PAPER ON BARTHES
QUESTION 1
In “in the Ring” Barthes says of professional wrestling that “We’re dealing here with a veritable Human Comedy where the subtlest nuances of intense feeling (complacency, entitlement refined cruelty, retribution) invariably encounter the most explicit signs which can express them triumphantly to the last rows of the arena” (p7). The subtlest nuances encounter the most explicit signs. What does this sentence mean? What are some of these explicit signs that he is talking about? Why does he keep saying that wrestling is like a morality play for the spectator, that it even has quasi-religious overtones with its portal of Good and Evil?
Barthes mirrors wrestling to a morality show where the wrestlers are the actors who get the opportunity to portray their passion which in turn brings out their morals which may either be acted or true in reality. The sentence ‘The subtlest nuances encounter the most explicit signs’ simply means that the tiniest of uniqueness in what seems similar, is usually what holds the biggest communication of the message of differentiation. These signs may be the actions or the consequences that each object of comparison holds, contrary to the generalized notion or presumption painted by the idea of a standard interpretation being in existence.
QUESTION 2
On p.4 how does Barthes contrast wrestling with boxing? How does he contrast wrestling with judo? You will notice that throughout the essay this type of contrast is one of Barthes’s standard techniques: soaps are thought of like A, detergents are thought of like B, wine is like X, milk is like Y. what is the purpose of these contrasts? Why does he so often want to show that there are multiple things of the same type, yet which signify meanings that are opposites of each other?
Barthes contrasts boxing and wrestling to presuppose that the latter contains more passion and brings about more anxiety in the expectations of the audience. He argues that the former is preconditioned and thus easy to foretell the results. Wrestling, he says, is deeper, with every move communicating a particular meaning with which the wrestler operates. This is to mean that boxing is a mere function of a game whilst wrestling is more of a science that cannot be cumulatively determined without articulating the meaning of every move therein. Barthes explains that judo’s actions are full of calculation, with each move being an anticipation of the next. Wrestling, on the contrary, does not feed one move to the next but holds a meaning for each, in an independent way.
Barthes uses a lot of contrast to show that two things may be of the same type but have different uses or meanings. In the same breath, language can have similar variations of words that hold different interpretations or meanings that the speaker seeks to relay to the audience. This, therefore purports that semiotics do not have a standard way of deducing meaning and message.
QUESTION 3
Choose one of the shorter essays in “Mythologies” and give a detailed explanatory summary of it, of about 100 words. What is the overall point of the essay? Go paragraph by paragraph and explain the different turns in the development of the argument. Quote one or two of the most interesting or surprising sentences, and explain what the author is doing there. What are the most surprising or counter-intuitive points?
The mythology on “Saponids and Detergents” basically uses the analogy of soap and detergents to communicate the aspect of two items being similar yet so different and unique from each other. First paragraph gives a brief overview of the creation of detergent and the aims therein. The subsequent paragraphs then show the difference between the powder forms, the fluids and the chemicals in a manner that allows the reader to paint the needed picture of the similarities and uniqueness. The sentence ‘the remedies between the remedy and the evil, between dirtiness and these products, are very different in each case’ is used by the author in a counter-intuitive way to mean that the detergents may seem to hold the same aims but have different uses.
QUESTION 4
What is the thesis of Ways of Seeing, Episode 2 (The Nude)? What importance does the European tradition of “The Nude” have for modern life?
The thesis on the ways of seeing is basically a criticism of what it means to be naked and what it means to portray nudity. It analyses the aspect of language as compared to interpretation. The European tradition is important in modern life as it brings out the semiotics of how women are viewed and the conclusions made thereabout.
QUESTION 5
At the end, women discuss their thoughts on the episode in relation to life in the 1970’s. do you think these ideas are still relevant today? How do you think these issues have developed since that time?
The women argue that the painting luck activity and dynamism. They continue to say that its degrading to have only women portray the nudity and thus shows the idea of intimidation and male supremacy that unconsciously ruled the 1970’s. In my opinion, these ideas have influenced the life today in that people deliberately connect nudity to freedom of expression and choice.