Myths

The notion of control, one’s ability to consciously act or change, is deceiving in response to the ideas of linguistics and myths. Saussure boldly claims that “the individual has no power to alter the sign” (68), yet simultaneously one is seemingly in control due to one’s physical ability to speak. Saussure states that control is limited to “individual mastery,” but once the language reaches the community, the idea of control dissipates and transforms into simply an accepted (and inevitable) “social phenomenon” (13). However, Barthes’ discussion of the “ex-nominating” (138) bourgeois makes me reconsider Saussure’s belief in our lack of control. The real question that I’m proposing is: is one’s control limited to one’s physical action of speaking? Or is it possible to have the control over a language, thereby myths… and eventually political action?
Essentially, Barthes claims that the bourgeoisie has utilized the arbitrariness and malleability of language to create myth. The “anonymity of the bourgeois” is a result of their decoding of the system: the bourgeoisie has used myth as their tool to naturalize history and make their system the accepted norm. What I am wondering is: is this a conscious occurrence? According to Saussure, we are not capable of actively changing language. Through his discussion of poetry, Saussure defines this method of writing as a conscious effort to break the limiting bounds of language – an attempt to ex-nominate through intended convolution (134). However, he concludes that this in fact, is merely a failed attempt. Although Saussure does not believe that humans have the capability of consciously changing language and myth, the bourgeois strategic power and success in this task makes me reconsider.
It is stated multiple times throughout these passages that myths develop as a result of human history and tradition. Therefore, ironically, repetition firms myths as well as invites change to occur. I am fascinated by history’s paradoxical ability to firm and mold myths, and even more intrigued by the definition of a myth as an idea defined as change created through tradition.
In lecture, the question “does political speech exist?” was raised. To answer that question, I believe that yes, political speech does exist. Barthes expresses his belief that the “speech of the oppressed is real” since the oppressed only has “that of his actions” (148). Therefore, through its pure honesty, this 1st order speech, which Barthes also describes as “monotonous,” is powerful – what I would describe to create real political speech. Barthes notes that the oppressed are “robbed” of their ability to lie, however, through this inability, the oppressed are capable of a refreshing language. There is no need to ideologize or naturalize the words chosen since they are already pure and untainted due to their sole relation to action.
This idea brings me to another question regarding Barthes’ presentation of myths. I realize that he is acknowledging their inevitability, but is he presenting myths as simply elaborated language or tainted lies? Is this ideology (that we are apparently “seeking” and that Saussure claims is being limited through signs) ideal and reachable for a communal understanding?
Barthes’ discussion about the confusion of the semiological system (131) accurately describes the media’s ability to “confuse” the public: “This confusion can be expressed otherwise: any semiological system is a system of values; now the myth-consumer takes the signification for a system of facts: myth is read as a factual system, whereas it is but a semiological system.” This idea brings me back to my previous statement regarding 1st order language – the pure language of the oppressed that simply states action. Would we be able to spread information through this form of honest, pure publication? Or is it inevitable that through the action itself of spreading information, repetition, and mass production, that all 1st order language is automatically lost and transformed into 2nd order myth?