SIGNS IN SOCIETY - STIBA Malang

134 I Comparative Perspectives on Complex Semiotic Processes \ f- W\ 5
10- ir
19853:51) derived from supernatural or transcendental sources existing beyond
the moment of performance (Bell 1992:206-7). So ritual does occur at the level
^ of event, but these events are realizations of general patterns (cf. Kuipers
1990:161-62).
0 -,x> j We can now return to reexamine the nature of linguistic performatives from
] this new perspective. Why does,*"] prbmisej/ have social power? It can create
something new because it is a replica wjhich instantiates at one moment in time
''a'generalcultural type, a rule-governed social routine ca ailed "promising." People
know that this routine is rlerngmlstantiäteä' because of the rxpuliar semiotic propjty
erties of language use in the event: the word uttered is transparent to the lexical
,i>\ label for the operant routine: "I promise" and "promise" (Silverstein 1977). For
flf^
someone merely to say "Yes, I think I'll do it" U/fiotTb produce a socially valid
p r o mi s e. This is exactly parallel to the earlier caseöfthe king of Babylon's mar-
. ^jjjf. riage. Going through the ritual is just like saying "I promise": the marriage is
, 'ti % transpajrently^iconic^with its divine_tempjate. That is why the participants dress
W up like gods and earlier in the ritual sequence actually recite word for word—
. note the transparency or iconicity—the text of Enuma elish, the epic of the cre-
1
' $5" ation of the gods, the formation of the cosmos, and the institution of the Babylonian
state. Actual recitation is a way of calling into this political context the
same kinds of^Supernatural power that, at the* beginning of time, effected the
cosmogony "arid of reinforcing the analogy) between political stratification and
cbsmölögical hierarchy (Kuhrt 1987:37).
In conclusion, the initial paradox, that rituals are characterized by two seemingly
incompatible aspects, extreme formal patterning and contextual anchoring,
is easily.,resolved-fey-~thejierniotic perspective which sees ritual in many societies
as thé; contextual anchoring^Til^^-cOTVêrîtîonàTIformsj forms which have re-
""""'
^gimeiking"j5Swèr"auêto their associafîorr with original or tmnscendenfcultural
:
JQrpcs: it is Marduk, not the king, whose marriage is being celebrated. Jfj^
Institutional Regimentation of Touristic Experience
In ritual, semiotic types of social action are made manifest as tokens and
dwell among us; their tokens are not ad hoc events but exemplary replicas which
transparently reveal thexosmoJogical jnodel. The high degree bt organization of
the signFcreates in the experience of participants in ritual performance a sense
that the entire event or discourse is a single text. But what about experiences in
I I which the coherence ancT systematicity of signs and ffieir meanings are not the
) J 1 Product of entexmaTizatîonl5ra"cTearTy evident sign complex but rather are pro-
\ \ duced in synTagmaticâlly less.formal ways? My second example suggests that
some contexts of social lif^contain strong metamëS6ages delinjiting-^he range of
possible interpretations, but wrïîcTî*3^rôjndirectjy, implicitly, or inductively. The
regimentation found in these contexts is air^ëTn73re"powèrrul"Decausè social
The Semiotic Regimentation of Social Life I 135
actors are not confronted with explicit metasemiotic forms (as will be the case
in the final example).
An important dimension of the ethnographic study of history as a cultural
system is the analysis of locally deployed semiotic mechanisms which regiment
peoples' understanding and experience of the past. These mechanisms, including,
for example, textual forms, visual images, behavioral rules, consumption goods, L>
ritual processions, architectural monuments, and museum exhibitions, are instruments
of the historicizing institutions of a society. A particularly powerful example
of the (regimentation of historical consciousness in the United States is Colonial
Williamsburg in Virginia, where I carried out a brief period of fieldwork
in 1987. 2
A methodological principle of the research was to experience the restored
city as much as possible as a typical tourist would. I did not establish contacts
with local scholarly authorities, I did not inspect archival records not publicly
available, and I did not engage in formal interviews with either tourists or staff.
During my stay, however, I attempted to visit as many exhibition buildings as
possible, and at each location I took notes on the communication between interpretive
staff and tourists, photographed informational signs, and collected pamphlets,
guide books, official publications, local newspapers, and maps. In approaching
the research I kept in mind the point made by Dean MacCannell
(1976:110), that "the first contact^, sightseer has with a sight is not with the dp—
sight itself but with some, representation thereof. " I certainly did not experience
the "glazed" look Mark Leone observed/on the faces of visitors during his research,
and I would disagree with his harsh statement that "despite the site's
motto about the future learning from the past, very few facts, no social context,
and nothing we would think of as historical in^rpretation are normally taken
away" (1981^13). The visitors]I watched were|éngaged S not overwhelmed, inquisitive,
and observant! -~J V • • ;•! .•, f /,i v k X
Colonial Williamsburg is a reconstruction of the eighteenthjcentUry capital
of Virginia when the city functioned as an administrative center, housing the
Capitol, the Governor's Palace, a military garrison, courthouse and jail, and the
residences of prominent members of the Tidewater planter class and over a thousand
slaves. Because Williamsburg was devoid of significant industry or trade and
because it was isolated from the principal urban centers of the period, it was an . /
exceptional if not unique colonial city: , .
Si toM&o
Virginia practiced only a few basic crafts and had virtually no industries aside ixLtjÛl
from tobacco producing and processing for market and such a rare endeavor J J : '
as iron making. Heavy importation of luxury items not made on the self-sustaining
plantations or in the town shops was universal. That Williamsburg in ^W«^
colonial times was a far cry from Boston, Philadelphia, or New York cannot
but impress the thoughtful visitor, even though the point is not stressed in the M
interpretation. (Cotter 1970:420) r-u vi $J
r
L