Giorgio Borrelli

In this chapter, I will try to illustrate how semiotics and dialectical theory can converge towards a common analysis of cognitive processes. The concept of “gesture” will constitute the meeting point between the two approaches. My starting point will be the argumentations thematized by Giovanni Maddalena in his 2011 article “Lavoro come conoscenza. Uno sguardo semiotico”-i.e., “Labor as knowledge. A semiotic overview.” According to Maddalena, the teleological structure of labor- understood in a Hegel-Marxian sense-presents some homologies with what he defines as “complete gesture” (Maddalena 2015), i.e., a model of synthetic reasoning based on the three semiotic elements posited by Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914), i.e., Icon, Index, and Symbol. More specifically, Maddalena’s proposal conjugates the Hegel-Marxian meaning of labor-understood precisely as “a type of purposeful action” (Maddalena 2011, 3, my translation)-with the pragmatist reworking of the Kantian paradigm, defining labor as a model of synthetic reasoning: labor is “our way of reasoning synthetically” (Maddalena 2011, 10, my translation). The theoretical convergence between the Marxian concept of “labor” [Arbeit] and the pragmatist concept of “gesture” can be further confirmed by developing a parallel between Peirce’ and Ernst Bloch’s (1885-1977) theories of knowledge. In this regard, I will underline two aspects: a) both authors hypothesize a phenomenological foundation for their theory of categories: categories are elements of experience (according to Peirce) and products of praxis (according to Bloch); and b) both authors develop a theory of categories strongly connected with the issue of temporality. Furthermore, I will underline that Bloch’s theory of knowledge is characterized by an element which contributes to the parallel between labor and gesture: indeed, by establishing a homological relation between the act of gazing-the theoretical act par excellence (see Petrosino 2004)-and the act of manipulating, Bloch emphasizes the fundamental role played by the gestural dimension in the knowledge process.

In this paper I will try to illustrate how certain concepts from Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations can be included among the theoretical foundations of Ferruccio Rossi-Landi's semiotic theory. More specifically, I will analyse the homology between material and linguistic production, and how Rossi-Landi reinterprets Wittgenstein's notion of linguistic use in the light of homological theory. Starting from these assumptions, I will hypothesise that Rossi-Landi's homology can be understood as a language-game. To conclude, I will try to demonstrate why homology goes on holiday, that is, why it should be understood as an idling language-game - as Wittgenstein would say.

Partendo da alcune categorie fondamentali delle teoria marxiana, Ferruccio Rossi-Landi ha delineato un’analisi semiotica della riproduzione sociale. In particolare, Rossi-Landi ha proposto di considerare i modi di produzione e le ideologie come “sistemi segnici”. Questa ipotesi consente di interpretare in chiave semiotica un’altra fondamentale categoria di Marx: la posizione di scopo. In questo articolo mostrerò come, nonostante alcune sovrapposizioni categoriali, Rossi-Landi sia riuscito a delineare un modello teorico coerente. Starting from certain fundamental Marxian categories, Ferruccio Rossi- Landi outlined a semiotic analysis of social reproduction. More specifically, Rossi-Landi maintained that modes of production and ideologies can be considered as “sign systems”. This hypothesis allows to read another fundamental Marxian category under a semiotic lens: i.e. the goal-setting. In this paper, I will try to illustrate how Rossi-Landi developed a coherent theoretical model, notwithstanding certain categorical overlaps.

Even if a coherent Marxian theory of language does not exist, it is well known that Marx refers to the concepts of language and sign in several passages of his writings. The Italian scholar Ferruccio Rossi-Landi framed Marx's outlines into a semiotic perspective. This theoretical proposal had two purposes: on the one hand, Rossi-Landi tried to demonstrate how certain analytical instruments developed by the Marxian critique of political economy can contribute to a better understanding of semiotic processes. On the other hand, he attempted to illustrate how a semiotic methodology was present at an early stage in certain fundamental parts of Marxian theory, i.e. in the analysis of ideologies, of the commodity-form, and in the critique of political economy. In this paper, I would like to illustrate how Rossi-Landi's materialistic semiotics shares certain fundamental categories and research fields with Critical Discourse Analysis, especially in the version structured by Norman Fairclough. Nevertheless, notwithstanding these elements of convergence, I believe that the two approaches present fundamental divergences, deriving – among other things – from a different interpretation of the role of language and discourse in Marx's economic works.

In this paper, I will try to establish a parallel between Charles S. Peirce’s and Ernst Bloch’s theory of categories. Both the authors hypothesise a phenomenological foundation for their theory of categories: categories are elements of Experience and products of Praxis. Nevertheless, Bloch’s phenomenology is characterised by a peculiar aspect: according to Bloch, the gestural dimension plays a fundamental role in the Knowledge Process, positing the category of ‘Possibility’. In line with Maddalena’s analyses on the relation between ‘Complete Gesture’ and ‘Work’, I will try to illustrate that the parallel between Bloch and Peirce can be extended, by including the semiotic dimension of gesture.