Structuralism & The Sciences of Language

In recent years, members of the ‘intellectual dark web’ (a loose collection of academics, influencers and thought-leaders who promote controversial, provocative, countercultural and pseudoscientific discourses) like Jordan Peterson and others have routinely promoted a series of flawed (and often weak) criticisms attacking the science of Structuralism as well as the numerous structuralist and post-structuralist thinkers influenced by it, from the likes of Michel Foucault, to the Neo-Marxists like Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School thinkers like Theodore Adorno.  

In this set of papers, we present the argument of Structuralism, and demonstrate that it is markedly different from the propaganda of Peterson and others, who likely view structuralist concepts as anticapitalistic, anti-essentialist, and anti-individualist – directly clashing with the values that underpin Western consumer society, as well as with the Conservative value-system at the heart of right-wing politics in America (as evidenced in the backlash against Critical Race Theory, leading to it becoming a key point of influence in Conservative politics).   

However, Structuralism and the systems that it influenced – from Post Structuralism, Critical Theory, Social Constructionism and more – provide incredible insights into understanding and critiquing systems of propaganda. It is for this reason that these fields be championed by the everyman and be popularized to the same extent as the criticisms it receives from the likes of Peterson and associates (who have amassed incredibly large followings, particularly outside the fields of academia where these ideas are usually discussed). This necessitates an ‘opening up’ by the academics in the humanities and social sciences in order to appropriately represent these fields and diminish the propaganda they are struggling under.

However, rather than assuming a defensive position and debunking each of the points of criticism made by these influencers and thought-leaders (most of which range from misperceptions and misunderstandings, to gish-galloped weakly argued strawman fallacies rather than actual criticism), we shall instead explore these fields by presenting the argument of Structuralism itself so that the reader can decide for themselves; beginning with the inception of Structuralism over a hundred years ago, and tracing its progress and evolution across the years, into the age of social media. 

Ferdinand De Saussure:

The Father of Semiology 

Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure (right), known as the father of Modern Linguistics and Semiology, put forth a perspective of language and society in a series of lectures which were published posthumously by his colleagues and students known as The Course in General Linguistics (1916). 

Saussure’s works demonstrated the structural nature of language which sees language as the centre of reality construction – language structures our experiences, language structures our thought. This perspective was markedly different to the Modernist interpretations of language which see it as a system of labels to organize, identify and communicate our world.

Saussure’s work showed how language is a system developed collectively, through social interaction, and provides the essential structure that shapes and organizes meaning, identity and social patterns in society.  

“In the first place, there is the superficial view taken by the general public, which sees language merely as nomenclature” (Saussure, 1983. p.19). 

“For some people a language, reduced to its essentials, is a nomenclature: a list of terms corresponding to a list of things” (Saussure, 1983. p.75).  

Saussure’s work opens with an argument which redefines our perspectives on language and establishes structural linguistics and the structure of language as a worthy field of scientific inquiry itself. Saussure outlines four foundational points for an examination of language: 

1. The production and reception of speech sounds is a physiological activity engaging both vocal organs (speech) and auditory organs (hearing). 

2. The combination of speech sounds (which themselves are a function of both vocal organs and auditory organs – as mentioned above) with the ideas and concepts which they represent, forms another complex unit – both physiological and psychological.  

3. Language is a social and collective phenomenon that functions at the level of the individual. “Language has an individual aspect and a social aspect. One is not conceivable without the other.” (Saussure, 1983. p.10). We develop our faculties for speech and understanding collectively, through processes of socialization, even though the act of speech is an individual act. “The structure of language is a social product of our language faculty” (Saussure, 1983. p.11).  

4. Language is system that evolves – it is a product of historical forces while simultaneously being an active established institution of the present. “…it is also a body of necessary conventions adopted by society to enable members of society to use their language faculty” (Saussure, 1983.p.11).  

(Saussure, 1983.) 

Saussure creates a further distinction between Language and Speech – Language or ‘Langue’ refers to the rules, syntax and grammatical conventions to be followed by users of a language. These rules are socially agreed on by the community of speakers and language-users. Speech, or ‘Parole’, refers to the actual act of speaking by an individual (Saussure, 1916). Langue is the system – Parole is not the system, but is the usage of the system. Whether spoken or written, Parole is the usage and application of Langue by the individual. For Saussure, Langue precedes Parole; Parole could not exist without Langue, but Parole is necessary for individuals to access Langue. As a field of inquiry, Langue should be the focus as Parole is individualistic and erratic; it is open to changes between individuals; whereas Langue is a social-system of rules and guidelines that influence and shape how an individual uses Parole. 

Collectively, these points highlight the complexity of language – it is not simply a system of labels to identify, communicate and organize our experiences. Rather it is a product of several forces; psychological, physiological, philological, sociological and historical.  

“These sciences could lay claim to language as falling in their domain (psychology, anthropology, prescriptive grammar, philology, and so on) but their methods are not the ones that are needed. One solution only, in our view, resolves all these difficulties. The linguist must take the study of linguistic structure as his primary concern, and relate all other manifestations of language to it.”  

(Saussure, 1983. p. 10.)  

Thus, the study of language must engage with a multi-faceted method of inquiry, and must itself draw on the scientific rigors and patterns used by these complementary fields of social science. He called this new field ‘Semiology’, from the Greek ‘semion’ meaning ‘sign’. “It would investigate the nature of signs and the laws governing them” (Saussure, 1983.p.18).  

Saussure, Semiology and the ‘Sign’: 

(Mambrol, 2016.) 

Much of Saussure’s work focused on the linguistic unit of the sign – these are the fundamental units of a language; they are the things that ‘populate our mental life’, the things we muse upon, contemplate on, refer to, engage in discussion about and socialize around.

Signs are made up of two parts: the signifier and the signified. The signifier is the spoken or written word used to communicate a concept; the signified is the concept being referred to. Example, the word ‘table’, whether written or spoken, is the signifier; it is used to communicate the concept of a table, which is the signified.

The link between signifier and signified is not a link between an object and the name for that object, but rather for a concept and for a sound pattern that has come to identify that concept; according to Saussure (1983. p.76), “a linguistic sign is not a link between a thing and a name, but between a concept and a sound pattern.” 

Saussure uses the example of a tree (Latin = ‘arbor’) to demonstrate the existence of the linguistic sign as a “two-sided psychological entity.” 

The signified by themselves do not have their own physical reality; rather they are a representation of the concept – even if the concept itself does have a distinct physical reality. Example, the concepts of emotion and water have different natures when it comes to  understanding their physical reality – emotion is an intangible concept, unlike water it cannot be touched or held in your hand – yet the system of signifier and signified functions the same even though a concept like emotion does not have a tangible physical presence.  

“What they share in common is their concept-hood, their existence as concepts. In all instances, these are all signs. Increasingly, our world and our understandings of ourselves are coming to be shaped by more and more abstract signs.” (Jamal, 2016). 

The ‘First Principle’ of the Sign: The Sign is Arbitrary 

According to Saussure, the way in which signs have been developed and deployed to communicate and organize our experiences has been largely arbitrary; there is nothing about the word ‘cat’ that implies anything about its cat-hood, or the qualities we consider to be feline. It does not share in anything inherently cat-ish. The association between the signifier ‘cat’ and the signified (the household pet) is arbitrary; there is no deliberate logic to the pairing. Thus, cultures around the world can have varying signifiers for concepts that we all commonly experience. Different cultures can organize concepts differently, often drawing on existing cultural logics to develop their language systems.  

This arbitrary definition does not mean that the speaker can freely choose a signified to which the signifier refers to. It simply means that the association bears no deliberate logic, according to Saussure, it is “unmotivated: that is to say arbitrary in relation to its signification, with which it has no natural connection in reality” (Saussure, 1983. p.79). 

The Second Principle of the Sign: The Sign is Relational 

Saussure further explains that the arbitrary pairings between signifier and signified functions within language system through relations with other signs, and differentiations with other signs. According to Saussure, signs are identified relationally; meaning that they are identified by interdependently connecting them with other signs. If a child is taught the concept of ‘cat’ in isolation, it is likely they will use the same term to identify a lion, or a dog, or an animal with similar features. Instead, signs make sense only in relation to other signs. The term for cat works only in relation to the terms for dog, lion, fish and bird. Hence, signs are relational – they make sense only in relation to other signs. Furthermore to this point, languages are often taught thematically – vocabulary is often taught using themes; example the theme of a zoo to learn the vocabulary of different animals and related concepts, or the theme of a city to learn the vocabulary for hospitals, airports and similar concepts. Children are taught early on to engage in relational systems of signs.  

“Language is a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others” (Saussure, 1916. p.114). 

The Third Principle of the Sign: The Meaning of a Sign is Derived Negatively 

Saussure further explains that the inherit value of a sign, the meaning which it represents, is not identified through its positive content – but through its negative content; it is not identified by what it is, but by what it is not. Signs function through their differentiation with other signs rather than through their inherit meaning – they do not identify things by what they are (there is nothing inherently cat-ish or feline about the word cat), but by what they are not (a cat is not a dog; a dog is not a lion). Thus, a sign gains meaning not from its positive content, but from its negative content. 

“In language there are only differences without positive terms. Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the system” (Saussure, 1916. p.120). 

The Emergence of Post-Structuralism 

Saussure’s work birthed and influenced many fields; however, one aspect of his thesis on language was problematic: Saussure believed that the arbitrary pairings between signifier and signified were fixed. Once a signifier was paired with a signified, the pairing was permanent and fixed.  

This led to two issues:  

It does not explain how the meanings of words can change over time. 

It does not explain how a single word can have different meanings for different people. 

This became the launching point for what would be known as “Post-Structuralism”; Post-Structuralists argued that the meaning of concepts are fluid rather than fixed. They are open to change, they can be challenged, and they can be reconfigured. Post-Structuralism sought to add more to Saussure’s analysis rather than to discredit it. Saussure’s work itself was a starting point for birthing a scientific perspective on language. There are many critical points that Structuralism and Post-Structuralism agree on; critically the place of language in human dynamics – rather than simply a system of “nomenclature”, Structuralism and Post-Structuralism see language as “the prime site of construction of the person” (Burr, 1995. p.26). 

Modernist interpretations of language however share an ‘essentialist’ perspective of humankind – they posit that each individual has an essential inner-nature that governs their behaviour, beliefs and interactions.

Thus, explanations and understandings of the construction of the ‘self’ are believed to lie within these ‘inner-states’ that drive and govern the individual.  In contrast, Structuralist and Post-Structuralist perspectives see language as being the prime site of construction; a myriad of terms and concepts are used to identify these inner-states; ‘personality’, ‘emotion’, ‘temperament’, ‘character’ – all of these are linguistic signs that signify the existence of an individual’s inner-nature.  

“The person you are, your experience, your identity, your ‘personality’ are all effects of language.” (Burr, 1995, p. 26).   

“The existence of these words infers the existence of a certain entity; in this case the personality and all associated ideas. Therefore, these are effects of language that have come to provide the shape and content of our consciousness. It is the effect of the word that has come to shape the content of our consciousness, our experiences of relationships, of selfhood and more” (Jamal, 2016. p.32). 

This construction of the person or of the self does not happen solely at the level of the individual – language is a social phenomenon, these concepts were developed through language, communicated through language, accepted and established through language – they did not pre-exist human existence; rather, we are born into societies and communities and are socialized and accultured according to the linguistic and social patterns of those societies and communities. Individual’s born in Western societies are socialized and accultured along these socio-linguistic patterns and come to understand themselves and the world through the logics of the language systems within which they are embedded.  

“Language does not reflect a pre-existing pre-determined reality, but rather brings a framework to that reality for us. This means that we can only represent our experiences to ourselves and to others by using concepts embedded in our language, so that our thoughts, our feelings and how we represent our behaviour are all ‘prepackaged’ by language.”  

(Burr, 1995. p.26-27). 

Hence, Structuralism and Post-Structuralism place greater emphasis on the language systems and the linguistic arenas we occupy. They focus on places of linguistic and social exchange as they see these areas as prime sites of the construction of the person. Structuralism and Post-Structuralism places the psychological centre of gravity from within the individual to the social and linguistic arenas that the individual occupies (Burr, 1995). 

“This means that if we are looking for explanations of the social world (either in terms of what people do and feel or in terms of groups, classes or societies) we should look not inside individuals, but out into the linguistic space in which they move with other people.”  

This is a crucial element in the toolkit for this study: The internet and social-networks are new linguistic arenas for individuals to occupy, move around and exchange within. From forums, to closed-groups, to personal profiles – all represent different and evolving forms of linguistic space that is increasingly becoming widely accessible and are currently public domains – rather than domains only for the elite or for the technologically-proficient. The level at which societies and communities around the world currently use the internet and social-networks is unprecedented. Compared with other forms of public infrastructure like water, sanitation, transport and medicine, internet-infrastructure has grown rapidly and countries without access to basic domestic amenities have internet access. In many cases, large corporations like Google and Facebook are responsible for developing the online-infrastructure of poor countries so that they can support mobile technology better and open new online markets.

Meaning is Fluid: “Does he take sugar?”  

Having discussed what they agree on, let us now reexamine the point of contention between the two; meaning is not fixed, as argued by Saussure, rather it is fluid, ever-changing. Language-users may claim, shape, or re-shape the meaning of a term. The systems of signification are one of active change, of conflict and of power-relations. Meanings are contested, challenged and revoked. Post-Structuralism sees language and the linguistic arenas we occupy as sites of tension, conflict and struggle (Burr, 1995).  

For example; the word ‘gay’ was once used to describe a state of joy; it is now used to as a marker of homosexuality. The terms ‘handicapped’ and ‘disabled’ were once used to identify individuals with some manner of impairment – however both have since fallen out of favour. Handicapped implies a person is unable to fulfill a particular social role due to the impairment they suffer – yet there are many people with impairments who strive hard to overcome the challenges presented by the condition and fulfill the roles required of them – calling them handicapped is unfair and discounts the effort and trauma they struggle with. Disabled means an individual who cannot match the normal level of functioning of others – it implies that the affected person is less than normal. The term impaired or impairment reflects a more inclusive expression; it means that the affected individual has a problem with an organ, mental or bodily process – it is focused more strongly on the condition itself than on the social consequences the condition could create. Thus the logic associating signifier with signified is far more fluid and changing, and these changes often reflect some form of conflict or power dynamic. Post-structuralist interpretations of language recognize it as the site where identity can be challenged and redefined.  

“If language is indeed the place where identities are built, maintained and challenged, then this also means that language is the crucible of change, both personal and social.” (Burr, 1995. p.29). 

This fluidity of meaning goes beyond individual signs and extends itself to the use of language as a whole. In her book, An Introduction to Social Constructionism (1995), Burr uses a brief dialogue sequence to demonstrate this point: 

“Does he take sugar?” 

A simple question when asked to the mother of a baby, it implies a number of assumptions, none of which are disconcerting: perhaps the baby does not yet know its own tastes, or the baby is not yet capable of making the choice itself or the baby may not yet be able to communicate their preference. The question also demonstrates the power relationship between the mother and the child. Regardless of the child’s desire, the mother’s choice will override it.  

“So implicit in this very small question are a lot of assumptions about the nature of young children, the nature of adults and a demonstration of the power relationship between children and their parents” (Burr, 1995. p.28).   

However, the same question, when addressed to the spouse of a blind man, implies a set of similar assumptions as did the exchange between mother and child, however, these implied assumptions now take on a wholly different meaning which is both demeaning and offensive: the blind man cannot make these decisions himself due to his impairment; his impairment excludes him from meeting his own needs; he is relatively powerless.  

Analysing even the simplest and briefest linguistic exchanges demonstrate the ability of language to be far more than simply a system of labels – it is a complex system of signification and representation with which we can communicate unspoken and unwritten understandings and assumptions; these assumptions are of critical importance in communication and reflect critical societal understandings regarding identity, power and social relations.  

“If language provides the structure and content of our thought, then in a fundamental way, what we say is what we think,” (Burr, 1995. p.29). 

This is the fundamental thesis of Post-Structuralism: meaning is constantly changing. The line of Post-Structuralist thinkers following Saussure’s initial work focused on the range of differing forces and contexts that influence the organisation and arrangement of meaning in society. Roland Barthes focused on signification and meaning in images; Michel Foucault focused on power-relations and their ability to influence the arrangement of meaning in society; and Jean Baudrillard focused on the implosion of meaning in the digital age resulting in a society so heavily saturated with signifying culture that a new symbolic layer of meaning has enveloped social-reality creating a hyperreality; a psycho-cultural territory separate from the actual natural reality of the world. 

Signification and the Study of Discourse:  

The field of discourse-analysis is aimed at identifying meaning amongst differentiated pieces of text which may appear at first to be linguistically similar; that is to say that they contain the same signs, words or significations, but the meaning of these signs can differ dramatically based on the discourse they are contained within. Discourse-analysis offers us a systematic method to investigate the fluid and changing meanings of language; it provides a way to examine the unspoken and hidden assumptions conveyed in the use of language. A discourse is a set of representations or meanings that reflects a certain version of an event or a phenomenon. Discourses can be thought of as social frames of reference that construct the things we say and do, how we see the world, or even how we see ourselves.  

In the example of the mother and her infant child, we can understand the question “Does he take sugar?” from the discourse of ‘motherhood’ – the hidden assumptions conveyed within this discourse seem socially acceptable and inoffensive (the mother is the caretaker of the child, the child is in a position of lesser power, the child may not know their own needs yet, the child is helpless and needs the mother). Whereas the same question asked to the spouse of a blind man implies a different discourse – the discourse of disability – the assumptions conveyed here may prove offensive and diminishing to the spirit and experience of the affected individual.   

Different cultures can interpret different phenomena through different discourses; the discourses present in a society are usually the product of their sociocultural histories. Example, mental phenomena may be understood through the discourses of mental-health in Western societies: psychoanalysis, psychology, psychiatry – whereas other cultures may contextualize it within discourses of spirituality, occultism and religion. The same event may be understood differently through their contextualization within different discourses by different peoples. Within any society, there are a range of competing discourses, each attempting to construct phenomena within the frames of reference they provide. Typically, the dominant discourses in any society are a reflection of the dominant culture within that society.

Thus the arrangement of discourses in a society can simultaneously reflect the arrangement of power within that society. A society contextualizing mental-health phenomena through the discourses of psychology and psychiatry over religion and spirituality is likely to be one where objective science is empowered over religious and spiritual perspectives. This can have the effect of marginalizing alternate views and alternate constructions of phenomena. According to Michel Foucault REF, the term ‘knowledge’ is an empowering signifier – the signified concepts to which it is applied to, that is, the version of events considered knowledge in a society is given the stamp of ‘truth’, while competing versions of the same event are marginalized – Western positivist psychological discourses may see irregularities of behaviour through frameworks of Schizophrenia, Autism Spectrum Disorder and Psychosis – whereas spiritual and religious perspectives are considered ‘superstitious’ – a term which is disempowering, reflecting a version of events that is untrue or outdated.   

This was the focus of much of Michel Foucault’s more influential writings: the nature of power in society, which shall be the focus of the next paper; specifically the relationships between power, discourse and language. Foucault is a notorious target of criticism by thought-leaders like Jordan Peterson and others.  

Summary: 

In this paper, we built a foundational understanding of Structuralism and Signification. This is a critical element necessary for our analysis of contemporary online propaganda and the communities that thrive online. Saussure’s work identified language as more than nomenclature, more than a system of labels to communicate our world; for Saussure, language was a complex system of signification which constructs the concepts that shape and define social reality. Language was a system of ‘signs’, entities composed of signifiers and signifieds – the signifier being the sound made, or the written or spoken word; and the signified being the concept referred to by the signifier. According to Saussure, the pairing of signifier and signified is arbitrary, it is a relationship that has no deliberate or natural logic. Rather it points to the differential nature of language – a system of referents that identifies things through their differences from other things; by what they are not rather than by what they are. Saussure’s work would be considered the foundation of the language sciences, giving rise to structural linguistics, semiology and semiotics, as well as paving the way for the Post-Structuralist thinkers that would follow. 

“We live in a world of signs, and of signs about signs” (Hawkes, 1977). 

References

Burr, V. 1995. An Introduction to Social Constructionism. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis/Routledge. 

De Saussure, F. 1959. Course in General Linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library

Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated from French by Sheridan, A. New York: Pantheon Books. Originally published in 1975. 

Foucault, M. 1979. A History of Sexuality Vol 1. Translated from French by Hurley, R. United Kingdom: Allen Lane. Originally published in 1976.    

Hawkes, T. 1977. Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley: University of California Press