Representation is the use of signs that stand in for and take the place of something else.Mitchell, W. 1995, "Representation", in F Lentricchia & T McLaughlin (eds), Critical Terms for Literary Study, 2nd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago It is through representation that people organize the world and reality through the act of naming its elements. Signs are arranged in order to form semantic constructions and express relations.
For many philosophers, both ancient and modern, man is regarded as the "representational animal" or animal symbolicum, the creature whose distinct character is the creation and the manipulation of signs – things that "stand for" or "take the place of" something else.
Representation has been associated with aesthetics (art) and semiotics (signs). Scholar of English and art history W. J. T. Mitchell says "representation is an extremely elastic notion, which extends all the way from a stone representing a man to a novel representing the day in the life of several Dubliners".
The term representation carries a range of meanings and interpretations. In literary theory, representation is commonly defined in three ways: to look like or resemble; to stand in for something or someone; to present a second time, to re-present.O'Shaughnessy, M & Stadler J, Media and society: an introduction, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, 2005
The reflection on representation began with early literary theory in the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, and has evolved into a significant component of language, Saussurian and communication studies.
Defining representation
To represent is "to bring to mind by description," also "to symbolize, to be the embodiment of;" from representer (12c.), from L. repraesentare, from re-, intensive prefix, + praesentare "to present," lit. "to place before".
A representation is a type of recording in which the sensory information about a physical object is described in a medium. The degree to which an artistic representation resembles the object it represents is a function of resolution and does not bear on the denotation of the word. For example, both the Mona Lisa and a child's crayon drawing of Lisa del Giocondo would be considered representational, and any preference for one over the other would need to be understood as a matter of aesthetics.
History
Since ancient times representation has played a central role in understanding literature, aesthetics and semiotics. Plato and Aristotle are key figures in early literary theory who considered literature as simply one form of representation.Childers J (ed.), Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism, Columbia University Press, New York, 1995 Aristotle for instance, considered each mode of representation, verbal, visual or musical, as being natural to human beings.<Vukcevich, M 2002, "Representation", The University of Chicago, viewed 7 April 2006 Therefore, what distinguishes humans from other animals is their ability to create and manipulate signs.Mitchell, W, "Representation", in F Lentricchia & T McLaughlin (eds), Critical Terms for Literary Study, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1990 Aristotle deemed mimesis as natural to man, therefore considered representations as necessary for people's learning and being in the world.
Plato, in contrast, looked upon representation with more caution. He recognised that literature is a representation of life, yet also believed that representations intervene between the viewer and the real. This creates worlds of illusion leading one away from the "real things".Hall, S (ed.), Cultural Representations and Signifying Practice, Open University Press, London, 1997. Plato thus believed that representation needs to be controlled and monitored due to the possible dangers of fostering antisocial emotions or the imitation of evil.
Aristotle went on to say it was a definitively human activity. From childhood man has an instinct for representation, and in this respect man differs from the other animals that he is far more imitative and learns his first lessons though imitating things. Aristotle discusses representation in three ways: the object: the symbol being represented; the manner: the way the symbol is represented; the means: the material that is used to represent it. The means of literary representation is language. An important part of representation is the relationship between what the material and what it represents. The questions arising from this are, "A stone may represent a man but how? And by what and by what agreement, does this understanding of the representation occur?"
One apprehends reality only through representations of reality, through texts, discourses, images: there is no such thing as direct or unmediated access to reality. But because one can see reality only through representation it does not follow that one does not see reality at all. Reality is always more extensive and complicated than any system of representation can comprehend, and we always sense that this is so-representation never "gets" reality, which is why human history has produced so many and changing ways of trying to get it.Dryer 1993, cited in O’Shaughnessy & Stadler 2005
Consequently, throughout the history of human culture, people have become dissatisfied with language's ability to express reality and as a result have developed new modes of representation. It is necessary to construct new ways of seeing reality, as people only know reality through representation. From this arise the contrasting and alternate theories and representational modes of abstraction, realism and modernism, to name a few.
Contemporary ideas about representation It is from Plato's caution that in the modern era many are aware of political and ideological issues and the influences of representations. It is impossible to divorce representations from culture and the society that produces them. In the contemporary world there exist restrictions on subject matter, limiting the kinds of representational signs allowed to be employed, as well as boundaries that limit the audience or viewers of particular representations. In motion picture rating systems, M and R rated films are an example of such restrictions, highlighting also society's attempt to restrict and modify representations to promote a certain set of ideologies and values. Despite these restrictions, representations still have the ability to take on a life of their own once in the public sphere, and can not be given a definitive or concrete meaning; as there will always be a gap between intention and realization, original and copy.
Consequently, for each of the above definitions there exists a process of communication and message sending and receiving. In such a system of communication and representations it is inevitable that potential problems may arise; misunderstandings, errors, and falsehoods. The accuracy of the representations can by no means be guaranteed, as they operate in a system of signs that can never work in isolation from other signs or cultural factors. For instance, the interpretation and reading of representations function in the context of a body of rules for interpreting, and within a society many of these codes or conventions are informally agreed upon and have been established over a number of years. Such understandings however, are not set in stone and may alter between times, places, peoples and contexts. How though, does this 'agreement' or understanding of representation occur? It has generally been agreed by semioticians that representational relationships can be categorised into three distinct headings: icon, symbol and index.
For instance objects and people do not have a constant meaning, but their meanings are fashioned by humans in the context of their culture, as they have the ability to make things mean or signify something. Viewing representation in such a way focuses on understanding how language and systems of knowledge production work to create and circulate meanings. Representation is simply the process in which such meanings are constructed. In much the same way as the post-structuralists, this approach to representation considers it as something larger than any one single representation. A similar perspective is viewing representation as part of a larger field, as W. J. T. Mitchell, saying, "…representation (in memory, in verbal descriptions, in images) not only 'mediates' our knowledge (of slavery and of many other things), but obstructs, fragments, and negates that knowledge"Mitchell, W, Picture Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994 and proposes a move away from the perspective that representations are merely "objects representing", towards a focus on the relationships and processes through which representations are produced, valued, viewed and exchanged.
Peirce and representation
Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) was an innovative and accomplished logician, mathematician, and scientist, and founded philosophical pragmatism. Peirce's central ideas were focused on logic and representation.
Semiotics and logic Peirce distinguished philosophical logic as logic per se from mathematics of logic. He regarded logic (per se) as part of philosophy, as a normative field following esthetics and ethics, as more basic than metaphysics,On his classifications, see Peirce, C.S. (1903), CP 1.180–202 Eprint and (1906) "The Basis of Pragmaticism" in The Essential Peirce 2:372–3. For the relevant quotes, see "Philosophy" and "Logic" at Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms, Bergman and Paavola, editors, U. of Helsinki. and as the art of devising methods of research.Peirce, C.S., 1882, "Introductory Lecture on the Study of Logic" delivered September 1882, Johns Hopkins University Circulars, vol. 2, no. 19, pp. 11–12, November 1892, Google Book Search Eprint. Reprinted in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce v. 7, paragraphs 59–76, The Essential Peirce 1:214–214; Writings of Charles S. Peirce 4:378–382. He argued that, more generally, as inference, "logic is rooted in the social principle", since inference depends on a standpoint that, in a sense, is unlimited.Peirce, C.S. (1878) "The Doctrine of Chances", Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, pp. 604–615, 1878, reprinted in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, v. 2, paragraphs 645–668, Writings of Charles S. Peirce 3:276–290, and The Essential Peirce 1:142–154. "...death makes the number of our risks, the number of our inferences, finite, and so makes their mean result uncertain. The very idea of probability and of reasoning rests on the assumption that this number is indefinitely great. .... ...logicality inexorably requires that our interests shall not be limited. .... Logic is rooted in the social principle."
Peirce held that logic is formal semiotic,Peirce, C. S. (written 1902), "MS L75: Logic, Regarded As Semeiotic (The Carnegie application of 1902): Version 1: An Integrated Reconstruction", Joseph Ransdell, ed., Arisbe, see Memoir 12. the formal study of signs in the broadest sense, not only signs that are artificial, linguistic, or symbolic, but also signs that are semblances or are indexical such as reactions. He held that "all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs",Peirce, C.S., The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, v. 5, paragraph 448 footnote, from "The Basis of Pragmaticism" in 1906. along with their representational and inferential relations, interpretable by mind or quasi-mind (whatever works like a mind despite perhaps not actually being one);See "Quasi-Mind" at the Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms, Mats Bergman and Sami Paavola, eds., University of Helsinki. the focus here is on sign action in general, not psychology, linguistics, or social studies).