Barthes and the CNN Image

*To view the image, click here*

Early in his essay, Barthes explains that in semiology, there is more than simply a signifier and a signified -

"... any semiology postulates a relation between two terms, a signifier and a signified. This relation concerns objects which belong to different categories, and this is why it is not one of equality but one of equivalence. We must here be on our guard for despite common parlance which simply says that the signifier expresses the signified, we are dealing, in any semiological system, not with two, but with three different terms. For what we grasp is not at all one term after the other, but the correlation which unites them: there are, therefore, the signifier, the signified and the sign, which is the associative total of the first two terms."

With the CNN image, the signifier (a soldier in full uniform, prepared to shoot) was chosen to signify America's War on Terror in Iraq. The overall sign, according to Barthes, would then be US presence in Iraq. When we see this image, we immediately know what its meaning is: that America is waging a war with Iraq. The soldier himself does not inherently carry meaning, as "... the signifier is empty, the sign is full, it is a meaning." He is also quick to point out that the soldier isn't necessarily the only signifier of the War on Terror. There are thousands, even millions, of War on Terror signifiers, and none of them are more correct than any other.

"... myth has in fact a double function: it points out and it notifies, it makes us understand something and it imposes it on us."

One could argue that the myth of this image is war as a means of defending freedom. The soldier stands behind a piece of concrete with the Iraq flag painted on it, as if he is protecting it. The image pushes the viewer to understand that the soldier (or the United States) is set on preserving Iraqi freedom (or simply freedom at large). This myth goes back as far as the Crusades, during which thousands of European soldiers risked their lives to fight for Christianity (and, in turn, their country or kingdom) by attempting to regain control of the Holy Lands. But, as Barthes points out, we mustn't focus too much on the myth's history, as

"... the form [or myth] does not suppress the meaning, it only impoverishes it, it puts it at a distance, it holds it at one's disposal. ... meaning will be for the form like an instantaneous reserve of history, a tamed richness, which it is possible to call and dismiss in a sort of rapid alternation: the form must constantly be able to be rooted again in the meaning and to get there what nature it needs for its nutriment; above all, it must be able to hide there."

The myth of war remains latent within this image. One's initial reactions could be toward the soldier himself, or the brightly painted flag just behind him -- but the signification still remains.