1

A Study on Roland Barthes’ “Myth Today”

Semiology, 1“the study of the function of signs and symbols in human communication,

both in language and by various nonlinguistic means”, was first proposed by the Swiss

linguist Ferdinand de Sassure, whom created a dualistic notion of signs through the use of

two concepts, the signifier and the signified. In his essay “Myth Today” Roland Barthes

appropriates his ‘semiotic’ approach drawn from the theories of Sassure and Marx to

interpret images in art and visual culture through the use of ‘the science of signs.’

Barthes draws his examples from images of the media such as Persil soap-powder

advertising, the cover of The Paris Match, and recognizes the problems for critical

analysis in visual media through the expansion of popular culture. Drawing from two

main theories, Saussure’s account of the sign and the Marxist concept of ideology,

Barthes discusses the use of a national or regional language which becomes necessary in

discussing his idea of ‘myth.’ Therefore it is important to clarify Barthes definition of

‘myth’, as a perpetuation of mass-culture upon society, a critique in the way in which

French bourgeois used cultural material within the media to assert specific values upon

others.

Barthes divides his essay in to the various types of myth which is used to contextualize

the images portrayed within visual culture. Stating that, 2“Semiology is a science of

forms, since it studies significations apart from their content” , he postulates and draws

upon an important factor; Semiology is a science which deals with values which are not

necessarily context bound to fact, but in fact 3“define and explore them as tokens for

something else.”

Semiology as restated by Barthes is essentially the relation between the two terms of

the signifier and the signified, dealing with a relationship between objects that belong to

different categories. Thus, despite basing his analysis on the theories of Sassure, he

1 Fowler, H. W and Pearsall, Judy, Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2004. 2 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.111 3 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.111

2

essentially proclaims that the signifier and the signified create a third associative term of

the prior two, which is the sign.

Barthes states, 4“Since myth is a type of speech, everything can be a myth provided it is

conveyed by a discourse. Myth is not defined by the objects of its message, but by the

way in which it utters this message…Everything, then, can be a semiological system?

Yes, I believe this…” . Thereby employing the idea that every object and image that is

encountered is metamorphosized from a ‘silent state’ of being to one that of an ‘oral

state’, this is open to interpretation and appropriation by society itself. Barthes’ idea of

myth is understood that it is constructed through a semiological chain which contributes

to meaning. This is what Barthes refers to as the ‘second-semiological system.’, and I

conceive his intention to be appropriating a concept in which a correlation between the

signifier and the signified is present to create a mode of signification. The sign, the

association of the concept and image within the semiological chain, becomes a ‘mere

signifier’ in the second. Thus, my key understanding of Barthes’ explanation of ‘myth’,

is that it is the appropriation of a historical image in which it only survives in gesture as a

mode of signification, rather than a shared memory. Whether the material of this

mythical speech is perpetuated through photography, painting, posters etc, myth only

views them as ‘raw material’ and creates a unity that converts them to a mere form of

language, as 5“myth wants to see in them only a sum of signs, a global sign, the final term

of a first semiological chain.”

The importance of Barthe’s semiotic approach lies within the postulation that myth is a

construction of two semiological systems, one which deals within a linguistic system,

which Barthes refers to as the ‘language-object’, the language which myth perpetuates in

order to establish it’s personal system, and myth itself which he refers to as

‘metalanguage’ because 6“it is a second language in which one speaks about the first.”

Therein lies the consideration of the global sign as he believes that these two

semiological systems create a situation in which the semiologist is no longer in need of

4 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.109 5 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.114 6 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.115

3

taking in to account the ‘linguistic schema.’ Thus considered by Barthes, language and

pictures are both signs and abide to the same signifying function, in constituting a

‘language object.’

With this knowledge of the second-semiological system, the understanding is that myth

is observed from two points of view, firstly as the ‘final term of the linguistic system’ or

as the ‘first term of the mythical system.’ Within this Barthes creates specific

terminology to explain these claims. He refers to the final term of the linguistic system,

its signifier, as ‘meaning’, and within the plane of myth refers to the signifier as the

‘form’, and it’s signifier as ‘concept.’ It is important to note that ‘meaning’ and

‘concept’ are not terms to be confused. What Barthes refers to as ‘meaning’ is as a

signifier which postulates a clear reading, through what he calls a ‘sensory reality.’ We

grasp the meaning visually (as opposed to mentally, which Barthes states is the case with

the linguistic signifier), such as his example of the Negro’s salute on the cover of the

Paris Match; it holds a rationality which is credible on its own. He states,

7“The meaning of the myth has its own value, it belongs to a history…in the meaning, a

signification is already built and could very well be self-sufficient if myth did not take

hold of it and did not turn it suddenly into and empty, parasitical form. The meaning is

already complete, it postulates a kind of knowledge, a past, a memory, a comparative

order of facts, ideas, decisions.”

Meaning only becomes emptied of its history when it becomes form.

An image I have chosen to perpetuate Barthes’ semiotic approach is one taken from

advertising. The relevancy of choosing an image from advertising is based on Barthes’

concentration on images within the mass-media. Advertising in my belief, is a myth

created by society through the manipulation not only of images, but through linguistic

means (captions) in order to postulate an idea that is easily recognizable by its intended

7 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.117

4

target market. As Barthes states, 8“Myth is a type of speech defined by its intention,

much more than by its literal sense.”

The image presented here is from cigarette advertising. There is an image of former

United States president Ronald Reagan smoking a Chesterfield cigarette whilst signing

limited edition Christmas wrapped cigarette cartons. The caption, “I’m sending

Chesterfields to all my friends. That’s the merriest Christmas any smoker can have-

Chesterfield mildness plus no unpleasant after-taste.”, is presented along with this image,

to advertise the sales of Chesterfield cigarettes during the Christmas season. In such an

image it is important to relate back to what Barthes refers to as “the global sign” the

concept explained in his essay “The Rhetoric of the Image” where symbols are used to

represent ideologies that are universally recognizable. Using an image of an American

president whom was a key figure in history, smoking a cigarette in what can be perceived

as a machismo style, connotes a sense of ‘Americanism.’ Such a term is used to describe

an idea that is universally perceived to be ‘American’, yet may not exactly be historically

context bound. I believe the term itself merely represents an assumption of society’s

projection of such a notion. Do images of cowboys and burgers and chips present an

overall impression of a nation? Or is it that we are lead to believe through the media such

notions that affect our understanding of specific cultural characteristics? Stereotypes

placed on one’s culture by another, such as a ‘tourist stereotype’, increases universal

familiarity in the international market. It is this idea of a specifically created identity

within society, which influences a way in which an image is captured and interpreted.

This is what Barthes reiterates as being ‘myth.’ 9“There is no myth without motivated

form”, as it resorts to the false nature of representation through an analogy. This analogy

is between ‘meaning and form’, and myth plays and establishes a sense of identity

between the signs that are presented.

In deciphering this image through Barthes key concepts, it is integral to follow his

system of the ‘empty signifier’, ‘the full signifier’, and the ‘mythical signifier.’ Barthes

8 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.124 9 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.126

5

states that 10“If I focus on an empty signifier, I let the concept fill the form of the myth

without ambiguity, and I find myself before a simple system, where the signification

becomes literal again.” Through this I interpret the image of Reagan smoking a cigarette

to present an example of Americanism, and liberal freedom of choice (such as smoking a

cigarette) hence he is thus a symbol for this notion. This type of focusing as emphasized

by Barthes is ‘that of the mythologist’, the emergence of a form from an initial concept.

Furthermore, the understanding of the ‘full signifier’ in which 11“I (Barthes) clearly

distinguish the meaning and the form, and consequently the distortion which the one

imposes on the other, I undo the signification of the myth.”, creates a situation in which

the form undoes the initial significance within the myth, and the president smoking a

cigarette becomes an ‘alibi’, a term used by Barthes to signify a mere representation that

is a temporary creation. The ‘deciphering of myth’ allows one to understand the

distortion. The president smoking a cigarette may support liberal rights for smokers, but

there is no concrete historical evidence to prove that Reagan was indeed a smoker. My

understanding, is the creation of myth through the use of an important political figure, is

promoting to the market that smoking is not an act that is condemned (at least not at the

time in which the advertisement was released), and temporarily allows one to presume

that Reagan was a pro-smoking individual.

With the prior two concepts of the signifier, Barthes finally comes to placing the focus

on the mythical signifier as a wholesome state, ‘made of meaning and form’ in which an

ambiguous signification is constructed. Thus, by this the president smoking a cigarette is

no longer a symbol or an example, but now postulates the very presence of Americanism

and pro-smoking mentality. This as Barthes discusses is now 12“less than an alibi” it is a

way of providing a visual and linguistic situation in which Americanism is connoted.

These three states of the signifier provide a much broader perspective on the various

interpretations and deciphering of the myth however, it is necessary to consider this

10 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.128 11 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.128 12 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.128

6

image through the various messages that are presented. Barthes divides these ‘messages’

in to categories such as, ‘The linguistic message’, ‘The iconic message’, and ‘The literal

message.’ I focus my analysis of the image on these three messages, as focusing the

engagement between the text provided, and the use of the president as an ‘icon’, and the

values that each these messages require in order to ‘read’ the image.

This image includes a caption, one which is linguistic, the quote at the top of the

advertisement, the logo of the product, are inserted in to the scene within the image. The

fact that the name of the product ‘Chesterfields’ portrays the notion of one having a

knowledge of English/American names as well as the language itself as the advertisement

is written in English, adds on to the connoted idea of this advertisement. The general

knowledge of English being the universal language of business and global marketing, and

the understanding of America being a country of power and high influence within the

world, is both part of the presumed knowledge and the message connoted within this

image. The product logo itself, ‘Chesterfields’ as previously mentioned by myself,

presents an idea of ‘Americanism’ for it not only gives the name of the company and firm,

but also through the assonance and the signified of cultural values, the linguistic message

here is 13“denotational and connotational.”

As we put the linguistic message to the side and consider the image purely on its own,

it is evident that there are a few euphoric values that are presented. Firstly, there is the

signified of the president’s image which is used in pro-marketing the specified cigarettes.

The values presented are that of exclusivity as they are a Christmas limited edition as

interpreted through this image as being both signed and wrapped by the president himself,

and the target market in which they are destined to reach-smokers during Christmas time.

The signifiers of these values are the cartons of cigarettes wrapped in colorful wrapping

paper, as well as the president signing these cartons whilst smoking a cigarette himself.

To read this sign, the knowledge is required that there is a sense of irony created in

wrapping cigarette cartons to send out to smokers. The cartons are customized in a way

in which the usually recognizable cigarette label is altered to create a sense of exclusivity,

13 Barthes, Roland. “Image, Music, Text”, London: Fontana Press, 1993, p.33

7

and at the same time seems to conceal the act of smoking behind an image which is

generally associated with merriment. Christmas as discussed here is not a celebration for

children but for adults, the irony is created in using a holiday that is mainly associated

with children and family, to conceal something which is generally portrayed as a “bad

habit” and something which can harm one’s health. Despite the president smoking and

creating an assonance in which smoking is seen as an encouraged act, it is still ironically

concealed by the act of wrapping them up in paper. The second sign in this case thus, is

seen through the colors used within this advert (the heavy use of green and red) to

connote the idea of merriment which is associated with the celebration of Christmas.

This adds to the idea that smoking is an act which is not condemned, and in this case the

receiving of these cigarettes connote a sense of merriment as they are exclusively

wrapped for a limited period of time.

8

Famous Life Magazine featured Ronald Reagan in a Chesterfield cigarette advertisement, December, 1956

The knowledge concerned in deciphering this image is cultural based on the

understanding of certain holidays and political figures. Furthermore, through the

additional information of the iconic pointers and the captions, one is aware that this is an

advertisement. Barthes states, 14“The advertising nature of the image is essentially

functional: to utter something is not necessarily to declare I am speaking, except in a 14 Barthes, Roland. “Image, Music, Text”, London: Fontana Press, 1993, p.35

9

deliberately reflexive system such as literature” and portrays the notion that returns to the

issue of a myth created after motivation. The motivation concerned within this message

is the potential sales of the product of release. The creators whom brought together this

image specifically chose the symbols, colors, and captions in order to manipulate the sale

of Chesterfield cigarettes.

Thus, the iconic message within the image is initiated through the linguistic message

and the raw image (the literal message) forming a coherent whole, discontinuous in

history, and require a general cultural knowledge of America. Even if the captions were

to be removed and we were left with the image itself without any arbitrary analogy to

culture, we still would interpret the image through an instinctive anthropological

knowledge. We do not absorb the objects for what they symbolize, but for their literal

meaning. One understands what an image is, and what a cigarette is moreover, even

without the knowledge that Reagan was a former American president, we still absorb this

image plainly as a male individual. The literal message supports the linguistic message

and the iconic message, the inter-relationship of the three messages gives the analysis of

the image a structural description.

As a conclusion, it is important to access the possible limits and scope of such use of a

semiotic approach to appropriating images. Myth is created on the basis of

‘harmonizing’ with the world, which Barthes perpetuates as being a situation in which 15“Mythology harmonizes with the world not as is, but as it wants to create itself.” Thus,

the problem that arises from the second-order semiological system that Barthes

appropriates in his theory of myth is that it cannot give a full interpretation of the image,

as it becomes a distortion of history, a form of ‘metalanguage.’ This presents the image

without any historical roots, and leaves the image to be partial and one-sided. The

‘unveiling’ that mythology carries out is a ‘political act’ which is based on a falsely

created nature through society, founded on the idea of language whether it may be visual

or purely linguistic therefore, myth is theoretical in its origins. The use of universal

symbols and ‘global signs’ allow viewers to interpret and recognize the image in a

15 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.156

10

reflexive manner yet, the generality of myth creates an ambiguity. The mythologist

excludes himself 16“from this history in the name of which he professes to act” and thus

the world is not concretely represented, but becomes a ‘subjective grasp of history’ in

which ideas and images are based on theory. What may be positive today may become

negative in the light of tomorrow. Barthes reemphasizes this through stating, 17“There is

for some men a subjective dark night of history where the future becomes an essence, the

essential destruction of the past”. Mythology is easily altered on a daily basis, as the

mythologist himself creates new myths through the destruction of old ones. This constant

re-writing of history in mythology issues a problem in approaching images. One may not

understand it’s pure origin (if there is indeed one) for there are no concrete historical

roots to specify its deciphering.

Furthermore, Barthes appropriation of myth in interpreting images, in my opinion, is

somewhat skeptical. Since he derives most of his linguistic and visual examples from the

media, the theory discussed from his point of view I feel, is biased. Advertisements are

created on the basis of motivation, of manipulating its audience. This is its essential

purpose. Therefore, the idea of images being myth, to an extent is something that cannot

be criticized. Whether the appropriation of his semiotic approach is effective in

discussing images from fine art, is another issue of concern. Art as I believe is both

subjective and objective, as there is art that is created to bring across a certain idea or

opinion, and there is art that is created in order to record history in itself. Advertisement

is created in order to make those who view it believe in what the creator of the image

(which Barthes appropriates as being ‘myth’) wants them to believe. Advertisement

images are manipulative and are based on symbols that can be universally recognized and

generalized, thus perhaps can more appropriately be referred to as ‘myth.’ However,

despite the artist’s intention in creating a piece and their motivated message which they

strive to convey, the symbols are less generalized and are more open to differences in

interpretation. One may look at a work of art and view it as being something completely

different in contrast to another viewer, and their opinions may not necessarily coincide

16 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.157 17 Barthes, Roland. “Mythologies”, New York: Hill and Wang, 1972, p.158

11

with those of the creator. If Barthes theory is appropriated in discussing fine art, it would

almost be that of a similar approach to art historian Clement Greenberg, who insisted on

the theorization that art is art, and must purely be viewed through aesthetic means. The

irony is that myth is created on a subjective history based on politics and society, yet the

motivation and theorization behind its interpretation is objective. I feel that the scope of

his semiotic approach is its way of using a step method to interpret images concisely

through unveiling the various symbols behind them, yet it has its limitations as it only

seems to apply to select images. Not all images are a ‘myth’ in my opinion, and it is

important to draw the line between what images are based on a subjective history, and

those that are based on concrete historical roots.