Abstract

This essay, Meaning and Power, purports to present a Marxist stance on the issue of linguistic meaning and its interpretation. As an inversion of the Platonic conception of meaning as a self-existing immortal Idea, the classical Marxist theory conceives meaning as inherent in the natural as well as social world which is then reflected in the human mind. Interpreted in this light, language becomes a pure instrument which is only necessary when members of a community have a need to represent and then communicate to one another an already well-structured reality. As such, the classical Marxist theory neglects the constitutive function of language which Saussure was anxious to restore. However, by assuming the existence of a preexisting system, structuralists tend to write the human factor completely out of the picture of linguistic signification. Basing their theory on the questionable Saussurean conception of meaning as structural differentiation, but ripping open Saussure's closed language system, neo-structuralists claim that the play of signs is endless and indeterminate. The classical Marxist theory is able to demonstrate the unfoundedness of the Saussurean thesis, but it has yet to overcome its need for presupposing an omnipotent subject capable of knowing the "reality-in-itself." Habermas' theory of communicative praxis points to such a possibility of intersubjectively establishing a common "lifeworld" which serves as the background of our daily communication. However, we should not overlook the inequality of power in and behind speech acts resulting from the unequal distribution of means of production and products of labor. Volosinov is right in that language is the very site where power struggles are carried out, and meaning is often the effect of such struggles