Critical Realism and Semologic

7/17/2019 Critical Realism and Semologic

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critical-realism-and-semologic 1/20

Critical Realism and Semologic

Bob Jessop / January 16, 2014

Tis on!line "ersion is te pre!copyedited, preprint "ersion# Te publised "ersion can be

$ound ere%

&Critical realism and semologic' (co!autored )it *# +aircloug and # Sayer-, in J#.#

Roberts and J# Josep, eds, Realism, iscourse and econstruction, ondon% Routledge,2!42, 2004#

By% *orman +aircloug, Bob Jessop, ndre) Sayer

bstract% Tis capter e3plores te mutual implication o$ critical realism and semiosis (or

te intersubecti"e production o$ meaning-# 5t argues tat critical realism must integratesemiosis into its account o$ social relations and social structuration# Tis goes )ell

beyond te uestion o$ )eter reasons can be causes to include more basic issues o$ te per$ormati"ity o$ semiosis and te relationsip bet)een interpretation ("ersteen- and

causal e3planation (er7l8ren-# Te capter ten demonstrates o) critical realism can

integrate semiosis into its accounts o$ dialectic o$ structure and agency troug ane"olutionary approac to structuration# 5t also demonstrates o) critical semiotic analysis

(including critical discourse analysis- can bene$it $rom critical realism# 5n te latter

respect )e consider te emergence o$ semiotic e$$ects and e3tra!semiotic e$$ects $rom

te3tual practices and gi"e t)o brie$ illustrations o$ o) tis )or7s $rom speci$ic te3ts#Te capter concludes )it more general recommendations about te articulation o$ te

discursi"e and e3tra!discursi"e aspects o$ social relations and its implications $or criticalrealism#

Tis capter e3plores te mutual implication o$ critical realism and semiosis# t least

tree maor sets o$ uestions can be posed in tis regard#91: +irst, )e consider )eter

critical realism can a$$ord to ignore semiosis, pro"isionally de$ined as te intersubecti"e

production o$ meaning,92: in its more general approac to social relations, teirreproduction and trans$ormation (see Section 5-# 5n discussing tis issue )e interpret

social relations broadly to include not only indi"idual actions and interactions but also te

emergent properties o$ institutional orders and te domain o$ te li$e)orld# part $romaddressing te closely related, contro"ersial, but noneteless analytically distinct, issue o$

)eter reasons can also be causes, critical realists a"e paid little attention to te nature

and signi$icance o$ semiosis# ;rioriti<ing te $ormer at te e3pense o$ te latter is uiteunusti$ied because reasons are merely one (albeit important- aspect o$ te causal e$$icacy

o$ semiosis# 5n addition, teir e$$ecti"eness can only be understood in and troug te

operation o$ semiosis# Second, and eually important $or our purposes, )e inuire into

te social preconditions and broader social conte3t o$ semiosis# Tis set o$ problems is



)ell suited to te application o$ critical discourse analysis because te latter can

conte3tualise te production, communication, and reception o$ semiosis (see Couliara7i

and +aircloug 1===-# But )e also so) tat, depending on te e3plicandum, it may benecessary to supplement critical discourse analysis (erea$ter C- troug more

concrete!comple3 analyses o$ e3tra!discursi"e domains# Tis implies tat, inso$ar as

semiosis as been studied in isolation $rom its conte3t, tis is bound to lead to anincomplete account o$ social causation and tere$ore ris7s committing one or more 7inds

o$ reductionism (see section 55-# +inally, )e turn to a tird set o$ uestions# Tese concern

te nature o$ semiotic structures, teir emergence $rom te3ts and te3tual practices, andteir role in social structuration (see section 555-# >e e3empli$y tese issues by dra)ing

on critical semiotic analysis (especially C-, )ic is a $orm o$ te3t analysis tat is not

only compatible )it critical realism but also pro"ides maor insigts into te role o$

semiosis in social structuration (see section 5?-# @"erall tese t)o sections see7 to so)tat semiosis in"ol"es mecanisms tat are intelligible $rom a critical realist point o$

"ie)# @ur concluding section dra)s tese di$$erent temes togeter to argue tat semiotic

analysis migt bene$it $rom paying attention to oter aspects o$ critical realism and tat

critical realism migt bene$it $rom paying more attention to semiosis )en e3ploring tesocial )orld#

ddressing tese tree sets o$ uestions in"ol"es identi$ying and e3ploring te real

mecanisms o$ semiosis as a $irst step to)ards ma7ing progress on te larger problem o$

mind!body!semiosis!sociality!materiality# Tis is clearly an ambitious proect and )e donot e3pect to produce a solution in tis paper# .oreo"er, since critical realism ua

pilosopy does not entail commitments to any particular substanti"e social or

psycological teory, alternati"e critical realist accounts o$ semiosis could also be

ad"anced# 5$ so, )e ope our o)n proposals )ill stimulate $ello) critical realists to present tem#

5# >y Critical Realism .ust ddress Semiosis

Critical realism as tended to ta7e semiosis $or granted# +or e3ample, its practitioners

o$ten de$end te claim tat reasons can be causes )itout ma7ing any substantialre$erence to semiosis as suc# @ur $irst obecti"e is to oppose tis neglect# >e )ill ten

demonstrate o) a critical realist approac migt be used to illuminate semiosis#

Social teorists and discourse analysts routinely de$end semiotic analysis on te groundstat semiosis as real e$$ects on social practice, social institutions, and social order# Tey

argue, in sort, tat semiosis is per$ormati"e# Toug it is certainly possible $or us to

communicate unintentionally, )e normally spea7 or )rite in order to produce some 7indo$ response# Aet ans)ers to te uestion o$ o) semiosis produces e$$ects are generally

conspicuous by teir absence# Tis could )ell be due to te many uncertainties and/or

contro"ersies o"er te nature o$ e3planation in te social sciences# +or some socialteorists, e3plaining o) semiosis produces e$$ects )ould reuire a causal e3planation

tat $irst identi$ies )at it is tat produces obser"ed e$$ects and ten attributes causal

responsibility tereto in terms o$ an underlying causal mecanism (or mecanisms-# But

many oter teorists reect causal e3planation as being )olly inappropriate to te study



o$ semiosis# +or e3ample, ermeneutics is generally ta7en to reect causal e3planation

(er7l8ren- in $a"our o$ interpreti"e understanding ("ersteen-# 5ts ad"ocates deny tat

semiosis and its e$$ects can be e3plained in te same )ay as te production o$ cemicalreactions and teir e$$ects all tat is possible (and all tat is reuired- is to elucidate )at

a speci$ic te3t &means'# Tis reection o$ er7l8ren in $a"our o$ "ersteen is o$ten tied to a

umean account o$ causal e3planation in terms o$ &constant conunctions' bet)eencauses and e$$ects#9: Tus ad"ocates o$ "ersteen argue tat, because suc regularities

eiter do not caracterise communication or are irrele"ant to its understanding, causal

e3planation is eiter totally e3cluded or simply redundant# Di"en te semiotic caractero$ reasons (see belo)-, tis argument is lin7ed to teir conclusion tat reasons are not to

be treated as causes o$ bea"iour# 5nstead, according to ad"ocates o$ "ersteen, reasons

are propositions tat precede or accompany bea"iour and must simply be &understood'#

5$ tis line o$ reasoning )ere to be accepted, o)e"er, it )ould be meaningless and/or pointless to inuire into te causal e$$icacy o$ semiosis#

5n contrast, )e argue tat semiosis is bot meaning$ul and causally e$$icacious, and )e

tere$ore need to demonstrate, using critical realist concepts, o) it produces e$$ects# Todo tis )e need to recall some 7ey $eatures o$ critical realist pilosopy#

+irst, critical realists distinguis te real $rom te actual and te empirical# Te &real'

re$ers to obects, teir structures or natures and teir causal po)ers and liabilities# Te

&actual' re$ers to )at appens )en tese po)ers and liabilities are acti"ated and produce cange# Te &empirical' is te subset o$ te real and te actual tat is e3perienced

by actors#94: ltoug canges at te le"el o$ te actual (e#g# political debates- may

cange te nature o$ obects (e#g# political institutions-, te latter are not reducible to te

$ormer, any more tan a car can be reduced to its mo"ement# .oreo"er, )ile empiricale3periences can in$luence bea"iour and ence )at appens, muc o$ te social and

pysical )orlds can e3ist regardless o$ )eter researcers, and in some cases oter

actors, are obser"ing or e3periencing tem# Toug languages and oter semioticstructures/systems are dependent on actors $or teir reproduction, tey al)ays already

pre!e3ist any gi"en actor (or subset o$ actors-, and a"e a relati"e autonomy $rom tem as

real obects, e"en )en not actualised#9E:

Second, CR "ie)s obects as structured and as a"ing particular causal po)ers or

liabilities# Tat is, tey are able to act in certain )ays and/or su$$er certain canges# Tus

a person )o as learned a language as a ric set o$ (causal- po)ers to communicate,and tey a"e tese po)ers e"en toug tey do not use tem all te time#96: Tese

po)ers e3ist (o$ten, o$ course, in latent $orm- but tey can be acti"ated in certain

situations# 5$ and )en tey are acti"ated, te e$$ects depend on te conte3t# Tus i$ )eas7 someone te )ay to te To)n all, te e$$ects o$ te uestion )ill depend on )eter

se spea7s te same language, )eter se 7no)s te area, and so on# But regardless o$

)eter te ans)er is 'round te corner', &5'm sorry 5 don't 7no)', or &)y do you )antto 7no)F', it is at least co!produced by te uestion, and tis is true irrespecti"e o$

)eter te relationsip bet)een te uestion and ans)er is regular or irregular#

Causation is about )at produces cange (te acti"ation o$ causal po)ers- not about

()eter obser"ers a"e registered- a regular conunction o$ cause e"ents and e$$ect



e"ents# ence, regularities are not necessary $or e3planation, )eter o$ pysical or

social penomena# G"en )ere )e do $ind regularities tey still a"e to be e3plained in

terms o$ )at produces tem# Tus critical realism reects te umean, constantconunction "ie) o$ causation#

Tird, as te preceding e3ample suggests, critical realists argue tat reasons can operateas causes, tat is, can be responsible $or producing a cange# 5ndeed, )en someone tries

to persuade us tat )e are )rong to ma7e tis argument by gi"ing us reasons, tey in turn

presuppose tat o$$ering reasons can be causati"e# Tis applies irrespecti"e o$ )etertere are regularities $or us to record# +or te general absence o$ regularities bet)een

gi"ing or recogni<ing reasons and subseuent bea"iour is not $atal to causal e3planation#

@n te contrary, as )e a"e seen, regularities are not essential $or causal e3planation

e"en in te pysical sciences# Te e$$ects produced by semiosis certainly depend on te3ts being understood9H: in some $asion but not necessarily ust in one, and only one,

$asion# Tus a speec made during an election campaign may o$$er people strong

reasons $or "oting in a certain )ay# Te $act tat te speec migt be construed

di$$erently by di$$erent indi"iduals (e"en leading tem to "ote contrary to te reasonsadduced- and ence does not $orm part o$ a constant conunction or e"ent regularity does

not mean tat it can a"e no in$luence on "oting (Bas7ar, 1=H= Collier, 1==4-#9I:nderstanding ("ersteen- and e3planation (er7l8ren- are not antitetical, tere$ore, but

can be combined to produce a more coerent and complete e3planation#

Crucial toug tis issue o$ reasons as causes as been in te pilosopy o$ social

science, it $ails to address te speci$ic nature o$ &reasons' and o) tey come to moti"ate

action# 5n particular, it ignores te semiotic caracter o$ reasons and, in te most e3treme

cases, treats tem as simple, singular triggers o$ action# Aet reasons are di$$use and ardto identi$y unambiguously# 5ndeed, it )ould be better to tin7 o$ tem as emergent

elements in more e3tensi"e net)or7s o$ concepts, belie$s, symbols, and te3ts# s )e

so) in section 55, tey presuppose languages, intentionality, particular concepts and prior understandings and interests, interte3tuality, con"entions o$ in$erence and e"idence,

and so on# G"en a brie$ re$lection on te implications o$ tis semiotic and social

embedding o$ reasons is enoug to bring ome te inadeuacy o$ a simplistic treatmento$ reasons# 5n addition, i$ )e re$lect more broadly upon )at 7inds o$ semiotic $eatures

and e"ents can bring about canges in bea"iour (i$ only at te le"el o$ o) people tin7

or $eel-, )e notice tat it is not only reasons tat cange )at )e do# >e may be

in$luenced more by te tone (e#g# )armt, ostility- or imagery o$ a speec tan by anyreasons $or action tat it migt present# Consideration o$ tese e3pressi"e ualities o$

communication e3poses te narro)ly rationalist caracter o$ te reasons!as!causes

ans)er to te uestion o$ o) te3ts produce e$$ects# >e tere$ore need to go beyond tereasons!as!causes argument, important toug it is, to e3amine te nature o$ semiosis

more generally and its place )itin te o"erall logic o$ te social#

55# Te Social ;reconditions and Conte3t o$ Semiosis

Social scientists )o a"e so)n interest in semiosis a"e tended to ignore its broader

social conte3t# >e aim to correct tis bias in te semiotic turn by putting semiotic



processes into conte3t# Tis means locating tem )itin teir necessary dialectical

relations )it persons (ence minds, intentions, desires, bodies-, social relations, and te

material )orld K locating tem )itin te practical engagement o$ embodied and sociallyorganised persons )it te material )orld#

Semiosis K te ma7ing o$ meaning K is a crucial part o$ social li$e but it does not e3austte latter# Tus, because te3ts are bot socially!structuring and socially!structured, )e

must e3amine not only o) te3ts generate meaning and tereby elp to generate social

structure but also o) te production o$ meaning is itsel$ constrained by emergent, non!semiotic $eatures o$ social structure# +or e3ample, an inter"ie) is a particular $orm o$

communication (a &genre' in te terminology )e introduce belo)- tat bot creates a

particular 7ind o$ social encounter and is itsel$ socially!structured, $or e3ample by

con"entions o$ propriety, pri"acy and disclosure, by particular distributions o$ resources,material and cogniti"e# 5n sort, altoug semiosis is an aspect o$ any social practice

(inso$ar as practices entail meaning-, no social practice (let alone all bea"iours- is

reducible to semiosis alone# Tis means tat semiosis cannot be reduced to te play o$

di$$erences among net)or7s o$ signs (as i$ semiosis )ere al)ays purely an intra!semioticmatter )it no e3ternal re$erence- and tat it cannot be understood )itout identi$ying

and e3ploring te e3tra!semiotic conditions tat ma7e semiosis possible and secure itse$$ecti"ity#9=: >e tere$ore reect te +oucauldian!inspired con$lation o$ discourses and

material practices as one more instance o$ te &discourse!imperialism' tat as in$ected

social teory $or te last t)o decades# Tis con$lation also eliminates te distinction K socrucial $or critical realism K bet)een te transiti"e and intransiti"e dimensions o$

scienti$ic inuiry# 5t tereby produces te epistemic $allacies associated )it strong social

constructionism (Sayer, 2000-#

Te intersubecti"e production o$ meaning and oter semiotic e$$ects is e3ceptionally

di$$icult to e3plain, not least because it in"ol"es more or less inaccessible mental

processes# Tus, altoug )e o$$er a )ay o$ e3plaining te po)er o$ semiosis to generatemeaning, and e"en toug semiosis in"ol"es te listener/reception as muc as

spea7er/production, it lea"es open te uestion o$ o) minds ma7e sense o$ te3ts# >ilst

meaning and moti"e are emergent penomena o$ semiosis, tey need minds )it certaincapabilities to co!construct social action and interaction (and bodies to enact tem-#

ccordingly, our approac to semiosis goes beyond semiotic systems (including

languages- and te3ts# anguage acuisition itsel$ is bot preceded by, and ongoingly presupposes, "arious bodily and practical $orms o$ non!linguistic 7no)ledge or 7no)!

o), s7ills and sense# Regarding language, )e ac7no)ledge .argaret rcer's

demonstration o$ te importance o$ te embodied, practical and non!semiotic, indeednon!social (in te sense o$ intersubecti"e- dimensions o$ uman practice, and teir status

as preconditions o$ language!learning and use (rcer, 2000-# Tus in$ants a"e to learn

a considerable amount )itout te aid o$ semiotic systems be$ore tey are able to acuirete latter# 5n addition, te3t producers and interpreters subseuently continue to rely

ea"ily upon on non!semiotic 7no)ledge, bodily a)areness or 7no)!o) in order to

carry out bot simple and comple3 tas7s# @nce tese linguistic and non!linguistic s7ills

a"e been acuired, $urter issues arise# +irst, )e are o$ten only more or less subliminally



a)are o$ &e"ents' at te margins o$ our $ields o$ perception# Second, )e may also respond

more or less subconsciously to &e"ents'# nd, tird, i$ )e )ere not intentional, desiring

beings )it needs, semiosis )ould be redundant, $or it )ould simply not matter )ate3isted in reality or actuality ()ic pro"ides part o$ te o"erall basis $or te re$erential

$unction o$ semiosis-, tere )ould be no per$ormati"ity, and no a$$ect or e3pressi"e

communication# .ore generally, semiosis presupposes embodied, intentional, practically!s7illed social actors, social relations, material obects and spatio!temporality#

Semiosis is also in$luenced by te abitus, i#e#, by te semi!conscious dispositions tat people, particularly in teir early li"es, acuire troug social/material interaction )it

teir abitat and troug te social relations in teir part o$ te social $ield (Bourdieu,

2000-# abitus and te $eel $or particular games tat it pro"ides can include di$$erent

degrees o$ $acility )it respect to language use, $or e3ample di$$ering capacities to deal)it and learn ne) discourses or genres or styles (Bourdieu, 1==1-#

Te relationsip bet)een tese elements K actors, language, te3ts, social relations,

practical conte3ts K is one o$ dialectical internal relations, i#e#, altoug distinct, tey arenot discrete (aclau and .ou$$e 1=IE ar"ey 1==6 @llman 1==-# *oneteless te

relati"e )eigt o$ tese di$$erent elements )itin te o"erall con$iguration o$ a socialaction is bound to "ary $rom case to case# 5n tis regard it is )ort noting tat tere is a

range o$ &semioticity' inso$ar as di$$erent social actions, e"ents, or social orders may be

more or less semioticised# 5ndeed, one migt be able to construct a continuum ranging$rom tecnological systems troug to religion in terms o$ te relati"e )eigt o$ semiosis

and materiality in teir o"erall constitution#

*o account o$ semiosis can e"ade te issues o$ )at abermas terms trut, trut$ulness,and appropriateness# Tus, te production and interpretation o$ any te3t rests upon

generally implicit (and o$ten counter$actual- "alidity claims )it respect to )at is te

case (te &trut'-, te intentions, belie$s etc#, o$ agents (&trut$ulness'-, and te relation o$te te3t to its social conte3t (&appropriateness'-# 5n addition, te interpretation o$ te3ts by

social agents in te course o$ social e"ents may also in"ol"e te attempt to arri"e at

e3planatory accounts o$ te moti"es o$ oter social agents $or spea7ing or )riting as teya"e, and o$ less immediate social causes# Tis does not mean tat understanding implies

agreement, toug some disagreements (and agreements- may be based on

misunderstanding# @$ course, suc interpretati"e e$$ort is applied "ery selecti"ely to te3ts

and many recei"e scant attention, and te interpretability o$ te3ts (and e"en teircompreensibility- depends upon a measure o$ sared assumptions bet)een social agents

about )at is te case, intentions and belie$s, and social relations# +or instance, religious

or "arious types o$ e3pert (e#g#, tecnical- te3ts may be incompreensible to certain socialagents because o$ radical disparities in assumptions about )at is te case#

Semiosis as a dual presence in te production and identi$ication o$ social e"ents# @n teone and, social action and social processes may be more or less semiotic in caracter#

Tus, re$erentially, e3pressi"ely and in terms o$ social relations, suc action and

processes )ill typically engage te )ays o$ tin7ing, speci$ic identities, emotional

responses or commentaries, "ocabularies o$ moti"es, goals, and reasons $or action tat



are a"ailable to te "arious actors and $rame te situation in )ic te actors &$ind'

temsel"es# >eter tese semiotic $eatures o$ social action and social processes come

$rom public communication or inner con"ersations, tey can be related to real semioticcausal po)ers and tus one o$ our main tas7s is to try to illuminate semiotic causal

po)ers and o) tey migt be actualised (teir mecanisms-# nd, on te oter and, te

identi$ication o$ an &e"ent' and its constituti"e elements (persons, obects, places etc-$rom te ongoing $lo) o$ social action and social processes necessarily reuires some act

o$ semiotic interpretation, e"en i$ )at appens is totally non!semiotic (i#e#, purely

material, pysical action-# Tis olds true e"en toug (and, peraps, precisely because-muc o$ social li$e escapes te notice o$ any particular obser"er and, peraps, all possible

obser"ers#

Semiosis is multi!$unctional (Ja7obson 1==0 alliday 1==4-# 5t is simultaneouslyre$erential (or propositional, or ideational-, social!relational (or interpersonal-, and

e3pressi"e# Tus, in te abermasian terms introduced earlier, semiosis raises "alidity

claims o$ trut, appropriateness and trut$ulness/sincerity# Toug it sould ardly need

saying, )e insist on te importance o$ all tree, including, contra Saussureans, te role o$re$erence% tere are not only signi$iers (e#g# &boo7' as a ponic or "isual $orm- and

signi$ieds (concepts- but also re$erents#910: Te &play o$ di$$erence' among te $ormercould not be sustained )itout e3tensi"e embedding o$ semiosis in material practice, in

te constraints and a$$ordances o$ te material )orld# Just because te relation o$

re$erence bet)een indi"idual le3emes or prases and obects to )ic tey re$er is notone!to!one or sel$!su$$icient, it does not $ollo) tat language and )ays o$ tin7ing are

unconstrained by te )orld# *ot ust anyting can be constructed#911: Tis does not mean

tat te di$$erentiations and ualities o$ te )orld dictate te content o$ 7no)ledge K $or

te latter is a $allible construction and to assume oter)ise is to commit te ontic $allacy#But nor is te )orld or being dependent on 7no)ledge K i$ one assumes tat it is, one

commits te epistemic $allacy# Tis pair o$ arguments is important in elping us to

disambiguate &construction' into its t)o moments o$ construal (te $allible ideas tatin$orm it- and construction (in te sense o$ te material processes, i$ any, tat $ollo) $rom

it- (c$# Sayer 2000-# 5ndeed, e"en in te case o$ social constructions suc as institutions,

)at gets constructed is di$$erent $rom o) it is construed and te relati"e success or$ailure o$ tis construal depends on o) bot it and te construction respond to te

properties o$ te materials (including social penomena suc as actors and institutions-

used to construct social reality# @$ course, te construal need not re$er to te material

)orld% it could also re$er to oter semiotic penomena, to images, smells, sounds or$eelings and states o$ mind#

555# Te Role o$ Semiosis in Social Structuration

critical realist account o$ social structuration must be sensiti"e to te comple3 dialectic

tat is entailed in te emergence, reproduction, and trans$ormation o$ social structures$rom social actions and te reciprocal in$luence o$ tese emergent structures on ongoing

social action (see Bas7ar 1=H= rcer 1=I2 Jessop 2001-# n important aspect o$ tis

dialectic is te operation o$ te e"olutionary mecanisms o$ "ariation, selection, and

retention tat sape te relationsips bet)een semiosis and social structuration# Tese



mecanisms are common to natural and social e"olution912: (a distinction tat itsel$

becomes less distinct, o$ course, as uman action acuires an increasing role in natural

e"olution- but, as suggested earlier, teir operation in te social )orld is bound to in"ol"esemiotic as )ell as e3tra!semiotic $actors#

ccordingly, )e no) )ant to igligt tree interrelated semiotic aspects o$ socialstructuration# +irst, semiotic conditions a$$ect te di$$erential reproduction and

trans$ormation o$ social groups, organisations, institutions, and oter social penomena#

Second, tese mecanisms are re$le3i"e in te sense tat semiotic conditions a$$ect te"ariation, selection and retention o$ te semiotic $eatures o$ social penomena# nd,

tird, semiotic inno"ation and emergence is itsel$ a source o$ "ariation tat $eeds into te

process o$ social trans$ormation# @"erall, ten, semiosis can generate "ariation, a"e

selecti"e e$$ects, and contribute to te di$$erential retention and/or institutionalisation o$social penomena#

>e can elaborate tese arguments by listing some semiotic conditions in"ol"ed in te

"ariation, selection and retention o$ te semiotic and e3tra!semiotic $eatures o$ any social penomenon%

a- Te selection o$ particular discourses (te pri"ileging o$ particular discourses o"er

oters a"ailable internally and/or e3ternally- $or interpreting e"ents, legitimising actions,

and (peraps sel$!re$le3i"ely- representing social penomena# Semiotic $actors operateere by in$luencing te di$$erential resonance o$ discourses# Some resonant discourses

)ill subseuently become retained (e#g#, troug teir inclusion into )idely accepted

egemonic proects or teir inclusion into an actor's abitus- (see (d- belo)-#

b- Te enactment o$ tese selected discourses as )ays o$ acting, bot semiotically (in

genres- and non!semiotically (e#g#, in organisational procedures-#

c- Te inculcation o$ tese discourses in te )ays o$ being/identities o$ social agents

bot semiotically (e#g#, )ays o$ tal7ing- and somatically (bodily dispositions-#

d- Te obecti$ication o$ tese discourses in te built en"ironment, tecnology, etc#, in

organisational practices, and in te body/bodies (e3is-#

e- Te de"elopment o$ $iltering de"ices )itin procedures $or selecting tese discoursesand $iltering out oters, including genre cains# +or instance, cains o$ genres in policy

$ormation tat migt include policy proposals, consultations in meetings o$ sta7eolders,

and reports recommending policy decisions# "ariety o$ di$$erent and potentiallycon$licting discourses may $igure (e#g#, )itin sta7eolder meetings- but inso$ar as te

genre cain is legitimised tese may be unproblematically $iltered to $a"our selected

discourses in a report#

$- Te selection o$ strategies $or agents (strategies $or acting and $or interpreting-

)ic pri"ilege tese discourses (genres, styles-#



g- Te resonance o$ tese discourses (genres, styles, strategies- )itin te broader

ensemble o$ social penomena to )ic te rele"ant social penomenon belongs as )ell

as te complementarity o$ tese discourses (etc- )it oters )itin te net)or7#

- Te capacity o$ te rele"ant social groups, organisations, institutions, etc#, to

selecti"ely LrecruitM and retain social agents )ose predispositions $it ma3imally )itreuirements (a-!(g-

>ile te preceding list as been prased to empasise te role o$ semiosis in securingsocial reproduction, semiotic conditions may also militate against tis# +or e3ample,

relationsips o$ contestation bet)een discourses (i#e#, relationsips o$ contestation

internally bet)een agents in teir semiotic aspect, and/or relations o$ contestation

bet)een te penomenon in uestion and oter associated penomena in teir semioticaspect- may impede te selection/pri"ileging o$ particular discourses $or interpreting

e"ents, legitimising actions, and (peraps sel$!re$le3i"ely- representing te penomenon

and associated penomena# >ere suc contestation occurs, $actors (b-!(g- in te

preceding list )ill eiter be absent or, at least, limited in teir o"erall operation#91: Tis)ill create in turn conditions $a"ourable to success$ul inno"ation in te semiotic and

e3tra!semiotic dimensions o$ te social )orld in te sense tat signi$icant "ariations areselected and retained to produce a durable trans$ormation in tat )orld# mong te

rele"ant semiotic conditions ere are te internal relations bet)een discourses (and te

e3ternal relations tat obtain bet)een discourses concerned )it associated social practices# Bot are germane to uestions o$ interte3tuality# +or teir relations sould be

suc tat a ne) selection/pri"ileging o$ discourses is possible, allo)ing te de"elopment

o$ $actors $a"ouring te retention o$ selected discourses (b-!(g-# G3amples o$ tis )ould

include te absence/)ea7ening o$ competing discourses internally or te de"elopment o$ne) relations bet)een suc penomena o$ a (partially- semiotic caracter $a"ouring te

reconte3tualisation o$ e3ternal discourses )it regard to tat penomenon# Rater tan

pursue suc arguments in te abstract, o)e"er, )e )ill illustrate o) tese mecanismsactually operate#

5?# Semiotic +ormations and teir Gmergent ;roperties%

$rom bstract to Concrete

5t is precisely because semiosis is te ma7ing o$ meaning troug recourse to languageand oter semiotic systems tat, as critical realists, )e need te tools and s7ills o$ critical

semiotic analysis (linguistic analysis, discourse analysis etc- to re$lect (critically- on any

te3t# Competent language users typically get by on a day!to!day basis, o$ course, )itout7no)ing about te arcana o$ critical semiotic analysis (erea$ter CS- but, i$, as critical

realists, )e are interested in o) actual semiotic e$$ects are generated, )e must $ocus on

te comple3ities o$ te real mecanisms tat, according to semantic content and o"erallconte3t, produce e$$ects tat tend to escape te attention o$ lay persons and non!specialist

social scientists ali7e# Tis is te semiotic aspect o$ critical semiotic analysis# s regards

its critical aspect, CS (e#g# &critical discourse analysis'- is concerned )it te trut,

trut$ulness and appropriateness o$ te3ts, teir production, and teir interpretation# Tat



is, it is concerned )it te relationsip bet)een semiosis and te material and social

)orld persons and teir intentions, belie$s, desires etc and social relations# 5t is

concerned )it te description o$ te3ts, te interpretation o$ o) people produce andinterpret te3ts, udgements o$ te3ts in terms o$ trut, trut$ulness and appropriateness, and

e3planation o$ te social causes and e$$ects o$ te3ts#

Tus a CR approac to te e3planation o$ concrete penomena suc as semiosis analyses

tem as conunctions o$ structures and causal po)ers co!producing speci$ic e$$ects# To do

tis it abstracts tese structures, identi$ying tem and considering teir respecti"e causal po)ers and liabilities# a"ing done tis, it ten mo"es bac7 to)ards te concrete,

combining te abstracted constituent elements, noting o) tey combine, )it )at

conseuences# >ile, $or te sa7e o$ simplicity o$ e3position o$ critical realist metod, it

is usual to consider simple cases in"ol"ing discrete structures and mecanisms, semiosisis an e3treme case )ere concrete penomena are te product o$ dialectically!related

elements, and ence )ose interaction is non!additi"e# ence te abstractions made by

C are analytical distinctions tat a"e to be used in a )ay )ic ac7no)ledges teir

dialectical interdependence# Concrete e"ents a"e a more or less semiotic (&te3tual'-caracter (a $ootball matc is an e"ent tat is not primarily semiotic in caracter, toug

it as semiotic aspects, )ereas a lecture is a primarily semiotic e"ent- but e"en primarilysemiotic e"ents are co!produced by mental, social and material as )ell as speci$ically

semiotic structures#

Semiotic structures include semiotic systems K most ob"iously languages K )ic a"e

distincti"e properties (e#g#, te properties $ormulated in grammatical rules- not $ound in

oter structures# *e"erteless, e"en languages so) te dialectical interpenetration o$

oter)ise operationally autonomous structures K i#e# tey are o"erdetermined by oterstructures# Tus tere is a di$$erentiation o$ maor components o$ grammatical systems

corresponding to te re$erential and social relational $unctions o$ language (alliday

1==4-# But semiotic systems can only partially account $or te3ts (semiotic $acets o$e"ents-# 5n CR terms te gap bet)een te producti"e potential (&real'- o$ semiotic systems

and te &actual' o$ semiotic $acets o$ e"ents is suc tat oter structures need to be

postulated at lo)er (i#e#, closer to te concrete- le"els o$ abstraction# >e call tese&semiotic orders'#

Semiotic orders (or orders o$ discourse, +aircloug 1==2- comprise te $orms o$ social

structuring o$ semiotic "ariation# Teir main elements are genres, discourses and styles#Denres are )ays o$ acting and interacting in teir speci$ically semiotic aspect tey are

)ays o$ regulating (inter-action# n e3ample )ould be (a speci$ic $orm o$- inter"ie)#

iscourses are positioned )ays o$ representing K representing oter social practices as)ell as te material )orld, and re$le3i"ely representing tis social practice, $rom

particular positions in social practices# n e3ample )ould be a particular political

discourse K let us say te political discourse o$ te &tird )ay' (*e) abour-# Styles are)ays o$ being, identities in teir speci$ically semiotic (as opposed to bodily/material-

aspect# n e3ample )ould be te &ne)' managerial style described by Boltans7i and

Ciapello (1===-# semiotic order is a speci$ic con$iguration o$ genres, discourses and



styles, )ic constitutes te semiotic moment o$ a net)or7 o$ social practices (e#g#, a

$ield in Bourdieu's sense, $or instance te political $ield-#

Te relationsip bet)een genres, discourses and styles is dialectical# Tus discourses

may become enacted as genres and inculcated as styles# >at enters a practice as a

discourse suc as te discourse o$ &ne) public management' may become enacted as ne))ays o$ (inter-acting, )ic )ill in part be ne) genres (ne) )ays o$ (inter-acting

discursi"ely-# nd suc a discourse may become inculcated as ne) )ays o$ being, ne)

identities, including bot ne) styles and ne) bodily dispositions# .oreo"er, in additionto te intra!semiotic $lo)s bet)een discourses, genres, and styles, tere are also $lo)s

bet)een semiosis and oter elements/moments o$ social practices# +or e3ample, it may

become materialised in ne) buildings, ne) tecnologies, etc# 5t is important to stress

again &may'% tere is noting ine"itable about tese &socially constructi"e' e$$ects o$discourse, tey are conditional upon te speci$icity o$ te practice#

Glements o$ semiotic orders suc as genres are o"erdetermined to a greater e3tent tan

semiotic systems troug teir dialectical articulation )it oter structures# +or tisreason, )ereas as semiotic systems can be studied in relati"ely abstract!simple terms,

semiotic orders are best studied in relati"ely concrete!comple3 terms# Te categories o$semiotic systems are abstract!simple (i#e#, relati"ely autonomous $rom oter structures,

e#g#, &noun', &sentence'- )ereas tose o$ semiotic orders are more concrete and comple3

(i#e#, o"erdetermined by te categories o$ oter structures, e#g#, &discourse', &genre',&dialect'-#

Tus, )ilst critical semiotic analysis attributes causal e$$ecti"ity to semiotic/linguistic

$orms, it does so )itout $alling into a semiotic/linguistic $ormalism# Te e$$ecti"ity o$$orms depends upon teir semantic content and teir social conte3t# +or e3ample,

processes in te material )orld may be semiotically represented e"ents or as obects, in

te linguistic $orm o$ $inite clauses (e#g#, &.ultinational corporations are canging te)ays in )ic di$$erent countries trade )it eac oter'- or o$ nominalisations (e#g#, &Te

modern )orld is s)ept by cange'-# But te social e$$ecti"ity o$ nominalisation depends

upon )at is nominalised (reducing processes to teir e$$ecti"ity and tus concealingdetails o$ bot process and agency- and on te speci$ic social conte3t in )ic it occurs

($or more e3tended e3amples, see belo)-# ttending to nominalisation as a linguistic

$orm is germane to te critical analysis o$ te social e$$ecti"ity o$ semiosis but tis

attention must be combined )it an account o$ meaning and o) meaning is mediated inand troug te3tual interpretation# 5t )ould ma7e a di$$erence, $or e3ample, )eter or

not tere )ere )idespread critical a)areness o$ suc $eatures o$ te3ts# Tis lac7 o$ one!

to!one relations bet)een $ormal $eatures o$ te3ts, interpretations, and social e$$ectsimplies tat generalisations about semiosis are di$$icult# o)e"er, tere is noting

e3ceptional about tis# Social systems K and, indeed, most pysical systems K are open

and ence unpredictable# s critical realists a"e empasised, te contingent emergenceo$ ne) penomena in and troug te comple3 interactions bet)een systems and teir

en"ironments ma7es constant conunctions rare#



Semiosis is an instance o$ emergence par e3cellence and in mo"ing bac7 to)ards te

concrete )e attempt to register o) meanings emerge in te3ts# >en post!structuralists

empasise te endless possibilities $or meanings to emerge $rom te play o$ di$$erence,tey are re$erring in CR terms to emergence# 5nterte3tuality is a crucial property o$

semiosis in terms o$ emergence# 5t as more concrete and more abstract aspects#

Concretely, particular te3ts report, eco etc#, particular oter te3ts $or bot spea7er andlistener# .ore abstractly, te3ts may stand in comple3 relationsips to semiotic orders K

tey may articulate te discourses, genres and styles o$ di$$erent semiotic orders togeter

in comple3 )ays#

Te obection to post!structuralist accounts o$ emergence is tat tey idealise semiosis K

tey ignore re$erence and trut conditions and attribute properties to semiosis as suc in a

)ay tat ignores te dialectical interpenetration o$ semiotic and non!semiotic $acets o$social e"ents# Te &play' o$ di$$erence is materially, socially and psycologically

constrained# Tis is clear i$ )e tin7 about interte3tuality# Te3ts may and do articulate

di$$erent discourses, genres and styles togeter in inno"ati"e )ays, but tese semiotic

articulations are at te same time articulations o$ social $ields, social groups, socialacti"ities, space!times, desires etc#

Semiotic emergence is tied not only to si$ting articulations o$ discourses, genres and

styles as suc, but also to te3ts as processes, te &te3turing' o$ te3ts, te )or7ing togeter

o$ di"erse elements in te3ts o"er time and in space# Te3turing mani$ests te causal po)ers o$ agents in te3ts# Te $ollo)ing te3ts illustrate te processes at )or7 ere# Te

$irst te3t is an e3tract $rom a meeting o$ (mainly- super"isors in an ustralian subsidiary

o$ an merican multinational company, discussing te introduction o$ team management

(te data )as collected by esley +arrell-%

BG*% )e tougt you 7no) maybe maybe 5 sould be te $acilitator $or Drace's group or

someting )ere 5'm a)ay $rom te people a bit and um

SA% yea

BG*% ust a"e a bac7ground in )at's going on but ust sort o$ 7eep tem on te rigt

trac7 and let tem tey'"e got to really ten rely on eac oter instead o$ relying on te

super"isor to do te )or7

DRCG% )ell 5 tin7 7ind o$ in te groups tat are gonna come along tat's )at's

gonna a"e to appen# 5 mean 5 7no) te te $irst ones tat start o$$ 5 tin7 )e a"e to go

do)n tis pat to try to direct people onto te pat and tere$ore )e 7ind o$ )ill be incarge o$ te meeting but ten )e a"e to get people to start teir o)n teams and us sort

o$ ust being a $acilitator rater tan

J.GS% te team leader

9##: yea



DRCG% 5 mean it's ard to get started 5 tin7 tat's )ere people are a"ing

trouble and tat's )y tey're 7ind o$ loo7ing to you Ben and you 7no) tings li7e tat

;GTGR% 5'm not te only one 5'm a"ing trouble maintaining te ting

9##: yea

;GTGR% 5 ust can't maintain it at te moment you 7no) a couple o$ days you 7no)

a couple o$ days croo7 tere and you 7no) ust te amount o$ )or7 tat builds up it ustgoes to te bac7 o$ te ueue sort o$ ting it's soc7ing

J.GS% so )at you really )ant is te um you'"e got a a group you start a group and

you )ant one o$ tose people to sort o$ come out and 9##: $acilitate te group

;GTGR% ust to maintain te group you 7no) li7e ust to 7eep it ust 7eep te )or7

$lo)ing

BG*% )at 5'm trying to get across

;GTGR% cause

BG*% is 5'm too close to tose people because 5

9##: yea

BG*% already go outside o$ te group and ten 5'm teir super"isor outside on te on te$loor )ere maybe i$ 5 )as $acilitating anoter group )ere 5'm not 5'm not abo"e tem

you 7no) 5'm not teir super"isor or )ate"er um 5 can go bac7 to my ob tey can go

bac7 to teirs and tey still um you 7no) it's tis teir more teir team tan

SA% yours

Tis e3tract so)s an element o$ te (ne)- &global' discourse o$ team management

(&$acilitating'- being locally appropriated by being )or7ed in te course o$ te interactioninto a relationsip o$ eui"alence )it elements o$ e3isting discourses (e#g# &7eep tem

on te rigt trac7', &tey'"e got to really rely on eac oter', &people N start teir o)n

teams'-, and into a relationsip o$ di$$erence $rom oter elements o$ e3isting discourses(e#g# &(being- te team leader', &direct people onto te pat', &be in carge o$ te

meeting'-# Te &)or7' o$ te3turing tese relations o$ eui"alence and di$$erence is

e"idenced in te ig incidence and te distribution o$ &edging' e3pressions suc as &orsometing', &ust', &7ind o$', &sort o$', and &modalising' e3pressions suc as &maybe', &)e

tougt', &5 tin7', )ic mitigate in "arious )ays degrees o$ commitment to

propositions and proposals# Te te3turing o$ suc relations o$ eui"alence and di$$erence

can cumulati"ely produce ne) con$igurations o$ discourses and, in so $ar as tey are



enacted and inculcated, o$ genres and styles (in tis case, te meeting itsel$ can be seen as

a generic enactment o$ te ne) discourse )ic it is locally appropriating-# 5$ )e assume

a social teory o$ learning as acti"e participation in te inno"ati"e meaning!ma7ing practices o$ a community (a"e 1==I, >enger 1==I-, suc e3amples can be seen as

instances in cumulati"e processes o$ organisational learning tat can produce canges in

7no)ledge, social relations, and social identities (semiotically% in discourses, genres, andstyles-#

To so) o) instances o$ semiotic emergence $igure in processes o$ socialtrans$ormation )e must also consider te resonance o$ emergent semiotic properties

)itin orders o$ discourse# Te second e3ample is a pre$ace by Tony Blair to a >ite

;aper on Competition produced by te epartment o$ Trade and 5ndustry (1==I-#

&Te modern )orld is s)ept by cange# *e) tecnologies emerge constantly, ne)

mar7ets are opening up# Tere are ne) competitors but also great ne) opportunities#

@ur success depends on o) )ell )e e3ploit our most "aluable assets% our 7no)ledge,s7ills and creati"ity# Tese are te 7ey to designing ig!"alue goods and ser"ices and

ad"anced business practices# Tey are at te eart o$ a modern, 7no)ledge dri"eneconomy#

Tis ne) )orld callenges business to be inno"ati"e and creati"e, to impro"e per$ormance continuously, to build ne) alliances and "entures# But it also callenges

Do"ernment% to create and e3ecute a ne) approac to industrial policy#

Tat is te purpose o$ tis >ite ;aper# @ld!$asioned state inter"ention did not andcannot )or7# But neiter does naO"e reliance on mar7ets#

Te Do"ernment must promote competition, stimulating enterprise, $le3ibility andinno"ation by opening mar7ets# But )e must also in"est in Britis capabilities )en

companies alone cannot% in education, in science and in te creation o$ a culture o$

enterprise# nd )e must promote creati"e partnersips )ic elp companies% tocollaborate $or competiti"e ad"antage to promote a long term "ision in a )orld o$ sort

term pressures to bencmar7 teir per$ormance against te best in te )orld and to

$orge alliances )it oter businesses and employees# ll tis is te T5's role#

>e )ill not meet our obecti"es o"ernigt# Te >ite ;aper creates a policy $rame)or7

$or te ne3t ten years# >e must compete more e$$ecti"ely in today's toug mar7ets i$ )e

are to prosper in te mar7ets o$ tomorro)#

5n Do"ernment, in business, in our uni"ersities and trougout society )e must do muc

more to $oster a ne) entrepreneurial spirit% euipping oursel"es $or te long term, prepared to sei<e opportunities, committed to constant inno"ation and enanced

per$ormance# Tat is te route to commercial success and prosperity $or all# >e must put

te $uture on Britain's side#



Tony Blair (signature-

Te Rt on Tony Blair .;, ;rime .inister'

Tis e3ample so)s te te3turing togeter o$ te spacetime o$ 'global' economic cange

and te spacetime o$ national policy $ormation# Te te3t is organised on a problem!solution model% te problem is de$ined in 'global' spacetime in terms o$ irresistible

processes )itout social agents (e#g#, 'ne) mar7ets are opening up', not $or instance

'business corporations are opening up ne) mar7ets'- in a timeless present and anundi$$erentiated 'uni"ersal' spaceP te solution is de$ined in a national spacetime in terms

o$ )at national agencies (')e', '9te: go"ernment', 'business'- 'must' do# ny social

$ormation is $aced )it te problem o$ articulating di$$erent space!times (ar"ey 1==6

Jessop 2000-, and suc articulation tends to become a banal accomplisment o$ e"erydayli$e and a banal accomplisment in te3turing but tere is also a problem around securing

relati"e compatibility among di$$erent spatio!temporal ori<ons in di$$erent conte3ts,

di$$erent institutional orders, and on di$$erent scales# @ne aspect o$ contemporary social

trans$ormation associated )it neo!liberalism, especially in more macrosocial terms, iste sort o$ articulation o$ global and more local spacetimes illustrated ere, and tat is

no) a per"asi"e $eature o$ neo!liberal discourse in business, go"ernment, education etc,and at international (e#g#, agencies li7e te @GC-, national, regional and local le"els#

nli7e te $irst e3ample, te Blair te3t does not so) semiotic emergence in process, but

is rater one o$ many possible illustrations o$ te e3traordinary resonance and '$lo)' bet)een $ields and across scales o$ a recently emergent semiotic re!articulation o$

spacetimes#

?# Conclusions

>e )is to dra) tree main conclusions $rom tis $irst cut at promoting a debate bet)een

critical realists and critical discourse analysts# +irst, )e a"e argued tat te study o$semiosis )ould bene$it $rom articulation )it critical realism# Tis as already occurred

in critical discourse analysis, o$ course, )it its e"en!anded concern )it conte3t as

)ell as te3t# But )e suggest tat it sould be e3tended to oter $orms o$ semioticanalysis# Tis does not mean tat )e reect te ermeneutic approac rater, )e argue

tat ermeneutics by itsel$ cannot pro"ide an adeuate e3planation o$ social penomena

e"en at te le"el o$ $ace!to!$ace communication and interaction# Tere is al)ays an e3tra!

semiotic conte3t to te operation o$ ermeneutics (especially i$ tis is e3tended to tenotion o$ te &double ermeneutic' practised by social scientists- and any serious

e3planation o$ social penomena must be adeuate bot at te le"el o$ meaning and at te

le"el o$ social (e3tra!semiotic- causation# @nce )e reect a umean account o$ causationin terms o$ constant conunction, "ersteen and er7l8ren are not so muc antitetic as

complementary# Di"en te proli$ic nature o$ semiosis )it its in$inity o$ possible

meaning$ul communications, understandings, and (mis-understandings, it is important toe3plore te "arious e3tra!semiotic mecanisms tat contribute to te "ariation, selection,

and retention o$ semiosis as )ell as te contribution o$ semiosis to te reproduction and

trans$ormation o$ social structures#



Second, )e a"e argued tat critical realism )ould bene$it $rom sustained engagement

)it semiotic analysis# +or critical realism as tended to operate )it an insu$$iciently

concrete and comple3 analysis o$ semiosis# 5t as tended to ta7e symbol systems,language, orders o$ discourse, and so on $or granted, tereby e3cluding central $eatures o$

te social )orld $rom its analysis# @ne conseuence o$ tis is tat critical realism cannot

gi"e an adeuate account o$ te comple3 semiotic, social, and material o"erdeterminationo$ tat )orld# Semiosis as its o)n distincti"e elements, necessary properties, and

emergent e$$ects and, e"en toug (and precisely because- tese ualities and teir

associated causal po)ers and liabilities interpenetrate, inter$ere )it, and o"erdetermineoter types o$ social relations and institutional orders, tey must be integrated into a more

compreensi"e critical realist analysis o$ te social )orld# 5n tis )ay )e can mo"e to

pro"ide e3planations tat are &socially (or semiotically- adeuate' as )ell as &obecti"ely

probable' in te sense tat tey establis te discursi"e as )ell as e3tra!discursi"econditions o$ e3istence o$ te e3plicandum at an appropriate le"el o$ concretisation and

comple3i$ication#

nd, tird, in e3ploring te distincti"e $eatures o$ semiosis, )e began by empasisingo) semiosis $rames social interaction and contributes to te construction o$ social

relations# >itin tis conte3t )e ten discussed te construction o$ identities, modes o$calculation, "ocabularies o$ moti"es, etc# and teir role in pro"iding te moti"ational

$orce beind actions# t te same time )e too7 pains to argue tat semiosis )or7s in

conunction )it e3tra!semiotic (or e3tra!discursi"e- elements# By mapping some 7eyaspects o$ semiosis, especially its e3tra!discursi"e conditions o$ e3istence and e$$ecti"ity,

)e attempted to bloc7 o$$ a purely rationalist or ideologist "ie) o$ social relations# 5n

de"eloping tis argument, )e oppose teorists suc as aclau and .ou$$e (1=IE-, )o,

in a manner reminiscent o$ te analysis o$ te production o$ commodities by means o$commodities o$$ered by Sra$$a (1=60-, one!sidedly empasise te discursi"e production

o$ discourse $rom discourse# Tis leads tem to neglect te e3tra!discursi"e as )ell as te

discursi"e $actors tat sape te resonance o$ semiosis and te )illingness and capacityo$ actors (and oter social $orces- to respond to interpellations, appeals to teir identities

and interests, egemonic proects, etc# gainst tis, )e argue $or at least eual )eigt to

be gi"en to te consumption o$ semiosis as )ell as its production# 5n particular, )e a"estressed tat bot te production and te consumption o$ symbolic systems (orders o$

discourse, etc#- are o"erdetermined by a range o$ $actors tat are more or less e3tra!

semiotic#

Re$erences

rcer, .argaret S# (1=I2- .orpogenesis "ersus Structuration% on combining Structureand ction# Britis Journal o$ Sociology, (4-, 4EE!I#

rcer, .argaret S# (2000- Being uman, Cambridge% Cambridge ni"ersity ;ress

Benton, Ted (1=I1- Realism in Social Science# Radical ;ilosopy, 2H, 1!21#

Bas7ar, Roy (1=H=- Te ;ossibility o$ *aturalism, assoc7s% ar"ester



Bas7ar, Roy (1=I=- Reclaiming Reality, ondon% ?erso#

Boltans7i, uc and Ciapello, G"e (1===- e nou"el Qsprit du capitalisme, ;aris%

Dallimard#

Bourdieu, ;ierre (1==1- anguage and Symbolic ;o)er, Cambridge% ;olity

Bourdieu, ;ierre (2000- ;ascalian .editations, ondon% ?erso#

Butler, Judit (1===- &;er$ormati"ity's Social .agic', in R# Susterman (ed#-,

Bourdieu% Critical Reader, @3$ord% Blac7)ell, 11K2I#

Campbell, onald T# (1=6=- &?ariation and selecti"e retention in socio!cultural

e"olution', Deneral Systems 14, 6=KI6#

Couliara7i, ilie and +aircloug, *orman (1===- iscourse in ate .odernity,

Gdinburg% Gdinburg ni"ersity ;ress#

Collier, ndre) (1==4- Critical Realism# ondon% ?erso#

epartment o$ Trade and 5ndustry (1==I- @ur Competiti"e +uture% Building te

no)ledge ri"en Gconomy, ondon% .S@#

ttp%//)))#dti#go"#u7/comp/competiti"e#)int1#tm

+aircloug, *orman (1==2- iscourse and Social Cange, Cambridge% ;olity ;ress#

abermas, Jrgen (1=IH- Te ;ilosopical iscourse o$ .odernity% T)el"e ectures,Cambridge% ;olity#

alliday, .icael ## (1==4- 5ntroduction to +unctional Drammar, 2nd edition, ondon%Gd)ard rnold

ar"ey, a"id (1==6- Justice, *ature and te Deograpy o$ i$$erence, @3$ord%

Blac7)ell#

Ja7obson, Roman (1==0- @n anguage, Cambridge% Cambridge ni"ersity ;ress#

Jessop, Bob (2000- Te Crisis o$ te *ational Spatio!Temporal +i3 and te Gcological

ominance o$ Dlobali<ing Capitalism# 5nternational Journal o$ rban and Regional

Studies, 24(2-, 2!60#

Jessop, Bob (2001- 5nstitutional (Re-turns and te Strategic!Relational pproac#

Gn"ironment and ;lanning , (H-, 121!H#



aclau, Grnesto and .ou$$e, Cantal (1=IE- egemony and Socialist Strategy, ondon%

*e) e$t Boo7s#

a"e, Jean (1==I- Cognition in ;ractice, Cambridge% Cambridge ni"ersity ;ress

*ellaus, Tobin (1==I- &Signs, Social @ntology, and Critical Realism', Journal $or te

Teory o$ Social Bea"iour, 2I(1-, 1K24#

@llman, Bertell (1==- ialectical 5n"estigations, ondon/*e) Aor7% Routledge#

Ringer, +rit< # (2000- .a3 >eber's .etodology% te ni$ication o$ te Cultural and

Social Sciences, Cambridge, .% ar"ard ni"ersity ;ress#

Sayer, ndre) (2000- Realism and Social Science, ondon% Sage#

Sra$$a, ;iero (1=60- ;roduction o$ Commodities by .eans o$ Commodities% ;relude to aCritiue o$ Gconomic Teory, Cambridge% Cambridge ni"ersity ;ress#

Tibault, ;aul (1==H- Re!reading Saussure, ondon% Routledge#

>enger, Gtienne (1==I- Communities o$ ;ractice% earning, .eaning and 5dentity,Cambridge% Cambridge ni"ersity ;ress#

Gndnotes

91: $ourt uestion tat some may )ant to raise is tat o$ naturalism and, more

speci$ically, )eter semiotic analysis can be assimilated to te metodology o$ te

natural sciences# >e regard tis uestion as misguided# >at is important is not )etertey matc tose o$ te natural sciences but )eter tey are appropriate $or teir subect

matter# ns)ering te $ormer uestion incidentally supplies a response to te latter, o$

course our capter ans)ers yes and no to te latter uestion# +or te study o$ semiosisreuires bot similar and di$$erent metods $rom tose o$ natural science#

92: >e use te term &semiosis' trougout tis capter# ltoug )e initially gloss it as

te inter!subecti"e ma7ing o$ meaning, our understanding o$ semiosis as anelement/moment o$ &te social' is necessarily relational and )ill tere$ore emerge more

$ully during te capter# >e pre$er &semiosis' to &language' and &discourse' (used as

abstract nouns- $or t)o reasons# +irst, semiosis in"ol"es more tan ("erbal- language K italso in"ol"es, $or e3ample, &"isual language' (potograps, pictures, diagrams, etc#-# nd,

second, &discourse' as an abstract noun is a notoriously problematic and con$using term#

5n any case, )e later use &discourse' as a count noun $or particular positioned )ays o$representing aspects o$ te )orld# i7e)ise, )e sall later use &languages' (count noun-

$or particular language systems (e#g#, Gnglis-# >en re$erring to concrete social e"ents

$rom a semiotic perspecti"e, )e use te term &te3ts' (count noun- in an e3tended sense to

include not only )ritten te3ts but also spo7en con"ersations, &multi!semiotic' te3ts suc



as T? ads ()ic mi3 )ords, images, sound e$$ects, etc#-, and so on# Tis e3tended use o$

&te3ts' is common in certain areas o$ linguistics, toug )e recognise tat it is not a "ery

satis$actory term#

9: +or e3ample, in er critiue o$ Bourdieu, Judit Butler (1===- assumes a umean

concept o$ causation# nsurprisingly, ten, se $ails to note tat to ac7no)ledge per$ormati"ity is to concede te causal e$$icacity o$ discourses#

94: Gmpirical is not an ontological category counterposed to te &real' or te &actual' butan epistemological one# ;arts o$ te real as )ell as te actual may be obser"able

9E: Critical realists a"e debated )eter social structures, suc as tose o$ language,

e3ist independently o$ teir enactment (Bas7ar, 1=H= 1=I= Benton# 1=I1 Collier,1==4-#

96: Tis is an e3ample o$ a set o$ po)ers tat needs a certain amount o$ use i$ tey are to

be sustained but, at least in te sort run, )e a"e tese po)ers e"en toug tey are onlyacti"ated intermittently#

9H: &+elt' or &sensed' migt better describe some o$ te less discursi"e responses#

9I: 5nterestingly, according to Ringer (2000-, tis "ie) )as sared by .a3 >eber, one o$te $ounders o$ interpreti"e sociology# >ile >eber is )idely associated )it an

allegedly unsuccess$ul attempt to unite e3planatory (causal- and interpreti"e

(ermeneutic- analysis, tis negati"e udgement arises because most interpreters a"e

assumed tat >eber $ollo)ed a umean model o$ causation based on constantconunctions# o)e"er, Ringer so)s tat >eber reected tis model as )ell as related

arguments tat anticipated empel's neo!positi"ist, deducti"e nomological &co"ering

la)' model o$ causal analysis# >eber came to appreciate tat tat &reasons' could becauses# e concluded tat an adeuate e3planation o$ a speci$ic istorical, cultural or

social penomenon must be adeuate bot in terms o$ moti"ational intelligibility (i#e#, its

social meaning $or te rele"ant actors- and its production troug te contingentinteraction o$ causal processes in speci$ic circumstances# Bas7ar's $irst critical realist

de$ence o$ te possibility o$ naturalism incorrectly cites >eber as seeing constant

conunctions as necessary $or an adeuate e3planation (1=I=% 2, 1H!I-# e presents

>eber as combining a neo!antian metodology )it metodological indi"idualism andcontrasts tis approac )it .ar3's realist metodology and relational ontology (1=I=%

1-# e also argues tat tere are t)o 7ey di$$erences bet)een >eberian sociology and

transcendental realism% (a- )ereas >eber accepts, realism reects, constant conunctions(b- )ereas >eber denies, realism accepts, tat correction o$ agents' perceptions may be

a necessary part o$ a social scienti$ic in"estigation (1=I=% 1E!I-# Bas7ar is )rong on

bot counts since >eber also discussed &)rong tin7ing' and oter $orms o$ irrationality#noter problem tat is directly rele"ant to our o)n analysis belo) is tat >eber does

not adeuately distinguis bet)een te actual and te real# 5n using terms suc as

&pressing to)ard', &de"elopmental tendencies', &mo"ing $orces', and &impeding' $actors,

>eber supported a dynamic conception o$ causal analysis# But e also argued tat suc



notions do not constitute &real causal interconnections' at an &elementary' le"el but

in"ol"e no more tan tactically use$ul constructs in te practice o$ istorical reasoning

(Ringer 2000% H6-#

9=: +or an interesting discussion o$ semiosis and its conditions in relation to realism and

pragmatism, see *ellaus (1==I-#

910: Te signi$ier/signi$ied relationsip is o$ten mista7enly interpreted as one o$ te3t to

re$erent# 5t is part o$ a tree$old relationsip among signi$ier/signi$ied/ re$erent# SeeTibaut (1==H-#

911: See rcer (2000- $or an interesting argument on te pre!linguistic and material

bases o$ logic#

912: @n te role o$ "ariation, selection, and retention in e"olution, see Campbell (1=6=-#

91: ong!term critical engagement )it a contested discourse can, o$ course, ser"e toreproduce te terms o$ a gi"en debate at te e3pense o$ mo"ing beyond it (e#g# te

relationsip bet)een base and superstructure in .ar3ism or te primacy o$ structure oragency in sociology-#

Critical Realism and Semologic

Documents

Transcript of Critical Realism and Semologic