The Play of Codes and Systems in Pygmalion: Bernard Shaw and Roland Barthes

Hossein Pirnajmuddin, Fatemeh Shahpoori Arani

Abstract


In Pygmalion, George Bernard Shaw deals with the social function of language (linguistic competence) as one of the markers of social status and as a source of social power. Pygmalion’s plot revolves around the linguistic idea of the critical period hypothesis. The linguist in the play bets that the phonetician cannot change the flower girl into a lady by teaching her a genteel language. The phonetician intends to flaunt his power and skill in fashioning a new ‘self’ for the florist girl through linguistic retraining, even though her ’critical period’ is over. Though this acculturation leads to a crisis of personality for the girl, Shaw’s play goes against the hypothesis of ‘critical period’ by showing the possibility of the language retraining of a grown-up girl. Drawing on the theories of Roland Barthes, this article examines the relation between education and the issues of social mobility and cultural codes in the class-conscious society of Pygmalion. Pygmalion could be read as indicating that culture does not come by nature and it is made of codes, which can be taught and learned. Shaw suggests that it is possible to educate lower class people in upper class cultural codes. Moreover, he demonstrates that culture is time-bound and the boundaries between lower and upper class cultural codes were fading at the time so that it was difficult to distinguish a real upper class agent from a fake one.

Keywords: George Bernard Shaw, Pygmalion, Roland Barthes, codes, system of fashion.

Full Text:

PDF

References


References

Barnett, LA & Allen, MP. (2000). Social Class, Cultural Repertoires, and Popular Culture:

The Case of Film. Sociological Forum.Vol. 15. No.1, 145-163.

Retrieved April 14, 2009 from .

Barthes, R. (1968). Elements of Semiology. Trans. Annette Lavers and Colin Smith. New York: Hill and Wang. .

________.(2000). The Death of the Author. In David Lodge and Nigel Wood (Eds). Modern Criticism and Theory. 2nd ed. (pp 145 - 172). Essex: Longman.

_______. Myth Today. In Mythology. Trans. Annette Lavers. (pp 109-159). New York: Hill

and Wang, n.d. Retrieved June 14, 2009 from

l7ws/8qbjrd2DJZ.7z>.

Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The Basics. 2nd ed. London: Routlege.

Culler, J. Barthes: A Very Short Introduction. n.p: Oxford UP. n.d. Retrieved April 14, 2010 from .

De Man, P. (1990). Roland Barthes and the Limits of Structuralism. Yale French Studies.Vol. 7, 177-190.

Fiske, J. (1998). Television Culture. In Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan (Eds.). Literary

Theory: An Anthology (pp 1087-1098). Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Gassner, J. (1970). Bernard Shaw and the Making of the Modern Mind. In Warren Sylvester Smith (Ed.). Bernard Shaw’s Plays (pp 291-302). New York and London: W. W.

Norton & Company.

Gottdiener, M. (1995). Postmodern Semiotics: Material Culture and the Forms of

Postmodern Life. Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Habib, M. A. R. (2005). A History of Literary Criticism: From Plato to the Present. Oxford: Blackwell. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from

.

Hawkes, T. (2003). Structuralism and Semiotics. 2nd ed. London and New York:

Routledge. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from.

Messenger, C. (2002). The Godfather and American Culture: How the Corleones

Became “Our Gang”. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Shaw, G. B. (1953). Pygmalion. Four Plays by Bernard Shaw ( pp 213-320) n.p: Randon House.

Sternlicht, S. V. (1998). A Reader's Guide to Modern Irish Drama. New York: Syracuse UP.

Trifonas, P. P. (2001). ed. Barthes and the Empire of Signs. Cambridge: Icon Books.

Retrieved April 14, 2011 from .


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2247

ISSN : 0128-5157