SEMIOTIC SPACE AND BOUNDARIES – BETWEEN SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND SEMIOTIC UNIVERSALS
University of Tartu, Estonia
Abstract
This paper studies the opposition of social construction and cultural universals in the field of space and spatial metalanguage in social and cultural research. In more detail I focus on the notion of ‘boundary’ and its object, asking how can an understanding of semiotic and spatial nature of boundaries help social and cultural research?
I argue that ‘boundaries’ should be considered being by definition of semiotic and spatial character. This leads to the understanding that boundaries (as far as there is a reason to consider them namely boundaries and not for example, mediatiation, translation, explosion, etc.) are, first, depending on recognition and distinction by some subject and, second, enforcing spatialization of the distinction. Thus, bounding is a practice of semiotization that dynamically interrelates levels of conceptualisation and levels of spatiality. The latter is based on the semiotic understanding of space as being grounded in relations of co-existence and their recognition by at least an indexical umwelt.
While boundaries are semiotic and often descriptive social constructions, there are also aspects of boundaries that can be approached as cultural or even semiotic universals, most notably so-called boundary mechanisms and basic semiotic nature of space and spatial distinctions.
The paper concludes with exploring the applicability of the theoretical argumentation for a semiotic approach in archaelogy. In what sense can we talk about cultural boundaries in research, as social constructions or cultural universals, as parts of object level world image or parts of researcher’s models, as material objects or as structural relations? How can we find boundaries in fields like archaeology and how can we improve our knowledge by considering these boundaries?
Boundaries and the concept boundary are in semiotics and humanities often discussed either in a theoretical manner or in contrast, limited to particular applications and less as a comprehensive semiotic framework for analyses. Considering boundary in the context of spatial metalanguage highlights the tensions between social constructions and semiotic universals present in searches for applicability of semiotics in archaeological studies (see also Lagopoulos 2003, Lang 2005, Preucel 2006).
For methodological purposes boundary mechanisms are important object-level phenomena that enable a grounded construction of study object, for example, in archaeology where any cultural phenomena appears as a study object exclusively through re-construction. Boundary as spatializing distinction and traces of boundaries can be seen as traits to be looked for when studying the sociocultural world. Boundaries could thus be added to the list of patterns of uniformity, uniformity of relationships and identity of meaning or logical coalescence that Pitirim Sorokin has pointed out as traits that should be looked for when studying the sociocultural world (Sorokin 2006: 9–10). However, there remains the question of limits of employing the concept and possible changes in applying it. In the context of Juri Lotman’s notion of semiosphere, boundary might appear as a universal basic element of semiotic world. However, a closer look reveals also the specificity of the notion and object of boundary which suggests that it is not a universal unit of description of the semiotic universe but has its heuristic limits.
I argue that boundaries should be considered being by definition of semiotic and spatial character. This leads to the understanding that boundaries (as far as there is a reason to consider them namely boundaries and not mediation, translation, explosion, etc.) are, first, depending on recognition and distinction by some subject and, second, enforcing spatialization of the distinction. Thus, bounding is a practice of semiotization that dynamically interrelates levels of conceptualisation and levels of spatiality. The latter is based on the semiotic understanding of space as being grounded in relations of co-existence and in recognition of these by at least an indexical umwelt.
Boundary is spatial. The statement might seem obvious and uninformative. It is crucial however to note that also the most abstract kind of boundaries are spatial. They are spatial as descriptions and projections. Thus, observing and cataloguing numerous boundaries is not enough, one needs to understand different kinds of spaces behind them. For example, Cassirer’s distinction between actional, symbolic and abstract space (Cassirer 1944: 42–43) can be taken as a starting point here. These refer respectively to the geographical spatial dimension of practices, organisation of world image and self-descriptions, and to abstract category of space that can be used as a modelling tool.
Spatial metalanguage is a tool of cognition applying sets of spatial relations for representing organisation of the object field. Aimed for adequacy and usefulness of descriptions metalanguages can be based on different concepts of space that combine spatial relations in variable ways. In one dimension, this abstract conception of space is derived from particular world image and symbolic space related to it, which is again based in spatiality of practices. In another dimension, this abstract space as a spatial model is aimed for representing the object field which involves its own symbolic space of world image and spatiality of practices in it.
From a semiotic perspective space can be defined as a set of recognized spatial relations. The latter, spatial relation refers again to a situation of at least duality in object field or co-presence of two objects. From the semiotic perspective the recognition of this duality of actual or potential objects by someone is essential. While this minimal spatial relation can involve two objects, one of these could also be the recognising agent as an object of recognition or alternatively, it can be the environment as an object of recognition. According to this view, the mere relation and gap between subject and object ought not to be considered spatial as long as it does not involve distinction of the object from something else. In discussion of the ontological basis of socially organised geographical space, Edward Soja emphasizes the human ability to objectify the world by distancing oneself from the object world, conscious human distancing from inanimate objects (Soja 1989: 132). In my view, the situation of recognising a dual relationship in the object world requires a recognising subject of some kind with at least indexical object-world. Thus, an animal Umwelt (according to Kull 2010) is required but not necessarily a conscious human person. In addition, it is reasonable to consider the distancing between a subject and its environment as spatial as long, as it involves both parties as objects for the subject-agent (or as Soja characterises existential alienation: “a state of separation from oneself and from the objective world” [1989: 133]), in other words, as long as the semiotic situation involves the act of bounding. The requirement of co-presence of objects points to an essential aspect of semiotisation – objects that are otherwise not possibly co-present in actuality can be brought together by semiotic mediation – by actualising a past object by remembering it or combining representations of various near, far and imaginable objects into co-existence in one “cognitive space”. As space is based on recognition, it refers first of all to the organisation of knowledge and through this to the organisation of the object of knowledge.
According to this basis, there is a potential for different spaces – differing by involved relations and their variable organisations. As the minimally presumed duality can involve either two objects or an object and the subject as its own object the general primacy should not be attributed neither to ego-centric nor non-egocentric orders. The notion of space should thus be understood as a holistic set of recognised spatial relations. Regarding the concept of boundary, it should be kept in mind that there can be different ways of organising spatial relations into a holistic space. This results in heterogeneity of spatial metalanguages.
Considering space as a set of recognised spatial relations, it is necessary to understand the kind of space related to the boundary and interconnections of different spaces through boundary. For example, institutionalised borders relate abstract and symbolic spatiality to practical one and they are expressed and forced by material means. Boundaries in the context of non-spatial phenomena exist in relation to spatial descriptions. Constituting a boundary is at the same time spatializing the object and thus it should be asked, of what kind, at what level, and of which significance is this space.
Besides being spatial, boundary is fundamentally semiotic in the sense of being based on recognition. The mechanism of boundary can be found in distinction, more specifically in spatialising distinction. It is basically recognising difference by someone, thus, it is not a mere difference, but an act of distinction – with a particular agent and its perspective, relational in nature and concerning certain level of abstraction. From an external perspective, boundaries might appear ambivalent and arbitrary, from the perspective of the “world” of the boundary, they are however rather concrete and indispensable.
The boundary as a distinction depends on subject’s recognition and interpretation. Distinction as a way of organising space reminds the works on social space by Pierre Bourdieu – which is an interesting connection here. According to Bourdieu (1994: 24–25), who relies on Émile Benveniste, the significance in social space is essentially difference that creates difference or distinctive distinction that requires subject with specific competence or in other words, subject situated at the particular field. It is remarkable that Bourdieu did not discuss boundaries themselves, boundaries of a social class for instance. That would probably be because while he was concerned with distinctions he did not focus on descriptively outlined wholes and their relations. In Bourdieu’s context, acts of distinctions can be seen related to boundaries but they do not set up wholes with the distinction of co-existent internal and external domains. The holistic dimension for him is instead in social space where distinctions are made and could be seen as episodes of internal boundaries. Constituting a systemic hole from these would presume additional conceptualisation – e.g. in the form of explicit description of social classes and belonging in one or another.
For Lotman, in contrast to Bourdieu, boundary is a central notion in semiotic study of culture in relation to notions like cultural space (1975), semiosphere (2005), text (1977) and explosion (2009). The notion of boundary in Lotman’s theory has also been extensively discussed (e.g. Andrews 2003; Kim 2014; Monticelli 2008, 2012). Lotman’s proposal for topological metalanguage and the notion of cultural space is based on the idea that boundary divides otherwise homogenous space into distinct internal and external space (Lotman 1975: 104). Similarly, semiosphere is characterised by the external boundary and organised by heterogeneity of internal boundaries. For the semiosphere and its each part or sub-sphere, there is a semiotic I from whose position the boundary is constituted (Lotman 1990: 138). The function of boundary is to filter and adapt the external into internal (1990: 138). Boundary is thus the distinction made by semiotic I between its own semiotic space and that of not, the distinction that both bounds and mediates. Semiotic space again is here not merely a set of semioses, but a particularly organised domain of semiosis, the domain of semiotics of particular culture as distinguishable from alternative ones (Lotman 1990: 125). In this sense, the space of semiotics of a culture is comparable to the notion of signifying order as the basis of culture: “a complex system of different types of signs that cohere in predictable ways into patterns of representation which individuals and groups can utilize to make or exchange messages” (Danesi, Perron 1999: 67).
In Lotman’s conception of boundary three functions have been highlighted: “(1) the boundary as an instrument of internalization, separation or closure; (2) the boundary as an instrument of connection […]; (3) the boundary as an instrument of differentiation, the acceleration of semiotic processes and the generation of newness” (Monticelli 2008: 193). The first one is related to the metasystemic self-description, the perspective of the semiotic I, which centralises and draws the external boundary of the internal homogenous structural whole. The second function is related to the boundary as a dialogical mechanism providing partial translatability of at least two different systems, so to say intersystemic play: “The boundary as bilingual belt and space of intersystemic play is the place where the homogeneity of the structural whole is suspended in order to make dialogue possible” (Monticelli 2008: 200). Envisioning this connective boundary as a space of its own, Monticelli equates for the third function this border-zone or boundary-space with Lotman’s notion of periphery.
This equation is however partly misleading. Boundary and periphery can overlap in spatial imagination as well as in empirical material and Lotman also refers to the periphery of periphery as a border area (1990: 141). However, as analytical categories boundary and periphery are significantly different and are related to distinct spatial structures and distinct perspectives. Boundary separates internal and external space and should be understood namely through this relationship. Periphery is a binary notion with core or centre – which is the domain of dominant organisation and self-descriptions, periphery in contrast the domain of dominated and heterogeneous organisations and processes. As a separating instrument boundary separates the internal from the external (system from its environment or from another system) and is the marked element of self-descriptions. Periphery and centre are instead aspects of the internal organisation of the system. For spatial self-descriptions boundary would be the marked element (the dominant organising factor), the marked element for systems internal organisation would in contrast be the centre which defines the type of semiotics characteristic for the system and defines what remains peripheral. While spatial discreteness is crucial for boundary, continuity is emphasised in relating centre and periphery. At the same time, the semiotic mechanism of periphery is indeed close to that of connective function of boundary: active mediation of the own and the foreign. However, a dominant feature of culture can be active interaction with the external domain, which should be described as positioning the cultural centre or core on the boundary of culture. This can be found not only in the case of founding St. Petersburg, referred to by Lotman, but also as a typical trait in the culture of large cities in general. This poses also a typical problem for talking about boundaries in archaeological material – in what sense should e.g. grave constructions be considered as articulations of cultural centre or boundary and of what kind, related to what cultural subsystem or activity?
Thus, in addition to the distinction of perspective from inside of the culture and scientific metalevel, related to separating and connective boundary respectively (see Lotman et al 2013: 53) a dynamic plurality of perspectives, wholes and boundaries can be found in the interactional reality of sociocultural world.
There are three points to be emphasised in the basic Lotmanian idea stating that boundary separates semiotic space of a culture (or some other system) from its environment. First, (1) boundary and the distinguished space are described from the perspective of the culture. Second, (2) it is not a semiosic space as congeries of semioses but namely semiotic space as more or less coherent system of semioses for which boundary has the function of constituting the whole and thus spatializing and also has the function of textualisation. As a whole this semiotic space has its characteristic type of semiotics and thus recognition of boundaries by an observer presumes the textualisation already at the object level (e.g. in considering a culture or a city as a text and not as a language like system). Third, (3) the notion of space needs to be contextualised. Space as an organised whole is based on a set of recognised spatial relations; boundary and bounding as making distinction forms this spatial whole. This reveals that expressions domain, space and sphere (oblast, prostranstva, sfera) in works by Lotman and colleagues (e.g. in Lotman et al. 2013) should not be taken as random but referring to levels of semiotic organisation. Domain, as in distinction of cultural and non-cultural domain, referring to a set of relations and differences where there can be limits but not significant boundaries. Space referring to distinction, organisation and spatialisation of differences, particularly by boundary. Sphere denotes again a particular form of organisation of relations where bounded area is characterised by internal structure through centre and periphery and several sub-spheres.
In his The structure of the artistic text Lotman defines space of an artistic text as a set of objects purified from all traits except those regarded as similar to ordinary spatial relations (contiguity, distance etc) (Lotman 1977: 217–218). This is a clear example of the use of space as a modelling tool. Lotman refers to abstract space also when discussing the concept of semiosphere (Lotman 2005). Indeed, semiosphere applies a concept of space as a modelling device. However, the spatiality becomes an object there: the semiosphere is a system that takes its spatial organisation as an object of structuration. The process of structuration involves the definition and dynamics of boundaries and relations of centre and periphery that respectively appear not primarily as spatial but as systemic traits.
While boundary is spatial, boundary-like mechanism can be more general. Mediation, disruption, explosion, crisis are all notions about similar mechanisms without actualising specifically spatial aspects. Conceptualising something as boundary would thus require considering its difference from other possible mechanisms of distinction and mediation.
Cultural distinctions and boundaries are not merely ideational but they are also applied and objectivated in interactions and in particular environments. This corresponds to the position that sociocultural systems or enactments of ideational designs-for-living in particular environments should be studied (Keesing 1974: 82) and makes boundaries tangible and valuable elements for researching cultures. Talking about cultural boundaries is talking about cultural space and respectively, some particular way of thinking about culture. Thus, it should be asked, what does the notion of boundary actualise in theories about culture and on the other hand, how do these boundaries exist in empirical world? For example, considering landscape as environment as understood by people, it appears a vital issue to recognise significant boundaries in the surroundings and also inventing and marking the boundaries. Boundary is in this case an object of recognition linked to the environment and the way of relating to it but not necessarily a part of the physical environment.
Culture is constantly relating to its boundaries and creating them. The act of establishing a boundary is also creation of semiotic reality and its objectivation. Articulating boundaries generates (1) the shared knowledge of the boundary and thus also (2) the limits of respective signifying order. A central basis for culture can be found in ability to share one’s ways of orienting towards the world (Parsons, Shils 2008: 162). Establishing a boundary constitutes an area where a particular way of orienting to the world is shared and also controlled. Beyond the area of common type of semiotics, establishing the boundary establishes also the place for sharing different ways of orienting towards the world, for meeting cultural Others physically and more importantly, informationally.
In studying culture and history, theories are not merely interpretational frameworks but they are crucial for constructing research objects. Thus, attention to cultural boundaries involves particular conceptualisation of culture as well as particular roles of boundaries in these conceptions. Besides being elements of abstract spaces, boundaries are also essential means of making sense of the world at the object level or practical relationship to the world. The potential involved in combinations of these aspects is what makes boundaries valuable for studying culture – and makes semiotic perspective valuable for archaeological inquiry.
In the following I outline some preliminary points in a study aiming to bring together semiotic and archaeological perspectives on boundaries.
Essentially semiotic and spatial, boundary is a tool for making sense of the world – cultural universal and social construction. Considering that existence of a boundary presumes a subject making the distinction and some particular kind of spatiality as a framework for the boundary, it is central to ask who is the deciding subject, what kind of spatiality is involved and what is the focus in drawing boundaries in archaeological study on culture? Three main domains of boundaries in archaeological study of culture should be pointed out. These are:
1) the domain of constructing and delimiting the research object;
2) the domain of theoretical models explaining culture;
3) the domain of world view or cognitive reality of the studied community itself.
The first one is focused on the metalevel, aiming
1.a) for defining or localising the research object in chronological and geographical dimensions, understood in a universalistic manner; this can involve bounding as a method for object construction but not necessarily.
1.b) Further, this domain can aim for classification of artefacts – that is, projection of constructed wholes and boundaries to the level of study material and finding differences or breaks in unities to represent boundaries. In essence it is integration of common traits into unities and interpreting lack of unity or of artefacts as boundary. A concept characteristic to this domain is archaeological culture as a concept targeted essentially for organising excavated material into some kind of wholes (see also Roberts, Vander Linden 2011, and more particularly in East Baltic context, Lang 2005). Presuming existence of these “cultures” in past reality should be considered as retrospective projections.
The second domain involves boundaries more directly but as elements in theory building and explaining culture, that is, as spatial modelling tools. This approach presumes there to be a culture at the object level, culture that needs to and can be explained. There is a variety of definitions and theories of culture. Boundaries have different roles and nature depending on the conception of culture. Further, boundary can have the role of delimiting the semiotic world of a culture:
2.a) drawing the distinction between culture-object and that of non-culture or
2.b) an element in a theoretical model explaining the functioning of culture.
While both of these take their spatial conceptions from the metalevel, they can also involve significant distinctions made by the object community itself. The first one aims to delimit and define the object namely as culture, the second one focuses on explaining cultural functioning. A good example here would be the concept of semiosphere with its external and internal boundaries. Semiospheric boundaries represent distinction making at the object level but their spatiality is depending on the theoretical framework at the metalevel that often involves also interdisciplinary mobility of concepts like sphere or field. Differences in archaeological artefacts are common and have been made by archaeological subjects, part of them also recognised as differences. Thus it is possible to model functioning of culture on these observable similarities and differences as patterns. However, there are two major problems. First, archaeologists find extremely small portion of the material culture of only small segments of past communities. Second, as long as a model of functioning of culture involves attitudes of people towards each other, things and life in general, the model remains highly hypothetical.
This takes us to the next type of boundaries – namely asking about distinctions that existed for the past community itself, either explicitly as boundaries (that is, spatialized distinctions) or as functional cultural mechanisms of boundary, mediation, translation etc. The problem with this spatial distinction existing for the community is that the fact of recognition in the community is difficult to prove and it is difficult to define its particular status, e.g. being generally shared or particular, with unified meaning or diversely interpreted.
3.a) What did the community see as a boundary? Boundary can here pertain to actional as well as to symbolic spatiality (or also abstract in some cases) and can have projections between these. Spatial organisations can be various and the domains of cultural world image to which boundaries are related can be of different kind. In the context of culture as a complex system, each artefact as well as its location or relation to anything else can potentially be interpreted as being a sign of significant boundary.
3.b) For actual research it is crucial to ask, what functions as cultural boundary mechanism or mediator and translator, between what and what is the role of it in the cognitive reality of the community? Culture involves different boundaries at different levels, with different actualisations. However, to make use of the study, we need also to de-limit the object-culture and interpret it according to some model (aspects of previous points) – some possible boundaries to be more pertinent than others, depending on the research question.
Combination of semiotic understanding of boundaries with conceptions of culture could point to a way for talking about boundaries in the archaeological research on culture. Boundaries functioning in culture and existing in the cognitive reality of the community are particularly pertinent for Lotman’s semiotic framework. However, Lotman suggests studying cultural world image through the material of textual self-descriptions and descriptions of the world. Availability of this textual material remains often a problem for applying semiotic approaches in archaeological study. Still, expressions of a community and its culture that reflect the world image can be found. Interpreting these is partly related to interpreting textual self-descriptions.
It is possible to presume the subjectivity and agency of the community in making significant distinctions and researchers can speculate about the spatialisation of the referential system, world image. As a result we can ask about possibility of interpreting differences of excavated artefacts as boundaries or in other words, whether differences in artefacts (1.b) give reason to search in it mechanism of distinction according to a model of culture (2.b), for example, a semiospheric boundary. The latter is related to the community’s world image through the concept of semiotic I of the semiosphere.
In this line the framework of understanding boundary as an element in spatial metalanguage could support making connections between different conceptual levels and spaces as well as enable useful projections between object and metalevel in semiotic studies of culture.
The research has been supported by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund, CECT and IUT2-44.
References
ANDREWS, Edna. 2003. Conversations with Lotman: Cultural Semiotics in Language, Literature, and Cognition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
BOURDIEU, Pierre. 1994. Raisons pratiques: sur la théorie de l'action. Paris: Seuil.
CASSIRER, Ernst. 1944. An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.
DANESI, Marcel & Paul PERRON. 1999. Analyzing Cultures: An Introduction and Handbook. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
KEESING, Roger M. 1974. Theories of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 3. 73–93.
KIM, Soo Hwan. 2014. Lotmanian explosion: From peripheral space to dislocated time. Sign Systems Studies 42(1). 7–30.
KULL, Kalevi. 2010. Umwelt and modelling. In Paul Cobley (ed.), The Routledge companion to semiotics, 43–56. London: Routledge.
LAGOPOULOS, Alexandros-Phaidon. 2003 [1994]. Semiotics and archeology. In Mark Gottdiener, Karin Boklund-Lagopoulou & Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos (eds.), Semiotics, vol. 3, 221–240. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
LANG, Valter. 2005. Archaeological cultures and ethnic history: Some examples from the East Baltic Iron age. Interarchaeologia, 1. 11–28.
LOTMAN, Juri M. 1975 [1969]. On the metalanguage of a typological description of culture. Semiotica 14, 2. 97–123.
LOTMAN, Jurij M. 1977 [1970]. The Structure of the Artistic Text. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
LOTMAN, Yuri M. 1990. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. London, New York: I.B. Tauris.
LOTMAN, Juri M. 2005 [1984]. On the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies 33 (1). 205–229.
LOTMAN, Juri M. 2009 [1992]. Culture and Explosion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
LOTMAN, Juri M., Vjatcheslav V. Ivanov, Aleksandr M. Pjatigorskij, Vladimir N. Toporov & Boris A. Uspenskij 2013 [1973]. Theses on the semiotic study of cultures (as applied to Slavic texts). In Silvi Salupere, Peeter Torop & Kalevi Kull (eds.), Beginnings of the semiotics of culture, 51–77. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
MONTICELLI, Daniele. 2008. Wholeness and its remainders: Theoretical procedures of totalization and detotalization in semiotics, philosophy and politics (Dissertationes semioticae Universitatis Tartuensis 11). Tartu: University of Tartu dissertation.
MONTICELLI, Daniele. 2012. Challenging identity: Lotman’s “translation of the untranslatable” and Derrida’s différance. Sign Systems Studies 40 (3/4). 419–339.
PARSONS, Talcott & EDWARD A. Shils 2008 [1951]. Toward a General Theory of Action: Theoretical Foundations for the Social Sciences. New Brunswick, London: Transaction Publishers.
PREUCEL, Robert W. 2006. Archaeological Semiotics. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell.
ROBERTS, Benjamin W. & Marc VANDER LINDEN 2011. Investigating archaeological cultures: Material culture, variability, and transmission. In Benjamin W. Roberts & Marc Vander Linden (eds.), Investigating archaeological cultures: Material culture, variability, and transmission, 1–21. New York: Springer.
SOJA, Edward W. 1989. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London, New York: Verso.
SOROKIN, Pitirim A. 2006 [1957]. Social and Cultural Dynamics: A Study of Change in Major Systems of Art, Truth, Ethics, Law, and Social Relationships. (Revised and Abridged in One Volume by the Author). New Brunswick, London: Transaction Publishers.