“ɪɴ ᴏᴛʜᴇʀ ᴡᴏʀᴅꜱ, ɴᴏ ᴍᴀᴛᴇʀɪᴀʟɪꜱᴛ ᴛʜᴇᴏʀʏ ᴏꜰ ʟᴀɴɢᴜᴀɢᴇ ᴄᴀɴ ʙᴇ ᴘʀᴏᴅᴜᴄᴇᴅ ᴡɪᴛʜᴏᴜᴛ ᴄᴏɴꜱɪᴅᴇʀᴀᴛɪᴏɴ ᴏꜰ ᴛʜᴇ ᴘʀᴏᴄᴇꜱꜱ ᴏꜰ ᴛʜᴇ ꜱᴜʙᴊᴇᴄᴛ ɪɴ ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴇʟᴀᴛɪᴏɴ ʙᴇᴛᴡᴇᴇɴ ɪᴅᴇɴᴛɪᴛʏ ᴀɴᴅ ꜱɪɢɴ.”
- ʀᴏꜱᴀʟɪɴᴅ ᴄᴏᴡᴀʀᴅ & ᴊᴏʜɴ ᴇʟʟɪꜱ
This statement originates from the book Language and Materialism: Developments in Semiology and the Theory of the Subject (1977) by Rosalind Coward and John Ellis, a key text in Marxist literary theory and semiotics. It appears in Chapter 1, "The Philosophical Context," which critiques structuralist approaches to language (e.g., those inspired by Ferdinand de Saussure) for failing to develop a truly materialist framework. The authors argue for integrating psychoanalysis (particularly Jacques Lacan's reinterpretation of Freud) to address gaps in understanding language as a social and ideological practice. Below, I'll break down the statement step by step, drawing on its surrounding context for clarity.
𝟭. 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁
To unpack the dense phrasing, let's define the core terms in the context of the authors' Marxist-influenced perspective:
𝟭.𝟭 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲:
This refers to an approach that views language not as an abstract, neutral system of rules (as in idealist philosophies, which prioritize ideas or consciousness over material conditions), but as a product of historical, social, and economic realities. In Marxist terms, language is shaped by class relations, ideology, and material practices. The authors critique early structuralism and semiology (the study of signs) for treating language as a self-contained structure, ignoring its role in reproducing power dynamics like bourgeois (capitalist) ideology.
𝟭.𝟮 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁:
The "subject" here is the individual self or "I" – not a fixed, innate essence, but something constructed through social and linguistic interactions. The "process" alludes to subjectification: how a person becomes a subject within language and society. Drawing on Lacan, this involves entering the "symbolic order" (the realm of language and social norms), where the subject is formed but also alienated or "de-centered" (i.e., not fully in control of their own meaning). The authors emphasize that this process is dynamic and tied to ideology, not passive or mechanical.
𝟭.𝟯 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻:
𝟭.𝟯.𝟭 𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆:
This is the sense of self or social positioning (e.g., class, gender, or personal traits like "talented" or "lazy"). According to the book, identity isn't pre-given; it's produced through language and social practices, often serving ideological ends (e.g., reinforcing capitalist hierarchies).
𝟭.𝟯.𝟮 𝗦𝗶𝗴𝗻:
From Saussurean semiotics, a sign is the combination of a signifier (the form, like a word or image) and signified (the concept it evokes). Meaning arises from differences between signs, not inherent properties. The "relation" highlights how signs don't just represent reality but actively shape identities by fixing meanings (e.g., attaching a signifier like "worker" to a specific social identity).
The statement essentially asserts that any attempt to build a materialist (grounded, non-idealist) theory of language will fail if it ignores how the subject is formed through the interplay of identity and signs. Language isn't just a tool for communication; it's a site where subjects are produced, ideologies are enforced, and meanings are stabilized (or disrupted).
𝟮. 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴
The statement is part of a broader argument for rethinking language studies. In the preceding paragraph, the authors discuss the need for a "political theory of language" (quoting Roland Barthes) that examines how meanings and identities are "appropriated" – i.e., how signifiers (forms) become attached to signifieds (concepts) in ways that create fixed positions for subjects within ideology. They argue that structuralism overlooked this, treating the subject as a mere "support" for language structures rather than an active participant shaped by them.
The full paragraph containing the statement elaborates:
“𝘐𝘯 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴, 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳: 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴; 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘈 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘧𝘪𝘹𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳/𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘴, 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴/𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘰-𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵.”
In simpler terms: A materialist lens on language must account for how individuals (subjects) are shaped by the way signs create and stabilize identities. Without this, theories remain idealist, detached from real-world power structures. For example, bourgeois ideology doesn't just impose ideas top-down; it operates by positioning subjects in language (e.g., defining "success" in capitalist terms, which shapes personal identity).
The following paragraph shifts to Lacan, praising his work for explaining language's "productivity" (its ability to generate meanings and subjects) from a materialist standpoint, while critiquing mainstream psychoanalysis for its pessimism and alignment with bourgeois norms. Overall, the chapter calls for a synthesis of semiology, Marxism, and psychoanalysis to reveal language as a battleground for ideology, where subjects are not unified or autonomous but fragmented and constructed.
𝟯. 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
𝟯.𝟭 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹:
As noted, this shifts focus from class control of "ideas" to how language positions people within power relations. Challenging fixed identities (e.g., through avant-garde art or revolutionary discourse) can disrupt dominant ideologies.
𝟯.𝟮 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹:
The authors advocate for "de-centering" the subject, echoing post-structuralists like Lacan and Julia Kristeva, to avoid essentialism (the idea of innate human qualities).
𝟯.𝟯 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀:
Pure structuralism is seen as inadequate because it ignores the subject's role; only psychoanalysis can explain the "socio-familial" (family and social) processes that tie identity to signs.
This idea influenced later cultural studies, feminist theory, and post-Marxism, emphasizing language's role in identity formation and social change.
Comments
Post a Comment