A Semiotic Reaction to the Facebook Update Question

By

Obododimma Oha


Facebook could posture as an inquisitive child: that child wants to probe the subscriber and, if possible, scan every user so as to be able to assert that it is an authority on subscribers, to say that this authority is an omniscient knower. So, in the update field, Facebook asks the user: “What is on your mind?” So, Facebook wants to know this mind through its various possible expressions: pictures, texts, video clips, audio clips, etc? Facebook wants to know so that these expressions could be used in generalising about one’s thinking. In other words, the expressions could roughly tell about  the unseen software called “mind.” I do not know what philosophers think about this ambitious project of knowing thought through expression. But as someone in love with signs (in spite of the angle brought in by Jesus Christ that a sinful and adulterous generation looks for signs), I am interested in  that Facebook question from a simple semiotic standpoint. Maybe my attempt would open up serious thinking about the significs of that question.

What is on my mind is that that question first of all brings up the relationship between the sign and thought, the sign of the variety of thought. Since we cannot see thought directly, we can at least see its expression. Charles Sanders Peirce’s famous indexical mode of the sign comes in here. The sign as a clue to thought, and this thought or thinking could be used to know the person. The ancients gave attention in that respect to the symptom. The pictures or texts, etc would collectively tell us about the person. That is why one should weigh and consider what one wants to feature as an update, or what one shares. The share is alignment or identification. So, I should be careful in sharing what could send a wrong signal about me. Imagine: there is the ghost of ethics there also! Same for the type of people I accept as my friends or associate online with. Are they kidnappers? Are they terrorists? Have they been associated with one crime or the other? You see, that “playground” called Facebook is one place one could come face-to-face with trouble! In that case, a free thing could become very expensive eventually!

The ancient semioticians were interested in the relationship between the sign and thought. That was one reason St. Augustine in his theory of signa data, his attention to conventional signs, emphasised mentalism of the sign a bit. William of Ockam amplified that thinking, distinguishing between “mental words” and public or externalised ones. Mental words? That sounds like "silent speech" or thought itself , which could metaphorically be called expression? That monism is hard! Anyway, it was Ferdinand de  Saussure, that Swiss linguist, who initially thought of the signifier and the signified themselves as mental facilities in his phonocentrism. Later followers would later think of them as material. Today, when the American generative grammarian, Noam Chomsky, talks about syntax or language generally as providing a footpath to the mind, I tell myself that he is unrepentantly following an ancient Western idea. It is not a new mentalism. It is an ancient one which is nevertheless beneficial to all who want to track down behaviour through expression, which is also part of behaviour.

The Facebook update question, “What is on your mind?” is a very powerful one that could be deployed effectively in the clever new world in following patterns of behaviour that could be monitored. It could be used by serious-minded law-enforcement agents in their shortlisting, just as criminals can also use Facebook updates to monitor their targets! Chineke! Further, the bar is raised again for disciplines that see something mentalistic  in signs we attach ourselves, or those who have no cause for shame in being a sinful and adulterous generation looking for signs! But this is a warning worth sounding anyway: what is on somebody’s mind could be slippery, in fact, deceptive, and that deception may be intentional. So, apply some other technique  or caution before generalising. What is on my mind may not be what is on my mind. I am just dribbling you!



Comments