Political discourse and semiotics (original) (raw)
Related papers
2020
Review of Introducing Relational Political Analysis: Political Semiotics as a Theory and Method [Palgrave Studies in Relational Sociology] by Peeter Selg and Andreas Ventsel. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020, 319 pp.
Springer Lecture notes in networks and systems, 2022
The purpose—Morphogenetics of political action presupposes transdisciplinary immersion in the experience of solving complex problems, that constantly intrude into the stable sign systems of political subjects and their order parameters, thereby changing precursors to intentional activity. The layering of political orders of sign systems, facilitating the emergence of mutually intersecting, complementary, competing or accommodating modes of political complexity embodiment, creates a pulsating problem field that requires analytical isolation and subsequent synthesis of real political experience constellations using semiotic tools of cognition. Design/Methodology/Approach—Semiotics occupies a supra-disciplinary position in the system of sciences, having no clear-cut boundaries—its place in the research space is isomorphic to the research object of the political science: it is always “between”, always “at junction”. Conceptualization of political complexity requires a switch from dichotomies to the triangulation of logos, pathos and ethos with a space for the creativity of political imagination, which replaces abstract ideas of the common good with the future vision as a well-founded integral synthesis. Transdisciplinary experience of philosophizing accumulates and condenses the results of disciplinary thought in communication here and now, which stretches the life-giving thread of community over the abyss of hermetic disciplinary discourses, which is relevant to solving complex issues in gradation from the individual to the supranational level. Findings—Political action combines both expression and preliminary premise of political complexity, inviting the researcher to plunge into an expanding universe of experience, framed by moving frontiers of space and time, within which the division between theory and practice is being emergently abolished. Semiotics of the sensual in politics refers to the vitality of matter, through which the self-organizing chaos of the world of things brings order to the living space of political subjectivity in the affective act. The affective action mode combines authenticity with the scaling of political action, creating space for phase transition from stability to change. Political action is a meeting point of contingency and determination, intentionality and blindness, the fruit of the tension of overcoming and the game of dichotomies of adaptability and pre-adaptability, tradition and innovation. The arteries of reciprocal interaction between the environments of political order formation branch out in a multiplicity of effects of political action, where the target reason for the distribution of powers becomes the dominant configurator, which can take both a latent form and performative forms of events that translate language into speech. Originality/Value—Disclosing specific attributive characteristics of political action requires accentuation of the procedural nature of political morphogenesis, which unfolds in the exchange between discrete political subjects. The procreative interval of politics is fractally reproduced in the space between determinism and randomness, creating a request to abandon the paradigm of “taken for granted” in understanding, conceptualizing and explaining the nature of politics. Research/Practical/Social/Environment implications—Language fulfils the functions of transfer, fixation and distribution of the sign systems that underlie the political form by selecting morphogenetic meanings of political action. Political morphogenesis is triggered, provided and overturned by recursive repetition in the language, built according to the logic of positive and negative feedback. Centre-peripheral polarities between interpretations of concepts in political science are smoothed out when using the emerging transdisciplinary language of semiotics, which freely operates in the space of new challenges for political science. Research limitations—The canvas of text, articulating and reinforcing, restraining and invoking, transforms information into frames containing reference points for political action with hotbeds of the flame of new meanings in the intervals of the accelerating pulse of digital life mode. Normo-genesis embedded in morphogenesis as a “core practice” includes the reproduction of “norm” statements often out of touch with the ideal and every time through a concrete solution to the issue of inclusiveness/exclusivity and the included Third, where what is verbalized is actualized, what is drowned in silence is deprived of the right to exist, and what is between them creatively sprouts with new life in the aesthetics of politics.
Deleuze and Guattari Studies15.2 , 2021
Focusing on Guattari and Deleuze's collaborative critique of structural linguistics, this article claims that rather than offering an 'escape from language', Guattari and Deleuze recast language as a social and political practice. Through a reading of Guattari and Deleuze's analysis of Saussure, their reinterpretation of Hjelmslev, and a discussion of the concepts of order-words and minor use of language, the article shows how, to do this, the authors develop a social and semiotic critique whereby the very concept of language changes from representation to intervention in a material and social field.
What is political semiotics and why does it matter? A reply to Janar Mihkelsaar
Semiotica: Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, 231, 27−37, 2019
In view of the recent criticisms of Janar Mihkelsaar the authors expli-cate their position on what political semiotics is and why it is important for both semiotics and the social sciences. Some further research trajectories are also discussed in moving from semiotic theory of hegemony to fully developed subdiscipline of political semiotics that would be part of the "relational turn" in political analysis more generally.
American Journal of Semiotics, 1986
“Polis, Semiotics, Politics,” American Journal of Semiotics (Bloomington, IN) 4:1-2, 43-51