Semiotics: A Graphic Introduction

This book, by Paul Cobley and Litza Jansz, is another in the series of graphic introductory guides to enormous complex topics like logic or critical theory. If you don't know what semiotics is, you should probably get out of this post before it's too late.* If you do, then this book, I can guarantee, will provide a helpful overview of international academic trends and disciplines influential within and upon the field of semiotics - i.e. the study of signs. It's a relatively new field for me to be reading much into, and it's like discovering metaphysics all over again - somehow, everything leads back to it, and however much sense it makes there's nothing in the middle and nothing holding it together. Language and communication and concepts and objective reality and subjective perception all spiral away together in an inexplicable tautological circle-shaped puzzle.

   This book, indeed this whole intellectual field, has added a dense and complex extra layer onto my own mentally-experienced-and-rationalised self, which is always exciting, but means I can't really write anything substantive about it right now.

   A decent introduction, then, I suppose.

* Google it. I know, right?

Critical Theory: A Graphic Introduction

This book, a breakneck tour of the rambling complex labyrinth of ideas that is critical theory, part of the 'Introducing' series, written by Stuart Sim and illustrated by Borin van Loon, was actually a very good introduction. I borrow-stole it from my housemate (thanks and sorry Chris) as I've just started a MA in politics, and having never properly studied political theory before, thought it might be helpful to get a general introduction done. All theory I've studied prior has been either philosophical (which asks questions brilliantly but in a very distanced manner, so even profound conclusions often come across as merely academic) or from economics (which has so many problems, the academic discipline being more or less completely overrun with restrictive neoclassical theory without pluralism or critical engagement, which is terrible for debate and does not make for interesting or useful theory: see this or this or this for further discussion of this point). Political theory, on the other hand, is power-oriented, which lends itself quite naturally to radical implications.

   Critical theory is not the same thing as this. Critical, sometimes also called radical, theory, is the attempt to systematise a theory of everything: all aspects of reality, psychological, philosophical, politico-economic, sexual, moral, linguistic, sociocultural, and so on, woven up in an explanatory framework. The general aim is to critique this reality's features that stand out as significantly negative, and figure out a way of overcoming them, leading society and culture in the general direction of moral progress and liberty. Emerging in the 19th century from the political and philosophical works of early feminists, socialists (chiefly Marx), and existentialists, the intellectuals engaged in this poorly-defined but rampantly-expansive field soon came to realise the impacts of culture and independent thinking on the systems they were criticising. Rather than being simply 'about political society' or 'about justice' in any tangible way, the practice bulged to encompass new ways of thinking about and within this weird tangled web of normativity. Psychoanalysis (chiefly Freudian), linguistic analysis, structuralism, literary theory, various aesthetic schemas, concepts such as ideology, hegemony, patriarchy, privilege, and so on, as well as philosophical shortcuts past these ways of thinking in themselves - leading to strands of thought like postmodernism and post-structuralism, deconstruction as a form of analysis, the increasing tendency to prioritise considerations of the subjective in forming true judgments. The development of critical theory is one of explosive depth and breadth since the second half of the 20th century, and to be honest, it's making it harder and harder to get any clear answers to sociocultural issues. But this is good. Frameworks of thinking are emerging that do help us dig closer to finding clear answers and solutions, to share understandings across barriers and work to remove those barriers, breaking down privilege in all its forms. Truth is not necessarily simple: in fact, more often than not, to properly uncover useful truth is extraordinarily complex and difficult. But through critical theory, we lead our thought in the right direction, asking more and better questions, working for universal justice and liberty for the individual. There is a distinct humanist-libertarian agenda driving critical theory, so it may surprise some readers that I seem so keen on it - needless to say my economic views are far from libertarian, and my theological views far from the agnostic individualism carried along by the torrents of theory (funny, the last Christian book I read was a primer against relativism. Sorry Clive), but in a political and sociocultural sense, I fully endorse getting behind critical theory. Its capacity for picking apart systems, institutions, and structures, and showing where they could be improved, is almost unmatched by anything else I can think of as a normative force (except maybe Christianity, science and philosophy, all of which can tie into critical theory quite well anyway but are very different as intellectual and social movements or whatever). I also love how intrinsically pluralistic it is - there is so much critical theory knocking about and lots of it contradicts a lot of the rest, so anyone wishing to use it as a tool must carefully select and synthesis their own approach (which makes for some pretty funny-long descriptors to dogmatic thinkers: one could be a post-feminist post-Marxist post-structuralist post-psychoanalytic postmodernist, if one were so inclined, but you wouldn't be much fun to talk to). One thing it's helpful to remember is that the possibility of existing plurality of truth does not imply the impossibility of existing objective truth: i.e. I can very much appreciate inter-subjective facets of reality as true in my conception of the world, while also holding Christianity and certain other things as definitively true above and against all subjective thought otherwise. My thinking so doesn't make it true, I'm just saying that it's perfectly consistent to be a critical theorist and believe in something other than your own perspective, even in cases where that something you believe would have to override other peoples' perspectives.

   That was a long, dense paragraph - sorry.

   Let's start a new one (again) to feel a bit more spaced out.

   Anyway. Critical theory is incredibly exciting - it's lent a new-found depth and scope to my thinking about identity, politics, fairness, society, art, gender, minds, literature, community, and so much else. The fact that a bog-standard-looking little introduction could have brought me into such enthusiasm for the field is testament to how good of a graphic guide this is: Stuart Sim has done a fantastic job of summarising, not dumbing down but overviewing immense ground in remarkably little text, core theories and thinkers and strands of thought, placing each into their historical and intellectual contexts so we see not only where critical theory is currently leading but where it has come from and why it developed thus. Borin van Loon's illustrations I wasn't mad about but they space out the pages nicely. Would be a great read for someone with a bit of an intellectual edge regarding culture, society, politics, gender or sexuality or race or division generally, language, art, mental behaviour, or pretty much anything really - it's a very slow read for such a short book but that's because the ideas are so huge and complex, but you can engage with them, and the book presents them in a very accessible but non-patronising and relatively neutral way. Overall, it's a great little book that I would 100% recommend to basically anyone who thinks - hopefully it'll get you into critical theory and soon we can have a conversation about bell hooks or Roland Barthes or something.

Logic: A Graphic Introduction

This book, part of The Guardian's series of free little graphic introductions to complex ideas or isms (this one by Dan Cryan, Sharron Shatil and Bill Mayblin), was surprisingly good. I salvaged it from the room of my brother who recently moved out and read it because I had nothing better to do and it's quite short and logic is quite a fascinating thing really. As a philosophy student, logic is something that I'm not unfamiliar with, but it's still an alien field that I could likely explore for months without being able to provide much insight beyond mere understanding - this is a field of study only meaningfully advanced once or twice a century by the keenest dedicated minds. The book, written in laymans' English replete with vaguely amusing illustrations demonstrating points, ideas and thinkers, gives an excellent introductory overview of logic: its roots in argumental structures, moving onto its relations to algebraic thought, the foundations of mathematics, ways of thinking about science and computing, how it deals with problems such as paradoxes and proofs, and how concepts such as truth and possibility fit in. In terms of critical content there wasn't much to grapple with here (hence why this post is only one paragraph), but it did make me zone out a few times in sheer overwhelmed wonder as to how some of the deeper "discoveries" could have been made - in logic there is nothing to observe, test for, experiment on or respond to, just pure thought structures analysed in abstraction to see how watertight they are; which doesn't sound like an easy task. Still, thinking about thinking and how similar it is to arithmetic or code or electronic systems or whatever, is quite interesting. As far as graphic introductory overviews go, this is pretty good, but for people genuinely interested in logic, there are sure to be easily accessible books out there that are way better at providing an academic entry to understanding.