to know what w o r d t ò use, but m a n y people here, who
have looked as i f they were on opposite sides of the fence, have used the word 1. C u l t u r e is composed of symbols a n d other signs; these provide a structure
'semiotics' " (see Sebeok, H a y e s , & Bateson, 1964, p. 2 7 5 ) . I n response, B i r d - for social actors, l i m i t i n g possible choices lo those culturally available,
whistelí pointed out that for h i m the w o r d comniunictition served adequately as the 2. T h e s e symbols a n d signs are the tools people use to convey meaning ; these
name for the larger whole (patlerne d c o m m u n i c a t i o n , i n M e a d ' s terms), M e a d are the resource materiais from w h i c h people choose to convey what mean-
responded it already h a d been corrupted, a n d she thought a new nam e would ings they w i s h .
be valuable (see Sebeok et a l , , 1964, p. 2 7 6 ) . I t is i m p o r t a m that, as recenUy as
3. T h e s e symbols a n d signs are combined into systems (or codes).
1964, the two fields of study were deemed to be so close that the names were viewed as inter-
4. R e s e a r c h e r s study p a n i c u l a r texts in order to understand how lhe larger
changeable.''-^ Others since have documented the connections between nonverbal
entity, culture, operates.
communication a n d linguistics, w i t h Unguistics, thc older field, serving as the clear
model for study.'^^ A t the same time, the study of n o n v e r b a l c o m m u n i c a t i on has
Despite lhe i m p o s s i b i i i ly of getting everyone to agree on specific definitions of
sufficiently " s t r e t c h e d " the concept of language that it now routinely includes
culture, c o m m u n i c a t i o n , a n d semiotics, it is possible at least to be explicit about
paralanguagc, i f not kinesics a n d p r o x e m i c s .
w h i c h definitions are useful for w h i c h purposes. F o r m y purposes here, the defi-
O n c e the connections between semiotics a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n have been
nition of culture as a set of systems or codes of symbols and meanings, of communication
documented, only culture r e m a i ns to be d r a w n into the circle of key terms, T r a d i -
as human symhoUc activity, a n d oí semiotics asjhe study of signs and sign systems are fruit-
tionally, the definition of culture stressed patterns of learned behavior, as D a v i d
ful, especially w h e n the elaboralions entailed, as presented previously, are borne
Schneider m o c k i i í g i y described it: " t h a t T y l o r i a n i n v e n t o r y of pots, pans, rocks,
i n m i n d . O b v i o u s l y the study of c o m m u n i c a t i o n and the study of c u i l u re are i n -
and crocks w h i c h must of necessity end w i t h thc phrase 'et cetera,' thereby con-
t e r r e l a í e d a n d overlapping w i t h each other a n d w i l h semiotics ( K r e s s , 1988b;
stituting a list of all those things w i t h w h i c h m a n is not b o r n b u i w h i c h he some-
L e e d s - H u r w i t z , 1989).^* Some authors have stated this strongly, as w h e n E c o
how creates or l e a r n s " ( Í 9 7 6 , ' p . 203; T y l o r [ 1 8 7 1 / 1 9 5 8 ] presented the first
suggested p u t t i n g all three terms together: " T o communicat e is lo use the entire
defmilion of culture, a n d it was a liat),^' T h e now widely quoted definition of cul- w o r l d as a semiotic apparatus. I believe that culture is that, a n d nothing e l s e "
ture Schneider proposed as a replacement, ' ',a syjStem of symbols a n d m e a n i n g s " (1973b, p. 5 7 ) . M y purpose is not to conflate a l l three fields of study (difficult
(1976, p. 197), has made its w a y into the c o m m u n i c a t i o n literature i n slighUy a n y w a y , given a historical reality in w h i c h they have taken separate paths through
revised form as " a n ordered though contradictory a n d hcterogeneous system of the academic w o r l d ) but rather to ensure that they be considered j o i n t l y , in light
s y m b o l s " ( C a r e y , 1989, p, 5 1 ) . of what they have to offer one another,
T h e r e are two divergent views of culture, s u m m a r i z e d nicely by M i c h a e l Schud-
son as t h ^ ^ g e m o n y yiçw that " c u l t u r a l objects are seen as enormously pgwerful
i n shaping h u m a n a c t i o n , " a n d the tool-kit v i e w that " C u l t u r e i s n o t A ^ e t of
NOTES
ideas imposed but a set of ideas a n d symbols available for use . . . [but] a resource
for social action more t h a n a structure to l i m i t social a c t i o n " ( 1 9 8 9 , p. 155). H i s
1. I n chat spiríi, it m a y bc helpfu! to briefly s u m m a r i z e lhe research by others in communicatio n
attempt to mesh these two views, w h i c h are both at least partiall y correct though
presenting semiotics. F o r various reasons, the majority of attention appears within general theo-
seemingly contradictory, is to suggest that " T h e study of cultmce i s J h e study of retical introcJuctions, the most explicit b e i n g j o h n F i s k e (1982), who applieii semiotics to the study
what meanings are available for use i n a given society from the w i d e r range of of mass m e d i a , H e subvcrted the c o m m o n emphasis on c o m m u n i c a t i on as a process to c o m m u n i -
possible meanings; the study of culture is equally the study of what meanings people cation as lhe generation of meanings, with a secondary emphasis on structure, H i s definition of
communication, seen from semiotics, is "the generation of meaning in messages," stressing meaning
choose a n d use from available m e a n i n g s " (1989, p . 156),
as an aclive process negotialed between individuais.
L o t m a n a n d U s p e n s k y focused on a different levei, emphasizing the con-^
J o h n Stewart has also explicitly discussed what semiotics has to offer c o m n i u n i c a l i o n , ihough
nections between culture a n d texts; they proposed a view of " c u l t u r e as a mech-; a s s u m i n g a d c r m i l i o n of c o m m u n i c a t i on as iimited to language. A s did Fiske, he provided a basic
anism creating a n aggregate of texts a n d texts as the realization of c u l t u r e y introducdon to semiotics (though biased toward Peií-ce, whereas Fiske's bias is to Saussure), Stewart
(1978, p. 2 1 8 ) . T h e y provide the rationale for s t u d y i n g s m a l l segnients of cultun- additionally emphasized social constructionism, stating that " h u m a n language ability includes not
only the capacicy to craft and utilize signs and symbols but also the power to reveal or constitute
al behavior, seeing each as a way in to understandin g the larger whole.
world in latk" (1986, p, 55; see also 1991, in press).
1» ]. IN I R O D U C I N U SEMIOIICS J \ U 1 fcS 19

G a r y C r o n k h i t e ' s (1986) article proposing the definition of c o m m u n i c a t i o n as h u m a n symbolic 2. W i t h i n the semiotic literature, Sebeok (1976) provided a good brief h i s t ó r i c a ! introduction and
activity has already been mentioned. U n l i k e F i s k e a n d Stewart, G r o n k h i t e did not specify a con- Innis (1985) wrote a good introductory anthology, T h e basic reference sources are Sebeok (1986b)
nection between c o m m u n i c a t i o n and semiotics, a s u r p r i s i n g omission given his imphcation that and N ò t h (1990),
we should absorb it i n the n a m e of consolidaiing o u r o w n field. I t m a y i n fact *'redound to our 3. A nice s u m m a r y of the historical context for each of these approaches to semiotic theory is provided
benefit" to be k n o w n as the field that studies h u m a n symbolic behavior as he a r g u e d , but territori- by S i l v e r m a n (1983, pp. 3-53).
al acquisiiion may not be viewed so positively by the territory's current occupants. I would rather 4-, T h c existence of Iwo names, semiolUs a n d semiology, for what is essentially the same field is a potential
establish metaphorical trade routes, l e a r n i n g what we c a n t h r o u g h cooperation, rather than sim- stumbling block. T h i s volume follows what has become c u r r e n t practice i n choosing the name
ply m o v i n g i n as lhe new owners, c l a i m i n g someone else's t u r f for our own purposes. semiotics, I n contemporary w r i t i n g , authors who use the tertn semiology are generally under-
K l a u s K r i p p e n d o r f f (1990) argue d that semioticians too often establish themselves as objec- stood to be identifying with thc E u r o p e a n tradition of scholarship (as opposcd to the A m e r i c a n )
tivists, when they should be constructiviscs, suggesting this bias is inherent i n the very Icrminology or with an etnphasis o n language as the d o m i n a m system (as opposed to either nonverbal o r non-
of semiotics (sign, code, e t c ) . I argue that such bias is not esseniial to the vocabulary but depends h u m a n systems or as opposed to lhe more abstract idea of logic aa a system), although far more
on the use made of that vocabular y by the analyst; obviously I assume it is possible to escape some slippagc occurs between terms than ís implied here. T h e classic exposition of semiology is G u i r a u d
of thc problems he pointed out without a b a n d o n i n g semiotics entireiy. SimDarly, E c o (1990) ar- (1975); a more accessible introduction is E c o (1973b). M a n y of the basic early readings i n both
gued that taking a structural approach to semiotics has iraditiontilly resulted in studies of a single semiotics and semiology may be found i n D . S, C l a r k e (1990), Moix; subily, those who have iden-
point i n l i m e , p r e v e m i n g studies of changes over time. 1 argue lhat i h c b u i l d i n g blocks presented tificd wilh lhe Saussurean school focus ihcir energy on applying the basic ideas to particular aspects
in chapters 2 and 3, though clearly structural i n n a t u r e , do not by design limit us to structural of h u m a n behavior rather than on discussing theoretical issues (what semiology is and should
concerns nor to a single point in time. be), perhaf>s due lo the Iimited theoretical guidancc Saussure himself provided (Barthes, 1967/1983).
W h a t comments he did supply emphasize the relations between fields then existing (primarily
A u t h o r s within a few specific subfields in c o m m u n i c a t i o n h a v e at least occasionally discussed
psychology and linguistics), the gap he perceived between them, and the need for a new subject,
semiotic theory, i n c l u d i ng organizationa l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ( F t o l , 1989; G o o d a l l , 1990; H a l l , 1991);
semiology, to fill that gap.
marketing ( U m i k e r - S e b e o k , 1987); rhetoric ( C h e r w i i z , 1981; H a t t e n h a u e r , 198^; L y n e , 1981a,
1981b; Switzer, F r y , & M i U c r , J990; W a r n i c k , 1979); feminist theory ( S c h w i c h t e n b c r g, 1969); Traditionally, those who use semiotics to describe iheir study identify with the A m e r i c a n school,
mass c o m m u n i c a t i o n ( F i s k e , 1985, 1987, 1988; F r y & F r y , 1986; G o t t d i e n e r , 1985; H e l l e r , 1982; with philosophy, or w i l h logic specifically (those who use semiotic are by imphcation sticklers
Porter, 1983; R o b i n s o n & S t r a w , 1984); more rarely, interpersonal ( H a n k i s s , 1980; S i g m a n , 1987, for detail). M o r e subtly, those who identify with Peirce are likely to devote considerable energy
pp. 5 6 - 6 6 ) ; and nonverbal ( H a r r i s & O w e n s , 1990). T h i s is not a very long list ( a n d it is close to discussions of theory a n d especially vocabulary, i n part due to the very real need to sort out
to complete), C u r r e n t evidence of increased interest in semiotics within c o m m u n i c a t i o n is avail- the distinctions proposed as relevant by Peirce himaelf. H i s emphasis was never on actual be-
able as reflected i n s e m i n a r s and paiiela at professiona! meetings, b u i such informal presentations havior ( s u c h as lhe linguists a n d psychologists discussed by Saussure studied) bui on concepts
hardly constiiute a m a j o r emphasis within thc field. and their implications as studied by the philosophera and logicians he assumed to be his audience,
A s i d e from the general comments cited from F i s k e (1982) about the shift from c o m m u n i c a t i on H e was more interested i n abstraccions than i n concrete p h e n o m c n a , a focus maintained by his
as a process to c o m m u n i c a t i o n as the generation of m e a n i n g , oidy a few of the authors n a m e d followers,
here offer specific explanations of what exacdy semiotics has to contribute to communication, R o b i n - 5, Peirce is influential whether followed (as in C h e r w i t z , 1981; L a n i g a n , 1972, 1983; L y n e , 1980,
son a n d Straw (1984) are an exception, however the majority of their c o m m e n t s focused soiely I 9 a i a ) ; or argued againsi (as in J , Stewart, 1991),
on mass media, T h e y offered one important gcncralization , that i h c key lies i n the notion oí lexl, 6, O b v i o u s l y , i n attempting to address a c o m m u n i c a t i o n audience, this volume crystallíze s semiotic
a term c u r r e n d y used to refer to a stretch of interaction available for analysis (a poem, a dance, theory into a particular form that is not seen as obvious by all who call themselves semioticians,
or a grecting are all texts). A s i m i l a r emphasis was proposed by K r e s s (1988b, pp. x i - x i i ) , C l e a r l y , though I imagine most would be u n h a p p y with what is left out rather than with what is included,
there has been considerable influence not only of anthropology (via G e e r i z , who influenced C a r e y ' s 7, Because the translation of one of the m a j o r works of this group, U s p e n s k y ' s A Poetics of Composi-
view of cultural studies), where ethnography is now considered one of m a n y possible texts open Uon (1973), was undertake n in part by a graduate student i n lhe Department of R h e t o r i c at the
10 analy&is rather than ítsctf being ihe prescntaiion of a closed analysis, but also of literature ( v i a U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f ó r n i a , Bcrkelcy (V-alentina Z a v a r i n ) , thc value of this research 10 c o m m u n i c a -
Derrida), where lhe idea of the written text metaphorically expands lo include unwritten texts (spoken lion scholars apparently was recognized by at least a few scholars nearly 20 years ago.
language and material culture, a m o n g other possibilities). 8, See H o c k e i t (1968) for discussion, O r i g i n a l l y thought not to be a characteristic of a n i m a l forms
T h e recent a r g u m e n t by S w i t z e r et a l , (1990) that semiotics has m u c h to offer c o m m u n i c a t i o n of c o r a m u n i c a t i o n, it now seems a few a n i m a i s are capable of lying as well (Page, 1988; T h o r p e ,
scholars would at first seem to be quite s i m i l a r to the position taken by this v o l u m e , however, there 1988),
is a substantial difference between thc aspects of semiotic theory they r e c o m m e n d as valuable and 9, A move from structure to action is particularly appropriate for c o m m u n i c a t i o n researchers given
ihose r e c o m m e n d cd here, T h e y have been most p r i m a r i l y influenced by Peirce . by way of Sebeok, lhe substantial influence of G i d d e n s ' notion o í struciuration on o u r field to date ( G i d d e n s , 1984),
a n d argued for a r e i u r n to quite old rhetorical traditions; whereas 1 have b c c n influenced by Saus- 10, I i was G r e g o r y B a i e s o n who pointed out that '"any study which throws light on lhe nature of
sure a n d argue for a revitaliza tion of his ideas as a semiotics of culture a n d thus of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . 'order' or 'pattern' i n the universe is surely n o n t r i v i a l " (1972, p. xvi). F o r m e , semiotics helps
11 is m y Í m p r e s s i o n that those who study actual behavior will learn more of value from Saussure; throw Itght on the nature of order in thc universe a n d , as such, is valuable,
those preferring to discuss terminology will utilize Peirce . 11, Others have alao pointed out that most semioticians, at least in the U n i t e d States today, are primarily
R i c h a r d L a n i g a n ( 1 9 7 2 , 1979, 1983, 1986. 1990), probably che most volubte proponent for interested in theory for its own sake, ralher i h a n applying theory to original invesligations, M i d -
the study of semiotics within c o m m u n i c a t i o n , has been caught i n thc velvet i r a p of semiotics, par- dendorf quoted Sebeok as saying that "semioticians do not do research, they think and write about
licularly Peircia n semiotics: S p e n d i n g so m u c h time and effort discussing theory, it never seems what people in other fields have done or are d o i n g " (1990, p. 305), F o r me, this is a problem.
time to apply that theory to concrete behavior. T h e o r y does not stand alone; it goes h a n d i n h a n d with research.
20 ]. INTRODUCING SEMIOTICS ^1

í 2. F o r example; " A r n o n g the h u m a n sciences, semiotics is u n i q ue i n being a study concerned with m y choices; everyone who chooses a particular definition of c o m m u n i c a t i o n demonstrates com-

the matrix of all the sciences, a n d in revealing thc centrality of history to lhe enterprise of under- parable bias.

standing i n its l o i a l i t y " ( D e e l y , 1990, p. 81). See alao Deely , W i l l i a m s , a n d K r u s c , where thc 24, F o r further discussion of lhe issues implied by social constructionism. see L a n n a m a n n (1992),
authors concluded the a r g u m e nt by suggesting that semiotics will provide " a new superstructure L e e d s - H u r w i t z (1992a), itnd Steier (1991),
for lhe humanities and thc so-called h a r d or natural sciences a l i k e " that others have only dreamcd 25, See R e y (1978) for related comments, L a n i g a n reversed the direction of influence described so
of (1986, p. x v ) . M y favorite image from discussions of thc centrality of semiotics is that provided far, speaking as he did from c o m m u n i c a t i o n rather than semiotics: " a l l c o m m u n i c a t i o n is semi-
by M a c C a n n e t l and M a c C a n n e l l . who suggested viewing semiotics as a n all-terrain vehitJc con- otic by force of being constituied and regulated by sysicms of signs" (1982, p. 63), G r o s s b c r g
veying important issues across the various scientilic a n d h u m a n i s t i c lields (1982, p. 14). (1982) expanded the discussion lo w h a i he termed '"cultural iímiotics"; H o d g c and K r e s s (1988)
and S i g m a n (1990) moved i n a different direction with a related term, sociai semioiics. F o r further
13. T h e r e is, within the larger field of semiotics, some c o n c e r n for animais (zoosemiosii) and planis
discussion of the distinction between " f o r m a l " and " s o c i a l " semioiics, see T h i b a u l t (1991).
(fikytosemioíis) as well as h u m a n s (termed, i n this classification, anthioposemiosis), though ordy h u -
m a n meanings are of interest i n m y volume. (See D e e l y , 1990, for a clear explanation of these 26, Sec Steiner (1978); K e n d o n (1990, pp, 1 5 - 5 0 ) ; L e e d s - H u r w i t z (1987, i 9 9 0 b ) , W h e n Part I I of
ideas a n d the j u s t i f í c a t i o n for i n c l u d i n g them i n semiotics.) ihis volume argucs for (he need to study food, clothing, and objects as simultaneoua aspects of

14. Bailey, M a i e j k a , and Steiner (1978, p. vii). nonverbal c o m m u n i c a t i o n and semiotic behaviors, (he dlscussion should bc understood as a clear
outgrowtb o í the original connection between semiotics and linguistics.
15. H a s s a n (1987, p. 93).
16. Steiner (1978, p. 9 9 ) ; originally from C a s s i r e r (194-4). 27, F o r further discussion of this u n d e r s t a n d i n g of culture and lhe overlap w i l h c o m m u n i c a t i on to

17. F o r discussion of linguistics as a model for various aspects of culture, sec Basso and Selby (1976); w h i c h it points, see L e e d s - H u r w i t z (1989, pp. 6 2 - 6 5 ) .

Silverstein (1976); T h r e a d g o i d (1986). J a k o b s o n ' s emphasis was paralleled by other R u s s i a n For- 28, T h i s is not thc place for d e t a í l e d discussion. but there has been extensive consideration of semiot-

maljsis who, beginning as they did with a n interest i n language and l i í e r a t u r e , often casually re- ics within anthropology, siarring with L c v i - S i r a u s s ' c o m m e n t in 1960 that anthropology w o u l d

fered to ihe differenl social codes as "languages" (as i n U s p e n s k y , I v a n o v , T o p o r o v , Piatigorskij, henceforth devote itself lo the study of signs and symbols, i n short to semiotics ( L e v i - S t r a u s s ,

& L o t m a n , 1973, p. 1). 1976, pp, 9 - 1 0 ; see M , Singer, 1984, p, 39, for discussion). T h e key n a m e s i n symbolic and
semioiic anthropology í n a d d i d o n to L e v i - S t r a u s s are Clifford G e e r t z , R a y m o n d F i r i h , E d m u n d
18. See T o b i n (1990) for lhe most elaborate discussion of this (from the v i c w p o i n i of history of lin-
L e a c h , R o d n e y N e e d h a m , D a v i d Schneider, and V i c t o r T u r n e r . F o r s u m m a r y discussion, see
guistics). C o m m e n t s by other linguists m a y be found i n R a u c h and C a r r (1980); comments from
S c h w i m m e r (1977); Singer (19S4); P a r m e n i i e r (1985),
the perspective of semioiics m a y be found i n D e e l y (1990, pp, 1-8), D e e l y ei al, (1986), M . L ,
Foster (1990b), H e r \ ' c y (1982, pp. 1-8), I n n i s (1985, pp. 2 4 - 2 7 , 2 9 2 - 2 9 3 ) ; i n anthropology, see 29, T h e r e are additional related fields of study such as the study of semiotics within sociology, but
M c C r a c k e n (1988, pp. 5 7 - 7 0 ) ; in c o m m u n i c a t i o n , see C o r c o r a n (1981), these are noi essential to the c u r r e n t discussion (sec R o b i n s o n & S t r a w , 1984, p, 107, foF useful

M c C r a c k e n is the most u n h a p p y with the continued used of linguistics as a model for thc comments; Zito (1984) provided a n introduction to semiotics intended for s ó c i o l o g i s t s ) . Semiot-

study of material culture, pointing out, " W h a t was once a lively a n d Uluminatin g suggestion of ics has been most influential within l i t e r a t u r e — C u l l e r ( 1 9 8 1 , 1988) a n d H a w k e s (1977) are good

similarity is more and more a s i a t e m e m of appareni fact. , , I t n o w duHs our criticai senses as i n i r o d u c l i o n s — b u i as a separate tradition w i l h surprisingly little overlap lo c o m m u n i c a t i o n (with

it once stimulated our imaginative faculties" (1988, p. 62). W e must attend to his w a r n i n g , bui lhe notable exception of lhe R u s s i a n F o r m a l i s t s / C z c c h Structuralists, as described previously).

I would disagree thai the i m p l i c a i i o n is to rcject the model entireiy,

19. See Barthes (1967/1983) a n d M e t z (1974) for two very different uses of linguistics as a model,
the first for an analysis o í fashion a n d the second for a n analysis of film,
20. Se.e also L e v i - S t r a u s s , w h o pointed out that linguistics " i s noi merely a social science like thc
others, but, rather, the onc i n which by far thc greatest progress has been made, It is probably
the only one w h i c h c a n truly c l a i m to be a science a n d w h i c h has achieved both lhe formulation
of an e m p i r i c a l method a n d an understanding of the nature of the data submitted to its a n a l y s i s "
(1963, p. 31). F o r discussion of linguistics as a model in the development of the study of nonver-
bal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , see L e e d s - H u r w i i z (1990b),
2 1 . T h e R u s s i a n Formalists and C z e c h Structuralists in particular used linguistics as a more dominani
model i h a n other semioticians, i n large part because their original interests were i n language a n d
literary analysis. T h e names taken by the iwo m a j o r informal groupings of scholars k n o w n today
as formalists a n d structuralists appropriately reílecc this; M o s c o w L i n g u i s t i c C l r d e and Prague
Linguistic C i r c l e .
22. T h e use of lhe terni c o m m u n i c a t i o n within lhe semiotic c â n o n is not Iimited to Sebeok, A wide
range of authors have demonstrated clear agreemenl: " S e m i o s i s is thc process by which empiri-
cal subjects c o m m u n i c a t e , c o m m u n i c a t i o n processes b e í n g m a d e possible by the organization of
signification s y s l e m s " ( E c o , 1976, p, 316); and " S e m i o t i c s is concerned with signs i n general,
a n d as signs are thc sluff out of w h i c h messages are made it seems almost incvitable that an in-
terest i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n will lead to semiotics" (Sless, 1986, p, 10).
23. O b v i o u s l y there are m a n y definitions of c o m m u n i c a t i o n available, a n d I a m sefecring particular
ones for what they contribute to the discussion here. I m a k e no excuse for the bias inherent in
 front. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , there have been two m a i n interpretations of signs: either that
they consist of a dichotomy ( a two-part relationship) or a trichotomy ( a more
e l a B Õ r ã t ê ^ t h r e e - p a r t relationship). " ^
Chapter
C o n s i d e r the dichotomy first: A s outlined originall y by Saussure, each sign
comprises a duality, such that it can be understood to have two parts; these he
termed the signifier a n d the signified.^ T h e signifier is visible or in some w a y
present (such as a flag); the signified is invisible but referred to (the country to
Signs w h i c h the flag belongs a n d w h i c h it represents). I n other words, thc signifier is
the explicit aspect of a sign, present d u r i n g the interaction, a material presence
of some sort; the signified is the tacit element of a sign, w h a t might be termed
a n " i m m a t e r i a l " presence, something literally absent yet functionally present be-
cause it has been invoked.*
Peirce divided signs differently, proposing a t r i a d: t h e ^ n or representatum, the
,^êcti a n d the interpretant. ( F o r c l a r i t y ' s sake, I will use representatum rather than
sign here, though the latter has become the term of choice. L o g i c a l l y , no element
of a classification system should be both the name of a set a n d a n element w i t h i n
that set.) I n this scheme, the representatum is parallel to Saussure's signifier, iden-
tifying the present part of the sign; but Peirce divided S a u s s u r e 's signified into
A definition of semiotics as " t h e study of s i g n s " points to signs as w o r t h y of con- two: the object (that to w h i c h the representatum refers) a n d the interpretant (the
siderable attention. I n the majority of semiotic w r i t i n g s signs are central; typical- rneaning conveyed by the representatum about the object whatever was not previ-
l y , Sebeok n a m e d them the " p i v o t a ! n o t i o n " of the field ( 1 9 8 6 a , p. 3 9 ) . T h e y ously k n o w n about that object but here conveyed).^ T h e s e two schemes should
have been proposed as a concept equally central for related fields as well, often not bc viewed as contradictory; Peirce was simply slightly more explicit than Saus-
in grandiose terms. T h e following quote comes from C h a r l e s M o r r i s , noted A m e r i - sure. Because they were w r i t i n g independendy, neither k n o w i n g the other's work,
c a n semiotician, but the sentiment is not his alone: " I n d e e d , it does^not seem they cannot be expected to have come up w i t h identical conceptions; that their
fantastic to believe that the concept of sign m a y prove as fundamental to the views of the matter fit together so nicely should be the surprise.^ I n keeping w i t h
, i c i è n c e s o f m a n as the concept of a l o m h a s b e e n for the p h y s i c a l sciences or the m y assertion that P e i r c e ' s scheme serves as a n elaboration of S a u s s u r e ' s, m a k i n g
concept o f c e l l for the biological sciences" ( Í 9 3 8 , p. 4 2 ) . T h e sign is thus present- Saussure's the m o r e basic a n d essential, i n the following pages signifier a n d sig-
ed as a building biock, comparable to these other buildin g blocks i n other fields.' nified are the terms of choice.
T h i s assumption o f the significance of signs by semioticians has defínitely riot I n addition to designating the component parts of any sign, semioticians com-
been echoed by those i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n , w h o eschew the t e r m , preferring to write m o n l y sort the class of signs into different groups or types. Peirce actually iden-
of symbols. O n the rare occasions c o m m u n i c a t i o n researchers write of signs, they tified 66 potential varieties of signs, 3 o f w h i c h have gained wide acceptance:
consistendy use the w o r d as a synony m for symbols.^ A u n e stated a generally ac- the concepts oí icon^ ^ n d symbol. I n each case, the relationship between
cepted position i n suggesting the only distinction between the two words m a y be the signifier a n d signified serves as focus of attention: A n icon has the relation-
one of imphcation , sign being the more c u r r e n d y " f a s h i o n a b l e " ( 1 9 8 3 , p . 256). s h i p ^ í ^ s h n i l a r u ^ or resemblance; a n index has the relationship of contiguity or
H i s position obscures the two different meanings currentl y available a n d used connection; a symbol has the relationship of arbitrariness. T h a t i s , a n y sign dis-
i n semiotics a n d occasionally i n other fields. I f the two words are used as syno- p l a y i n g a s i m i l a r i t y between the present a n d the absent components is termed
n y m s w i t h i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n , it cannot be due to lack of available differentiation. a n icon; any sign using a part of something to stand for the whole is an index;
I n this v o l u me (following F i r t h , 1973b, among others), sign is used as thc general a n d a n y sign using an a r b i t r a r y connection between the present a n d absent
category, w i t h the t e r m symbo l reserved for one particula r variety of sign. components is a symbol. A photograph of a bride is an i c o n ; it resembles her.
I n chapter 1, a sign was defined as ' ' e v e r y t h i ng that, on the grounds of a previ- T h e top of the w e d d i n g cake kept for the first a n n i v e r s a ry celebration is an index;
ously established social convention, can be taken as something standing for some- it formed a piece of the origina l event. T h e bride's white dress is traditionally
thing e l s e " ( E c o , 1976, p. 16). T h i s was sufficient for a chapter introducing a symbol of v i r g i n i t y , standing for something it neither resembles nor was taken
semiotics, but further details are useful w h e n signs themselves move to the fore- from.^

22
 25

Reiigious relics provide a fascinating example of a n index. R e l i c s ^ f s a i n t s have T h e reliquary should never be confused with the relic: the reliquar y is not itself
no intrinsic value; i n fact, parts of dead bodies were ( a n d a r e ) normally con- a n index but only the container of one.
sidered undesirable, a source of contamination, H o w e v e r , for the reiigious of J u s t to complicate matters, some signs make use of more t h a n one type of rela-
medieval Europe , " r e l i c s were the saints, continuing to live among m e n " and were tionship i n combination (e.g., flags are symbols but occasionally incorporate icons).
" i m m e d i a t e sources of supernatural power for good or for i l l , and close contact I n practice such combinations cause no real problems, for only analysts make
with them or possession ofLíbern^was a means of particlpating in that p o w e r " theSe distinctions, not social actors. I n addition, the same sign can serve as s y m -
( G e a r y , 1986, p. I 7 6 ) . ' í ^ l i c s gain their power by v i r t u e d f bemg indices;,->They bt)l7ÍCDn, a n d index simultaneously or in different contexts. A gold wedding band,
were once literally a part of tííe saint, and i f (he saint h a d p o w ê r T s í m i l a r power for example, is a s y m b o l of a relationship; it is a n index to the wedding ceremo-
m a y reside in every body part; thus anyone possessing any body part was assumed n y , h a v i n g been physicaUy a part of the original event; and it can be a n icon (either
to gain part of the origina l power. R e l i c s were traditionally placed i n elaborate literally, for e x a m p l e , i f it is s i m i l a r to y o u r mother's r i n g or metaphorically, i n '
reliquaries, containers specifically designed to hold them, often made of precious that it is similar i n form to everyone else's wedding bands),® I n the example of
materiais such as silver. Sometimes the r e l i q u a r y was made i n the shape of the relics earlier, they not only are Í n d i c es but also symbols ( o f a particula r reiigious
body part from w h i c h the relic had come, as w h e n a finger bone was placed i n belicf system, for only a believer w o u l d consider a part of a particular dead body
a Container designed i n the shape of a h a n d . O t h e r s become sculptures, artistic a source of power).
creations in their o w n right, as in the illustration provided here (see F i g , 2 , 1 ) . l o a n L e w i s , a n anthropologist, stressed the need to consider the emotional
meanings of symbols, i n addition to the more c o m m o n l y considered cognitive
meanings, " B y ' s y m b o l s ' we m e a n , of course, something more than signs. U n -
like the latter which m a y bc so, symbols are i n principie never fully self-explanalory,
self-sufíícient or fully a u t o n o m o u s " ( L e w i s , 1977, p. 1). S y m b o l s convey mean-
i n g largely through the connections implie d w i t h other symbols. T h i s , then, pro-
vides another distinction between symbols a n d other sorts of signs: Icons a n d
Í n d i ce s c a r r y emotional freight less often. T h u s , thc current trend i n major U n i t -
ed States cities of using black for the bridai party's clothing as a symbol of sophisti-
cation causes enormous comment, being seen as a deliberately provocative choice
because black, the traditional W e s t e r n color for funerais, is widely accepted as
a symbol of grief, an emotion equally widely assumed to be inappropriate at a
wedding.
C o m m u n i c a t i o n scholars have often considered signs a n d symbols to be syno-
n y m s for a n obvious reason: ^mbols offjhe type of sign most often of interest within
communication. T h i s is true throughout this v o l u m e , as for the field.^ G i v e n that
some symbols incorporate elements of Índices or icons, I use the more general
term sign for the remainde r of the v o l u m e unless specifically calling attention to
the distinction. I n fact, the majority of the time the topic of discussion is symbols.

COGNATE TERMS

Although I fully intend to avoid the detailed discussions of terminology common-

ly found in books on semiotics. a s m a l l set of words used to describe particular
aspects of signs i n c o m m o n usage comes in quite h a n d y , ' " O n l y the most v a l u a -
ble of these ( v a l u a b l e in the sense of w h a t they permit one to do analytically) are
described.
<Motivation or constraini\ú\c words are v i r t u a l s y n o n y m s , w i t h motivatio n being
 27

the more c o m m o n , constraint the more o b v i o u s) refers to the degree to w h i c h so forth. E c o gave a good explanation of lhe difference between denotation a n d
the signified determines the signifier. W h e n the signified closely determines the connotation, using as his example the w o r d torch:
signifier, one describes the sign as being highly m o t i v a t e d or highly constraincd.
A n example is a photograph, for it is c o m m o n l y assumed the image should close-
It means a piece of wond soaked in some substance which enables it to burn slowly
l y resemble the person indicated. A n example of a sign h a v i n g low motivation and give off light. This is the denotaiivc meaning of the word, But in our culture
or constraint is a politicai cartoon, where the resemblance to the person indicated thc torch has assumed a connotalive meaning of Hberty. So i f a painiing or a movie
need not be so close. T h i s concept is p a r t i c u l a r l y useful because it cuts across depicis a man with a torch, it is a sign used for its own connotalive power, because
the categories of signs j u s t presented (icon, i n d e x , s y m b o l ) a n d can thus be used ••' I know that in a certain culture a torch represents the idea of liberty, I could look
to characterize any ( a n d e v e r y ) sign. at a primitive painting of a man with a torch, to which I could atlribute the mean-
G o l d wedding bands as symbols of relationship status have low motivation as : ing of liberty and 1 could be wrong because a torch did not have that meaning with-
currendy used, though some older rings, depicting two clasped hands, have higher in the code of that civilization. (Eco, quoted in Balducci, 1976, p, 37)
motivation. T h a t is, the two clasped hands m o r e obviously stand for a relation-
ship by demonstrating a connection between two people than does a gold r i n g T h i s quote calls^ttemip.P_,to thc culture-specific nature of connotation, something
in a n d of itself T h e use of flowers at a wedding has high m o t i v a t i o n , insofar as that m a y not otherwise be immediately apparent and that is one of the reasons
they are assumed to indicate new life and a n e w beginning, clearly what a wed- denotation a n d connotation merit considerable attention: D e n o t a t i o i í o f t e n crosses^
ding ceremony represents, R e d roses have low motivation as a signifier of romance cultura,! boundaries; connotation almost never does.
and love; there is no logical reason w h y yellow daffodils could not serve equally T o continue w i t h the e x a m p í e o f yellow daíTodils, lhe couple h a v i n g previous
w e l l ^ j i l g u g h tradition m a y argue otherwise. experience w i l h them as an indication of romance m a y choose lo include them
i^meníiori refers to the degree o f tradition or habit associated w i t h a particular i n their o w n wedding, but only some of the guests will understand the connota-
sign.''For e x a m p l e , i n the U n i t e d States, conventiona l stick figures are under- tion without a c c o m p a n y i n g explicit verbal comments. C o u p l e s c a n use the sub-
stood to characterize female and male, commonly found on bathroom doors among tlety and exclusivity of connotation to m u l t i p l y lhe m e a n i n g of their o w n wedding
other places. T h e convention has been taken for granted for so long that we for- ceremony i n a variety of ways; A bride who chooses to w e a r the dress her mother
get not everyone can interpret it correctly: T h i s conventiona l image of a w o m a n wore at her w e d d i n g does so for the implications of continuity a n d family tradi-
wears a dress, and the m a n wears pants, but these clothing n o r m s are not univer- tion, but rarel y does every single guest k n o w the story a n d understand lhe con-
sal (nor are they even consistent standards i n the m o d e r n U n i t e d States). B e c o m - notations.
ing accustomed to a particular sign apparently causes most people to " f o r g e t " Semiotics has accepted al! of the previous terms as useful and sij;nificant. Hodge
or at least to " o v e r l o o k " the role tradition, rather than logic, plays i n p r o v i d i ng a n d K r e s s recently proposed a provocative newt,;omer to the fistj^mg^ãíz^ adapted
lhe l i n k between signifier a n d signified, C o n v e n t i o n is often p a r t i c u l a r l y valuable from G r e g o r y Bateson's concept oí fnkacQmmunicatioh/'T:\\o\x^ new, this term is
in discussions of symbols, where there is greatest choice of signifier. potentially powerful a n d therefore wortTiy of inclusion here. A metasign conveys
Despite the v a r i a t i o n i n m o t i v a t i o n , both gold bands a n d flowers at a wedding information about how to interpret other information, specifícãríy"òfKer signs.
are high i n convention: I n the U n i t e d States we have used them as symbols i n TTddge a n d K r e s s suggested that " M e t a s i g n s are sets o f m a r k e r s of social alíe-
weddings for a long time, a n d they are expected; thus, they are effective i n com- giance (solidarity, group identity and ideology) w h i c h permeate the majority of
m u n i c a t i n g particula r information, E q u a l l y , insofar as red roses are convention- t e x t s " (1988, p. 8 0 ) . E x a m p l e s o f metasigns include styles a n d acccnts, among
ally accepted as a s y m b o l of romance, yellow daffodils are incapable of conveying other possibilities ( a S o u t h e r n accent m a r k s geographic o r i g i n ; clothing styles are
lhe same message without an accompanying verbal explanation or contextual frame often granted, though sometimes inappropriately, the ability to m a r k social status),
(couples w i t h a personal history associating daffodils w i t h their actual courtship I n such cases, a single sign conveys the framework w i t h i n w h i c h information yet
can use them to indicate romance at their own w e d d i n g without h a v i n g to make lo come should be interpreted, a n d so it is granted a distinctive label, Bir d w h is telí
the connection explicit, at least for themselves), (1970a) described Southerners smiling more frequently than N o r t h e m e r s , despite
(penoiatioriy^i^i^ to the explicit, obvious, straightforward, first m e a n i n g of a intent to display the same degree of friendliness. Someone knowing this and hearing
sign; lhe related tern\íonn(?íflÍ^^refers to the i m p l i c i í , conventional, second mean- a Southern accent w o u l d correctly frame the smile w h e n it appeared. T h e con-
i n g of a sign, imposed by^a specific culture. A w e d d i n g cake denotes food to eat, cept of metasign organizes signs i m o a h i e r a r c h y : I t desiguales some as broader
but connotes such factors as time (spent d e c o r a l i n g the cake), money (some v a r i - a n d more general than others (metasigns, being general, tell us how to interpret
eties being more expensive than others), or adherence to tradition , ethnicity, a n d other, more specifíc signs lhat might otherwise be equally likely to convey any
28 2. SIGNS SYMBOLS 29

one of several interpretations). Metasign s of group identity are the most numer- Is Symbol-Using a Defining Characteristic of Humans? T h e u s e of symbols
ous and are p a r t i c u l a r ly i n t r i g u í n g ^ has been commonly named as part of what distinguishes.hjuínans from animais.'^
H o l d i n g a wedding that follows traditional n o r m s i n m a n y respects ( w i t h the O f s ^ c I T r è f e r e n c e s , B u r k e í í ás been the most influential w i t h i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n ,
bride in a long white gown, the groom in a tuxedo, w i t h bridesmaids a n d grooms- p a r t i c u l a r l y through his definition of m a n .
m e n , flowers a n d rings ) but in a n u n c o m m o n setting is a n e x a m p le of a meta-
sign: a wedding held on a football field at halftime, on a baseball field before the Man is
game starts, or i n a b o w l i n g alley. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i f the bride a n d groom met the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal
through a chorus to w h i c h they both belong a n d decide to have their wedding inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative)
ceremony i n song in the middle of a public performance, or i f they are both clowns separated from his natural condition by instrumenta of his own making
and wear clown costumes, or i f they have a cowboy theme r u n n i n g through thc goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order)
and rotten with perfection. (Burke, 1968, p. 16)
entire wedding with everyone w e a r i n g elaborate W e s t e r n clothes and boots, these
are all examples of metasigns." T h o u g h the remainder of the event m a y progress
Note how he n a m e d the characteristic of symbol usage as the first aspect of h u -
in a fairly normal fashion, the single change alters the w a y i n which the participants
m a n i t y w o r t h y of attention. Note also his elaboration of the concept: People not
interpret what occurs. T h u s , the w o r d metasign demonstrates that some signs
only use symbols, they mak e t h e m , a n d they can misuse them,
are " m o r e e q u a l " than others.
Others besides researchers in c o m m u n i c a t i o n consider symbol usage a defin-
i n g characteristic of h u m a n s : Archaeologists a n d physical anthropologists com-
m o n l y cite evidence of symbol usage as one w a y of d a t i n g early humans.^"
SYMBOLS Ethologists hav e described c h i m p s , for e x a m p l e , as clearly capable of using h u -
m a n symbols (such as plastic letters or shapes) after sufficient t r a i n i n g ; presum-
Symbols have been the type of sign most thoroughly investigated by c o m m u n i c a - ably they c a n misuse them as well, but there is no evidence yet that they make
tion scholars, but it w o u l d be incorrect to assume the nature of symbols has been symbols. R e m e m b e r i n g that a symbol involves a n a r b i t r a r y connection between
a frequent topic of discussion. I n fact, symbols have been so readily regarded as the signifier a n d the signified, this is not terribly surprising .
a traditional focus of attention i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n that they have often been taken E r n s t C a s s i r e r , noted philosopher, also n a m e d the ability to create and use
for granted w i t h details of definition, function, a n d use left uninvestigated. Mos t symbols the quintessential h u m a n characteristic (1944, pp. 2 4 - 2 5 ) . H e pointed
influential has been K e n n e t h B u r k e , who took the concept of symbol as the cor- out that symbols c a n serve to shield people from reality. People use symbols not
nerstone of his w o r k (see especially B u r k e , 1968, 1989).'^ only as a w a y of c o m m u n i c a t i n g informatio n to others, but as a w a y of com-
C o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d semiotics are not alone i n considering symbols central m u n i c a t i n g w i t h themselves; thus as researchers we must recognize symbols as
to their concerns: Sociology ( p a r t i c u l a r l y symbolic interactionism),' ^ anthropol- a criticai component in the ability to construct a n image of reality.^'
ogy (specifically symbolic a n d more recently semiotic anthropology),'* folklore,'^
philosophy,'^ and psychology" have at various times made similar claims. ( A list- What Serves as a Sign or Symbol? T h e f a c t d i a t a n y t h i n g can be a sign i f we
i n g of disciplines such as this obscures the considerable cross-disciplinary interest so wish it indicates the essential role of signs i n social life. A s Peter Bogatyrev
generated by the concept.'^) I t is interesting that thc coUoquial usage of symbol put it, " a n y item of nature, technology, or everyday use can become a sign
has m u c h the same m e a n i n g . I n describing a conflict between the U n i v e r s i t y of whenever it acquires m e a n i n g beyond the bounds of its i n d i v i d u a l existence as
L o u i s v i l l e mascot a n d the M a r t i n L u t h e r K i n g , J r . h o l i d a y , for example, a news- a thing i n a n d of i t s e l f " ( 1 9 3 6 / I 9 7 6 a , p. 14). H i s example is a stone, an object
paper article reported ' ' F a n s fike M r . S e n n take their symbols very seriously i n this from nature w h en it lies on the ground, but w h e n someone paints it white and
city. . . , B u t a clash of symbols has erupted. . . . " ( M a r r i o t t , 1990, p. Y 1 6 ) . uses it to m a r k the border between two plots of ground, if acquires social mean-
R a t h e r t h a n e x a m i n i n g the differences between the approaches to symbols fol- i n g , becoming a sign. E c o carrie d this general point even further:
lowed by each of the previously n a m e d disciplines, it is more useful to consider
a series of questions any of them mus t answer. ( I n w h a t follows, the t e r m symbol
Human beings emerge from any account of semiotic structures as inveterate and
is used because the i n d i v i d u a l authors quoted have used it a n d because it is the promiscuous producers of signs. As the work of Levi-Strauss and others indicates,
particular variety of sign u n d e r discussion. I n othcr disciplines, as i n c o m m u n i - any aspect of human acUvity carries the potential for serving as, or becoming a sign;
cation, symbol has often been used w h e n referring to the larger class, technically we only have to "activate" it in accordance with something like the abovc process-
designated i n this v o l u m e as signs.) es. (Cited in Hawkes, 1977, p. 134)
 30 2. SIGNS SYMBOLS 31

T h i s implies that although most of us do not generally think of ourselves as E x p l i c i t l y , adults often formally describe the meanings (whether reiigious or
"promiscuous producers of s i g n s , " nonetheless w e a l l are. I t follows that research- family or politicai) of symbols to the future generations, their children and grand-
- e r s into symbolic behavior must be alert to the c o n t i n u ai creation of new signs, children.^^ S y m b o l s are a form of shorthand; cncapsulating c u l t u r a l knowledge
and must not assume documentation a n d understanding of all the important ones i n p a r t i c u l a r w a y s , they serve a valuabl e role i n the deliberate passing on of tradi-
has been completed. I t follows further that, as w i t h signs, a n y t h i n g can serve as tions. T h i s explicit effort is aided by the fact that so m a n y symbols are i m m e d i -
a symbol since symbols are but one type of sign.^^ ately, m a t e r i a l l y present, physically i n t r u d i n g i n a w a y that more elusive ideas
F e w people might t h i n k of t a k i n g a h a m m e r a n d s m a s h i n g a r i n g aa a symbol a n d concepts s i m p l y c a n j i £ t d o ^ ' ' / y í i £ a c í ; s , j ^ the past into the
of a n y t h i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r , but a new tradition is developing of doing exactly that pxesent." as G a i l e y (1989, p. 149) put it, a n d symbols not only encourage but
after a divorce, w i t h the destruction of the r i n g s y m b o l i z i n g the end of the rela- are the p r i m a r y vehlcle p e r m i t t i n g continuity of the past into the present.'^'' T o
tionship. A s divorce is often difficult a n d as w e d d i n g bands are the traditional date there has been little attention paid to the acquisition of nonlinguistic sym-
symbol of the relationship of m a r r i a g e , we c a n recognize a peculiar appropriatc- bolic understandings, whether through p r i m a r y socializaiion as children or through
ness to this new s y m b o l . E q u a l l y , w h e n after a spouse's death a w i d o w chooses secondary socialization as adults i n a n e w context or new c u l t u r e . "
to have the d i a m o n d from her engagement r i n g r e m o v e d a n d used i n a new piece
of j e w e l r y ( a dinner r i n g or a pendant are c o m m o n choices), this serves as an How Does One Recognize Symbols in ^^.fyda^LifgZ^^Jn a . s ç n s e , this is a fool-
appropriate symbol of both c o n t i n u i n g memories of the spouse a n d the need to ish question, for [SQci^j'^ctors ceftainlv dpn'^^„ask then;;;selves this.l havJntr no
go on with one's life. problems i n discerning what constitutes a symbol a n d w h a t does not. H o w e v e r ,
T h o u g h it m a y be accurate to say that " a n y t h i n g " c a n serve as a symbol, this a s ^ practical matter, how^a j e s e a r c h e r becomes alerted to a potential symbol wor-
vague answer m a y not a l w a y s be terribly useful. G e n e r a l l y , the short list of what thy of study can become an issue. T h e best answer to this revised question is p r õ v í d -
can be used as a s y m b o l includes objects ( r a n g i n g from s m a l l ones like rings to e í S y n E c Ó T w h o suggested:
large ones like buildings, frorn manufactured to found objects), behaviors ( r a n g i n g
from i n d i v i d u a l actions to elaborate c o m m u n i t y r i t u a i s ) , texts ( i n the sense of dis-
when in a Zen story the Master, asked about the meaning of life, answers by raising
course, r a n g i n g from i n d i v i d u a l words to story cycles), ideas (concepts, images),
his stick, the^ interpreter smells an abnormal implicature, whose interpretant keys
and people (whether r e a l or i m a g i n a r y ) . lie outside pre-existing frames. This gesture means not only that the Master refuses
to answer, but also that his (gestural) answer has a still uncoded meaning, and maybe
How Do Peopk Acquire Symbols? T h a t is, how does one come to understand more than one. The textuâLJmplicatur^ signaling the appearance of the symbolic
mode depends on the presentation of a sentence, of a word, of an object, of an ac-
what they mean? T h i s question arises from r e a l i z i n g that symbols are a part of
tiorilhat, according to the precoded narrative or discursive frames. the acknowledged
culture. Different cultures use different symbols, so we k n o w people are not born
rhetorical rules, or the most common linguistic usages, should ml have the relevance
with the knowledge of what they are a n d h o w to interpret them. I n brief, the an-
it acquires within that context.
swer is that people are gradually exposed to symbols as c h i l d r en a n d gradually
The standard reaction to the instantiation of the symbolic mode should be a sort
1 come to understand them through their presentation in a series of contexts, learning
of uneasiness felt by lhe interpreter when witnessing an inexpUcable move on the
over time w h a t they m e a n to the adults a r o u n d the m ( S h o t w e l l , W o l f , & G a r d - part of thc text, the feeling that a certain word, sentence, fact, or object should not
ner, 1980).^^ Some authors even speak of children being " i n d u c t e d " into the ap- have been introduced in the discourse or at least not have acquired such an impor-
propriate use of symbols w i t h i n their o w n culture, though this implies more tance. The intei^greter feels a surplus of signification since he guesses that the max-
coercion t h a n most assume ( F r a n k , 1966, p, 7 ) . ims of reíêvãjicê, manner, or quantity have not been vioíated by chance or by mistake.
S y m b o l s are presented to c h i l d r e n both implicitly a n d explicitly. I m p l i c i t l y , O n the contrary, they are not only flouted, but—so to speak—Houied dramatically.
the process is so constant as to appear to operate through osmosis—that i s , sim- (Eco, 1986, pp. 175-176)
ply by being presented w i t h a w o r l d full of symbols, c h i l d r e n " p i c k u p " their
meanings over time a n d through repetition, w i t h no one deliberately teaching I n the Z e n B u d d h i s t tradition, a Z e n M a s t e r sometimes teaches his disciples
the meanings. O n e part of w h y this is possible is because symbols are such basic through incomplete utterances a n d actions, l e a v i n g them to cstabhsh meaning ,
parts of the social w o r l d ; whether or not adults attend to the matter consciously, A l t h o u g h most people w o u l d be unlikely to describe the activity of locating sym-
children are exposed to the symbols of their culture e v e r y time they observe or bols i n E c o ' s precise phrase as " s r a e l l i n g a n a b n o r m a l i m p l i c a t u r e , " that is a
participate i n any sort of formal or informal event, and they can h a r d l y help figur- good description of w h a t analysts i n fact do. S o m e t h i n g i m p l i e d in the use of a
ing out that symbols are important.^* w o r d or object or behavior carries more than the usual weight, appears to be out
 2. SIGNS s 1 ivimji-í
32

/ o f place, or rnakes us vaguely uneasy, thus p r o m p t i n g investigation, T h i s revised People assume coherence, creating it even where there is none, out of only
the most fragmentary a n d imperfect materiais.
question brings up a related issue.

I
T o understand the meaning of artifacts in the broadest sense, we need to focus on
Do All Symbols Carry Equal JVeight in a Culture? T h i s i n t u r n should lead
the imaginative acf by whicH people" fusé their surroundings into a meaningful whole.
to the question: A r e a l l symbols equally w o r t h y of study? T h e short answer to
It is an act more prosaic, but more ambitious, than that of making the most perfect
both is, predictably, no. T h e long answer brings up the issue o1^^f^[pmbÕ^studied b a s k é r o r the cleverest tale, because its scope is so great. Yet because every person
e"xpTíc)tly by anthropologists, i m p l i c i d y by nearly everyone e l s e T X è y s y m b o l s (or performs it constantly, it receives less attention and no romantic celebration. (Up-
depending on authorial preference, master symbols, dominant symbols, core sym- lon, 1991, pp. 158-159)
bols) c a r r y greatest weight w i t h i n a culture. T h e y are the source of greatest dis-
cussion, elaboration, a n d attention from social actors a n d therefore later from
j People make coherence all of the time, thus few of us notice what an accomplish-
researchers ( O r t n e r , 1973; T u r n e r , 1967).
ment it is, how difficult the task we set ourselves. T h i s is a lopic worthy of study
^ ' ^han^^EP"''^^ f j r k e y is tf^e key symbol; a t C h r i s t m a s i i is the trÊÊ- Prepar-
[ in and of itself People make a world of meanings, thus m a k i n g the world meaning-
ing a T h a n k s g i v i n g dinner without including a turkey feels incomplete on the rare
ful for themselves a n d others. E v e r y d a y life is not a physical phenomenon, like
occasions anyone does it. H a v i n g a C h r i s t m a s celebration bereft of a tree is a
the trees or lhe birds; it is a social creation, made by people, for people, available
classic m a r k of hardship. r4ot_pnly do objects serve as key-symbols but also geo-
for study by these or other people, People create the world anew w h e n interact-
ple, ideas, texts, or behaviors. I n the 1992 L o s Angeles riota, the key symbol clearly
ing w i t h others a n d then recreate the w o r l d yet again a moment later. Neither
' " w a V R o d i i ê y K i n g , a n d his name was l i n k e d to the riots i n virtually every news
as participants nor as aciors can wc freezc i l , hold it i n our hands, for it simply
story. A t their most powerful, key symbols " e n s h r i n e the major hopes and aspi-
does not exist in physical form. Neither does it exist within any one person's imag-
rations of a n entire s o c i e t y " ( W o l f , 1972, p. 150) or fears and concerns, as w i t h
ination, for the social world Ís a joint creation, existing through the mutua l cooper-
the example of K i n g ; they are " h i g h l y evocative, a n d m u l t i v o c a l ; they are used
ation of a c o m m u n i t y of creators.
In a v a r i e t y of contexts a n d convey multiple m e a n i n g s " ( P a r m a n , 1990, p.
W i t h G o f f m a n (1959, 1983) a n d B i r d w h i s t e l í ( 1 9 7 0 a ) , I have argued that ii
295).^" Surely key symbols w a r r a n t the special attention they have attracted
is largely through the small behaviors of everyday life that people convey infor-
across several disciplines.
mation to one another ( L e e d s - H u r w i t z , 1989). T h i s approach implies that ali sym-
Despite the m i n i m a l explicit attention p a i d to the concept of key symbols with-
bols, not only key symbols, are w o r t h y of study. C e r t a i n l y I would not suggest
in the c o m m u n i c a t i on literature ( K a t r i e l , 1987, being one excepdon), v i r t u a l l y
ignoring key symbols, but there is litde danger of that because they generally gain
every study of symbols w i t h i n communication to date, particularly but not unique-
more than their share of research attention. R a t h e r , I argue for reserving a little
ly w i t h i n rhetoric, has i n fact focused on key s y m b o l s . T h i s correctly implies
effort for seemingly i n s i g n i í i c a n t symbols lhat r e w a r d investigation equally. A s
that to date only m i n i m a l attention has been p a i d to the lesser symbols of ever>--
C a r e y put it, sometimes Íl Ís appropriate to " m a k e large claims from small mat-
day life. S u c h attention is long overdue, not for reasons of some sort of theoreti-
t e r s " ( 1 9 8 9 , p. 190); one cannot do this without p a y í n g attention to the small
cal equality but because of their considerable theoretical interest: attention to
matters."
everyday symbols rewards study.^"
M a r y C a t h e r i n e Bateson pointed out that;^each h u m a n life Ís best conceived
of as a composition, " a continuai r e i m a g i n i n g of the future a n d r e i n t è r g r e t a t i o n What Do Symbols Do That is Valuable? T ^ o u g h ^ symbols people create a
of the past to give m ' ^ n m g T o the p r e s e n t " ( Í 9 9 0 , p . 2 9 ) . T õ me, one of the i m - social reality for themselves, a n o y e r l a y of m e a n i n g j a i d a c r o s H B c W t u r a T w
plications of this s t a f e m è h t is that researchers c a n study how social actors weave V ^ " ' B e r t ^ â n f f y siiggestetj, " E x c e p t in the immediate s a t i ^ w i p n of bioltjgíçal
together fragments of interaction to form a coherent image for themselves a n d needs, m a n lives i n a w o r l d not of things, but of s y m b o l s " (1965 , p, 26), B y i m -
others. T h i s is an activity best described as continuous, best studied i n its m u n - pHííSnÒn people do not live p r i m a r i l y i n the n a t u r a l w o r l d , w h i c h they h a d no
dane aspects. Important as it m a y be to study major life cycle events, rituais, h a n d i n m a k i n g , but rather in the social w o r l d , a separate a n d later h u m a n crea-
ceremonies, or d r a m a s , these are but infrequent occurrences i n most lives. T h u s , tion. C a r e y took this concept a step further, stating, " W e first p r o d u ç e j h c w o r l d
il is equally criticai to study how people assume a n d convey meaning lhe remainder by_^yinbolic w o r k a n d then take up residence i n the world we have p r o d u c e d "
of their lives: W h e n they eat breakfast, choose a new couch, or go for a walk around (1989, p. 3 0 ) . B y extension we are prone to forgetting our o w n role in creating
the neighborhood. the social w o r l d , forgetting equally that we have the power to change it.
 O t h e r uses of symbols require a slightly rephrased question: What is the function Jrpra w h n g i j J T P v j i r p separated " ( 1 9 8 2 , p. 10).^^ H e assumed a city as his en-
of symbols? T w o basic answers are traditionally g i v e n . O n e focuses on symbols v i r o n m e n t because large nurhbers of members of different communities converge
as a w a y of m a k i n g sense of the w o r l d ( G e e r t z , 1966); this is the answer assumed in cities. I t is easiest to consider symbols i n their positive function as m a r k e r s
in any discussion of symbols as creating social reality. Symbol.s_serve^ lf,/l^JS^m^y.r of group identity (who we are); yet it is adso the case that markers of identity simul-
as a w a j ^ j o r US to tell ourselves a story about ourselves ( G u s f i e l d , 1989). T h i s taneously serve a negative function, m a k i n g who we are not, thus defining group
function of symbols implies a vision of s y m b o í s as storage containers ( F i r t h , 1973a, boundaries.
1 p. 79); People use^svmbols as a w a y of c o n v e y i n g considerable amounts of infor- Symbols certainly indicate more than identity, though that is a c o m m o n l y
r mation in_a small s p _ a c e o r i E Õ r t ' í : i m e . T h e y also serve as a w a y to convey infor- described function; they also^indicate characteristics such as status. Status is a n
mation over time a n d across generations, as w i t h the symbols used i n w r i t i n g . even rnore complex notion t h a n identity, i f that is possible, i n v o l v i n g a h i e r a r c h y
T h e second answer points to the function of symbols as toolsJor çhangjin^^the^ of identities w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p . A s w i t h i n d i v i d u a l identity, social sta-"^,
w o r l d . T h i s also implies the metaphor of sym^oIs~as storage containers but to tus is either ascribed (socially inherited) or achieved ( a c q u i r e d through i n d i v i d u a l i
aidifferent end. R a t h e r t h a n s e r v i n g as a w a y of c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h our later performance). I n other words, some forms of status parents are able to pass on—
selves or future generations, symbols here serve as a w a y to communicate our to their c h i l d r e n ; others have to be earned. I f nothing else, however, parents pass
views to potential competitors or even antagonists. C a r e y elaborated upon the on assumptions about how to indicate a p a r t i c u l a r social status: W h e t h e r chil-
potentiaLpf 5yriib.QÍ5,_a5..sites of conflict: dren choose to adopt theirs or to move a w a y from it, their assumptions are framed
first at home (subject to later modification by friends, the mass m e d i a , and so
Reality is, above all, a scarce resource. Like any scarce resource it is there to be forth).
struggled over, aUocaied to various purposes and projects, endowed with given mean- I n thc cases of both identity a n d status, there is a n u n d e r l y i n g reason for the
ings and potentials, spent and conserved, rationalized and distributed. The fundamen- fine distinctions made: " O n e of the basic conditions of social life is k n o w i n g w h o m
tal form of power Ís the power to define, allocate, and display this resource. Once one is_dealing w i t h a n d , therefore, being able to recognize i n d i v i d u a l a n d group
the blank canvas of the world is portrayed and featured, it is also preempted and
i d e n t i t y " ( G u i r a u d , 1975, p, 8 4 ) . A l t h o u g h he di d not apply his comments to
restricted. Therefore, the site where artists paint, writers write, speakers speak, film-
status, I w o u l d , for status is nothing i f not an aspect of identity. W h a t e v e r people
makers film, broadcasters broadcast is simultaneously the site of social conflict over
l e a r n about those w i t h w h o m they interact is taken into account i n the interac-
the real. It is not a conflict over technology. It is not a conflict over social relations.
It is a conflict over the simultaneous codetermination of ideas, technique, and social tion, whether consciously or unconsciously. S y m b o l s are one vehicle for d i s p l a y - ' ;
relations. It is above all a conflict not over the efíects of communication but of the ing information about ourselves to others, friends a n d strangers alike, and to \
acts and pracdces that are themselves the effects. (Carey, 1989, p. 87) ourselves as w e l l , <^£:2>^

f A c c o r d i n g to this v i e w , then, symbols are one v i t a l component of a power strug- Why Study Symbols? Because symbols are important to social actors, they
f gle over whose ideas, whose constructions of reality, whose interpretations, will must be important to researchers. People cannot see into one another's heads to
'^come to be accepted as the n o r m . ' ^ understand m o t i v a t i on or behavior, but symbols are readily available for obser-
Symbols depend for their value on shared meanings, thus, they c a n be accurately v a t i o n . " S y m b o l s are the directly observable data of sociation, a n d , since it is
described as one result of social interaction. A s F r a n k s w a r n e d us, " t h e invisible impossible to use symbols without u s i n g them i n some k i n d of structure or form ,
a n d intangible nature of the symbolic component (of experience) should not lead we cannot discourse about society w i t h any degree of precision unless we discourse
to a d i m i n i s h e d appreciation of its p o w e r " ( 1 9 8 5 , p. 3 4 ) . W h e n we take symbolic about the forms social relationships assume i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n " ( D u n c a n , 1962,
meanings for granted, we miss a l a r g e part of the picture. W e must discover whose pp. 2 - 3 ) . I n s u m , i f the goal is to understan d h u m a n behavior, one must study
meanings w c are accepting, a n d whose we have rejected. symbols, for they provide one of lhe best w a y s to gain such understanding.
A n extension of this function is the recognition that symbols c a n serve as mark-
ers of identity ( B e r g e r , 1984c). D i s p l a y i n g symbols is one w a y of announcing a
p a r t i c u l a r identity or affiliation w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r group, whether that be nation- INTERPRETATION AND MEANING
a l , occupational, corporate, reiigious, or gender based. ( T h i s obviously involves
the concept of metasigns described earUer.^*) A s J a c q u e s M a q u e t pointed out, I m ç h c i t i n the previous discussion are the t w i n problems o^mt€rpretatiònyi\á'mean- \
" B y means of c u l t u r a l performances a n d emblems, each segment of a contem- ing^li is time to confront them directly, I n both cases I specifically refer to sym-
porary city tells to itself a n d the other segments w h o their m e m S e r s are a n d bols rather than signs, for Índices a n d icons, w i t h their o b v í o u s connections between
JO

signifier and signified, only rarely call issues of divergent interpretations a n d m u l - tions placed upon that reality by various social actors. Despite the initial hesi-
tiple meanings into question. lation of m a n y , this task is p r o v i n g to be challenging enough by itself.
Interpretation as a term has been used widely i n the humanities over a long I m p l i e d here is the issue of potential multiple interpretations, multiple reah-
period of time: L i t e r a r y critics interpret the w o r k of the authors they study, j u s t ties. T h e teTni^olysen^eícTsj^úic factthat^the same signifier can have several
as art critics interpret the work of the artists they study. I n this usage, the term signifieds (the r i n g i w e a r m a y indicate w e a l t h or style to y o u , but family connec-
was not at a l l controversial, being accepted as obvious. M o r e recently, the term tions t ó me).*' I t is equally true that every signified c a n be indicated by m u l t i -
has been applied to the social ( a n d , less often in practice but juat as appropriate ple signifiers (the concept of liberty is indicated both by the U n i t e d States í l a g
theoretically, behavioral) sciences in a usage that has proved controversial.^^ Bas- a n d the S t a í u e of L i b e r t y . I n D . M . S c h n e i d e r ' s graceful phrase, " e v e r y symbol
ically, the position t a k e n is that fur studies of h u m a n behavior such as conversa- can haye ^ ,nqml;>er of different meanings a n d . . . every m e a n i n g c a n have a
tions and rituais, as for h u m a n products such as art a n d literature, the researcher n u m b e r of different symbols".,.(1976, p. 2 1 4 ) .
(read * ' c r i t i c " ) interprets what occurs. Despite the fact that it has been a con- "~Theré"fias been considerable discussion to date about whether symbols can bc
troversial stance, it is no more than a logical extension of the understandin g of indefinitely polysemic w i t h the general conclusion that they c a n , at least theoreti-
reality described previously . If il is the case that people live in a social world rather than cally ( i n other words, a symbol can potentially mean a n infinite n u m b e r of things
a natural one and if they perceive what'occurs through their own understanding ofjealityj_ to an infinite n u m b e r of people), T h o u g h possible theoretically, this woul d be
then researchers are no more able to directly observe objective reality than is anyone else. S i m - rare i f not impossible i n practice, for a symbol loses its power i f it never means
ply saying so w o n ' t m a k e it so, as researchers we might as well admi t that we lhe same thing to different people ( F e r n a n d e z , 1982).
study subjective reality rather than the objective reality we thought we were A n example of polysemy is a hope chest, a wooden storage box traditionally
siudying. associated w i t h a young girl preparing for marriage. T h e same object can alterna-
I n communication , the i n t è r p r e t i v e approach became most noliceable w i t h the tively be viewed as a storage container, as a seat, as a m a r k e r of wealth, as an indi-
publication of P u t n a m a n d P a c a n o w s k y ( 1 9 8 3 ) a n d has now come to be accepted cation of hopes and expeclations, as a statement about a w o m a n ' s proper role in
as one a m o n g m a n y theoretical approaches. A s J a m e s A n d e r s o n has recently sug- life, as a place to siore objects related to the w e d d i n g once it is over, even as a toy
gested, " F o r the i n t è r p r e t i v e social scientist . , . the business of i n q u i r y is not chest after children are bom. These different implications of a hope chest can be held
IO reveal the world to us but to create some part of the w o r l d for us. I n q u i r y is by lhe aame person at different times or by different people at the same time.*^
lhe Professional practice of the social creation of r e a l i t y " ( 1 9 9 0 , p. 14). Specifi- I n either case, there is polysemy: a single sign c o n v e y i n g multiple meanings.
cally, the inlerpretive approach argues that all research creates a v i e w , a picture, It is generally accepted that some interpretations are dominant over others and
an interpretation, of one part of the w o r l d , despite the explicit intent to reveal more fíkely to h ^ d j p j v a JaigSr.IÍV.?pbei:'of peQple.(Gross 1989), T h i s has
the world as experienced by others,*' occasionally led lo discussion of whether one single correct interpretation exists
M o s t literally, interpretation simply means " u n d e r s t a n d i n g , on the.jiasiajaf for each s y m b o l , a position u n i f o r m l y rejected, partially for its totalilarian i m p l i -
some previous decoding, the general sense of a vast portion of d i s c o u r s e " ( E c o , cations a n d partiall y because the use of symbols clearly contradicts it. T o resolve
I " 9 7 E 7 p - " l 3 1 ) r a r í í tliTtext taken for study is not always vast. G e n e r a l l y , however, the issue of single interpretations, it has been suggested lhat the w o r d meaning
there is a n additional i m p h c a t i o n: Interpretation "suggests an imposition u ^ n be assumed to be p l u r a l every time i l occurs ( C S u l l i v a n , H a r l l e y , Saunders , &
raw data of a m e a n i n g not inherent i n t h e m " ( F i s h , 1979, p . 2 4 4 ) . T h i s is the F i s k e , 1983, p. 132), T h i s approach w o u l d stop m a n y problems before they arise
f ^ S l t b q u i á r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f interpretation: there is reality, a n d there is y o u r i n - because i f researchers alway s assume there is more than one m e a n i n g for a sym-
terpretation of reality, a n d there is m i n e ; the interpretations c a n differ, but we bol, they are less likely to attempt to privilege the one they find most appealing
resolve them by checkin g t h e m againsi what we understan d to be objective reali- personally.
ty. B u t as F i s h went on to point out, a more adequate understandin g of reality E c o (1976) popularized the idea of referring to texts as either open, where the
requires the realization that the text m a y not exist separately from our interpre- complexity of a text can only„ljf. understood whe n multiple in te rp relation s_are
tations of it; even i f it does, we cannot perceive it apart frorn our interpretations considered, or closed, where one r e a d i n g is strongly preferred over the others.'
of it. T h i s , then, is the w a r r a n t for i n t è r p r e t i v e social science, as it is the w a r r a n t G e n e r a l l y , researchers view open texts as a more interesting focus of study than
for a n i n t è r p r e t i v e approach to c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h c j o b of a researcher is ac- closed texts w i t h their Iimited possibilities, but it is possible to play w i t h these
cordingly redefined: it is not his or her j o b to report objective reality, w h i c h m a y concepts. Sometimes the search to understand what clearly were intended as closed
t u r n out to be a n impossible task, so m u c h as to discuss the various interpreta- messages becomes a sort of game.
 JO

For example, consider die elaborate beading on S a r a h Ferguson's wedding gown as such, it should be taken for granted that meanings w i l l change. It woidd be
w h e n she m a r r i e d P r i n c e A n d r e w i n 1986, E v e r y o n e could be expected to know m u c h stranger i f symbols never changed, a l w a ys bearing identical implications
that the hearts included i n beadwork on the t r a i n indicated romance, for that is for people. H a s s a n , noted literary c r i t i c , suggested, "Bnejly put, nothing has intrin-
widely understood, thus a n open r e a d i n g . M a n y people figured out that the an- sic sense: a strong sense must be made of everything" ( 1 9 8 7 , p. 198). Interpretation, or
chors a n d waves stood for P r i n c e A n d r e w ' s role as sailor. B u t the bumblebees sense-making, comes from the people w h o see symbols, not from víithin the sym-
a n d thistles beaded on the bodice of her dress were more obscure, c o m i n g from bol; thus, there c a n be considerable change over time, across space, even from
her f a m i l y ' s coat of a r m s , a closed r e a d i n g k n o w n to a I i m i t e d circle of family person to person at í h e same time a n d place,
a n d friends; closed, that i s , unti l the newspapers published the information, so ~ " A í t h o u g h analysts m a y appreciate the existence of multiple interpretations for
everyone could feel included in lhat circle ( M e n k e s , 1986, p. 5).*^ I t is worth not- any s y m b o l , social actors do not generally grant these equal v a l u e . C u l t u r a l
i n g that a n explanatio n of the decorations on the w e d d i n g dress was printed by Studies, i n p a r t i c u l a r , has sparked invesligations of whose interpretations come
Thí [LondonJ Times the day after the wedding; that i s , as soon as the symbols were to be valued a n d how these dominant readings come to be subvcrted by various
displayed, they needed to be explained . social groups,*^ R e l y i n g upon this literature, F i s k e ( 1 9 8 2 , pp- 1 1 3 - 1 1 4) referred
W i t h i n 2 hours after lhe roya i wedding, copies of the dress were already on to thuçe major w a ^ ^ f _ ^ r e a d i n g a n y text: the dominant reading, conveying the
sale for other brides a n d apparently i n great d e m a n d ( " S h o p s Q u i c k " , 1986). dominant group's values; t}^~sjWÕr^xnãte Tè-Ã<Xinfí,y where a nondomihant group
W h a t is fascinating about this, aside from the astonishing speed, is that the sym- acc«pts-thé'&ãsTc~structur e of j i o w e r relations i n the sociely, a s p i r i n g only lo a
bols appropriate for S a r a h F e r g u s o n 's w e d d i n g dress cannot be assumed to be higher standing w i t h i n that structure; a n d lhe (?^/»oíííii3n(írireadingj where a non-
correct for anyone else. W h y w o u l d these others w a n t to display inappropriate dominant group c á l l s f h e ^ n t i r e è x i s i i n g s o c i a l structure into question, requesting
symbols? A p p a r e n t l y a n y reference to the r o y a l w e d d i n g was sufficiendy widely n o t a T i i g h ê T ' s t ã t i ^ ^ Bíit a tearing d o w n of the entire structure i n order lo begin
understood that it was viewed as more correct to copy the o r i g i n al completely anew.
than to adapt it to the o w n e r of lhe imitation. T h i s , then, is another type of closed A s an e x a m p l e , these concepts c a n be applied to honeymoons. A d o m i n a n i
reading, even more subtle than the first: here one not only has to k n ow that bees reading of a honeymoon implies a several week stay at a d i s t a m location, prefer-
a n d thistles refer to S a r a h Fergu50n' s family crest a n d are to bc expected on her ably some representation of paradise, typically one or more islands (thus H a w a i i
wedding dress, one has to k n ow that the symbols from her family crest incorpo- or the C a r i b b e a n are popular destinations). A subordinate reading impHes a desire
rated i n someone else's w e d d i n g dress are lo be understood as reference to the for that dominan t possibility, a d m i t t i n g its value, yet settling for a lesser version
royal wedding, rather than as a statement about the family backgroun d of the ( a week i n F l o r i d a or a l N i a g a r a F a l i s serving as a c o m m o n alternative). I n both
bride d i s p l a y i n g them. cases lhe ideais of the couple getting a w a y together to spend " q u a l i t y " time and
A P r e s u m a b l y only the legacy of the p h y s i c a l sciences, where it is assumed that establish the m a r r i a g e on a good base are accepted; i n both cases the couple often
i lhe focus of study is objective reality, leads to the assumption that there should spends as m u c h as they c a n readily afford, i f not quite a bit more, to indicate
j, be one a n d only one right interpretation of h u m a n behavior.'* ( T o d a y , there are lhe importance of this event. A n oppositional reading, however, denies lhe sig-
'1 those who question even the assumption that it is possible to describe a n objec- nificance of the honeymoon as starting point, considering it a flagram waste of
' tive reality i n the physical sciences w h e n h u m a n perception serves as one of the money that could be better spent (so some couples choose to spend the same
' research lools.) C o m m u n i c a t i o n researchers, as w i t h others, n o w generally ac- amount on a d o w n paymen t on a house or on a car, r a l h e r than on a vacation
knowledge this one-to-one ratio o f reality to interpretation as oversimplification they c a n i l l afford). L o g i c says that this is a p e r í e c d y reasonable thing lo do, but
a n d are gradually c o m i n g to be less interested in a c h i e v i n g the patcntly impossi- tradjtioiTis surprised, a n d often insultcd as well, at the í l a u n t i n g of the n o r m .
; ble goal of discovering the single correct interpretation of symbols than in com- (Meaninè^?L% not yet been discussed separately from interpretation. J u s t as i n -
i i n g to understand the range of interpretations that exist a n d the implications of terpretation has the coUoquial i m p l i c a t i o n of " m y (possibly skewed) understand-
* such v a r i e t y for social actors. ing of what y o u i n t e n d e d ^ ' so m e a n i n g h a s t h e coUoquial implication of ' 'what
O c c a s i o n a l l y a related type of p o l y s e m y is useful. I n lhe previous description, you really intended, whether o r n o t I understood i t . " T o d o r o v (1982) clearly l i n k e d .
i l was assumed that each symbol could m e a n s d í n e t h i n g different to each differ- m e a n i n g w i t h sender a n d interpretation w i t h recipient, altjiough this suggestion
ent person; it is also possible for a single s y m b o l to m e a n one thing to a person rehes upon an outdated v i s i o n of c o m m u n i c a t i o n as i n v o l v i n g separable senders,
at one time a n d another t h i n g to the same person at a l a i e r t í m e . T h u s , a photo- receivers, a n d messages and does not sufficiently account for thc actual complex-
graph of someone takes on new m e a n i n g after their death. T h i s is no more than ity of social interaction,''' I t is more appropriate to assume the concepts symbol,
a n expansion o f the fact tiiA^-eoQiext bears^upon interpretation of symbols and, interpretation, a n d m e a n i n g are i m e r t w i n e d i n variou s ways, Otherwise , re-
s e a r c h e r s m i g h t fincorrectly') assume it appropriate to characterize meanings as is, every f e a t u r ç . o f thc n a r r a t i v e w h i c h refers to another momen t w i t h i n it or to
eitKêr right or w r o n g , a choTce explored i n detail by B u r k e : another locus of the culture required i n order to read i t " (as presented and trans-
lated i n L y d o n w i t h W o o d r u f f & W a r r e n , 1989, p. 4 1 ) . U l t i m a t e l y , people at-
Meaning, when used in the sense of "correct meaning," leads to an either-or ap- tribute m e a n i n g to actions hy sifting current events througlTThe filtèr of i i í é m o r i e s
proach. "New York City is in l o w a " could, by the either-or principies, promptly
of past events. I t í í o n l y w h e n we recognize a behavior as fítting w i t h or con-
be ruled out. The either-or test would represent the semantic ideal. But I am sorry
tradicting a past n o r m that we are able to assign meaning.''^ T h e concept oi^tn^
to have to admit that, by the poetic ideal, " N e w York City is in l o w a " could not
be ruled out. lêrtextuali^ taken from K r i s t e v a ' s presentation of M i k h a i l B a k h t i n ' s writingsTTT
Has one ever stood, for instance, in some little outlying town, on the edge of uíRtGTSfõod TÕ"dèscribe the ability of a n y one text to mak e reference to another
the wilderness, and watched a train go by? Has one perhaps suddenly fclt that the or to several others.*^ K r i s t e v a (1969) proposed that m u c h of the meaning gained
train, and its tracks were a kind of arm of the t;ity, reaching out across the conti- from a text is brought to it through intertextuality: T e x t s " r e s o n a t e " w i t h mean-
nent, quhe as though it were simply Broadway itself extended? It is in such a sense i n g w h en they refer to previous texts, perhaps because they do not require as m u c h
that New York City can be found all over the country—and I submit that one would w o r k to decide how to interpret them. I f nothing else, intertextual quotations pro-
miss very important meanings, meanings that have much to do with the conduct vide the " p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e " hs^g^described^by B a r t h e s .
of our inhabitants, were he to proceed here by the either-or kind of test. T T Í e r e are a c t u a l l y t h r e e uses direct quota-
" N e w York City is in l o w a " is "poetically" true. As a metaphor, it provides tion of one text w i t h i n a n o t h e r . F o r e x a m p l e , i n thc film Tníff Love, the bride
valid insight. Ttj have ruled it out, by strict semantic authority, would have been
decided to have the mashed potatoes at her reception dyed sky blue to match one
vandalism. (Burke, 1989, p. 90)
of the coiors of her bridesmaids' dresses, a n u n c o m m o n choice, one the groom
A s w i t h interpretations, then, we must understanding meanings to be multiple did not particularly appreciate. I f a bride in real life were to dye her mashed pota-
and v a r i e d , not less but m o r e valuable for the lack of clear-cut " c o r r e c t n e s s . " toes blue, it w o u l d no longer have the same m e a n i n g of simply breaking tradi-
M e a n l n g s ^ r e m u l t i p l e , a n d they are fluid ( G u s s , 1989, p. 162). A s w i t h interpre- tional cxpectations but could be understood additionally to be a reference to that
tation, m e a n i n g e v e n t u a l í y leads to issues of politics a n d the distribution of pow- particular film ( e v e n though the blue mashed potatoes are only referred to, never
er (the power to introduce new rneanings or to assert the priority of one's meanings actually s h o w n ) . I n c i d e n t a l l y , this e x a m p l e demonstrates that intertextual quota-
over someone else's) ( K r e s s , 1988a). tion is Iimited neither by genre constraints no r by the boundary between art a n d
M e a n i n g can be discussed not only i n its relationship to interpretation but also reality ( M o r g a n , 1985, p. 3 4 ) .
i n its relationship to signs. Sless pointed out that " ' S i g n ' a n d ' m e a n i n g ' are i n - V a l e n t i n Voloshinov' s writings on reported speech contribute to an understand-
extricable; to identify something as a sign is i n the ncxt breath to interrogate it£ i n g of this type of intertextuality.^' H e pointed out that " R e p o r t e d speech is
m e a n i n g , for it is i n the nature of signs ( o r so it w o u l d seem) to have m e a n i n g " í c g a r d e d by the speaker as a message belonging to someone else, a message that
( Í 9 8 6 , p . 8 8 ) . Y e t accepting m e a n i n g as a property of signs does not aid the effort was originally totally indepcndent, complete in its construction, a n d l y i n g out-
to understand it. side the given c o n t e x t " ( 1 9 3 0 / 1 9 7 1 , p . 149). T h i s leads i n two directions. F i r s t ,
T h e specific connection between symbols a n d m e a n i n g might be questioned, as there w o u l d be no attempt to quote a segment of text from another interaction
though it appears superficially obvious: S y m b o l s " m e a n " something to some- unless it h a d value i n its o r i gi n al form, as actors we try to m a i n t a i n what is quot-
body. S i m p l y s a y i n g " t h e central problem of s y m b o l i s m is m e a n i n g " (Foster & ed exactly as it appeared i n its o r i g i n al context; at the same time, it is unlikely
Brandes, 1980, p. x i v ) conveys Uttle. I t helps a Uttle more to say symbols are taken to fit a n e w context quite perfectly i f held to its o r i g i n al form , a n d so we change
as the " l o c u s of m e a n i n g " by anthropologists ( O r t n e r , 1984), that is, they are it according to new requirements. A s researchers, then, we focus on the criticai
a n appropriate starting point i f the intention is to study c u l t u r a l meanings ( a n d balance between maintenance a n d revision .
authors such as C a r e y , 1989, have said that should indeed be our intention). Wheri^ B a k h t i n further described reported speech as being "double v o i c e d , " s i m u l -
perceived as appropriate points of entry into a m e a n i n g system, signs are rarely taneously presenting someone else's voice a n d one's o w n ( 1 9 2 9 / 1 9 7 1 , p. 187).
s u T d í ê d m d i v i d u a l l y a n d granted i n d i v i d u a l value, as is the case i n " s e m i o t Í c s T ^ d T h i s is the power of intertextuality: one m u l t i p l i cs one's voice, a n d consequent-
c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) but instead as a means to a n end, that end being thè^clesired ly, multiplies the m e a n i n g s . E v e r y bride who chooses to wear a long white dress
understanding of a p a r t i c u l a r culture as a whole system. w i t h t r a i n a n d v e i l , to hold flowers, a n d to w a l k dow n the aislc invokes images
A more elaborate definition of m e a n i n g , p r o v i d e d by R o l a n d B a r t h e s , i n - of every other bride who has ever made the same choices. T h e s e images m a y be
troduces a new concept: " a n y k i n d of intertextual or extratextual correlation, that o f actual prior brides from weddings personally attended or of m e d i a brides from
 42

film or television portrayals. T h e m e a n i n g taken íVom the scenc is magnified allusion. T h u s researchers should take note not only of what is repetitive but of
what is o r i g i n a l .
through this resonance w i t h multiple past experiences.
('^SecQn.di^here is a more recent use of the term intertextuality that relies on
implicit knowledge o f a culture. T h i s use assumes that " a n y one text is necessari- How Does One Arrwe at the Meaning of a Sign? G r o n b e c k stated that a pa.r-
l y r e ã d i n relatíonsHíp^to others a n d that a range of textual knowledges is brought t i c u l a r form "depends for j t s m e a n i n g í u l n e s s upon 1) a stock of knowledge, pos-
to bear upon it. T h e s e relationships do not take the form of specific allusions from sessed i n c o m m o n by both the c o m m u n i c a t or and the viewer, a n d upon 2 ) a set
one text to another a n d there is no need for readers to be familiar w i t h specific ÓF sigm_or m a r k e r s w h i c h i n v o k ç that stock gf^knQwle^gg," ( 1 9 8 3 , p. 241), Xoler-
or the same texts to read intertextually " ( F i s k e , 1987, p. 108). I n this second sense textuality relies upon the s h a r i n g of a common stock of knowledge for the con-
of thej|Vord^_parti.dpants^draw upon popular culture myths a n d images_thojigh veyancc o l m e a n i n g V i i í other words, i f a p a r t i c u l ar symbo l evokes past symbols
not always explicit characterizations, to convey meanings. T h e r e are entire^enres Idr' m e ' b u t hbt" for y o u , y o u w i l l of necessity miss m u c h of w h a t is conveyed to
of literature (mysteries, westerns, science fiction) made comprehensible only by m e. F o r this reason, intertextuality is not a u n i v e r s a l phenomenon but requires
a s s u m i ng knowledge of the basic tradition, but no om particular book must be a c u l t u r a l context to be effective, I f you come from a culture where brides wear
read to understand the reference. A l l members.Q£th£.£lass_share^ ^ rèd instead of white a n d where white is a symbol of grief associated w i t h funerais,
teristics that basic allusions are clear. as i n C h i n a , then the sight of a bride i n w h i l e will conjure up memories of funer-
W e c a n deliberately foreground a particula r aspect o f a n event so as to m u l t i - ais instead o f weddings, T h e pleasant effect o f multiple ghost images, of prior
ply meanings for ourselves or others. C h o o s i n g to wear the same l u c k y sweater brides standing behind the current bride as she m a i m a i n s tradition, w i l l be per-
each time when going bowling, because I oncc got a high score wearing that sweat- verted.
er, relics on intertextuality. D o i n g so, I hope to recall exactly how 1 felt and played
on that prior occasion, by w e a r i n g a part of the outfit ( a n i n d e x ) w o r n then. E a c h
time I get another high score w e a r i n g that sweater multiples the effect and makes Where Does Meaning Reside? I t has sometimes been assumed that m e a n i ng
it seem appropriate lo continue the behavior. T h e first time I w e a r the sweater, resides w i t h i n the sign itself, despite lhe fact that^ this is "contrary^ to lhe cíirren t
1 there m a y be no relevant intertextuality.^^ T h e second time I wear i t , there is an3êrstar£dir£g"of7neanrn'greBÍding i h the context, i n the social á c t o r ( s ) , or best
intertextuality i n its strongest sense: a clear reference to the time I got a high of aU i n lhe combination of all t h r e e — l h e sign, the context, a n d the social actors,
score w e a r i n g the sweater. T h e t h i r d , fourth, a n d tenth times, however, there Since at lèãst Alfred S c h u l z a n d George H e r b e r t M e a d , i l has been widely
is intertextuality in the w e a k e r sense: a reference to previous bowlin g attempls accepted that " i l is m i s l c a d i n g to say that experiences have meaning. M e a n i n g
a n d continued efforts to m a i n t a i n a h i g h score. does not lie in the experience. ÍR.ather, those experiences are meaningful which
T h i ( t h i ^ i s e of intertextuahty is the most general, most implicit. A l l conver- are grasped reflectively" ( S c h u l z , 1967, p, 69), I n other words, m e a n i n g is not
sation, all interaction, is ultimately intertextual i n this Iimited sense: sharing the present in a sign or an experience u n t i l a particular i n d i v i d u a l contributes it. B u t
same vocabulary and the same actions, one cannot help but to repeat choices made even this is not broad enough, for " S i g n i f i c a n c e belongs to things i n their rela-
previously by others, thus b o r r o w i n g a n d p l a y i n g upon their m e a n i n g s T T m é n - tions to i n d i v i d u a i s . I t does not lie i n mental processes whicfi are enclosed w í l h i n
tionally br not. " O u r everyda y speech is full of other people's words: w i th some m d i v i d i j a l s " ( G . f í , h í e a d , 1922, p. 163). Thy^^^^meaning resides neither in an
of them our voice is completely merged, a n d we forget whose words they were; otyect nor i n a p a n i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l b u i i n social'VêIãti!ons"X goò'd"SlfTITRf$Fy^
we use others that have authority, I n our v i e w , to substaniiate our o w n words; this position is'pfõí?Tae3Tiy C t r a t t r r w t í Õ * s u g g e s t e d , " S i n c e m e a n i ng is not an en-
a n d in yet others we iraplant our different, even antagonistic i n t e n t i o n s " ( B a k h - tity, it has no locus; it is something that occurs rather than e x i s t s " (1962, p. 6 4 ) .
tin, 1929/1971, p. 187). F o r obvious reasons, the first use of intertextuality is It is a mistake to characterize m e a n i n g as a n entity, whether one posits it as exist-
the most studied, the second is j u s t b e g i n n i ng to have a n i m p a c t , a n d the third ing w i t h i n a n i n d i v i d u a r s m i n d or independentiy i n the text.^^
is still a new topic. T h i s last, most subtle use of intertextuality m a y prove the Because the term m e a n i n g Ís consistently the l e r m of choice in a wide range
most i m p o r t a m to the study of social interaction, being the most prevalent.^* of fields, it is futile to advocate rejecting it altogether ( m u c h as this would sirapli-
M o s t commentators appear surprised at the frequency w i t h w h i c h intertextual fy matters). P r e s u m a b l y this discussion has at least clarified the matter: M e a n i n g
references can be located i n various literary and/or social texts. H o w e v e r , perhaps cannot be found residing ín a n y i n d i v i d u a l sign,^ not b e i n g ^ n independem crea-
they should rather be impressed that there is so m u c h rampan t creativity, so m u c h tion. T l è r e the metaphor of sign as storage box bctrays us, for what one puis into
that is new. I l is far easier, a n d more predictable, a n d faster lo simply m a k e use a storage box, by i m p l i c a t i o n , should be available to another for removal at a
of the past i n a new w a y , whether this ís by express citation or by more subtle later time, W e t u r n for help to t h e j r i e t a p h ^ ^ o f s i ^ shorthand, w i t h its sug-
 gestion that signs serve as reminder s of coniplex totalities a n d relationships only a i " t h e core of sociological o b s e r v a t i o n " ( G u s f i e l d, 1989, p. 5).^^ I n addition tu
hinted at. Someone else r e a d i n g m y shorthand w o u l d find i i idiosyncratic, u n i n - these á r e a s , the study of m e a n i n g is now p u i forth as the goal of communication:
terpretable; j u st so, he or she must either share or take t í m e to l e a r n m y significa- C a r e y suggested researchers " c o n c e i v c of c o m m u n i c a t i o n as a cultural science
tion system lo understand w h a t m y symbols convey to m e . whose objective Ís the elucidation of m e a n i n g " (1989, p. I 8 l ) . ^ '
I m p l i e d in the previous discussion is an understanding of how symbols change It is i m p o r t a m that the search for m e a n i n g a n d the reinterpretation of the field
over time: T h e rpeaning-s p<;-ftple g-^ve them change. " F o r a l l their apparent,solid- of c o m m u n i c a t i o n as e m p h a s i z i n g that search not be overly n a r r o w . I n the past,
ity, meanings remaJn mutable products of use a n d , as usages çt^juige, meanings the study of m e a n i n g has often been taken to i m p l y the a p p r o p r í a i e n e s s of freez-
shift" (Sless, 1986, p T T T í J T"Structures only appear stable; actually they change i n g social interaction i n order to study a single symbol or a single text, without
constantly, People ascribe meanings to symbols dcpendent upon their usage i n equal attention p a i d to lhe context i n which that s y m b o l occurs and the people
particular contexts; o v e r time, as these contexts change, the meanings ascribed for w h o m that s y m b o l has meaning . Hodg e a n d K r e s s spoke also to this:
; to symbols change as well , I t has even been suggested that the appropriate object
of study is not symbols but meanings, for m e a n i n g is " t h e constitutive a n d or- We see c o m m u n i c a t i o n e s s e n t i a l l y as a p r o c e s s , n o t as a d i s e m b o d i c d set o f m e a n - f
ganizing power Ín c u l t u r a l l i f e " ( W a g n e r , 1986, p. i x ; he went on to reverse the i n g s o r texts, M e a n i n g is p r o d u c e d a n d r e p r o d u c e d u n d e r s p e c i f i c s o c i a l c o n d í l i o t i s , ?
general order: R a l h e r than studing symbols through their meanings, he propose^ t h r o u g h s p e c i f í c m a t e r i a l forms a n d agencies. I t e x i s t s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to concrete/
studying m e a n i n g through its s y m b o l s ) . Because m e a n i n g changes, it has been s u b j e c t s a n d o b j e c t s , a n d is i n e x p l i c a b l e e x c e p t i n t e r r a s o f t h i s s e i u f r e l a t i o n s h i p s . •

Jdescribed as "imperoêptlitile."^* F a r from being problematic, this vagueness, this (Hodge & Kress, 1988, p, VÍJÍ)

í o p e n n c s s of symbols lo a variety of meanings, has been suggested as their p r i m a r y

value ( E c o , 1986, p, 153), People manipulate t h e m , thus, their extreme flexibili- A s dest^ribed earlier, the lension_its between the investigation of process and the
ty is a benefit. investigation o f structure. T e m p i i n g though it m í g h t be to privilege one over lhe
Hodge and K r e s s proposed the use of the t e r m social semioiics for the part of other, i l is most valuable to invesiigate the tension between the two, using them
the field of semiotics specifically studying change in meanings, emphasizing process as two w a y s to approach the same phenomenon, that b e í n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
over structure: A s w i t h interpretation, m e a n i n g leads lo polysemy w i t h its related implications
of power and politics, o f whose meanings shall be dominant a n d whose ignored.
Traditional semiotics likes to assume that the relevant meanings are frozen and fixed Researchers must r e m s m i í e r to study the context as well as the text, the people
in the text itself, to be extracted anti decoded by the analyst by reference to a coding who mak e m e a n i n g as well as the meanings made. C l e a r l y , we must e x p a n d our
system thai is impersonal and neutral, and universal for users of the code. Social il focús Beyond the i n d i v i d u a l sign as sufficient topic. B u t h o w are we to do this
semiotics cannot assume that texts produce exactly the meanings and effects ihatU/ i n practice? W h i c t part of context must we attend to? W h e r e do we d r a w the Une
their aulhors hope for; Íl is precisely the struggles and their unoerlatn outcomes ihatf
between w h a t must be included as relevant a n d what m a y safely be left omside
must be studied at the levei of social action, and their effects in ihe production oí\
that line for others to study? T h e s e questions lead to lhe concept of codes, the
meaning. (Hodge & Kress, 1 9 8 8 . p. 12)
lopic of the following chapter.^''

I n some w a y s , this requires c o m m u n i c a t i o n studies lO siep back a n d begin again

at a n earlier point: I f we as researchers c a n n o l assume meanings are consistent
NOTES
a n d taken for granted, we mus t begin by understanding w h i c h meanings have
becorne sufficiently important to gain their o w n s y m b o l s. I n this usage, social
semiotics w i l h its focus on m e a n i n g is conirasted against formal semiotics, í h e 1. T h e anthropologist V i c t o r T u r n e r pointed out tfiat a symbol is the "smallest portion io which a
ritual sequcnce o r d y n a m i c total can be reduced by subdivision without losing its semantic struc-
study of definitions for theory's sake ( T h i b a u l t , 1991),
tural identity" (1969, P- 8). M i n u s his p a n i c i d a r attention only to symbola and rituais, this expla-
. A c c o m p a n y i n g the acceptance o f i n t è r p r e t i v e approaches to the study of h u - nation demonstrates how a building block serves as the perfect metaphor for understanding how
I m a n behavior is the assumption that discovering the meanings others atlribute signs function: T h e y are the smallest uiiit to w h i c h behavior c a n be divided without losing meaning.
I to their behavior is the appropriate goal.^' T h a t m a n y scholars have made such 2. C h e r r y (1980, p. 251); see the long-er list of offenders in C S u l l i v a n , H a r t l c y , S a u n d e r s , and Fiske
an as3umption is clear from a v a r i e t y of fields. M e a n i n g has been described as (1983, p. 234). A a C u l l e r (1981) poinied out, S a u s s u r e used the term sign i n discussing what are
the proper subject o f anthropology because, " T h e siudy of culture necessarily now widely called symbols, adding to the confusion.

entails the study of m e a n i n g " (Basso & Selby, 1976, p. 3 ) , M e a n i n g also has been 3. G o o d resources for discussion of signifier a n d signified a r e Barthes (1964/1967); H a w k e s (1977);
defined as the proper subject o f sociology, holding " t h e problem of m e a n i n g " N ò t h (1990); for a rare reference specifically w i i h i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n . sec S, G l y n n (1986).
 4. T h i s distinction has been put particularly well by E c o : 14, Anthropology haa gone through at least three m a j o r stages in iis concern for the syrnbol; i n all
of ihesc symbols were viewed as basic " b u i l d i n g b l o c k s " ( W c r b n c r , 1989, p, 11). T h e first stage
W e have a sign evejy time we have a material presence—perhaps a sound, a n image, an was structural anthropology, most closely identified with L e v i - S i r a u s s (see 1966c, p, 114 for his
object—which refers to something which is noi (here bui which is accordcd recognition famous comment thai " M e n c o m m u n i c a t e by means of symbols and signs; for anihropology,
by a h u m a n being on the basis of certain c u l t u r a l conventions of an expcrieniial nature. w h i c h is a conversation of m a n w i l h m a n , everything is symbol and sign, when il acts as inter-
F o r example, l c i ' s consider a r o u n d sign lhaf says " D E T O U R " — we look ai thc sign and m c d i a r y between iwo subjects"), T h e second siage was symbolic anthropology, idenlified with
we realize that something will occur, say, two miles a h c a d . A physical presence refers us T u r n e r (1967, 1977); M . D o u g l a s (1970); G e e r t z (1973); F i r t h (1973b); I . e a c h (1976); O r t n e r
IO a situation w c cannot deiect. T h e r e f o r e , whether the sign describes a real situation or (1973); and D o l g i n , K c m n i t z c r and S c h n e i d e r (1977b). T h e third stage was semiotic anthropolo-
not, a sign relationship has been established, nevertheless. W e react: we make a detour. Semi- gy, most clearly influenced by M . S i n g er (1978, 1984), extended i n M e r t z and P a r m e n t i c r (1985),
otics, then, studies thc laws governing i h í s kind of relationship. { E c o i n B a l d u c c i , 1976, O r t n e r (1984) provided a different division, together with a n extretnely useful insider's history
p, 36) of the concept of symbol within anthropology,

D a n Sperber pointed out that "the most interesting cultural knowledge is tiicit knowledge— 15, See, for example, H . R . E , D a v i d s o n (1977).
that is to say, that w h i c h is not m a d e explicit" (1974, p, x), U l t i m a t e l y the relationship between 16, W i t h i n philosophy, the standard references are W h i i e h e a d (1927/1959), L a n g e r (1967), a n d C a s -
thc two, the tacit a n d che explicit, the signified a n d che signitier, may be the most interesting of aJJ, sirer (19+4); sec also B r y s o n , F i n k e l s t e i n , M a c i v e r , and M c K c o n (1964). L a j i g e r sumrned up
5, F o r further information on Peirce's cornments, see Peirce (1985); Sebeok {1986a); N õ t h (1990), this poini of view nicely when she said " T h e concept of meaning, i n all its varieties, is the dominant
philosophical conccpl of our time, S i g n , symbol, denotation, signification, communication—these
6, T h e r e are m a n y other authors who have discussed signs i n detaO, often dividing them up differ-
notions are o u r stock in t r a d e " (1967, p. 549),
endy from either Saussure o r Peirce . T h e best source for discussion of these variations on the
dieme is NÒth (1990). 17, W i t h i n psychology R o y c e (1955) and W h i t e (1962) are old but particularly useful,

7, H a w k e s (1977, p. 129) gave thc following e x a m p l e , useful for its combination of all Ihree types 18, B r y s o n et al, (1964) provided evidence of this cross-disciplinary interest. It is noteworthy that
of signs: A leaf from a trce js a n index of that tree (it was originally part of it); a skctch of that iheir book coniains several articlcs by researchers in c o m m u n Í < a i i o n ( s u ch as LassweJ) and de
tree is an icon (tht skctch looks like or i n some way is modcUed afler thc tree); the word írre is Sola Pool).
a s y m b o l for i[ (the w o r d is a n arbitrary choice, as demonstrated by the faci lhat other lajiguages 19, Sec M o r g a n , Frost, and P o n d y , 1983; V o n Bertalanffy, 1965. W h i t e , 1962.
than E n g l i sh have chosen other words to stand for the same object)
20 K i i a h a r a - F r i s c h (1980), íor example, specifically cited technology and language as two early functions
8, S i g m a n ( 1 9 9 ) , pp. 115-116) discussed w e d d i n g band as symbol and index: l i serves to mar k a of thc symbol process,
continuing relationship when both p a n i e s are not present. 21 See also W h i t e h c a d (1927/1959. p, 62). W h i t e , an a n t h r o p o l o g i í i , felt strongly thai i h c ability
9, F o r an up-to-date consideration of thc concept of s y m b o l w i i h i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n , s e e j , Stewart to uac symbols was a defining characteristic of h u m a n s . H e invented a n « w word to call attention
( i n prcss). to this faculty: " T h e r e is, ihcn a k i n d of behavior which is peculiar to an a n i m a l spccies, Hamo
10. T h e s e are most clearly understood through a combined reading of Barthes (1964/1967) and Fiske sapiens, It consisti of originating a n d bestowing meanings upon things and events and in compre-
(1982); í h i s discussion is in no way intended to obviaie the need to read original sources, hcnding these meanings, T h i s k i n d of behavior should have a n a m e . W e propose the terra symbol-
tng. A h u m a n hcing sj/mbols, just as it performs a n y othcr function oC which it is c a p a b l e " ( W h i t e ,
11. T h e se are not hypothetical examples, T h e Milwaukee Skyline W o m e n ' s Barbershop C h o r u s present-
1962, p, 313), A l t h o u g h the v c r b symboling has not come i m o wide usage since he proposed it
ed a night of music and roiiiance eniitled " T h e H o n o r of Y o u r P r e s e n c e , " on February 15, 1992.
30 years â g o , that does not speak to its potential usefulness, I a m not proposing that it fac added
culminating in the marriage of two barbershoppers. T h e examples of the clown a n d W e s t e r n wed-
to lhe vocabulary now, only lhat researchers bear in m i n d the significance of the activity, whatever
dings are based on brief descriptions of actual weddings presented by m y students in S p r i n g 1992,
n a m e haa it.
12, L a t e r publications have frequently been orientcd to the study of language, that most significam
system of symbols ( J , S t e w a n , 1972), rhetoric ( B r u m m e t t , 1979, 1980; L o g u e & P a t i o n , 1982, 22, M . Foster (1990a) elaborated o n this, specifically describing symbols now, with examples:

are typical examples; K a t r i e l , 1987, is atypical i n that she applied rhetoric not to speech but to
I l can be said—although some m a y argue—that a n y t h i n g that is used culturally is a sym-
firc inscriptions), even n o n v e r b a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ( H a i m a n , 1982; M e r r í a m . 1975), and mass
bol. T h u s a n a p p l t is a s y m b o l i n our culture because it is integrated into o u r food system
communication ( R o i h e n b u h l e r , 1989). Most of these authors shared a common unspoken assump-
as something to be eaten w h e n prepared with other ingredienis as the ending to a meai
tion that symbols are thc obvious focus of atteniion, a p o i n i perhaps jusiified by the existence
(applc pie. appJe pan dowdy, e l e ) , by itself between m e a i s , as a m a i n dish aceompani-
and widespread knowledge of B u r k e ' s prior research even w h e n it is not explicitly cited. M o r e
m e n i for pork (applesauce), or spread on b r c a d (applc j e l l y ) . W h e n cultural rules are de-
general theoretical consideraiioits have appeared, though rarely. T h e r e has been, fi»r example,
vised into which particular objects are integrated, those objecis become part of the system
a receni special issue of a m a j o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n j o u r n a l devoted soiely to consideraUon o í sym-
of symbolic representation of chat culture: " A s A m e r i c a n as apple pie"; " A n apple a day
bols (sec O s b o r n , 1983; within that issue, see in particular A u n e , 1983, and lhe response il sparked
kccps lhe docior a w a y " ; the A p p l e c o m p u t r r — f o r " a p p l e " connotes a healthy. familiar
by S. G l y n n , 1986). It was in a deliberate aitempt to b u i l d u p o n these and thc m a n y other exist-
Item, which would excel m " u s e r friendliness" (p. 83).
ing references thai G r o n k h i t e proposed " h u m a n symbolic a c t i v i t y " as che centra] concern of lhe
discipline (1986). T h a t his suggestion is appropriate has been demonstrated through its quiet ac- Fosier showcd here how a n everyday i t e m , such aa an applc, moves from its tnundane denotative
ceptance by others (raosi recently, F r i e d r i c h & B o i l e a u , 1990), meanings (apple pies are made from apples) to more enticing connotative meanings (apple pie

13, W i t h i n sociology as a whole, thc early work by G , H . M e a d (1922, 1974) is useful; tor the con- as symbol of A t n e r i c a ) . She then extended this study of connotations to the use of apples i n adver-
tizing, showing how a particular coraputer company successfully irnplics user-friendliness through
nections between social iiiteractjonism and c o m m u n i c a t i o n , see Littlejohn (1977); M a i n c s and
ita display o f a particularly weighted s y m b o l such as che apple.
C o u c h (1988); N w a n k w o (1973).
4» 2- blLil\

4 1 . T u r n e r (1969, p. 8 ) used muUivocalily lo m e a n roughly the same as what I intend by polysemy;

23. H a l i i d a y (1978) rephrased che question slighdy, though his answer was che same with his concern
others have used mullivcdmcy to convey approximately lhe same m e a n i n g ( M u s e l l o , 1992, p. 55;
for how children " l e a r n how to m e a n " ; his interest, however, was soiely linguistic.
Y o u n g , 1991, p. 161).
24. A s Stephen Foster put it, "it is by expressing themselves through symbols that people view their
42. Because hope chesls are not now so c o m m o n as they oncc were, presumably due i n large part
society, raanage a n d c o m m u n i c a t e about their relationships, and chart their courses through so-
to the opening up of roles available to w o m e n , ads for them have tJianged a n d now emphasize
cial a n d personal relationships" (1988, p. x i v ) .
the role of storage container for a student at college, toy chest for a child, o r a place to siorc a
25. H u f f o r d , H u n t , and Zeitli n (1989) presented an expansion of this, considering lhe role grandpar-
winter comforter at the foot of the bed, at least as often as a place to store objccts that will later
ents play i n teaching traditions to their grandchildren .
be used i n establishing a new home. I i is incidental, but i m p o r t a m , chat hope chests are tradition-
26. D a v i d U n r u h (1983) presented fascinating insights into how, before death, people ensure that ally given by parents to iheir children i n support of the ro]c(s) they sec as appropriate for them.
particular p o n i o n s of thcir identities will be r c m c m b e r e d a n d possibly continued by those who 43. T h e r e are statements here to be made about the way i n w h i c h closed readings, if k n o w n to exist,
survive, largely through the presentation of both verbal and material forms (ranging from per- imply a chalicnge that m a n y people w i s h to pursue and about the interest i n discovering what
sonal narratives to the presentation of artifacts to s u r v i v o r s ) . lies behind closed readings particularly for royalty. S u c h ideas are enticing but not essential to
27. T h e r e ís, of course, an enormous literature on the acquisition of language, one particular system this discussion at this point.
of symbols, bui that is not the focus of m y discussion here. A few rare exceptions specifically 44. " T h e 'proper' interpretation of symbols is a pursuit long pracliced i n lhe W e s t . . . . B u t the
focus on how c h i l d r e n learn semiotic understandings and the extent to w h i c h they are active par- mere idea that there is or c a n be a 'proper' interpretation for symbols is itself normative, when
ticipants i n che process: H o d g e and K r e s s (1938, chap. 8); R c g a n (1984); W o r t h and G r o s s (1974). in most societies Individuais are left fairly free to interpret symbols as they p l c a s c " (Sperber, 1985,
28. " ' K e y ' or dominanc symbols are selccted out of the webs of interrelated cultural expressions be- p. 71).
cause they are felc to provide a focus for crucial activities, like rituais, and a g a i n , because they 45. T h c implications of this approach have been put especially well by H e n r i e t t a M o o r e , in her dis-
supply a metaphorical framework which relates a variety of cultural c o n c e r n s " ( R o s a l d o & A t - cussion of R i c o e u r ' s work: " I n h u m a n societies, it is simply not true to say t h a i all those who

kinson, 1975, p. 44). can read m a y provide interpretations. Interpretation—as R i c o e u r h i m s e l f argues—always has
symbolic significance, and often it m a y have economic and politicai consequences as well. I n -
29. T o name only a few that self-identify as siudies of symbols: B r u m m e t t (1979, 1980); L o g u e and
terpretation is always bound u p with social inequaliiy and with d o m i n a t i o n " (1990, p. 116).
Patcon (1982); R o t h e n b u h l e r (1989).
46. See especially H a l l , H o b s o n , L o w e , and W i l l i s (1980) for an introduction to this idea.
30. T h i s argument is comparable to that provided i n Secular Ritual, where the authors suggested even
47. O d d l y enough, this is the understanding of corrmiunication most commonly assumed as appropriate
nonreligious rituais are significant and worthy of study ( M o o r e & Myerhoff, 1977).
in what semiotic literature does consider lhe matter.
3 1 . A n informant of Stephen Foster's put this bcautifully: ' ' K n o w i n g a whole lot of very specific things
48. W i e d e r (1974/1988, pp. 168-170) provided a good example of the various meanings conveyed
a d d s u p to a whole way o f l i f e " (1988, p. 194). T h i s is what W a r r e n R o b e r ts (1988) called "look-
by a single phrase, ' ' Y o u know I won't s n i t c h , ' ' depending upon the degree of knowledge brought
ing at lhe o v c r i o o k e d . "
to the uttcrance by various speakers,
32. Sec K i t a h a r a - F r i s c h (1980, p. 219) for a clear statement of these and for some elaboration, though 49. F o r further discussion of the c o n c c p l of i n l c r t e x i u a l i l y , see C u l l e r (1981); Fiske (1987, 1989);
she did not originate these ideas. N e u s n e r (1990); and especially M o r g a n (1985), T h e initial translation from the R u s s i a n seems
33. See also Sless (1986, particularl y chap. 9) a n d all of the B r i t i s h C u l t u r a l Studies research (begin- to bc taken from K r i s t e v a (1969) as a w a y of presenting the concepts of dialogism and hetfroglassia
n i n g with H e h d i g e , 1979). in B a k h i i n ' s w o r k (1981); see W e r t s c h (1985) and T o d o r o v (1984) for discussion of B a k h t i n ' s
34. T h e use of symbols as m a r k e rs of identity becomes more theoreticaUy interesdng w h e n it is ex- original comments,
panded to include the ways i n w h i c h a n organized system of symbols (termed an ideology) can 50. See M o r a w s k i (1970) for a n expansion of the functions of quotations,
iransform idendty (Stromberg, 1990). F o r a related article within communication, sec B r o w n (1978). 5 1 . T h e r e has been considerable debate about whether w o r k published by Voloshinov was actually
35. T h i s is actually his s u m m a r y of M i l t o n Singer (1982), but it is a more concise statement o f S i n g e r ' s written i n part or entireiy by B a k h t i n ( T o d o r o v , 1984, pp, x i - x i i ) , I follow T o d o r o v ' s lead in
ideas than any available ín the original article. u s i n g the names that appear on the publications,

36. W a l t e r G o l d s c h m i d t e x p a n d e d u p o n this: " T h c essence of any symbol does not lie i n the symbol 52. O b v i o u s l y ihis volume, i n its attempt to integrate the words of others with m y own, c a n be ap-

itself, but ill what ic stands for; status symbols detnonslrate that the possessor has achieved merit, propriately described as m a k i n g considerable use of intertextuality,

is a worthy person, due the respect of the c o m m u n i t y . T h e s y m b o l is not entireiy arbitrary, for 53. T h e r e can be lots of irrelevant intertextuality, however: the sweater can, for example, be the same

it is represenladve of something that the c o m m u n i t y as a whole c h e r i s h e s " (1990, p. 38). color as a dress I oncc had or m a d e of the same y a r n as a sweater a friend once had, etc,
54. F i s ke quoted Barthes as saying that "intertextual relations are so pervasive that our culture con-
37. F o r a technical discussion of thc various theories of m e a n i n g assumed by c o m m u n i c a t i o n schol-
sists of a complex web of intertextuality, i n w h i c h all texts refer finally to each othcr and not to
ars, see J o h n Stewart (1972), a n article strong on the philosophical underpinnings of c o m m u n i -
reality" (1987, p. 115).
cation theories that view language as a system of symbols ( w h i c h of course it is). T h e theory of
55. F o r this reason, C u l l e r proposed to substitute lhe concept of sense-making:
c o m m u n i c a t i o n centered most clearly on m e a n i n g is the C o o r d i n a l c d M a n a g e m e n t of M e a n i n g
( C r o n c n , P e a r c e , & H a r r i s , 1982; Pearce & C r o n e n , 1980). I n d e e d , the semiotic program m a y be better expressed by the concepts of " s e n s e " a n d
38. Peirce's interpretant would seem to be the obvious starting point for discussion because as he " m a k i n g sense" than by the concept of " m e a n i n g , " for while " m e a n i n g " suggests a
described that t e r m , it refers to lhe m e a n i n g a representatum grants a n object, yei oddly enough property of a text (a text " h a s " m e a n i n g ) , a n d thus encourages one to distinguish an in-
this point is rarely brought to discussions of either interpretation or m e a n i n g . trinsic (though perhaps ungraspablc) meanin g from the interpretations of readers, "sense"
39. R a b i n o w a n d S u l l i v a n (1979) is the landtnark collection. links lhe qualities of a cest to the operations one performs u p o n it, A text can make sense
a n d someone c a n m a k e sense of a text. I f a text w h i c h ac first d i d noc make sense comes
40. F o r discussion of the issue i n general, see Steier (1991); for application to interpersonal c o m m u -
to m a k e senae, it is because someone has made sense of it, ( C u l l e r , 1 9 6 1 , p. 50)
nication specifically, see L e e d s - H u r w i t z (1992b).
JU

C u l l e r ' s argument is persuasive, l h o u g h it has not yet hetd s w ã y . T h o u g h technital usage stilt
relies on m e a n i n g , it w o u l d clearly be better to consign this usage to coUoquial discussion only,
substituting sense-makin g for all technical uses, It appropriately highlights thc active role played
by the people who create m e a n i n g rather than leaving the active role to be played by the text Chapter
(whether lhat be words, a c d o n s , ideas, foods, clothing, e t c ) . T e x t s , after all, are not animate
and eannoi have their o w n agendas. T h e y are h u m a n creations h a v i n g only the meanings h u -
m a n s give them.
56. P e i i t o t - C o n c o r d a (1985, p. 273); see discussion of this i n G r e i m a s (1987). I n a w a y , it is this
problem of the imperceptihility of m e a n i n g that has led me to study social codes immediately
available to the senses: T h e food, clothing, and objects studied i n later chapters have a saiisfying
Codes
solidity to them, deceptive though it may be. Sec A c k e r m a n (1990) for a detailed consideration
of the senses a n d their influence on daily life.
57. Schwartz and M e r t e n (1971); Basso and Selby (1976); M e r t z a n d P a r m e n t i c r (1985).
58. Symboli c interactionism, one sociological a p p r o a c h, is all about meaning s ( B l u m e r , 1969).
59. See also Littlejohn (1977) a n d L i n c o u r t (1973). M u m b y specifically cited the rise of i n t è r p r e t i v e
approaches as responsible for the increased attention paid to thc investigation of m e a n i n g (1989,
p. 291).
60. T h e r e is actually less of a gap between thc content of chapters 2 a n d 3 than appears evident, I n
order to streamhne thc presentation, T u m e r ' s suggestion that symbols are found i n clusters (smaller
groupings than entire social codes) has been omitted (1969, p, 19). A n example of analysis at
thc levei of a cluster of symbols is provided by A m e s (1978), a history of hall furnishings in V i c -
torian A m e r i c a .
T h e lasl chapter presented signs as entities unto themselves, yet signs do not oc-
cur singly; they occur i n groupTTTechntcally,'"5êmiõricÍans t e r n T ã group or set
of signs a code. A s used here, co3e is synonymous with system, pattern, network,
a n d g r i d ( a l l of w h i c h are also used td designale groups of s i g n s ) . ' Placement of
signs into appropriate groupings stresses that meaning arises not soiely, not even primar-
ily, from the relationship of signifier to signified but from relations between signsTVrbha.h])'
it a l w a ys w i l l be easiest to investigate signs singly, n a r r o w i n g the fleld, ignoring
all signs but the one of current interest; it is certainly a l w a y s more adequate to
place each sign in its proper context, that being the larger set of signs i n w h i c h
it is embedded,
Y e t the concept of code implies more than " g r o u p n e s s " ; it also includes rules
for the organization of i n d i v i d u a l signs. T o limit lhe definition of code to "set
õ T s i g r i s " implies s i m p l y gathering items together into appropriate sets as a suffi-
cient and worthy goal. E x p ã n d i n g the definition of code to "set of si^ns a n d rules
for their u s e " encourages investigation of h o w people actually use signs to create
a n d exchange meanings. P r e v i o u s l y it has been pointed out that m e a n i n g resides
neither i n the signifier nor the signified but in the relation between them that
together comprise the sign; in expansio n of that, it c a n now be stated that mean-
i n g resides not in lhe sign alone but more diffusely in the code as a whole.
I m p l i c i t i n this is the question Why does one need to study codes rather than signs.''
T h e answer has been i m p l i e d as w e l l : T o study a single sign means studying
a n incomplete entity; signs occur w i t h i n codes, t a k i n g their m e a n i n g from the
codes of w h i c h they are but one component. T h e r e f o r e , as researchers we ex-
pand our study to include not only i n d i v i d u a l signs but the larger codes that they
j o i n t l y comprise. L i m i t i n g o u r study to i n d i v i d u a l signs implies researching one

51
.1^

advertisement at a time, one gesture at a time, one food, one item of clothing. for the purpose of interpretation). D i g i t a l codes are easier to understand and eas-
E x p ã n d i n g our study to the more encompassing category of codes implies study- ier to analyze than analogic codes; thus, too literal a use of them as model
ing a sequence of advertisements, a set of gestures, a food system, clothing styles. misleads.^
" S e m i o l o g y is thus based on the assumption that insofar as h u m a n actions or . T h i r d , developing exact correlations of g r a m m a t i c al rules is probably impos-
productions convey m e a n i n g , insofar as they function as signs, there must be a n sible for most communication codes, despite the fact that ín keeping with the model
u n d e r l y i n g system of conventions a n d distinctions w h i c h make this m e a n i n g pos- of linguistics, this has often been set as the goal. O t h e r times, researchers have
sible. Where there are signs there is system" ( C u l l e r , 1977, p. 9 1 ) . I f a sign takes its assumed a goal of establishing a set of rules to explain past a n d predict future
m e a n i n g from the system or code, obviously l i m i t i n g analysis to i n d i v i d u a l signs behavior. I n fact, the proper goal m a y not be anything so rigid . Researchers need
is inappropriate; m u c h m e a n i n g unintentionally w i l l be missed. W e will l e a r n to think about what goals are appropriate to the study rather than adopting them
part of w h a t we might, but we w i l l miss more, Wholesale from another endeavor,
D i s c u s s i n g this problem , E d m u n d L e a c h used the metaphor of the alphabet: ; ' F d u r t ^ a n d perhaps most significant, using linguistics as the model implies
O n e sign, considered i n isolation, is " a s meaningless as isolated letters of the a l - that Imguistic c o m m u n i c a t i o n is somehow p r i m a r y , that words come before ac-
phabet" ( L e a c h , 1976, p. 1), N o one has ever suggested that it is appropriate tions or other aspects of nonverbal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , T h i s assumption underlies
to discover m e a n i n g i n language from i n d i v i d u a l letters of the alphabet, of course, m u c h research in c o m m u n i c a t i o n , though rarely explicitly stated. It can be at-
nor even from i n d i v i d u a l words considered out of context. W o r d s are presented tributed to the traditional emphasis on the study of v e r b a l behavior rather than
embedded i n layers of context (at the first levei, a sentence or utterance; at the a deliberate decision that such emphasis is theoretically appropriate.
second, the larger text or discourse). W e m a y be able to understand some of the N o n e of these arguments is sufficient to prevent the I i m i t e d use of language
meanings conveyed by a sign considering it alone, as we can understand some as a model code a n d linguistics as a model of analysis. R e c o g n i z i n g that there
of the potentialjneanings of a w o r d by looking it up i n a dictionary, but t h e ^ i c - are some d r a w b a c k s , however, encourages us to move cautiously. ( N o t h i n g here
tionary cannot indicate w h i c h m e a n i n g a speaker intended when choosing .tiiat is unique to the use of linguistics, of course. A n y model chosen has some draw-
w o r d over other possibilities. E q u a l l y , analysis of one sign alone cannot accurate- backs; that is the nature of models,) R e s e a r c h e r s must choose which aspects of
ly conclude the appropriatcness of a n y of the potential meanings. " T o speak of language a n d linguistics to use as models rather than a s s u m i n g w h a t has been
a s y m b o l , or of the m e a n i n g of a symbol, is misleading, for no symbol exists or done previously w i l l continue to be appropriate. Shifting focus from linguistics
has meaning except i n relation to a network of other symbols. Symbolic represen- and the study of language to the broader study of c o m m u n i c a t i o n m a y have sub-
tation implies c o n f í g u r a t i o n " ( M . L . Foster, 1980, p. 3 7 1 ) . L o g i c requires the tle implications ; these need to be searched out, a n d o u r assumptions modified
study of signs i n codes, as they actually occur, rather than as hypothetically dis- accordingly.
crete items, though the latter is easier to examine.^
L a n g u a g e most often serves as the model code, for it is the code originally of
greatest interest to Saussure. C l e a r l y language includes more than a v o c a b u l a r y
CHARACTERISTICS OF CODES
list; the rules for c o m b i n i n g i n d i v i d u a l items, termed g r a m m a r , form a criticai
part of the same package. A s w i t h the code of language, so w i t h others: Codes
are always assumed to include not only sets of related signs but also rules for the A l l codes share lhe same set of characteristics. A reasonable list proposed by 0 ' S u l -
usage of those signs. ^ l i v a n et a l . (1983) serves as the basis for elaboration here:'
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , too literal a use of language as the model code a n d linguistics
as the model field of study has drawbacks,'* F o u r of these are presented.. FirsV^ 1. Codes have a number ofunils arranged in paradigms from which one is chosen.
researchers often assume descriptive linguistics (focusing almost entireiy on the text,
2. These chosen unils are combined syntagmatically into a message or texi.
i n c l u d i n g but little context for it) as the p a r t i c u l a r aspect of linguistics utilized
3. Codes convey meaning derived from the agreement among and shared cultural
as model, whereas sociolinguistics (the study of speech i n use) might be a more ap- experience of their users,
propriate choice. A m o n g other distinctions between the two, sociolinguistics takes
4. Codes are transmittable by their appropriate media of communication,
a larger context for understanding discourse into consideration.^
5. Codes can be a way of classifying, organizing, and understanding material as
Second, language is a digital code ( w i t h signs, words i n this case, clearly distin-
well as of transmitting or communicating ic.
guishable from each other); m a n y other codes are analogic (that is, i n d i v i d u a l signs
6. Codes are, by their very nature, full of gaps and inconsistencies and subject to
run together, as in kinesics or proxemics, being separated only by the analyst
constant change. (pp, 36-37)
 35

Deceptively brief, this hst is rich i n i m p h c a t i o n . Some implications of these brief 2. Units Chosen From Paradigms Are Combined Syntagmatically into a Mes-
comments are laid out as follows, t a k i n g each characteristic i n t u r n . sage or Text. T h e term paradigm is generally used i n conjunction w i t h another
term, also bequeathed by Saussure syntagm. A syntagm is that new set rcsulting Í
1. Codes Have a Number qf Units Arranged in Paradigma From Which One from the combinatio n of elements 3 f ã w n from different paradigms. A l l clothing ^
^ís Chosen. T h e first characteristic introduces a central concept into the discus- w o r n by one person at one time forms a s y n t a g m, composed of items Taken frorn
í sion, that oí^^adigru^ a term bequeathed by Saussure; though old, it continues vãi^olis pãTadi^iiisT THis7 then, is the second characteristic of codes: not only does
í to be useful. Briefly, a p a r a d i g m is a set of signs or units from w h i c h social actors á "single code include n u m e r õ i j s ~ p á r E d Í g r a s , i n d i v i d u a l items selected from these
various paradigms n o r m a l l y appear neither together ( w i t h i n their original i
• choose only one for display. I n the clothing code, a l l shirts taken together form
paradigms) nor alone (one sign at a t i m e ) but rather i n combinations, i n newly ]\
a single paradigm; a l l pairs of shoes are another; a l l jackets a t h i r d . Constituent
formed sets termed syntagms, T h i s is important because m e a n i n g is p r i m a r i l y
' elements of a p a r a d i g m are generally mutually exclusive in their use: E a c h person
located at the levei of syntagm . d o í í c e i v a b l y I a m going h i k i n g i f y o u see me wear-
normally wears only one shirt, one pair of shoes, or one j a c k e t at a time. T h i s
irigTiilahg boots, but yoij actually evaluate this interpretation's viability by view-
feature can be contradicted, i n w h i c h case the duplication itself becomes notewor-
i n g the rest of m y clothing in context. T h u s , w h e n someone from A l a s k a wears
thy. T h e " l a y e r e d l o o k " i n clothing exemplifies this, w i t h designers suggesting
h i k i n g boots while going clothes shopping i n the " l o w e r forty-eight," he or she
several shirts, sweaters, or vests be w o r n simultaneously.
conveys a statement about origins a n d interests rather than immediate activity,
Codes, by definition, a l w a y s include a group of signs from w h i c h at Ipast-One^ a statement potentially capable of being understood by the majority of viewers,
is chosen to convey particula r information, S t a y i n g w i t h the example of clothing, W h e t h e r or not there is intention to convey that message is irrelevant; those who
the choice of a d o w n j a c k e t m a y convey information about the weather, whereas observe the behavior interpret it based on their knowledge of what constitutes
h i k i n g boots m a y convey information about a n intended or preferred activity. appropriate clothing for various activities,
W i t h i n a p a r a d i g m , the differences among elements determine meaning;..An ob-
server mentally compares a down jacket to a suede jacket w i t h fringes or one made QB5-'"^P^'^^'^'"'^ P^^^'*^"^ discussion is-that paradigms,are abstract, ex-
of fox fur or a n y l o n w i n d b r e a k e r , a l l v e r y r e a l alternatives; each is understood isting only i n the heads o f people, whereas syntagms are concrete, h a v i n g physi-
to e m a i l some meanings the others do not. T h e items m a k i n g up a paradigm must cal existence.^ I n other words, one does not n o r m a l l y have access to a l l of the
have something i n c o m m o n i n order to be placed together. F o r e x a m p l e , a l l ob- shoes i n someone's closet, seeing only the pair chosen for display today. T h e other
jects to w e a r on the feet are placed into a single p a r a d i g m , despite obvious differ- pairs of shoes exist individually; they are potentially viabie (presumably they could
ences i n their appearance, because a l l serve the same function, have been chosen) yet not h a v i n g been chosen, they are not brought out for
Sometimes one discovers i n d i v i d u a l signs that are new, never previously con-
sidered potential members of the p a r a d i g m . I n Steel Magnólias, m u c h is made of
a groom's cake shaped like a n a r m a d i l l o , a red cake (representing blood a n d flesh)
covered by gray i c i ng (representing s k i n ; see F i g . 3 . 1 ) . T h i s example shares j u s t
enough characteristics w i t h past examples ( g r o o m ' s cakes are usually d a rk rather
than light, as are b r i d e ' s cakes; it is presented w i t h i n the appropriate context a n d
labeled w i t h the appropriate name by participants) that w e d d i n g guests are forced
to recognize it as one possible m e m b e r of the class, though it conflicts w i t h enough
other characteristics (the deliberate reference to blood a n d skin, neither of w h i c h
one w o u l d expect to be forced to consider while contemplating a cake, a n d the
unappetizing color of the icing) that guests m a y be made uncomfortable by it.
T h e film makes m u c h of the questionable nature of the image (the person who
baked the cake is a relative of the groom, w h o must be tolerated for that alone;
extensive j o k i n g by the b r i d e ' s family a n d friends surrounds the presence of the
cake before a n d d u r i n g its appearance at the w e d d i n g reception). K n o w i n g that
this example ( a r m a d i l l o cake) is a m a r g i n a l m e m b e r of its class (the paradigm
of a l l possible groom's cakes) helps viewers of the film to understand w h y that F I G , 3.1. A r m a d i l l o groom's cake from SUeiMagnólias. Photo taken from the video-
j o k i n g is both necessary a n d funny,^ tape; permission courtesy of T r i - S t a r P i c i u r e s .
 56

, i observation. R e m a i n i n g unchosen, wliatever meanings they might h a v e conveyed S a u s s u r e ' s distinction b e t w e e n ^ ^ ^ ^ í ^ a n g u a g e ) an(^^íirí3/É;'(speech). A s explained
r e m a i n u n a v a i i a b l e. O n the other h a n d , the entire syntagm (say, all of the c l o t H ^ i n chapter 1, langue refers to a complete language, existing o n ly i n potentiality:
} i n g w o r n b y a person at one t i m e ) is available for whatever interpretation one" N o one c a n evêT"WiYelJõwn every possible utterance i n a giyen language. Parole
^' chooses to make. B e n - A m o s pointed out that syntagms a n d paradigms_are sim:' refers to p a r t i c u l a r utterances actuall y o c c u r r i n g , each but one possible realiza-
ply two sorts of order imposed on social a n d c u l t u r a l reality (1977, p. 4 6 ) . ' " tion d r a w n from the l a r g e r " s é t of infinite potentialities, J u s t as analysts infer
T o continue w i t h another example from Steel Magnólias, A n n e l l e arrives i n town lãngiiè from parole, so they infer paradigm s (the potential resource sets) from syn-
shortly before S h e l b y ' s m a r r i a g e . She is i n v i t e d to the w e d d i n g but protests she tagms (the actual c o m b i n a t i o n s ) . "
has nothing appropriate to w e a r and no time to acquire something new. Shelby T h e r e are actually several leveis of langue, perhaps best viewed as concentric,.
insists that should not bar her from the celebration, offering her o w n closet as circies. T a k i n g food for a n e x a m p l e , the set of all possible meais w i t h i n m y cul-
resource. T h e viewers are then shown A n n e l l e i n an a w k w a r d combinatio n of ture c a n be d r a w n as a n extremely large langtie; forming a smaller set of choices,
her own items integrated w i t h those borrowed from Shelby: H e r o w n cat-eye glasses contained entireiy w i t h i n the first, is the set of meais I have ever eaten, still
a n d d a r k leather purse, both long out of date, are combined w i t h a chie dress described as a langue, but a smaller subset of the o r i g i n a l circle, T h e particular
of S h e l b y ' s a n d short lace gloves (see F i g . 3 . 2 ) . T h e h u m o r not only is due to meai on the table i n front of me tonighl appropriately c a n be described as an ex-
the incongruous c o m b i n a t i o n of these elements into an inappropriate syntagm ample of parole. H e r e language serves well as model: T h e p a n i c u l a r utterance I
but to the inappropriate use of the separate items: A n n e l l e eats fmger food while m a k e (parole) is d r a w n from the set of possible utterances usin g the vocabulary
w e a r i n g the lace gloves a n d constantly tugs at the low-cut dress to m a k e it cover I k n o w (langue), i n t u r n a subset of a l l possible utterances i n m y language (langue
her. T h e result i s to q u i c k l y demonstrate A n n e l l e ' s lack of sophistication; anyone as well but a different, larger, more complete v e r s i o n ) (see F i g , 3 . 3 ) .
used to such a dress a n d such gloves would know better. T h e audience m a y wonder Competence a n d pejfcxmai^e, related terms, contribute to our understanding of
w h a t A n n e l l e w o u l d h a ve chosen from her o w n closet, though the film implies langue a n d parole, (^ompeíencèytíers to the abiiities of a person, something that
she w o u l d have h a d nothing appropriate and m i g h t h a v e avoided the event a l - researchers cannot fully discover, for they are never completely displayed ( e . g . ,
together rather than a d m i t to such a lack. the exacL extent of anyone's knowledge of a language is quite difficult to ascer-
T h e description of p a r a d i g m a n d syntagm presented so far relies h e a v i l y on ikin).-Performance refers to what someone actually does, d r a w i n g upon the full set
of competencies. Researchers have access to performance but not competence a n d ,
therefore, performance alone c a n be studied (to continue the same example, lan -
guage teslin g checks a pau-ticuJar subsection of v o c a b u l a r y a n d g r a m m a r , m a k i n g
assumptions a b o u l w h a t else someone k n o w s from the p a r l i a l knowledge demon-
strated). E a c h example of parole presents a particular performance, hinting at one's

F I O . 3.2. D a r r y l H a n n a h as A n -
nelle i n Steel Magnólias. Photo courtesy
of Tri-Siar Pictures and Darryl
Hannah. F I G , 3,3, T h e relationship beiween langue and parole.
 <_í-iAKAU i t K t b 1 It-b (J^ U U U L 5 59

u n d e r j y i n g competcncy w i t h the relevant langue. O f the two sets oí terms, per- tion of different elements into a p a r t i c u l ar whole a n d through a mental m a t c h i n g
fonnance/competence is the more actíve and parole/langue the more passive ( H y m e s , of the resuiting set w i t h other potential sets r e m a i n i n g unchosen.
1974, p. 130),'^ " I n both cases, something new is learned b y understanding codes to be the lo-
A single example used to e x p l a i n a l l three sets of terms m a y clarify their rela- cus of m e a n i n g . T h i s is really not so different from the study of i n d i v i d u a l signs
tionship. I n the example given previously, A n n e l l e wore a particular outfit to Shel- as it m a y at first appear: T h o s e w ho study i n d i v i d u a l signs or s y m b o í s often find
by's wedding. E a c h part of her outfit (the lace gloves, thc low-cut dress, the glasses, it necessary to incorporate descriptions of at least some related signs, thus speak-
the purse) is a single element, each is d r a w n from a set of possibilities called a i n g of the larger codes i n v o l v e d , t a k i n g for granted the appropriatcness of doing
p a r a d i g m . ( T h u s , a l l the gloves she has access to, ali the dresses, a l l the styles so. H o w e v e r , it is useful to m a k e this largely tacit assumption of the need to pro-
of glasses a n d purses, each set is termed a p a r a d i g m ) . W h a t she actually chose vide some context for the interpretations of s í g n s clearly explicit, so it m a y be
to wear, taken together, is a s y n t a g m , a p a r t i c u l a r combination of elements into taken into account i n a l l e x a m p l e s .
a coherent whole. T h e langue available to her w a s extremely I i m i t e d , so she bor-
rowed elements from S h e l b y ' s larger langue. T h e p a r t i c u l a r outfit she wore is a n
3. Codes Convey Meaning Derived From the Agreement among and Shared Cul-
example oíparoU when contrasted to the larger set of possible combinations, though
tural Experience qf Their Users. T h e t h i r d characteristic points out that codes
it is called syntag m w h e n the point Ís to refer to it as a new combination of dis-
have no existence apart from the h u m a n s who use t h e m . Although i n d i v i d u a l signs
parate elements. I n the process of c o m b i n i n g elements into a whole, she displayed
h a v e p h y s i c a l existence, the full set o f p o t e n t í ã l ^ S g n s a n d the rules for their use
a particular performance, demonstrating her knowledge of appropriately dress-
do not exist outside of someone's head. " I n d e e d the connection between symbol
ing for a wedding. O n e assumes her competence in this a r ea by what she demon-
a n d object exists only i n the m i n d s of those who belong to a social group. A com-
strated, though there is no w a y of actually m e a s u r i n g it. B y the standard of the
m u n i t y of m i n d s is the condition of any signification, and not only of the signifi-
other guests at the w e d d i n g , the audience discovers that her performance does
cation r e q u i r í n g the knowledge of a conventional c o d e " ( M a q u e t , 1982, p, 9 ) .
not display a great deal of competence (wha t she wears a n d how she wears it show
Researchers locaie codes in " a c o m m u n i t y of m i n d s , ' ' as M a q u e t phrased it here,
her inexperience i n these m a t t e r s ) . F o r the purposes of the film, the audience is
rather than i n the p h y s i c a l w o r l d , due to the fact that codes are i m p l i c i t . I n no
encouraged to m a k e assumptions about her past experience a n d knowledge (her
one p h y s i c al place are all possible shoes w o r n b y member s of a particular group
competence) based on her current choices (her performance), ín order to discover
present (though the v a r i e t y of shoes displayed i n a shoe store comes close), thus,
her relative n a i v e t é .
3, code is not a p h y s i c a l reality. Y e t s u c h a set exists i n the m i n d s of the members
^ T o g e t h e r, paradig m a n d syntagm demonstrate how each sign creates a n d con-
of the c o m m u n i t y , so it is most certainly a social reality.'^ Social realities are just
'veys m e a n i n g through two possible relationships w i t h other signs:
as legitimate as phygical r e a l i t í e s , though a Uttle harder to study, A reasonable
facsímile of the set of all possible shoes exists i n the m i n d s of the members of the
1. separation of the s i m i l a r , where m e m b e r s o f a set are distinguished from
c o m m u n i t y (not in the head of a n y one i n d i v i d u a l , but i n the c&mbined m i n d s of
one another even though they are basically sijnilar (through paradigms); and
lhe group). T o g e t h e r w e k n o w what ís possible; alone we each k n o w only a por-
2. unification of the different, where m e m b e r s o f a set are j o i n e d together tion of the range. Because the set does not exist in the head of a n y i n d i v i d u a l ,
though basically d i s s i m i l a r ( t h r o u g h s y n t a g m s ) . neither c a n m e a n i n g be assumed to reside i n the head of a n y one i n d i v i d u a l , aris-
i n g instead from that same " c o m m u n i t y o f m i n d s . "
F o r e x a m p l e , a l l of the shoes owned by one person perform essentially the same ^^PJii.Qg'^ÍP-" ^^^^A .aút^àFp^houífd a n d context-specific. T h e rules for their
function, protecting the feet, a n d thus are s i m i l a r ; however they are quite differ- use are not self-evident, not readily a v a i l a b l e to everyone presented w j i h a partic-
ent i n i m p l i c a t i o n from one another ( s a y , the difference between turquoise a n d ular sign.''' N o t a l l people are p a r t y to the same codes: T h e r e must be a group^
p i n k s u r f w a l k e rs a n d black leather purnps). I n this case, social actors create dis- available to support the p a r t i c u l a r agreements of a n y code, this group being what
tinctions between what are actually quite similar signs i n function, conveying subde is generally called members of a culture^ O n l y a legitimate m e m b e r of the group
differences i n information . W h e n the shoes combine w i t h additional articles of u s i n g the code has thc knowledge to appropriately interpret the meanings of any
clothing to m a k e up a single outfit, the outfit as a whole creates m e a n i n g rather sign,
than each o f the elements separately, though they function ín diverse w a y s (the T h i s is w h y the w e a r i n g of gang coiors c a n be dangerous in today's inner cities
c o m b i n a t i o n of a white silk blouse a n d gray wool suit w i t h the black p u m p s con- for the u n i n í i i a t e d , wh o k n o w neither the meanings associated w i t h particular
veys a single message, one quite different from that i m p l i e d by c o m b i n i n g the items of clothing nor the boundaries of the communitie s through w h i c h they pass,
same blouse and suit w i t h the s u r f w a l k e r s ) , M e a n i n g s emerge through unifica- yet their í n n o c e n c e of intent is no p r o t e c t í o n from retaliation: T h e y are treated
60 a. UUJJJÍ.S U1

as ií" ihcy intended to convey what they are understood to have conveyed to the 5. Codes CanBea WayofClassifinng, Organizing, and Understanding Material,
initiated, as Well as of Transmitting or Communicating It. T h e fifth characteristic Ís ex-
G r o u p membership permits predictabiUty; O n e is able to reasonably interpret tremely important, í m p l y i n g the question of how codes function: W h a t do they
the behavior of others if, a n d only if, enough of the same assumptions a n d back- do, and how do they do it? A s w i t h signs, codes serve most essentially to mcdiate
ground knowledge are shared, " M e a n i n g is a product of coding, a n d coding is understandings of reality.'^ Codes help structure perceptions a n d help make
sense of the cnormou s amount ò f i n f o r m a t i o n presented in any social interaction.
a form of behavior that is learned a n d shared by the members of a c o m m u n i c a -
T H S ^ é w B l n ã t c l i é d against the old, placing è a c h individua l sign against the back-
tion group, . . . C o d i n g is learned a n d shared, a n d any behavior that is learned
ground a n d into the context of the larger code already k n o w n , Codes permit enor-
and shared is c u l t u r a l " ( S m i t h , 1966, pp. 6 - 7 ) . T h u s , we are returned to the con-
mous condensation of information . P a r t of the problem i n conveyin g m e a n i n g
cept of culture amd must reconsider the connections a m o n g the c o m m u n i c a t i o n ,
is the need to convey something complex relatively q u i c k ly a n d easily; codes are
culture, and semiotics. O n e relevant definition of c o m m u n i c a t i o n emphasizes the
one of the means available to us for this purpose, as are signs. Signs are thus
"negotiation a n d exchange of m e a n i n g , in w h i c h messages, people-in-culiurcs
one part of h ow one makes sense of and interprets reality; codes are another. A c -
and ' r e a l i t y ' interact so as to enable m e a n i n g to be produced or understandin g
cording to F i s k e :
to o c c u r " ( C S u l l i v a n et a l . , 1983, p, 4 2 ) , T h i s definition attends p a n i c u l a r l y
to the following series o f constituem elements: ( a ) lhe message or text, ( b ) the
T h e point is that "reality" is already encoded, or rather the onJy way we can per-
person who created the text, ( c ) the people interpreting the text, a n d ( d ) the ex-
ceive and make sense of reality is by the codes uf our culture. There may be an ob-
ternai reality to w h i c h both text a n d people refer. Some authors emphasize the
jecdve, empiricist reality out there, but chere is no universal objecdve way of
text (linguists such as S a u s s u r e ) ; olhers emphasize the connection between the
perceivlng and making sense of it. What passes for reality in any culture is the product
text a n d its creator (the majorit y of c o m m u n i c a t i o n studies), the connection be^ of that culture's codes, so "reality" is always already encoded, it is never " r a w . "
tween lhe text a n d its readers (literary critics such as J a c q u e s D e r r i d a ) , or lhe (Fiske. 1987, p. 4)
connection between the text a n d e x t e r n a i reality (philosophers such as P e i r c e ) .
W h e r e v e r eniphasis is placed, ultimately m e a n i n g arises from lhe combination of F i s k e ' s use of the term encoded is not defined here but should be self-evident. I f
thç text, its creator, its audience, a n d lhe externai w o r l d . t h e r ç i s a code, then it is possible to encode (to convey information through that
I code) a n d also to decode (to interpret information from lhe code). Some of the ear-
4. Codes Are Transmittable by Their Appropriate Media of Communica- ' l y sources for a n understanding of coding, p a r t i c u l a r l y the focus on encoding and
tion. T h e fourth characteristic of codes assumes a n interest i n a n d focus on mass decoding and on estabhshing the degree of comparability between them, are found
media such as television a n d film. T h e iinplicatio n is simple: O n e learns to i h t ê r ^ in the early cybernetics literalure ( S h a n n o n & W e a v e r , 1949).'^ T h i s has advan-
pret codes in.part through these m e d i a . Because assumptions about behavior are lages, as it showed the w a y ío some interesting ideas early o n , but Í( has disad-
not always conscious, directors, photographers, a n d others incorporate them un- vantages as well. T h c use of a physica l metaphor (such as a telegraph) u n d e r l y m g
consciously into the media. F r o m our media products, others come to accept similar lhe early cybernetics can sometimes cause problems, j u s t as the use of a linguistic
assumptions, also unconsciously. F o r example, w h e n television characters eat j u n k metaphor can cause problems, i f one Ís not careful enough about the distinction
food rather than regular meais, it is a m i n o r part of the story but, repeated often between the model utilized for analysis a n d the behavior to be analyzed.
enough, it influences v i e w e r s ' assumptions about the appropriateness of various T o give a concrete example: People encode p a r t i c u l a r information into family
eating habits ( W e b b , 1990), W h e n childre n see violence often enough on televi- history every time they choose to take photographs of some events but not others.
sion, it has a n impact on their assumptions as l o the appropriateness of violence I n most families, major life-cycle events, such as birthdays, are frequently recorded,
i n a v a r i e t y of contexts.'^ but e v e r y d ay life, such as the organization of a typical e v e n i n g m e a i , is generally
T h e concept o( intertextuality introduced previously has been appUed p r i m a r i l y omitted from the record. I n addition, they sometimes deliberately pose for pho-
to the study of film because it is easy to match two films checking.fqr visual quotes tographs i n order to mislead others who will decode the photographs later: F a m i -
in the later of the two.'^ W i t h some effort, the same aspect of intertextuality , ly members who have been fighting m a y chose to stand near each other and smile,
" q u o t i n g " from one event to another, could be usefuUy applied to the study o f Icsi thc fight be remembered rather than thc relationship. T h u s , they encode mean-
social interacdo n as w e l l . T h e combination of the two, that i s , intertextual refer- ing for others (or their later selves) lo decode at a future time.
ences from the mass medi a brought into everyday interactions, although not gener- I n Cousins, M i t c h is a rebellious tcen-ager recording events at a wedding recep-
ally studied to date, is Hkely to be productive as w e l l . tion lhat everyone w o u l d r a l h e r not have prcserved. H e films someone v o m i t i n g
 \1A OJ

after overindulging, the groom mooning the asscmbled Crowd, teen-agers m a k i n g - presumably considers appropriate to D e a n and T e r r i ' s wedding: a tight black dress
out i n a closet, and a n adulterous couple leavin g i n a c a r together. H e shows the w i t h ruffles of white fabric w i t h black p o l ka dots, a l o ng red scarf, red high heels,
resuiting videotape at the next major family gathering, but the audience is quite a red bow i n her h a i r , a n d black stockings a n d earrings. Sofia, a l w a y s the voice
unhappy w i t h the result, partially due to the inappropriate nature of his choices of tradition, asks her, " I s that a dress y o u wear to a w e d d i n g ? " T i s h responds
and partially due to the supplemental images incorporated from other events w i t h a smile, " I made it. I t ' s m y o w n d e s i g n " accepting the question as a com-
(footage of people s t a r v i n g í n t e r l e a v e d w i t h footage of people overeating at the pliment. A s she walks a w a y , Sofia evaluates the dress m o r e explicitly, s a y i n g to
reception, for e x a m p l e ) . T h e problem is that he has chosen to encode informa- E d i e , her sister-in-law, " T h a t ' s a dress y o u w e a r to a hooker's w e d d i n g . ' ' C l e a r -
tion that the majority of viewers w o u l d rather not have available for later decod- ly T i s h has encoded the rules of her subculture, but those rules are not the same
ing, omitting images they w o u l d have preferred to preserve. as Sofia expected, despite the considerable i m p l i e d overlap i n their backgrounds.
A t a later wedding, for D e a n a n d T e r r i , the cousins caught kissing i n a closet, A s a result, w h a t Sofia decodes from the dress is quite different from what T i s h
M i t c h again runs into trouble through his choice of m a t e r i a l . A s he points his thought she was encoding into it.
videocamera at the bride a n d groom d u r i n g the reception, particularly emphasizing R e l a t e d to their basic function of filtering reality, codes serve to indicate group
the bride's obvious pregnaricy, a n older relative Sofia stops h i m , saying , " N o m e n í b e r s h l p . Social practices are learned, serving as identifying markers for past
X - r a t e d pictures, y o u b a d boy. W e d d i n g s are a j o y f u l o c c a s i o n . " O n e explana- experiences,^X^heíher^XÊlaíed to social class, education, or other factors. A s F r e n c h
tion for her discomfort w i t h recording the pregnancy is that she wishes to w i t h - sociologisíTfierre B o u r d i e u ^ e s c r i b e d in detail, tastes can serve as markers of class:
hold information from the future. B y preserving the i m a g e , M i t c h makes it r e a l ,
whereas i f she can deny it lon g enough, keeping it from the c a m e r a ' s eye, it w i l l \s manifest^.H prefprenrf.RJ^rf- rhp practical affirmatiun of an inevitable
not be visible to the future a n d effectively w i l l not have happened. ^ •4j.ffe.rg"ce, It is no accident that, when they have lo be justified, they are asserted
A focus on encoding a n d decoding leads direcdy to a focus on the people doing purely negatively, by the refusal of other tastes. I n matters of taste, more than any-
the encoding a n d decoding a n d often to the degree of m a t c h between what the where else, all determination is negation; and tastes are perhaps first and foremost
one has encoded w i t h what the other decodes.'^ O b v i o u s l y , encoders a n d distastes, disgust provoked by horror or visceral intolerance ("sick-raaking") of the
í decoders w h o share s i m i l a r codes ( a n d similar c u l t u r a l experiences) w i l l encode tastes of others. There is no accoundng for tastes: not because 'Hous les gouts soní
dans la nature," but because each taste feels itself to be natural—and so it almost
and decode simila r meanings i n text; those w h o have l e a r n ed different codes-as
is, being a habitus—which amounts to rejecting others as unnatural and therefore
; a result of different c u l t u r a l experiences, w i l l not.^" Essentially , this defines the
vicious. Aesthetic intolerance can be terribly violent. Aversion to different life styles
^" major topic studied by i n t e r c u l t u r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n (although rarely stated quite is perhaps one of the strongest barriers between the classes: class endogamy is evi-
this w a y ) : I n t e r c u l t u r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n seeks to understand problems a r i s i n g due dence of it. T h e most intolerable thing for those who regard themselves as the pos-
to a n inappropriate fit between encoding and decoding, attributing these problems sessors of legitimate culture is the sacrilegious reuniting of tastes which taste dictates
to differences i n c u l t u r a l knowledge. shall be separated (Bourdieu, 1980, pp. 253-254)
T h e related term subcode refers to something less than a n entire code, partially
^but not entireiy m u t u a l l y comprehensible to users of the larger code. I m p l i c i t is r^flbus do we build social barriers where none existed through our differing manipu-
jthe related idea that m e m b e r s of a subculture ( a small group w i t h i n a larger c u l - Hation of signs a n d codes. B o u r d i e u ' s w o r k especially i l l u m i n a t e d the labeling of
' iture) are the users of a subcode ( K r a m p e n , 1986).^' I m p l i c i t also is the assump- [tastes as due to i n d i v i d u a l preferences rather than prior experience ( B o u r d i e u ,
í i o n that most m e m b e r s of a culture are simultaneous members of several 1984). T h e connections between social class a n d expressions of taste are no less
^ubcultures; as such, they have access to multiple subcodes. T h e problem is a l - important for the fact that they generally r e m a i n hidden from their users.
ways k n o w i n g w h i c h subcode is appropriate to w h i c h context; l e a r n i n g this takes Others have expanded on the gap between encoding a n d decoding to demon-
time. Y o u n g children who discuss what are designated family topics i n public places strate how p a r t i c u l a r groups change the meanings conveyed by particular signs,
are the classic example o f incomplete l e a r n i n g . A chil d who comes out of a public even by whole codes, a n d how some subcultures handle this ability w i t h great
restroom yelHng, " 1 went potty, m o m m y , " embarrasses the parents due to the facility. U s i n g the following example of the adoption of safety pins by punk groups
public context, despite the fact that these same parents m a y have been encourag- in B r i t a i n for purposes other than their m a k e r s intended, Hebdige (1979 ) made
ing or even r e q u i r i n g s i m i l a r statements at home as part of toUet t r a i n i n g . precisely this point:
E y e n adults often display w h a t they consider to be appropriate subcultural be-
havior, oiily to discover that others, as members of adjoining subcultures, con-
These "humble objects" [safety pins) can be magically appropriated; "stolen" by
sider their choice inappropriate. T o return to Cousins, T i s h wears a n outfit she
subordinate groups and made to carry "secret" meanings: meanings which ex-
 p r e s s , i n c o d e , a f o r m o f r e s i s t a n t e to t h e o r d e r w h i c h g u a r a n t e e s t h e i r continued in_^styles of furniture over the last 100 years or lhe addition of such new features
subordination. as photographs, plants, a n d m i r r o r s matched to the simultaneous disappcarance
Style i n s u b c u l t u r e is, then, p r e g n a n t w i t h significance. Its transformations go of pianos.
" a g a i n s t n a t u r e , " i n t e r r u p t i n g the process o f " n o r m a h z a d o n . " A s s u c h , they are
T h o u g h they are generally distinguished as quite different, i l is incorrect to
' gestures, m o v e m e n t s t o w a r d s a s p e e c h w h i c h offends the "silent m a j o r i t y , " w h i c h
assume s y n c h r o n y a n d d j a c h r o n y are a n y t h i ng but integrally related. J u r i j T y n -
i c h a l l e n g e s the p r i n c i p i e o f u n i t y a n d c o h e s i o n , w h i c h c o n t r a d i c t s the m y t h o f c o n -
j a n o v and R o m a n J a k o b s o n pointed out how synchronic and diachronic analyses
•^sensus, ( H e b d i g e . 1979, p. 18)
are intertwined ;

A s Hebdige made clear, the change of a single sign is not at issue so m u c h as I The opposition between synchrony and diachrony was an opposition between the
the challenge of entire social codes ( i n this case, clothing). T h r o u g h a series of ! concept of system and the concept of evolution; thus it loses its importance in prin-
individually m i n o r changes, members of the larger culture have (heir expected •'ciple as soon as we recognize that cvcry sysiem nece.ssari!y exists as an evolution,
meanings subverted; i n this w a y members of a s u b c u l t í i r e gain a Iimited"(3egree , whereas, on the other hand, evolution is inescapably of a systemic nature. ( T y n -
of autonomy and even power. i janov & Jakobson, 1928/1971, p. 80)
A l l codes change over time. F e w people w e a r the same clothes as their grand-
parents, for example. I f they do, as with teen-agers who w e a r bib overalls similar T h e divisio n between s y n c h r o n y a n d diachrony is ihus seen to have less reality
to those w o r n several generations ago by farmers, the meanings have been sub- than c o m m o n ly assumed. I t is absurd to think that any s y n c h r o n i c analysis can
verted (they no longer support the connotations " w o r k clothes" or " f a r m e r " ) totally ignore the past a n d lhe future, or a n y diachronic analysis can be present-
and lhe details revised (as w h e n one of the straps is left unfastened, a commo n ed without substantial detailing of one place, at one time. I t is most accurate to^
modification popularized by several m u s i c a l groups i n the 1990s). I t actually re- view analyses as p r i m a r i l y either synchronic or diachronic in focus b u i rarely one
quires far more effort to prevent social codes from changing over time, as demon- to the exclusion of the other. —^
strated by the continued efforts of the A m i s h needed to keep their children i n A s exemplar , a synchronic analysis of w e d d i n g gowns would theoretically em-
traditional dress ( E n n i n g e r , 1984), but this is not to say that anyone ever expects phasize the description of the major design elements i n use today. B u t it is charac-
the p a n i c u l a r changes that occur. teristic of wedding gowns that they utilize an enormous a r r a y of design details
A s K r a m p e n put i t , codes are " s t a l e s of d y n a m i c c q u i l i b r i u m " (1986, p, 128). taken from the history of w o m e n ' s clothing over lhe past 300 years, combined
T h e y m a i n t a i n a precarious balance between times of stasis, appearing rock solid, i n new a n d incongruous sets (sleeves from the lôOOs matched to a collar of lhe
and times of r a p i d change, w h e n it is h a r d to remember they ever appeared con- IBOOs, for e x a m p l e ) . A careful s y n c h r o n i c analysis would thus of necessity incor-
stam, Subcultures are hardly the only locus of change but serve as a particularl y porate considerable diachronic analysis as well , regardless of the analyst's origi-
useful p o i n i from w h i c h to observe change ( P . C o h e n , 1980; H a l i i d a y , 1976). nal focus,
T h i s is p a n i c u l a r l y obvious to most people when the subcultures involved include Codes serve as a m a r k e r of group membership i n p a n due to the existence
different generations, because there are several generations in most families w h o of what are termeà:,res(ncted codes, This is another v/ay of referring to particular
can observe each other's behavior far more closely than that of members of different categories of subcodes that, in lhe original usage at least, was less than positive.
ethnic groups or differenl geographic regions. ....-—T^ Restricted c o d e s ^ e r e originally proposed as applying to language a n d were those
E x a m i n a t i o n of a cpde as it exists at a single point i n time is caWed-synchronií, with a smaller vocabiilãry,~ã"sirapler syntax, a n d greater redundancy, relying upon
analysis; examinatio n of a c o d e as it evolves through time is named í/iacftronifanal- j o i n t prior experience to fill i n the frequent gaps between actual uttgi;;ggces a n d
yliis: T r a d i t i o n a l l y , it has been more common i n semiotics a n d i n linguistics, a n d obvious intent. T h e y were originally studied as part of a pair, wiljh elaborated'coãès^^
certainly i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n , to focus on synchronic a n a l y s i s ; recently diachronic the more highly v a l u e d , by B r i t i s h linguist Basil Bernstei n ( 1 9 6 6 > 1 9 7 5 ) - E l a b o -
analysis has gained adherents. T h i s is in part due to the inherent appeal of ob- rated codes were defined as the more explicit, w i t h a larger vocabular y a n d more
serving changes as they occur a n d the potential for discovering how and w h y they complex syntax, m a k i n g meanings available even to listeners who did not share
come a b o u t . A synchronic analysis emphasizes what exists at a particular point prior experiences, listeners who could not be relied upon to properly interpret
in time; a diachronic analysis concentrates on changes over time. T o use l i v i n g vague or incomplete utterances, B e r n s t e i n suggested that elaborated codes are
room furnishings as a n e x a m p l e, a synchronic analysis focuses on such details acquired only through formal t r a i n i n g (higher education), i m p l y i n g those w i l h
as the u s y a i distances between couch a n d chairs a n d tables^and the class connota- greater education (generally the middle class) had the ability to use two codes,
tions of various styles of furniture; a diachronic analysis focuses on the changes either restricted or elaborated, as the need arose. T h o s e w i t h less education
 (generally the w o r k i n g class) h a d Iimited access to elaborated codes a n d so were dances w i t h the second daughter, H o d e l , flaunting the J e w i s h orthodox tradition
Iimited i n use to only a single code, the restricted. B e r n s t e i n pointed out that re- r e q u i r i n g w o m e n to dance w i t h w o m e n a n d men to dance w i t h m e n . O n the one
stricted codes were j u s t as complicated to use, but i m p l i e d greater flexibility was h a n d , they are d a n c i n g , w h i c h is traditional, but on the other, they are dancing
significant, so someone w i t h the ability to manage two codes woul d be more suc- across gender lines, w h i c h is shocking for that group i n that time a n d place. T h e
cessful than someone w i t h the ability to only manage a mere one. A s B e r n s t e i n ' s event is compHcated by thc clear i m p l i c a t i o n that lhe first case of rule-breaking
ideas were gencralized through the 1960s and 1970s to i m p l y either distinctions made the second possible.
between oral a n d written forms (restricted codes often are oral, a n d elaborated The^six characteristics oí codes oudined previously are broadly stated, apply-
codes are often w r i t t e n ) , or differences tn intelligence (elaborated codes appear ing to a 0 cõdes,'iíí"all places, at a l l times. T p g e i h e r they supply the basic defini-
more complex, leading lo their use as a measure of higher a b i l i t y ) , they generat- n ^ o f codes ã r i d s u g g e s t the basic rules governing the functioning of codes. W i l h
ed heated controversy. T o d a y the terminology has changed. W h a t were once called these s i x , the list m a y be taken as ( t e m p o r a r i l y ) complete. B u i describing lhe na-
restricted codes are now called subcultural styles. A s the more negative implications ture of codes is not the only w a y to l e a rn about them; at the very least one also
have generally been avoided, the controversy has abated considerably.^^ needs to know w h i c h types of codes exist,

6. Codes Are, by Their Very Nature, Full qf Gaps and Inconsistencies and Sub-
TYPES OF CODES
ject to Constant Change. Codes are h u m a t L í B v e n t i o n s , designed to create order
where c h ã o s might otherwise reign. A s such they are imperfect, suggestive r a t H S ^
than complete. T h e r e is no plenitude (completeness, such that every corner is A s w i t h m a n y other fields of study, semiotics lends itself to lypologies, T h e fol-
fdled) i n a code, though some might w i s h it. T h e " g a p s , modifications, a n d i n - l o w i n g typology.of codes is widely accepted: ( a ) logical codes (the codes used by
consistencies" F i r t h attributed to symbols equally characterize codes (1973b, p. science), (h) aesthetic codesflhe codes used, by a r t ) , a n d ( c ) social codes (the codes
used by sqcisiy.). E x a m p l e s of logical codes are: mathematics, morse code, the
426). A j c o d e is implicit a n d thus c a n n e v ç r be created in its entirety before it
alphabet, braille, the h i g h w a y code, assembly diagrams. E x a m p l e s of aesthetic
is used. T h a t being the case, it c a n never be finished, a n d the unfinished inevita-
codes are: painting, architecture, photography, sculpturc, literature. E x a m p l e s
bly has gaps a n d holes. A g a i n discussing p r i m a r i l y symbols, T u r n e r suggested:
of social codes are: trademarks, clothing, g r e e t í n g s , food, furniture, objects of
" I n no concrete society is ' s y s t e m ' realized. ' O n earth the broken ares, i n heaven
any sort, games, a n d sports.
the perfect r o u n d . ' B u t symbols operate a m o n g the 'broken ares' and help to sub-
stitute for the 'perfect r o u n d ' " ( 1 9 7 5 , p. 146). H i s c o m m e n i about the nature It is possible to s u m m a r i z e the essential elements of lhe differences a n d similar-
of symbols describes equally the nature of codes: i n both cases, what exists is i n - ities between the various types of codes i n the following chart (see T a b l e 3 . 1 ) . - '
complete. A n y sense of completion is contributed by the i n d i v i d u a l m a k i n g use T a k e n together, these concepis clearly demonstrate w h y social codes have the
of the symbol or code, not inherent i n the sign or code. Codes are only given greatest potential interest for researchers i n communication . A s the majority have
been previously introduced, they are only briefly s u m m a r i z e d i n the following
voice by analysts, a n d too precise a sense of order or completion must be attributed
discussion.
to the analyst, not assumed to be previously cxtan t i n the subject under a n a l y s i s .
Related.tp the unfinished nature of codes is another issue: tradition versus i n - T A B L E 3,1
novation. I t w o u l d be w r o n g to i m p l y that codes are rigid or lhat they leave little C o m p a r i s o n of C o d e s by T y p e
room for i n d i v i d u a l c r e a t i v i t y. Precisely because of their incomplete nature, they
Logical Codes Aesthetic Codes Social Codes
can never be rigid: T h e m a n y gaps permit ready infiltration of the new a n d differ-
ent- O n l y something quite finished could appropriately be described as rigid. T h i s Monosemic Polysemic Polysemic
means^pne a l w a y s understands behavior in light of w h a t J a k o b s o n termed two,. Denotative Connotative Connotative
Digital Analogic Analogic
orders: " t h e tr£tditÍQnai c â n o n a n d the artistic novelty as_a deviation from that
Conventional meanings C o n v e n t i o n a l or new C o n v e n t i o n a l or new
c â n o n " ( 1 9 3 5 / 1 9 7 1 a , p . 8 7 ) . O n e interprets social facts simultaneously b y the_ Single decoding possible A b e r r a n t decoding possible A b e r r a n t decoding possible
í^traditions they preserve a n d by the innovations they introduce. Decode by explicit agreement Decode by clues within text D e c o d e by convention
Often small innovations open the w a y to larger, more encompassing changes. Symbolic Iconic Symbolic
I n Fiddler on the Roof, T e v y e breaks w i t h tradition to permit his oldest daughter, Social Individual Social
Stasis as the n o r m C h a n g e as the n o r m D y n a m i c relation between
T z e i t e l , to m a r r y the m a n she loves. M o t e l , rather than f o r c i n g h e r to go through
stasis and change
w i t h lhe marriage he previously arranged w i t h L a z a r . A t their wedding, P e r c h i k
DO

L o g i c a l codes are monosemic (the signifier stands for only one signified), whereas (the i n d i v i d u a l artist c a n create entireiy new meanings), whereas logical a n d so-
both aesthetic a n d social codes are polysemic (the signifier can stand for more than c i a í ^ õ d e s are more often social (conveying consistent meanings known lo the larger
one signified). Science uses logical codes because the n u m b e r 4 always stands for sociely), ^
the same n u m b e r o f items, whereas m y birthday gift to y o u o f a scarf, as p a n A l o n g one d i m c n s i o n , each is unique. Logicaljxicles hs^v^tasis as their n o r m
of a social code, implies not only that I remembered y o u r day but equally that (they can change litde over time a n d then onJy w i t h explicit agreement, or they
I know ( o r do not k n o w ) y o u r preferences in color a n d fabric. would lose their v a l u e ) . E v e n oncc agreed upon, changes are often slow to take
L o g i c a l codes are denotative (there is a literal m e a n i n g clear to any audience) effect. T h e metric system has been m a k i n g its w a y into the A m e r i c a n public school»
whereas both aesthetic a n d social codes are connotative (there is a variety of i m p l i - system over the past decade at a s n a i r s pace, despite official encouragement; the
cations available to knowledgeable audience m e m b e r s ) . Not only does the n u m - problem lies i n the hesitancy of the present generation to give up the measure-
ber 4 always mean four items rather than two or three, but there is never a n ments to w h i c h they have grown accustomed. T h e problem is compounded by^
implication of sadness, happiness, a n d so f o n h . the facj that as each generation refuses to adopt the metric s y s i e m , they permiti
L o g i c a l codes are generally digital (they can be d i v i d e d into discrete u n i t s ) a new generation to grow up u n a c ç u s t o m e d to its use, thus d c l a y i n g change even^^
whereas aesthetic a n d social codes are more often analogic ( n o discrete u n i t s ). T h e further. F o r aesthetic codes change is lhe n o r m a n d innovation highly valued (creat-
numbers 3 a n d 4 do not blend together ( e v e n when placed side by side they do i n g a p a i n t i n g exactly lhe same as that of someone else is called forgery, not art,
not mean " s o m e t h i n g between 3 a n d 4 , " but " 3 4 " ) , whereas it can be difficult a n d the most innovative artists are those most likely to be remembered by the "
to divide a painting or a l o a f of bread into component p a n s , future). Social codes generally have a dynamic relation between change andstâsisi^vtn
L o g i c a l codes are conventional\ira.àitiona\s assumed to be understood if I wear a unique combination of clothes each d a y , the indivTdijál Ttems belong
by the audience are used), whereas both aesthetic a n d social codes are either con- to categories y o u most likely recognize).
ventional or nc£f7{the author/artist/social actor d r a w s new connections between T h e codes of greatest interest to c o m m u n i c a t i o n researchers are social codes;
signifier a n d signified never d r a w n before). T h e n u m b e r 4 has meant the same for that reason they serve as lhe focus of the remainder of this chapter and volume.
thing for a v e r y long time; therein lies its v a l u e . S i l k adopts new impHcations as T h e r e are so m a n y possible social codes, that it is impossible even to provide a
clothing is made of a washable form of the fabric, thus decreasing its prestige value complete list. A s L e a c h pointed out, " a / / the various non-verbal d i m c n s í o n s of
(yet, in apparent contradiction, only the traditional prestige value of silk accounts culture, such as styles i n clothing, villâ'gêTay"out, architecture, furniture, food,
for the brisk sales o f this new v a r i e t y, still priced welí above other washable cooking, m u s i c , physical gestures, postural altitudes a n d so on are organised i n
fabrics). patterned sets " ( L e a c h , 1976, p. 10). A l t h o u g h not generally put this w a y w i t h i n
D u e to a ll o f the previous characteristics, logical codes have a single possible decod- c o m m u n i c a t i o n , L c a c h ' s comment makes sense according to lhe chart of types
ing (what I intend should always be w h a t y o u "understand), whereas aesthetic a n d given previously: aJl nonverbal channels of behavior are ap£mpxiatfilx'^t>eled social
social codes have the possibility oíaberrant coding ( y o u have a good chance of learning codes, though there are more social codes than just nonverbal channels. Together
something I never intended, or m i s s i n g what I considered obvious). W i t h logical all social codes make up a large part of a culture (each culture also i n c l u d i ng logi-
codes, there are explicit, deliberate agreements about w h a t the i n d i v i d u a l signs cal a n d aesthetic codes).
indicate; w i t h aesthetic codes, the clues for decoding are made available i n the T h e previous comments lead to new questions concerning the connection be-
text to a n insightful interpreter but are rarely explicid y agreed upon; and w i t h tween culture a n d code. J u s t as a single sign does not convey m e a n i n g alone huU
social codes, there is conventional use, u n w r i t t e n expcctations based on shared as part o f a larger set or system of signs ( a code), so a single social code also does f
experience, for decoding ( F i s k e , 1982, pp. 8 2 - 8 7 ) . T h i s explains w h y only logical not stand alone but functions as one part of a sei or system of codes, T h i s largerj
codes have a single possible decoding: h a v i n g explicitly agreed as to the m e a n i n g network or system might best be called a culture. M a n y amhropqlogisls currendy**'
of i n d i v i d u a l signs, there is little likelihood of confusion. W i t h aesthetic a n d so- define culture as a " s y s t e m of s y m b o l s " ( M . L , Foster, 1990b; O r t n e r , 1975),
cial codes, the lack o f explicit agreement as to the interpretation oí signs permits m a k i n g no use of codes as the middle levei of organization standing between sym-
aberrant decoding. bols a n d culture. A system of symbols is properly a codCt^and a_jT^5tgm of codes
T h u s far, aesthetic a n d social codes appear s i m i l a r , but there are a few impor- forms a culture. Describin g a culture as a sysiem of symbols omits a criticai struc-
tant differences. Aesthetic codes are generally iconic (made up of icons, signs w i t h tural levei. T h i s nesting of leveis has been stated rnosi clearly in the " S e m i o t i c s
a relation of s i m i l a r i t y between the signifier and signified), whereas social and of c u l t u r e " approach, originally developed by the M o s c o w - T a r t u School, sum-
logical codes are generally symbolic (made up of symbols, w i t h a n arbitrary rela- m a r i z ed by U m i k e r - S e b e o k as follows; " c u l t u r e is a universe created by a plural-
tion between signifier a n d signified). A n d aesthetic codes are more clearly individual ity of mutually interacting and m u t u a l l y supportive sign systems" (1977, p, 122),
 NO'.l'KS 71

I n at least some of its assumptions, the semiotics of culture matches the approach Attention to date has come primarily from three á r e a s : nonverbal c o m m u n i c a t i o n, intercultur-
put forth i n this volume. al c o m m u n i c a t i o n , a n d mass c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I n all three cases, lhe influence comes by way of
considering how best to study social interaction in a variety of contexts. T h e r e is also a very recent
J u s t as it is easier to study a single sign rather than a n entire social code, so
application of codes to organizational culture growing out of lhe i n t è r p r e t i v e approach, where the
too is it easier to study a single social code rather than an entire culture. H e r e , definition of codes proposed here is followed exactly ( D o une 11 on, 1986; Piloita, W i d m a n , & J a s k o ,
however, greater j u s t i f í c a t i o n exists for l i m i t i n g the boundaries of what is taken 1988),
into consideration. I n d i v i d u a l social codes are already relatively large systems, I n nonverbal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , interaction codes has been pressed into service as the cover term
for all linguistic a n d nonlinguistic channels of c o m m u n i c a t i o n ( B i r d w h i s t e l í , 1972, p. 390; Sig-
providing a broad context for understanding the use of a single sign, easily justifi-
m a n , 1987, p. 110; see H a r r i s o n , 1976, for an outiine of types of nonverbal codes). I n this usage,
able as sufficient for m a n y purposes. F o r this reason, chapters 4 through 6 of this the term ccxle is a direct borrowing from linguistics with language the model code guiding the study
volume provide analyses stopping at the levei of the code, F o r a more complete of nonverbal channels ( L e e d s - H u r w i t z , [ 9 6 7 ) . A particular focus has been on the activities of en-
analysis, codes do ultimately need to be set one next to the another, considered coding and decoding and the relationship between messages sent and received ( K a t z & K a t z , 1983b,
pp, 2 0 5 - 2 0 7 ) . A less frequent focus, bui very up-to-daie in its concerns, views codes as markers
as mutuall y influencing bodies. T h e same people convey a n d interpret meanings
of social identity, as w h e n R a m s c y (1976) described the nonverbal codes identifying various sub-
from several codes simultaneously; it is v i r t u a l l y impossible to have a single code cultural groupings within a p r í s o n culture.
alone (there is little food that does not appear at a table a nd on a plate, a n d the W i t h i n intercultural c o m m u n i c a t i o n , the early i n í l u e n c e of linguistica o n lhe field has assurcd
plate provides an equally appropriate subject for study, as does the sweater w o r n only that the term code would be used noi that it would go on to become a central research focus
by the person eating the food). A thorough study would account for multiple codes ( L e e d s - H u r w i t z , 1990b), Both the early role played by ihose trained outside the field a n d the more
recent influence ofthe ethnography of speaking ( C a r b a u g h , 1985, 1988, 1990; K a t r i e l , 1986, 1991;
simultaneously rather than treating them individually.^^ T h e largest such group-
L e e d s - H u r w i t z , l990a) have resulted in some attention to codes as the vehicle for cultural knowledge
ing coincides w i t h the boundaries of a culture, here redefined as " a l l of the codes a n d therefore aa a n appropriate research siie. A s C o o l c y p u i it; " M y first assumption is (hat thc
available to a particular c o m m u n i t y or group of people."^' study of codes should bc one ofthe central concerns to the study of communication , , . , M y second
assumption is that a body of descriptive research centcring on codes is sorely needed in the study
O f course, in today's global village, even this degree of context is not always
of communication today" (1933, pp. 241-242). T h e terminology is the .lamc, as indicated by Cooley's
sufficient. I n most cases, politicai borders are social realities rather than physical definition of code as " a culturally defined, rule-govcrned system of shared arbitrary symbols ihai
barriers w i t h infiltration of foreign meanings a r r i v i n g i n company w i t h foreign is used lo transmit m e a n i n g " (1983, p, 242) . H i s usage of lhe w o r d transmil here implies more
objects, words, a n d persons. I n addition, the social boundaries of a culture are deliberate intent than generally assumed appropriate today. Although the influence of linguistics
has been sufficient to put codes on thc research agenda of intercultural c o m m u n i c a t i o n , it has not
no longer concurrent w i t h the politicai boundaries of a country ( i f indeed they
yet been sufficient to move thera to the top ofthe agenda, despite C o o l e y ' s emphatic comments.
ever were). S t i l l , for practica l purposes, when boundaries need be d r a w n some- Because codes are culturally hased, intercultural c o m m u n i c a t i on research must e v e n t u a l í y pay at-
where, the edges of a single culture provide the standard stopping place. teniion to codes and how they function.

W i t h i n mass communication , there has been some analysis of televised interactions using " i n -
terpersonal behavior codes" such as proxemics, kinesics, and paralanguagc ( G r o n b e c k , 1983;
NOTES M e y e r o w i t z , 1979). Clearly this simply adapts research on nonverbal communication codes to mass
media; as such linguistics maintain s a heavy influence. A s with the influence on intercultural com -
munication, this shows the way in which generalizations about interaction foUow social aciors from
1. See J , T h o m a s ( ] 9 B 9 ) for lhe h i s t ó r i c a ] origins of the term code a n d specifically for discussion of setting to setting; whether in face-to-facc encounters with m e m b e r s of lhe same culture, members
the differences between thc terms code and sysUin; see also K r a m p e n (1986) and C u l l e r (1977). of a different culture, or on television, the same vehicles serve to convey meanings and often those
2. F o r further discussion of this issue, see C u l l e r ( 1 9 8 1 , p, 30); M , D o u g l a s (1970, p. 11); Hodge vehicles are social codes,
and K r e s s (1988, pp. 3 7 - 7 8 . 97); Sperber (1974, p, 70); V a r e n n e (1973, p. 229),
W i e d e r ' s (1974/1988) work on thc convicc code was originally cast as a s o c i o l ó g i c a ! study, par-
3. A s thc term code was originatcd by a linguist, it is not s u r p r i s i n g that one of thc disciplines siill ticularly as an example of cthnomethodology, but it provides a n cxcellent analysis of a particular
using lhe term today is linguistics. F o r typical use by linguisis, see G u m p e r z and H y m e s (1972), behavioral code set Ínlo comext,
especially the chapters by G u m p e r z , H y m e s , Btom and G u m p e r z and Bernstein, C o d e has been
4. A s mentioned in chapter 1, M c C r a c k e n (1983) provided the majo r theoretical grounds for reject-
widely used within the ethnography of communicatio n literature, where it generally means '"a way
ing the model of linguistics as code. W h a t follows c a n be considered m y continuation a n d expan-
of s p e a k i n g , " something smaller than a language ( B a u m a n & S h e r z e r , 1974). A related use comes sion of that argument, for I do agree with part of it, Y e t , I think there is probably more value
from information theory; see Deutsc h (1966) for discussion, S c h w i m m e r attributed m u c h o f t h i s IO the metaphor than he grants, especially if descriptive linguistics is not considered ihc relevam
application to the influence of G r e g o r y Bateson (1972), for w h o m "the ' c o d i f í c a t i o n system' ts thc part of linguistics to be used as a model,
c u l t u r e " (1977, p, 163). 5. See Botscharow (1990, p, 65) for a n interesting discussion of this issue.
T h e term code frequently appears in c o m m u n i c a t i o n research b u i is defined and applied i n - 6, F o r further discussion, sec C S u l l i v a n et a l . (1983, p, 37); C o r c o r a n ( 1 9 8 1 . p. 187).
consistenily, M o s t generally, code has been used as a s y n o n y m for language, .\lthough coding 7, 0 ' S u l l i v a n et a l . (1983) restricted the application of these characteristics lo what they termed ng-
has been named " O n e of the fundamental concerns in the study of c o m m u n i c a i i o n " in basic i n - nifying codes (comparable to lhe social codes described later). T h e s e same characicrisiics are ap-
iroduclions to theory (as here i n L i t d e j o h n , 1978, p. 80), it is generaUy taken for granted rather plicable to all types of codes and so I have enlarged their discussion accordingly. T h e sixth
than studied explieitly- characteristic is m y own addition.
 3. CODES

8, T h i s is bui one example of a larger category o f a m b i g u o u s m e m b e r s of classihcaiion systems; 27. I n 1 977, C u l l e r nominaied as Saussure'E greatest contribution shifting the focus of attention from

the study of a m b t g u í t y is a n i m p o r t a m lopic in its o w n right. M . Dougla s (1966) provided exten- i n d i v i d u a l object (here understood as sign) lo the slruciure w i i h i n which that object is embedded

sive discussion of m a r g i n a l m e m b e r s of dassification syslems. ( i n this case, code), H e pointed out that Saussure has anoiher potential contribution: " T o bring
US to see social life a n d culture i n general as a series of sign systems w h i c h a linguistic model
9. " P a r a d i g m s are virtua l r a l h e r than realized. . . . A m e m b e r of a paradigmatic class m a y become
c a n help us to a n a l y z e " ( C u l l e r , 1977, p, 129), H e argued it was then too soon to determine
realized by virtue of seleciion lo occupy a before or after slot i n a n actualized s y n t a g m a i i c se-
if this broader goal h a d been m e l . Still a valid goal more than a decade later, it is still unclcar
quence. O n l y onc m e m b e r o f a class m a y bc thus r e a l i z e d " ( M . L . Foster, 1980, p. 373).
whether it has been met.
10, T h r e a d g o i d (1986, p. 111) a r g u e d against the terms s y n c h r o n i c a n d d i a c h r o n i c , because they,
of necessity, overlap.
11, See C u l l e r (1977) for further discussion.
12, Sociolinguistics developed in response to the realization that linguists were studying performance,
whereas they h a d thought they were ahlc to study competence. I n fact, it is inordinately difficult
to ever study competence, because all researchers ever have access to is a p a n i c u l a r performance
or, at best, a sei o í performances,
13 W i e d e r (1974/1988, p. 36) p r o \ á d c d a good s u m m a r y of the related sociological concept of "so-
cial facts," I t is the set of social facts that taken together, make u p the social reality described here,
14, See L y n e (1981a, p, 203) for discussion.
15, T h i s is why there has been so m u c h research on children a n d television w i t h i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n ,
See B r y a n t a n d A n d e r s o n (1983); S a l o m o n (1979); a n d G e r b n e r , G r o s s , Eteey, J a c k s o n - B e e c k ,
Jefferies-Fox, a n d Signorelli (1977) for a n introduction to this literature.
16, See M e t z (1974) a n d D e L a u r e t i s (1984).

17, , , , G r o u p s have symbolic codes, or systems of signs, w h i c h give order to the beliefs held
by their m e m b e r s , w h i c h shape lhe development of n e w knowledge in the group at the
same time that they tend to insure that old observations will be repeated, , , . these codes,
like thc conscious codes of i n d i v i d u a i s , represent a condensation of a complex sec of mo-
tives, experiences, knowledge, a n d desire, w h i c h they help to shape a n d express ai the
same time lhat they keep so m u c h of it unsaid a n d below thc surface. ( D o l g i n , K e m n i t z e r ,
& S c h n e i d e r, 1977a, p . 6 )

18, S h u k m a n (1978) documented thc influence o f t h e early A m e r i c a n cybernetics literature on late

Soviet semiotics,
19, S. H a l l (1980) elaborated on the concepts of encoding/decoding, explaining particularly the inap-
propriateness o f t h e traditional telegraph model. H e also provided a sophisticated discussion of
connections to several related pairs of theoretical terms: connotation/denotation, compe-
tence/performance, a n d dominant/subordinate,
20, See 0 ' S u l l i v a n et al, ( i 9 8 3 , p. 2 l 2 ) for elaboration, F u r t h e r discussion o f t h i s idea, labeled aber-
rant decoding by E c o ( 1 9 8 0 ) , becomes r e l e v a m later in l h e chapter,
2 1 , Subcode has largely replaced thc earlier anti-language, proposed by H a l i i d a y as the language used
by a n anti-cuUute, n o w more c o m m o n l y termed a nubordinolt subculture ( H a l i i d a y , 1976).
22, C u l t u r a l S i u d i e s , above all other á r e a s , has given extensive consideration to d i a c h r o n i c analysis
a n d brought it new attention, T h i s research has been influenced i n no small p a n by R a y m o n d
W i l l i a m s (his 1980 collection of essays serves as an easy introduction to his w o r k ),
23, F o r a current adaptation of Bernstein lo c o m m u n i c a t i o n concerns, see Ellis a n d H a m i l t o n (1985),
24, 1 have incorporated discussion from G u i r a u d (1975) a n d F i s k e (1982).
25, See U m i k e r - S e b e o k (1977) for details of the connection beiween semiotics of culture, symbolic
anthropology, i n t è r p r e t i v e anthropology, comparative symbology, a n d mosi recently semiotic a n -
thropology.
26, A complementary new definition o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n , taking l h e nature a n d n u m b e r of codes into
account, w a s assumed by D o n n c U o n w h e n she said, " T h e h u m a n system for interaction is essen-
tially a sei of c o m m u n i c a t i o n codes consiscing of elements a n d rules for the behavioral exchange
o f informatLou. A m o n g the codes commonly used for communication are language, gestures, phys-
ical objects s u c h as sircet signs o r a r c h i i e c i u r e, dance, m u s i c , and so o n " (1986, p. 138).
 Part

From Semiotic Theory to

Communication Behavior

Part 11 ofthis volume supplies examples of particular social codes, intended to ground
the theory presented in Part I . I t has three chapters, each presenting initial analysis
of a separate social code: food, clothing, and objects. E a c h example of a social code
/ has been chosen for the same reasons and serves the same purposes. First,_atf thret
' are basic to human behavior everywhere (everyone eats, wears some form of clothing or
. ornamcntation, and creates some objects). I n all three cases, people could presum-
ably stop with the essential functional role. W e could all wear identical clothing
designed simply to keep us warm , which would certainly be more eíEcient than making
and buying the current variety of garments. However, a n d this is a second reason
- to study these codes, people do not limit the use of these and other social codes lo their primary
1 physical Junctions bui^dd social functions as overlays. Clothing has the physical function'
\g our physical bodies, but we use clothing also to mar k identity, includ-
^ ing such matters as status, gender, a n d age; we wear clothing that is aesthetically
pleasing to ourselves and to others; we indicate mood and expected activities through
clothing. ( T h o u g h incomplete, this list of social functions, all of which clearly move
beyond the purely physical function, should make the point.) T h e fact that people
do not limit the function of clothing to protection is theoretically interesting; it is
something to study, providing a beginning point in understanding human behavior.
A third reason to study food, clothing, and objects is Úiat fooddothingj and objects.
' are clearly utilized asjorms of communication, thus they are appropriate topics for communication
researchers to study. T h e majority of the thcoredcal work in communication explicitly
^ considering seíhiòtics, signs, or codes, analyzes language ahnost exclusively. However,
it is equally possible to apply these concepts to the study of social interaction, Íncor-
porating the study of nonverbeil behavior with the analysis of language. A parallel
to the early study of kinesics, proxemics, and paralanguage can be pointed out,

75
 T o d a y these are understood to be major aspects of á particular part of the field locus for study ofthe meeting point of i n d i v i d u a l identity a n d social identity (one
of c o m m u n i c a t i on a n d granted their o w n label, nonverba l c o m m u n i c a t i o n, wãT^óTcõmBmiíig the Issues of identity a n d change) as w e l l as for the connections
although their potential value remained unrecoghized for m a n y y e a r s . ' F o o d , between public a n d private displays. O b j e c t s ^ a r t i c u l a r l y exemplify the connec-
clothing, a n d objects are largely new, potentially criticai , aspects of the field of tionTbêtween tradition a n d creativity a n d the rela^jpixship Jbetween parts a n d
communication. wfiÕTes. I n each case, the topics presented are initial starting points only; each
F o u r t h a n d finally, food, clothing, and objects provide tangible vehicles for the study topic could be applied to each of lhe sócia! codes, a n d m a n y other topics could
of how reality is socially constructed. Social facts are made visible.in ãíl aspects ofmateri-^ be studied for any of them. B u t these are important themes, thus a reasonable
al culture. T h r o u g h m a n i p u l a t i o n of choices i n social codes such as food, cloth- beginning.
-ing, and objects, we j o i n d y create the social world we inhabit. M i l l e n (1992) pointed A s w i t h semiotics itself, food, clothing, a n d objects are a l l studied elsewhere
out that it is easier, a n d thus more c o m m o n , to discuss the social construction i n the academic divisio n o f t h e reality pie (especially i n folklore, anthropology,
of reality theoretically than to demonstrate it concretely, C h a p t e r s 4-, 5, a n d 6 sociology, history, a n d psychology).^ I t is m y suggestion that they tell the most
provide one response lo the ( v a l i d ) critique that c o m m u n i c a t i o n researchers have about patterns of h u m a n communication.^ A s w i t h semiotics, this requires care-
traditionally done a better j o b of asserting social constructionism than demon- ful thought about w h i c h aspects of these á r e a s should be appropriately studied
strating it, by communicatio n researchers as opposed to other scholars. R a t h e r than attempt-
A t the same time, there is a major distinction between the three social codes i n g to e x p a n d the territory merely for the sake of expansion, c o m m u n i c a t i o n
described here (food, clothing, a n d objects) a n d those traditionally understood researchers must look for the most productive w a y s of studying particular aspects
to be the core of nonverba l c o m m u n i c a t i o n (kinesics, proxemics, a n d paralan- of these three subjects.
|guage). T h e three I have chosen are a l l digital a n d therefore (deceptively2.simple, T h e r e is substantial precedent w i t h i n semiotics, i f not w i t h i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n ,
whereas the early n o n v e r b a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n channels studied are analogic a n d for studying aspects of m a t e r i a l culture, specifically w i t h i n the overlapping tradi-
therefore quite difficult to study. A d d i n g to that difficulty was the early use of tions labeled R u s s i a n F o r m a l i s m , C z e c h S t r u c t u r a l i s m , the Prague School, the
linguistics as a model; A t t e m p t i n g to force analogic nonverbal behavior to i m i - M o s c o w - T a r t u School, a n d most recently Semiotics of C u l t u r e . * Essentially
tate digital speech posed a major problem for researchers. these authors, beginning from a n interest i n linguistics, m o v e d to an interest i n
F o r a l l three social codes presented here, the same basic questions are of cen- literature, then to art a n d theater, a n d fiUídly to the semiotic aspects of social
tral concern: a n d cultura l behavior.^ T h e s e moves are not apparent i n the research of any one
scholar nor alway s c a r r i e d out completely; this is m y s u m m a r y of the logical
1. W h y should food/clothing/objects be studied as a form of communication? progression ofthe w o r k . O n e ofthe most influential aulhors w a s Pet r B o g a t y r e v
( 1 9 3 7 / 1 9 7 1 , 1936/1976a, 1936/1976b), p r i m a r i l y through the early influence of
2. W h a t theory should be used to study food/clothing/objects? and
his study of clothing on F r e n c h semiotic theory.^ A n o t h e r particularly significam
3. W h a t exactly should be studied? author was Y u r i L o t m a n , whose major interests expanded beyond language to
everyday behavior as a semiotic system (1970 , 1985, 1990).^
M y answer to Q u e s t i o n 1 has essentially been provided by the discussion to this B e c a u s e j ò o d ^ - d o t h i n g , and-objeets share so m u c h , they are sometimes grouped
point. T h e y are a l l basic to h u m a n behavior everywhere ; they are a l l given social f together under {hg^^^mn -term D e p e n d i n g o n the author, the term of choice is
functions i n addition to their p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l functions; a l l are arguably forms ' either folklife orbnaíerial cultive,Jãxhouijh material culture is sometimes used i p . â .
of c o m m u n i c a t i o n , yet a l l have been largely bypassed by current c o m m u n i c a t i o n more reetrictive s e a a C J y a - ^ f é r only to objects.^ W h i c h e y e r t e r m is chosen, the
studies, basic assumption that " W e are m a t e r i a l people , . . constrained . . . to prowl
M y answer to Question 2 is obviously that semiotics provides the appropriate the w o r l d of m a t t e r " (Ingersoll & B r o n i t s k y , 1987, p . x i ) provides the logic un-
starting point, else this w o u l d have been a different v o l u m e . Semiotics is certain- d e r l y i n g continued attention to these topics. Despite their intrinsic interest, very
ly not the only approach to use i n studying these or a n y other social codes, but few people are interested in m a t e r i a l culture for its o w n sake (even art historians
i l is a v a l i d a n d appropriate one a n d the one of concern here, W i t h i n semiotic a n d archaeologists are m o v i n g a w a y from this position); rather, th^e^study it i n
theory, I have found p a r t i c u l a r strands more useful t h a n others a n d stress these rOrdfiiUQjiiaíXiTi hpw„s_ocial. realilÍÊS-are shaped a n d given form, how experience
in the following chapters, ^ i s g i y e o . order.^ ,
M y answer to Questio n 3 is differenl for each chapter, though there Ís some T h e physical things people make, whether these are meais, items of clothing,
overlap, Issues of identity a n d social change are stressed for food, as exemplars houses, or letter openers, are m a t e r i a l manifestations ofthe social realities under-
of synchronic and diachronic analysis respectively. C l o t h i n g serves well as a
/o 11. J-KUM btMlLíl lU I H l i U K Y 1 U U U M I V J U I M U A 1 lUIN 1511,11 A V l U K

slood to be relevant and powerful; therefore they are appropriate topics for analysts presented i n the first part o f t h e v o l u m e . I n addition, each chapter specifically
who wish to study how reality is socially constructed. T h e material w o r l d is one illusirates several of the concepts introduced in P a n I .
part of social reality, a n d as researchers we miss a fme opportunity i f we neglect T h i s part of the v o l u m e should be easy reading, for it reframes semiotic the-
it as a resource. A s the social-cultural w o r l d is niade up.pf a co0lbÍDjiUilQ-Q£jhÊ- ory through thc use of details of everyday life, m i n o r i n and of themselves,
immaterial (ideas ancfwords) a n d the material (things), it is a n advantage to study but significant ín what they reveal to us about ourselves a n d others. A c c o r d i n g
both.'" S i u d y i n g material aspects of culture is both easier (because they are so^ to B a r t h e s :
clearly visible) a n d harder (because they distract, taking a w a y froro a_çoçisidera-
tion of the social into the physical characteristics of w h i c h e v e r material object is T o decipher the worJd's signs always means to struggle with a certain innocence
the focus) than studying oral aspects of c u l t u r e . " of objects, We all understand our language so " n a i u r a l l y " that it never occurs to
M a t e r i a l culture codes serve as a p a r t i c u l a r l y oblique means of c o n v e y i n g i n - us that it is an extremely complicated system, one anything but " n a t u r a l " í n its
formation, allowing culture " t o insinuate its behefs and assumptions into the v e r y signs and rules: in the same way, it requires an incessant shock of observation in
fabric of daily life, there to be appreciated but not o b s e r v e d " ( M c C r a c k e n , 1988, order to deal not with the content of messages bui with their making: in short, the
p. 6 9 ) . T h e i r mundane nature permits food, clothing, and objecis to convey mes- semiologist, like thc linguist, must enter lhe ' 'kitchen of m e a n i n g , ( B a r t h e s, 1988,
sages effectively, yet quietly, without calling undue attention to what has been p. 158)
conveyed. T h u s , for e x a m p l e , they function particularl y well as s t a t i i s m a r k e r s
when staius difiercnces are important to a culture simultaneously espousing a W i t h Barthes, I argue that semiotics can aid the search for m e a n i n g in h u m a n
rhetoric of equality, such as modern-day A m e r i c a , where a n exphcit, linguistic behavior. L i f e consists of a multitude of concrete behaviors, each seemingly
a s s í g n i h e n i of status w o u l d not be tolerated. meaningless or at least insignificant b u i w h e n combined, they provide m e a n i n g
F o o d , clothing, a n d objects have the added advantage" of being codes with i n lives. U l t i m a t e l y , " d e t a i l is the essence of the m a t t e r " ( L e a c h , 1976, p, 9 5 ) ,
low m u t u a l intelligibility: that i s , the m e m b e r s of small groups w i t h i n the larger a n d the details w i l l provide i l l u m i n a t i o n . O n l y by deciding to enter what Barthes
c u l t u r e u s e elaboration i n different ways, k n o w i n g only how to decode the con- termed the kitchen of meaning, that place where m e a n i n g is prepared or " c o o k e d "
ventions of their o w n group. T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y the case for age-grading: m y a n d where the recipes themselves are kept, c a n one interpret behavior.
son know s how to decode slight distinctions i n h a i r style a n d clothing combi- I n keeping w i t h the goaJ of using semiotics lo study everyday behavior, the
nations that I barely recognize as meaningfully different a n d cannot interpret. following chapters make use of a wide range of examples taken from popular liter-
O b v i o u s l y he has learned to make such distinctions w i t h i n his peer group and ature a n d newspapers as well as more traditional academic studies. T h i s is a
not from his parents. S u c h m i n u t e gradations in m e a n i n g , such subtiety, is to deliberate attempi to insure that the potentially threaiening nature of semiotic
lhe advantage of the childre n who manipulate the details, for it permits thera a theory be brought down to size through the use of topical and popular examples,
realm of their o w n , a w a y from adults, where they can practice their i n t è r p r e t i v e B y i n c l u d i n g t h e m , I hope to w i d e n the scope of w h a t can be done w i t h semiotic
skills. theory. Semiotic theory applics equally well to s m a l l , i n f o r m a l , yet still patterned
A s Bogatyrev pointed out, there is a basic difference between examples of activities w i t h i n culture as lo large, formalized events such as rituais, Because
language or v e r b a l art, where words function soiely as signs, and examples of traditionally large ritual events have been the major focus o f attention, m y em-
material culture, where i n d i v i d u a l items have a dual existence: T h e y are first con- phasis here is on the everyday.'^
crete objects a n d l c c õ n d T s i g n s (1936/1976b , p. 3 1 ) . T h e result is that the study I n the following chapters, participants are assumed to take a n active role i n
of materia l culture requires particular care, lest its physical nature obscure or dis- c o n d u c l i n g their lives: " m a k i n g choices a n d decisions, following strategies,
tract from its social implications . Because the p h y s i c a l characteristics of clothing, negotiating, a n d i m p r o v i s i n g " ( S h a r m a n , T h e o p h a n o , C u r t i s , & Messer, 1991,
food, and objccts are self-evident, it is possible to overlook the more important p. 6 ) . Before the analyst a r r i v e s , the participants establish their o w n meanings,
social meanings each conveys. I n a w a y , studying language is far simpler, be- created for themselves a n d their friends, not for latecomer analysts. E a c h person
cause there is no distracting p h y s i c a l object but only the sign aspect available í o r composes his or her own life ( M . C . Bateson, 1990). I f people create nothing else
study. requiring artistic lalent, at least everyone participates in ihis one creative endeavor,
S e r v i n g the purposes of this v o l u m e , each ofthe three chapters in P a r t I I pro- T h e element of creativity lies p r i m a r i l y in the w a y s we each choose to recombine
vides an e x e m p l a r of a single social code. O b v i o u s l y there are more t h a n three old cultura l elements into new wholes. I t should come as no surprise, then, that
in use, hut it is impossible to adequately describe a l l thc potential social codes. semiotics, a theory used to study other creative endeavors suc h as literature, w i l l
A t least p r o v i d i ng these examples should demonstrate how to apply the theory prove valuable i n studying the creation of social m e a n i n g in everyday life.
80 II, FROM SEMIOTIC THEORY T O COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR

NOTES H i r s c h separated out a subset of what might otherwise potentially be included in lhe category
of material culture ihat he termed cultural products or nonmattiial goods ( 1 9 9 1 , p. 315). H i s distinc-
tion between those h u m a n creations having a n aesthetic or expressive function (such as books,
1. GoodalJ made a similar argument w h e n he described those aspects of nonverbal behavior iiguring
movies, or plays) that he termed cultural products and those with only a utjliiarian function (such
in organizational culture but not yet included in the studies of organizational c o m m u n i c a t i o n . H e
as food, clothing, and delergenis) that he d i d not label but only excluded from the realm of what
specifically mentioned clothing, accessories, and mariipulations of objccts on offices or homes (1990,
h c considered is i n i r i g u i n g , H o w e v e r , his system really only makes sense if thc multiple functions
p. 73).
of what he termed utititarian creations are ignored (that is, if food is assumed to have no aesthetic
2. O n the whole, references to these arcas are given i n the chapters that follow. S p e a k i n g of the more
funcdon, no social function, e t c ) , a position I find untenable. T h u s , food, clothing, and objects
general interest in material culture described by R u t z a n d O r l o v e (1989), economic anthropology
(as well as other potential candidates) are equally cultural prtxlucts.
e u r r c m l y has considerable interest in consumption leading to detailed studies of food, clothing,
9. Glassie, here described only buildings, but his semiment holds true for other material forms as well:
a n d shelter (it is surprising that objects more generally do not find their way into this list). See
also A p p a d u r a i (1986b); D o u g l a s and Isherwood (1979); B a u d r i l l a r d (1981). A good general his- A l l things embody their creators a n d become for the period of their existence active im-
tory of the study of material aspects of culture within anthropology is found in F e n t o n (1974). ages of their creators' wishes, I n this, buildings are like other cultural things and there
3. V a r i o u s authors have c o m m e n t e d on the way in w h i c h these material forms serve to communicate; are no differences among kinds of building, V e r n a c u l a r , nonvernacular, ncovernacular—all
see, G l a s s i e , who used L e v i - S t r a u s s to suggest that " a case . . . c a n bc made for the study of cul- are cuhural ways to create, orderings of experience, like poems, like rituais, (Glassie, 1987,
ture as lhe study of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . . , for culture is patterned ideas that can be comprehended p, 231)
only after b e h a v i o r " (1973. p. 337). B r o n n e r poinied out that folklorists today actively look at
material culture as a form of c o m m u n i c a t i o n (1985c, p. 145). 10. " C u l t u r e is not a purely ideational structure tucked a w a y in che privacy of thc individual b r a i n ,
but it is an ongoing, creative endeavor, the reality of which is located in its euiiing edge, ihc
4. F o r an introduction to these arcas, sec E r l i c h (1969); L u c i d (1977); M a i e j k a and P o m o r s k a (1971);
artifact" (Richardson. 1987, p, 399). Material culture has been variously called "the vehicle through
M a t e j k a . Shiskoff, S u i n o . & T i t u n i k (1977); M a t e j k a and T i t u n i k (1976); Steiner (1978); Stried-
w h i c h social structures ajid cultural categories achieve existence" ( R i c h a r d s o n , 1974, p. 6), and
ter (1989); W i n n e r a n d W i n n e r (1976); W i n n e r a n d U m i k e r - S e b e o k (1979); W i n n e r (1986); see
"the product and rcsidue o f t h e ihoughts a n d behavior of its [a socieiy's] m e m b e r s " ( D w y e r ,
also the entry under " C u l t u r e " in Sebeok (1986b). Although R u s s i a n F o r m a l i s m a n d C z e c h Struc-
1975, p. 5 ) .
turalism are generally credited as significant forms of literary critique and occasionally as critique
of art, they are not as often acknowledged as presenting valuable insights into the study of culture. 1 1 . G l a s s i e emphasized the value of studying material culture: " T h e artifaci is as direct a n expres-
I n keeping with this, most of the books cited previously treat these groups of scholars as literary sion, as true to the m i n d , as dear to the soul, as language, a n d , what is more, i l bodies forth
critics. feclings, thoughts, a n d experiences elusive co l a n g u a g e " ( 1 9 9 1 , p. 255).

Semiotics of C u l t u r e is a bit differenl from the other á r e a s , being a m o d e r n reincarnatio n and 12. M c C r a c k e n made a similar point b u i went on to argue that material culture is exceedingly Iimit-

less clearly Iimited to literature: It "attends to aspects of all sign syslems in culture as they interre- ed in what ic c a n express, particularly being unable to express " i r o n y , metaphor, skepdcism,

late" ( W i n n e r , 1986, p. 183). F r a n c o e u r (1985) attempted to combine lhe semiotics of cuhure with ambivaicnce , surprise, reverence, or heartfeli h o p e " ( i 9 8 8 , p, 69), I disagree, suggesting that

more tradicional formal semiotics, though he was not entireiy successful. S h u k m a n (1978) provid- the problem lies in considering individual signs alone; w h e n lhe entire code is considered, such

e d a s u m m a r y o f t h e later R u s s i a n semiotic research, although this tends to emphasize literalure complex messages can indeed be conveyed effectively. Witness the ability of a formal business

over other cultural forms. suit slit up the thigh to convey ambivalenee ( D u Plessix G r a y , 1981),
13. T h i s is in keeping with the stated goals o f t h e semiotics of culture that also recognizes these two
5. E v e n though rauch of thc discussion of culture writ large is incomplete, it is no less valuable and
leveis of textual analysis ( W i n n e r , 1986. p. 184).
should be read. S o m e useful discussion of thc stages described here is provided in G a s p a r o v (1965),
6. B o g a t y r e v ' » early work was inHuential because his interests rangcd far beyond M o r a v i a n Slovakia
as a location and far beyond costume as a subject for analysis, T h o u g h his topics were always quite
specific, his interests were always general, as is clear from í h e more abstraci comment s included
i n his studies ( J 9 3 6 / 1 9 7 6 a , 1 9 3 6 / I 9 7 6 b ) .
7. See also L o t m a n (1970, 1990); J a n M u k a r o v s k y (1977, 1978); V l a d i m i r P r o p p (1928/1968); B ó r i s
U s p e n s k y (1973); U s p e n s k y et al, (1973); R o m a n J a k o b s o n ( 1 9 7 I t ) .
8. A s aspects of folklife studied b y folklorists, all three owe m u c h of thcir current popularicy to D o n
Y o d e r ' s early sponsorship. Y o d e r (1989) provided a good seleciion of his work.
F o r a s u m m a r y of the range of what can be included u n d e r che r u b r ic material culture, see
B r o n n e r (1985a);

A craft, a house, a food, that comes from one's hands or heart, Qne's shared experience
with othcr people in a c o m m u n i t y , one's learned ideas a n d symbols, viaibly connects per-
sons a n d groups to society and to the material reality a r o u n d (hem, T h a t interconnection
is material culture. M a t e r i a l culture is mad e up of tangible things crafted, shaped, altered,
a n d used acrL>3s time and across space. I t is iiiherendy personal a n d social, mental and phys-
ical I l is a n , architecture. food, clothing, and furnishing, B u t more so, ít is the weave of
these objects in the everyday lives of individuais and c o m m u n i l i e s, (p. 3)
126 5. C L O T H I N G AS SIGN A N D C O D E

c a n afford the cost but who do not really need the additional characteristics for which they are
paying. I f one does not intend to go h i k i n g and rafting, one really does not need supplex nylon
( k n o w n for its ability to resist tears and d r y q u i c k l y ) , but the fabric has a distinctive look and
feel, and is now popular, regardless of its intended function. T h o s e who wear these items out Chapter
of their intended function m a y be frustrated nature lovcrs stuck indoors, or m a y simply be dis-
playing arcane knowledge a n d conspicuous c o n s u m p t i o n.
3 1 . F o r documentation of the w a y i n w h i c h p i e r c i n g a single ear has m o v e d to piercing other body

Objects as Sign and Code

parts a n d interviews with those who choose to be pierced, see T r i s h H a l l (1991).
32. L ò n n q v i s t (1979 , p. 101) described the use of clothing to m a r k the transition from child to adult
a m o n g the gypsies of N o r w a y ; sec also T a m a r H o r o w i t z (1982) on the role played by clothing
in adolescencc.
33. See de M a r l y (1986) for a n extensive discussion of the connections between clothing and occupation.
34. See R . T . H o r o w i t z (1975) for a good introductory bibliography.
35. R . T , H o r o w i t z (1975) provided a n example of this approach i n a n a l y z i n g class differences i n
fashion in B r i t a in in the 1960s.
36. T h e " c o a t n a p p i n g " that resulted in the m u r d e r o f t h e teen-ager w e a r i n g the coat someone else
desired as described i n T u e r i n a a n d E d m u n d (1992) is unfortunately but one recent example of
the way in w h i c h clothing c a n become a n excuse for violence.
37. T h e choice of traditional cloth a n d traditional clothing was not happenstance but criticai: T h e
B r i d s h m a n d a t e d that í n d i a grow cotton but send it to E n g l a n d for w e a v i n g and then buy back
the finished cloth at great expense. G a n d h i wanted to break the cycle by h a v i n g the cloth woven
in í n d i a .
38. See P a y n e (1969, pp. 4 1 3 - 4 1 4 ) for further description of the meeting at B u c k i n g h a m Palace.
Objects are the most varied and nuraerous of the social codes, covering lhe widest
39. F o r further discussion of G a n d h i a n d the deliberate m a n i p u l a t i on of clothing as c o m m u n i c a t i o n , range. A n y t h i n g made by h u m a n hands for h u m a n purposes can be considered
see B a y l y (1986); M e r r i a m (1975), a n object, thus the topic is broad, i n c l u d i n g e v e r y t h i n g from household items
40. B e a n (1989, pp, 3 6 6 - 3 6 7 ) supplied greater detail than that given for each of his costumes here, (teapots) lo r i t u a l items (candlesticks), from gifts ( c h i l d r e n ' s birthday presents)
41. G i t t i n g e r presents one example: to buildings (houses). C l o t h i n g technically fits the description of something made
A m o n g che B a t ak [of S u m a t r a ] there is a h i e r a r c h i c a l structuring that determines the ap- by h u m a n s for h u m a n s a n d fits i n this category as w e l l , but by convention it is
propriateness of a certain type of gift textile r e l a t í v e to the age and social status of the deemed sufficiently important to merit separate consideration. Objects accompa-
receiver, a n d the occasion. T h e most sacred a n d prestigious of all textiles is the ragidup, ny food (the refrigerator it is stored i n , the pots it is cooked i n , the dishes it is
a dark cloth with white patterned end paneis. T h i s is the most important gift the bride's
served i n , the table it is eaten o n ) , a n d clothing (the hangers a n d drawers used
father bestows upon the groom's mother d u r i n g the w e d d i n g ceremony. It is a statement
ofthe bridc-giver's superior status a n d protective and fructifying role. T h e sibolang, a tex-
for storing the clothes, the objects w o r n w i t h the clothing called accessories, the
tile that goes to lhe father o f t h e groom, has a s i m i l a r significance. Paralleling these two suitcases containing the clothes when traveling). A n d some few straddle the bound-
in relacive prestige, but i m b u e d with a slightly different character is the mgi hiilang, which ary between clothing a n d object: I n w h i c h category do masks f i l , for e x a m p l e ? '
is the highest-ranked textile to be given to the bride a n d groorn. (Gittinger, 1979, pp. 9 5 ,
W h e r c v e r people go a n d whatever they do, they m a k e objecis for their o w n
101)
use. L i k e food, some objects are physically necessary (shelter to protect from the
Note here that tradition prescribes particula r types of cloth be given to all of the significant play- weather, tools for agriculture, needles for sewing). Objects are a h u m a n
ers i n the ceremony, / u n i v e r s a l — e v e r y group makes some sort of objects for themselves, though the
42. T h i s is true of the T u a r e g , w h e r e men wear veils to create a degree of distance between self and
f categories v a r y widely. Some a n i m a i s are capable of m a k i n g tools, though none
other, a barrier to the i n t i m a c y otherwise unavoidable due to the overlapping uf social roles iu
i "produce the profusion of objects accompanying h u m a n seldement. T h u s , the term
this group ( M u r p h y , 1964),
i^^Ómo j ^ í à people as makers a n d u s e r ^ q f objects, is a n appropriate appellation.
/ CTnlike food that is consumed a n d clothing that goes out of fashion or is out-
/ grown only to be discarded, objecis are notable for their duration . " T h e objeci
I clenves power from its f i x i t y " said B r o n n e r (1986, p. 2 ) , U n l e s s they have been
1 victims of lire or w a r , most people, no matter h o w poor, have at least some ob-
V jects i n their possession that have beenjlxeit s for years i f not decades a n d value
them a p p r o p r i a t e l y T T h e s c range from a grandparent's furniture lo a n uncle's

127
 Q UBJUC AS SIGN A N D C O D E INTRODUCTION 129

baseball cards, from w e d d i n g gifts lo a childhood luck y c h a r m . I n a n y case, they biography of a person, thus, the questions one must ask are comparable: W h a t
serve m u l t j p í e purposes, at least one of w h i c h is to help shape a particular version ãfíTThi. pusiiUiUliríTlTiTierent i n the period a n d culture, where does i l come from,
of thc past as people prefer to remember it. who made ít, what has been its career so far, what is the ideal career for such
T h e r e are m a n y types of objects. A n object can be any one of the following; gtthingj how does íls use change w i t h age, a n d w h a t happens whe n it is no longer
a tool (useful for something), a commodily ( h a v i n g excKange v a l u e ) ; òr""â'sí^'(ííãv - u s e ^ ? (1986, p. 66),
ing social value).^ O r it c a n be a l l of these at once. O b v i o u s l y objects i n tfieir E x e m p l í f y i n g how to folíow the biography of a n object, N e m y described how
role as signs are of greatest interest i n this chapter. Objects are valuable for their a p a r t i c u l a r bassinet m o v e d ín a n d between a small group of family members and
connection to the past,* for their connection to the supernatural,* for w h a t they friends over several decades. S u c h movement is possible because no one really
reveal about the use of technology,^ or social stratification,'' but most of all for needs a bassinet for more than about 6 months; at that t í m e , the baby has grown
their ability to m a k e values, ideas, a n d assumptions concrete. People create ob- a n d moves on to a c r i b . So the bassinet becomes available for use w i t h lhe next
jects for their o w n use, í n c o r p o r a t i n g those meanings of importance to them, yet baby. I n traditional societies with m a n y children ín each family, one famíly m í g h t
by their very nature, objects i n t u r n change people, c o n s t r a í n i n g future behavior use a bassinet or its equivalent m a n y times; i n the modern-day U n i t e d States it
based on past a s s u m p t i o n s . ' I f one buys a table a n d four chairs, the table and is hardly w o r t h the price of purchase for the one or two children per family. T h u s ,
c h a i rs embody a n assumption as to how m a n y people one n o r m a l l y expecis to the bassinet i n this story was available for loan to extended family a n d friends.
feed at one time . C o n s e q u e n t l y, w i t h growth a n d change one must replace past, A s this bassinet moved a r o u n d . it developed a reputation as a good lurk c h a r m ;
c o n s t r a í n i n g objccts w i t h new ones more suited to current choices. more importandy, it served to m a r k the boundaries of a friendship network. Those
Different, o v e r l a p p i n g terms are used i n the study of objects. O n e is Tnalerial included ín the network liked the bassinet for that very reason: one ofthe molhers
culture, the broadest t e r m , that actually refers to any concrete manifestation of who borrowed it reported ' ' 1 liked the idea of something used by friends and friends
culture (food a n d clothing are i n c l u d e d i n this broader t e r m ) , though aõmetímes^ of f r i e n d s " ( N e m y , 1989, p. Y 2 9 ) .
used i n a w a y i m p l y i n g a more l í m i i e d scope. T h i s l e r m already has been used O t h c r objects setvejisajdej2SDV£Sll.£en^ rather than across a kin/friend-
ín the I n t r o d u c t i on to P a r t I I i n accord w i t h its most frequent m e a n i n g as a cover ship network. E v e n so mundane a n object as a baseball can serve as a reposiiory
terra inclusive of all materia l manifestations o f culture a n d so is not available here of m e m o r y . I n this case, the issue ís not to m a i n t a i n possession of a particular
for use i n the more I i m i t e d sense of objects alone. A more specifíc t e r m reserved baseball (for baseballs wear out faster than bassinets a n d are cheaper and easier
j u s t for objects, though less c o m m o n , is artifacts (alternately, ar^jsjmis'). M a t e r i a l to replace) but to remember the act of t h r o w i n g a baseball between p a r e m a n d
culture a n d artifacts h a v e been the terms of choice ín folklore, i n anthropology, child. A s one participant ín such a chain reported, " M y dad a n d m y boys a n d
i n " A m e r i c a n civilization siudies, a n d in history.^ A n o t h e r term used^,i^,^g(j;f?jfcf I are a l l linked by this simple act of t h r o w i n g a r o u n d , white bali w i t h raised red
referring p r i m a r i l y co economic possibilities, v i e w i n g objects as commodities to seams. W e are connectcd by the are ít traveis from parent to child, across genera-
be bõugHt a n d iraded a n d given away; tííis usage is preferred by either economists tions a n d t i m e " ( R o w e n , 1992, p. 2 4 ) . C l e a r l y here lhe use o f t h e object, rather
or economic anthropologists.' T h e s e aulhors hold that "commodities, like per- than any i n t r i n s i c characteristics, makes it memorable.
sons, have social l i v e s " ( A p p a d u r a i , 1986a, p. 3) a n d take it as their task to study Sometimes it ís neither ih^object nor its use that is foregrounded but the place-
those lives. T h e more c a s u a l term things also refers lo objects as a category, often ment ofthe object into.a collection,'^ A classic example from literature is L a u r a ' s
as a s y n o n y m for w h a t e v er more technical l e r m is used first.'*' C o n v e n t i o n a l l y collection of glass a n i m a i s i n The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee W i l l i a m s . A sur-
the study oí human habitation is separated from lhe study of objects, ihough it would prising n u m b e r of people have collections, r a n g i n g from art objects collecied by
also fit w i t h i n the basic definition, H o u s e s , villages, and cities are a l l important the wealthy a n d e v e n t u a l í y given to art m u s e u ms for everyone to appreciate to
enough to merit their o w n analysis, A r c h i í e c t s , city planners, archaeologists, and baseball cards collecied by y o u n g boys, occasionally sold for profit. Predictably
occasional folklorists are the p r i m a r y authors of studies in ihese á r e a s . " M y term there are age a n d gender differences i n w h a t people collect: " m e n collect images
of choice is objects, as the broadest t e r m available , of power; w o m en collect the diminutive and the domestic" ( S a l m a n s , 1989, p. 5 F ) .
L i k e food a n d clothing, one advantage of studying objects ís the range of topics I n a l l of these studies, the authors assumed that " t h i n g s have no meanings
available, T h í s is a complex social code w í t h m a n y parts open lo interpretation, apart from those that h u m a n transactions, attributions, a n d m o l i v a t i o n s endow
F r o m the makers who produce the objects, to the details ofthe objects themselves them w i t h " ( A p p a d u r a i , l 9 8 6 a , p. 5 ) . T h u s , social scientists study objects not
i n c l u d i n g history a n d cultural v a r i a t i o n , to their movement from m a k e r to con- for their abstract aesthetic characteristics but as vehicles capable of conveying hu-
sumer, to their use in context, there is more than enough materia l available to m a n meanings. T i j e j o c i a l j n e ^ m n g s given to objects. do not necessarily have any
s t u d y . K o p y i o f f pointed out lhat the b i o g r a p h j of a n object is s i m | Í a r J o t l ^ direct connection to their physical attributes, for objects are " o n l y one p a n — t h e
130 fi. OBJECTS AS SIGN AND C O D E 131

least ephemeral and most perceptible part—of a d y n a m ic process of h u m a n thought O t h e r s m a y not be so w i l l i n g to describe physical objects as myths, but it is good
a n d a c t i o n " ( M . O . J o n e s , 1975, p . 12). I t is a mistake to assume that m e a n i n g to be reminded that people react not to the physical objeci but to its social i m p l i -
lies i n the object itself, for as is the case w i t h the elements of other social codes, cations. Because objects so obviously have physical boundaries, it is easy to think
objects serve only as the m é d i u m through w h i c h m e a n i n g is conveyed. Objects joi l h e m as discrete units, but their social meanings appear w h e n they are used
" a r e part ofthe symbolic process that continuously recreares the world by impos- \n connection w i i h other objects, i n systems of meanings; thus, it is useful to con-
i n g m e a n i n g a n d order on i t " ( U p t o n , 1985, p . 8 7 ) . çider them as m y t h s . B a u d r i l l a r d ' s phrase " b u n d l e of r e l a t i o n s " appropriately
emphasizes lhe combination of concepts existing i n a n y one concrete object. A t
one and the same time I m a y consider the teapot I a m using to be functional (it
holds the tea), to be aesthetically pleasing (it is beautifuUy designed), and to be
O B J E C T S AS S E M I O T I C S
a m e m o r y j o g ( i t was a gift from a p a r t i c u l a r friend), T h e s e various meanings
do not take a w a y from each other; they j o i n together to multiply the teapot's value
Objects have been m i n i m a J I y touched by semiotic theory over the past 30 years for me. ''^
a n d widely ignored before that. Levi-Strauss a n d Barthes are cited as grandfathers W i t h i n semiotics there have been several overviews ( K r a m p e n , 1979a, 1979b,
In the field; despite this, their comments are brief, more suggestive than com- 1986; N ò t h , 1990, pp. 4 4 0 - 4 4 5 ) a n d infrequent studies of particular types of ob-
plete. ^ x v i ^ S t r a u s ^ ç o n s i d e r e d objects one part of culture, as most anthropolo- jects such as flags ( W e i t m a n , 1973) or m a s k s ( O g i b e n i n , 1975), b u í surprisingly
gists do n o w arid a l w a y s hav e done, m e n t i o n i n g them occasionally but rarely little concerted discussion of what a semiotics of objecis w o u l d entail a n d surpris-
choosing them as the subject of a major discussion. H e is generally cited for his ingly few extended case studies.'* Incidentally, these authors generally do exactly
concept of bricolage, the creation of new m e a n i n g through recombinations of preex- w h a i B a r t h e s w a r n e d against, t a k i n g lhe metaphor of language quite literally.
isting elements, though he emphasized myths more t h a n concrete objects eyen P r o b a b l y the most suggestive application of semiotic theoiy lo objects is found
here (1966b, pp. 1 6 - 2 1 ) . i n the early R u s s i a n semiotics of culture, t a k i n g objects to be a significam part
I n his early w r i t i n g s , Barthes used objects as a n example of how to apply semi- of the m a t e r i a l w o r l d , available for study w i t h food a n d clothing ( a n d numerous
otic theory, m u c h as he used food a n d clothing; however, they never b e c a j í i c a other aspects of culture passed over here), T o k a r e v s u m m a r i z e d this approach
topic in their own right. I n a recent publication of a 1964 oral presentation ( [ ^ ^ d i e s j í w e l l , stressing l h a t an object lives through í h e people w h o use it: " A material
' g a v e his most complete comments on objects, pointing out that \*there j i a l w ã ^ _ , object c a n n o l interest the ethnographer unless he considers its social e x i s t e n c e , /
a m e a n i n g w h i c h overflows the object's u s e " ( 1 9 8 8 , p. 182). T h i s , of course, is its relationship lo man—to the person who created it a n d the person who m a k e s
w h y objects are a n appropriate semiotic subject. T h e y serve not merely a s j í h y s i - use of i l " ( 1 9 8 5 , p. 79). H i s comments are brief b u i suggestive; there is appar-
c a l constructions but as social constructions. T h e r e are two other p a r t í c u l a r l j M n - ently an extensive literalure yet fo be translated into E n g l i s h , I n a long list of
teresting points i n this piece by B a r t h e s : ( a ) H e w a r n e d specifically against the what has been studied w i t h i n the Soviet tradition to date, T o k a r e v included all
use of linguistics as a model for the study of objects, suggesting that " t h e isolated ofthe obvious topics: connections between material culture a n d the natural world,
object is already a sentence" (1988, p . 186); a n d ( b ) he stressed the polysemous _ link to economic pursuits, ethnic traditions, geography, gender, age, social struc-
nature of objects, a r g u i n g this characteristic is even greater than for other types ture, class, religion , aesthetics, a n d social change. H e concluded w i t h a reminder
of signs--—^.^^^^ to emphasize material objects not as intrinsicaUy interesting creations but in their
' B a u d r i l l a r d ^ generally credited w i t h h a v i n g done the most to analyze objects " s o c i a l a s p e c t , " thg.way^s iri w h i c h h u m a n relations are realized through materi- ^
froifi~thê"vmwpoint of semiotics, developing some of the i n i t i a l comments by al objects, p a r t i c u l a r l y lhe w a y s i n w h i c h í h e y serve as a means both of uniting
Barthes. H e pointed out that objects serve best as a focus for social meanings, and of segregating people.
not in a n d óf themselves a n appropriate focus of study:

T h e empirical "object," given in its contingency of form, color, material, function O B J E C T S AS C O M M U N I C A T I O N

/, and discourse (or, i f it is a cultural object, in its aesthetic fmality) is a myth. How
; often h has been wished away! But the object is nothing. It is nodiing but the differ-
T h e earliest nonverbal c o m m u n i c a t i o n text, R u e s c h a n d K e e s ( 1 9 5 6 ) , included
ent types of relations and significations that converge, contradict themselves, and
a n entire chapter on objects. U s i n g photographs í o demonstrate their s í a l e m e n i s ,
twist arxiund it, as such—the hidden logic that not only arranges this bundle of rela-
tions, but directs thc manifest discourse that overlays and occludes it. (Baudrillard, they emphasized p r i m a r i l y the w a y s i n w h i c h people arrange objects to display
\, p. 62) order and disorder, pointing out that people shape their surroundings to introduce
 132 6 OBJECTS AS SIGN A N D C O D E OBJECTS: F R O M SIGN T O SOCIAL CODE 133

order. O n e characteristic of order is a r r a n g i n g paris into a whole, a n d iheir pho- E v e n the most m u n d a n e objects convey meanings. D e s c r i b i n g N e w Y o r k in
tographs capture different presentations of parts into v a r i o u s wholes. T h e y used the 1930s, I r v i n g H o w e pointed out, " T o read the News meant that y o u belonged,
the metaphor of language fairly literally, defending it by the argument that the it was a paper for p l e b e í a n s on the r u n ; to read the Times signaled alien y e a m -
" e x c h a n g e o f messages codified i n m a t e r i a l terms fulfills a l l the criteria of lan- ings, perhaps some visio n of getting a w a y . N o one made s u c h things explicit, no
g u a g e " (1956, p. 8 9 ) . one needed t o " (cited in B r a u n s t e i n & J o s e l i l , 1 9 9 1 , p. 15). I n a similar v e i n ,
R e c e n i collections of readings i n nonverbal c o m m u n i c a t i o n v e r y occasionally R a p o p o r t pointed out, " I f I a m a 'good' person i n the U S I have a nice front
include one or two articles on objects. K a t z and K a t z ( I 9 8 3 a ) , for example, i n - l a w n , i n P e r u a n elaborate front door, i n Puerto R i c o an appropriate metal g r i l l e "
cluded a brief seleciion from a book by M i c h a e l K o r d a , discussing the use of ob- (1982, PP- 28-29).^" I f newspapers a n d front doors convey m e a n i n g , h o w m u c h
jects as staius m a r k e r s i n the business w o r l d . M o r e recently, objecta have been more might be conveyed by the objects people privilege as important?
studied w i t h i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n as products, looking at the extent to w h i c h adver- T h e basic question in studying objects, as w i t h other forms of material c u l -
tisements successfully i m p l y j u d g m e n t about people's character traits based on ture, c a n be phrased as, " W h i c h information does a culture choose to c o m m u n i -
brands ( B a r a n , M o k , L a n d , & K a n g , 1989). Advertisements, of course, are cate a n d to w h o m ? " O n e reasonable answer proposed is " a c o m m u n i c y ' s historie
deliberately designed to m a g i c a l ly attach social a n d personal meanings w i t h par- perception of its i m p e l l i n g problems in the context of its value system and its i m -
ticular objecis and do successfully so function ( R a y m o n d W i l l i a m s , 1980a, p. age of the w o r l d " and " h o w , according to the group*s experience in lhe course
185).'^ I n addition, there have been a few recent studies of objecis as a form of of t i m e , those problems m a y be r e s o l v e d " ( T h o m p s o n , 1969, p. 332). T h o m p s o n
c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h i n organizations, bu i these have been as slighi Ín their theo- suggested that the answers are hidden i n the codes of a c u l t u r e ' s variou s symbolic
retical conclusions as in their impact on the field.On the whole, objects have s y s l e m s ; it is lhe j o b o f t h e student of culture a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n lo I r a n s l a i e
been surprisingly little studied w i t h i n communication , leaving the topic wide open these codes.
for future research.

OBJECTS: FROM SIGN T O SOCIAL CODE

T h e classic study of a n object considers a single i t e m , placing it i n appropriate

context as explanation of its m e a n i n g s . " E v e n archaeologists, who have only ob-
jects available to study but never their users a n d who therefore i r a d i t i o n a l ly have
emphasized physica l characteristics over patterns of use, are surprisingly explicit
today about their goal being " t o explore systematically the linkage between the
constitution of social reality a n d material-culture production a n d u s e " ( T i l l e y ,
1990a, p. v i i ) . T h e same is true of historians a n d art historians.'^ Stott ( 1 9 8 7 ),
using Northwest C o a s t bentwood boxes as her focus, provided a n extensive hst
of which additional information w o u l d be necessary to ensure a complete study.
Bentwood boxes are noted p a r t i c u l a r ly for sophisticated a n d difficult woodwork-
ing technique; the woo d is bent to mak e the corner rather than j o i n e d (see F i g .
6 , 1 ) . Stoti's list of what to study is quite comprehensive, i n c l u d i n g such ideas
as; the relationship between ceremonia l functions a n d social structure, modifica-
tions a n d substitutions over time, a n d sociocultural change related to boxes as
lo other aspects of Northwest C o a s t I n d i a n m a t e r i al culture.
It is intriguing thac objects have so m u c h more quickly been placed into a more
complete context w h en searching for their meaning than clothing and food. Perhaps
F I G , 6,1 K w a k i u t l bentwood box,
•^because objects are more physically separated from people, who neither eat them
I n the collection of the M i l w a u k e e
nor wear t h e m , researchers have been able to distinguish themselves from ob- Public Museum, catalog number
jects, recognizing the significance of not only one object but also a cluster, a group, 17772/4615. Photo by D o n L i n t n e r ,
or a related set. U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n - P a r k s i d e ,
134 6. O B J E C T S AS SIGN A N D C O D E OBJECTS: F R O M SIGN T O SOCIAL CODE 135

B e h a v i o r does not a l w a y s seem to make sense unless attended to i n the context logical y o u t h through a n object, i n this case through a p a r t i c u l a r type a n d color
of a social code. G l a s e r presented an e x a m p l e of spending money in order to look of car, only because of previously existing widespread associations between par-
like one is not: ticular types of people a n d particular cars.^' She did not create the context with-
in w h i c h her choice makes sense, but i f she understands that context she can utilize
A very íunny story is that we were doing this market and the client decided that it successfully to convey information.
it was essential to have a concrete floor. Why? Because one of the signals thai it
is not a fancy place is that you have a concrete floor, They took over an old failed
market. I l had a perfectly good tile floor. A n d at a cost of $50,000 they lore up that H o w A r e Objects A c q u i r e d ?
perfectly good tile íloor so that they cuuld reveal thc rather crummy-looking con-
crece underneath! (Glaser, 1985, p. 470) W e obtain objects through trade or purchase (exchanging goods, labor, or money
i n order to acquire new goods, through theft ( t a k i n g them for ourselves, though
I n this particular instance, the convention of h a v i n g a concrete floor to connote they legally belong to someone else), or through gift (others giving them to us).
"cheap m a r k e t " took priority over the actual (and considerable) expense associated G e a r y noted that for a long t i m e gift a n d theft were more significant methods
w i t h a tile versus concrete floor. T h e audience w o u l d not have k n o w n that the of property c i r c u l a t i on than trade because commerce suggests a degree of neu-
tile floor was already i n place and w o u l d have assumed that money h a d been spent trality that was u n c o m m o n before the end of 12th century in E u r o p e ; trade " i f
to lay it, therefore, the expenditure of money was understood to be necessary in c a r r i e d on w i t h one's friends, w a s base, a n d i f w i t h one's enemies, c o w a r d l y "
order to signify its opposite: the lack of expenditure of money. ( 1 9 8 6 , p . 173). T o d a y , i n most ofthe W e s t e r n w o r l d at least, it is more c o m m o n
Numerous questions about the use of objecis m a y be addressed; several of these for people to purchase what they require than to trade for it or to steal it. O b v i -
are now briefly considered. ously a l l of m a r k e t i n g , advertising, a n d public relations is connectcd to the pur-
chase of objects, and there is a huge literature on a l l of these topics w i t h i n
communication, H o w e v e r , it is more revealin g ío discuss gifting behavior, so that
H o w D o People L e a r n to Interpret O b j e c t s ?
is m y focus here,
G i f t i n g behavior is p a r t i c u l a r l y o f interest i n a study of h o w people c o m m u n i -
A s is the case for lhe rest of culture, the a n s w e r is from m a n y sources: from par-
f cace through objects, as a m e c h a n i s m for e x c h a n g i n g meanings. VVf giye^pbjects
ents, from mass m e d i a , from friends, from schools, a n d from businesses.^This
' t2_each,Qtheiv.ejKhan^ing part of o u r reality for part of someone else's, í m p o s i n g
is only a problem w h e n there is a conflict in values a n d that conflict Js made o b v Í -
our í i ^ t i i p £ t i o n s on their expcctations, A c c o r d i n g lo B a u d r i l l a r d :
ous i n distinctions between preferred objects (as w h e n a feminist has a daughter
w h o specifically prefers frlUy dresses to more functional pants, or w h e n a child
/ I n symbolic exchange, of which the gift is our most proximate illuslratJon, che ob-
of nonvioleni parents want s toys associated w i t h violence). " I t soon became clear
/ ject is not an object: it is inseparable from the concrete relation in which it is ex-
that m y c h i l d did not w a n t what I w a n t e d h i m to w a n t . I n s t e a d , he wanted what
changed, the transferencial pacl that it seals between two persons: it is thus not
his culture w a n t e d h i m to want. O t h e r kids w o u l d show up a l the sandbox w i l h
independem as such. It has, properly speaking, neither use value nor (economic)
Robocops a n d B a r n y a r d C o m m a n d o s . I began to suppose that values are com- j exchange value. The objeci given has symbolic exchange value. T h i s is the paradox
m u n i c a t e d the same w a y as the c o m m o n c o l d " (EUsberg, 1 9 9 1 , p. 14) . A t the ) of the gift: it is on the one hand (relatively) arbitrary: it matters litde what object
v e r y least, j u s t as colds are more frequently a c q u i r e d by childre n in day care set- \s involved. Provided it is given, i : can fully signify the relation. O n lhe oiher hand,
tings than those kept at home because they are exposed to more differenl cold once it has been given—and because of this—it is this objeci and not another. The
viruses, so children w h o are placed together w i t h other c h i l d r e n l e a r n n e w cxpec- \t is unique, specified by lhe people exchanging and the unique moment of lhe
tations a n d values from them, i n c l u d i n g the use of p a r t i c u l ar objects such as toys. \. It is arbitrary, and yet absolutely singular. (Baudrillard, l 9 8 l , p. tí+)
I t is possible to creatively manipulate diftering assumplions among various sub-
cultural groups. V a n der V e e r H a m i l t o n ( 1 9 9 1 ) described how the purchase of T h e importance of gifts a n d gifting behavior is such that most people can gener-
d red sports car shortly before her 70th b i r t h d a y, shortly after her 50th college ally attach a source to a l l of the objects i n their homes that were gifts years
reunion and her 45th w e d d i n g a n n i v e r s a r y , served as a statement about psycho- and even decades after they have been acquired. T h e fact of giving is suffi-
logical y o u l h as opposed to physical aging. T h a t it functioned as such a state- ciently a factor i n their possession of a n object that people w i l l often keep objects
ment is attributable to the assumption that most people at her point i n life drive for w h i c h they have no need or even that they dislike s i m p l y i n m e m o r y of their
pale-blue, 4-door B u i c k s a n d O l d s m o b i l e s. She w a s able to communicat e psycho- giving.
 136 6. OBJECTS AS SIGN AND CODE OBJECTS: F R O M SIGN T O SOCIAL CODE

PeopJe preserve their memories of occasions m a r k e d by gifting i n photographs, he infuse value into it all at once. Eventualíy, when enough value has been imbued,
thus m a i n t a i n i n g a record for the future. Sometimes they estabUsh a formal tra- so that the copper can function at a dance of thc returned dead, the owner flings
dition of recording wh o gave what as gifts are opened so the information is properly it in the fíre, and again it is emptied of its value,
The white traders quickly spotted the importance ofthe coppers, and before long
preserved a n d appropriate givers are formally thanked later. ( A s in a wedding
had flooded the market wíth them, They thought of them naturally as having value,
shower, where someone generally is designated the task of w r i t i n g down who gave
or as representing value; perhaps as analogous to our paper money. But the coppers
what i n a record book especially sold for that singula r purpose.)
neither had nor lacked value in themselves. They were symbols only in the sense
' People specifically t r a i n c h i l d r en i n the g i v i n g a n d r e c e i v i ng of gifts through in which the symbol had been presented here; they acquired and conveyed only the
birthday parties, where the r i t u a l of opening gifts i n front ofthe assembled group value inherent in the situation in which they participated. No one wanted to buy
is a major act w i t h i n the larger event. C h i l d r e n are explicitly taught that it is the a copper unless he was ready to go through the long and expensive procedure of
intent to give that counts a n d not the gift chosen. A t the same time, they are often infusing it with value. So the flood of coppers brought no inllation; the value of cop-
implicitly taught that this is a lie a n d that the gift itself actually matters a great pers neither could rise nor fali, through such manipulation. Being true symbols, they
deal. T h e y c a n generally be relied on to l e a r n both messages. could acquire valid existence and value only through participation in meaningful
I n the U n i t e d States today, the most important gift-giving r i t u a l crosses the situations. (Lee, 1964, pp. 84-85)

boundary between the sacred and the secular w o r l d s . I t is, of course, the g i v i n g
of C h r i s t m a s presents. I n this r i t u a l i z e d behavior, gifts are given p r i m a r i l y w i t h - T h e conflict described here between a system i n w h i c h all coppers are understood
in k i n networks, functioning as " a method of dealing w i t h relationships that are to h a v e p a r t i c u l a r value based on their design (the w a y m o n e y obtains its v a l u e )
important but i n s e c u r e " ( C a p l o w , 1982, p. 3 9 1 ) . T h u s , C h r i s t m a s gifts are given a n d a system i n w h i c h a copper can o n l y obtain value w h e n particular behaviors
to spouses a n d their family members a n d to children . I n hnth caries,.^pftf^^re " a d - and ceremonial requirements have been met reflects substantial differences i n cul-
dressed_^o persons_^>yhose goodwlll is wanted a n d cannot be taken for g r a n t e d " t u r a l a s s u m p t i o n s — g i v i n g a w a y w h a t has value i n order to gain status versus ac-
( C a p l o w , 1982, p. 391). I n Goffman'3 terms, gifts are understood as iie-signs, v a l u - quiring what has value to gain status (see F i g . 6 . 2 ) . T h e Northwest Coast tradition
able p r i m a r i l y for the evidence they contain about relationships ( G o f f m a n , 1 9 7 1 , ^ ^ i v i n g a w a y w e a l t h through the destruction of objects s y m b o l i z i n g wealth is
p. 194)." u n c o m m o n but not unparalleled. F o r example, the Sioux give star quilts to honor
T h e classic example of gift behavior widely cited for its apparent contradiction people a n d to others on behalf of the honored. W h e n given a w a y , " s t a r quilts
of the m o d e rn global economic system is the g i v i n g a w a y of wealth a m o n g sever- bestow respect on both the giver a n d the r e c e i v e r " ( A l b e r s & M e d i c i n e , 1983,
al Northwest Coas t I n d i a n groups i n c l u d i n g the K w a k i u t l a n d the B e l l a C o o l a . p. 131),
Lee provided some details of one such ceremony: T h e r e has been less emphasis on theft behavior t h a n on gifting as a form of
c o m m u n i c a t i o n , yet it is also a n important resource for social information. M o s t
A precisely formulated case of creating value is found in the so-called coppers of
often, gifting a n d theft should be understood as social opposites for j u s t as g i f t \
the Bella Coola. These are thin pieces of copper of a special shape and size, which
are displayed at public occasions, and eventualíy are destroyed to "make bone" for behavior encourages social connections, theft generally destroys them. A n d yet, A
a returned dead relative. A copper, whose recognized value is known as three hundred petty theft m a y be a r i t a of i n i t i a t i o n a m o n g teen-agers i n formal a n d informal J
doUars is broken in two, or thrown into the firc; its value flows out of it and into groupings, thus demonstrating solidarity w i t h i n group boundaries while s i m u l - y
the dead. Now the copper, which a minute ago was full of value, is completely emp- taneously demonstrating a lack of Identification w i t h other groups ( p a r t i c u l a r l y
ty of value. the world of adults).
Presently the owner of the copper picks it up and gives it to a poor man, who Sometimes information is gained from w h a t is stolen that could not be easily
cleans and straightens and repairs it and sells it to a chief for perhaps twenty doltars gained a n y other w a y . H a m i l t o n (1990)^suggested that far more is learned by
which can be spent only for acquiring food to be given away publicly. That is, the dͣCOverinjgjyhicli_l^^ the N e w Y o r k P u b l i c L i b r a r y than by
twenty doUars are given away as a gift to infuse value into the copper, which now
reading bes^•^lle^.UsIs. T h e latter o n l y reveals w h i c h books people were w i l l i n g
contains value to the degree of twenty doUars. T h e chief now proceeds to increase
to pay money for not whether they read them afterwards. T h e former reveals w h i c h
the value ofthe copper. Perhaps he gives it a name with the appropriate public dis-
books were important enough that someone h a d to have t h e m ; h a d to have them
play; and gives away fifty dollars to validate the display. He next invites guests,
displays the copper, has it passed from hand to hand—has it fully participate in the badly enough to risk fines or even arrest. ( O n the incomplete list he compiled
event—and gives away gifts to the amount of eighty dollars. He does this gradually, were the B i b l e , how-to-books, books on sex, the occult, a n d antiestablishment
for all growth is a matter of time, He cannot merely assign a value to it; nor can books.)
 6. OBJECTS AS SIGN A N D C O D E OBJECTS; F R O M SIGN T O SOCIAL CODE
138

W h i c h O b j e c t s A r e A p p r o p r i a t e C h o i c e s for S t u d y ? O f a l l objects h u m a n s create, objects used i n changing a house (the physical

entity) into a lujmeXthe social entity) have attracted the most attention. T h i s is
because the home is the location of the largest collection of objects important to
T r a d i t i o n a l l y , as w a s the case for food a n d clothing, the objects most frequendy people. " T h e home contains the most special objects: those that were selected
studied to date hav e been those identified i n some w a y as c e n t r a l , as k e y symbols by the person to attend to regularly or to have close at h a n d , that create p c r m a -
rather than peripheral ones. Y e t even the most mundane object can^be used as nence i n the intiiriate life of a person, a n d therefore that are most involved in
a w a y in to a system of meaning.*' A n y i t e m incorporates i n its form some i n - riiãlíing up his or her i d e n t i t y " ( C s i k s z e n t m i h a l y i & R o c h b e r g - H a l t o n , 1 9 8 1 , p.
formation about m a k e r a n d user, production t e c h h i q í i ê s , and* expected uses. Í7). í n fact, this is one definition of a home: the place where peopl_e,arç able to
I f enough context a n d background informatio n is k n o w n ( a n d this i s , of course, s u r r o u n d themselves w i t h symbolic meanings of what is important i n their lives.
criticai), a n y item c a n be used as the beginning point i n understanding a n en- T h e y have more c o n t r ó l over what goes into their homes than other objects used
t ^ e way o f life. T h u s , as w i t h food a n d clothing, a wide v a r i e t y of objects used i n other places, thus, such objects convey more information.^*
as part of c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n e v e r y d ay life is appropriate for a n d available for W i t h i n the home, the traditional center was the hearth, the fireplace in the
study. middle of a small house serving as physical a n d social center (Glassie , ]968).''^^
I n order to be w a r m i n cool climates, people gathered near to the fire, thus, every-
one was grouped together i n one place i n older homes as opposed to the current
practice of spreading out in different rooms. I t is still quite c o m m o n for l i v i n g
rooms i n E u r o p e a n d the U n i t e d States to have fireplaces, though these are now
more for display than w a r m t h . T o d a y , the social center of most homes in the U n i t -
ed States is the kitchen. C l o se friends are defined as those who have permission
to use the back door, entering directly into the kitchen as family members often
do, rather than through the front door into the l i v i n g r o o m , the place for receiv-
ing strangers and olher public c o m p a n y .
Objects i n the l i v i n g room have been studied more than those i n any other
r o o m , "beca^jse living''^Õms^.are t h ç , m o s t p u b l i c l y available of a l l the rooms in
a homCj the one most clearly designed for purposes of display a n d for olhers to
see rather ihan.fqr family use.^' T h r o u g h the placement of furniture and selec-
tion of surrounding objects, people display themselves as they w i s h others to see
them (if not, what they display is thac they do not care). T h i s includes even choosing
appropriate knickknacks.^^ T h e sinallgst object a l i v i n g room conveys infor-,
^lialio|iJ:Q_vj.sitors-about clas«, values, interests, a n d family background .
T o those familiar w i t h a person a n d w i t h his or her home, however, even more
information is conveyed. M u s e l l o (1992) poinied out that in the small c o m m u n i -
ty i n P e n n s y l v a n i a he studied, " w h e n someone looks at y o u r home, they are like-
ly to k n o w what shape the b u i l d i n g was in w h e n y o u bought it, they w i l l have
followed w h a t you've done, they k n o w h o w far y o u have progressed, and they
w i l l have an idea about the course it w i l l Hkely follow i n the f u t u r e " (p, 4 2 ) . T h e s e
others m a y b r i n g more information to their interpretation of y o u r behavior than
y o u yourself have available! Y o u are unlikel y to know h o w the previous owners
conducted themselves with regard lo the home; y o u are equally unlikely to know
lhe pattern of n o r m a l usage i n a c o m m u n i t y w h e n y o u first move in and so can -
nol comport yourself accordingly, whether y o u w i s h to or not. I n this w a y , homes
F I G . 6.2. K w a k i u t l copper. I n the collection of the M i l w a u k e e P u b l i c M u s e u m , become " a social entity^constructed i n social activity rather than . . . a strictly
catalog n u m b e r 1 6 6 4 5 / 4 3 6 1. Photo by D o n L i n t n e r , U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n -
m a t e n ã f o n e " ( M u s e l l o , 1992, p. 4 3 ) . ~
Parkside ,
 6. U B J E C i a Ais S I G N A N U G O U E

W h i c h M e a n i n g s D o Objects C o n v e y ? an^ex£lidt ( v e y b ^ ) ctairq, to statjjs through the recent acquisition of wealth would be.
W h i c h particular object(s) conveys social standing most directly changes period-
'^icaliy. P r i o r to 1950 i n N e w Y o r k , it was the piano: " f o r u p w a r d i y mobile and
' ' I n theory, objects c a n convey any m e a n i n g . T h e y can indicate information about
middle-class people everywhere, the 'sweet tones' ofthe piano had m u c h to do with
any component of social identity (gender, age, ethnicity, geographic identity, so-
^ creating a proper, suitably domesticated, home environment" (Joselit, 1991, p. 36).
cial class, relationship status, e t c ) . I n fact, despite their b r o a d potential, they
I n the 1980s, one choice among others was a n outrageously expensive founiain pen;
i n the 1990s, it m a y be the H e r m e s K e l l y bag, a purse selling for between $2000
\e^tatus.
most often used and have most often been documented as markers of social a n d 58000.^'^ E q u a l l y , the same object conveys different meanings over time.
M c C r a c k e n (1988) provided a fascinating dimension in the study of how ob-
Hebdige (1988b) analyzed the changes i n meanings conveyed by the Italian scooter
jects convey social class and status information through his discussion of_patina,
cycle from the J920g.,tQ_lh,e. , 1 9 2 í ) s , - e m p h a s i z i n g the 1950s ín B r i t a i n .
defined as " t h e small signs of age that accumulat e on the surface of object**'"(es^
^ O b j e c t s l e n d themselves to exploration of m a n y theoretical issues. O f these,
pecially on furniture, silverware, and j e w e l r y ) . H e suggested patina functions "not
only two are described i n a n y detail here; í h e w a y i n w h i c h objects serve to medi-
to c l a im status but to authenticate it. P a t i n a serves as a k i n d of v i s u a l proof of
ate the dialectic between tradition a n d creativity a n d the w a y i n w h i c h people
s t a t u s " ( p . 32), I n the modern w o r l d where anyone w i t h money c a n b u y any-
use bricolage to convey new meanings , m a k i n g new wholes o u i of old objects.
t h i n g he or she likes, p a t i n a serves as the final b a r r i e r between the nouveau Tiche
a n d those who have inherited m o n e y . P a t i n a physically reproduces the duration
o f t h e f a m i l y ' s c l a i m to status; it visibly demonstrates that not o n l y this genera- OBJECTS M E D I A T E T R A D I T I O N AND C R E A T I V I T Y
tion but the several generations preceding it wer e m e m b e rs of the wealthy class.
A s M c C r a c k e n i m p l i e d , true wealth has often declined to be showy, prefer- f Objects often have been assumed to embody the clash between tradition and
r i n g subtlety. T h u s , P a u l M e l l o n , h e i r to a family fortune matched by few, Ís i creativity. O n the one h a n d , objects are part of how traditions are m a i n t a i n e d ;
described as follows: -on the other, they are means through w h i c h changes can be introduced. I n a won-
derful essay describing the different objects i n h e r office a n d their connections
to her o w n traditions a n d to those she has studied, R a y n a G r e e n pointed to a
His clothes never call attention to themselves (nor do they ever look quite new).
pair of beaded A d i d a s as cxemplary. " T h e Beaded A d i d a s tell me about the recap-
His taste in neckties is in the area of the "winter regimental." No man was ever
t u r i n g of identity, a n active I n d i a n attempt—in the sneaker's case, a S i o u x or
a greater stranger to designer hand luggage, and it was remarked not long ago that
when he has to carry speeches and papers around they come not in zíppered con- D a k o t a attempt—at o w n i n g identity, T h e y say ' I a m I n d i a n , but on m y o w n
tainers made of Italian leather but in a brown paper accordion folder with an elastic terms' " ( 1 9 8 9 , p. 66; see F i g , 6 . 3 ) .
tie. (Russell, 1991. p. H l ) C o m p a r a b l y , Spooner investigated O r i e n t a l carpets, r e m a r k i n g that no object
successfully indicates social status across c u l t u r a l boundaries, for it is only within
1 cultures that status-granting objects convey m e a n i n g . H e explained how , con-

Í
T h o s e who have grown up w i t h money are taught not to display it u n d u l y , a tech-
nique impossible to copy for those who have recently acquired it, for no one w i l l
>^know to attribute w e a l t h to them unless some indication o f wealth is provided,
T h u s is the nondisplay of wealth by the wealthiest the ultimate m a r k e r of status,
one like p a t i n a that gains its significance by the fact that it cannot be copied. I f
one neither displays wealth nor has a f a m i l y reputation for w e a l l h , it is impossi-
ble to gain a reputation for h a v i n g wealth.
A t the same time, i f status claims wer e made explicitly, they woul d be deemed
offensive i n m a n y cultures ( s u c h "as í h é ^ i n o d é r n U n i t e d States)" where major
distinctions i n status are not supposed to be relevant. Objects are useful socially
precisely because "goods communicate their m e a n i n g sotlo mce. T h i s makes
them an especially effective a n d " s t é a l t h y means for the c o m m u n i c a t i o n of cer- F I G , 6,3, Beaded sneakers by V i c -
tain potentially controversial politicai messages. C o m m u n i c a t e d through goods, loria F i r c t h u n d e r ( L a k o t a S i o u x ) ,

these messages are, largely hidden from the conscious..awareness q f j h c recip.-^ c i r c a 1988. C o u r t e s y collection of
R a y n a Green. Washington, D C .
i e n t " ( M c C r a c k e n , 1988, p. 133). T h i s subtlety is more socially acceptable than
 tradicting the A m e r i c a n assumption thac O r i e n t a l carpets serve as a m a r k e r o f surely undermined and finally replaced this rich tradition. Gone are those glorious
social status, ' ' the A f g h a n teenager Ín the new u r b a n middle class seeks authentic soft wools, lhe breathtaking geometric patterns, the handsome dark coiors for which
the Amish quilts of the nineteemh and early twentieth centuries have become so
A m e r i c a n j e a n s and alligator ( I z o d ) polo s h i r t s . " T h u s , " w h i l e we seek authen-
jusdy famous. Gradually (he custoiner's preference for popular paitems and figured
ticity in their past (as well as in our o w n ) , they seek it in our present" (1986,
materiais and bright coiors have become prominent. . . . T h i s evolution, even revo-
pp. 2 2 9 - 2 3 0 ) . lution, in a venerable artistic tradition has been the direct result of customer demands.
O n e part o í lhe study o f how objects are i m p l i c a i e d in lhe concepts of tradition It was not based on any one buyer's desire to erase a long, rich tradition of a peo-
a n d change is lhe adoption of new objects into a n old m e a n i n g system. K o p y t o f f ple's ethnic and reiigious aesthetic. There was no matice of forethought, no deliber-
righlly pointed out, " w h a t is significant about the adoption of alien objects—as ate subvening of a peop]e*s history. T o most buyers, a quilt is a quilt. Their stereotypc
of alien ideas—is noc the fact that they are adopted, but the w a y they are cultur- of brighcly colorcd, stylized, polyester figures as the stuff of all good quilts was not
ally redefined a n d put to u s e " (1986 , p. 6 7 ) . G e i l provided the example of fishcr- meant to rob the Amish women of their artistic heritage. Nor was i l designed to
men i n S r i L a n k a who accumulate wealth through the purchase of televisions when relegate them to paper doll figures interchangeable with all che other quilters ofthe
they have no electricity a n d garages when they have no cars. C l e a r l y it is not world. But stereotypes do that. The cost of such change is high, yet it is exacted
by a buying pubUc quite unaware of lhe long-lerm effects of their seemingly small
the use of these objects that indicates staius, as one might assume, but possession
requests for change. (Joyce, 1983, p. 229)
alone. T h i s G e i l n a m e d advenlurous consumerism (1986, p. 115).
A l times the object represents a change only partially accepted by the culture,
a n d subtle means must be found to integrate this new idea into established cxpec- P r e s u m a b l y no one intends to destroy lhe tradition they are attempting to pur-
tations a n d conventions. T h u s , D i a n e D o u g l a s investigated lhe reasons w h y sew- chasc, for that woul d devalue it considerably. H o w e v e r , traditions are complex
i n g machines, objects originally placed on a piece of furniture, grcw until they a n d subject to m a n y tensions; too m a n y m i n o r changes can destroy lhe whole
became pieces o f furniture themselves: fabric, as described here,
I n contrast to this sort of outside-influenced change, there are also cases of
inside-influenced change: those who create new combinations with abandon, refus-
The sewing machine ihreatened Victorian domesticily Ín two ways. Socially it begged
the question of the woman's traditional place at home. Ideologically it challenged i n g to acknowledge the apparent clashes of cultures. A s part of a description of
the notion of home as a refuge from the outer world of technology. I n short, it a Y u p ' i k E s k i m o w o m a n tanning m u s k r a t skins, a photographer documenting
represented problems in both iís functional and symbolic impaci. How were those the tradition reported:
problems allevialed in the physical form "sewing machine" equals "furniture"?
Firsl, by hiding the sewing machine from obvious view, ita function was effectively Alice tosses the half-tanned skin on top of the television set, where it makes a small
subliniated. Then, by encasing the sewing machine in furniture, its form was made picture of the Rivers's world—the importance ofthe family, of the traditional lifestyie,
specifically appropriate to a domestic setting. ( D . Douglas, 1982, p. 26) and of outside influences. T h e glass plaques that Mattie has given to Bilty and Alice
show her feehngs about them. T h e muskrat skin is evidence of continued living off
T h r o u g h this r e s o J u t í o n , sewing machines simultaneously served to make social the land, as Eskimos have done right here for thousands of years, Mattie's crophy
changes visible as they occurred a n d to hide these changes from view (out of sight, shows that basketball is now a Yup'ik game. And television, like the radio, the school,
out of m i n d ) for those who h a d not yet adjusted to the difference nor considered and lhe daily planes, brings lhe outside world i n , and encourages Scammon Bay
people to travei out. (Jenncss & Rivers, 1989, p, 72)
the implications.
C h a n g e s come about due to a shift i n roles, as described here for sewing
machines, representing a shift i n w o m e n ' s roles w i t h i n the family and the socie- ' T h u s , the dichotomy between tradition a n d innovation is at times imposed exter-
ty, but í h e y also come about i n other w a y s . O n e other source is the interaction nally by researchers; here A l i c e a n d B i l l y happily combine television w i t h tanned
between creators a n d consumers of objects, especially w h e n these do not belong skins, integrating w h a t is new into their existing system, seeing no apparent con-
to the same c o m m u n i t y a n d do not have identical expcctations. J o y c e described tradiction to cause problems.
the m i n o r changes i n A m i s h quilts requested by customers thai when added ' T h e s e examples i m p l y the question of how rauch change a system can endure
together resulted in the destruction of key aspects of tradition: before it collapses. T h e answer partially depends on whether the changes are forced
( e x t e r n a l l y ) or accepted gradually ( i n t e r n a l l y ) , thus d e t e r m i n i n g whether the sys-
Eager customers have so cajoled them [Amish quilters] over the past twenty-five tem has a chance to gradually integrate small amounts of the new into the old
years, requesting a small change here and another there, thai they have slowly buí successfully or not.
 O B J E C T S AS B R I C O L A G E I n 1990 the U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n S y s t e m ( U W S y s t e m ) commissioned a
quilt as the perfect symbol for itself: the i n d i v i d u a l blocks brought together to
/•^The study of how meanings change over t i m e , how people reuse old objects i n form a whole serve as a n appropriate metaphor for the w a y separate campuses
'^new w a y s , is another approach to the analysi s of meanings conveyed by objects. are brought together into a síngle system . T h u s is a n old form adapted to a new
J u s t because their grandmothers considered p a r t i c u l a r functions appropriate to use. I t is a tribute to the flexibility of the quilt as metaphor that the old form
specific objects, does not m e a n people cannot introduce changes. A c c o r d i n g to serves this n e w function as w e l l as it ever served the old. A u n i v e r s i t y system is
Joselit: successfully compared to a f a m i l y w i t h the variou s parts v i s i b l y brought together
into a single physical entity serving as sign. P u t i i n g this quilt on public display
As they made lhe Iransition from tenement to apariment, functional objects became (i( now hangs i n B r i t t i n g h a m H o u s e , ofíícial residence of the U W S y s t e m presi-
ornaments. Cherishcd copper pots formerly used for making gefilte fish now served dent) confirms the connection between the parts, r e a f f i r m i n g the v a l i d i t y of the
as planters, while brass candlescicks, no longer in active service as ritual implements, new whole that has been crcated (see F i g . 6 . 4 ) .
adorned bookshelves. " T h c r e is no need for mother's pot in my kilchen," explained
W h e n a photograph of this q u i l t was used as a hoiiday c a r d i n 1991 by the
one writer; " i t has become an emblem of the past, an oraament in my living room."
presidem of the U W S y s t e m , the text on the back of the c a r d mentioned several
(Joselit, 1991, p. 49)
m e a n i n g s i n addition to the obvious (creation of unity out of d i v e r s i t y ) : the histo-
r y of the state ( a l i the flowers chosen are wildflowers native to the original prairie,
fli is no less respectful, a n d it conveys no less m e a n i n g (though it certainiy does
carefuUy chosen to represent the a r e a of W i s c o n s i n each U W institution serves),
I convey a different m e a n i n g ) to move a pot fro m the kitche n to the l i v i n g room.
the contributlon of women to the state (the quilters were ali w o m e n , part of the
I n s i m i l a r fashion, t r a d i t i o n a l toys that once served a p r i m a r y function as objects
M a d - C i t y Q u i l t e r s ) , a n d the connection between the u n i v e r s i t y and the st'ate (the
^ o f play m a y later serve instead as a visible display of cthnic identity ( L e e d s -
flower chosen for the border is the wood violet, the state flower). T h u s , this quilt
H u r w i t z , 1989, pp. 5 3 - 5 5 ) . T h e star quilts mentioned at the beginning of íhis
has a n abundance of meanings simultaneously , only some of w h i c h are relevant
chapter are a n e x a m p l e of how traditiona l items ca n be uscd i n new w a y s : p a r -
for each p o r i i o n of the poteniiai audience: its creators, lhe preside m of the UW^
ents of baskelball players now give them to m e m b e r s a n d coaches of other teams,
S y s t e m , íhose who see it w h e n they visit the president's residence, residents of
as interschool competitions replace intertribal competitions.^^
each c o m m u n i t y that has a U W c a m p u s . I n c l u d i n g a n image of the q u i h i n v a r i -
|5 I t is not solely the attachment of a new m e a n i n g to a n old object that is of
ous forms of promolio n carrie s its m e a n i n g s to an e v e n larger group; those who
f interest here; lhere is also the creation of a new set of objects that w h e n combined,
received the 1991 hoiiday c a r d , faculty a n d staff o f e a c h U W campus who read
^ c o n v e y new meanings not previously conveyed by a n y of the objects separately.
a n article about the quilt that represents them i n a U W S y s t e m publication
T w o examples are described i n some detail h e r e , quilts a n d scrapbooks, for each
( D u r h a m , 1992), a n d those who saw i i included i n a photo of the current U W
metaphorically as well as literaily exemplifies the process. I n both cases, lhe physical
System President , K a t h a r i n e L y a l l , a c c o m p a n y i n g a newspaper article about her
piecing together of distinct elements into a new coherent whole serves as metaphor
( V a n d e n B r o o k , 1993). I t is important to note that the quilt as sign m o v e d easily
for m a n y types of d r a w i n g together old elements into a new whole.
from one president ( K e n n e t h S h a w ) to another ( L y a l l ) , for it accompanies whoever
Q u i l t s have tradicionally been studied as a r t objects, for their aesthetic q u a l i -
liUs that role rather t h a n any p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l .
ties, but they are even m o r e interesting for what is learned from s t u d y i n g the
A completely different set of characteristics of quilts w a s utilized by the M i l -
details of their creation a n d their use. Q u i l t s were traditionall y pieced together
waukee C o u n t y Zoological Society'5 Intergenerational Q u i l t Project ( " ' T h e
by a group, thus reinforcing c o m m u n i t y ; made of materiais t a k c n from clothíng
F a b r i c , " 1992). T h i s project brought together elementary students (who drew
previously w o r n by f a m i l y m e m b e r s , thus reinforcin g f a m i l y connections; and
a n i m a i s of the r a i n forest in their classes) w i t h residents of n u r s i n g homes (who
passed through several generations, thus aerving as a visible r e m i n d e r of the past
turned the drawing s into quilt squares). T h e resulting quilts served m a n y p u r -
i n the present. I n s u m , they served as a physica l embodiment of f a m i l y a n d c o m -
poses. T h e y were a useful activity for the students a n d for the n u r s i n g home resi-
m u n i t y , of connection over time.^' T h e y also incorporated ímportant cultural as-
dents independently (the one group learned biology a n d a r t , the other built
sumptions, including such basics as understandings of life a n d death: cofíin quilts,
camaraderie a n d independence), a n d they served as a bridge between the gener-
for example, incorporated coffins w i t h the names of relatives s c w n i n the borders,
ations. F i n a l l y , because the resulting q u i k s were auctioned off to benefit the Zoo-
to be m o v e d to a g r a v e y a r d i n the middle of the quilt as people died ( D e w h u r s t ,
logical Society, they served yet another purpose a n d audience: T h e zoo gained
M a c D o w e l l , & M a c D o w e l l , 1979, p. 100), thus r e v e a l i n g greater ability to think
funds, w h i l e a few people purchased a concrete sign of their role as benefactor,
about and v i s i b l y document m o r t a l i t y i n 19th c e n t u r y A m e r i c a t h a n i n the 20th
presumably for display i n their homes.
century.
 CONCLUSION 147

J u s t as a quilt exemplifies the technique oÍ bricolage, so, too, does a scrapbook.

Scrapbooks are " a m e t o n y m i c assemblage of one's social s e l f ( K a t r i e l & F a r -
rell, 1 9 9 1 , p. 5 ) . T h a t is, they provide a place for the detritus of everyday life
to be brought together, arranged, a n d formed into a coherent whole. N o matter
how confusing and r a n d o m one's a c t u a l life m a y be, a scrapbook imposes order
on the events experienced, so t h â t l h e y m a y be remeinbered a n d retoid to oneself
a n d others i n a coherent, reasonable m a n n e r . A s was the case w i t h quilts, scrap-
b õ õ t T c f é à t e "something n e w a n d valuable out of w h a t w o u l d otherwise be recog-
nized only as trash, h a v i n g no value or significance, thus strikingly demonstrating
that the m e a n i n g of objects lies Ín the wholes created, rather t h a n i n the separatç^.
i f f s e d in that creation. N o one but the c r e ^ o ^ k n o w s ^ h e full story, for t h a t ^

resides i n the person ralJisj:, than ín the object. *

B o t h scrapbooks a n d quilts function i n the same w a y s e r v i n g as a shorthand
for m e m o r y , preserving parts of events and lives so that they m a y be retold later
as a performance, i m p a r t i n g meanings to past events a n d encouraging memories ^
of those gast events i n future gençratipus. Because o f t h i s , neither functions ap-
propriately without a person s e r v i n g as n a r r a t or w h o understands its history a n d
context, Both can be appreciated, but that is not the same as being understood.
I f separated from a competent narrator, the scrapbook m a y or m a y not be ap-
preciated by later generations for the incidental bits of history preserved; the quilt
m a y or m a y not be appreciated for its aesthetic qualities. B o t h impose a new sense
of pattern upon seemingly r a n d o m bits a n d pieces; however, because the ulti-
mate m e a n i n g of that pattern does not reside i n the object, h u m a n m e m o r y and
n a r r a t i v e are integral components of the stories told.
T h e r e are also differences between these two forms. A scrapbook provides a
more flexible conveyance of meanings than a quilt, Scrapbooks are designed to
incorporate different m e d i a ; whereas a quilt can only handle fabric remnants,
a scrapbook m a y include photographs, newspaper clippings, awards, ticket stubs,
a n d birthday cards. A n d whereas a quilt requires that separate pieces of fabric
be sewn together, literally connectcd, a scrapbook merely requires that they be
brought together for j o i n t presentation inside the covers of a single book.
I n both cases, the creation of scrapbooks and quflts requires time and energy, and
not everyone w i l l take the time to make either. V a l u i n g either is learned through
family a n d friendship networks; those who quilt or m a i n t a i n scrapbooks influence
their relatives a n d friends to do the same. I n both cases, w o m e n are traditionally
more likely to be the creators, thus saying something about the role played by w o m-
en as institutional memories and conveyors of tradition, even Ín modern society.

CONCLUSION

Q b j e c t s s i g n i f y culture by m a k i n g concepts a n d assumptions visible. " O b j e c t s

a £ £ , j ^ e r e n c e s people use to tangibly outiine the worlds tificy k n o w , the ones they
try to cope w i t h , a n d those they aspire to or i m a g i n e " ( B r o n n e r , 1985b, p. 14),

146
 149

Qbjects_do not stand aione w i t h cheir meaning s made visible for anyone to,se£ ; 11, L e o n e (1977) is a n example of how an archacologist studies a single building for the meanings

they are granted ^meanings by people. T h e s e meanings are not revealed unless it conveys, H e pointed out that • ' E v e r y u i o p i a n group . . . set out to modify behavior by uiodify-
ing the physical environment lhe believers lived i n " (p. 56), thus it clearly is useful for analysts
we as researchers include the people a n d their use of objects i n our investigations. of behavior to also study buildings, Gottdiene r a n d Lagopoulos (1986) provided an introduction
W e study objects as one w a y of investigating the construction of thc social w o r l d ; specifically to u r b a n semiotics; E c o (1973a) provided discussion of semiotics of architecture in
we l e a r n to interpret objccts v i a the people who give them m e a n i n g . A n y o n e who more general terms, " D o m e s t i c architecture i n particular illuminates n o r m s concerning family
life, sex roles, c o m m u n i t y relations, and social e q u a l i t y" ( W r l g h t , 1980, p, 1), and so homes
wishes to study people a n d the worlds they create can appropriately t u r i i td ob-
are given greatest consideration here. A m o n g Iblklorisis, see M . \ W i l l i a m s (1991) for her em-
jects as one beginning point. phasis on the connections between narratives a n d homes, See also Glassie for the insight that
Uke other objects, buildings are capable of being viewed from the outside but " o n l y architecture
can bc entered a n d sensed from w i t h i n " (1987, p, 236). , \ m o t ig historians, see H a y d e n ( 1 9 8 1 ).
the now classic study of gender and housing,
NOTES
12, M , O - J o n e s (1969, p. 251) provided a detailed listing of the m a j o r potential caiegories of study
when a p p r o a c h i ng material culture, divided into technology, producer, consumer, and product-
1. S e c U l r i c h (1989) for a quite brief but excellent s u m m a r y of what masks are a n d how they func- producer interface, T h e r e aie studies of the m a k e rs of objects, for example, D i a m o n s t e i n (1983)
tion. " M a s k s encourage us to transform ourselves, a n d e m p o w c r us lo do so. T h e y permit us or Spotswood (1975); M , O . Jones (1975) is thc dassic, Noyes (1989) provided an excelleni demon-
to replace onc reality w i l h a n o t h e r " (1989, p. 9 ) . N a p i e r (1996) provided a longer treatment. straiion of shifting focus from the object lo its m a k e r and is particularly good i n her use of exten-
2. See B a u d r i l l a r d ( 1 9 8 1 , p. 66) for general discussion of these categories. S e c G r a h a m c C l a r k (1986) sive quotes from those who created the objccts she gathered together into a m u s e u m exhibit,

on thc role of partictilar precious materiais (such as ivory, amber, jade, and gold) as status indicators, 13, D a n e t a n d K a t r i e l (1989) provided an excellent introduction to the various w a y s i n w h i c h collec-
tions c a n bc a n a l y z e d .
'i. A detailed listing o í possible types of objects by thcir relationship to the past has been provided
14, T h e r e apparently has been more interest i n G e r m a n y than Ín thc U n i t e d States devoted to ihe
by K i r s h e n b l a t t - G i m b l e t t : m a t e r i a l c o m p a n i o ns (ihings that o n c has for a long time); souvenirs
topic to date, K r a m p e n (1979a) provided extensive ciiations, stressing i n particular the work of
a n d mementos (things intended to r e m i n d of a n experience or person); m e m o r y objects (things
Moles, Bense, and von U e x k u l l , but I have not yet seen this research translated into EngUsh,
that materialize internai images); coUeclibles (things collected for themselves, acUvity future-oriented,
15, D e s c r i b i n g his o w n efforts as an advertising copywritcr, C a d l e y described the shift tn emphasis
not past); ensemblcs (loosely assembled collection); projecta ( m a j o r eíTort to do life review); and
required, changing a shoe from " a m e r e l u m p of leather" into "afootwear staiemem" (1992, p, 24),
miniatures (cconomy of scale with pienum of detail; 1986, p. 329). I n a study of w h i c h objects
16, M i l e s and Leathers (1984) and O l s o n (1985) are typical of this research, K a t r i e l and F a r r d l (1991)
serve as cherished personal possessions for the elderly, S h e r m a n a n d N e w m a n ( 1 9 7 7 - 1 9 7 6 ) dis- is an exception; it is discussed i n some detail here, K a t r i e r s c u r r e n t research (1992) also centers
covered photographs, reiigious items ( s u c h as B i b l e s ) , a n d symbolic j e w e l r y (such as wedding around objects, (hough her concern is less with particular objects than with thcir role i n muse-
rings) top the list. ums. Musello (1992) is another exception, i n that it is quite strong theoretically, but it is pub-
4. O b j e c t s are an integral part of reiigious systems. W h e n we create objects w c inadvertendy create lished within a folklore j o u r n a l by someone now teaching within an anthropology department,
a physical manifestation of our belief system ( L a t h r o p , 1984). W e create meaning s for ourselves so it hardly demonstrates thc centrality of the topic to c o m m u n i c a t i o n . A n interesting analysis
and for others, often through lhe same objects at the same time through the power of polysemy. o f t h e use of b u i l d i n g as context in a single television show extends mass c o m m u n i c a t i o n to the
H o l e (1977) focused on objccts used to protect homes from evil and misfortune, both material built e n v i r o n m e n t as c o m m u n i c a t i on (Goodatein, 1992), Interesting w o r k is bctng done by the
and spiritual, looking b r i e í l y ai a wide variety of examples: horseshoe, lucky h a n d , and salt among British school of C u l t u r a l S i u d i e s ( H e b d i g e , 1988a) and m a y impact the strand of c o m m u n i c a -

olhers. tion study in the U n i t e d States most heavily influenced by C u l t u r a l Siudies,

5. F i d d l e (1979); M a r v i n (1988); R a k o w (1992). 17, F o r example, R u d o f s k y (1955) included a fascinating meditation on the history of how people
have made use of chairs,
6. " T h u s objects, their syntax, and their rhetoric refer to social objectives and to a scx:ial logic- T h e y
18- A s a h i s i o r i a n , W r i g h t is typical i n her c u r r e n t expansion of what c a n be learned through i h c
speak to us not so m u c h ofthe user and of technical practices, as of social pretcnsion and resigna-
study of buildings:
tion, of social mobility and inertia, of acculturation and encult u r a tion, of stratification and of
social d a s s i f i c a t i o n " ( B a u d r i l l a r d , 1981, p. 38). B o u r d i e u (1984) is the classic atudy of the con- T h e r e are several w a y s i n w h i c h architecture reveals the designer's cultural biascs and
nections between sociai dass a n d taste; see also B r o n n e r (1983); P , C o h e n (1980). often those of the larger society as wcll. W h e n something is buili, the process documents
7. " I l is quite obvious that interaciiorí with objects alters lhe pattern oflife; for instance, that rcíriger- underlying structures of work, technology, and economics. ! i also serves as metaphor, sug-
gesting and justifying social categories, values, and relations, Domestic architecture i n par-
ators have revolutionized shopping and eating habits, that automobiles created suburbs and i n -
ticular illuminates norms concerning family life, sex roles, communit y r d a i i o n s , and social
creased geographical mobility, or that television is c h a n g i ng how family m e m b e r s relate to one
equality, ( W r i g h t , 1980, p, 1)
another" ( C s i k s z e n t m i h a l y i & R o c h b e r g - H a l t o n , 1981, p. 14),
8. A m o n g folklorists, see B r o n n e r (1985c). . \ m o n g anthropologists, sec Clifford (1985); R e y n o l d s She basically viewed lhe sitiglc family home as the " p r i m a r y symbol of A m e r i c a n cultural values"
and Stott (1987); T h o m p s o n (1969). A m o n g archaeologists, see H o d d e r ( 1 9 8 2 , 1989); Tilley (1990b). (1980, p, 294)-
A m o n g historians, see A m e s (1978); C a r s o n and C a r s o n (1983); Schlereth (1990). A m o n g A m e r i c a n 19, T h c complete list follows:

civilization studies, see L , C o h e n (1930); D , D o u g l a s (1982); G o r d o n a n d M c A r t h u r (1985). 1- T h e morphology of bentwood boxes,

9. .See A p p a d u r a i (1986b); D o u g l a s and Isherwood (1979), 2. T h e m a j o r i n d u s i r y to which the boxes are related,
10, C s i k s z e n t m i h a l y i and R o c h b c r g - H a l t o n (1981) titled thcir book Tke Meaning of Things; the w o r d 3. T h e relationship of this indusiry to other m a j or industries.
also appears i n other litles such as F e r g u s o n ' s HiUorical ATchaeology and the Importance of Material 4. T h e relationship of these industries to the economy o f t h e Northwest C o a s t I n d i a n s
Things (1977) a n d A p p a d u r a i ' s The Soeial Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective a n d to the ecology of the area.
 6. OBJECTS AS SIGN A N D C O D E NOTES 151

5. T h c production ofthe bentwood Ixjx, i n c l u d i ng materiais, tools, techniques a n d labor. 29, It is interesting to study the imiiations of expensive objects and the implications they have for
6. T h e relationship between form, production a n d function. m a k i n g statements about status. K a z a n j i a n ( l 9 9 l ) commented on this issue,
7. '1'he relationship between form, production, function a n d " d e c o r a t i o n . " 30, T h e Wolonia Wonapi, newspaper for the Fort P e c k R e s e r v a t i on i n P o p l a r , M o n i a n a , fjrinted a
8. T h e relationship between thc decorauon of bentwood boxes and two-dimensional North- photograph of this exchange, with no a c c o m p a n y i n g article or author ( " P a r e n t s of Poplar Indi-
west C o a s i I n d i a n art. a n , " 1992, p, 9), M y thanks lo S u e G l a n z for bringing thc photo to m y attention.
9. T h e relationship ofthe two-dimensional a n to othcr kinds of Northwest Coast Indian art. 31, Polacco (1988) made this point in a children's book more insightfully i h a n a n y academic article
10. C h a r a c t e r i s t i cs a n d interpretations of Northwest C o a s t I n d i a n art. I have read. S h e showed how o u i g r o w n a n d worn-out clothing from a n i m m i g r a n t generation
11. T h e relationship between art, society a n d cosmology. was turned into a quilt in order lO preserve memories and prompt family stories, following the
12. T h e distinction between domestic and ceremonia l functions of bentwood boxes. quilt through various uses over several generations, using it as witness to innovations as well as
13. T h e relationship between bentwood boxes a n d other containers. r e m i n d e r of traditions,
14. T h e concept of " c o n t a i n e r " i n Northwest C o a s t I n d i a n culture.
3 2 , L e t t y Pogrebin provided one explanation of w h y this has been so in her discussion of a related
15. " R e a l " and symbolic ceremonial functions of boxes.
role, that of kceper ofthe family secrets: "Secreta w c r c female c u r r e n c y . W h i l e m e n controlled
16. T h e relationship between ceremonial functions and social structure.
c o m m e r c e and the history of nations, women used family history as their ncgotiable Instruments,
17. Modifications and substitutions over l i m e .
K n o w l e d g e is power, but clandesline knowledge is power squared; secrets could be wiihheld, ex-
18. Socio-cultural change related to boxes a n d other aspects of Northwest C o a s t I n d i a n
changed and leveraged as tools of i n d m a c y a n d w o m a n - t o - w o n i a n a d v i c e " (1992, p. 22),
material culture, (Stott, 1987, pp, 2 5 - 2 7 )

I include her tist here i n its entirety because with a little thought, it might bc adapted to provtde
a rensoiiable blueprint for the study of any object.
20. T h c cross-cultural emphasis on transition or entry points is not insignificant, as R a p o p o r t con-
tinued (1982, p, 29) by pointing out the frequent use a r o u n d the world of some sort of physical
m a r k e r of a place where a transition is made ( c g , , Tori gateways i n J a p a n ) .
2 1 . Several years ago a student of mine who was a car salesraan prepared a guide documenting his
assumptions about which types of customers were likely to buy w h i c h types of cars. F o r the pur-
poses of his c í a s s assignment, it was a demonstration of how objects serve to indicate social identi-
ty. F o r his peers at the car dealership who requested copies, it served as a practical m a n u a l for
newcomers to the j o b who had not yet consciously figured out all of the connections between visi-
ble social characteristics a n d car preferences.
22. T h e traditional resource on gift behavior is M a u s s (1954/1990); see especially the forcword by
M a r y Douglas i n this r e p u b l i c a d o n ( M . Douglas, 1990). F o r a description of current C a n a d i a n
gifting behavior, see C h e a l (1983); for a nice analysis of childrcn's exchanges, see K a t r i e l ( 1 9 9 1 ,
pp. 167-181).
2 3 . K r e s s (1988a, p, 7) explained at length the assumplions incorporated into the design and use of
a garden apade, for e x a m p l e , surely a mundane. object.
24. T h i s image o f t h e h o m e as " a personal artistic statement—a symbolic representation of what the
o w n e r and his wife stood for a n d v a l u e d " was in place b y thc 1890s in the U n i t e d States (Clifford
C l a r k , 1987, p. 157),
25. F o r a r e m i n d e r of the ways i n w h i c h the entire household revolved a r o u n d lhe hearth, see T a y -
lor's (1991) m e m o i r of childhood in r u r a l I r e l a n d in the ]950s,
26. D i s c u s s i n g N e w Y o r k tenements from 1880 to 1950, Joselit pointed out, " G e n e r a l l y the largest
space, thc kitchen also served as the central point from w h i c h the remaining rooms opened. T h e n ,
again, its centrality was symbolic as well, r e í l c c t i n g the view that thc kitchen was indeed the 'hub
of the h o m e ' " ( 1 9 9 1 , p. 29), See W e l s c h (1981) for comments on the use of various doors as
entrance to the h o m e .
27. L i v i n g rooms have been studied by sociologists as visible depictions of class distinctions Q. A ,
D a v i s , 1990; L a u m a n n & H o u s e , 1970); by psychologists as a display of compositc identity ( C s i k -
szentmihalyi & R o c h b e r g - H a l t o n , 1981); by anlhropologists as values m a d e visible (Douglas &
Isherwood, 1979, pp. 5 - 1 0 ) ; by folklorists as demonstration of ethnic identity and acculturation
( T e s k e , 1979).
28. " K n i c k k n a c k s . . , are highly hcterogeneous i n styliatic a n d quality connotations—a W o o l w u r t h
hobnatl milk glass or tcn-cem-store fígurinc (low status traditional) Ís very different from a Steuben
G l a s s owl or dolphin (high status m o d e m ) or from R o y a i D o u l l o n and H u m m e l figures (high
staius t r a d i t i o n a l ) " ( L a u m a n n & H o u s e , 1970. p. 199).