Signs Do Mean Something

According to semiotics scientists - all signs have orders of signification. "Semiotics examines how signs (words, pictures, gestures, sounds) come to mean and have meaning”. Our interpretation of signs are determined by the set of social conventions that we are born into i.e. different signs evoke different significations in different cultures- a mopane worm can be seen as a disease carrier in America, while Namibians consider it a delicacy. Saussure talks about how we articulate meaning. He says that "signs are arbitrary, these are social conventions”. This would imply that people use agreed signs for communication. The advert articulates meaning through signification. Since American Philosopher C.S Peirce developed semiotics, I will be using most of his definitions for my theory component.

Pierce defines an Icon as "a sign which refers to the Object that it denotes merely by virtue of characters of its own and which it possesses, just the same, whether any such Object actually exists or not". In this sense, it can be seen that the icon is the literal component of a sign and is something symbolic that can be linked to a concrete image. In the ad, the icon can be seen as a boy lying on the ground with his head resting on some concrete. His clothes are torn. These two observations are done at a basic level. Since this is a photograph it can be seen as being highly iconic as it is very much like the object they represent, a sort of mimicry or imitation.

There is the index, which draws attention to the thing to which it refers. Pierce defines an Index as "a sign which would, at once, lose the character which makes it a sign if its object were removed, but would not lose that character if there were no interpreting". The example he gives is of a piece of mould with a bullet-hole in it as sign of a shot. He says that without the shot there would have been no hole; but there is a hole there, whether anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not." There are no distinct links or bridges that joins signification to an object. Cultural conventions provide meaning. The advert refers to a street boy who is suffering from poverty. The Indexical signs represent the unseen and are often abstract- Christianity, morality; guilt can be interpreted from this ad. We read it this way because of our socialization. If one had to show this picture to an aborigine in thirteen-century Australia, they would not draw the same meaning, as they would not make the connection between the boy and the image of Jesus on the cross. This is because their frame of reference would be different from ours. Karl Marx's initial intention explanation for this is that ""it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness." Dry sand in background might imply arid climate and scorching heat. This might not seem out of the ordinary for a Bedouin, but the advertiser wants us to interpret it as being harsh, and that we should relate this weather condition to the child's life. It can also trigger of various other chains of signification, which I shall expand on later.

Chains of signification

Note- these are generalized categories only, and are not representative of all. They merely depict stereotypes, as a means of illustrating different chains. It is important to qualify interpretations as potentials and not absolutes. Chains of signification allow advertisers to predict either the dominant preferred readings of the text as well as the deviant alternative or discrepant readings. An oversight of many advertisers is to overlook any negative connotations that might be interpreted, and this leads to a decline in sale and a loss in brand loyalty.

Myths about the advert

A myth is seen as something that is natural and taken for granted. Almost like an unspoken truth. Myths confer a "common significance or unconscious formulations which are the work of minds, societies and civilizations". Myths reinforce social and cultural stereotypes, and in doing so, reinforce the particular dominant ideology of the society that is propagating the myth. Ideology is defined as the "grid of significations which organizes myths in the legitimating of particular social, economic and political relations". The dominant class can effectively use the media as a vehicle for portraying ideology and strengthening myths. In the same article, the writer attempts to show how the South African media, maintains dominant power relations, using myth. In later works, Tomaselli goes on to say that those who accept the myth see it as having a concrete existence. There are various myths that can be attributed to this advert, like: many Christians do not believe that Jesus was crucified. There are those who follow Mathews account and quote "And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross"- Mathews (27:32)- explaining that Simon wore the cross and not Jesus. This disputes the preferred reading, as there are those who believe that the crucifixion was actually a 'cruci-fiction'. Muslims are also told in the Quran (4:157) that the Prophet Jesus was not crucified.

Not every person reading the ad is Christian, and therefore not everyone will decode the message as intended. The intended meaning would evoke sympathy for the child with the desire to be charitable. The advert also enforces idea that all street children are black; this is another myth as many street children are of other racial denominations. Many Christians do not believe that they are sinless or that Jesus died so that they would be sinless. This would negate the linguistic component of the advert and work against the preferred reading.

Cynics would say that the child collapsed because of excessive glue sniffing. This is a reality that is often overlooked when one looks at the plight of street-children. Many equate this social problem with an expression of freedom and fail to realize that many children leave their home because of domestic circumstances. Also, there is a lot of media attention on AIDS at the moment. Before, people would talk about a variety of issues, and the media would cover these issues. Now, the media is selective in nature in that it provides the topics of discussion. For example, before, people could talk about anything, it could be said that now, when one talks about global epidemics they can only be heard in the media if they talk about Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (Sars) or HIV/AIDS. Even though glue sniffing is a preference and not a disease, it is still often overlooked, by AIDS etc.

Many do not believe in the adage "He who is sinless, must cast the first stone", and as such have a different set of criteria of what constitutes sinning, and therefore would not be under the impression that the child is suffering for their sins. A question of ethics would then come into play. The ad also destroys the myth that Jesus was a Blond-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian. McCray (1990) as well as Locksley D.M. Geoghagen go to great lengths to prove that Jesus was a man of colour, being a descendant of Ham, with a traceable lineage in Egypt, where there were no Caucasians.

Symbolic- The symbol has no obvious connection to the idea it represents except through convention. This can be seen as a process of understanding society. In terms of the nature of semiotic Interaction, this would be how we make sense of the world. In essence, this is ideology. Pierce defines a symbol as being

A sign which is determined by its dynamic object only in the sense that it will be so interpreted. It thus depends either upon a convention, a habit, or a natural disposition of its interpreting, or of the field of its interpreting. We live in a country that is predominantly Christian. "Christianity is the predominant faith of almost three-quarters of the diverse South African population"- R. Elphick and R. Davenport. This advert reinforces this belief. The Editors go on to say

In the twentieth century South Africans have used Christian doctrine both to justify and to oppose doctrines of racial segregation, and Christian leadership provided much of the impetus for the founding of the African National Congress in 1912. But the history of South African Christianity is found for the most part in local or "micro" narratives, while the highly elaborated "macro" narratives of colonialism, capitalism, and liberation--the backbone of the conventional histories of South Africa--assign Christianity a marginal role, or no role at all.

From this observation, one can hypothesize that Religion plays a large role in a South Africans life- by making the reference and associations in the advert; the company is hoping that South Africans will be more generous. This can once again be linked to crucifixion, as what was once a most disgraceful way to die has been glorified. This is similar to Christianity's role in South Africa, from justifying apartheid to 'turning the other cheek' in more recent times.

With regards to Hall hypothesizes three ways in which people interpret messages. The first is where the reader interprets the message in terms of the writers intention- in the ad, this would occur when people recognize that the foundation is looking for charity and they give money. The second possibility is where they negotiate what is told. "Negotiating the code occurs when readers acknowledge as legitimate the taken-for-granted code which contains the message but question aspects of the way the message is constructed"- Hall in this case, people would question how much of the money they donate, will go into administrative costs. Also, many would question why the advert is alienating Christian symbols only and not Universal ones. The third possibility is that the reader would reject the message entirely by decoding it in a different way. When a discrepant reading is formulated, the reader might think that he is in a worse position than the child or that there are more worthy causes to donate too.