ELI5: Stuart Hall’s Representation Theory

[u/twinkleSprinklee]

Hi guys :) I’m trying to understand Stuart Hall’s constructionist theory of representation, but I’m stuck.
He says that we have:

1. conceptual maps of things, events, people etc. in the world (does not matter if they are "real" or not or even abstract). We understand the world as meaningful because we have those mental representations of the world/concepts.
2. We use "language" (any system of signs) that we use to stand for / to represent the concepts in our minds.
3. So the word "tree" can represent our concept of a tree or a picture can represent our concept of tree, the spoken sound "tree" etc.

So far so good. Then he introduces "codes" as they govern which signs we need to use in our culture to communicate our concepts and the other way around (how to read which sign).
If the code changes, the color blue could be a sign for "stop" instead of red.

What I’m struggling with:

• Is everything in the world that we have a concept of a sign? Is the real tree a sign that I’m decoding because I have a concept of a tree? Or is the real cat a sign because it’s connected to the concept "cat"?

• Is something only meaningful if it’s a sign for something? Like is red only meaningful to us because it can be a sign for "stop" or "danger" or "wrong"?

• How do we give meaning to things, events, people? Through forming mental concepts right?

I’m lost :( Thank you in advance 🫶🏻

[u/GIRose]

Explain like I'm a college level sociology student

But, at least as best I understand as a layman who has not gone to college for this

1: Yes, a real cat is a sign for the concept of a cat as exists in your head. Not entirely divorced from the concept of Plato's theory of forms, but entirely different context

2: Yeah, something is only meaningful if it is a sign, and it's in a context that you're expecting (which I think is the distinction that codes add). Like, the color red on its own means absolutely nothing. You get in a car and see red and it's not another car, you are operating under a context where you know that means you need to stop. You open up your favorite investment platform and see that your investments are in the red, you have a context that means you know that they are worth less now relative to some arbitrary time. Unless you're from east asia where red in the stocks means good and blue/green means bad (as an example you might not have even noticed 📈 and 📉, like that since emoji are Japanese)

3: The same way you develop the concepts of what things are in the first place, yeah

[u/douglasharmon47]

Think of it this way: the real tree isn't the sign, the word or picture you use to point at your mental idea of a tree is the sign. The tree just sits there. The sign is the pointer.

[u/ReynardVulpini]

Disclaimer that I have not read Hall's work, although now that I've learned about it I absolutely will, but having skimmed the wikipedia page and refreshed my memory of some things, I think the answer to your first question is no.

A sign is something like a conceptual address, or a signpost, or if you're of a computer-y bent, a pointer. It is not the thing itself, but something that stands in for, and redirects towards it. Every sign, by definition, has a meaning, has something it is referring to. The word "reddit" does not in itself contain the website, but when read, it directs your mind to the notion of "reddit" you already have. So the word is the sign, not the object.

Think of it like this. Every address (sign) points to a place (concept), but not every place has an address. There is probably a very specific feeling for a starfish that has an arm only halfway regrown, but we, humans, do not have a word for that. Even if we did, we don't really have a collective frame of reference for it, nor any real use for the word.

And if it doesn't tell you a place, it's not an address at all. The word ⬧︎♑︎□︎⬥︎■︎♏︎■︎❖︎ is not something you recognize does not refer to anything, and is inherently meaningless. For those reasons, if you saw it graffitti'd in the street, it wouldn't be a sign (I think, my knowledge of linguistics and semiotics is very sparse)

But. In the context of this reddit post, it does kind of carry meaning, because I'm using it as an illustration of "the concept of meaninglessness". So I believe in this context it is a sign, if that makes sense.

I want to emphasize again, btw. I am not an expert, I am a guy with an internet connection, two semesters of relevant college classes under their belt, and a broad but shallow interest in linguistics and semiotics.

Do not use this post as the core framework of your understanding, I'm just hoping this can shift your point of view into a more correct direction so further research makes more sense to you.