On Ferdinand de Saussure’s Arbitrary Social Values and the Linguistic Sign
By Lee Garth Vigilant
(The first draft of this (graduate) A.R.P was (w)ritten in the Spring of 1996 for Professor Stephen Pfohl’s course Social
Theory in Postmodernity at Boston College)
In perusing de Saussure’s Arbitrary Social Values and the Linguistic Sign, I was
struck by how compelling his notion of signs were to communicative and interpretive
practices. Furthermore, I came to a re-cognition that language was not a natural or a
neutral phenomenon used to represent the world, but rather, a partial tool to be
manipulated by anyone with appropriate means. The relationship between language
and the structures of power and control, although not explicit in the assigned readings,
will be expatiated here. de Saussure is important to this discourse for two reasons.
First, according to Seidman (1994: 196-197)…
“Saussure abandoned the standard view of language as a neutral medium through which the
mind mirrors the world. In contrast, Saussure argued for a notion of language as a system of
signs whose meanings were generated by their relations of difference. Saussure thought of
language as an active, dynamic social force that shaped both the mind and the world. As a selfsufficient system, language can be studied as it is organized and functions in the present.”
Here, de Saussure’s new conceptualization of language was one that departed from the
view of language as a static, fixed phenomenon that was neutral and impartial to social
praxis. The second reason why de Saussure is important to this discourse is his notion
of how dynamic languages are, and how social forces can mold and transform symbols.
According to de Saussure (In Komatsu and Harris, Troisieme Cours De Linguistique
Generale (1910-1911) p.102a)…
“Language is not free because, even a Priori, time will provide the opportunity for the
social forces affecting the language to take effect through countless ties with previous
ages. Continuity involves change as if it were an <inseparable> fact, <more or less
appreciable shift of values with duration>.”
This view of language, a view that is at once inimical to conventional interpretations,
saw the finished product of language as being mediated by social forces through power
discourses, whereby the finished product, the signified, which would be manipulated by
speakers and listeners, was already predetermined and fixed: hence, the antithesis to the
notion that “signifiers only acquired meaning by the concept they summon up in our
minds (1994: 196).” The concepts they conjure up, the signs or the symbols, were not
arbitrary –a result of haphazard coincidence- but rather, carefully mediated by social
forces: powerful social forces. de Saussure argues that the symbol of justice, a pair of
scales, could not easily be replaced with another symbol: that we conjure up the image of
a pair of scales being held by a blindfolded
(white?)
woman -who, at the time this symbol
was created, belonged to one of the most vulnerable and politically powerless groups of
Americans- did not happen simply because everyone unanimously imagined this symbol
when the signifier, justice, was first coined.
Quite the opposite, this symbol was
meditated by an insider with very different conceptions of justice from Americans who
were Othered by virtue of gender (and/or “race”). The symbol of justice for a southern
slave might very well have been related to the most recent lynching or cross-burning
episode her life (the “strange fruit?”). The image of justice that this blindfolded woman might
have conjured up in 18th Century America probably would have been linked to her
husband
-as judge and jury. (I am reminded of the rule of thumb that permitted MEN (husbands)
to physically punish (abuse) WOMEN (wives) with any instrument that did not exceed the circumference of
their thumbs)
The question becomes this: what forces created this unified symbol -this
unrealistic icon- that have stood the test of time? This is what is under-developed in de
Saussure’s frame: a conceptualization of power and its mediating influence over symbols.
Even with this lacuna, in reading de Saussure, one comes away with a sense of
optimism for two reasons. de Saussure (In Lemert, 1993: 164) argued that “language
appears as a heritage of the proceeding period: no society, in fact, knows or has ever
known language other than as a product inherited from preceding generations, and one
accepted as such.” This argument might seem to justify the view of language, and its
symbols, as being static, predetermined by previous generations, and fixed in its
representation of phenomena. de Saussure warns against such a simplistic conclusion,
for he does not tell us how dynamic this system is in regard to change, especially in the
realms of shifting signifiers and signs that reflect the domineering paradigms of racism,
sexism, ethnocentrism, and other “isms.” Yet, this is not an absolute negation of the
diachronic view of language; because of its social nature, its existence and continuation
would not be possible without an institution of speakers with voice.
Language is,
according to de Saussure, a social product. Accordingly, he (1993: 7a) argues that, “we
can say that language always works through a language; without that, it does not exist.
The language, in turn, is quite independent of the individual; it cannot be a creation of
the individual; it is essentially social; it presupposes the collectivity.” Here, a new
query, one that instills a sense of optimism: Since language is essentially a social product,
one mediated by collectives, does language and its accompanying symbols change to reflect the
inclusion of groups who were previously Othered?” de Saussure would argue that is does.
de Saussure (in Lemert 1993: 165) goes on to say that…
“If we consider language in time, without the community of speakers-imagine an
isolated individual living for several centuries- we probably would notice no change;
time would not influence language. Conversely, if we consider the community of
speakers without considering time, we would not see the effect of the social forces that
influence language.”
In this sense, language not only appears as the inheritance of previous generations, but
as a dynamic force changing to reflect pluralities and new voices. Accordingly, we are
not simply bound to the language of the past, but we are actively involved in the process
of transforming signifiers, signified objects, and signs & symbols through collective oftentimes discursive- discourses that reflect new social forces and changes in human
praxis.
The second reason for optimism is related to the first: the way to impel structural
change in symbols and signs is by acquiring language. Once language is acquired, one
becomes a mediator of sorts, a member of an institution, and by virtue of membership,
one is consciously, or unconsciously, involved in this process of transforming languages
and symbols.
de Saussure envisions language as an institution which had, as its
rudimentary characteristic, the inability to execute an absolute exclusion of certain
individuals or groups from social praxis. As an institution, language itself is open to all
groups, and not completely exclusive of any. de Saussure (In Komatsu and Harris, 1993:
8a) expressed this view in the sentiment that “no other institution involves all
individuals all the time; no other is open to all in such a way that each person
participates in it and naturally influences it.” This inclusive nature of the language
institution gives voice to individuals and groups (his)torically Othered by the
institutional forces of racism, sexism, ageism, heterosexism, looksism, and elitism; and
in this sense, language is impartial.
In summation, Saussure’s discourse on language should be standard reading in
sociology because of its relevance to social praxis. As an aspiring sociologist, I can see
the gravity of explicating the oldest form of social institution inherent to human society.
That we read de Saussure only in passing seems almost ironic because language is the
phenomenon that binds a society together; moreover, the only human phenomenon that
is omnipresent. In Saussure’s own words, [La Langue est comparable a une machine qui marcherait
toujours, quelles que soient les deteriorations qu’on lui ferait subir],
“Language is like a machine which
keeps going regardless of the damage inflicted on it (1993: 113).”
References:
Seidman, Steven. 1994. Contested Knowledge: Social Theory In The Postmodern Era. Blackwell
Press.
Ferdinand de Saussure. (1906-1911). Arbitrary Social Values and the Linguistic Sign. In Charles
Lemert’s Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings. West Press.
Ferdinand de Saussure. (1910-1911). Troisieme Cours De Linguistique Generale (1910-1911): d’apres
les casheriers d’Emile Constantin. Edited and Translated by Eisuke Komatsu & Roy Harris.
Pergamon Press.