Blog Three: Signs Among Cultures

From the models of meaning discussed in Fiske's chapter 3, I've come to see that, regardless of the different names assigned to each component, there is one overall explanation for the triangle of meaning.  My interpretation is that there is a sign which stands for something and directs us to another meaning that we recognize.  Our perception of the sign and what deeper meaning it refers to depends on the society in which we live.  As we discussed in class, the signified, or concepts that we derive from the same signifier, or sign, can be completely different depending on our culture, background, geography, age and a number of other variables.  This means that our interpretation and assigned meaning to the same or similar things can differ due to these factors.  While reading, I remembered a few signs that have completely different connotations in different parts of the world.  The thumbs up, for example, is associated with positivity and encouragement in our culture, because this, as Fiske says, is "the agreement among the users" (46) in our society.  In Iran, however, society assigns an extremely negative meaning to this sign and thinks of it as referring to something obscene. Similarly, the swastika, in Hinduism and in many Eastern religions, relates to the creation of the universe and is a holy symbol, whereas Western civilizations relate it to the nazi party and destruction.  I think that a sign is simply a sign until people associate some sort of meaning to it, therefore, creating a relationship between what is represented and what it represents.  I disagree with Saussure's idea that the meaning we find in a sign  is determined by the meaning in what the sign does not represent (Fiske, 45) because I feel that we can not assign meaning to something based on what it is not, unless we already have an idea of what it is and what it means.  I think the two are related but that the actual meaning we derive from a sign allows us to eradicate other potential meanings.