Sex and the Semiotics?

She embodies all that is woman-beauty, brains, class, and not to mention the $400 pair of Manolo Blahniks. She is the epitome of perfection. She is sophistication and charm, yet innocence all at once. Who is this mystery woman I speak of? None other than the eternally fabulous Manhattanite, Carrie Bradshaw.



When we think ‘Carrie Bradshaw’, we instinctively have an image triggered in our minds: flawless, timeless, FABULOUS. Although a fictional character, Bradshaw unmistakably embodies very desirable and enviable traits, however realistic and attainable they may be. Not only does she have the fabulous job, she has the fabulous apartment, the fabulous friends, the fabulous wardrobe, all of which essentially construct the fabulous life. Not only does she possess qualities that are undeniably desirable, she herself is desired by men. Throughout time, she’s dated the insecure novelist, the affluent and successful Russian artist, the handsome nice guy, and most notably, “Big”, the sexy, successful, brooding businessman, with whom Carrie has had an extensive on and off relationship.
However fictional the character may be, rest assured there are many Carrie Bradshaw hopefuls. Yes, to a certain extent, we’d all like to attain the perfect ‘Barbie and Ken’ lifestyle, but why? Are we so incredibly dissatisfied and unhappy with our own lives that we resort to measuring our lives against a fictional character’s? Jonathan Culler in “The Linguistic Foundation” responds best by saying, “the cultural meaning of any particular act or object is determined by a whole system of constitutive rules; rules which do not regulate behavior so much as create the possibility of particular forms of behavior” (56). We see Bradshaw as an icon who must be idolized and eventually reproduced and imitated. She is no longer a person, but rather a representation; a symbol, upon which others construct themselves. Our culture (from above) dictates that one must act a certain way, dress a certain way, listen to a certain genre of music, etc. Only the privileged, however, are lucky enough to be socially and culturally oppressed in this manner. Those who are not as privileged, or merely choose to deviate from this culturally accepted behavior, are consequently shunned and looked down upon.
In contrast to the all-American, girly girl, we can consider Bradshaw’s binary in opposition to be Juno MacGuff, the accidentally impregnated 16 year-old from a small town in Minnesota. Far from fabulous, Juno represents the complete foil of Bradshaw. Juno is tomboyish, vulgar, outspoken and anything but ladylike. Her fashion sense is incomparable to that of Bradshaw’s, and in general, Juno hardly matches up to the symbols we identify with Bradshaw. Once we are able to mentally capture an image of Bradshaw and what she epitomizes, no longer is she the successful columnist with impeccable fashion sense. She is now a representation; a symbol.

"The Son of Man"

In Rene Magritte's "The Son of Man" an image of a well-dressed man is depicted. The man, most likely middle-aged, is shown wearing a dark suit, a white collared shirt, a red tie, and a bowler hat. A green apple still attached to its stem conceals most of his face, with part of his right eye and most of his left peeking from underneath. His arms lay firmly against his body with his fists tightly clenched. The man stands before a low concrete block wall, with his back toward the blue sea and the cloudy sky.

Clearly, at first glance Rene Magritte's "The Son of Man" suggests a sense of simplicity and unequivocalness. Unquestionably, however, there exist many underlying themes within the surrealist's painting.

“The Great State of Vermont Will Not Apologize for its Cheese”...

…I think it’s safe to consider the above quote as one of the most profound lines in the satire film “Thank You for Smoking”. Nick Naylor, played by Aaron Eckhart, is the Vice President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies, whose primary goal is to investigate the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. The Academy initially claims that no such correlation exists and thus begin to lobby in favor of cigarette smoking.

In the scene below, Naylor argues before the Senate against the addition of a warning image of a skull and crossbones to cigarette packaging.

Clip One (forward to 8:40)


Clip Two (end at 3:33)




In the above clips, Naylor confirms his title as Vice President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies, and is hence seen as a credible and reliable representative. The audience is then led to believe that Naylor holds authority over this issue, and is thus seen as an expert (ethos). However, once it is revealed that the Academy receives a large portion of its funding from “conglomerated tobacco”, also known as “the cigarette companies”, much of Naylor’s credibility and trust has been misplaced. However, he is later able to redeem himself as he argues that modifying the packaging is completely unnecessary because the general public is and has been well aware of the effects of cigarette smoking. By arguing this point as common logic, Naylor is able to appeal to the audience through the means of logos. Furthermore, Naylor goes on to prove that adding the warning is only as logical as adding one to airplanes, automobiles, and even Vermont cheese.
Further in the scene, Naylor is asked about his own son and whether he would condone him smoking. At this point, there is clearly a sense of emotional tension in the scene. By incorporating family values, the appeal to pathos is inevitable. Naylor is able to conjure up and arouse compelling emotions in his audience. They become more connected with him as they are able to relate to him on a more personal and individual level. As a question of personal values is brought into play, the audience is now able to connect, sympathize, and identify with Naylor as they share some commonalities.
The above scene is undoubtedly an exemplary example of the sheer power and influence of rhetoric. By appealing to all three Aristotelian devices- Logos, Pathos and Ethos- not only is Naylor able to secure his title as an authority figure on the issue at hand, he is able to support his claim with reasonable logic while at the same time evoking strong emotions in his audience.

Works Cited

Adrees2008. “Thank You for Smoking 8-10”. YouTube. 30 May 2008.
Adrees2008. “Thank You for Smoking 9-10”. YouTube. 30 May 2008.