Taking the realness away

Myth Is Language

Barthes says that "Myth is language," and looking at it from that perspective, then, if language is a system of signs, in a myth, what would be the equivalent of the signifier and what would be the equivalent of the signified? Now, going back to Saussure, for him a sinifier (the sound) refers to the concept and not to the thing itself, and by a signified, he means the image. Lets looks at the article “Toys”. Barthes says that he want to identify what-goes-without-saying, that is, the ideological  abuse, as he calls it (I'm going to need help here, so feel free to correct me and make suggestions): 

The signifier would be: A little girl playing with dolls (dolls with the ability to walk, eat, drink...)

The signified would be: ...this something ( A little girl playing with dolls) is always entirely socialized, constituted by the myths or the techniques of modern adult life: the Army, Broadcasting, the Post Office, Medicine (miniature instrument-cases, operating theatres for dolls), School, Hair-Styling (driers for permanent-waving), the Air Force (Parachutists), Transport (trains, Citroens, Vedettes, Vespas, petrol-stations), Science (Martian toys). p. 53

French toys always mean something: Imitation. In this case “[t]his is meant to prepare the little girl for the causality of house-keeping, to 'condition' her to her future role as mother” (53).

As Barthes points out in the Preface of this book, myths make Nature indistinguishable from History (social constructs).

Human Experience vs The Experience of a Human 

 

After reading some of the essays included in Mythologies (1957), it got me thinking about the difference between Human Experience and The Experience of a Human (I'm making these up). By human experience I mean experiencing things (life) through a more empirical process, where things that are experienced are not controlled or even expected to happen. The latter, on the other hand, refers to those experiences planned and controlled by the human. For example, traveling. A tourist might plan a trip to BC and s/he might arrive to the city with a “things-to-do list” (an itinerary) in her/his pocket. That is to say, it is a more programmed process of experiencing things. Now, what I think is interesting is that this tourist is going to leave the city with a certain idea about it and to her/him that IS what the city IS about. S/he will provided the meaning to the city based on her/his own experiences. Therefore, the person provides meaning to things (This is also stated in “The Death of the Author”). Now, it seems humans have the freedom to create their own world based on their own interpretation of it. Right? Or is the tourist using the “general semiology of our bourgeois world” to interpret the meaning of the city (10)? Therefore, if this last statement is true, when we experience something, we don't really provide meaning to that experience but we're attributing a meaning that is expected to be attributed. Is this the purpose of the experience of the human, where not only the interpretation is already given, but it is also organized for him/her? In the article “Blue Guide” as well as in the article “Striptease” the ultimate myth seems to be the perpetuation of the idea that the "costumer is always right" allowing to keep alive the industry and a happy consumer...