The previous post traced the emergence of semiotic systems: how horizons of possibility crystallise into grammars, and how constraints stabilise new distinctions.
A common temptation follows immediately: to explain these emergent systems in terms of function, utility, or adaptation. But doing so is a conceptual trap. Meaning is not a tool, and semiotic systems are not instruments. They are relational structures whose existence is determined by the possibility space they occupy, not by their usefulness.
This post examines why, and shows how semiotic emergence can be intelligible without appeal to function.
The Functionalist Temptation
Functionalist thinking interprets semiotic systems as if they exist “for” something:
-
Languages evolve for communication efficiency.
-
Myths appear to reinforce social cohesion.
-
Memes propagate because they confer social or cognitive advantage.
In each case, the emergent system is reduced to a side effect of adaptive success, and the emergent distinction becomes a functional artefact rather than a semiotic event.
But this is a category error. It confuses:
-
Value systems — biological, social, or technological coordination;
-
Semiotic systems — structures of possible distinctions, patterns, and meaning.
These are not identical, and they obey different logics.
Semiotic Systems Are Autonomous
A semiotic system:
-
Constrains what distinctions are intelligible within a horizon,
-
Organises actualisations of possibility,
-
Permits relational coherence across instances.
It does not exist primarily to achieve coordination, survival, or efficiency. These outcomes may follow, but they are effects, not causes.
Put differently:
Meaning arises when constraints allow a distinction to stabilise. Its persistence or propagation is a consequence of relational structure, not an adaptive strategy.
Semiotic emergence is therefore autonomous relative to function.
Illustrations of Functional Independence
-
Language:Early grammatical innovations often appear before widespread communicative need. The past tense, future markers, or syntactic constructions can stabilise without immediate pragmatic advantage. The semiotic order emerges because constraints allow it, not because it was “necessary.”
-
Cultural motifs:Story archetypes, aesthetic conventions, or ritual forms often arise before they acquire any instrumental social role. Their intelligibility emerges from relational structure within the horizon of practice, not from functional payoff.
-
Digital phenomena:Memes, emojis, or platform-specific conventions often stabilise before any coherent social function is apparent. They are semiotic structures — emergent distinctions — first, and only incidentally instruments of coordination or entertainment.
In each case, function is derivative, not explanatory.
Emergence as Relational Consequence
The semiotic perspective reframes emergence:
-
Constraints define what distinctions can stabilise,
-
Horizons provide where these distinctions can be actualised,
-
Grammars organise the repetitions,
-
Meaning arises relationally, independently of function.
Put simply:
Emergence is a structural consequence of the relational organisation of possibility, not a consequence of instrumental necessity.
This principle allows us to observe emergence clearly, without slipping into teleology or Whiggish rationalisation.
Constraints, Horizons, and Contingency
A subtle consequence is that semiotic emergence is both contingent and inevitable:
-
Contingent: Among all possible cuts, only some actually stabilise in any horizon. Alternative semiotic orders are possible but unrealised.
-
Inevitable: Once the relational constraints exist, some semiotic patterns will stabilise; emergence is not optional, it is a structural consequence.
Function does not resolve this tension. It only confuses the observer by projecting external purpose onto what is already internally determined by constraints.
Why This Matters
Recognising that semiotic emergence is independent of function:
-
Clarifies conceptual territory — we no longer confuse value with meaning.
-
Prepares for analysis of novelty — we can ask how new semiotic orders appear, rather than why they “should” appear.
-
Reinforces relational ontology — the focus remains on possibility, cuts, constraints, and actualisation.
The horizon of possibility is now clearly semiotic, not functional. Complexity and coordination exist in the background, but meaning arises where constraints allow intelligible distinctions to stabilise.
Looking Forward
With function set aside, we can ask the next question:
What exactly changes when a distinction becomes intelligible and repeatable?
That is the focus of the next post, “The Moment a Distinction Becomes Thinkable”, where we examine the micro-phenomenology of emergence: the point at which a horizon crystallises into semiotic potential made actual.
By refusing functionalist explanations, we can now trace how meaning itself is generated, not why it “works” in some external sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment