The Death of Meaning?

1 posts


As Lotman and Levi-Stross aptly describe in their works on semiotics, umwelt, the semiotical environment of a specific population, is strongly dependent on a couple of things:

First of all, existence of wild open space around the community, real or self-invented, so that it can build up its identity by separating itself from the rest of the world by a mental and sometimes physical wall. The process is akin to Ancient creationist myths.

Second, semiotic opposition to "the Other": in the beginning, the only semiotic system that exists is the system of the population in question (hence we see all foreigners viewed as barbarians from Ancient Greece to Ancient China), all other semiotic systems are considered asystemic and chaotic, i.e. even the origin of the word "barbarian" comes from Greek "barbaros" which losely can be translated as "speaking gibberish/unintelligebly". In slavic countries it was even more agressive - non-speakers of the language were called "niemtsy"(old Russian for "mute", which later became a name for Germans specifically, who Russians contacted the most). Meaning was denied to those who didn't speak the language of the host. Opposition between native semiotic system and a non-native one later came to be replaced by a slow dialogue, a mutual learning experience, but not by semiotic co-habitation.

Now, the point is: in a world-society where there's no "outside" and all the nations, the whole world with its culture is "inside", as well as there's no "Other" since any given society is fluid and everchanging as well as its linguistical, ethnical composition is being diluted, can we still claim that communication via elaborate sign systems is still possible at all? Can we still understand each other or has our multicultural society made deep, meaningful interaction impossible?