Barthes & Foucault

Barthes' discussion of mythology and semiotics seems to be timeless in that it applies to any point in history (that had a language) without difficulty. He mentions that any object is essentially fair-game for being made into a sign or symbol of mythology, which he explains when he writes, "Every object in the world can pass from a closed, silent existence to an oral state, open to appropriation by society, for there is no law...which forbids talking about things" (Barthes 94). I admit I found his arguments regarding the differences between the sign and the signifier and the signified (around page 98) to be quite confusing although perhaps what he intends to show his readers is that the way that the relationship between all of these different functions and roles create a mythology around the meaning of a specific sign or symbol. Barthes writes, "...myth hides nothing; its function is to distort, not to make disappear" (107). I guess this makes sense, but wouldn't giving some kind of seemingly false mythology about anything essentially erase it's 'actual' meaning, if there is one? If a mythology cannot make something disappear, what can?

Barthes goes on to say that "myth is a value, truth is no guarantee for it" (109). I thought his example about the newspaper heading on page 117 to be quite interesting. He states that the headline, in this case, "The Fall in Prices: First Indications. Vegetables: Price Drop Begins" will immediately lead consumers to the conclusion that these price drops are due to action by the government. However, this myth can immediately be destroyed if the consumer decides to read the sub-heading, which attributes price-drops to seasonal abundance of vegetables. Apparently, it doesn't matter that this myth can be so quickly seen through, what is important is that the message about the government was received at all. I would say that the message is definitely given and received, but I am less sure about the actual impact it has. Barthes writes, "...a myth is at the same time imperfectible and unquestionable; time or knowledge will not make it better or worse" (118).

I saw a similar argument appear in Foucault's essay "What is an Author?" For example, when he mentions how some names are endowed with meaning (he uses Aristotle, Shakespeare, etc), this is certainly a form of mythology.  Foucault writes, "...an author's name is not simply an element of speech....Its presence is functional in that it serves as a means of classification...finally, the author's name characterizes a particular manner of existence or discourse" (452). It is interesting to think about how actual role an author plays in their own writing and how a mythology about their abilities or writings, etc can affect how their work is received. Indeed, Foucault suggests that how literary discourse depended heavily on the author, date it was written, etc, "the meaning and value attributed to the text depended on this information" (454). Barthes' definitions of the sign, signifier, and signified could be applied in this scenario...is the name of the author the sign, the actual author the signified, and the text the signifier? I honestly don't know, since Barthes believes that these definitions change when language becomes myth, but I wonder if Barthes believes language can exist without myth?