1

Multimodality,MaterialityandEverydayTextualities:

TheSensuousStuffofStatus

CrispinThurlow

Chapterpreparedfor:

HandbookofIntermediality,ed.GabrieleRippl(2015,DeGruyter)

Abstract: Four seemingly banal objects – a pepperpot, a napkin, apack of tissues and a pair of

pyjamas–willfunctionasthecomplicatingactionsforthenarrativepresentedhere.Onthesurface,

this will be a story about the production of luxury in contemporary consumer culture. At root,

however,itisasocialsemioticsofsuper‐elitemobilities,anidealdomainforexploringthemateriality

oflanguageandtheinherentlymultimodalnatureofeverydaytextualpractices.Thischapterisalso

offeredasaninterdisciplinaryreflectiononpossibleconnectionsbetweenacademicdomains.Justas

manylinguistsareseekingtopushbeyondthebinarizingboundariesoflanguageand‘thesemiotic

rest’,thepursuitsofliterarystudiesanddiscoursestudiesmaybemoreeasilyalignedthanonemight

imagine.Wemayprioritizedifferentsites,differenttexts,differentobject(ive)s,butourcoreinterests

maynotbeallthatfarremovedwhenitcomestounderstandingtheinterplayofsemioticresources.

KeyTerms:multimodality,socialsemiotics,visual‐materialresources,luxury,elitistdiscourse

1IntroducingMultimodality(andSocialSemiotics)

In discourse studies, recognition of the inherently and unavoidably mediated nature of all

communicativeactionprecludesusfromanotherwiseisolationistsemiotics,onethatseparatesout

orprivilegesasinglemodeofcommunication(NorrisandJones2005).Forlinguists,thishastypically

been language,whichwe have tended to extract from its naturally occurring contexts of use for

theoreticaldeliberation,orkeptapartfromnonverbalbehaviourandphysicalsettingforthesakeof

analysis. To talk of ‘mediated communication’ is, however, about as sensible as speaking of

oxygenated breathing. In reality, there is no communicationwithoutmediation. Language never

takes place, nevermakes sense, outside of its situated, embodied,multi‐sensory uses –whether

gushing from the pages of a book, reverberating in the ears of speakers, or glistening on city

billboards.

For scholarly convenience or rigour, we often bunker down around disciplinary

investigationsof,say,words,images,soundsorspaces.Theseacademicexercisesdetachandabstract

meaning‐making practices from their patentlymultimodal realities. Besides, the isolating of, say,

languagefromitsrichercontext–likethedisembeddingofbooksfromtheirembodiedmomentsof

2

reading – becomes increasingly difficult nowadays when so many texts are materially and

semioticallyvaried.

Take,forexample,thewebpagereproducedonthenextpage;itisfromtheLuxuryTravel

FairinLondon.Whatwehavehereisaquintessential‘textofourtimes’,onethatdemonstrateshow

itispracticallyandexperientiallyimpossibletodisentanglethearrayofsemioticresourcesatwork

inmanycontemporarytexts:words,images,typefaces(style,designandsize),colourandshading,

layout,icons(i.e.forvarioussocialmedia),andarangeofdirectionalandframemarkings(i.e.the

repurposedparentheses,theblockedtitleslike“OFFICIALFAIRVIDEO”).Thetextisacompositeor

anensemble.Agestalt.Thedifferentsemioticresourcesandmeaning‐makingpracticesarealldoing

differentkindsofcommunicativework,whilealsoworkingtogethertogenerateanaffectivereaction

andaneffectiveresponse.Whichdoesnotmeanthatwehavetolikeit,getitoragreewithit.The

webpageisalsoahypertextualandmulti‐mediatext,offeringmultipleopportunitiestoengageand

manipulatethecontentfurther:clickingthroughtootherpages,selectingdifferentreadingpaths,

watchingavideo,tweeting,orrequestingmoreinformation.Complextextslikethesearedesigned

deliberatelytobemultimodal–forexample,visual,verbal,gestural,tactile,musical–andtobe‘read’

inmoreopen‐endedways.[1] Texts are certainly not simplypassive representationsof theworld

(theyneverwere);theyalsodemandourattentionandinteractwithusbyaskingustodothings(see

“followusonTwitter”)andinvitingusintorelationships(realorimagined,instantordelayed)with

theauthorsofthetextandwiththepeopledepictedinthetext(seethesmilingcelebrityin“meetthe

experts”). And these communicative actions are accomplished with words, images, colours,

typefaces,layout,andsoon.

It would be wrong, of course, to suggest that multimodality is somehow a modern

phenomenonoradistinctivelynew‐mediaone.Eveninquitestraightforwardways,cavepaintings,

illuminatedmanuscriptsandVictorianpostcardswereclearlymultimodalaccomplishments.Indeed,

theriseinmultimodalstudies(ormultimodalanalysis)isunderstoodtobeaproductofsocalled

visual,spatialandmaterialturnsacrossthesocialsciencesandhumanities,whichthemselvesmay–

at least in part – be explained by larger intellectual paradigm shifts towards complexity and

interactivity,andtowardsdisorderandthemessystuffofeverydaylife(Jewitt2013).Multimodal

analysisisundoubtedlyaninterdisciplinarypursuit:closelyalliedwithworkbeingdoneinmedia

and cultural studies, as well as in pragmatics, sociolinguistics and discourse studies; it is also

necessarily informedby theworkof geographers, anthropologists and sociologists. Likemanyof

thesedisciplinary traditions,multimodal analysis attends to the culturalandpolitical contextsof

communicative action. Importantly,multimodal analyses look beyond the discursive ‘content’ of

imagesandothertextstoexaminethechoiceofmodeisitselfwhichisladenwithcommunicative,

epistemological and ideological significance. Each communicativemode expressesmeaning in its

owndistinctiveway.

Infact,akeyprincipleofmultimodalityisthatdifferentmodesare,well,modesintheirown

right.Colour,sound,space,touchareascommunicativelyrichand‘grammatically’sophisticatedas

speechorwriting.Theirapparentsimplicityorinsufficiencyisusuallyaproductofourownrestricted

understandingandlimiteddescriptivepowers.Colourcommunicatesinwaysthatwordsoften

3

4

cannot.Ourwords typically failuswhen it comes tomakingsenseof the tenmillioncoloursour

brainscantechnicallyperceive(JuddandWyszecki1975).Thereareonlysomanythingswecando

with ourwords, only somanywayswe canmake sense of other communicativemodes. This is

becausecolour, sound, spaceand touchaffordopportunitieswhichwordsdonot (Kressandvan

Leeuwen 1996). What is more, these other modes are capable of expressing representational

meanings,relationalmeaningsandcompositionalmeanings.Colourcan,forexample,depictour

worldviews(e.g.‘pinkisforgirls’),generateinterpersonalfeelings(e.g.bereavementorcelebration),

andstructure/coheretexts(e.g.foremphasisorconnection–seethepurplewordsabove).Noneof

thisistosaythatlanguageiswithouttremendousinfluenceandsemioticweight;itremainsoneof

ourmostdominant,institutionallyestablished,scientificallystudiedmeaning‐makingsystems,and

especiallyusefulforexpressingabstractnotionsordistantiatedexperiences.

Addressing the challenges of multimodal communication – as both a theory of

communicative action and as amethod for its analysis – has been central to thework of social

semioticians (cf. Aiello 2006 for a neat introduction). It is beyond the confines of this essay to

reproduceamoredetailedaccountoftheintellectualoriginsofsocialsemioticsandtodojusticeto

thearrayofacademictraditionsthatfeedcontemporaryresearchpractice(cf.Jewitt2013andother

publicationslistedinthefurther‐readingsectionofthischapter).Nonetheless,beforeturningtomy

‘luxurious’demonstration,Iwanttoofferseveralimportantgroundingsinsocialsemiotics,thefirst

ofwhich(medium,modeandmeaning)ispresentedasasnapshotonthenextpage.Together,these

groundingsofferpracticaldirectionsfororganizingasocialsemioticanalysis.

CommunicativeMeta‐Functions

Akeyfeatureofsemioticmodesistheircapacitytofullyandself‐sufficientlyservethethree

core (or ‘meta’) functions of all communicative action (Halliday 1978; Kress and van

Leeuwen1996),whichare:

ideationalorrepresentationalfunction–thecapacitytodepictorexpresscertain

discourses,storiesorclaimsabouttheworldatlarge;

interpersonal or interactional function – the capacity to generate emotional and

relationalconnectionsbetweenthereader,theauthor,andthepeople/characters

depictedinatext;

textualor compositional function– the capacity toorganizeandcohere texts, to

guidereadersbyprioritizingorhighlightingdifferenttypesofinformation.

Usefully, this three‐part theoretical framework points to some directions for analysing

multimodaldiscourse.Accordingly,wecanconsidernotonlytherepresentationalmeanings

(aka‘content’)conveyedby,forexample,aparticularchoiceofcolour,typefaceorsound,but

wecanalsoidentifyhowdifferentsemioticresourcesengagereaders/viewersemotionally

and relationally (e.g. challenging, amusing or persuading them), and the way semiotic

resourceshelptextstohangtogetherandworkasensembles.

5

mediummediaarethematerialresourcesusedinthe

productionofsemioticproductsandevents,

includingboththetoolsandthematerialsused./if

asemioticresourceisorganisedasamedium,it

hasonlya‘lexis’…

m o d e modesaresemioticresourceswhichallowthe

simultaneousrealisationofdiscoursesandtypesof

(inter)action./ifasemioticresourceisorganised

asamode,ithasbothagrammaranda‘lexis’…

meaning meaning…resultsfromhumanengagementwith

theworld,andtheresourcesweuseinarticulating

andinterpretingmeaningcomprisebothsemiotics

modesandsemioticmedia[2]

6

MethodologicalObjectives

In practical terms, social semiotics is committed to the following objectives, outlined by

a/theleadingscholarinthefield(vanLeeuwen2005,3):

inventories–collecting,documentingandcataloguingsemioticresources;

settings–investigatinghowtheseresourcesareusedandtalkedaboutinspecific

historical,culturalandinstitutionalcontexts;

applications–developingnewresourcesand/ornewusesofexistingresources.

Inmyownwork,theseactivitieshavedirectedmetothreeanalyticstepsformakingfuller

sense of any particular discursive practice: (1) description, which may entail loosely

quantitative procedures to account for the semiotic repertoires deployed in a text; (2)

interpretation,whichconsidershowmeaningpotentialsareconventionalizedandculturally

significant; and (3) critique, which seeks to connect singular often banal texts or

communicativeactionsto larger/widersocial‐politicalprocesses(seeThurlowandAiello

2007foramoredetailedaccountofthisapproach).

CriticalPerspectives

Uniting social semiotics, critical discourse studies and cultural studies is a shared

commitment to understanding “what kinds of identities, actions, and circumstances are

concealed,abstracted,orforegroundedinatext”(Machin2013,352).Theseinevitablyhave

ideological implications. Similarly, the recontextualization of words, genres and notions

fromonetextorpracticetoanothermeansthatsomemeaningsarelostandsomearegained;

all are inevitably reframed. These, too, are matters of ideology. With this in mind, and

followingMachin(2013),socialsemioticianstypicallyattendtothefollowingprocesses:

deletion–whatisexcludedfromarepresentationandhowcertainmodesconceal

(orreveal)informationbetterthanothers?

addition–whatalternativemeaningsdodifferentmodesaddtoatextandprivilege

somemeaningsoverothers?

substitution–howdodifferentmodeseffectivelyreplaceordominateothermodes

in a text? how do certainmodes call attention to themselves as the expense of

others?

evaluation–howdodifferentmodesexpressthegoals,valuesorprioritiesofthe

authors/creatorsofthetext,orofthepeoplerepresentedinthetexts?

Social semiotics, like most multimodal approaches, is committed, as both a critical ideal and a

methodologicalprinciple,tounderstandinghowmeaningmakingtakesplaceallovertheplace.And

notonlyinthehandsandmouthsofsociety’sratifiedspeakersandtextproducers,butalsothoseof

everyday communicators. Indeed,most people’s communicative practices are invariably agentful

andcreative;theyaredefinitelyalwayspurposeful(althoughnotalwaystransparent)andrelevant

tothesituationathand.Thisiswhysocialsemioticianseschewmeanings(e.g.‘redmeansanger’)in

favourofmeaningpotentials (i.e. redmaymeananger,passion,good fortune,danger,butseldom

7

meanscold).Withintheseculturallyrelativeandhistoricallyvariableconventions,thereisplentyof

room for polysemyand innovation. Likeprofessional communicators (e.g. designers, advertisers,

architects,artists),laycommunicatorscan(anddo)select,combineandreworkmodesandsemiotic

resources in even their most banal interactions and text‐makings. Having said which, our

communication choices andopportunities arenever completely free or equal; all communicative

action is shaped by cultural norms, values andwider political‐economies. For this reason, social

semioticiansfrequentlylocatetheiranalysesofcommunicativeactionsinrelationtosocialprocesses

ofinequality,privilege,accessandinstitutionalcontrol(Machin2013).Thisbringsusnicelytothe

case‐studyexampleofsocialsemioticsinaction.

2.ASocialSemioticsofLuxury(andElitistDiscourse)

Againstthisbriefoverviewofmultimodality/socialsemiotics,Iwanttoturntofourbanalobjects:a

pepperpot,anapkin,apackoftissues,andapairofpyjamas.[3]Thisstuffpresentsitselfasaneat

socialsemioticconundrum.Howarewetomakesenseoftheseobjectsascommunicativeactions,as

waysofrepresentingtheworld(orsayingsomethingaboutit),aswaysofinteractingwithusers,and

asbroadermeta‐communicativeortextualaccomplishments?Allfouroftheseobjectsfoundtheir

way intomy life – and ontomydesk – as part of a collaborative research programmeon elitist

discourse in thecontextof ‘high‐end’orsocalled luxury travel (e.g.Thurlowand Jaworski2006,

2010, 2012, 2014, forthcoming). Artefacts like the ones here helpme to understand how status,

prestigeanddistinctionareproducedthroughaconstellationofcommunicativeactions(i.e.different

genres,stylesanddiscourses)andalwaysasacombinationofsemioticmodesandresources.Thisis

aninherentlyinterdisciplinary,multimodalprojectdrawingonmulti‐sitedethnographicfieldwork,

discourseanalysesofadvertisingandotherprintmaterials,aswellastheinterpretationofahostof

visual,materialandspatialpractices. It is thiswhichbringsusalso toseeminglybanal,pointless

objectslikethepepperpot,napkin,tissuesandpyjamas.Incontrast,perhaps,totheusualliterary

pursuitsof intermedialityscholars, theseare thekindsofeveryday textsandpractices thatoften

occupysocialsemioticiansandmultimodalityscholars.

Tobeclear,theanalysiswhichfollowsisnotpresentedasadefinitiveornecessarilytypical

exampleofsocialsemiotics;thefieldisvastandvaried,andinevitablyshapedbydifferenttraditions

andscholarlystyles.Thecombinationofbiography,ethnographyandperformanceiscertainlymy

ownpreference–includingthedeliberateselectionofafirst‐person,auto‐ethnographicvoiceinthe

traditionofQueerscholarship(AdamsandJones2011).Nonetheless,whatthispottedanalysishas

incommonwithmostsocialsemioticanalysesisthefollowing:(a)thedescriptionandinventorying

ofothermodesandtheirparticularaffordances;(b)anattentiontotheinterplaybetweensemiotic

resources;(c)acriticalframingaroundquestionsofpolitical‐economyandideology.Importantly,my

analysis here also orients explicitly to the allied enterprises of semiotic landscapes research (cf.

Jaworski andThurlow2010) and languagemateriality (cf. Shalini andCavanaugh2012), both of

which are pushing language and communication scholars to think in more comprehensively

multimodal ways. One of the most significant moves that social semiotics makes, as part of its

commitmenttomultimodality,istoliftanalysesoffthepage,shiftingfromattentionfromabstracted,

8

disembeddedprinttexts/imagestothesituated,emplaced,embodiedactionsofthesetexts/images

(theirproductionandconsumption). Inotherwords, turning froma two‐dimensional toa three‐

dimensionalperspective.Indeed,withindiscoursestudies,theconventionalnotionoftextisoften

expanded(ifnotexploded)beyondtheword‐dominantgenresofwritingorspeech.Thus,‘textuality’

combinesandplayswiththerepresentationalaffordancesoflanguageaswellasthemultisensory

possibilitiesoftexture(sic),affectandothernon‐representational(cf.Thrift2007)or,atleast,more‐

than‐representationalexperiences.

Inthisregard,andasanintermediatesteptowardsthefourobjectsintroducedabove,Iwant

toconnecttheLuxuryTravelFairwebsiteasanideal,contemporary2‐Dtexttoanactual,3‐Dsite:

theBurjalArabhotelinDubaiwhichstylesitself“theworld’smostluxurioushotel”.[4]Thishotelis

alsoaperfectmetonymicexampleoftheworldpromotedbytheLuxuryTravelFair.Inparticular,I

wanttodemonstratehowtherhetoricsofthewebsiteactually‘takeplace’andaremademanifestin

practice. To properly understand the orders of discourse (i.e. a “network of social practices”, cf.

Fairclough2003,24)bywhichsuper‐elitemobilityisorganizedandrealized,oneisforcedtoengage

afarmoreextensive,elaboratesemioticfield.Here,forexample,ishowthelanguageoftheLuxury

TravelFairistakenup(notasimplycausalorsequentialrelation)inthedepictionofasingle‘room’

ontheBurjalArab’sownwebsite:

DELUXETWO‐BEDROOMSUITE

Welcometothedecadent335squaremetretwobedroomDeluxeSuite.Perfectforfamilyand

friends,thisheavenlysuitespanstwoimpeccablelevelsandfeaturesmagnificentviewsofthe

ArabianGulfthroughout.Thisspaceincludestwolounges,twoexquisitebedroomsoverlooking

thesea,aprivatediningroom,twomasterbathrooms,aprivatebarandabutler’skitchen.

This is the kind of hyperbolic linguistic flourish we quickly recognize as typical of advertising

discourse: ‘deluxe’, ‘decadent’, ‘heavenly’, ‘impeccable’ and ‘magnificent’but it isalsoa lexiconof

excess,superiorityandother‐worldlinessespeciallytypicalof luxuryadvertising(cf.Thurlowand

Jaworski 2006, 2010). The semioticization – the verbal rendition – of space deserves special

attention.Luxuryandelitestatusarepredicatedonarelentlessperformanceofspace(thisis,after

all,notaroombuta‘suite’)–havinglotsofitandhavingexclusive,‘private’unhinderedaccesstoit.

And the staging of spaciousness depends on a range of multimodal techniques and semiotic

resources,startingwiththerhetoricalspecificityofquantification(‘335squaremetres’)andscale

(‘levels’and‘views’).Importantly,however,theserhetoricsarefulfilledintangible,embodiedand

materialways.Indeed,spaceitself–notonlythetalkofspace–isanothersemioticresourceforthe

performanceofelitestatusanddistinction.Takealookatthemontageonp.9drawnfromourown

fieldwork (cf. Thurlowand Jaworski 2012 formorebackgroundabout this research). This is the

‘deluxetwo‐bedroomsuite’wheretheproductionofspaceispatentlyspectacular,excessiveandfully

multimodal:chandeliers,classicalcolumns,floor‐to‐ceilingwindows,canopiedbeds,andsoon.Also

noticethesweeping,ornate(i.e.attention‐seeking)staircase,thedomedceilingmuralofastarrysky,

theromanticwrap‐aroundlandscapepaintinginthe(one‐of‐two)bathrooms,andthebedoriented

tothewindowsandtheendless,emptyskiesbeyond.Indeed,theultimatevisual‐material

9

10

performanceofsuper‐elitespaceisitsvacuousness:ostensiblystagedforoccupancy(fourbarstools,

multiplelivingrooms,granddiningtables),butpurposefullydesignedtobeunderutilized(likethe

elevator–notshown).Aswehaveremarkedbefore,theexcessive,expansivespacesofluxuryhave

spacestospare(Thurlowand Jaworski2012).Space isan indispensablesemioticresource in the

performanceandperformativerealizationofsuper‐elitestatus,aspowerful–perhapsmoreso–than

any words or images. It is a resource I have myself deliberately toyed with on p.5. And these

discursive practices circulate far beyond the literal spaces of luxury travel. Space, as both

rhetoric/salespitchandasstructural/materialreality,hasbecomeoneofthedefiningstratifiersof

ourtime:“Todaymorethanever,”saysHenriLefebvre,“classstruggleisinscribedinspace”(1991

[1974],55),althoughhemightnothaveforeseentheextentorminutedetailtowhichthisisplaying

outtoday.Onthisnote,Iturnnowtomypyjamasasthefirstofthefourobjects,eachframedasa

multimodalvignette.

Vignette1:Pyjamas

Notalonewithfurnishingfirst‐classcustomerswithpyjamas,thenow‐defunct‘all‐business‐

class’airlineeoshadapairlikethese,tiedtogetherwitharibbon,readyforeachpassenger

(aka‘guest’).Medium,largeorextra‐large?Withitsslightlyobscureclassicalallusion,the

name eos appears as a machine‐stitched ‘embroidered’ monogram, resonating with a

similarlyold‐fashioned,regalstatusmarker.Thepyjamas,asurprisinglyestablishedtactic

forperforming ‘first‐class’,areneatexamplesof syntheticpersonalizationwherebymass

(howevereliteandrelativelyfew)consumersareseeminglytreated‘personally’asunique

individualsworthyofspecialattentionandintimatecare(cf.Fairclough1995).Needlessto

say,thedecadentfrissonandintimatepromiseofthesepyjamasdidnotmaterializeintheir

embodiedexecution.Likeeveryoneelse,Iassume,Icontortedmyselfinelegantlyand,had

thedoorflungopen,compromisinglyinthebody‐huggingspaceoftheon‐boardtoilet.Such

wasmynaïvedeterminationtofulfilthepromiseofbeingstyledelite,Iperseveredandthen

emergedintothesoftlylitcabin.Inmypyjamas!Isleptnobetter,theplanearrivednoearlier,

11

buttherubofsoft,semi‐syntheticclothagainstmyskinreassuredmeofmycosy,privileged

passage.

Vignette2:PepperPot

The excess of the pyjamas is played out in smaller ways, too. Here we have another

performanceofplentypredicatedonwaste(ratherthansustainability).Indeed,Ihaveyetto

readastudywhichassessestheenvironmentalimpactofluxury.Thislittlepepperpotwas

lifted from an elaborately staged ‘business‐class’ dinner tray (also, I hasten to add, a

fieldworksiteliketheeostrip).Insomeways,thistrinketisthequintessentialmultimodal

luxury text: the white ceramic itself, the golden calligraphy of the Emirates logo, the

delicately painted (more likely printed) flourishes around the pot, and the inherent

disposabilityand,thus,extravaganceofitall. It isnotthepracticalutilityoftheseobjects

whichcounts,ofcourse,butrathertheirexpressivefunction,theirnarrationintotheoverall

stagingofluxuryandstatus(cf.ThurlowandJaworski2006).NoramIaloneindrawingoff

asymbolicresonancefromthesebanalobjects.“Saltandpeppershakersalwaysaddatouch

of class to ameal.” So says one reviewer forAustralianBusinessTraveller.[5] People do

notice,peopledocare.Thesemioticgameswork.And,inthiscommentary,wefindevidence

also for the ways semiotic practices are constantly recontextaulized (i.e. lifted up and

circulatedelsewhere)andresemioticized,withmaterialresourcestransformed(back)into

linguisticonestogetherwithnew/differentmeaningpotentials.

Vignette3:Napkin

Muchofwhat takesplaceacross the luxury landscapesof super‐elite travel is trivialand

fleeting.Whatmarksthingsasluxuriousoreliteis,needlesstosay,itspackaging–literaland

figurative. Inotherwords, inexpensive tat ismademagical throughakindofmultimodal

alchemy. One ofmymost recent, non‐fieldwork acquisitions comes from an unexpected

upgradetobusiness‐classwhereIwasservedlunchalongwiththisprimeexampleofthe

12

primacyofdesignoversubstance.Contrastedwiththepapernapkinsineconomyclass,this

littleoneclaimsitsprestigethroughitscloth‐ness,itslinen‐ness–avisual‐materialresource

formarkingdistinction,authenticity,qualityandtradition.Stylingitself(and,therebythe

serviceandairline)asfancy,thisobjectworksitsmagiconmetoo:forjustamoment,Iam

persuadedofitsauthenticityandallowmyselftobehailedasfancytoo.Andthen,oncloser

inspection(suchistheself‐justifyingcuriosityandself‐satisfyingcynicismofthescholar),I

noticethatitisnotlinenatall:Thedrawn‐threadworkisactuallyaseriesofprintedgrey

dots.Thewhole thing is an artful simulationof linenand, thus, aperfect exampleof the

aestheticization(Featherstone1991)ofnaturalmaterials.Asemiotic,multimodalruse.

Vignette4:Tissues

Andnow,afarlesssubtleinstanceofaestheticizationatwork,onewhichaddsanothertwist

to the multimodal alchemy. Super‐elite landscapes are awash with words appealing to

prestige, superiority, exclusivity and distinction. The Luxury Travel Fair, for example,

13

promotesitselitistvisionofluxurybymeansof“bespoke”,“boutique”,“tailor‐made”,“hand‐

picked”, “definitive”, “finest”, “unique”, “first‐class”, “concierge”, “discerning”, “exclusive”

and“style”.Allthat,onjustthehomepage;aquintessentialdiscursiveproduction,rendering

putativelymaterial,physicalexperiencessemioticandexotic.Butwordsarenotmerelyor

simply symbolic; they are also materializing agents. Indeed, word‐things like ‘elite’ and

‘privilege’circulatefarbeyondofconfinesofsuper‐elitestatus/spaces–floatingsignifiers

which, when tied down and emplaced, performatively declare someone, something or

somewheresuperior,distinctiveand/orexclusive(cf.ThurlowandJaworskiforthcoming),

like thepacketof tissueshere. (Ialsohaveexamplesofplumbingcompanies,nailsalons,

packetsofcoffeeandjarsofpickles.)Inthiscase,elitistmeaningpotentialsareexpressed

notonlyintheword,butthroughthe‘calligraphic’italicizationoftheword,andthroughthe

appearance of elevated or embossed lettering (i.e. the shaded edges).Whatwewitness,

therefore,aresemioticactionstakingplaceinmobilespaces(e.g.onaeroplanes),butalso

semiotic tokens themselves on themove: genres, discourses, styles, singlewords. In the

process, elite status is normalized acrossmore far‐reaching terrains and for ever‐wider

demographics.

No social semiotic analysis is complete without its critical‐with‐a‐capital‐C denouement. In this

regard,Iwanttoendbyofferingtothreelooselysketchedobservationsorinterpretations,whichI

draw from some of our existing statements about the luxury landscapes of super‐elite mobility

(specifically,cf.ThurlowandJaworski2014,forthcoming).WhatIhopetohaveillustratedishowthe

rhetoricsofelitestatus–likethediscoursesofluxury–arenowadaysubiquitousandexpressedin

themostfastidiousways.Theyarealsofullymultimodaland,Ibelieve,strategicallyso.Allofwhich

speaksofawiderpolitical‐economyandadeeperculturalpolitics.Itispreciselyintheirordinariness,

smallnessandbanality–asmuchastheirubiquity–thatthefourrandomobjectsaboveaccruetheir

realideologicalforce.

What has been presented here is on‐the‐ground, empirical evidence of a discursive

formation(intheFoucauldiansense)atworkacrossmultiplesites,institutions,genres,modesand

resources. My four objects are throw‐away manifestations of a much bigger story about the

reordering of contemporary class structures. These are the kinds of micro‐level (nano‐level?)

enactmentsofapost‐classideologywhichnormalizesandrationalizeselitestatus(e.g.throughthe

wide‐spread use of the word ‘elite’) and which propagates a sense of privilege as somehow

domesticated and democratised. All these back‐dropped visions (luxury wall‐paper) and banal

materializationsnormalizetheverynotionofluxuryitself.Wemustallofusbeconstantlytaughtto

recognizeluxury–toknowwhatitlookslike–butwemustalsobetaughttodesireitinthefirst

place.Andjustastherhetoricsofluxuryslideeasilyacrossspaces,thesensuousstuffofstatusgets

quicklyunderourskin.Regardlessofourpowerorwealth.

Alongtheselines,andinkeepingwiththespiritofsocialsemiotics,Imustdeclaresomething

ofmyownpositionality.Inaresponsepaperforaneditedcollectiononelitemobility,AndrewSayer

(2014)offersaprettyemphatic,hard‐hittingcritiqueofscholarsworkinginthefieldofelitestudies

14

whosimplyappeartocelebrateratherthanproperlycritiquetheprivilegedworldsofwhichthey

write.Oneway,Ibelieve,toretainacriticaledgeistoremainself‐critical,neverlosingsightofmy

owncomplicityinitall–torecognizethatpowerandprivilegeareneverneatlybounded,out‐there

phenomena.Indoingmyownresearchonsuper‐elitemobilties,Ihavealwaysknownthatwhatreally

interestedmewastryingtounderstandmycomplicit(andoftenquiteexplicit)role.Itwas,afterall,

mewhocollectedtheobjectsofmyanalysishere;itwasmewhogottobeinsidea335‐square‐metre

‘suite’attheBurjalArab(fieldworkornot),andmewhosecuredanupgradeoffthebackofmyown

frequent flying. We are all of us targets for aspirational luxury marketing and we are all of us

positionedbyelitistdiscourses.Theyarehardtoresist;theyarecertainlyimpossibletoavoid.

Luxury landscapes are awash with stuff – aural, visual, spatial, material and otherwise.

Indeed,averyfineline–ifany–istobedrawnbetweenthevisualandtheverbal,thesymbolicand

theiconic,thematerialandtheimmaterial,thefunctionalandtheaesthetic.Andthedesignersand

architectsofsuper‐eliteluxurylandscapesarenotjustaestheticians–technicalwizardsatmaking

banalstuffappearexceptional,makingcraplookfabulous;theyarealsosynaestheticians,appealing

constantly,strategicallyandexpertlytowhatGuntherKress(1997)seesasourinnatepotentialfor

shiftingbetweenandreadingacrossdifferentsemioticmodes.Tohearcolours,toseesoundsandto

tastewords.Experiencing,forexample,languageasstuff,spaceassound,orbodiesasimages–and

generatingnew/different socialmeanings out of these transmodal combinations.Herein, lies the

deep appeal and ideological effectiveness of super‐elite/luxury discourse: they appeal to, toggle

between and apparently collapsemodalitieswhichwe scholars otherwise dogmatically insist on

keepingapart.Assuch,itbecomesimpossiblesometimestoknowwherethingsbeginandend.

3Bibliography

3.1WorksCited

Adams, Tony E. and Stacy Holman Jones. ‘Telling Stories: Reflexivity, Queer Theory, and

Autoethnography.’CulturalStudies<=>CriticalMethodologies11.2(2011):108–116.

Aiello,Giorgia.‘TheoreticalAdvancesinCriticalVisualAnalysis:Perception,Ideology,Mythologies,

andSocialSemiotics.’JournalofVisualLiteracy26.2(2006):89–102.

Fairclough,Norman.AnalysingDiscourse:TextualAnalysis forSocialResearch. London:Routledge,

2003.

Featherstone,Michael.ConsumerCultureandPostmodernism.London:Sage,1991.

Halliday, Michael A. K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and

Meaning.Maryland.UniversityParkPress,1978.

Jaworski, Adam, and Crispin Thurlow. ‘Introducing Semiotic Landscapes.’ Semiotic Landscapes:

Language,Image,Space.Ed.AdamJaworskiandCrispinThurlow.London:Continuum,2010.

1–40

Jewitt,Carey,ed.TheRoutledgeHandbookofMultimodalAnalysis[2nded.].London:Routledge,2013.

Judd,DeaneB.,andGünterWyszecki.ColorinBusiness,ScienceandIndustry.WileySeriesinPureand

AppliedOptics(3rded.).NewYork:Wiley‐Interscience,1975.

15

Kress, Gunther.Multimodality:A Social SemioticApproach toContemporaryCommunication. New

York:Routledge,2010.

Kress,Gunther.BeforeWriting:RethinkingPathstoLiteracy.London:Routledge,1997.

Kress, Gunther, andTheo vanLeeuwen.Reading Images:TheGrammarofVisualDesign. London:

Routledge,1996.

Kress,Gunther,andTheovanLeeuwen.MultimodalDiscourse:TheModesandMediaofContemporary

Communication.London:Arnold,2001.

Labov,William.LanguageintheInnerCity.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1972.

Lefebvre,Henri.TheProductionofSpace.Oxford:BasilBlackwell,1991[1974].

Machin,David.‘WhatIsMultimodalCriticalDiscourseStudies?’CriticalDiscourseStudies10.4(2013):

347–355.

Norris,Sigrid,andRodneyJones,eds.DiscourseinAction:IntroducingMediatedDiscourseAnalysis.

NewYork:Taylor&Francis,2005.

Sayer,Andrew.‘Postscript:EliteMobilitiesandCritique.’EliteMobilities.Ed.ThomasBirtchnelland

JavierCaletrío.London:Routledge,2013.251–262.

Shankar, Shalini, and Jillian Cavanaugh. ‘Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism.’ Annual

ReviewofAnthropology41(2012):355–369.

Thrift,Nigel.Non‐representationalTheory:Space,Politics,Affect.London:Routledge,2007.

Thurlow,Crispin, andGiorgiaAiello. ‘NationalPride,GlobalCapital:ASocialSemioticAnalysisof

TransnationalVisualBranding in theAirline Industry.’VisualCommunication 6.3 (2007):

305–344.

Thurlow,Crispin,andAdamJaworski.‘TheAlchemyoftheupwardlyMobile:SymbolicCapitaland

the Stylization of Elites in Frequent‐flyer Programmes.’Discourse& Society 17.1 (2006):

131–167.

Thurlow,Crispin,andAdamJaworski. ‘Silence IsGolden:Linguascaping,Anti‐communicationand

Social Exclusion in Luxury Tourism Representations.’ Semiotic Landscapes: Image, Text,

Space.Ed.AdamJaworskiandCrispinThurlow.London:Continuum,2010.187–218.

Thurlow,Crispin,andAdamJaworski. ‘Visible‐Invisible:TheSocialSemioticsofLabour inLuxury

Tourism.’EliteMobilities. Ed. Thomas Birtchnell and Javier Caletrío. London: Routledge,

2014.176–193.

Thurlow, Crispin, and Adam Jaworski. ‘Elite Mobilities: The Semiotic Landscapes of Luxury and

Privilege.’SocialSemiotics22.5(2012):487–516.

Thurlow,Crispin,andAdamJaworksi.‘Word‐thingsandSpace‐sounds:TheSynaestheticRhetorics

ofLuxury.’LanguageandMateriality:EthnographicalandTheoreticalExplorations.Ed.Jillian

R.CavanaughandShaliniShankar.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,forthcoming.

VanLeeuwen,Theo.IntroducingSocialSemiotics.London:Routledge,2005.

3.2FurtherReading

Jaworski,Adam,andCrispinThurlow,eds.SemioticLandscapes:Language, Image,Space. London:

Continuum,2010.

16

Jewitt,Carey,ed.TheRoutledgeHandbookofMultimodalAnalysis[2nded.].London:Routledge,2013.

Machin,David.IntroductiontoMultimodalAnalysis.London:Bloomsbury,2007.

Scollon, Ron and SuzieW. Scollon.Discourses inPlace: Language in theMaterialWorld. London:

Routledge,2003.

SocialSemiotics(Routledge)

VanLeeuwen,Theo.IntroducingSocialSemiotics.London:Routledge,2005.

VisualCommunication(Sage)

Endnotes

1. Aworking definition ofmode is offered by Gunther Kress (2010, 79) as a “socially and

culturally shaped resource for making meaning. Image, writing, layout, speech, moving

imagesareexamplesofdifferentmodes.”

2. These definitions for ‘medium’, ‘mode’ and ‘meaning’ are drawn from Kress and van

Leeuwen(2001,21,22,68).

3. Myfourartefactscome,respectively,fromArgentina(thetissues),thenow‐defunctBritish

airlineeos(pajamas),andthebusiness‐classservicesoftheUAE’sEmiratesairline(pepper

pot)andtheSpanishairlineIberia(napkin).

4. TheBurjalArab’smost‐luxurious‐hotel‐in‐the‐worldclaimisprominentlydisplayedonits

websiteathttp://www.jumeirah.com/en/hotels‐resorts/dubai/burj‐al‐arab/

5. Thisandoneotherrandomlyselectedinstanceofcommentaryaretobefoundonlinehere:

http://www.ausbt.com.au/garuda‐indonesia‐business‐class‐fully‐flat‐bed‐superb‐service

http://www.navjot‐singh.com/airline‐pr/emirates‐airline‐bangkok‐to‐dubai‐business‐

class‐on‐the‐boeing‐777‐300