Dear Klaus and others,
I wrote a lengthy post yesterday entitled Semiotics intended to counter indefensible claims such as this one:
> Semiotics reduces meanings to simple relations between signs
> and what they signify, void of psychological, social, and cultural
> roles and implications.
And I write this as someone who also prefers late Wittgenstein, Austin, Cavell, Rorty to a semiotic conception.
Even so, there is no need to misrepresent and dismiss massive intellectual traditions in order to advocate for the one you believe in.
> void of psychological
Please see Lacan, Kristeva, and Metz as major semiotic thinkers who engage profoundly in the psychological aspects of signification, who have developed sophisticated and influential theories of the subject.
> void of social
Please see the entire corpus of Michel Foucault
> void of cultural roles and implications
Please see Roland Barthes, Umberto Eco, Dick Hebdige, Lev Manovich, Malcolm Barnard and (literally) a thousand others.
Again, I do not suggest that these authors are invulnerable to criticism, and I do not write to champion them.
But ludicrous caricatures should not be part of a scholarly response to a serious question posed by a member of this list.
Regards,
Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey Bardzell, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Informatics
Human-Computer Interaction/Design
Affiliated Faculty of the Kinsey Institute for Sex, Gender, and Reproduction
Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|