Educators:
Steven
Spielberg
The ‘Greimas,’ or
‘Semiotic’ Square,
Extended!
Before proceeding with
the following slides, you
need to familiarise
yourself with the
previous account of the
Greimas Square given as
a PowerPoint in the notes
for Charles Dickens.
After a short overview of
one aspect of Spielberg’s
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
– these notes document
how a longitudinal
exploration of changes in
meaning within a mediatext can be handled.
Before we start, note that the ideal expansion of a
square holds constant the level of generality or
specificity by which its terms/objects are being named.
For example, if the top-left corner of your square uses
the term ‘alive’, it entails that every other term should
be similarly adjectival and general, e.g., ‘dead.’
Alternatively, if you use a name, such as Frankenstein,
then the other positions must be similarly represented
by characters. If you do this, for every square that you
develop it will be possible to compare and contrast it
with a matching abstract or concrete one, opening up
possibilities for discussion of why an idea is always
treated in a particular text as abstract or general in the
first part of a text, and why it might be represented
through a person later one.
As previously discussed, the semiotic square is used in
two principal ways: a ‘semantic’ approach identifying a
given structure of meaning existing at a particular time
and place for a given set of observers; and a ‘syntactic’
approach plotting sequences of changed meaning. In these
notes it is this second method which is used.
Syntactic Expansion
The idea here is to plot the sequence of changing
semantic positions that a specific ‘object’
occupies on an underlying semantic square as one
travels through narrative time and finds out about
the observing positions of the different
protagonists and how they ‘see’ this object. The
assumption is that you start by constructing a
single square from a pair of contraries which you
think will be relevant for such a longitudinal
analysis of your text, relative to the ‘objects’ and
‘subjects’ it features.
(Typically, three kinds of temporality are considered – that of the
narrative, that of the plot, and that of the ‘tactical’ temporality of any
sequence followed, i.e., how the sequence of scenes is ‘expressed’.)
Syntactic expansion is usually shown in tabular form
and the underlying picturing of the semantic square
is often left out – it being assumed that the reader
will be able to generate it and its ten positions in
their minds. You may prefer to show it!
On the table the rising numbers on the left-hand side
identify the order of a particular line of analysis and
this allows you to make quick comparisons in your
discussion. Using this technique we can follow the
movements of meaning taking place in a text in
terms of an identified form of temporality (see
above), and in terms of the possible shifts of
meaning specific objects ‘take on’ for different
‘assumptive’ subjects, e.g., in Hard Times Sissy likes
the idea of flowers on a carpet: Gradgrind hates it.
A sample table. The top line identifies the contraries
being explored from an underlying semantic square,
while the second line gives specific headings.
Contraries:
Pattern/Picture
Object’s
position
on the
square (110)
Observing
subject
Justification, comment
this square assumes the
dominance of
Gradgrind’s view –
Sissy’s is ‘marked’.
1854? – or carpet
text ref.
1
Gradgrind
Top of positive deixis
(top left of the square)
1854? – or carpet
text ref.
2
Sissy
Jupe
Top of negative deixis
(top right of the square)
No.
(of the
analysis)
Time /
page ref.
1
2
Object (s)
and so on, if comments on patterns and pictures continued.
Using Hard Times, for Gradgrind, and his regard for his
star pupil, Bitzer, we get something like this, according
to Frederic Jameson.
Contraries: e.g.
Fact/Fancy (Jameson)
No.
Time
Object (s)
Object’s
position
on the
square (110)
Observing
subject
Justification, comment –
Jameson adopts
Gradgrind’s initial
perspective – note fancy
is the marked term.
1
Plot
Ch. 2., pp.
5-6.
Bitzer
1
Gradgrind
His demonstration that
he ‘knows’ what a horse
is.
and so on … but for Dickens as reference O. S. we get …
X?
Plot
Ch. ?., pp.
?
Bitzer
7
Author
(N.B. this
is the
reference
O. S.)
Dickens indicates his
own judgment of Bitzer,
seeing him as the
repudiation of both fact
and fancy, leading to
criminality.
If you are using syntactic analysis one table may suffice for
the whole text; it’s a strategic judgement on your part as to
how the ‘object’ being studied is to be analysed. It may be
that one character is static, while another changes. For the
static one, a semantic analysis would be more appropriate:
the reverse being true when change is featured. If you do
use just one table, this entails that you will only feature one
pair of contraries (those named in the top right of the table;
this is, in fact, Fredric Jameson’s case for Hard Times). If
you do this, all your analysis must be related to the same
underlying square, considering how ‘objects’ and observing
positions feature in the text, how some remain of constant
value for all observers, while others vary depending on the
protagonist, or may even change their nature over time –
BUT ALL RELATIVE TO YOUR INITIAL
SEMANTIC SQUARE!
So, to sum up, the
interpretative
skill you need to
work on is the
ability to spot the
general case in
the particular, and
the particular in
the general. The
following table
uses one of
Spielberg’s films
– so getting hold
of a script is
important!
Spielberg’s A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Steven Spielberg’s film side-steps much of the instability
of identity one assumes would be involved in a cyborg
early childhood (Spielberg, 2002). Instead, he presents
his child-monster as a ‘mecha’ – totally inorganic, already
constituted as a paragon, and programmed to evoke a
maternal response in those supposedly desperate to
express their maternal instincts. Spielberg’s narrative
follows the consequences of this child-agent being exiled
from the generalised social setting that it was designed
for. However, what drives the narrative is the more
critical process of ‘imprinting’ in which this general
facility is turned into a specific attachment to a particular
woman and her family setting. As a result, the robot is no
longer capable of the promiscuous initial appeal which is
the mark of all other commodities.
The mecha’s experience of commodity fetishism is
therefore unique – apparently located at one and the
same time outside and within the phantasmagoria of
products. And, as with most effective adverts, ‘David’
is himself lured on by a desired state of being, rather
than simply wanting to possess a particular product.
Martin, the son that David was intended to substitute
for, returns home after recovering from a supposedly
incurable disease, and a competition between the two
‘sibling’ rivals ensues. Martin tells the mecha that it
cannot be loved until it becomes a ‘real’ boy. To
achieve this he must find the Blue Fairy – only she has
the power to bring about such a radical change of
being. But in a later scene David’s existential
insecurity is further intensified by a shocking
discovery: the industrial scale of his own facture.
In what is, perhaps, the central scene of the film, David’s
adventures culminate in an encounter with his apparently
identical twin, which by now we understand as another
simulacrum. David’s immediate response, after shocked
self-recognition, is to ‘kill’ his twin so as to remain the
only ‘David’ for whom his mother may eventually show
love. But later on in the same scene he meets his
designer, Professor Hobby, who confirms that he is part
of a production line of Davids.
David: ‘I thought I was unique.’
Professor Hobby (unperturbed by the ‘murder’ of the
other ‘David’ and the presence of its remains): ‘My son
was unique. You are the first of a kind.’
For Hobby, clearly, the mecha’s demonstration of selfdirected action in accordance with self-generated
fantasy is a vindication of his product’s unique selling
feature: its simulated child-identity:-
In despair, David commits the mecha equivalent of suicide,
and if the narrative had ended there, it would have done so
on a profoundly radical note. In order to live, David - as
emblem for the child-subject of advanced capitalism ideally should learn nothing. But, in fact, Spielberg uses
David’s refusal to accept a compromised identity to return
the viewer to a more familiar discourse - a little boy needs
love, and his mummy will love him best of all (this is
Friedman’s principal theme in your hand-out). In the distant
future his mother is reconstituted from DNA extracted from
strands of her hair. However, whatever Spielberg intended,
a cyborgian perspective on his narrative closure provides
insight into a synthesis of meaning that is disturbing.
David’s ‘mother’ is reproduced as a clone, capable of loving
David alone for the one day of her artificial life. David’s
consciousness is supported by machinery, hers by genetics;
both are now programmed to enjoy a perfect day.
Can this interpretation be usefully developed using a
syntactic analysis? Here’s one way in which this question
might be answered. From the script I select two
relatively stable and essential contraries.
5. Complex term, Orga +
Mecha
cyborg.
1. Orga
2. Mecha
‘ultra-Orga’
‘ultra-Mecha,
9? and 10?
7. Positive deixis,
Orga + Not
Mecha
3. Not-Mecha
8. Negative deixis,
Mecha + Not-Orga
4. Not-Orga
Narrator – ‘God’s Eye’
6. Neutral term, Not-Mecha + NotOrga
This square, and the associated syntactic analysis, will
be discussed in the lecture. In the meantime, consider
the following:In every case, the synthesis points are, at least initially,
the most interesting areas to study, but the point of
using a syntactic analysis is to plot change and then
interpret this. For instance, review your understanding
of the term, ‘cyborg’. In my square it is used to refer to
a synthesis of organic and electro-mechanical parts, but
Spielberg’s David is an electro-mechanical simulacrum.
But where does this leave David? Is he the ‘ultra Mecha’
that Professor Hobby thinks he has created (Mecha +
Not Orga), or a direct contradiction: Mecha + NotMecha? Perhaps we need different contraries – perhaps
real, and simulacral – or another version of living, and
dead.
There are related sources of interest in considering
position 7, as well as 8, since one begins to map out
fields of related meanings – analogies, metaphors, etc.
that extend the analysis away from the script, towards
possible forms of symbolisation, and your own
interpretation. For example, on the face of it, position
7 (Orga + Not Mecha) should stand for those humans
who organise and delight in the spectacular destruction
of surplus robots. But there are other ways of being
‘ultra’ human: perhaps Professor Hobby as the
‘magician’ who can make these sentient constructions,
or David, whose love for his ‘mother’ is absolute (cf.
Martin). Hobby, equally, could be placed on the
opposite side of the square on account of the ‘living
death’ his life has become: the mechanical reproduction
of simulated ‘sons.’
But this story has a setting; thoughts about life and notlife may prompt reflection on the flooded world, i.e., the
sea as the birth place of all life, and what it becomes - a
frozen world – a world engulfed in water no longer ‘lifesustaining.’ Is this the pre-text for a related square
using the contraries frozen and un-frozen – understood
literally and metaphorically? It may be helpful to see
these terms as the start of abstractions and
generalisations still framed by the original square’s terms:
this is a matter for your judgement in relation to the
interpretation that you want to develop. Test out radical
substitutions – could Martin temporarily hold position 6,
the Neutral Term, that I have suggested for the God’s Eye
View – or part of a ‘cyborg’ spectrum? Second point:
should Hobby and David be understood as playing out the
central contradictions of this square: David as Mecha and
not-Mecha; Hobby as Orga and not-Orga?
In terms of a worked example, enough has been
said to suggest how you might follow the
Orga/Mecha one by yourself. Part of the
fascination with this approach is that it makes
you think about the analytic terms that you might
use. For instance, the central process illustrated
in the film is the ‘imprinting’ – the time when the
boy-as-commodity becomes my-boycommodity. There are few possessions in our
own technology that trigger such dramatic
consequences, but for most of us, a mobile
probably comes close. If it is lost we suffer
something like the removal of a prosthetic, i.e.,
our ability to function socially is suddenly
dramatically reduced.
So perhaps a square constructed around the notion of
imprinting – to use the film’s terminology – will be
intriguing; but how will this be set out? The problem
here is that we confuse ourselves through a lack of direct
5. Complex term, Free + Notterminology.
Free
?
1. Free? (notimprinted)
2. Not-Free?
(imprinted)
7. Positive deixis,
8. Negative deixis,
9? and 10?
4. Not-Free???
3. Not-NotFree???
?
6. Neutral term, Not-Not-Free +
Not-Free
We will probably make more progress by using the
pairing of unity and multiplicity. The syntactic table can
plot the change in David and Gigolo Joe, while all other
characters are static.
5. Complex term,
Unity + multiplicity
Manipulative ‘friends’ = Henry, Martin.
1. unity
2. multiplicity
7. Positive deixis,
‘ultra unity’ =
David after
imprinting and
Monica
8. Negative deixis,
9? and 10?
‘ultra multiplicity’ =
Gigolo Joe
3. notmultiplicity
4. not-unity
6. Neutral term,
not-multiplicity + not-unity
‘Normal’ friendliness = Orgas