"I confine the word representation to the operation of a sign or its relation to the objectforthe interpreter of the representation. Theconcrete subject that represents I call a sign or a representamen." — C. S. Peirce, Lowell Lectures 1903
Semiosis komoditas sebagai suatu relasi di antara relasi relasi
intisari tulisan Paul Kockelman“A Semiotic Ontology of the Commodity”http://www.columbia.edu/~pk2113/Article%20PDFs/Semiotic%20Ontology%20of%20the%20Commodity.pdfSEMIOSIS KOMODITAS SEBAGAI SUATU RELASI DI ANTARA RELASI-RELASI
“RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS” MENURUT ARISTOTLEAristotle argued that equivalence of value should turn on geometric ratios. Forexample, if we are engaged in a system of redistribution (e.g., what kinds ofpeople should be given what proportion of goods from the collective share),then the following relation between relations should hold: as my status isrelative to yours (e.g., you are a knight and I am a knave), so should my sharebe relative to yours (e.g., you receive 10 jugs of wine and I receive one).Aristotle generalized this logic of equivalence to forms of exchange more akinto reciprocation than to redistribution and to forms of value turning ondiscipline and punishment (e.g., an eye for an eye, or a Hail Mary for an impurethought) as much as utility and price (e.g., how many bottles of wine for a pairof shoes, or how much wage for how much work)
“RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS” MENURUT MARXBuilding on Aristotle‘s idea, Marx (1967 ) characterized value in similarterms but with a focus on capitalist economies in which the people were(formally) equal and the goods were (qualitatively) different.In particular, value was a relation between people (e.g., different kinds of roleswithin a division of labor) mediated by a relation between things (e.g., differentkinds of commodities within a market)Marx, of course, was not just interested in where value comes from or whypeople strive for it but also in how the systematic misrecognition of the originsof value is both cause and effect of the very relationality that mediates it
MARX’Z ONTOLOGY OF THE COMMODITYKarl Marx’s understanding of the commodity, then, is grounded in a dualisticontology, whose top-most branch (use-value versus value) is grounded in what he calledthe pivot of political economy: use-value is the product of concrete labor, a trans-historicrelation between man and nature; and value is the product of abstract labor, ahistorically- specific relation between man and man
“RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS” MENURUT SAUSSUREThe idea of relations between relations was not just crucial to understandingvalue in the sense of what someone strives for; it was also crucial forunderstanding meaning in the sense of what something stands for.Saussure (1983 ), for example, famously introduced this idea with regardto linguistic structure: within a given language, the relation between anyparticular linguistic form and its meaning (e.g., a word and a concept) must beanalyzed in relation to the relations between other linguistics forms and theirmeanings (e.g., other words and concepts within a particular grammaticalconstruction or semantic field).
“RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS” MENURUT PIERCE Joint attention is perhaps the exemplary semiotic process: a child turning to observe what her father is observing involves an interpretant (the child‘s change in attention), an object (what the parent, and later the child, is attending to), and a sign (the parent‘s direction of attention or gesture that directs attention).Peirce, in contrast to Saussure, was focused onsemiotic processes instead of semiological Here the relation betweenstructures, and inference and indexicality relations, what Peirce calledrather than convention and code. ―correspondence,‖ is the relation between the parent‘s direction ofHe defined such processes in terms of relations attention and the object and thebetween relations: a sign stands for its child‘s direction of attention and theobject on the one hand and its object.interpretant on the other in such a way asto make the interpretant stand in relationto the object corresponding to its ownrelation to the object (Kockelman 2005;Peirce 1992 ; fig. 4).
SUATU RELASI DI ANTARA RELASI-RELASI : “HUBUNGAN BER- KESESUAI-AN” MENURUT CHARLES S PEIRCE A TRICHOTOMY (c)OBJECT INTERPRETANT Interpretant, adalah efek sebuah sign pada seseorang yang membaca atau memahaminya. [Peirce, teori "triadic of the sign‖] (a) (b) Interpretant adalah sebab yang memungkinkan sebuah representamen laksana sign sebuah object; Interpretant juga "effect" dari proses semeiosis atau signification. SIGN "I confine the word• Di satu sisi, SIGN – misalnya sebuah kata – mewujudkan representation to the operation OBJECT-nya [„maklum‟-nya] (a); of a sign or its relation to the• Di sisi lain, SIGN mewakili its INTERPRETANT [=„hal‟-nya] object for the interpreter of (b) the representation. The• sedemikian rupa hingga membawa „the latter‟ concrete subject that [interpretant, =„hal‟] ke dalam relasi dengan „the former „ represents I call a sign or a [= object, „sesuatu‟] (c) representamen." — C. S. Peirce• berkesesuaian (“corresponding”) dengan relasi dirinya [interpretant] sendiri dengan the former [=sign] (a)
COMMODITY AS “RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS” –LAKSANA (=KUALITAS YANG MENDEFINISIKAN) “MENJADI” DAN “SEBAGAI” (c)VALUE EXCHANGE-VALUE What is at issue in meaningfulness, (a) (b) then, is not one relation between a sign and an object (qua „standing for‟), but rather a relation between two such USE-VALUE relations (qua „correspondence‟).Di satu sisi, use-value mewujudkan (=“menjadi”) value (a); Di sisi lain use-value mewakili (=“sebagai”) exchange-value (b), sedemikian rupa hingga membawa the latter [exchange-value ] kedalam relasinya terhadap the former [value] (c) corresponding - berkesesuaian, laksana relasi dirinya [exchange-value ] itu sendiri dengan the former [use-value] (a).
VALUE AS „COLLATERAL RELATIONALITY‟Commensuration is a processwhereby otherwise distinctentities are rendered comparableby reference to proportionalquantities of a shared quality(Aristotle 2001b; Espeland andStevens 1998; Marx 1967).The value of a use-value is that to which all exchange-values of that use-valuecollaterally relate. A collateral relation is thus a particular kind of conditionalrelation when the object in question (in this case, value) relates interpretants (inthis case, exchange-values) via commensuration: rendered comparable byreference to proportional quantities of a shared quality.
IN DIFFERENT CASES: “INSTRUMENTS” & “ACTIONS” (OBJECT) (INTERPRETANT) an action that wields entityA FUNCTION AN ACTION or instrument that incorporates or contextualizes entity (in light of the function it serves) an instrument is not a material artifact per se (e.g., the configuration of IN THE CASE OF wood and steel that we call a ―hammer‖). Rather, an INSTRUMENTS instrument is a AN ARTIFICED ENTITY relational process of (SIGN) selection and significance (OBJECT) (INTERPRETANT) A PURPOSE A REACTION a reaction is an action that reacts to behavior, an instrument that is realized by behavior, orIN THE CASE OF instrument that contextualizes behavior (in light of the purpose it ACTIONS undertakes) AN CONTROLLED BEHAVIOR (SIGN)
IN THE CASE OF “AFFORDANCE” an action that heeds feature or instrument that incorporates feature (in light of the purchase it provides) (OBJECT) (INTERPRETANT) PURCHASE ACTION An affordance is a quality of an object, or an environment, which allowsIN THE CASE OF an individual to perform an action. E.g., a knob AFFORDANCE affords twisting, and perhaps NATURAL FEATURE pushing, while a cord affords (SIGN) pulling.
A COMMODITY IS META-SEMIOSIS VALUE EXCHANGE-VALUE Embedding Semiotic Process USE-VALUE OBJECT: say, INTERPRETANT: say, a function (in the case of Embedded an action that wields an artificed instruments); Semiotic Process entity (in the case of instruments); or a purpose (in the case of or a reaction (in the case of actions) actions) SIGN: say, an artificed entity (in the case of instruments); or an controlled behavior (in the case of actions) Use-values are simultaneously semiotic processes (i.e., instruments, which consist of an artificed entity as their sign, a function as their object, and a mode of wielding as their interpretant) AND the sign-component of larger semiotic processes (i.e., commodities, which consist of a use-value as their sign, a value as their object, and an exchange-value as their interpretant). In this way a commodity is meta-semiotic: consisting of a larger semiotic process, each of whose components may be smaller semiotic processes.
CAVEAT: THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD AS A STRATEGY AND NOT A SYSTEM. Theoretically, there may be no end to the number of threefold divisionsone could introduce. And phenomenologically, there may be no endto the future forms in which the commodity will appear. These categories have been selected because they relate most closely toMarx‘s original distinctions (and hence should be familiar), and becausethey are particularly salient in the current context (and hence should berelevant). They are not meant to delimit real things, nor even express idealtypes, but rather to provide a pragmatic typology. They are thereby best understood as a set of flexible and portabletools that are designed to interpret a wide-range of ethnographicdata in ways that are analytically precise (yet open-ended) andempirically tractable (yet locally-sensitive). The issue then is not their truthfulness, but their usefulness.
Commodities (a) unfold into use-values, values, and exchange-values.Use-values (b) unfold into utilities, units, and numbers.Utilities (c) unfold into instigation, means, and ends. SEMIOTIC ONTOLOGY OF THE COMMODITY Instigation [who] (d) unfolds into control, composition, and commitment. Means [how] (e) unfold into means in themselves, means toward ends, and ends in themselves. Ends [why] (f) unfold into what one wants (possibility), what one has (actuality), and what one needs (necessity).Semiotic ontology of the commodity: Units (g) unfold into dimensions, origos, andA commodity is anything that has use-value magnitudes.and value, where the latter, [value] is Values (h) unfold into utilities, units, and numbers.expressed as exchange-value Exchange-values (i) unfold into elementary forms, total forms, and generalized forms.
THE LOGIC OF THIS RELATION BETWEEN RELATIONS PEIRCE‟S THREE KINDS OF SIGNS “TYPOLOGY OF DISTINCTIONS” (1955).A ‗qualisign‘ is a quality that could possibly be paired with an object: i.e. any quality thatis accessible to the human sensorium – and hence could be used to stand for something else (tosomeone). For example, in the case of utterances, a qualisign is a potential cry (say, what isconceivably utterable by a human voice)A ‗sinsign‘ is a quality that is actually paired with an object (in some event) and issometimes referred to as a ‗token‘. For example, an actual cry (say, the interjection ouchuttered at a particular time and place)A ‗legisign‘ is a type of quality that must necessarily be paired with a type of object(across all events) and is sometimes referred to as a ‗type‘ – see Table above, column 3; a sinsignis; and a legisign is a type of cry (say, the interjection ouch in the abstract, or what every tokenof ouch has in common as a type).Any sinsign that is a token of a legisign as a type may be called a ‗replica‘. Replicas, then, arejust run-of-the mill sinsigns: any utterance of the word ouch. And, in keeping within thisPeircean framework, we might call any unreplicable or unprecedented sinsign a ‗singularity‘– that is, any sinsign that is not a token of a type. Singularities, then, are one-of-a-kindsinsigns: e.g., Nixon‘s resignation speech. One of the key design features of language may bestated as follows: given a finite number of replicas (qua individual signs as parts),speakers may create an infinite number of singularities (qua aggregates of signs aswholes).
THE OBJECTS OF INFERENTIALLY ARTICULATED SIGNSIn order to understand the meaning of such signs, several more distinctions need to bemade. First, just as there are sin-signs (or sign tokens) and legi-signs (or sign types), there are ‗sin-objects‘ and ‗legi-objects‘. Thus, an assertion (or a sentence with declarative illocutionary force – say, ‗the dog is under the table‘) is a sign whose object type is a proposition, and whose object token is a state of affairs. A word (or a substitutable lexical constituent of a sentence – say, ‗dog‘ and ‗table‘) is a sign whose object type is a concept, and whose object token is a referent. Finally, the set of all possible states of affairs of an assertion – or what the assertion could be used to represent – may be called an ‗extension‘. And the set of all possible referents of a word – or what the word could be used to refer to – may be called a ‗category‘
AT LEAST THERE ARE FOUR SIGNIFICANT OBJECTS OF INTEREST IN NON-NATURAL MEANING (INTENTIONAL COMMUNICATION) 1. My intention to direct your attention to an object (or bring an object to your attention). 2. The object that I direct your attention to (or bring to your attention). 3. My intention that you use (2), usually in conjunction with (1), to attend to another object. 4. The object that you come to attend to.
RELASI ANTARA “SESUATU”, “MAKLUM” DAN “HAL” (c) OBJECT INTERPRETANT = = “maklum” “hal” (a) (b) Secara semiotika bahasa Indonesia sudah sejak lama mengenal relasi di antara relasi-relasi sign-object- SIGN interpretant ini dalam wujud = relasi di antara relasi-relasi triadik “sesuatu” ―sesuatu-maklum-hal‖ Dalam bahasa Arab, kata „hal‟ yang kemudian diadopsi bahasa Indonesia pengertiannya adalah “suatu moda eksistensi di antara „being‟ dan „non-being‟;Sedangkan kata “ma‟lum“ - juga dari bahasa Arab – pengertiannya adalah “object dari pengetahuan, atau informasi atau data” (object dari “sesuatu”); Maka object juga adalah “maklum” dari sesuatu (misalnya sign, symbol, token, term etc)