People Perception of the ‘Poor’ and ‘Rich’: Its Meaning (An Analysis Using Semiotics)
March 20, 2008
(An Analysis Using Semiotics)
by Sergei C. Reyes
COMA101
Prof. Antonino Salvador S. de Veyra
March 27, 2008
***********************************************************
In a movie, the characters, or the ‘antagonists’ of the story, described someone as ‘poor’ because she had no ‘breeding’, pertaining to her behavior. In a shampoo commercial, the characters perceived a woman as ‘rich’ because of her long and silky hair. In a situation observed by the proponent, two friends were talking about people who were passing by, and two of the notable descriptions they said were ‘poor’ and ‘rich’, which they based mainly on behavior and demographic features, which became the distinguishing factors for the said descriptions.
This paper seeks to know how people interpret signs to distinguish poor and rich individuals. Further, it tries to find out the meaning of this act through the use of Semiotics, a theory by Roland Barthes. In addition, the proponent would like to know where their perceptions or impressions might have come from in order to understand the meaning of the act. Moreover, the proponent would also like to show what goes in the Perception Process.
Joseph DeVito (1992) defines perception as “the process by which you become aware of objects, events, and especially, people through your senses… Your perceptions result from what exists in the outside world and from your own experiences, desires, needs and wants, loves and hatreds.” (p.108)
To study the communication act more intently, the proponent found a need to know if the situation he first observed was the same in the setting that would be more convenient for him: the University of the Philippines Mindanao (UPMin), where the proponent is currently enrolled. To begin, he first conducted a survey, where random sampling was employed selecting thirty (30) random UPMin students, and then, followed by an interview to five (5) UPMin students.
In the first situation observed by the proponent, the People Perceptions were made based on first glance, meaning the people they saw had no connection whatsoever with them and they had no knowledge of the people they had seen pass by, except the way these people behave and look.
Through the survey, the proponent found out that twenty-nine students (29) out of the thirty (30) usually base their perceptions of a person (pertaining to whether the individual is poor or rich) at first glance. Further, majority base their perceptions on both the demographic features and behavior of a person (13 out of 30), but eleven (11) base their judgments only on the demographic features of a person, and the remaining six (6) on the behavior of a person.
After finding out that the two situations were alike, the proponent then conducted an interview to five (5) UPMin students. The interview aimed to ask the interviewees whether they think the person passing by was poor or rich. Also, the interviewees belonged to classes below the rich class (pertaining to social hierarchy). During the course of the interview, there were only two persons who passed by.
One was tagged ‘rich’ by most (3 out of 5) mainly for the clothes she wore, which they said were ‘branded’. Other than this observation, they cited her cellular phone unit that was one of the top models today, her fair and flawless complexion, and her hair, which was long, silky, and straight.
On the other hand, the second person that passed by was tagged by most (3 out of 5) as ‘poor’ because of the clothes she wore that looked like an item from the ‘Ukay-Ukay’. Other than this, they observed that she had untidy hair, blemished skin, and was ‘not neat’.
These observations were just on the demographic features, but others derived their perceptions from the behavior. Specifically, two (2) out of five (5) interviewees tagged the first person as ‘rich’ because she spoke in English. While the other one was tagged ‘poor’ by two (2) out of five (5) interviewees because she shouted a lot and laughed hard.
Having these data, the proponent divided the situation into scenes, as follows, to be able to know what went in the Perception Process (as cited by Kassin, 1998):
|
Scene 1: |
Scene 2: | Scene 3: |
| The five people, who were friends, were talking to each other and saw two people passing by. | Most said the person was rich because of the clothes she was wearing, she owned a top-of-the-line cellular phone unit, she had fair and flawless complexion, and had a long, silky, and straight hair; while others said because she was speaking in English. They all said she was ‘rich’. | Another person passed by and most tagged her poor because of the clothes she was wearing, she had blemished skin, untidy hair, and she was not neat; while others said because she shouted a lot and laughed hard. They all said she was ‘poor’. |
How were the perceptions made? Perception occurs in three stages: the senses picking up stimulation, the person organizing the stimuli, and the interpretation and evaluation of the person on what he or she perceived.
So basically, the descriptions given to the ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ persons were the stimuli picked up by the senses of the friends, or persons-in-conversation.
In the second stage, where these stimuli were organized, the persons-in-conversation applied the Principle of Resemblance (as cited by DeVito, 1992) wherein they have grouped the persons observed according to existing perceptions. For example they group those who are well dressed and have top-of-the-line cellular phones into one category, and if another person were dissimilar to this category, the person is then distinguished as different. Moreover, it can be understood through the Implicit Personality Theory, which everybody seem to have, wherein “each has a subconscious or implicit system of rules that says which characteristics of an individual go with other characteristics.” (DeVito, 1992)
The last stage is inevitably subjective because the interpretations and evaluations of people are generally based on their experiences, needs, wants, values, beliefs, expectations, and etcetera. And their interpretation-evaluation of what they have seen is: perceiving one as ‘rich’, and the other as ‘poor’.
The Perception Process was clear. The distinguishing factors helped a lot in describing one as ‘poor’ or ‘rich’, but what is the significance of these factors when the communication act is subjected to the theory on Semiotics?
The focus would probably be on the second and the third stage of the Perception Process, since the goal of Semiotics or Semiology is to interpret signs, which are usually anything that stands for something else. (Griffin, 2006)
What consist a sign? The combination of the Signifier and Signified compose the sign. (Griffin, 2006) The Signifier(s) is/are usually the letters and sounds that make up the sign, while the Signified(s) is/are the object(s) perceived in the mind. Additionally, the Signified is the concept associated to sound images, which are formed by the Signifier(s).
In this case, the Sign, Signifier, and Signified of the communication act are the following:
|
Signifier: |
Signified: | Sign: |
| P-O-O-R & R-I-C-H | The perception, which they based on the behavior and the demographic features of the persons who passed by. | One person is ‘rich’ and the other is ‘poor’. |
Because the proponent asked the interviewees “Is that person poor or rich?” the words ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ became the signifier, which then triggered their perceptions of what a person of that description look like. In turn, these images formed in their minds became the signified, and almost instantaneously, they were able to interpret the sign or the person as ‘poor’ or ‘rich’, which they based on the behavior and demographic features they saw at first glance. All these happened in the second and third stage of the Perception Process, wherein the stimuli were organized and then evaluated/interpreted.
But the third stage seems more applicable to what the sign means, which is the concern of Semiotics. The sign seems to carry a Mythological Meaning: that the image represents ‘wealth’. Obviously, the wealthier, or the ‘rich’, has more money; thus, probably have more to boast, compared to those who have lesser, or no wealth at all, who are the ‘poor’.
The Mythological Meaning belongs to the second-order of the Semiological System, which is “built-off a preexisting sign system.” (Griffin, 2006) Therefore, there must be a history on why they have perceived someone as ‘poor’ or ‘rich’. We can attribute this system to the history and observation of society, which lead back to the definition of perception, as well, wherein perception results from what exists in the outside world or from the experiences of individuals.
When asked why they had these perceptions, the interviewees openly said that their perceptions were formed as they were growing up. These perceptions were influenced by their family and friends, and media, who constantly told them that when someone is rich, they have a lot of money and have something to boast, compared to poor people, who are the complete opposite of the rich people.
These perceptions were probably due to the observation of society, specifically like that of the Philippines, which depicts the country as having an Open System in the society, unlike the Caste System of India, which is a Closed System.
For example, a person may opt to elevate his or her class status by finding a higher paying job. Because of this type of System, it has led some to perceive someone as ‘poor’ because he or she does not look good, basing on his or her demographic features (skin, clothes, hair, etc.) and/ or he or she does not behave well, basing on his or her behavior (fluent in English, poise, etc.). Otherwise, they tag the person ‘rich’. It stemmed from the idea that if one were ‘poor’, he or she does not have enough money to splurge in luxury, take care of his or her appearance, or finish school. Otherwise, the person may be tagged ‘rich’.
Furthermore, according to A History of World Societies Fourth Edition (McKay, Hill, and Buckler, 1996), the ruling class usually directs the work and lives of everyone, like that of the Shang Dynasty in China. On the other hand, those who belonged to the bottommost class, like the Untouchables of the Caste System, were treated impure because of the discrimination brought about by their jobs. Almost similar to the situation today, those who own companies and hire employees are usually the rich people, while the employees, who usually need money the most, are the poor people. The Filipinos seem stuck into this perception wherein those who make jobs are the rich and those who do the jobs are the poor. In turn, a hierarchy was evident.
But at present, there are some employees who are rich just because they see it as an opportunity to elevate their class status in the hierarchy or become richer, since Filipinos, like in other societies today, have the freedom to change their status in the hierarchy from poor to middle-class to rich. So, others have tagged people ‘rich’ if they had white-collar jobs, and those who have blue-collar jobs as ‘poor’.
Since rich people have higher paying jobs, they have enough money to indulge in luxury and look good. Since they have also attended social gatherings, people have the perception that all of them observe etiquette wherever they go. Because of these, some turned to enhance their demographic features or change their behavior so as to deceive others and make them believe that they are rich or they have enhanced their class status in the hierarchy.
In addition, the Standpoint Theory (ST) by Sandra Harding and Julia Wood (as cited by Griffin, 2006) suggests that since people occupy different places in the social hierarchy, they view the social situation from particular vantage points. Their views are just a partial understanding of the social world. But, those who occupy the low rungs of the hierarchy tend to understand the social situation more fully than those on top. This is probably the reason why many poor people aspire to be rich because of the advantages they perceive when they are in the said status. Aside from that, this is also probably the reason why many Filipinos are able to perceive people as poor or rich since most Filipinos belong to the low rungs of the hierarchy. A study on the income of families showed that the number middle class or middle-income families are shrinking and their shift in hierarchy is going down, thus, more families are becoming poor and their class is expanding. It also said that there is only less than one in 100 families belonging to the high-income class, and about 20 and 80 respectively for the middle-income and low-income families in 2003. (http://davidllorito.blogspot.com/2007/10/vanishing-middle-class.html)
Because of this “preexisting system” evident in the society, it caused people to stereotype.
Stereotyping is having a “fixed impression of a group of people through which we then perceive specific individuals. (DeVito, 1992)” The group may be thought of as the class in the hierarchy.
The said impressions have been developed over time, specifically through the influence of people and media in the environment. Because of frequent interaction, people have resulted to the conclusion that since most people seem alike, they clustered them to a group, like that of a taxonomical classification or a hierarchy, as stated in the Standpoint Theory. As a result, they view the world in different vantage points; hence, sometimes tagging one as ‘poor’ or ‘rich’, depending on an “implied criterion” they have set to fit the group or class.
This implied criterion is pertaining to the Principle of Resemblance stated earlier or the Implicit Personality Theory inherent to people, which leads to Stereotyping. Clearly, we all have attitudinal stereotypes: we have a criterion in telling who is rich and who is poor at first glance. This criterion seems fixed and when we meet a member of a group, for example the rich class, we seem to apply to the person all the characteristics we have assigned to the rich class.
In the communication act, when the persons-in-conversation saw a person passing by, they tagged her as ‘rich’ because of a certain behavior and of her demographic features. These factors thus became their criteria: wearing branded clothing, owning a top-of-the-line cellular phone, having a fair and flawless complexion and a long, silky, and straight hair, and possessing the ability to speak in English.
When asked if they saw another person similar to who they have just seen, they said that they would still tag the person ‘rich’, unless the person had something dissimilar, which may lead to them perceiving the person ‘poor’.
This is probably the reason why they tagged the second person that passed by as ‘poor’ because her clothes looked like something from the ‘Ukay-Ukay’. Further, it was because she had blemished skin, untidy hair, and was not looking neat, and she, additionally, laughed hard and shouted a lot.
This system of Stereotyping seem to have been replicated through the use of media or vice versa since some signs, if not most, became prominent in a specific culture due to media, through print or not, because signs are also essential to mass communication. The said replication was observed by the proponent in movies and in commercials as well. According to Kyong Kim (as cited by Griffin, 2006), “Information delivered by mass media is no longer information. It is a commodity saturated by fantasy themes.”
Fantasy themes, according to the Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT) of Ernest Bormann (as cited by Griffin, 2006), are creative and imaginative interpretation of events that fulfills a psychological or rhetorical need, which has reference to a past of a certain group and a speculation of what might happen in the future.
The past, in this case, refers to the people and media in the environment of the group of friends that have influenced their perception of poor and rich people. The speculation, on the other hand, refers to each individual, or the group as a whole, having the capability of perceiving someone as poor or rich, at any time.
The persons-in-conversation referred in this paper, by the way, are the group of friends. They are tagged as such because according to the Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) by W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen (as cited by Griffin, 2006); through their discourse they have co-constructed their own social realities, that is, by having a consensus that the person they saw was ‘poor’ or ‘rich’. Thus, persons who participated in the said discourse and have a commonality, such as their perception, are persons-in-conversation. Further, the said perceptions were co-created by attaining some Coherence and Coordination at some time in their experiences. Coherence occurred when stories were told to them, and coordination existed when the stories were lived, and eventually put into practice.
The Fantasy themes referred, in this case, are the group fantasies, which are the perceptions that created a symbolic convergence within the group, and possibly, the society present in UPMin. Having these perceptions, which are based on certain distinguishing factors, it may have caused the group to become cohesive, since they have met a consensus of perceiving one as ‘poor’ and the other as ‘rich’.
Because of the hierarchical structure observed in the society, the persons-in-conversation have come to organize the meaning of literally hundreds of messages received throughout the day, including the interpretation of the signs that make up the poor and rich people, which leads to the main goal of Semiotics.
The concept of the hierarchy in the ST, the Fantasy themes in the SCT, and the persons-in-conversation in the CMM helped the proponent scrutinize the Mythical Meaning of ‘wealth’, more, less, or none at all, which rooted from the perception of poor and rich people. The Mythical Meaning was made through the use of Semiotics. But why do people perceive people as such? What is its meaning?
At the Mythical level, the perception of ‘wealth’ as having more, less, or none at all, seem to stem a new second-order signified. The Perception Process, or the act of perceiving, seems to function as a substantiation of unfulfilled desires. The Philippines, as stated earlier, is mainly composed of people lower than the rich class. This explains why they understand the social situation more fully as compared to those belonging to the rich class; thus, these people lower than the rich class needs to work harder to gain wealth and abate their suffering. The persons-in-conversation also happen to belong to classes lower than the rich class; thus, the Mythical Meaning may apply to them. They have an unfulfilled desire, and they seem to suffer from it. And to abate this suffering they need to work harder, and their prize is ‘wealth’, which is what they desire. So, since they belong to the lower rungs of hierarchy they tend to be able to perceive people as ‘rich’ and ‘poor’, and usually they are able to do so because of their unfulfilled desires.
*********************************************************************************
Works Cited
Buckler, John, Hill, Bennet, and McKay, John. A History of World Societies. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, c1996
DeVito, Joseph. The Interpersonal Communication Book. 6th ed. New York: Harper Collins, c1992
Griffin, Emory. A First Look at Communication Theory. 6th ed.. Boston: McGraw-Hill, c2006.
Kassin, Saul. Psychology. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle, N.J.: Prentice Hall, c1998
The Philippines Without Borders: The vanishing middle class. 29 October 2007. David Llorito. 20 March 2008. <http://davidllorito.blogspot.com/2007/10/vanishing-middle-class.html>
Term Paper Alterations
March 20, 2008
Because I only have a limited time to make the paper for my COMA101 class, I decided to limit my scope.
First, I would like to know the how people would distinguish people at first glance. What are their bases?
Second, I would like to discover what goes on in the perception process.
Third, I’d like to know how their perceptions came about through Semiotics.
Fourth, I’d like to determine the meaning of the Act. Further, does it have a mythical meaning.
And fifth, if it does have a mythical meaning, I shall seek to know where it stemmed.
