Keywords

Let us begin at the entrance (Fig. 2.1). This church entrance is remarkable because it is in the state of being “half-cleaned.” Yet that status is ambiguous—what does CLEAN mean in this case? Two meaning systems are in opposition and top each other in this case:

“BEING CLEAN” (THE ONTOLOGICAL STATE): the church façade over the centuries has gathered dirt that obscures its original shape, which is now being restored—“made clean”.

“BEING HISTORICAL” (THE DEVELOPMENTAL STATE): the church façade has developed over the centuries and has incorporated the “dirt” as a constitutive part of its identity. Its removal means vandalism against that identity. The authentic historical “clean” involves NOT removing the “dirt,” as the latter has become an integral part of the identity of the church.

Fig. 2.1
figure 1

Cleaning of a church facade

Full size image

The fight of these two perspectives has been often the target of controversies in the restoration of objects of art.

The ambiguity of the meaning of CLEAN is a good example of the principle of dynamic stability of signs. Signs do not exist as objects—they are constantly constructed to present some other objects; an object A becomes a sign that presents object B once the sign-maker, the semiotic agent, sets it up to present B to somebody in some capacity. What that “capacity” is constitutes one of the crucial objects of investigation of the Cultural Psychology of Semiotic Dynamics (CPSD ). Sign construction is teleogenetic—constructing goal orientations in the process of making of a sign.

The opposition clean <> non-clean (Fig. 2.2) would be a closed circle where the goal of CLEAN is reachable, but it cannot be maintained. Furthermore, it is reachable only under the conditions that the duality of the sign (the non-A part of the {A<>non-A} structure) is overlooked. For example, the chemicals we use in the act of cleaning may be themselves non-clean—dangerous to our bodies—and we keep our body involved in the act of cleaning from being contaminated by the chemicals that “clean” (Fig. 2.3).

Fig. 2.2
figure 2

The eternal cycle of CLEANING

Full size image
Fig. 2.3
figure 3

A simple act of cleaning —protecting skin by gloves

Full size image

Keeping us “safe” from the “cleaning” devices is an example of asymmetric mutuality in our relations with environments (Fig. 2.4). Most of our relations with the world are of such kind—symmetry is a rare case of temporary overcoming of asymmetries.

Fig. 2.4
figure 4

Two forms of mutualities

Full size image

The CPSD operates under the axiomatic acceptance of the open-systemic nature of human psychological functioning. This involves (a) constant relating with environment (b) in irreversible time and (c) with the centrality of feed-FORWARD processes (Fig. 2.5).

Fig. 2.5
figure 5

The open-systemic nature of the human psyche

Full size image

The open-systemic frame sets a very clear scenario up for human semiosis—it is necessarily always forward-oriented—even when it utilizes materials borrowed from the past (memory ). The uses of memory are pre -constructive Footnote 1 for the future—memory feeds into the making of signs. Thus, each emerging sign (S) is dual in its function (Fig. 2.6).

Fig. 2.6
figure 6

Dual function of sign

Full size image

Figure 2.6 schematizes the central notion of the CPSD —the double function of any sign that emerges—made by semiotic agent anew or borrowed from available repertoire, in the forward movement of semiosis in irreversible time . The sign first of all provides meaning to the act in the here-and-now setting (THE ACT in Fig. 2.6). Thus, the act of “I am rinsing my hands in the water, holding a piece of soap” becomes to be presented “I am CLEANING my hands” (without any evidence about the water being uncontaminated or the piece of soap not made of cancer-causing chemicals).

The second function of a sign is its forward-oriented hyper-generalized function as a field-like catalytic device—meant for meaning construction in some unknown future moment. That specific moment is unknown before the future has turned into a present. Yet all sign mediation in the present is oriented toward that future anticipated moment. We make our lives meaningful for our living forward—into the unknown future. The social practice of cleaning our bodies as regulated by signs here and now is in the service of generalizing the value of “being clean” and extrapolating it beyond the immediate bodily functions (Fig. 2.7).

Fig. 2.7
figure 7

Going beyond the “clean” as a given—here and now

Full size image

Figure 2.7 demonstrates how the meaning construction process can transcend itself and lead to hyper-generalized sign fields that can operate in the future. A dedication to keeping one’s body cleaned can lead to viewing oneself as a clean, pure person or—on the other end—a dirty, disgusting one.

The hyper-generalization process is likely to lead to qualitative synthesis of meaning—through the process of double negation (Fig. 2.8). This form of thinking—originating in dialectical philosophies of the turn of the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries—involves a meta-negation superimposed on the regular (classical logical) negation (if A = A, then it is not true that A = non-A).

Fig. 2.8
figure 8

The structure of double negation

Full size image

The second negation eliminates the first one, leading to a new, synthetic form. For example, start from the first negation:

A is the case, therefore not B.

“This is a man; this is not a woman.”

B is the case, therefore not A.

“This is a woman; this is not a man.”

A PERSON is EITHER a man or a woman, but not both.

This is the result of the first (classical logical) negation. It is perfectly logical (in the classical sense), yet it misses the point of the function of making the distinction of A and B (men and women). It is the second negation that negates the first:

  • If A is the case and therefore B is not, both A and B exist, and A relates with B.

  • If B is the case and therefore A is not, both B and A exist, and B relates with A.

The existence of a man implies that a woman exists and vice versa

And a synthetic “jump”:

Each of us is (simultaneously) a man and a woman, and in other terms

we are all androgynous (uniting male and female aspects) even if we belong to different classes of men and women.

The second negation is not reversal (denial) of the truthfulness of the first but an operation that provides unity of the previous mutually excluded opposites, with some possibility to “jump” to greater generalization. It is the second negation that opens the door for any generalization (beyond categorization—that is the end result of first negation).

Conclusion: Constructive Semiosis as Culture

Culture is a meta-level concept that unites all different disciplines and subdisciplines that investigate specifically human phenomena of persons, communities, societies, and the human species as a whole. In that meta-concept role, culture has no existence. It has also no agency—statements like “culture CAUSES X” or “X is due to CULTURE” are void of explanatory power. Human beings have agency and construct new artifacts—loosely also classified under the label “culture.”

I treat “culture” as a classifying term that links my perspective of CPSD with other directions within cultural psychology. Yet CPSD differs from all others by (a) locating the semiosis within irreversible time (semiosis is forward-oriented; human beings live into the future); (b) semiosis is dynamic and hierarchical (signs regulate other signs, forming temporary hierarchies, and organize the ongoing experience), and (c) memory and imagination are similar presentational processes, one oriented toward the past, the other toward the future. Cultural psychology is a basic science about higher human psychological functions that are mediated by signs.