Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Just as the critique of political economy set for itself the task of analyzing the commodity-form, the Critique of the political economy of the sign intends to do so of the sign-form. As the commodity is both exchange value and use value-requiring that a total analysis of this form consider both slopes of the system-so too is the sign both signifier (Sr) and signified (Sd); the analysis of the sign-form must therefore proceed at both levels. Of course, this simultaneously requires a logical and strategic analysis of the relationship between the two terms, namely; 1) Between the EV system and the UV system (or between commodity-form and object-form), which we endeavored to do in the preceding article*: 2) Between the system of the Sr and that of the Sd (or between the respective codes which define the articulation of the sign-value and of the sign-form). This relationship sets itself up in both cases as an hierarchical function between a dominant form and an alibi form, or satellite form, the latter being both the logical crowning and ideological fulfillment of the former.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baudrillard et al. (1976) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: