Light My Fire

"the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary" (35)

When contemplating Saussure’s statement, I like to think of the graph we have used in class.

Sign

/ \
Signifier/ARBITRARY /Signified
(Sound/Image) / (Concept)

Saussure, in the above statement, explains that our minds assign meaning to particular words. No true meaning exists in language because meaning is arbitrary. Saying that the bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary means that the signifier cannot have a definite concept since the signified is determined by the individual. To further understand this idea, I will use the example of fire in the graph.

Sign
(Fire)

/ \
Signifier /ARBITRARY /Signified
Sound/Image / Desire, danger, enlightenment, inspiration

I use fire as an example because it is a common symbol found in art around the world. Someone who has had an unfortunate experience with a fire destroying their home may think of fire as a sign of danger. Fans of the song “Light My Fire” by the Doors quickly realize that fire is a metaphor for desire. Followers of the Bible may find the burning bush in Exodus 3:1-15 to be a symbol of Moses’ revelation. To relate my example of fire in the literary sense, readers of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein understand that the light provided by fire is a symbol of enlightenment and knowledge.

Therefore, through the example of fire we realize that the signifier is assigned different meanings or concepts (the signified) by the individual mind, thus we can agree that the bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.

I'm not really sure how this idea is affected by post structuralist thought, but if anyone is looking for something to post, someone could discuss their thoughts with me.