Page 84 - Decoding Culture
P. 84

ENTER STRUCTURALISM  77

           quite properly be rendered in terms of modelling all the many sys­
           tems  of signification which  surround  us,  but  its  more  specific
           realization for Barthes involves a qualified de mystification of the
           naturalized, connotative meanings which are the essence of ideol­
           ogy.
              In this early stage of Barthes' work, then, he extends the struc­
           turalist project in two  (perhaps  incompatible)  directions,  one  of
           which is founded in orthodox, semiological formalism, while the
           other is concerned primarily with connotative semiotics. The first
           is epitomized in his pre-S/ Z   approach to narrative, with its deduc­
           tive concern to model the langue of narrativity, identifying narrative
           units, functions and actions along the way, all of which played a sig­
           nificant part in establishing narrative  as a key concern of cultural
           studies.  This  project  would  be  recognized  by  any  reader  of
           Saussure  as  a  straightforward  extension  of basic  structuralism,
           akin to, though by no means identical with, Levi-Strauss' desire to
           model the structure of myth. It is also this formal emphasis on the
           power of langue that leads to the displacement of the authorial sub­
           ject - the rhetoric of 'the death of the author'. 'It is language which
           speaks,' Barthes writes, 'not the author'  (Barthes, 1977a: 143) , an
           invocation which, for all its sacrifice of authorial agency to linguis­
           tic  structure,  did  at  least  serve to remind literary-based cultural
           studies of the  pervasive  dangers of author-centred,  intentionalist
           analyses of texts.
             The second thread of argument is less straightforward, but cer­
           tainly more  original  and,  in the end, probably more significant. In
           attending so determinedly to connotative semiotics, whether under
           that  rubric  itself or,  as  it  was  initially,  in  the  myth  analysis  of
           M y thologies, Barthes contributed to the formation of several sub­
           sequent  motifs  in  cultural  studies.  Though  he  was  not  solely
           responsible for it, he played his part in yoking together the con­
           cepts of signification, naturalization and ideology, and although the





                              Copyrighted Material
   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89