ashlayla, 3/17

In class Tuesday one quote that was easiest for me to understand was Volosinov’s quote, “sign becomes the arena of the class struggle.” I understood this to mean that the ruling ideas are played out in our culture by signs and how we interpret them. For example, when we were talking about the pictures of the Mercedes and GM signs most people would assume that Mercedes is the sign of the ruling class because Mercedes is like an elitist type of car. GM is more for the middle class people because the cars are affordable and easily accessible. Mercedes is more expensive than GM which makes the cars more desirable. Most people don’t have Mercedes, but they want it. More people can get a GM car which doesn’t make them that desirable. When we were discussing these two pictures, I originally thought that Mercedes would be the sign of the ruling class because, to me, it is a symbol of the high class people in the world. After the discussion though, I began to think that GM was the sign of the ruling class because more people can afford to own a GM car. The structure of our society is what determines who the ruling class is. The Mercedes sign is the symbol of the “rich” ruling class while the GM sign is the symbol of the “dominant” ruling class. Branding also contributes to determining the ruling class. Most people would assume that champagne is the sign of the ruling class because wealthier people drink it more than people that don’t have a lot of money. But Budweiser is the sign of the ruling class because, like GM, it is the dominant brand that more people can afford. The signs we talked about in class create a class struggle because the brands that we would normally associate with the “ruling class” are not the dominant brands. Signs for things such as GM, Budweiser, and diners/fast food restaurants are the signs of the ruling class because more people have them and can afford them.