Svstems Stuaies 29.

, 2001



Projections:
Semiotics of culture in Brazil
,UHQH0DFKDGR
Rua Bcrgamota 190, apto. 21-B, 05458-000 So PaoIo, BraziI
c-maiI: ircncmacuoI.com.br


Abstract. Profection is a diaIogicaI mcchanism that conccrns thc rcIation-
ship among things in thc worId or in various systcms, both in naturc and
cuIturc. Instcad oI isoIating thcsc systcms, projcction crcatcs an ccosys-
tcm without bordcrIinc. Projcction is a way to comprchcnd how diIIcrcnt
cuIturcs can Iink, cnrich and dcvcIop onc anothcr by undcrstanding thc rc-
Iationship among diIIcrcnt sign systcms. From this ccntraI point oI scmi-
otics oI cuIturc, diIIcrcnt cuIturaI traditions can bc rcIatcd to onc anothcr
by considcring thc naturc oI thcir sign systcms. That is why it is that thc
objcct oI scmiotics oI cuIturc is not cuIturc but its sign systcms. That is
why wc undcrstand thc naturc oI rcIationship among sign systcms as pro-
fection. In this articIc, wc arc intcrcstcd in a particuIar kind oI projcction:
that onc in which thc IormuIations oI scmiotics oI cuIturc oI SIavic tradi-
tion projcct thcmscIvcs onto thc BraziIian cuIturc. Thc conccptuaI IicId oI
Russian scmiotics diaIogism, carnivaIization, hybridity, bordcr, outsi-
dcncss, hctcrogIossia, tcxtuaIity and modcIIing scmiotic sign systcms
projccts itscII on thc cquaIIy dcIining aspccts oI thc scmiotic idcntity oI
thc BraziIian cuIturc. I wiII rcIcr hcrc to two scts oI projcctions: thc con-
ccpt oI textual historv, as a possibiIity to rcach intcrnaI dispIaccmcnt
within thc cuIturc, and thc notion oI scmiodivcrsity produccd by thc mcct-
ing oI diIIcrcnt sign systcms.


II it is truc that scmiotics oI cuIturc was born as an appIicd thcory, thc
importancc pIaycd by thc cuIturcs with Iong scmiotics tradition in thc
consoIidation oI that approach cannot bc Icss truc. Wc know that, in
thc so-caIIcd scmiotic cuIturcs, thc intcnsity oI thc cxpansion proccss
oI sign systcms is rcIatcd to thcir capacity to answcr intcrnaIIy to thc
maniIcstations and impuIscs that comc Irom thc outsidc. Thc appIicd
charactcr, sccn Irom this vantagc point, can bc undcrstood thanks to
Irene Machaao 464
thc cstabIishmcnt oI rcIations aiming at answcring a cohcsivc sct oI
qucstions: how do cuIturcs Iink? how do thcy cnrich cach othcr? how
do thcy cxpand?
II this typc oI rcIation is a charactcristic oI thc cuIturcs, thc scmiot-
ics oI cuIturc must systcmatizc, thcorcticaIIy, thc approach thc appIicd
charactcr oI which stcms Irom thc intcrconncctions oI thc Iincs oI
powcr Iocatcd bctwccn systcms. This is a systcmic scmiotics aspcct.
What was mcntioncd abovc is Iar Irom bcing thc prcambIc to a
conccptuaI approach. In Iact, it is just about a guidcIinc that guaran-
tccs thc notion that thc appIicd charactcr oI scmiotics oI cuIturc is jus-
tiIicd not onIy by thc dynamism oI thc sign systcms that constitutc thc
cuIturcs, but aIso by thc Iargcst proccss oI scmiotic rcccption. Such
cvidcncc appcarcd duc to thc nccd to undcrstand thc propcrty oI cIc-
mcntary conccptions oI scmiotics that, dcvcIopcd in thc contcxt oI thc
SIavic tradition, cIaboratcd thcorcticaI instrumcnts Ior thc studics oI
cuIturcs or, morc spcciIicaIIy, oI thc intcrnaI rcsponscs that cmcrgc
whcn cuIturcs mcct. AIthough thc proposcd thcorcticaI sct has ap-
pcarcd as an appIicd thcory, it prcscnts itscII as basicaIIy opcrating
with thc samc profection mcchanism. RcIations oI convcrgcncc, dia-
Iogucs, mutuaI cIucidation arc somc oI thc maniIcstations through
which it is possibIc to apprcciatc thc intcrvcntionist movcmcnt oI a
cuIturc in rcIation to anothcr. Thc projcction rcIcrs to thc intcrrogativc
Iook that onIy thc cuIturc which is outsidc can addrcss onc to thc
othcr.
I owc Boris Schnaidcrman thc undcrstanding oI thc so csscntiaI
proximity in thc cxcrcisc oI thc approach oI scmiotics oI cuIturc as it
was IormuIatcd by Russian schoIars Iong bcIorc thc scmiotic thcory
itscII conqucrcd its spacc as a spcciIic IicId oI knowIcdgc or as a sci-
cncc. In this way, I undcrstand profection in thc mcaning givcn by
Schnaidcrman: profection is a tcrm that dcnominatcs thc movcmcnt oI
conIIucnccs among phcnomcna oI a worId in which cvcrything is
projcctcd against cvcrything, whcrc thcrc arc no cxact Iimits bctwccn
anything, thc rcaIm oI thc dcIiqucsccnt and thc unIinishcd, oI thc IIu-
idity and thc ncvcr cnding (Schnaidcrman 1978: 7). In this way, thc
projcction oI cIcmcnts oI a cuIturc on anothcr onc rcaIigns Iimits and
bordcrs.
Dcspitc thc gcncric charactcr oI this IormuIation, I am intcrcstcd
hcrc in a particuIar kind oI projcction: thc onc in which projcctcd
thcorcticaI assumptions about cuIturcs thc scmiotic charactcr oI which
is impossibIc to dcny, unchain an cquaIIy spcciIic typc oI thcorcticaI
Profections. Semiotics of culture in Bra:il 465
rcpIy. This is thc assumption that Icd mc to cxaminc thc projcction
IormuIations oI scmiotics oI cuIturc conccrning thcir SIavic origin in
thc BraziIian cuIturc contcxt. My hypothcsis is that, sincc BraziIian
cuIturc dcvcIops scmiotic systcms Ioundcd in a diaIoguc with diIIcrcnt
cuIturaI traditions, it sccms to bc prcscntcd not onIy as a potcntiaIIy
rich IicId oI intcrcuIturaI maniIcstations, but aIso as an important in-
tcrIocutor Ior thcorcticaI rcccption. ThcrcIorc, BraziIian cuIturc scrvcs
as a IicId Ior appIying scmiotic thcscs that wcrc born in thc SIavic cuI-
turaI contcxt, and not onIy in thc approach oI thc Europcan scmioIogy
and socio-scmiotics as is usuaIIy pubIicizcd. Oncc wcighcd out thc
Iinguistic, socio-historicaI, as wcII as spatiaI and tcmporaI diIIcrcnccs,
thcrc arc many aspccts that approximatc Russian cuIturc to that oI
BraziI. It is, howcvcr, an cxcIusivcIy scmiotic proximity. In no hy-
pothcsis is it possibIc to assumc that thc mystcrics oI thc SIavic souI,
cstabIishcd in ancicnt timcs, can bc simiIar to thc cxoticism oI a
young, distant and convuIsivc cuIturc. What Iics in thc corc oI this
hypothcsis is thc cvidcncc oI a Iact: thc dcIining conccptuaI basis oI
Russian scmiotics diaIogism, carnivaIization, hybridity, bordcr,
outsidcncss, hctcrogIossia, tcxtuaIity and modcIIing sign systcms
projccts itscII on thc cquaIIy dcIining aspccts oI thc scmiotics oI our
cuIturaI idcntity, crcating an intcnsc diaIoguc. Such IormuIations dc-
Iinc thc anaIyticaI instrumcnts oI thc scmiotic systcms oI BraziIian
cuIturc that bccomc, thus, a IicId Ior cxpcrimcnting with scmiotic
idcas that appcarcd in anothcr pIacc on thc pIanct. Russia and BraziI
bccomc cIosc. Howcvcr, this is good to cIariIy: it is not about dcIimit-
ing thc conIIucnccs across cuIturaI maniIcstations, but on cxamining
thc thcorcticaI striking among cuIturaI practiccs thc diaIoguc oI which
happcns in thc sphcrc oI scmiotic idcas. In ordcr to carry out this task,
I wiII rcIcr hcrc to two scts oI projcctions onIy: thc conccpt oI textual
historv, as a possibiIity to rcach intcrnaI movcmcnts within thc cuI-
turc; and thc proccss oI scmiodivcrsity that caIIs attcntion to thc scmi-
otic charactcr oI thc ovcrIap among cuIturaI spccics. In this way, I
hopc to cIariIy how thc kcy-conccpts oI Russian scmiotics wcrc rc-
ccivcd in thc contcxt oI my cuIturc.


Irene Machaao 466
Textual history and
the foundations of the semiotics
of culture approach

Thcrc is no doubt that thc projcctions oI thc tradition oI thc SIavic
thought in BraziI wcrc instaIIcd hcrc thanks to thc diaIoguc bctwccn
somc oI our cmincnt intcIIcctuaIs with Russian schoIars who occupicd
thc sccnc oI thinking in thc 20th ccntury. Thosc among thcsc thcorcti-
cians, who dcscrvc spcciaI promincncc arc Roman 1akobson, MikhaiI
Bakhtin, 1uri Lotman, VyachcsIav Ivanov. 1akobson is a spcciaI casc
among thcm. Bcsidcs thc Iong and intcnsc convcrsation with thc trans-
Iator and cssayist Boris Schnaidcrman, thc poct and critic HaroIdo dc
Campos, thc pocts Augusto dc Campos and Dcio Pignatari, 1akobson
guarantccd thc sprcading oI his tcachings whcn hc had 1oaquim Mat-
toso Cmcra, onc oI thc grcatcst Iinguists in our country, as a discipIc.
Mattoso Cmcra, as wcII as CIaudc Lvi-Strauss, wcrc 1akobson`s
pupiIs whcn hc conductcd a coursc about thc rcIations bctwccn sound
and mcaning in thc Unitcd Statcs. Latcr on, Mattoso couId anaIyzc
with grcat succcss thc invariant aspccts oI Portugucsc Ianguagc in
BraziI on thc basis oI 1akobson`s conccpt oI rcIation and invariation
principIc. A projcction Iikc this is an cxampIc oI thc rcIation that
shouId bc Iookcd at with grcat intcrcst. 1akobson`s accuratc IormuIa-
tions bccamc mandatory in thc IicId oI scmiotic and Iinguistic studics.
According to Boris Schnaidcrman,
1akobson`s work is now inscparabIc Irom our cuIturc, a Iot oI what has
bccn donc and thought in thcsc ycars has to do with thc cxistcncc oI this
joviaI and irrcvcrcnt schoIar, oI this scicntist and artist, thc poct oI Iin-
guistics`, as HaroIdo dc Campos dcIincd him. (Schnaidcrman 1993: 34)
This conIirms thc hypothcsis that 1akobson was thc grcat Iandmark oI
basic conccpts oI scmiotics oI cuIturc insidc and outsidc Russia.
1akobson`s contacts with his BraziIian intcrprctcrs consoIidatcd
duc to thc convcrgcncc oI idcas and worrics, Iikc, Ior instancc, his
intcnsc corrcspondcncc with thc poct and proIcssor HaroIdo dc Cam-
pos. Evcn bcIorc hc bccamc onc oI thc most important transIators oI
Russian poctry (with Boris Schnaidcrman and Augusto dc Campos),
HaroIdo dc Campos was a schoIar who sharcd many idcas with 1akob-
son, promoting a mutuaI cnrichmcnt Ior what thcy scarchcd. Among
thcsc idcas, it is worthwhiIc highIighting thc projcction that thc studics
on synchrony had in thc Iormation oI thc study oI scmiotics oI cuIturc
Profections. Semiotics of culture in Bra:il 467
in BraziI. I rcIcr to thc rcscarch on tcxtuaI history that HaroIdo dc
Campos carricd out throughout his work, in an intcnsc unIoIding oI
thc rcIation bctwccn synchrony-diachrony.
Thc study in which thc BraziIian schoIar dcmands thc ncccssity oI
a textual historv Ior thc study oI BraziIian Iitcrary cuIturc datcs Irom
1975. In a sIightIy provocativc tonc, hc aIIirms: in what conccrns
Iitcraturc, Irom timc to timc, it is aIways good to throw thc diachrony
into a statc oI conIusion (Campos, 1976: 10). II, on thc onc hand, thc
objcctivc oI tcxtuaI history wouId bc to causc panic in Iitcrary history,
on thc othcr hand, it wouId try to bring to thc corc oI thc study oI Iit-
craturc thc IoIIowing dcIining critcrion oI thc approach oI scmiotics oI
cuIturc in modcrn worId: thc conccpt oI text. In vicw oI thc conccpt oI
tcxt, Campos noticcd thc possibiIity oI sccing thc Iitcrary cuIturc in
thc diaIogic movcmcnt oI its tcxts, thanks to which aII cuIturc sys-
tcms, as wcII as aII cuIturcs, corrcIatc. Whcn thc tcxt is thc scmiotic
critcrion, assurcs Campos, it is possibIc to rcach thosc corrcIativcs that
arc bcyond thc basc cuIturc. Thc tcxtuaI history cstabIishcs itscII, thus,
as a transIatory opcration and, by transIation, Campos undcrstands
transcrcation and transcuIturation, sincc not onIy thc tcxt but thc cuI-
turaI scrics (Lotman`s cxtra-tcxt`) transtcxtuaIizc thcmscIvcs in thc
imbricatc subtancous ways oI timcs and diIIcrcnt Iitcrary spaccs
(Campos 1976: 10).
Takcn in a widcr contcxt, thc conccpt oI tcxt givcn by thc histori-
caI vicw is prcscntcd as an important cIuc to a systcmic approach to
cuIturc that can bc sccn in thc transIation cithcr among codcs or
among compIctcIy oppositc systcms, Iikc thosc oI mcssagcs produccd
by mass mcdia and thc ncw digitaI mcdia. According to this, tcxtuaI
history can bc takcn as a stratcgy. As I havc aIrcady statcd, tcxtuaI
history dcaIs with an approach to thc historicaI qucstion in Iitcraturc
that is not considcrcd in manuaIs in which thc dominant rcmark is thc
prcscrvation oI a canon and thc cycIcs oI thc rcprcscntation that thcy
conjugatc. On thc contrary, thc tcxtuaI history aIIows Ior carrying out
trans-tcmporaI and outsidcncss approachcs aiming at vaIuing thc im-
pIicit cuIturaI diaIoguc in thc tcxts. It is a circuit that scts tcxt and his-
tory in movcmcnt, in an intcractivc dynamic, and cnabIcs thc hcaring
oI thc diaIoguc that tradition cstabIishcs with thc prcscnt. Nothing is
considcrcd in isoIation, ncithcr works, nor authors, nor pcriods. Evcry-
thing is Iocuscd on thc tcnsc proccss oI its diaIogic rcIations
(Machado 1999: 31).
Irene Machaao 468
Sincc I put in thc horizon oI my approach thc ncccssity to Iook Ior
projcctions oI Russian IormuIations in thc BraziIian contcxt, I cannot
IaiI to rcgistcr that thrcc grcat conccptuaI artcrics cxist, oI SIavic roots,
in thc dcvcIopmcnt oI thc thcorcticaI Ioundations oI tcxtuaI history.
Bcsidcs 1akobson`s synchronic cut, it is not possibIc to ignorc Bak-
htin`s conccpt oI grcat-timc diaIogic and Lotman`s notions oI scmio-
sphcrc and oI tcxt as inIormationaI contcnt.
In 1969, HaroIdo dc Campos dcIincd thc svnchronic poetics idca
as an acsthctic-crcativc critcrion Ior thc approach oI thc Iitcrary
phcnomcnon. It is about a critiquc subsidizcd by thc IormaIists` intcr-
vcntions, cspcciaIIy about what 1akobson wrotc in his cssay Linguis-
tic and Poctics whcn hc postuIatcd thc notion oI diaIogics oI cuIturaI
timcs and thc rcading oI traditions in thc Iight oI contcmporary para-
digms. For Campos,
thc appIication oI this critcrion in a Iitcraturc Iikc thc BraziIian onc (oI
which rcaI history is, strictIy spcaking, stiII going to bc madc) soon pro-
duccs unobstructivc and proIanation cIIcct (...). Thus, thc tcxtuaI history
that takcs thc tcxt, charactcrizcd by its inIormativc contcnt (its invcn-
tivc componcnts), as thc kcrncI, and priviIcgcs a synchronic cnvisagc,
gcts distant Irom thc Iitcrary history prcdominantIy diachronic-cumuIa-
tivc, that considcrs Iitcraturc in its convcntionaI scnsc. (Campos 1976: 15)
In vicw oI this cnvisagc, it is possibIc to gct anothcr dimcnsion oI thc
scmiotic charactcr oI Iitcrary cuIturc in BraziI, in its IoundationaI as-
pccts: thc carnivaIization oI thc Ianguagc, thc thcmatic oI proIanation
(in Iact, thc BraziIian tcrm Ior proIanation is aesacraIization), thc
iconic prosc intcrscmiosis, among othcrs. Thus, bctwccn thc prcscnt
timc oI crcation` and thc prcscnt timc oI cuIturc` thcrc is a diaIcctic
corrcIation: iI thc Iirst is Icd by thc sccond, thc sccond is rc-
dimcnsioncd by thc Iirst (Campos 1976: 22).
II, on thc onc hand, thc idca oI tcxtuaI history cxprcsscs thc scmi-
otic intcrvcntion in Iitcrary cuIturc, on thc othcr hand, thc notion oI
tcxt Icads its scarch by thc cuIturaI diaIogics that Campos cxcrciscs in
innumcrabIc transIations oI consccratcd mastcrpicccs into thc Portu-
gucsc Ianguagc. From thc Homcric epos to thc BibIicaI tcxt; Irom
modcrn Russian poctry to chincsc idcogram; Irom Dantc`s HcII to thc
Gocthc`s Faust; Irom mcdicvaI troubaaours to hai-kais. Thc ncwncss
oI thcsc works is not thc transIation oI thc work within thc Iimits oI
thc codc, but thc rccoding (thc codc switching or transmutation) that
uItimatcIy Icads to thc Iinguistic-scmiotic rcconstitution in thc grcat
timc oI cuIturcs. In this bias, thc rcscuc oI thc chronotopic dimcnsion
Profections. Semiotics of culture in Bra:il 469
oI cuIturc is assurcd. Campos caIIcd transcrcation thc opcration oI
transIcrring a Iinguistic sign systcm Irom a cuIturc to anothcr sign sys-
tcm oI a diIIcrcnt cuIturc. It is not onIy a simpIc transIation. In thc bcst
tradition oI 1akobson`s tcachings, thc pocticaI transIation can onIy bc
considcrcd intcr-scmiosis: it is ncccssary to considcr two systcms oI
diIIcrcnt signs. This practicc, dcnominatcd by Campos as tcxt transIa-
tory opcration, diaIogucs thcorcticaIIy with thc conccpt oI modcIIing
oI thc TartuMoscow`s group, a conccptuaI kcy oI which unIoIdings
in thc tradition oI scmiotic studics havc madc its contribution to thc
vcrtiginous proccss oI codcs and Ianguagc cxpansion in thc cuIturc.
Thc transIation IuIIiIs a modcIIing tcxtuaI Iunction whcn it transIcrs
thc pocticaI structuraIity oI a Ianguagc to a compIctcIy diIIcrcnt onc.
Think about, Ior instancc, thc 1apancsc, Russian, ItaIian, Frcnch,
Gcrman, thc Hcbrcw moaellea in Portugucsc. EvidcntIy, transIation
carricd out in this way crcatcs ncw inIormation. What is said hcrc in
rcIation to thc vcrbaI codc is appIicd, oI coursc, to othcr codiIications
outsidc that univcrsc.
Thc conccpt oI tcxt as invcntivc inIormationaI contcnt is a dircct
projcction oI thc IormuIations discusscd in thc summcr scminars oI
TartuMoscow`s schooI that Campos got in contact with just aItcr his
Iirst cssays wcrc pubIishcd in thc Occidcnt.
Thc ncw Russian scmioIogy oI thc Tartu group suggcsts a simiIar
probIcm today, said Campos in 1976. 1. Lotman and A. M. Piati-
gorski (Tcxt and Function`, Tartu conIcrcncc, May 1968) cxaminc
cuIturc as a sct oI tcxts. Thcy distinguish bctwccn gIobaI Iinguistic
mcssagc` (signiIicant in thc scnsc oI cvcryday communication) and
tcxtuaI mcssagc` or tcxt`. Thcy IormuIatc thc IoIIowing axiom: It is
cxactIy thc zcro dcgrcc oI gIobaI Iinguistic mcssagc that discIoscs thc
high dcgrcc oI its scmioticity as a tcxt`. Or cIsc: To bc noticcd as a
tcxt, thc mcssagc must bc IittIc or not at aII undcrstandabIc, and sus-
ccptibIc to an uItcrior transIation or intcrprctation [...] thc art, whcrc
thc pIuraIity oI scnscs is crcctcd in principIc, produccs thcorcticaIIy
nothing but tcxts`. In accordancc with this, thc two authors study thc
tcxt proccsscs oI bccoming sacrcd rituaIizcd (or sacraIization and ritu-
aIization oI tcxts as wc say in Portugucsc), as sccondary modcIIing
systcms.
This is thc thcorcticaI-scmiotic support Irom which Campos bascs his
transIatory opcration oI HoIdcrIin`s tcxt as a phcnomcnon oI dc-
communication. This way, thc thcorctician shows his transIatory prac-
ticc as a pattcrn oI thc modcIIizing systcms, rcvcaIing a subtIc undcrstand-
Irene Machaao 470
ing oI thc Theses oI scmiotics oI Tartu pubIishcd in 1964. (Campos 1976:
9091)
With thc conccption oI cuIturc as a tcxt Iormcd by thc gathcring oI
modcIIing systcms, thc study oI tcxtuaI history opcns anothcr dircc-
tion, cmbracing thc intcrcuIturaI diaIoguc, in which modcIIing rcsuIts
Irom thc intcrvcntions across cuIturcs. This is anothcr projcction oI
scmiotics oI cuIturc that happcns dircctIy in thc sphcrc oI studics on
muIticuIturaIism. Instcad oI simpIy Iooking Ior thc gcncsis oI thc hy-
phcnatcd conjugations in cuIturc, scmiotics prcscnts thc basis oI thc
intcrcuIturaIity, systcmizing, thcorcticaIIy, incrcasingIy csscntiaI in-
strumcnts Ior thc undcrstanding oI cuIturc as a sct oI divcrsiIicd, dia-
Iogic scmiotic systcms in cxpansion. From thc scmiotic point oI vicw,
thcrc arc two basic unIoIdings oI this pattcrn: carnivaIization and
scmiodivcrsity. II wc owc thc anthropoIogist Robcrto da Matta thc
discovcry oI carnivaIity as a Iounding Icaturc oI thc contrasting sociaI
rcIations in our cuIturc, wc owc anothcr anthropoIogist, Antonio Ris-
rio, thc pcrccption that thc proIiIcration oI contrasts indicatcs thc di-
vcrsity that supports thc scmiotic charactcr oI our cuIturc. Thanks to
Risrio, thc conccptuaI IicId oI scmiotics oI cuIturc can bc rcad ac-
cording to thc transIatory proccss that intcrwcavcs cuIturcs.


Semiotics of culture as a defence program
of semiodiversity

Thc projcction oI thc tradition oI thc SIavic thought in thc IicId oI in-
tcr and muIticuIturaI studics cannot bc sccn straightIorwardIy. For
this, I proposc a routc oI idcas that is a IittIc Iongcr and, thcrcIorc, Icss
cxact. I couId not spcak in anothcr way about a projcction that has
hardIy bccn sct into action.
Onc oI thc indisputabIc assumptions oI thc conccpt oI cuIturc is thc
onc that rcIcrs to thc symboIic production that scrvcs as a Iiving cnvi-
ronmcnt Ior man`s cxcrcisc, cxpIoitation and cxpansion oI thc most
diIIcrcnt rcIationaI proccsscs, spcciaIIy rcgarding bchaviour controI. In
this conccpt, thc idca that cuIturc is wovcn by a string oI codcs which
strcngthcns thc prcmisc that cvcry cuIturc is potcntiaIIy scmiotic, is
assumcd. AnthropoIogists Iikc CIiIIord Gccrtz do not raisc any doubts
about this prcmisc. On thc contrary, thcy agrcc that cuIturc and its
signs arc thc most compIcx Iorms oI rcIationships sincc divcrsc Iorms
oI mcctings, crossings and intcrprctations pcrmancntIy opcratc in thc
Profections. Semiotics of culture in Bra:il 471
cuIturc. On thc basis oI thcsc rcIationships, thc cuIturaI idcntity is buiIt
and it can bc thus undcrstood duc to its incIusivc charactcr rathcr than
an cxcIusion, as it is usuaIIy statcd. Thc spcciIicity oI thc cuIturc
wouId bc thc rcsuIt oI contacts, combinations, projcctions. FoIIowing
this thought, cvcry approach to cuIturc couId not do without a dccp
undcrstanding oI its signs and codcs.
In Iact, thcrc is a Iong way bctwccn acknowIcdging thc scmiotic
naturc oI cuIturc and thc avaiIabIc instrumcnts to rcach this undcr-
standing. What couId bc considcrcd a Icgitimatc and unqucstioncd
prcmisc bccomcs a sourcc oI mistakcs. What couId bc obvious is a
phcnomcnon waiting Ior undcrstanding.
Thc conIIicting aspcct oI this thought is thc undcrstanding oI what
a scmiotic cuIturc is. Considcring thc anthropo-socioIogicaI conccp-
tions, wc wouId say that cuIturcs rccognizcd as rcsuIt oI hyphcnatcd
conjugations (Shohat, Stam 1994) arc hiddcn undcr such dcnomina-
tion, thcrcIorc that givcs thcm a hybrid idcntity. Yct, in this conccp-
tion thcrc is no pIacc Ior thc dcIinition that wc intcnd to rcach: in this
conccpt thcrc is no spacc to sct thc dynamism oI thc cuIturc, or bcttcr,
thc actuaI movcmcnt oI crossings, transIormation, scmiosis. For thc
undcrstanding oI thc scmiotic charactcr oI a cuIturc it is not cnough to
point out its gcncsis. It is ncccssary abovc aII not to Iosc sight oI its
movcmcnt bccausc scmiosis is born in it. Thc scmiotics approach, in
this casc, shows anothcr way: instcad oI a wcapon, thc scmiotics un-
dcrstanding oI thc cuIturaI idcntity is a Iorm oI knowIcdgc and, Iikc
that, thc biggcst sourcc oI cuIturaI IiIc and aII thc cnvironmcnt that
supports it. It is about dcIcnding thc divcrsity without taking thc risk
oI IaIIing into thc incohcrcncc oI thosc who proIcss thc divcrsity oI
thc bioIogicaI spccics on bchaII oI ccoIogy, with thc samc grip thcy
taIk about idcntity as thc cIimination oI onc oI thc tcrms oI hyphcn-
atcd-composition, duc to thc undcniabIy vioIcnt powcr oI poIiticaI
circumstanccs.
Pcrhaps such prccariousncss oI thc anthropoIogic approach has
pushcd thc BraziIian anthropoIogist Antonio Risrio to IicId oI Rus-
sian IormuIations, whcrc thc bordcrIinc conccpt was crcatcd as a sc-
miotic spacc oI conIIucnccs across diIIcrcnt cuIturaI systcms. For
Lotman, bounaarv is not thc dividing cdgc, but thc transIatory IiItcr
insidc spacc which was vcry propcrIy caIIcd scmiosphcrc. AIthough
thc scmiosphcric spacc has an abstract charactcr, thc mcchanism that
dcIincs it thc transIatory IiItcr oI thc bordcr is cndowcd with
concrctcncss. This is so bccausc thc notion oI circIc, as dcIimiting
Irene Machaao 472
what bcIongs and what docs not bcIong to a spcciIic sct, has nothing
abstract. Thc cIcmcnts oI boundary arc both insidc and outsidc. How-
cvcr, it is ncccssary to bc cautious not to conIusc thc scmiotization
proccss with a mixturc whcrc cvcrything is annuIIcd: timc, spacc, par-
ticuIaritics. In this particuIar scnsc, thc scmiotization proccss is Iar
Irom syncrctism.
How do two cuIturcs mcct diaIogicaIIy, prcscrving thcir spcciIici-
tics and not aIIowing obstacIcs to its cxpansion? This is a qucstion that
was part oI thc thcorcticaI inquirics oI thc Russians Lotman and Bak-
htin, as wcII as thosc oI thc BraziIian Risrio.
Thc ncccssity to vaIuc thc boundary as scmiotic spacc is not a
thcorcticaI tcnct, but an aItcrnativc proposaI to undcrstand cxpIosivc
momcnts oI thc cuIturc without thc Icaturc oI historicaI dctcrminism.
II it is truc that cuIturc is cumuIativc, it is ncccssary to Iorcscc mo-
mcnts oI biggcr conccntrations that, cvcn though unprcdictabIc, arc
not ruIcd by chancc. This is thc rcaIity Lotman spcaks about whcn hc
trics to cxaminc thc scmiosphcrc oI thc contcmporary worId oI which
scmiodivcrsity cannot bc dcnicd.
AIthough thc conccpt oI scmiosphcrc stcms Irom Lotman`s
thought, In dcIcnsc oI Scmiodivcrsity (1995), it is aIso Iound in thc
tcxt-maniIcsto by thc anthropoIogist and BraziIian poct Antonio
Risrio, which highIights its grcat contribution to undcrstand scmiot-
ics oI cuIturc in BraziI. Prcscntcd as an intcrvcntion during a dcbatc
with Tzvctan Todorov about thc intcrcuIturaI diaIoguc in thc contcxt
oI thc many intcrnationaI muIticuIturaIisms oI thc Iast dccadcs, it
turncd out to bc a vigorousIy uttcrcd spccch to undo ccrtaintics, dcvi-
atc thought paths, shakc positions, cspcciaIIy thosc that appcar as grcat
truths about homogcnization Iorcsccn by gIobaI ordcr to dominatc
many pIaccs in thc worId. Its grcatcst virtuc was to bring Iight to thc
hcart oI conIIictuous dcbatc by introducing a thcorcticaI anaIysis in-
strumcnt.
Committcd to thc compIcxity oI thc pIanctarization phcnomcnon oI
cuIturc, not onIy as a dircct rcsuIt oI thc sophisticatcd pcrIormanccs
Iinkcd to communication tcchnoIogics, but aIso as a conscqucncc oI
thc wcstcrnization oI thc pIanct, this tcxt has thc powcr to add anothcr
routc to thc ccoIogicaI discoursc.
WhiIc thcorcticians Irom diIIcrcnt IicIds, mobiIizcd by thc cmcr-
gcnt cthnic conIIicts in distant points oI thc worId, dcIcnd a harmonic
muIticuIturaIism, Risrio chosc thc dcIcncc oI divcrsity, undcrstood in
thc widcr scnsc oI thc anthropoIogic construction, and it docs not
Profections. Semiotics of culture in Bra:il 473
sccm possibIc to disccrn thc basis oI thc cthicaI condition without it.
Thus, Iar bcyond thc rows that thickcn thc IicId oI muIticuIturaIism,
Risrio rcachcs an apparcntIy uncxpIorcd rcgion. In it, hc situatcs thc
discoursc in dcIcncc oI scmiodivcrsity.
Semioaiversitv is a conccpt to dcnominatc thc sphcrc oI IiIc that
rcIcrs, particuIarIy, to thc rcaIm oI signs. AIthough it has bccn crcatcd
in thc contcxt oI biodivcrsity, it assigns a widcr tcrritory, which is aI-
most unknown. Contrary to biodivcrsity, it is not a trcndy` tcrm, cvcn
though cmbcdding a much widcr scopc. Thc most diIIcrcnt kinds oI
mcssagc crcating inIormation produccd by diIIcrcnt Ianguagcs, signs
and cuIturaI codcs can bc Iound in thc domain oI scmiodivcrsity. In
thc Iight oI this conccpt, it is possibIc to cIariIy, cquaIIy, thc anthropo-
Iogic mcssagcs and thosc oI gcnctic charactcr. FinaIIy, scmiodivcrsity
aims at accounting Ior thc radicaIity that conccrns thc varicty oI signs.
II biodivcrsity is thc namc oI thc biotic variations originatcd Irom thc
gcncs in thc ccosystcm, and, iI by gcncs, wc undcrstand inIormation,
biodivcrsity is a rich subgroup that intcgratcs scmiodivcrsity. I think
this is thc hypothcsis which cnrichcs thc rcscarch in thc IicId oI scmi-
otics oI cuIturc.
Dcspitc thc many doubts, thcrc is a ccrtainty: dcIcnding thc divcr-
sity oI thc spccics as a common IIag Ior thc prcscrvation oI thc bio-
sphcrc can bc a uscIcss task iI thcrc is not a simiIar cIIort to prcscrvc
thc scmiosphcrc. AItcr aII, life is thc maniIcstation oI thc bio that, in
its turn, is Icd by inIormation convcycd as semion. Naturc and cuIturc
arc so umbiIicaIIy imprcgnatcd oI cach othcr that onIy such intcrcon-
ncction can dcIinc how much human wc wouId Iikc to rcmain (Ris-
rio 1999) cspcciaIIy Irom thc cthicaI point oI vicw. This is thc kcy
argumcnt in dcIcncc oI scmiodivcrsity.
II IiIc is thc intcrrcIationship oI nctworks, thcrc is no rcason to dc-
Icnd a sphcrc (bio) in dctrimcnt oI othcrs (noosphcrc, sociosphcrc,
scmiosphcrc). Oncc again I quotc Risrio`s words:
Amid thc immcnsc Iist oI probIcms and pIanctary unbaIancc, with thc
whip oI povcrty burning thc worId body, I am going to pcrmit myscII thc
Iuxury to highIight thrcc important qucstions hcrc. Prcscrving a human
bcing is onc oI thcm. Prcscrving thc biosphcrc is anothcr. But bcyond
biodivcrsity, wc must aIso prcscrvc scmiodivcrsity. [...] Lct us say thc ob-
vious, Irccdom and cthics don`t cxist outsidc thc rcaIm oI signs. Evcry
cthics brings, in its basis, an anthropoIogic construction. And it is cxactIy
thc scmiodivcrsity, thc ncobabcIic cxistcncc that makcs thc ampIitudc oI
thc arc oI qucstions and possibIc rcsponscs a basic thing at this momcnt oI
human advcnturc on Earth. (Risrio, 1999: 108)
Irene Machaao 474
AIthough it sccms to bc an isoIatcd cIaim, in Iact, Risrio`s argumcnt
dcIcnds disturbing causcs. Hc conIirms thc cxistcncc oI anothcr basic
sphcrc in rcIation to thc biosphcrc and thc sociosphcrc. This is a vcry
rcccnt discovcry. Thc Lotmanian notion oI scmiosphcrc datcs Irom thc
bcginning oI thc 1980s, as thc pIacc oI thinking structurcs in thc uni-
vcrsc. II, on thc onc hand thc dcIcncc oI scmiodivcrsity impIics thc
dcIcncc oI cuIturc as an organism Iormcd by diIIcrcnt intcractivc sys-
tcms, on thc othcr hand it propagatcs thc notion oI scmiosphcrc as an
cmcrgcncy oI a ncw sphcrc oI communication. This way, it constitutcs
anothcr argumcnt in dcIcncc oI scmiodivcrsity: thc ncccssity oI having
a widcr domain on thc pIanctary cxpansion oI thc communication Ian-
guagcs.
Sincc tcchnoIogy has bccomc thc basic pcrspcctivc through which
it is possibIc to producc any discoursc about thc worId, wc quit Iiving
in a naturaI cnvironmcnt to Iivc in a tcchnoIogicaI cnvironmcnt that
acquircs, thus, thc charactcr oI an autonomous phcnomcnon (Simmons
1993: 6). Not onIy docs thc pIacc oI thc human bcing in thc pIanct
sccm dcIinitcIy impossibIc to bc cstabIishcd, aIso thc scvcrity oI thc
poIarity bctwccn naturc and cuIturc Iooscns and shcItcrs thc cocxis-
tcncc oI diIIcrcnt sphcrcs oI IiIc. II thc cxistcncc oI such a grcat divcr-
sity oI spccics on Earth rcmains a disturbing mystcry, it is not possibIc
to kccp on attributing to biodivcrsity thc soIc guarantcc oI thc good
opcration oI thc ccosystcm. Thc discovcry oI a totaIIy divcrsiIicd
worId docs not onIy Icad to thc ncccssity oI knowing which Iorccs and
proccsscs takc to cvoIution and pcrsistcncc oI many spccics but, cspc-
ciaIIy, thc cocxistcncc mcchanism without which no kind oI divcrsity
wouId bc possibIc.
Thc projcction oI thc conccpt oI scmiosphcrc onto thc scmiodivcr-
sity oI BraziIian cuIturc is a proccss that has aIrcady startcd, and it
announccs what it has comc Ior. In thc Iirst pIacc, its qucstioning
charactcr is cIcarIy sccn whcn it comcs to what wc undcrstand by muI-
ticuIturaIism. For this phcnomcnon it is ncccssary to Iocus on a simiIar
vicwpoint oI thosc who takc things Irom thc worId according to thc
rcvcrsc pcrspcctivc. This is what it mcans: thc cuIturaI contacts arc thc
cIcarcst maniIcstation oI scmiosis. Instcad oI IinaIIy opcning up, thcy
rcproducc thc samc autorcguIating dynamism oI IiIc. MuIticuIturaIism
is not thc root oI a cuIturc, but thc dynamic principIc oI rcIations. This
way, it is uscIcss to rcproducc it Irom a ccntrc. In Iact, iI you want to
usc thc anaIogy with thc rcvcrsc pcrspcctivc, muIticuIturaIism wiII
aIways bc a poIyccntric cnvisagc. In this scnsc, it wiII bc vcry diIIicuIt
Profections. Semiotics of culture in Bra:il 475
not to takc it as a synonym oI scmiodivcrsity. AIso, in this scnsc, thc
anaIysis oI poIyccntric muIticuIturaIism is a probIcm Ior thc scmiotic
anaIysis.
Thc accuracy oI this Iook, which thc BraziIian cuIturc is cnhancing
towards a bcttcr undcrstanding oI its own quaIitics, is thc richcst con-
tribution oI thc projcction oI thc principIcs oI scmiotics oI cuIturc
undcr a SIavic tradition. Thc biggcst sourcc oI this richncss is its un-
Icashing possibiIity that dcIinitcIy movcs thc pcrspcctivc oI stigmas
and socioIogicaI spcctrum away. Thc chaIIcngc, thcrcIorc, gains a diI-
Icrcnt proportion. Thc dcIcncc oI scmiodivcrsity is a commitmcnt to
thc dynamics oI changcs. In this scnsc, it compcIs us to undcrstand thc
cuIturaI idcntity as a modcIIizing proccss bccausc such is thc condition
oI aII systcms oI cuIturc. This is thc thcorcticaI impuIsc that Icads us
to Iook insidc oI thc cuIturc, a Iocus that I tricd to Iocatc in thc prop-
crty oI thc Russian scmiotic idcas in thc BraziIian contcxt sincc thc
bcginning oI this projcction.
Thc articIc cnds hcrc, but thc projcction continucs sincc many
points stiII nccd to bc discusscd. In ordcr to asscrt a principIc oI thc
bcst bakhtinian tradition, thcrc is no point in making a hasty concIu-
sion whcn thc objcct oI our discussion is an unIinishcd diaIoguc.


References

Campos, HaroIdo dc 1969. A arte no hori:onte ao provavel. So PauIo:
Pcrspcctiva.
1976. A operao ao texto. So PauIo: Pcrspcctiva.
1akobson, Roman 1971. Linguistica e comunicao (trans. I. BIikstcin,
D. Pignatari). So PauIo: CuItrix.
1970. Linguistica. Poetica. Cinema. Roman Jakobson no Brasil. So PauIo:
Pcrspcctiva.
1akobson, Roman; Pomorska, Krystyna 1985. Dialogos (trans. E. A. Kossovitch;
B. Schnaidcrman; L. Kossovitch; H. dc Campos). So PauIo: CuItrix.
Machado, Ircnc 1999. EI tcxto como objcto dc cstudio cn Ia unidad diaIogica dc
Ias cuIturas. In: ZavaIa, Lauro (cd.), Lecturas simultaneas. La ensean:a ae
lengua v literatura con especial atencin al cuento ultracorto. Mcxico,
Univcrsidad Autonoma MctropoIitana (Unidad XochimiIco).
Risrio, Antonio 1995. Em dcIcsa da scmiodivcrsidadc. A via Jico e outros
escritos. SaIvador: Oiti, 1999.
Shohat, EIIa; Stam, Robcrt 1994. Unthinking Eurocentrism. Multiculturalism ana
the Meaia. London & Ncw York: RoutIcdgc.
Schnaidcrman, Boris 1978. Profees. RussiaBrasilItalia. So PauIo: Pcrspcc-
tiva.
Irene Machaao 476
1993 [1985]. Uma viagcm aos diaIogos. In: 1akobson, Roman; Pomorska,
Krystyna, Dialogos (trans. E. A. Kossovitch; B. Schnaidcrman; L.
Kossovitch; H. dc Campos). So PauIo: CuItrix.
Schnaidcrman, Boris (cd.) 1979. Semitica russa. So PauIo: Pcrspcctiva.
Simmons, I. G. 1993. Interpreting Nature. Cultural Constructions of the Envi-
ronment. Ncw York: RoutIcdgc.



:


, , .
, , .
.
-
, ,
.
. ,
.
, .

.
:
.
,
, , , , ,


. ,
: -
, ,
.
,
.


Profections. Semiotics of culture in Bra:il 477
Projektsioonid: kultuurisemiootika Brasiilias

Profektsioon scc on asjadcvahcIistc suhctc diaIoogiIinc mchhanism maa-
iImas vi cri sstccmidcs nii Iooduscs kui kuItuuris. ScIIc ascmcI, ct ncid
isoIccrida, asctab projcktsioon nad samassc sstccmi. ScIIcs mttcs Ioob
projcktsioon piiridcta kosstccmi. KuItuurikontckstis annab projcktsioon
mciIc vimaIusc mista Ibi crincvatc mrgisstccmidc scostc kuidas crinc-
vad kuItuurid vivad scostuda, rikastada ja arcndada kstcist. Scc on kuItuuri-
scmiootika phiccsmrk. ScIIcst scisukohast vimaIdab mrgisstccmidc oIc-
musc uuriminc siduda crincvaid kuItuuritraditsioonc. KuItuuriscmiootika
objcktiks Ioctaksc sccprast mittc kuItuuri, vaid mrgisstccmc ja mrgiss-
tccmidc vahcIisi scoscid mistamc mc kui profektsiooni.
Siin huvitab mcid ainuIt ks projcktsiooni Iiik: sIaavi kuItuuriscmiootika
traditsiooni mistctc projcktsioon brasiiIia kuItuuriIc. ScIIcs mttcs projit-
sccrub vcnc scmiootika kontscptuaaInc vIi diaIogism, karncvaIisccriminc,
hbriidsus, piir, ckstrapositsioon, hctcrogIossia, tckstuaaIsus ja modcIIccrivad
mrgisstccmid -samadcIc brasiiIia kuItuuriidcntitccdi mravatcIc aspckti-
dcIc. AnaIsidcs scda projcktsiooni, viitan ma vaid scIIc kahcIc cIcmcndiIc:
tekstuaalse afaloo kontscpt kui vimaIus saavutada siscmist mbcrpaigu-
tumist kuItuuris ja semiomitmekesisus, mis mis snnib crincvatc mrgisstcc-
midc kohtumisc tuIcmuscna. ScI viisiI Ioodan ma scIgitada, miI mocI on vcnc
scmiootika vtmcmistcid vastu vctud minu kuItuuri kontckstis.