Myth (Roland Barthes) (7)

Standard associations with the term ‘myth’: stories about gods and heroes

Roland Barthes’ concept of myth:

• broader

• myth not necessarily a story

• rather: way which certain words, signs or images and the meanings conventionally associated with them, can be used to influence people

• The connotations or associations produced in making sense of words, signs or images can then be mythical.

Barthes’ theory has a linguistic basis:

✓ semiotics

− basic premise is that anything can be used as a sign conveying meaning (words, traffic sings, images, music...).

→ His theory on myth is broader than his ‘Rhetoric of the Image’, since it includes other forms of ‘texts’, too.

Barthes bases his understanding of myth on the linguistic sign which is made up of

• the signifier and

• the signified

the signifier

• the word we read on a page/the spoken word we hear/the icon of something

the signified

• what the word/sound image/icon refers to

Why is the connection between signifier and signified considered arbitrary?

• connection between signifier and signified → arbitrary

  • because, not logical or inherent.

• Enfglish: 'tree' for a large plant with a trunk, branches, and leaves was constructed and agreed upon at some point.

What example illustrates the arbitrariness of the signifier and signified relationship?

• The name 'tree' in the English language is not inherent to the plant itself

  → was constructed arbitrarily

• This becomes evident when comparing it to other languages that have very different names for the same plant.

How does myth work with signs?

• Myth works with connotations and associations that we immediately have when encountering signs, such as words or images.

What is significant about these connotations and associations?

• These connotations and associations seem natural or logical but are actually constructed and naturalized.

• They can be exploited to ‘sell’ particular products or worldviews/ideologies.

Roland Barthes' Concept of Myth

How does advertising manage to link the associations on the level of myth with the product?

✓ introduces a clearly recognisable sign with fairly obvious (positive) associations

✓ physical closeness of the product to the sign on the primary level of myth

✓ analogies in shape/colour between the product and the sign on the primary level of myth

✓ use of linguistic ambiguity (e.g. puns)