The Limits of the Matrix: Barthes, Foucault, and the Desires That Escape the System
1. The Remainder
Near the end of his inaugural lecture at the Collège de France, Roland Barthes gives semiology a definition that sounds less like the description of an academic discipline than a declaration of allegiance:
« La sémiologie serait dès lors ce travail qui recueille l'impur de la langue, le rebut de la linguistique, la corruption immédiate du message : rien moins que les désirs, les craintes, les mines, les intimidations, les avances, les tendresses, les protestations, les excuses, les agressions, les musiques, dont est faite la langue active. »
“Semiology would consequently be that labour which collects the impurity of language (langue), the waste of linguistics, the immediate corruption of the message: nothing less than the desires, the fears, the appearances, the intimidations, the advances, the blandishments, the protests, the excuses, the aggressions, the various kinds of music out of which active language (langue) is made”.
The striking word is rebut: refuse, residue, what has been discarded. Barthes does not imagine semiology as extending linguistics by adding a few neglected phenomena to an otherwise complete account. He describes a different operation: gathering up what a scientific conception of language has left behind. The list that follows is deliberately heterogeneous. Desires and fears sit beside intimidation and tenderness, aggression beside music. What unites them is not a common category but their participation in what Barthes calls la langue active—language as something done, experienced, charged, and directed toward others.
The passage acquires its force from the argument that precedes it. Barthes has just reconsidered the distinction between langue and discourse, a distinction that had once been indispensable to his work. It had given semiology “the courage to begin.” Yet the same distinction eventually appeared unable to contain the object it had helped make available for analysis.
What had initially been a methodological clarification now appears as a form of purification. Barthes does not simply abandon one theory of signs for another. He turns back toward the material that became visible as a remainder of his earlier method. The question is no longer only how a sign system can be isolated as an object of analysis, but what happens when that isolation becomes inadequate to the phenomenon itself.
The remainder, in this sense, is not merely what lies outside a system. It may reveal something about the system that produced the boundary in the first place.
2. The System That Made Analysis Possible
Barthes is careful not to deny the usefulness of the distinction he is now questioning. The opposition between langue and parole, he says, “rendered great services.” It allowed semiology to begin because it provided a way of reducing the overwhelming complexity of discourse to something that could be handled analytically.
His image for this reduction is unusually revealing:
« je pouvais réduire le discours, le miniaturiser en exemple de grammaire ».
To “miniaturize” discourse is to make it small enough to grasp. The metaphor is almost physical. Discourse, in its ordinary existence, is too extensive, heterogeneous, and mobile to be taken whole. Structural analysis therefore performs a reduction: it selects a level at which relations can be identified, regularities described, and individual occurrences treated as instances of a more general organization.
This is not a weakness of structural analysis. It is the condition of its productivity. An object of knowledge does not simply arrive already delimited. It has to be constituted by a particular way of looking. Barthes's early semiology depended on precisely such an operation.
He describes this ambition through another image, borrowed from Wagner. By reducing discourse to a grammatical example, he could hope to hold human communication “under my net,” like Wotan and Loge capturing Alberich after he has transformed himself into a tiny toad.
The image is comic, but the methodological point is serious. Analysis needs a net. Without distinctions, the object remains too diffuse to study. The difficulty begins when the net is mistaken for the thing it catches.
Barthes eventually recognizes that the reduction has consequences. The example is not « la chose même ». What has been isolated for purposes of analysis cannot simply be identified with the phenomenon from which it was extracted. The formal object is useful precisely because it is smaller, cleaner, and more manageable than the living material from which it comes.
The problem, then, does not lie in making a distinction. It lies in allowing the distinction to become an exhaustive account of what it distinguishes.
This is why Barthes's dissatisfaction with the langue/discours opposition is more subtle than a rejection of structuralism. He is examining the price of the analytical success that structuralism made possible. The cleaner the object becomes, the more certain features of its actual functioning disappear from view.
What has been excluded is not necessarily accidental noise. Some of it may belong to the phenomenon's very mode of existence.
3. When the Object Escapes the Grid
Barthes's next step is to refuse the idea that language can be contained within the limits of the sentence. The restrictions that govern speech are not confined to phonemes, words, or syntactic articulations. The whole surface of discourse is organized by rules, constraints, pressures, and forms of repression. Some are massive and indistinct at the lexical level; others are subtle and precise at the grammatical level.
Here the distinction between langue and discourse begins to lose its stability:
« la langue afflue dans le discours, le discours reflue dans la langue ».
The two are no longer cleanly separable domains. They flow into one another. Barthes compares their relation to the children's game of la main chaude, in which the hand being struck and the hand doing the striking are caught in continual reversal. What had appeared as two analytically distinct levels turns out to be continually passing into one another.
Hence his provocative description of the distinction as:
« une opération transitoire ».
It was necessary, but provisional. Its usefulness does not guarantee its permanence.
Once Barthes stops treating discourse as material that can be safely reduced to a grammatical example, the features that had seemed secondary acquire theoretical weight. Desire, fear, tenderness, intimidation, protest, aggression, music: these are not supplementary meanings attached to an otherwise intact linguistic structure. They belong to the activity through which language becomes active in the first place.
This helps explain why Barthes describes linguistics as working on an “immense illusion.” His accusation is not that linguistics has discovered nothing. It is that it has produced an object that appears cleaner and more self-contained than language in operation actually is. His grotesque image of the linguist wiping his fingers on the “tangle” of discourse, like Trimalchio wiping them on the hair of his slaves, gives this purification a physical violence. The mess is not eliminated; it is displaced.
What Barthes wants semiology to recover is therefore not an amorphous world beyond structure. It is what becomes visible when structure is followed into discourse rather than treated as its final boundary. Language is constrained, but its constraints operate through desires, fears, gestures, aggressions, appeals, and tones. Its activity cannot be reconstructed entirely from its formal rules.
This is also where power becomes inseparable from the problem. Barthes had begun his semiology by examining language “worked by power.” Now he can see more clearly why power cannot simply be treated as something added to an already complete linguistic system. It operates through the activity of language itself: through what can be said, how it is said, the positions from which it is spoken, and the pressures accompanying speech.
The remainder has therefore changed status. It is no longer merely what the analytical object failed to include. It has become a clue to the object's actual operation.
Barthes's movement can now be stated simply. A distinction makes analysis possible. The distinction encounters material it cannot contain. That material then forces a reconsideration of what the distinction was doing in the first place.
The important point is not that the system was wrong. It is that the system becomes more intelligible when we attend to what escapes it.
And this is the question Barthes leaves open: what happens when we follow an organizing distinction beyond the purified object it makes possible, into the activity that the distinction itself cannot fully capture?
Part II — Foucault: From Remainder to Subject
4. From Prohibition to the Subject
Five years after Barthes's inaugural lecture, Foucault gave a series of lectures at the University of Vermont that would later be published as Technologies of the Self. His starting point is apparently far removed from Barthes's linguistic problem. He is concerned with sexuality, and more specifically with the rules, duties, prohibitions, and restrictions through which sexual conduct has been regulated in Western culture.
Yet Foucault immediately shifts the question. He is not interested simply in identifying which acts were permitted and which were forbidden. What concerns him are the experiences that become significant within that field of regulation: feelings, thoughts, desires, hidden movements of the soul, and the effort to discover something within oneself that may not be immediately visible even to the person experiencing it.
“When I began to study the rules, duties, and prohibitions of sexuality, the interdictions and restrictions associated with it, I was concerned not simply with the acts that were permitted and forbidden but with the feelings represented, the thoughts, the desires one might experience, the drives to seek within the self any hidden feeling, any movement of the soul, any desire disguised under illusory forms.”
The shift is decisive. A prohibition can be described as a rule governing conduct. But once we ask what such a rule requires of the person who lives under it, the object changes. The individual is no longer merely someone whose behavior is classified as permissible or forbidden. The person becomes someone who must interpret himself.
Foucault formulates the question with particular precision:
“How had the subject been compelled to decipher himself in regard to what was forbidden?”
The verb decipher is crucial. The problem is no longer simply what the rule says. It is what the individual must come to know about himself in order to inhabit the field organized by that rule. The forbidden act becomes connected to an interior domain of thoughts, desires, impulses, and meanings that must themselves be examined.
This helps explain the peculiar relation Foucault identifies between prohibition and confession. Sexuality is subjected simultaneously to secrecy and disclosure. One is required to conceal what one does while being encouraged, even compelled, to speak about what one desires. The prohibition does not simply silence. It generates speech.
That paradox gives Foucault's inquiry its distinctive direction. Instead of treating the subject as an already existing individual upon whom rules are subsequently imposed, he asks how practices of prohibition, confession, examination, and interpretation participate in producing a particular kind of subject—one who must seek the truth of himself.
The question of sexuality thus becomes a question about the relationship between truth and selfhood. What must one know about oneself in order to renounce something? What sort of person is one required to become in order for a prohibition to function?
Foucault's answer leads him toward what he calls a hermeneutics of the self. The individual is not simply governed from outside. He is drawn into practices through which he observes, interprets, evaluates, and transforms himself.
The rule has entered the subject.
That is the crucial movement. Foucault does not stop at the formal boundary between permitted and forbidden conduct. He follows the boundary into the practices it generates and the person those practices require.
5. From Exclusion to Production
This is where the parallel with Barthes becomes visible.
For Barthes, an analytical distinction makes discourse manageable, but following its limits reveals the desires, fears, gestures, and other forms of activity that the purified object cannot contain.
For Foucault, a prohibition organizes conduct, but following its effects leads toward confession, self-examination, desire, and the obligation to decipher oneself.
In both cases, something initially treated as secondary becomes theoretically decisive. But the stronger point is not simply that certain elements were “left out.” It is that what appears at the margins can reveal what the organizing structure itself is doing.
The remainder is therefore not merely outside the boundary. It is produced as a remainder by the way the boundary organizes the field.
For Barthes, the linguistic distinction creates the conditions under which active language can appear as what exceeds a purified linguistic object. For Foucault, prohibition creates practices through which the individual is required to articulate and examine an interior truth.
This gives the two movements a common shape:
a system establishes intelligibility; something exceeds the resulting object; following that excess reveals how the system operates.
The parallel is not a claim that Barthes and Foucault were making the same argument. It concerns the direction of inquiry. Each begins with an organizing structure and then follows what happens when that structure is encountered in practice.
The decisive shift is therefore from exclusion to production.
This is especially important because neither thinker needs to abandon the formal structures with which he began. Barthes does not conclude that linguistic distinctions are useless. He explicitly acknowledges their productivity. Foucault does not cease to analyze rules, prohibitions, or mechanisms of power. What changes is the question asked of them.
Instead of asking only: What does this organize?
the inquiry becomes: What does this organization make happen?
That question opens a different field. A prohibition has to be followed into conduct, speech, confession, and self-interpretation. A linguistic structure has to be followed into discourse, rhetoric, affect, and the relations between speakers.
The movement is therefore not from structure to something entirely outside structure. It is from structure to its effects.
This avoids a familiar but misleading narrative in which structuralism represents rigid systems and later thinkers simply recover the living individual. Neither Barthes nor Foucault fits that story. Their interest lies in the mechanisms through which apparently formal arrangements become active. The structure remains, what changes is the scale at which it is understood.
6. The Technologies of the Remainder
Foucault's account of the four technologies gives this movement a broader framework. He distinguishes technologies of production, technologies of sign systems, technologies of power, and technologies of the self. The first two concern the production and manipulation of things and signs; the latter two concern the conduct of individuals and the operations they perform upon themselves.
Foucault observes that the first two have generally dominated the study of the sciences and linguistics. His own attention has increasingly turned toward the last two: technologies of domination and technologies of the self.
The significance of this shift is not that signs cease to matter. Rather, Foucault becomes interested in what happens when systems of knowledge and signification intersect with practices of governing and self-formation. The object is no longer adequately described by its formal classification; it must be followed into the practices through which individuals are managed and through which they act upon themselves.
The four technologies therefore cannot be understood as isolated compartments. Foucault emphasizes their interaction. His concept of governmentality names the contact between technologies of domination and technologies of the self: the ways individuals are governed by others and the ways they participate in governing themselves.
This provides a larger context for the movement already visible in his discussion of sexuality. The object of analysis is no longer exhausted by the formal content of a rule or by the knowledge that describes it. One follows the rule into the practices through which people are governed and into the techniques through which they work upon themselves.
The language of technology makes the point particularly clear. A technology is not merely an idea or a representation. It is a way of doing something. Technologies of the self concern operations through which individuals work upon their bodies, thoughts, conduct, and ways of being. Knowledge thus becomes inseparable from activity.
This is close to what Barthes discovers in a different register. Once language is no longer reduced to the purified object of linguistics, its supposedly marginal elements reveal that language is not simply a system that exists behind speech. It is something happening in speech: an activity shaped by desire, fear, persuasion, aggression, tenderness, and power.
Foucault's move is comparable in form. Once prohibition is followed beyond the formal rule, it appears not simply as a restriction imposed upon a pre-existing individual but as part of a set of practices through which individuals are made to speak, interpret, and transform themselves.
The common ground is therefore not a shared theory of language, sexuality, or subjectivity. It is the moment at which an organizing structure is followed into practice.
7. One Intellectual Gesture
There is, then, a recognizable intellectual gesture shared by these two thinkers.
One begins with a distinction that makes analysis possible. The distinction establishes an intelligible object. But when that object is followed into its actual operation, something appears that the initial formulation cannot fully contain. The excess is not simply an accidental remainder. It becomes a point from which the operation of the system itself can be reconsidered.
In Barthes, the movement runs from langue toward active language. The distinction that enabled semiology eventually leads him toward the material of discourse that cannot be reduced to a grammatical example: desire, fear, tenderness, aggression, music. The “impure” is not an external supplement to language. It belongs to what language does.
In Foucault, the movement runs from prohibition toward the subject. The rule that classifies conduct eventually leads to thoughts, desires, confession, and practices of self-deciphering through which an individual becomes a particular kind of subject.
The formulations are different, but the intellectual motion is remarkably close: from the system to what happens when the system becomes active.
The chronology makes the parallel especially interesting. Foucault proposed Barthes's candidacy for the Collège de France, and Barthes delivered his inaugural lecture on January 7, 1977. The Vermont lectures on the technologies of the self took place in October 1982. Foucault's later text therefore cannot be treated as the source of Barthes's argument. The relation is more suggestive than that.
Indeed, Foucault's own later tribute to Barthes recalls that he had proposed welcoming him to the Collège de France, underscoring the institutional and intellectual proximity between the two men.
What we encounter, then, is not a simple line of influence but a recurrence of a particular movement: a turn from the purified object toward what its purification leaves behind, and from formal organization toward the practices through which it becomes effective.
Perhaps the most productive way to describe the relation is neither influence nor coincidence. It is an echo: the recurrence of an intellectual impulse across different objects and at different moments.
The broader intellectual atmosphere matters here without needing to become another subject of the article. The legacy of structural linguistics is present in the concern with systems, relations, and conditions of intelligibility. The psychoanalytic insistence that desire, repression, and what escapes conscious mastery matter is equally difficult to ignore. But neither Saussure nor Freud needs to be installed as a hidden third protagonist. Their presence can remain atmospheric. What matters is what Barthes and Foucault actually do with the problem.
A system makes something intelligible by drawing a boundary around it. But the boundary does not merely separate what belongs from what does not. Its margins can reveal the forces at work within it.
This changes the meaning of the remainder.
What falls outside the analytical object may be precisely what allows us to see that the object was never simply given. It was produced by a particular operation of selection, delimitation, and purification. Once the remainder is followed rather than discarded, the original structure becomes visible not as a static arrangement but as an activity.
That may be the deepest affinity between Barthes and Foucault.
Barthes follows the “waste of linguistics” toward the active life of language. Foucault follows the prohibited and the hidden toward the practices through which subjects are made to know themselves. In both cases, what first appears to be peripheral turns out to be diagnostically central.
The remainder is therefore more than what the system leaves out, it is where the system becomes visible as an operation.
Bibliography
Barthes, R. (1978). Leçon: Leçon inaugurale de la chaire de sémiologie littéraire du Collège de France, prononcée le 7 janvier 1977. Éditions du Seuil.
Culler, J. (2002). Barthes: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Dosse, F. (1997). History of structuralism: The rising sign, 1945–1966 (D. Glassman, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
Dosse, F. (1998). History of structuralism: The sign sets, 1967–1991 (D. Glassman, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. H. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). University of Massachusetts Press.
Comments
Post a Comment