On the Praxis-Oriented Semiotic Aesthetics in Eastern European Marxism

Li Huiwen

Jiangxi Normal University

Abstract: Eastern European Marxism,taking a critical stance towards structuralism,gave rise to a unique paradigm of praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics.This novel approach posits that signs emerge from humans’ social praxis and also function as a means of praxis.It further delves into the principle governing the generation and usage of signs,i.e.,the Economy Principle,the homogenization of signs,the situatedness or contextual constraints,as well as their aesthetic features and transcendental attributes.As a result,the praxisoriented semiotic aesthetics within Eastern European Marxism exhibits distinct theoretical value.

Keywords: Eastern European Marxism,semiotics,praxis,aesthetics

Eastern European Marxism,an important paradigm of Marxist aesthetics in the 20th century,is characterized by its humanist standpoint,with human praxis at its theoretical core,while also incorporating a strong sense of criticality and reflection.In the 1930s,the literary realism theory of Georg Lukács,a pioneer of Eastern European Marxism,was introduced to China and captured much attention from many Chinese literary theorists,such as Lv Ying,Yi Qun,and Hu Feng.However,little was known about Lukács at that time: “We don’t really know what kind of person Lukács is,but I often see his theoretical writings in Russian and German”(Meng,1935).Research on Eastern European Marxism in China began in the late 1970s.After being seen as a part of Western Marxism for decades,Eastern European Marxism has gradually emerged as an independent field of study only in recent years.There are certain topics addressed by both Eastern European Marxism and Western Marxism,such as modernity,post-modernity,ideology,mass culture,and alienation,but the former has its distinct theoretical interests and characteristics.For instance,it places more emphasis on criticizing reflectionism and highlighting praxis and humanism.It examines issues related to art,aesthetics,and human existence,covering various theoretical branches,such as education,revolution,everyday life,ontology,needs,and radical democracy,as well as praxis-oriented semiotics.This paper represents the first attempt to look at the semiotic aesthetics of Eastern European Marxism from the perspective of praxis and elaborates on the principles governing the generation and usage of signs,i.e.,the Economy Principle,the homogenization of signs,the situatedness or contextual constraints,as well as the aesthetic features and transcendental attributes.It highlights the emphasis of praxisoriented semiotic aesthetics in Eastern European Marxism on signs’ social nature and association with praxis,revealing its differences from general semiotics.The intention is to address the shortcomings in the current research on praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics in Eastern European Marxism.

Principles Governing the Generation and Usage of Signs

In the 1920s and 1930s,scholars of the Prague Linguistic Circle,or Prague School,such as Roman Jakobson and Jan Muka?ovsky,introduced structuralism to Czechoslovakia.However,they faced criticism from Závi? Kalandra and Karel Konrád,among others,who argued that structuralism severed the relationship between artistic works and society or human praxis,neglecting the role of individuals in artistic works.Nevertheless,the Prague School initiated the process of integrating semiotics with Marxism.Driven by similar historical and cultural contexts as well as frequent academic exchanges,the semiotic aesthetics of the Prague School rapidly spread to neighboring countries,such as Poland and Hungary.It was then critically absorbed and integrated into the emerging Eastern European praxis aesthetics of the 1950s and 1960s,forming a unique paradigm of praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics.Muka?ovsky’s structuralist critique provided a new perspective on Eastern European Marxist aesthetics,inspiring its studies in semiotics.However,the praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics in Eastern European Marxism was built upon the foundation of Marxist humanism and the centrality of human praxis.Its theoretical development took a different path from Althusser’s structural Marxism.It placed a distinct emphasis on signs’ social nature and association with praxis.

For instance,T.M.Yaroshevsky (T.M.Яpoщeвcкий) attributed the fundamental motivation behind the creation of linguistic signs to the practical needs of human beings.He quoted the words of Karl Marx: “Language is practical consciousness that exists also for other men,and for that reason alone it really exists for me personally as well;language,like consciousness,only arises from the need,the necessity,of intercourse with other men” (Marx & Engels,1960,p.34).He also emphasized that the complex relationships among human individuals form the basis of linguistic signs.As he noted,while humans transform the natural world,they also form certain social relations.People engage in cooperative interactions and create various systems for recording and exchanging experiences with language being the most important.The active use of language is also the foundation of human thinking.Based on this,Yaroshevsky viewed linguistic signs as a material tool for human praxis and a condition for human survival.In his view,everyday human activities such as material production,consumption,and even purely spiritual activities,all rely on this material tool.Otherwise,humans would be incapable of doing anything.Human perception of the world and interaction with others are all achieved through signs.“People perceive the world using their senses,and communicate with others,with the help of sound waves,books,newspapers,color pictures,or other media” (Shen & Yan,1991,p.441).Therefore,he holds that linguistic signs are a necessary condition for the communication of meanings and even for human survival.Language should not be regarded merely as a collection of sounds,but rather as“meaningful signs that enable people to engage or interact with each other” (Shen & Yan,1991,p.441).

ágnes Heller from the Budapest School also made an in-depth analysis of signs based on the needs of human praxis.She first examined what was meant by signs and noted that only what had signification could have a sign,at least on the level of everyday thought and praxis.The connection between signification and signs relates not only to those objectivations which embrace signification (Heller,1987,p.138).Our everyday concepts of nature are enough to identify the signification of natural phenomena and a sign is a function of the concrete signification both in space and time.Heller provided an example.For a peasant,a build-up of clouds has no independent signification but is a sign of the approach of a natural phenomenon which matters from his point of view,and which guides much of his activity,for the build-up of clouds could mean heavy rain.While ordinary people may appreciate clouds purely as wonders or beautiful scenery,the peasant has learned to distinguish very precisely between clouds which are signs of a gathering storm,and which are not.As Heller pointed out,“In this case,there is a causal connection between the sign and the signified” (Heller,1987,p.138).In the case of a stone,the function of the sign is discharged by those properties of the stone which signify the uses to which the stone can be put.Such signification reflects the value and meaning of signs to humans.In Heller’s view,as “the bearers of reiterated communication,” signs fundamentally derive their value and meaning from the needs of human praxis.

It is precisely because signs are associated with various meanings relating to human existence that their utmost importance for the development of humans’ cognitive abilities is exhibited from the very beginning.According to Heller,phylogenetically and ontogenetically,the recognition of properties which do not act as signs postdates the recognition of those properties which do.For instance,children learn to distinguish between a ball and a cube long before they can distinguish a red ball from a green one.This is simply because the shape of the ball is a sign of its use,while its color is not.This is,of course,not to deny that colors in certain circumstances can function as a sign:the green cherry indicates its rawness,hence its inedibility; a red cherry indicates its ripeness,hence its edibility.It is through these distinguishable signs that humans are able to develop their understanding of the world and repeatedly hone their skills to grasp it.

Heller also regards signs as a characteristic of humans,primarily manifested in the close association between signs and humans’ emotional activities.For instance,breaking the dishes is a sign of anger,while a smile is a sign of friendship and receptivity.Heller noted that it was rare for a sign to be a pure reflex-expression.In species-essential objectivations “in itself,” even semiotic appearances that only include natural phenomena carry a strong sense of intentionality,which,as a result,have complex connotations.For instance,moaning is usually a sign of pain; weeping indicates grief,but it can also be a sign of happiness,or it can be hypocritical.We can grit our teeth and bear pain in silence,a posture itself can become a sign of pain.We can hold back tears,in which case facial expression becomes the index of grief.The association between signs and humans’emotional activities highlights the ontological nature of signs and represents another important characteristic of the Eastern European praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics.

As a product of social praxis,signs embody the basic principle of praxis,namely the Economy Principle,in their generation and usage.Heller revisited the question of the degree to which language is or is not “economical.” According to the “convenience theory” of Ernest Robert Curtius,language always seeks the most economical way of functioning.As Ferdinand de Saussure believed,it was not by chance that language came into being as sound,i.e.,spoken language; rather,this was a consequence of the economy of language: sound could fulfill the most heterogeneous functions with a minimal expense of energy.Otto Jespersen expressed a similar viewpoint: in spite of the differences which cultural and social antecedents had generated between languages,all languages tended towards simplification,i.e.,towards linguistic economy.“The evolution of language shows a progressive tendency from inseparable,irregular conglomeration to freely and regularly combinable short elements” (Jespersen,1922,p.429).Against this,August Leshien and Eduard Sievers pointed very pertinently to the many grammatical properties that had no real function in linguistic usage: many languages appeared to be overloaded with superficial complications.In Heller’s view,the situation with regard to language is more intricate than it is in the case of custom,since of all species-essential objectivations “in itself,” language has the most extensive functional field; what is ergonomically efficient from the standpoint of one function may not be so from that of another; and what may act towards simplification in one function may act towards complication in another.Both grammatical structure and sound clusters which are difficult to pronounce tend towards economy,i.e.,towards formulations which,given the manifold uses to which language is put,can be appropriated as simply and spontaneously as possible.In everyday life,however,we often encounter situations differently.For instance,when we feel thirsty,we do not simply utter the word “water,” though this would be the shortest formula; we use such a formulation as “Could you please give me a glass of water?” This is only an apparent departure from the Economy Principle.As Heller noted,the fact was that they had quite different social meanings.

Heller’s conclusion is that the economy of signs is determined by their communicative function.The communicative nature of language demands accuracy and efficiency in expression and communication.However,such accuracy and efficiency are not inherent in language from its inception,but are the result of continuous improvement made by humans in labor and social praxis.This improvement is widely reflected in the contemporary evolution of language.The accuracy and economy of signs precisely support their essential characteristics as a product of human praxis.

Homogenization of Signs

The praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics in Eastern European Marxism explains how signs play their role in the communication of meaning.It posits that the communicative function of signs relies on their homogenization,and it is precisely this property that enables humans’ social praxis.

Mihailo Markovi? held that the communicative function of signs was established on the basis of homogenization.Drawing from Marx’s “Theses on Feuerbach” on the unity of subjectivity and objectivity in human praxis,as well as Engels’ dialectical interpretation of the relationship between man and nature,Markovi? highlighted the ontological foundation of meaning in signs: praxis.He argued that signs were essentially a unique form of human praxis,used only for interaction between individual subjects.Signs encompass both objective and subjective factors,such as human consciousness and motivation.It is through signs that humans construct social and cultural systems.Without signs,human communication and society would not be possible.In social interactions,despite differences in thoughts and emotions,people can understand the basic facts stated by others.This is because the system of linguistic signs is established on a certain material basis.Regardless of how ambiguous the meanings expressed by the signs may be,they always refer to objects in the human world.This is because “the human world is some kind of model of the world ‘in itself’” (Markovi?,1984).Although the human world being constructed based on signs is a simplification and idealization of the natural world,it still possesses a considerable degree of reliability for human praxis,which is also due to the homogenizing property of signs.It is in this cultural world homogenized by signs that a complete and self-sufficient world structure is constructed.

According to Markovi?,signs are both practical and objective,as they involve specific objects.Signs exist independently of individual consciousness and yet have universal efficacy.They hold similar meanings for a community of people who use the same set of signs.This is because,in the process of creating and using signs,the objective world and human praxis have been abstracted into the signs.In turn,the use of signs enables the transmission of knowledge,understanding of the objective world,and humans’ practical experience between individuals and across different eras.As a result,individuals who use the same set of signs tend to have a homogenized understanding of the world and praxis,eventually forming the entire social and cultural fabric of humanity.As Markovi? wrote inDialectical Theory of Meaning,“It is true,only owing to speech,to the use of symbols,man succeeds in creating his society,in establishing links of communication and cooperation with other people,in material and cultural production” (Markovi?,1984,p.6).

Adam Schaff considered signs as a medium for interpersonal communication and as a means for self-creation.Building upon Marx and Engels’ interpretations of human communication,Schaff highlighted the social nature of humans,arguing that signs serve as a medium for conveying emotions and meanings among individuals living in society.They function as a tool for human creation of social culture and existence,as well as a means for self-creation.Marx elucidated the communicative function of language and its material foundation,i.e.,the need for social praxis.“From the start,the ‘spirit’ is afflicted with the curse of being ‘burdened’ with matter,which here makes its appearance in the form of agitated layers of air and sounds,in short,of language.Language is as old as consciousness.Language is praxis consciousness that exists also for other men,and for that reason alone,it really exists for me personally as well; language,like consciousness,only arises from the need,the necessity,of intercourse with other people” (Marx &Engels,1960,p.34).Schaff further pointed out that there was “something universal”inherent in humans’ information and emotional communication through linguistic signs,including art.In his view,this universality is not the rationality noted by Ernst Cassirer,but rather the material foundation of linguistic signs.The generation of linguistic signs is inseparable from humans’ social praxis,and its important characteristic is that it is conventional,i.e.,based on humans’ social interactions.On the one hand,humans’ social interactions give rise to linguistic signs.On the other hand,it is precisely linguistic signs that make such interactions possible.Adam Schaff’s theory of signs focuses on addressing the information related to society and individuals carried by signs,as well as their function in social interactions.It primarily examines the intermediaries or media used by humans,such as language,gestures,writing,and signals (Fu,2015).It emphasizes the significant role of signs in expressing and transmitting knowledge,emotions,and intentions between individuals.The material foundation of signs’ homogenizing property,in Schaff’s opinion,is “something universal” which is in fact humans’ social praxis.

Heller also extensively explained the homogenizing property of signs.Taking the example of everyday language,she noted that everyday language was the homogeneous medium of everyday life.Language can also be the homogeneous medium of various species-essential objectivations “for itself,” such as science and art.The professional terminology of scientific language homogenizes scientific thinking; the language of poetry does the same for poetical ideas and attitudes.The closer the thought of any given discipline is to everyday life,the closer will its special language be to everyday language.The wider the gap between science and everyday knowledge and experience,the more its linguistic medium is likely to contain formulations,i.e.,the symbols of mathematics,which are not to be found in everyday language.However,precisely because our everyday life and thinking provide the basis for all species-essential objectivations “for itself,” there can never be a total break with everyday language.In maintaining this homogenizing relationship between science,art,and everyday life,linguistic signs undoubtedly serve as a bond.They not only enable the homogenization of knowledge within the same sphere but also play a role in coordinating and integrating heterogeneous spheres,despite the exceptionally complex mechanism that works in this process.The homogenizing function of language is synonymous with its function as the conceptualizing agent of everyday experience.It is through conceptualization that thoughts,feelings,perceptions,and ideas can all be expressed in language,though in quite different ways.In Heller’s view,there is no dividing wall between our perceptions and feelings on the one hand,and our thoughts on the other.Our feelings are always reflected feelings and most of our perceptions are reflected perceptions; and our everyday ideas are never fully detached from perception,just as our daily judgments and pronouncements always have affective concomitants,even if not an affective content.The transformation of intertwined ideas and perceptions can only be accomplished through the homogenizing function of language.

Such a function is also reflected in the property of language,as the medium of conceptualizing thought,that pre-figuring can be done in one’s head.The work completed in one’s head is not that work itself,but it may serve as a declaration of intent,the prelude to work.Therefore,Heller stressed the presence of “internal speech,” i.e.,talking to oneself.She noted that internal speech was not preparation for speech,but speech itself.Internal speech is generated under the influence of two factors.One is the need to conceal one’s thoughts from others in certain social circumstances.The other is the need for radical abbreviation that demands less energy output.There may also be a situation where one says a sentence over to themselves silently and then utter that sentence.In this case,however,the internal speech is indirectly engaged in the objectivization process.The content of internal speech (in so far as it can be retained and recalled) is available for public utterance at a moment of our choosing.In this perspective,internal speech appears to possess greater flexibility and adaptability in praxis compared to the spoken language.Ludwig Wittgenstein was right when he said “words are also deeds” (Wittgenstein,1986,p.146).According to Heller,language has the same nature as any action.“Like everything else I may do,the words I utter ‘resonate,’ wave-like,to a greater or less degree,from their point-source outwards” (Heller,1987,p.162).This “resonance” is precisely achieved through the homogenizing function of language.Such a function is both a convenience and a limitation for humans.In Heller’s view,we can learn how to handle things without being able to create these things; and we can appropriate certain customs while consciously denying the validity of other customs.“Appropriation of language means exercising it in all of its functions” (Heller,1987,p.162).

The inherent homogenizing property of language carries significant implications for human praxis and the formation of humans’ socio-cultural contexts.Given this,does it have any negative implications? Heller raised the question: Does the homogenization of language imply a loss of individuality and independent thinking? Some people distorted a viewpoint borrowed from Friedrich Schiller,suggesting that the rich concrete content of our perceptual and sensible world was discarded in the conceptualizing process precisely because of its generalizing nature.Heller countered this view and acknowledged a shared property in all species-essential objectivations “in itself,” including language,namely the inability to grasp the singular.She also held that it was precisely because of this property that everything was thinkable in the medium of language in the heterogeneous complex of everyday life.We need language to reflect upon and express our feelings,and it is only with the help of language that we can be aware of these feelings.However,this does not imply that the homogenizing property of signs will necessarily diminish the richness of our inner world.One can only be in love if the concept of love exists.Similarly,we would not appreciate colors if language did not provide us with a differentiated concept of colors.

Situatedness of Signs

The praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics in Eastern European Marxism further elucidates the situatedness or contextual constraints of signs.Situatedness is both a defect in signs in the exchange of information and an advantage that allows for precise understanding and expression of multiple meanings.The distinct characteristic of situatedness vividly embodies the praxis nature of signs.

Generally speaking,situatedness is both a condition for understanding signs and a basis for the derivation of ambiguity in signs.Karel Kosík recognized the powerful force of language and referred to language as “the most innocent and the most dangerous of all human attributes” (Kosík,2014,p.25).In his view,all language is and can be only words,mere words,and combinations of words: simple expression and utterance.For that reason,the masters of words can never impose their rule on the world.However,language reveals all,and it is impossible to hide or flee from its power of elucidation.Language affects a disclosure,the words that are seemingly ordinary and clear may express meanings beyond the speaker’s expectations.Language always reveals the unspoken,and by doing so,it arrives in some way at the expression of what is unsaid,unuttered,subconscious,latent,and involuntary.Language always expresses more than what is spoken by those who use it; what they do not know and do not say is also expressed in words.For instance,a politician states: “When evaluating our historical successes we cannot overlook certain deformations as well,” and he is unaware that his “critical” statement has an apologetic sense because it obscures the essence of what has in fact occurred.The implied meaning conveyed by linguistic signs is connected to their context.As Kosík noted,this obscuring terminology also revealed the mechanism of mystification.The ambiguity and mystification of language also occur in literary art.

An exception to the usage of language is the internal speech as a vehicle for thinking because internal speech is not “situated.” In most cases,however,certain items of speciesessential objectivation “in itself” are strictly bound to certain situations.Situatedness is only relevant if the objects or implements are signs of customs,or if customs are observed in the relationship obtained with these objects or implements.This is especially true for the use of language as speech.The tie between speech and situation is the most radical and the most multi-functional.A word which has more than one meaning can be used with impunity because the situation in which it is uttered identifies one of the meanings as the correct one.The same words “I love you” may be used by a child to its mother or by a man to a woman,but the meanings are quite different.Heller suggested that the use of language meant the use of sentences and syntagma according to their meanings,and meaning was tied to the situation but not to one type of situation only.According to Rush Rhees,the language game of Wittgenstein which consists in giving commands is not really “language.” Animals can also be taught to react efficiently to words of command which they do not really understand.Heller agreed with this viewpoint and pointed out that language became humanly understandable when sentences and syntagma were related to the situation.

Heller divided sentences into two categories depending on the way in which they were situated: “occasional sentences” and “standing sentences.” “Occasional sentences”are understandable only when bound to a certain situation.Words like “how” and “why”are understandable only as reactions to something already said.The bonded relation between words and situations in a “standing sentence” is looser.We can say “I visited Li yesterday” in most situations.In Heller’s view,the inadequacy of everyday language in the expression of private feelings and private thoughts is not a fault to be eliminated.Language is only usable because it is or can be inadequate in this respect.“It is only in action other than speech or via the mediation of such actions or attitudes that language can adequately express the subjective state of the ‘person’; but adequacy can be thus achieved”(Heller,1987,p.179).Wittgenstein speaks of the mediating role of moral attitudes.In this case,it is the attitude and the morals overtly expressed in it that confer veracity and trustworthiness upon a statement,that is,they vouch for its adequacy,the adequate nature of the words.The language of poetry is capable of doing what everyday language cannot do: It can express the feelings and the thoughts of the person adequately in words.Words do not express the ipseity of things; they are at most indicators.For example,“Du Fu”tells us nothing at all about Du Fu,unless we already know him.The name of a hotel where a celebrity has stayed conjures up the referent in our mind’s eye only if we have already stayed in the hotel.

The situatedness of signs reflects their close connection with objective existence and social praxis.According to Schaff,a “sign-situation” is produced when a person transmits thoughts,emotions,etc.,to another person by means of signs.He considered sign-situations the foundation of the meaning of signs,and the relationships between signs the relationships between people who created and used the signs in certain social conditions.Schaff noted that any effective analysis of signs and meaning should start from analyzing the process of communication by means of signs,that is,their situatedness.This is because things exist not in an isolated form.There exist connections and relations between things,processes,events,attitudes,and actions of the fragments of the material world.

“When we say ‘exists’ or ‘is,’ then the condition of objective existence (in the sense that we have to do not with an arbitrary product of the cognizing mind,but with cognition...of something that occurs independently of the cognizing mind and of all minds in general...) is satisfied...Relations,properties,processes,attitudes,etc.are not things (as are people,houses,chairs,stones,etc.)...Consequently,we have to deal with some fragments of the material world,but the word ‘exists’ must now be understood in an indirect sense” (Schaff,1979,p.218).

Here,Schaff noted the situatedness of signs and their referents.When signs represent these referents,they also entail the context in which the referents are situated.Schaff used the example of music composition and appreciation to illustrate the situatedness manifested in the emotional communication involved in aesthetic activities.He highlighted that the transmission of situatedness in such activities could be both positive and negative in nature.

“Now the composer experiences an ecstasy of love and expresses it in the language of music in the form of aNocturne,or he experiences patriotic élan due to a national uprising in his country and gives expression to his feelings in the form of theRevolutionaryétude,or else he transmits emotionally the dreariness of a rainy day in the form of aRain Prelude.After many years,someone else listens to those works without knowing the accompanying circumstances of their birth,without knowing their titles,and without any programmed deciphering of their meaning in intellectual terms.Nonetheless,he does experience the longing of theNocturne,the excitement of theRevolutionary étude,and the dreariness of theRain Prelude” (Schaff,1979,p.129).

Here,Schaff reveals the mechanism of emotional transmission in art.Emotional transmission by means of music is closely related not only to the explicit meanings carried by musical signs but also to the context in which it is “encoded” and “decoded.” People can perceive the emotions in music not only based on their cultural and musical traditions but also depending on their own emotional “context.” Schaff particularly emphasized that when music transmitted personal feelings and experiences,there was an emotional“contagion” that occurred.The effectiveness of this contagion depends largely on whether the recipient puts it into the same emotional context.Due to differences in context,artistic works expressed through linguistic signs often have the potential for misinterpretation.However,misinterpretation should not be considered a “mistake,” but rather adds a touch of captivating charm to the art.

Aesthetic Property of Signs

The praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics in Eastern European Marxism views signs as the medium of aesthetic and artistic creations,as well as a pathway into the realms of art and aesthetics.For instance,Heller perceived the systems of signs as bearers of reiterated communication and medium of species-essential objectivations.Mihailo Markovi?’s dialectical theory of meaning encompasses normative reflections on literary,artistic,and aesthetic theories.Schaff’s semiotic theory elucidates the characteristics of artistic signs and their function in aesthetic communication.Leszek Ko?akowski regarded signs as a path towards transcendence.

Heller pointed out that pure signs did not possess aesthetic property.It is only within specific systems of meaning when signs have symbolic functionality,that they can have artistic effects.Signs,in the transmission of social meanings and customs,form an important signification system.The transmission of every meaning and custom often requires material signs.There are purely lingual signs,as well as signs expressed via a bodily gesture or a movement,such as thanking,bowing,praying,and chatting.These actions either require no mediation via things or very little.Buildings of certain periods could also become signs due to the social meaning and function they have acquired.Heller used Renaissance architecture as an example to illustrate that large and imposing public buildings caught the eye of the stranger for their durability and standing out from other buildings.Additionally,these buildings could become signs of the power of a Renaissance city because they provided a suitable surface for aesthetic expression,etc.

In Heller’s view,the great majority of objects as bearers of meaning are signs,not symbols.Clothes,houses,silverware on the table,the closed door,a ruin,etc.,all of these have a sign-function,but not necessarily a symbolic value.“The expression ‘symbolic value’ goes to show that the symbol does not simply relate to meaning,but always to value or to a complex of values; it is the linguistic or material representation of these value-complexes” (Heller,1987,p.142).Heller held that the symbol represented this value which was usually reflected and sanctified by tradition and that value could be negative as well as positive.It does not present,as the sign does,but represents.The symbol is not simply part of an objectivation structure,nor does it acquire its meaning from the usefunction it discharges therein; rather,it is from the idea which it represents.A wornout dress is not the same dress,but a tattered flag is the same flag.A symbol can be of personal-individual value.A lock of the beloved’s hair can have symbolic value for the lover,though it will have no value of any kind for anybody else.From an aesthetic perspective,unlike the pure sign,the symbol can,in art,attain the level of speciesessential objectivation “in itself.” Once it has been elevated to the aesthetic sphere,an object is represented.For example,it becomes symbolic.In poetic usage,a word has not only meanings but symbolic value as well.

As Heller stressed,in everyday life and everyday thought,custom-signs and wordsigns have no symbolic value,but this is not to deny the presence of symbols in speciesessential objectivations “in itself.” Sacramental and votive objects and actions (customs)are imbued with symbolic value; so are objects which embody integrations,and some of the customary actions related to these integrations,such as coat-of-arms and bloodbrotherhood.The words we use may also have symbolic value,particularly those which have entered the vocabulary of everyday life from the realm of myth,i.e.,Eros.Some words may function as signs and have symbolic value which can be recognized from the context in which the word is used (i.e.,“spring” and “the Spring”).In Heller’s view,the appropriation of species-essential objectivation “in itself” is therefore always synchronous with the appropriation of signification systems.

To illustrate the role of signs in aesthetic and artistic creation,Heller also provided explanations for the acts of imitation and analogy in art.She began by noting that three forms of imitation played an important part in the appropriation and conduct of everyday life: imitation of action,imitation of behavior,and evocative imitation.Imitation of activity is found in the animal world as well.Imitation of action is specifically the human form of imitative activity.Imitation of behavior occupies a special place among the types of imitation found in everyday life.Evocative imitation,which is similar to what Gy?rgy Lukács referred to as magical imitation,serves as the prototype and foundation of artistic creation.According to Lukács,in everyday life,if one wants to stimulate certain thoughts or emotions in others,one needs to convince them of something.However,there is another method: “If the same process is magically imitated,then during the performance,it must evoke the impression of successful persuasion for both sides among many spectators or listeners” (Lukács,1986,p.325).This magical imitation starts from the endpoint,dividing and designing the actions that constitute it to convincingly evoke the desired emotions and thoughts in the recipient.

Evocative imitation plays an important mediating role in aesthetic and artistic creation.It produces cognitive or emotional effects by conjuring up certain concrete deeds or feelings.In modern everyday life,it usually takes the form of narration.Heller cited an example.“When I tell others what sort of day I had at the office,my aim (whether overt or covert) in conjuring up these events is to induce some feeling or other in my audience,usually one with solidarity with me.I want them to agree that ‘I was right.’” In this act of mimesis,language is the guiding medium.At the same time,direct essays in imitation“color” the mimetic act of communication.Heller pointed out that in ancient societies,evocative mimesis was of fundamental importance in the process of appropriating species-essential objectivations “in itself” (e.g.,in cultures ruled by magic); in modern society,however,its role is continuously diminishing,apart from that of art as a factor in everyday life.

Analogy is another important mechanism through which signs acquire aesthetic property.Linguists are well aware of the decisive role of analogy in language,as Sauussure views analogy as a means for language to eliminate arbitrary choices.It is through analogy that foreign vocabulary can be assimilated into a native language.Taking English as an example,an analogy is evident in various aspects of its word formation,such as “foothill” and “chair leg.” Among the various types of analogies in language,metaphorical analogy also serves the function of indicating broader concepts or objects.According to Heller,analogy also has an imitative component,the only difference being that,whereas in imitation,an existent correlation and a form of behavior or action serve to generate identity,in analogy the intention is to generate similarity.Throughout the long period,during which humankind was gradually discovering how to make and use means of production,an effort was made to transfer to tools the various functions of the hand,the foot,etc.,by using these organs as analogs in the manufacture of tools.For instance,humans’ earliest ideas of a flying machine differed hardly from the analog of the bird in flight,and early attempts at experimental aircraft were also based on the analogous notion that such a machine should flap its wings.With the de-anthropomorphization of technology and the takeover of science as its guiding principle,this type of reasoning by analogy has tended to disappear.It is now only in art that machines can be elevated to a sort of analogous,anthropomorphically conceived existence.

Schaff referred to the process of individuals transmitting thoughts and emotions to others by means of signs as “contagion.” This “contagion” effect is manifested in various forms of art,such as music,painting,sculpture,and poetry.He warned against the programmed perception of music,namely translating music into a language of thinking in terms of notions or images.In his view,music reflects only emotional states,and the ideal state of musical aesthetics is to understand it as a series of emotional signs.Therefore,the communicative function of music is limited to aesthetic and emotional transmission.“If music ‘reflects’ anything at all,then it reflects only emotional states,and if it transmits,communicates something to others,then it communicates just such states only” (Schaff,1979,p.128).He considered music a different,special form of communication,rather than the “true” communication.Similarly,Schaff viewed visual arts,such as painting,as a means of emotional transmission.Particularly,the rejection of intellectual content of visual experience in abstractionism and the “true” communication proclaimed by promoters of Dadaism are all about “direct transmission to others of their own emotional states and experiences” (Schaff,1979,p.128).Schaff noted that when it came to the transmission of personal experiences and emotions by means of music,we could not determine the extent of consistency between the emotional states of the recipient and the communicator.However,recipients who can appreciate music will undoubtedly experience a certain perceptual and emotional response.The same situation occurs in poetry as well,although the “language” of music and painting is more suitable for direct emotional transmission than the language of poetry.

In addition to explicit language,implicit pictorial symbols are often used as the medium in literary art.According to Schaff,the symbolic representation of abstract ideas frequently resorts to metaphors on which the picture is based (especially in literature).Verbal symbolic images include such formulations as “the bowl of life” and “the cup of bitterness.” This expressive function of symbols is also prominent in mythology.The serpent of Aesculapius,symbolizing medical art,comes from classical mythology,as do Hercules,the symbol of strength,and the owl,the symbol of wisdom,etc.This phenomenon also occurs in everyday life.Schaff cited an example.When someone reads the statement “there are horses over there,” they would make a corresponding judgment based on their own experience.This statement holds the potential for being“consumed” countless times.In addition,this statement can also be accepted as a“category,” i.e.,interpreted as a “signification.” Anyone who understands this sentence has corresponding perceptive or reproductive representations in their minds,which are connected with knowledge,experiences and personal emotions in many other aspects,including personal artistic tastes,different systems of values,etc.When different people read the statement “pigs are mammals,” they can interpret the statement in various ways.Their understanding can involve knowledge of mammals,as well as emotional reactions connected with aesthetic evaluations and/or associations (one person may think about a dirty hog wallowing in mud,and another about an amusing,pink,rollicking piglet).These understandings are connected to personal emotions (moral valuation and aesthetic assessment,etc.).Similarly,a road sign that says “Beware! Sharp bend in the road!”not only serves the purpose of description and warning,but may also evoke aesthetic experiences related to its shape and color or associations with the aesthetic meaning of this sign.

Markovi? held that signs referred to both the subject and the object at the same time,serving as a means for humans to construct cultural structures of universal meanings and intersubjectivity.Of course,by means of signs,people can also ascribe more significant and profound meanings to objects,thus aestheticizing and artifying the objective world.Indeed,signs are an existence that originates from human praxis.They are created by humans in the process of transforming the natural world according to their needs and purposes.In this process,humans not only produce material goods but also need to endow the objects of praxis with new and deeper meanings.This process of objectivization necessitates the use of signs.Therefore,signs are a unique mode of human praxis,the highest form of which is aesthetic and artistic creation.Markovi? pointed out that the signs in literary art primarily involved shared experiences,emotions,value judgments,and mental objects,such as dreams.Although the linguistic signs in literary art possess an inauthenticity that transcends material reality,they still possess objectivity because their material foundation consists of various elements of real objects.Therefore,in his view,the linguistic signs in literary art are essentially intermediaries that connect objective reality with the potential for humans’ aesthetic creation.

Markovi? further emphasized the significance of the symbolic nature of artistic signs in aesthetic and artistic activities.For example,in Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky’s “1812 Overture,” the use of church bells symbolically represents the victory over the enemy,evoking complex thoughts and emotional experiences in people.This exemplifies the effectiveness of artistic signs in expressing universal thoughts and emotions.In his view,artistic signs are not only representational but also expressive.They have the ability not just to “awaken” specific thoughts and emotions within the recipient but also to express the subjective emotions of the artist.They not only reflect objective phenomena or established emotional structures but also enable the understanding of objects and the creation of new emotional experiences.Creativity is the essence of art,and the aesthetic creativity of artistic signs is connected to their objective material foundation and the essence of human praxis.Markovi? held that artistic signs must be based on the universal structural forms of objective elements experienced by humans.On this basis,they can be actively used to present and express emotions and to create new artistic objects and aesthetic experiences that do not yet exist.

Heller’s theories of symbol,evocation,imitation,and analogy,Schaff’s “contagion”theory,and Markovi?’s analysis of the reproductive and expressive functions of signs all demonstrate that the praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics in Eastern European Marxism considers signs as a tool of creative practice and an important medium of art.The exploration of signs’ aesthetic property in this praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics not only expands the field of semiotics but also opens new dimensions in Eastern European Marxist aesthetics.

Conclusion

The praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics in Eastern European Marxism was formed on the basis of a critical engagement with structuralism.In this critique,structuralist semiotics was widely absorbed into the theoretical framework of Eastern European Marxism.Moreover,Eastern European Marxist aesthetics also explored the classical Marxist theory of signs.The praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics in Eastern European Marxism typically does not approach the elucidation of a particular issue from the perspective of semiotics.Instead,it draws upon and incorporates semiotics as a discourse of praxis philosophy and aesthetic construction.Eastern European Marxist aesthetics examines,in depth,the nature and functions of signs.Unlike conventional structuralist semiotics,it does not adopt a closed and static perspective.Instead,it offers multidimensional discussions on objectivity,dynamism,and the connection between signs and humans’ social praxis.Its prominent theoretical feature is the ontology of praxis,which suggests that signs originate from humans’ activities of communication of meanings and are an inherent attribute of humans.Therefore,the praxis-oriented semiotic aesthetics in Eastern European Marxism not only differs from general semiotics in terms of theoretical construction but also exhibits distinct theoretical interests from conventional semiotic aesthetics.