Critic speak is tough, but we've got you covered.
Quote :Marxism and the Philosophy of Language
Everything ideological possesses meaning: it represents, depicts, or stands for something lying outside itself. In other words, it is a sign. Without signs there is no ideology. A physical body equals itself, so to speak; it does not signify anything but wholly coincides with its particular, given nature. In this case there is no question of ideology.
However, any physical body may be perceived as an image; for instance, the image of natural inertia and necessity embodied in that particular thing. Any such artistic-symbolic image to which a particular physical object gives rise is already an ideological product. The physical object is converted into a sign. Without ceasing to be a part of material reality, such an object, to some degree, reflects and refracts another reality.
Here, Voloshinov emphasizes the relevance of ideology to semiotics. We live in a world that’s full of objects. Some are manufactured for particular reasons. Alarm clocks. Microwaves. Hello Kitty backpacks. Others are organic, like plants and bugs and other living matter.
But wait! Taking the organic as an example can open a can of worms (whether or not your organic example is worms) because it’s the organic that seems most natural to us. As Voloshinov states, the physical body (which we could call the ultimate organic object) isn’t just a signifier but exists in its own right and has its own individual presence in the world.
What Voloshinov emphasizes is that just because the body is a product of nature doesn’t mean that it can’t also become part of culture: as soon as a physical object is interpreted and gives rise to denotations (direct meanings) or connotations (implied meanings), it has entered the realm of signs and becomes part of ideology. Sound ominous yet?
Anyway, this doesn’t mean that your worm or whatever is no longer part of physical reality—the object has the same presence as before, but it becomes shaped by cultural codes and takes on a signifying role.
As Voloshinov illustrates, then, signs are engaged with reality and help shape that reality too. It’s pretty much inevitable that an object—even a natural object—should become a part of signifying systems. And the body is like anything else in that way: we’re born into a world in which meaning and language have already been established and we can’t just brush that to the side.
We might wish we could do that in some cases, as cultural codes can sometimes seem oppressive, unfair, or don’t match up with how we see ourselves. Still, signification plays a major role in everyday life and the production of meaning. Now that’s a can of worms.