Sergei Kruk
Anxiety about sign
Abstract
This presentation discusses teaching of semiotics to students of political and communication sciences. In order to bring the basic ideas of semiotics to my students I demonstrate its usefulness by analysing the current political and media events as particular manifestations of different concepts of sign held by communicators. Post-truth politics including transborder propaganda has become an especially vivid example of manipulations with the public’s understanding of the nature of sign.
I’ve deduced three current concepts of sign from scholarly papers reflecting ideological concerns of linguistic policies and cultural nationalism.
1. Subjective symbolism is in keeping with Protagoras’ relativism. Scholars writing about arts and literature maintain that only interpretation of a single individual exists and society consists of autonomous systems of symbols.
2. Abstract objectivism is in keeping with Antisthenes’ language ontology. Linguists maintain that the function of language is representation of reality. Reality is composed of basic units to which correspond words. Identity between words and things implies objective ontology and a possibility of truthful statements.
3. Cultural objectivism is based on Herder’s theory of culture. Philosophers, culturologists and some linguists hold that the meaning is secured by culture elaborated in the course of historical evolution of an ethnic group.
The concepts do not provide for engagement of communicators in active semiosis. Meaning of the sign is being attached to an objective structure, however the evident failure of communication brings about dysfunctional consequences: proclamation of post-truth (failure of reference) or imposition of an ideology safeguarding objective ontology. Active semiosis on its turn is an enablement of civil society, deliberation, public sphere – the notions better known by my students of communication and political science.
Bionote
Sergei Kruk holds a doctoral degree in communication sciences from the Université Paris-II. Currently, at the Riga Stradiņš University he teaches semiotics and discourse analysis. Among his research interests are the Soviet and post-Soviet concepts of sign and communication. In Latvian, Kruk has published books ‘For the beautiful and melodic music!’ The Soviet cultural policy, 1932-1964 (2008) and Semiotics, economics and politics of outdoor sculpture (2011). In English, he has published articles on Soviet/Latvian cultural policy and communication in Social Semiotics, Journal of Baltic Studies, Revue Belge de Philologie et Histoire, Visual Communication, Journal of Folklore Research.
Abstract
This presentation discusses teaching of semiotics to students of political and communication sciences. In order to bring the basic ideas of semiotics to my students I demonstrate its usefulness by analysing the current political and media events as particular manifestations of different concepts of sign held by communicators. Post-truth politics including transborder propaganda has become an especially vivid example of manipulations with the public’s understanding of the nature of sign.
I’ve deduced three current concepts of sign from scholarly papers reflecting ideological concerns of linguistic policies and cultural nationalism.
1. Subjective symbolism is in keeping with Protagoras’ relativism. Scholars writing about arts and literature maintain that only interpretation of a single individual exists and society consists of autonomous systems of symbols.
2. Abstract objectivism is in keeping with Antisthenes’ language ontology. Linguists maintain that the function of language is representation of reality. Reality is composed of basic units to which correspond words. Identity between words and things implies objective ontology and a possibility of truthful statements.
3. Cultural objectivism is based on Herder’s theory of culture. Philosophers, culturologists and some linguists hold that the meaning is secured by culture elaborated in the course of historical evolution of an ethnic group.
The concepts do not provide for engagement of communicators in active semiosis. Meaning of the sign is being attached to an objective structure, however the evident failure of communication brings about dysfunctional consequences: proclamation of post-truth (failure of reference) or imposition of an ideology safeguarding objective ontology. Active semiosis on its turn is an enablement of civil society, deliberation, public sphere – the notions better known by my students of communication and political science.
Bionote
Sergei Kruk holds a doctoral degree in communication sciences from the Université Paris-II. Currently, at the Riga Stradiņš University he teaches semiotics and discourse analysis. Among his research interests are the Soviet and post-Soviet concepts of sign and communication. In Latvian, Kruk has published books ‘For the beautiful and melodic music!’ The Soviet cultural policy, 1932-1964 (2008) and Semiotics, economics and politics of outdoor sculpture (2011). In English, he has published articles on Soviet/Latvian cultural policy and communication in Social Semiotics, Journal of Baltic Studies, Revue Belge de Philologie et Histoire, Visual Communication, Journal of Folklore Research.