Social Semiotics

 I've been sick this week and trying to study for and complete my finals while making sure I get enough hours in at work. Not a good time. I hope you all have been managing finals season alright, and I wish you the best at passing all your classes.

For the final discussion post, we're talking about social semiotics.

Image // Research Gate

So what even is social semiotics? It's the study of symbols as a part of social life and observes how meaning is created and interpreted in different contexts. It analyzes various modes of communication through images, texts, and gestures. This idea comes from Micheal Halliday and Gunther Kress.

Social semiotics is important because in social settings, there may be ways that it can be used in order to achieve the desired results of the poster, according to Theo van Leeuwen.

Some might post an image with a certain soundtrack to evoke a certain emotion from their audience, while another may phrase a post in a certain way to cause people to respond.

With social semiotics, however, the end perception is based on how the onlooker perceives a certain message. This can be tied with the narrative paradigm, where though social semiotics can be used to influence others, whether or not it is successful depends on the skill of the speaker/poster and the background and beliefs of the audience.

Arguing Online

     We've all seen it. Arguments happen online constantly. Open the comment section of almost any media and you're likely to find some form of debate going on. Though I wish to see less discourse every time I open Instagram to watch random videos of pets or see what my friends are up to, arguing, I fear, is a part of the human experience. That's why we should have some ground rules to make arguing a better experience for those who engage.

    Recently, a video series regarding avoidant and anxious attachment styles has been popping up in my Instagram Reels feed. The creator makes animated videos with the characters as cats. It sounds weird, I know, but they actually do a really good job at showing what it is like for an avoidant and anxiously attached person to be together, how they can hurt each other, and how they can hurt other people (while also giving the characters personalities outside of their attachment styles).

    The arguments I will be talking about however, are the ones in the comment section of the videos. A lot of people seem to miss the point that both the main characters who were hurt which caused them to develop their attachment styles, and because of their past they in turn, hurt each other. Instead, people often take sides as to which character is right or wrong and then shame the other without being able to see that both characters are flawed and hurting each other. 

    The argument I will specifically be talking about is from the comment section of this video where Mimi (anxiously attached) goes on a date with her new boyfriend and gets upset that he brought spicy food. This video isn't exactly about the attachment styles like many of the other videos, but rather about how Mimi is upset and lashes out at her new boyfriend because of her inability to regulate her emotions/personal character flaw. 

    Some people feel that Mimi's reaction was warranted while others believe that she should have just eaten the food. Some people took a more middle-grounded stance and said while she was right to be disappointed, she should have been kinder and more grateful.

    Here is just a short excerpt from a much larger debate. This section is actually quite tame and these individuals expressed their thoughts well while being respectful of one another. It certainly isn't like this with other commentators and in other videos, though. But, for this section, I believe these users were appropriate and respectful, following online argument guidelines.


Some rules that should be in place (that likely 90% of people will not follow) include:
1. Remember the human. You're allowed to express distaste for one's opinion, but don't turn your disagreement with their opinions/beliefs into a hatred for the individual. Be kind.

2. No doxxing. This is way too common and it makes the internet a dangerous place. There is no need to publically expose someone's address or start tracking down their family members just because you can't agree on whether the recent football match you watched had foul play or not.

3. Stay on topic. Let's not start dissecting another person's brain too much before you can get to the root of their current stance. Let's take one issue at a time! 

4. Use facts to back it up. If this is a debate that isn't simply personal preference, use facts! 

5. When it's over, don't keep fueling the fire. There's a time when you should just call it quits or when the debate has died down. No need to start trying to reignite the flame. If you like debating that much, go find another person to fight or become a lawyer or something.