Advertisement

The Game of Reflection and the Power Over People. A Semiotic Approach to Communication

  • Dumitru Borţun
Chapter
Part of the Numanities - Arts and Humanities in Progress book series (NAHP, volume 6)

Abstract

Ogden and Richards emphasized that in an act of communication the message does not exist before being coded; in addition, coding is a process of creation: the message self-generates in the communication process itself. As such, the term “receptor” should be replaced by the term “reader”—in other words, the “universal receptor” breaks into a multitude of readers, whose readings are culturally pre-determined. The significance of a sign is not given beforehand, it is born following the encounter between the message and the cultural loading with which the reader welcomes the message. As homo significans, we relate not to objects, but to “interpretants” (Peirce). For man, the world is a universe of interpretants. But this renders manipulation possible through partial truths or even fake news, i.e. through the plausible denaturation of reality. The acceptance of a phrase as true is not related to its relation with reality, but rather to its relation with the reader’s cultural loading. This paper describes the mechanism of semiosis that makes possible the exercise of power to have people over other people, through the management of their cultural loading.

References

  1. Addis, M., and M. Holbrook. 2001. On the conceptual link between mass customization and experiential consumption: An exposition of subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Behavior 1 (1): 50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreopoulos, Andreas. 2006. Art as theology: From the postmodern to the medieval. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Augustin, 2007. On the true religion. Bucharest: Humanitas.Google Scholar
  4. Betea, Lavinia. 2000. Communication and discourse in the “Wooden Language” of the communist regime. Bucharest: Polirom.Google Scholar
  5. Borţun, Dumitru. 2002. Epistemic bases of communication. Bucharest: Ars Docendi.Google Scholar
  6. Borţun, Dumitru. 2011. Evolution of the public sphere in postmodernity: De-politization of political communication. Communication et discours. Dimensions postmodernes—revista INTERSTUDIA, nr. 10 (2), Editura Alma Mater Bacău, pp. 170–183.Google Scholar
  7. Borţun, Dumitru. 2012. Public relations and the new society, 2nd ed. Tritonic: Bucharest.Google Scholar
  8. Borţun, Dumitru, and Purcărea Victor Lorin. 2013. Marketing and semiotic approach on communication. Consequences on knowledge of target-audiences. Journal of Medicine and Life VI (1): 103.Google Scholar
  9. Borţun, Dumitru. 2014. Mercerized communication between manipulation and ethics of responsibility. In Authority and power of Christian values, ed. C. Constantineanu, P. Runcan, and R. Runcan, 107–119. Bucharest: Didactic and Pedagogical Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boudon, Raymond. 1997. Cunoaşterea. In Tratat de sociologie, ed. R. Boudon, 555–600. Bucureşti: Humanitas.Google Scholar
  11. Ciapalo, Roman Theodore (ed.). 1997. Postmodernism and Christian philosophy. Mishawaka: American Maritain Association.Google Scholar
  12. Chifu, Iulian, and Nantoi Oazu (eds.). 2016. Information war: Standardization of informational aggression of the russian federation. Bucharest: Publishing House of the „Ion I. C. Brătianu” Institute of Political Sciences and International Relations.Google Scholar
  13. Chombart de Lauwe, Paul-Henry. 1970. Images de la culture. Paris: Petite Bibliotheque Payot.Google Scholar
  14. Deely, John. 2001. Four ages of understanding: The first postmodern survey of philosophy from ancient times to the turn of the twenty first century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ducrot, Oswald, and Tzvetan Todorov. 1972. Dictionnaire encyclopedique des sciences du langage. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  16. Dungaciu, Dan. 2017. The triad of information war thinking. In Information way under the microscope: Concepts, methodology, analysis, ed. Lucian Dumitrescu. Bucharest: Editura Institutului de Ştiinţe Politice şi Relaţii Internaţionale „Ion I.C. Brătianu”.Google Scholar
  17. Eco, Umberto. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eriksen, J.-M., and F. Stjernfelt. 2010. Culturalism: From idea to unconscious presupposition. Sociologija, II 4: 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiske, John. 1990. Introduction to communication sciences, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Goian, Ion. 2017. Contemporary world between truth and post-truth. In Encyclopedia of the fundamental works of political philosophy: Contemporaries: 2000–2017. Bucharest: Publishing House of the „Ion I.C. Brătianu” Institute of Political Sciences and International Relations.Google Scholar
  21. Iliescu, Adrian-Paul. 1989. Philosophy of language and the language of philosophy. Bucharest: Scientific and Encyclopedic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Janik, Allan S., and Stephen S. Toulmin. 1973. Wittgenstein’s Vienna. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  23. Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, M.S., H.D. Hsiao, and M. Yang. 2011. The study of the relationship among experiential marketing, service quality, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. International Journal of Organizational Innovation 3 (2): 353–379.Google Scholar
  25. Linton, Ralph. 1945. The cultural background of personality. New York: Appleton-Century Co.Google Scholar
  26. Lipovetsky, Gills. 1996. The Dawn of Duty. The painless ethics of the New Democratic Times. Bucharest: Babel.Google Scholar
  27. Marmo, Costantino. 2010. La semiotica del XIII secolo [The semiotics of the 13th century]. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  28. Matei, Corina Sorana. 2016. Postmodernity’s fugitive truths. Bucharest: Tritonic.Google Scholar
  29. Merton, Robert. 1998. Éléments de théorie et de méthode sociologique. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell, W. J. T. 2012. Image war. Nomadikon, 13, July 23, http://www.nomadikon.net/contentitem.aspx?ci=320.
  31. Ogden, C., and Richards, I. 1923 [1949]. The meaning of meaning, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  32. Olteanu, Alin. 2009. The semiotics of Saint Augustin, Bachelor’s Degree. Bucharest: Biblioteca Şcolii Naţionale de Studii Politice şi Administrative.Google Scholar
  33. Olteanu, Alin. 2018. Semiotics as a proposal for a Numanistic educational programme. In Readings in Numanities, ed. O. Andreică and A. Olteanu, 3–17. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pârvulescu, Cristian. 2017. Low-cost Democracy in a Brave Illiberal World. Sfera Politicii 191–192: 3–14.Google Scholar
  35. Peirce, C.S. 1931. The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, irony and solidarity. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Revel, Jean-Francois. 2007. The need of ideology. In The useless knowledge. Bucharest: Humanitas.Google Scholar
  38. Smilansky, S. 2009. Experiential Marketing: A practical guide to interactive brand experiences. London: Kogan Publishing House.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, Adam. 1977. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmitt, B. 1999. Experiential marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel, think, act, relate. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Thom, Francoise. 1987. La Langue du Bois. Paris: Julliard.Google Scholar
  42. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1980. The blue and brown books. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of Political Studies and Public AdministrationBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations