Paradigms.

In the previous post the connection between the syntagma and the paradigm was explored and the conclusion was that the syntagma produces an order for the paradigms and to produce a hierarchy for those paradigms.

This then leaves the question what does a paradigm do? The function of the syntagma has been established, but what does the paradigm do? In short, the paradigm gives the represented object a meaning, a definition that can be used to create a value for that paradigm.

When the paradigms are first defined, it is usually done through contrast. This is achieved by considering of what the paradigm is not, or what could have been used instead of. A really good example is this image by Helmut Newton of a black woman smoking a cigar. By using the syntagmatic axis we can identify the paradigms, which are black, woman and cigar. Then the question can be raised, why a female model and not male? Why a black model and not white? Why is she smoking a cigar instead of a cigarette?

The key to these questions is that they all are suitable alternatives from within the same paradigm. It is perfectly feasible to have a white model instead of a black model and the message of female empowerment would still remain, but by using a black model makes her skin colour more noticeable. This, in itself adds another paradigm, one that is also culturally based and is of racism because the image becomes a message about black female empowerment. By contrasting the subject matter to what it is not provides a valuable insight into the suggested meaning of the photograph. It becomes a case of “the use of one signifier rather than another from the same paradigm is based on factors such as technical constraints, code (e.g. genre), convention, connotation, style, rhetorical purpose and the limitations of the individual’s own repertoire” (Chandler, 2007, Semiotics; the basics, snd edition. p88)

We are now in a position of where the meaning of the image has been established, which is about black female empowerment. But a meaning without a value is not very helpful because the paradigm would not have any impact on the eventual connotation of the image. For the paradigm within the image to create a value it needs substance and this is achieved in two ways. The first is its inherent value to the viewer and the second is in its relation to the other paradigms included within the image.

The inherent value of the race paradigm used in the Helmut Newton image is very powerful. The race paradigm has a long history and is mainly seen in a negative way because of the contents of that paradigm. There are examples of abuse on every level, combined with the removal of a person’s freedom, the power of the white person having power over the black person and stretches back hundreds of years. It is this history that gives the race paradigm an incredibly high value with a negative connotation and it is this value that is inherent within the racism paradigm.

This means that the inherited value of this paradigm is based within history and culture. With this being the case it then becomes a question of how much the viewer can relate to this paradigm and how much of their own personal history is influenced by race. A black woman could have a very strong sense of positive identification with this image, whereas a white male supremacist could have the opposite, a negative identification where their sense of power is threatened. Both of these people have a personal investment in the paradigm of race, but it also highlights that the value of the paradigm can be positive or negative. This is important to bear in mind as the value of the paradigm is arbitrary and ultimately rests with the viewer as the image relates to their own personal history. But the value of the paradigm is settled by the relationship between the viewer and the paradigm, irrespective of whether it has a positive or negative connotation.

The next element of the paradigm to consider is its relative value. This is of how it relates to the rest of the imagery within the photograph. By considering, for example, how the race paradigm relates to the woman paradigm and how each paradigm contrasts and compliments each other produces a relative value. Within the race paradigm there are examples of being unempowered, that black people have been restricted in their life choices because of the colour of their skin, and this can resonate with the role of the woman. Traditionally, the woman would be expected to raise a family and rely on her husband for financial support, which meant that the man had dominance and control over the woman. The similarities of both of these scenarios resonate with each other and so by being combined, the relative value of both paradigms are increased.

By combining the black and woman paradigms with using a relative value means that both of these paradigms are prominent within the image and so become more dominant. This then supports further connotation along these lines. For example, how the black and woman paradigms contrast with the paradigms of power and control, which is displayed with the cigar, the pose and the camera angle and challenges male authority, by using a difference to create a value supports the dominant paradigms. If it was just one paradigm, the woman paradigm, then the impact would be lessened because the paradigms of power and control would have a higher value in relation to just one paradigm.

Also, by creating this difference and using a paradigm that is not the accepted norm, then more prominence is added because of difference. The image is making more of a statement because of its unacceptance of traditional values, that by challenging those values increases its relative value. It also increases its dominance within the hierarchy of the paradigms within the image, and so influences the eventual connotation.

In conclusion, it becomes possible to see that a paradigm’s prominence is achieved through its value. This value is achieved in two ways, its inherent value and also its relative value. These are achieved by considering the paradigm’s own cultural and social history and then relating this to other paradigms contained within the image. But the inherent value can be either a positive or negative connotation and the relative value can be influenced by either complimenting or contrasting with the other paradigms.