You are on page 1of 11

Lanark a clash of myths

A Brief Overview

As its Greek origin would suggest, semiotics is the study of signs, (Greek word
semeion which mean a sign, a mark) but it is not limited only to the visual signs. Since the
development of structural linguistics which claimed to be dealing with verbal signs rather that
words, signs have come to be much more than visual representations of a certain concept.
Contemporary theory is trying to show that actually signs are permeating almost every aspect
of our lives, since every type of communication can be interpreted as the transmission of
signs which carry a coded message.
Ferdinand de Saussure, the founder of structural linguistics, introduced the sign which
according to him represents the combination of a concept and a sound-image1. Words
represent the concept, meaning that words (that is sound-images) are signifiers which carry
the signified, and that process of signification, or how certain signified concepts come to be
represented by some signifiers, is what semiology is concerned about. The relations between
the sign is purely arbitrary, and sign accomplishes meaning just by differing from other signs.
Saussure called his theory semiology and many characteristics of structural linguistics spilled
over into semiology since he sought to explain how signs function in a larger system, that is
to say that he wanted to reconstruct the structure of sign processes.
On the other hand, American pragmatist Charles Saunders Pierce called his pursuit of
signs semiotics and claimed that there are three types of signs: icon, index and symbol.
According to Pierce not all signs are arbitrary, since signs are related to objects by
resembling them, being causally connected to them or being conventionally tied to them2.
Following that statement, icons resemble the objects they represent (that is what Pierce calls a
referent), indices have a causal connection with the objects they represent (such as smoke
causes fire) and symbols are conventionally associated with the object they represent.
Symbols also represent the social conventions we adapt to in order to be part of a culture, and
some of them are also often seen as natural and permanent something that this paper will try
to show as untrue.
Unlike Saussure, Pierce included another element apart from the sign and the concept
(Saussures signifier and signified) and that is the interpretant. It should be confused with the
interpreter because interpretant is not a person who interpretes the sign but the mental tool
which is not the final signified object, but a mediating thought that promotes
understanding. According to Pierce, the semiosis (the process of sign interpretation) is
infinite since the link which enables the connection between the concept and the sign, that is
the interpretant, becomes a sign itself which can then be subjected to interpretation. 3

1 http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/semiotics_este.html
2 Berger, Arthur Asa, Signs in contemporary culture: an introduction to semiotics, Longman, New
York, 1984, p.12

In the essay titled The Theory of Signs and the Role of the Reader Umberto Eco
explains that semiotics has evolved through three stages. The first was during the 60s
semiotics was concerned about the functioning of the sign, about the system and the structure
and the main problem was the definition of the sign. However, in the 70s a new theoretical
concept appeared and that is the text (some theorists such as Roland Barthes insisted that this
new concept be written with a capital letter so he always referred to it as the Text) which no
longer represented a collection of signs but was seen as a sign itself. From the 70s until now
Eco suggest that semiotics have been dealing with the role of the reader, more precisely with
the role the reader has not in interpreting texts but in creating them. 4
That leads us to the possibility of the practical application of semiotics in literature
and Jonathan Culler argues that there should exist a system for literature similar to what
linguistics is to languages, that is that the study of literature shouldnt be reduced to
interpretation of the work of literature (the meaning whether determined by the author or the
reader), instead he suggests that we shouldnt look for the meaning itself but search for the
conditions of meaning in literature:
(S)emiotics of literature does not interpret works but tries to discover the
conventions which make meaning possible () the semiotician attempts to discover the
nature of the codes which make literary communication possible.5
What is important to notice here is that Culler refers to the conventions, that is to say
that there is no natural or universal way which establishes meaning and that brings us back to
Saussures theory which proclaims that the relation between the signifier and signified is
conventionally conditioned. It can also be compared to Pierces concept of the interpretant in
the way that we need a special set of codes because literature is distinctly different from
ordinary types of communication.
When it comes to the manifestations of literature which are, of course, texts, they too
can be seen as consisting of signs, but also a texts can be seen as one particular sign,
depending on its position in the system. And since a sign can function only in relation to other
signs (that concept is better known as intertextuality), the literary semiotics is needed to
determine how texts relate to one another and what establishes that connection. Another
important aspect is the condition which enables texts to achieve their meaning and that is its
existence in a wider system of signification or in more ordinary terms culture.
A text can be read only in relation to other texts, and it is made possible by the codes
which animate the discursive space of culture.6
3 http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/semiotics_este.html
4 http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Eco-TheoryofSigns-BMMLA-1981.pdf
5 Culler, Jonathan, In Pursuit of signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction, Routledge, London, 2001signs p
42

6 Ibid, p.43

A text cannot exist outside the area of culture, which would suggest that it is heavily
influenced by it, but also it could be said that culture itself relies on the number of
constituting texts, and that the integral part of culture is the reading of those essential texts
according to the adequate and accepted codes of a certain period. That interdependence is
best explained by Culler saying that:

To read is always to read in relation to other texts, in relation to the codes that are the
products of these texts and go and make up a culture7
Since semiotics can be applied to any system of values (a system which requires that
certain elements be assigned certain meaning), the semiotic analysis of culture is perhaps the
most rewarding although often the most elusive one, since its codes tend to shift and the
processes of signification often change over time. What is also specific about culture is that it
is a structure which consists out of numerous substructures, that is to say that its systems
must be in a certain order for it to function. Yuri Lotman, a renowned semiotician, indicated
that the hierarchy isnt strictly determined one since culture generates and is generated by
texts.
From a semiotic point of view culture may be regarded as a hierarchy of particular
semiotic systems, as the sum of texts and the set of functions correlated with them, or as a
certain mechanism which generates these texts.8
Culture as a text-generating system implies the necessity of codes without which the
meaning could not be established. However, since cultural codes are conventions it would be
wise to look into how cultural codes become ossified and taken as natural, and look for a
possible way of deciphering and demystifying them.

7 Ibid, p.13
8 Yuri Lotman Thesis on the semiotic study of culture (as applied to Slavic texts) in Structure of texts
and Semiotics of culture p17

The importance of codes in a culture

Before we delve deeper in the analysis of codes, the area in which they operate should
be clarified. In order for codes to take effect some conditions must be met and there must
exist a space in which sign processes take place, something that Yuri Lotman names
semiosphere. According to him the semiosphere is that same semiotic space, outside of
which semiosis itself cannot exist9, and of course, it has its certain characteristics and
internal dynamic. Semiosis (sign process) is essentially an egalitarian process since it cannot
give more or less meaning to something, however the position of individual manifestations of
semiosis are stacked hierarchically in culture which is why there is always the tension
between central and marginal elements. Lotman sees that difference as the vital characteristic
in every semiosphere and says that: The division between the core and the periphery is a
law of the internal organisation of the semiosphere.10 He also emphasises that the dominant
semiotic systems are located at the core, but that order isnt permanent meaning that the
periphery always competes for the core, and once it becomes the core it creates another
periphery.
The semiosphere of culture relies on the creation of codes, that is the set of rules and
conventions which determine the relation between signifiers and signifieds of that culture.
Whether a culture will be a central, peripheral or counter-culture depends in great measure on
the code and usually the codes of the dominant or central culture are seen as natural which is
understandable given that shared codes allow the senders and recipients to carry out parts of
interpretation process automatically.11 That immediacy is often mistook for a universal rule
which then causes the mythologisation of cultural conventions. The semiotisation, or the
creation of conventional codes, always has an ideological character12 which goes to say that
every code intends to be central to the culture. Considering Lotman's definition of culture as a
hierarchy of texts it is important to mention that for Lotman the hierarchy of cultural texts is
closely tied to the system of codes which facilitate the understanding of these texts.13
It can be said that a code is central to a culture if it has a wide distribution, great
frequency and high prestige. That means that its artifacts become models for other artifact
types and the artifacts produced to a central code tend to have a higher degree of elaboration
than other artifacts.14 Once highly elaborated, omnipresent and prestigious it is ready to
present itself an unquestionable myth.
9 http://www-1.ut.ee/SOSE/sss/Lotman331.pdf
10 Ibid
11 www.semiose.de/export_download.php?id=569
12 Ibid
13 Lotman the structure of signs
14 www.semiose.de/export_download.php?id=569

The mythology behind the myth

The issue with various semiotic systems is that they try to purport themselves as
natural and take central position based on that premise. That is why they have to be
demystified otherwise they become a mean of manipulation.
One of the renown scholars who has devoted his life to demystification is the French
theorist Roland Barthes who has analysed the processes of signification in order to decipher
and unveil the hidden intricacies that lie behind what we often take for granted.
According to him, myth isnt a concept or an idea it is not determined by the content,
rather it is a form or a mode of signification.15 That is to say, behind the message that a myth
conveys there is a structure, the system of communication which enable that message to have
such an influence. Myth is a type of speech, a message but not every message is able to
become a myth for that it is necessary to become a what Barthes call a second-order
semiological system:
That which is a sign (namely the associative total of a concept and an image) in the
first system, becomes a mere signifier in the second.16
The linguistic sign which is a first-order system, that which establishes meaning by
the unification of the signified and the signifier, is taken (or maybe is better to say it is
hijacked) and subjugated to another semiosis with one problem the sign which becomes a
signifier in the second-order semiological system is not empty as it is in the first-order
system, being that the sign is full and that it is a meaning. In the semiological system of
myths the signifiers still carries the traces of the previous meaning.
When it becomes form, the meaning leaves its contingency behind; it empties itself,
it becomes impoverished, history evaporates, only the letter remains. There is here a
paradoxical permutation in the reading operations, an abnormal regression from meaning to
form, from the linguistic sign to the mythical signifier.17
What must be emphasised here is that the meaning isnt destroyed but it is distorted, it
retains as much meaning as it is necessary to perform its symbolic function. Being that in a
myth signifier is both meaning and form of myth it is then able to naturalise the concept, or as
Barthes puts it: the very principle of myth is that it transforms history into nature.18
15 Barthes, Roland, Mythologies, The Noonday Press, New York, 1991, p.112
16 Ibid, p. 113
17 Ibid, p.116
18 Ibid, p.128

The difficulty in deciphering myths is that in such semiotic system its intentions arent hidden
but naturalised and they transform a meaning into form.19 Unlike linguistic sign system in
which there is an arbitrary relation between signifier and signified, in the semiotic system of
myths that relation is analogous due to the fact that the linguistic signifier is empty, while the
mythological signifier is laden with meaning because of his first-order semiosis:
() myth plays on the analogy between meaning and form, there is no myth without
motivated form.20
The semiosphere of myths is a particularly complicated one since its layers of meaning can
be presented as a natural progression and thus avoid any possible questioning. As it will be
demonstrated in the next chapter, in the novel Lanark written by Alasdair Gray a multiple
cultural stratification occurs where codes become ossified and myths thrive.

19 Ibid, p.132
20 Ibid, p. 125

Lanark the battle of myths

Although it could be classified as a dystopian novel, Lanark: a Life in Four Books is


primarily a very innovative and unconventional novel due to its form. It consists out of four
books but begins with the third one, has a prologue before book one which comes after book
three, an interlude in the centre, and an epilogue two or three chapters before the end. What is
also quite different is that the main character appears not the have the consistency you would
expect given the fact that the novel is titled by the main character Lanark.
The novel begins with the books three where Lanark, a shy young man who looks for
sunlight, chats with a bohemian crowd of the local caf in the gloomy industrial city of
Unthank. When asked what does he do he replies : I do nothing, with fantastic ability.8
However, later on when the leader of the caf pack is spotted and overall disassociation from
any true human connection is painfully evident (similar to the hippie commune but without
ideals), the dystopic scenery of the Unthank and its residents suffering from strange illnesses
are revealed. Lanark develops dragonhide, that is the skin on his elbows becomes scaly and
crusty, reason for it remains unknown although Lanark suspects that its due to the lack of
sunlight. The city of Unthank appears to be on the margins of society, we are constantly
introduced to depraved and wretched characters (a girl who has mouths growing on her body,
a landlord with three abandoned little children, etc.) and their higher administrative official is
a provost called Dodd who is a despondent type of character and who claims that there is a
strict division between people and while talking to Lanark says:
I had hoped you were a vertebrate, but I see youre a crustacean. Youll be at home
with the protest people because most of them are crustaceans. Now youre going to ask what
crustaceans are, so Ill tell you. The crustacean isnt a mere mass of sentient acquisitiveness,
like your leech or your sponge. It has a distinct shape. But the shape is not based on a
backbone, it derives from the insensitive shell which contains the beast. In the crustacean
class you will find the scorpion, the lobster and the louse.27
It is no coincidence this conversation is led once Lanark realises he is developing
dragonhide, that is his skin is starting to develop an outer shell which physically puts him in
the category of crustaceans. In this case we have a blend of figurative and literal situation,
showing us very practically how are the people of Unthank seen by others. Not having a
backbone immediately classifies them as a lower class of being, however, they are not the
weakest since they have outer hardness which hides the beast. Potentially, the beast can break
through the shell which might be the reason why they protest, but in the end they are
spineless meaning that their efforts cannot come to much fruition. People of Unthank seem to
be predetermined to live such agonising lives, they are on the margins and it appears that it is
not because of the lack of sunlight or the decrepit industry or bad living conditions. They
have coalesced with the city and utter devastation its their only option.
When his disease began to take hold of him, Lanark was swallowed by a mouth in the
ground only to be awaken in a hospital-like institution called the institute. The institute is an
utterly fearful place where doctors are former patients, hopeless patients are violently

destroyed and used as energy resource. Doctor Munro, the doctor initially in charge of the
patient Lanark at one time during lunch say to him:
We dont eat people. We eat the processed parts of certain life forms which can no
longer claim to be people. 256 munro
The institute being a research component/institution of the system and it tries to find
more energy efficient ways in order to survive the calamities which have befallen their age, is
not enough and there must be governing institution in order for the society to have structure.
Doctor Munro puts it nicely and says that:
The council is a political structure to lift men nearer Heaven. The institute is a
conspiracy of thinkers to bring the light of Heaven down to mankind. Munro 256
The myth of the institute is sustained by the myth of the council, they are inextricably
linked in as much that the works of the institute (the killing of patients) must be justified by a
morally superior governing body, in this case the council. Although many are apparently
aware of the devastation caused nobody questions the necessity and legitimacy of those
institutions, their existence seems to be taken as natural. Another doctor from the institute,
doctor Noakes gives a slightly methaporical representation of the situation saying that:
Since the institute joined with the council it seems that half the continents are
feeding on the other half. Man is the pie that bakes and eats himself and the recipe is
separation Noakes 78
Their world is polarised into one half and the other half, into vertebrates and
crustaceans, but that mythology must be maintained, and there is an underlying structure and
its elements are interdependent which could be the reason it appears unbreakable. Grant, one
of the residents of Unthank is maybe one of the most lucid characters and his view is
painfully precise:
Their institute breaks whole populations into winners and losers and calls itself
culture. Their council destroys every way of life which doesnt bring them a profit and calls
itself government. They pretend culture and government are supremely independent powers
when they are nothing but gloves on the hands of Volstat and Quantum, Cortexin and
Algolagnics. (...) Theyre sure that only their profit allows people to make and eat things.287
One interesting details that when Lanark wakes up and sees the clock on the wall, the
clock is showing twenty-five hours instead of twenty-four. Time is a very fluid concept in this
novel: Unthank doesnt have with what to measure it (although some characters use their
heartbeat), and the institute has a twenty-five hour system. In those drastic situations only the
most capable ones can manage and control the time.
Nobody but a fanatic would suggest that the material of time is moral, but on
occasions like the present, when the boundaries of the most stable continents seem melting
into intercalendrical mist, it appears probable that a working timescale needs a higher
proportion of common decency than the science of chronology has hitherto assumed.
sludden291

Manipulation has gone to extremes that even time is manipulated by the council.
Throughout the city advertisements could be seen with titles such as:
A HOME IS MONEY. MONEY IS TIME. BUY TIME FOR YOUR FAMILY FROM THE
QUANTUM CHRONOLOGICAL. (THEYLL LOVE YOU FOR IT.) 303
WISE BUYERS ARE THE BEST SEXERSBUY HER A LONG LIFE, AN EASY DEATH
FROM QUANTUM PROVIDENTIAL. (SHELL LOVE YOU FOR IT.)305
It is no surprise that contemporary myths are upheld by advertising that could be the
most effective way ever designed, but what is diabolical in Lanark is that they have gone one
step further and they have covered all possibilities of disagreement by having advertisements
such as this:
ADVERTISING OVERSTIMULATES, MISINFORMS, CORRUPTS.
If you feel this, send your name and address to the Council Advertising Commission and
receive your free booklet explaining why we cant do without it. 305

Bibliography:
Barthes, Roland, Mythologies, The Noonday Press, New York, 1991
Berger, Arthur Asa, Signs in contemporary culture: an introduction to semiotics, Longman,
New York, 1984
Culler, Jonathan, In Pursuit of signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction, Routledge,
London, 2001
Gray, Alasdair, Lanark: a Life in 4 books,
Lotman et al. Thesis on the semiotic structure as applied to Slavic texts in Eng van der Jan,
Grygar Mojmir, Structure of texts and semiotics of culture, Mouton, Paris, 1973
http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/semiotics_este.html
http://www-1.ut.ee/SOSE/sss/Lotman331.pdf
www.semiose.de/export_download.php?id=569
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Eco-TheoryofSigns-BMMLA-1981.pdf

You might also like