Saussure: A Hegelian going stray

When I studied Saussurean linguistics, the commonly held view was that the Course laid the foundations of structuralism. Much emphasis was put onto the dualism langue-parole (language-utterance) and therefore, one seemed to ignore the fact that Saussure set the basis of his semiology on the triad langue-langage-parole. Of course, Saussure, at the beginning of the Course, is set to look for the subject matter of a science of language and the distinctions he makes among language, human speech and speaking are made in order to justify the chosen subject of linguistics, i.e. language. And the subject matter of linguistics is, for Saussure, the most stable part of the triad, the passive collection of the conventions adopted by society that enable individuals to exercise the faculty of speech. Thank you very much.


A closer and more careful examination of the triad makes me believe Saussure is establishing a Hegelian distinction among the universal (langue), the particular (langage) and the individual (parole). 'Speech has both an individual and a social side, and we cannot conceive of one without the other' (p. 4). Furthermore, one cannot help but think on further Hegelian influence in Saussure. Let us have a look.

First, let us ponder Hegel's assertion that philosophy is distinguished from the other sciences in that it alone can presuppose neither its object nor is method. Philosophy, for Hegel, starts with a subjective presupposition. Philosophy, unlike other sciences, cannot make a clear start. Its quest for detaching from representations and dealing with notions that are severed from them is an impossible one because notions (unlike Kant's belief) are not a given, they are historically constructed (i.e. they are subjective). Philosophy, for Hegel, is circular. Now, let us have a look at the following reflection written by Saussure in the Course: 'Other sciences work with objects that are given in advance and that can then be considered from different viewpoints; but not linguistics. Someone pronounces the French word nu 'bare': a superficial observer would be tempted to call the word a concrete linguistic object; but a more careful examination would reveal successively three or four quite different things, depending on whether the word is considered as a sound, as the expression of an idea, as the equivalent of Latin nudum, etc. Far from it being the object that antedates the viewpoint, it would seem that it is the viewpoint that creates the object' (p. 8).

So what is the departing point that cuts up Hegel's approach toward philosophy from Saussure's approach toward a science of signs? The answer may lie on the chosen part of the triad. What Saussure does when he points out the universal is the subject of a science of the life of signs in society is severing from it the particular and the individual. For Hegel, in contrast, there cannot be universal without the individual instantiation.


It is all very well said, of course, but the task is horrifyingly difficult. The problem arises when one tries to keep the three moments of the notion (universal, particular, individual) together throughout research only to discover that the exercise has gone stray, becoming an unintended exercise in reification (the researcher is, after all, looking forward to achieving a higher level of generalisation) or it is so grounded that no generalisation is possible: The conclusions of research only apply to the individual case.

Aichi Triennale 2010, contemporary corporate circus?

Too much money in Aichi and so few venues where to show it off. This Japanese prefecture is home to car manufacture powerhouse Toyota Motor Corp and although the Japanese economy continues its programmed downfall, the prefecture has been growing steadily instead.

Well, prefecture officials have been busy formulating a plan to give culture depth to the prefecture's capital, Nagoya, sometimes dubbed Japan's Detroit. And Nagoya is a newly rich in the world's neighbourhood. Lots of money but no style. They organised the World Expo in 2005 but for all the money they spent--including building an international airport mostly with flights to international destinations like Tokyo--, they could not get a title of nobility. Nor the skyscrapers that populate the area near Nagoya Station can break away with the city's humble origin. Their bet this time: to gather artists from all over the world, especially from Asia and put together a Triennale. Besides, they could use art to educate the people of the prefecture by not only having them as public and somehow absorb knowledge but as producers of art.

They may have partially succeeded, if one is to judge the enterprise by the number of people cueing to get into the Triennale venue and all the projects the prefecture officials have organised at grass root community level, including primary and secondary school projects and the involvement of tertiary educational organisations engaged in arts education. But at the same time it was worrying to see that most of the public on Sunday--the second day of the Triennale--was on the streets of the city centre watching the typical Japanese end-of-summer parade, a waterdown carnival whose purpose seems to give the working class population of the city the opportunity to earn a few bucks by installing street stands and selling junk food, like in olden times. Besides, most of the participants march like a paramilitary army. No excesses are committed here. The parades work like Swiss wristwatches. Japan is not Rio de Janeiro.

Also worrying is the link established between artists and industry. Few Japanese artists enjoy wide recognition and celebrity status. One could expect a detached view of Japanese affairs from such an artist, especially when they can keep certain economic independence. It's troublesome that one of the few who does enjoy public recognition in Japan, Yayoi Kusama, designed together with Toyota the Polka-dot car. The artist, who defines herself as an 'avant-guard artist' in the welcoming message of the Aichi Triennale just made a joke of herself.

The question that rises here is precisely about this link between the corporate world and the arts at large. When the arts look more and more like the space where commodities are produced who are the artists who joined Kusama and made a joke of themselves? One would expect some sense of independence. At least a simile of independence (which would add value to the commodity by the way).

After a quick review of the exhibition entitled 'Arts and cities' one cannot help but start associating art with the awesome world of circus, the Roman entertainment designed to alienate the city population. Bread and circus, that was all what Romans cared about the city state of affairs. Few works from this exhibition actually have enough social depth to be instruments of reflection. It is not as if one would expect the artist and his or her work aligning with some sense of morality but what perspires here is the thought that many artists just made their works with a unique idea on mind: to entertain (and cheaply). True art reveals itself as well, no matter how well orchestrated is the intention to cast a screen of smoke in front of the public eye. But the uniformity of contemporary art grouped under the 'entertain or fail' motto is worrisome and profoundly boring (beautiful paradox). It's like seeing a thousand-time reproduction of the paycheck received by pop clown Andy Warhol reproduced thousand times.

Yet, art is measured by art's own measure. And there are a few sparks in Aichi Triennale 2010.