What is exnomination?

Mythologies is a 1957 book by Roland Barthes. It is a collection of essays taken from Les Lettres nouvelles, examining the tendency of contemporary social value systems to create modern myths. Barthes also looks at the semiology of the process of myth creation, updating Ferdinand de Saussure's system of sign analysis by adding a second level where signs are elevated to the level of myth.

Mythologies is split into two: Mythologies and Myth Today, the first section consisting of a collection of essays on selected modern myths and the second further and general analysis of the concept. The first section of Mythologies describes a selection of modern cultural phenomena, chosen for their status as modern myths and for the added meaning that has been conferred upon them. Each short chapter analyses one such myth, ranging from Einstein's Brain to Soap Powders and Detergents. They were originally written as a series of bi-monthly essays for the magazine Les Lettres Nouvelles.

In a typical example, Barthes describes the image that has been built up around red wine and how it has been adopted as a French national drink, how it is seen as a social equaliser and the drink of the proletariat, partly because it is seen as blood-like (as in Holy Communion) and points out that very little attention is paid to red wine's harmful effects to health, but that it is instead viewed as life-giving and refreshing — 'in cold weather, it is associated with all the myths of becoming warm, and at the height of summer, with all the images of shade, with all things cool and sparkling.'

In another chapter, Barthes explores the myth of professional wrestling. He describes how, unlike in the sport of boxing, the aim of theatrical stunt fighting is not to discover who will win or 'a demonstration of excellence', it is a staged spectacle acting out society's basic concepts of good and evil, of 'Suffering, Defeat and Justice'. The actors pretending to be wrestlers, like characters in a pantomime, portray grossly-exaggerated stereotypes of human weakness: the traitor, the conceited, the 'effeminate teddy-boy'. The audience expects to watch them suffer and be punished for their own transgressions of wrestling's rules in a theatrical version of society's ideology of justice.

In the second half of the book Barthes addresses the question of "What is a myth, today?" with the analysis of ideas such as: myth as a type of speech, and myth on the wings of politics.

Following on from the first section, Barthes justifies and explains his choices and analysis. He calls upon the concepts of semiology developed by Ferdinand de Saussure, who described the connections between an object (the signified) and its linguistic representation (such as a word, the signifier) and how the two are connected. Working with this structure Barthes continues to show his idea of a myth as a further sign, with its roots in language, but to which something has been added. So with a word (or other linguistic unit) the meaning (apprehended content) and the sound come together to make a sign. To make a myth, the sign itself is used as a signifier, and a new meaning is added, which is the signified. But according to Barthes, this is not added arbitrarily. Although we are not necessarily aware of it, modern myths are created with a reason. As in the example of the red wine, mythologies are formed to perpetuate an idea of society that adheres to the current ideologies of the ruling class and its media.

Barthes demonstrates this theory with the example of a front cover from Paris Match edition no. 326, of July 1955, showing a young black soldier in French uniform saluting. The signifier, a saluting soldier, cannot offer us further factual information of the young man's life. But it has been chosen by the magazine to symbolise more than the young man; the picture, in combination with the signifieds of Frenchness, militariness, and relative ethnic difference, gives us a message about France and its citizens. The picture does not explicitly demonstrate 'that France is a great empire, that all her sons, without any colour discrimination, faithfully serve under her flag,' etc., but the combination of the signifier and signified perpetuates the myth of imperial devotion, success and thus, a property of 'significance' for the picture.

Exploring the concept of myth, Barthes seeks to grasp the relations between language and power. He assumes that myth helps to naturalize particular worldviews.

According to Barthes, myth is based on humans’ history, and myth cannot naturally occur. There are always some communicative intentions in myth. Created by people, myth can easily be changed or destroyed. Also, myth depends on the context where it exists. By changing the context, one can change the effects of myth. At the same time, myth itself participates in the creation of an ideology. According to Barthes, myth doesn't seek to show or to hide the truth when creating an ideology, it seeks to deviate from the reality. The major function of myth is to naturalize a concept, a belief. Myth purifies signs and fills them with a new meaning which is relevant to the communicative intentions of those who are creating the myth. In the new sign, there are no contradictions that could raise any doubts regarding the myth. Myth is not deep enough to have these contradictions; it simplifies the world by making people believe that signs have inherent meaning. Myth “abolishes the complexity of human acts, it gives them the simplicity of essences…”

Why do people believe in myth? The power of myth is in its impressive character. It seeks to surprise the audience. This impression is far more powerful than any rational explanations which can disprove the myth. So, myth works not because it hides its intentions, but because the intentions of myth have been naturalized. Through the usage of myths, one can naturalize “the Empire, taste for Basque things, the Government.”

Speaking of myth and power, Barthes asserts that myth is a depoliticized speech. He uses the term ex-nomination (or exnomination), by which he "means 'outside of naming'. Barthes' point was that dominant groups or ideas in society become so obvious or common sense that they don't have to draw attention to themselves by giving themselves a name. They're just the 'normality', against which everything else can be judged." For example, he says, " makes its status undergo a real ex-nominating operation: the bourgeoisie is defined as the social class which does not want to be named" (italics in original). Myth removes our understanding of concepts and beliefs as created by humans. Instead, myth presents them as something natural and innocent. Drawing upon Karl Marx, Barthes states that even the most natural objects include some aspect of politics. Depending on how strong the political side of myth is, Barthes defines the strong and the weak myths (des mythes forts et des mythes faibles). Depoliticization of the strong myths happens abruptly, as the strong myths are explicitly political. The weak myths are the myths which have already lost their political character. However, this character can be brought back by “the slightest thing”.

Barthes also provides a list of rhetorical figures in bourgeoisie myths:

The model of semiosis suggested by Barthes seeks to link signs with the social myths or ideologies that they articulate.

Barthes refers to the tendency of socially constructed notions, narratives, and assumptions to become "naturalised" in the process, that is, taken unquestioningly as given within a particular culture. Barthes finishes Mythologies by looking at how and why myths are built up by the bourgeoisie in its various manifestations. He returns to this theme in later works including The Fashion System.

There are analogies between Mythologies (1957) and Marshal McLuhan's The Mechanical Bride (1951), in which also a series of exhibits of popular mass culture (like advertisements and newspaper or magazines articles) are critically analyzed.

Quick Reference, Barthes' term for the phenomenon whereby the bourgeoisie hides its name (and identity) by not referring to itself as such in order to naturalize bourgeois ideology and maintain its hegemony, representing itself, for instance, as the nation (see naturalization). Barthes' term for the phenomenon whereby the bourgeoisie hides its name (and identity) by not referring to itself as such. Roland Barthes coined the term and theory: 'exnomination', which refers. Exnomination: the process by which dominant ideas become so obvious they don't draw attention to themselves; instead they just seem like. The Exnomination of Pain: Undoing Otherness.

Throughout the history of the mass media and popular press, racism and journalism have had an ignominious and somewhat uneasy relationship. It could be argued that the British national press frequently misrepresents and underrepresents black minority ethnic groups. The few news stories that they are featured in, commonly present them in a negative and damaging light, which furthers notions of racism and dominant white hegemony. Tuen A. van Dijk believes that, “media discourse is the main source of people’s knowledge, attitudes and ideologies, both of other elites and of ordinary citizens” (van Dijk, 2000: 36), and if this is the case, which I believe it is, then news and mass media outputs, whether consciously or unconsciously, shape our beliefs and values. Therefore, if the little news that is outputted concerning ethnic minorities is predominantly negative, then that is essentially what forms our beliefs about them. Roland Barthes coined the term and theory: ‘exnomination’, which refers to “the phenomenon whereby the bourgeoisie hides its name (and identity) by not referring to itself as such in order to naturalize bourgeois ideology and maintain its hegemony, representing itself, for instance, as the nation”. (Chandler et al., 2011). Subsequently, Richard Dyer has shown how whiteness and white culture has been exnominated or, in other words, has been made invisible in Western culture so that it simply becomes the norm (Dyer, 1997). Exnominated groups become apolitical and non-ideological, so much so that they just are. If media discourse shapes what we believe, and exnomination of whiteness sees to make it the norm, it is easy to comprehend that racism and representing ethnic minorities is a key issue in the journalistic sphere of today. In this essay, I aim to highlight the key issues concerning racism in relation to the Press, and emphasise the on going tendency to idolise white culture.

One doesn’t have to look very far to see the types of prejudices that ethnic communities and minorities face. Take the dictionary definition of “white”, for example which defines white or whiteness as follows, “belonging to or denoting a human group having light-coloured skin”, followed by further definitions including: “innocent, untainted, pure”, “white hope, a person expected to achieve much for a group or an organisation” and “a white lie, a harmless or trivial untruth.” Here, we see undoubtedly positive connotations associated with the word “white”.

Then, contrast this to the dictionary definition of “black”: “belonging to or denoting any human group having dark-coloured skin, especially of African or Australian Aboriginal ancestry”, which is the followed by other definitions which include, “characterized by tragic or disastrous events; causing despair or pessimism”, “full of anger or hatred” and “very evil or wicked.” Although, it is obvious that the latter definitions are not qualities that are ascribed or even related to ethnic minorities or those with black or dark skin, it is easy to comprehend why- with definitions like this- there are negative connotations attached to the concept of blackness, stemming simply from a dictionary definition.

Let us now define the term ‘racism’ in order to correctly interpret and approach the question: “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior”. Obviously, this quote is interchangeable when discussing which race is superior, but most would assume the notion of white supremacy, due to the historical systems and frameworks that have dictated ethnic minorities as inferior. This definition also begs the question: to what extent are we not just one race, a species? We all identify ourselves as human beings, surely then we are just one race? Biologically, there are no ‘races’, yet society has constructed a classification system based on skin colour and other typical and defining features. John Gabriel attempts to establish the roles that “new media play in the construction, circulation and contestation of ‘whiteness.’” (Gabriel, 200: 67). When endeavouring to decipher the meaning of ‘whiteness’, he asks, “is it a state of being, that is ‘being white’, or does it refer to a dominant (‘white’) culture?” (Ibid). Essentially, he is asking whether “whiteness” refers to a culture or a lifestyle, is ‘whiteness’ so ingrained in our society, that it becomes simply a norm? If this is the case, then we are able to see how the press are racist towards any other race apart from white.

Stuart Hall identifies two types of racism in his article The Whites of Their Eyes. He calls them: overt racism and inferential racism, and he classes them as follows. Overt racism refers to the blatant and conscious attempt to damage a certain group; it is deliberate and aimed to cause harm. Hall defines it as when “open and favourable coverage is given to arguments positions and spokespersons who…advance a racist policy or view” (Hall, 1995: 20). In relation to the press, an example might be a political debate in which a party leader endorses racist ideals. Hall summarises inferential racism as “those apparently natural representations of events and situations relating to race, whether ‘factual’ or ‘fictional’, which have racist premises and propositions inscribed in them as a set of unquestioned assumptions.” (Hall, 1995: 20). The term “unquestioned assumptions” is important here, as this essentially is what the basis of racism descends from. This is where the problem lies in terms of the reproduction of racist ideologies and frameworks, as when a society is brainwashed or force-fed racist concepts and ideas in a in a way that is deemed uncontroversial or not racist, they begin to accept these and racist notions unconsciously.

Although notions of racism and unjust prejudices against ethnic minorities have become much less blatant and overt over time, we still see practices and implementations that reaffirm systems of white dominance, most commonly in the Press. Van Dijk talks of topics we commonly see related or talked about when referring to ethnic minorities, immigrants, refugees and ethnic Others, in his 2012 study entitled “The Role of the Press in the Reproduction of Racism”. Van Dijk identifies that “much research has shown that ‘ethnic’ news focuses on only a few main topics, which on the whole may be summarized as problem news.” (van Dijk, 2012: 22) A matter which has become very current and topical in recent years, is the ‘problem’ of immigration and the refugee crisis. In most cases, immigration is presented as a threat, a constant fear that immigrants may threaten or impose on our daily lives, in terms of jobs, housing, general welfare and even culture. The point of view which is taken by the majority Press seems to be “that the country is invaded by masses of illegal aliens.” (van Dijk, 2012: 23). In recent years, there have been a few incidents in which the ethnic minority have been very unfairly portrayed which further accentuates pre-existing stereotypes. An extreme example of this would be an article which initiated much controversy in the UK, written by Katie Hopkins (who has been classified as ‘Britain’s most controversial columnist’), wherein she refers to migrants as “cockroaches”, and suggests sending gunships and using violence to dissuade would-be refugees from coming to the UK. Obviously, this would be categorised as overt racism; Hopkins is blatant and carless in the portrayal of her racist remarks. Her complete lack of empathy presents the refugees as animalistic, sub-human and therefore she reinforces racist notions of inferiority: whites have priority and should assert their dominance over them. Articles like the one afore mentioned are clearly adopting the stance of white supremacy and therefore circulating and reproducing racially unsound stereotypes that misrepresent ethnic minorities. Van Dijk claims “in the domain of ethnic relations, all white people in principle benefit from the discriminatory practices and cognitions that define the racist system, for instance in employment, housing, and education.” (van Dijk, 1999: 39). If all white people in some way benefit from racist systems and racism itself, then the nature of the racist news is unlikely to change.

The Daily Mail is another tabloid press newspaper that is known for its racist statements and bigotry remarks, often causing controversy and debate. In 2012, the Daily Mail published an article following the Olympics Opening Ceremony, claiming that the multiculturalism in the ceremony was unrealistic and unrepresentative of modern Britain. The author of the article, Rick Dewsbury wrote the following: “this was supposed to be a representation of modern life in England but it is likely to be a challenge for the organisers to find an educated white middle-aged mother and black father living together with a happy family in such a set-up.” The assumption that a happy mixed race family does not exist in modern Britain is highly racist and offensive. It is important to note here, then, that the Daily Mail is the UK’s most popular newspaper, gaining 23 million readers a month. Undoubtedly, this is a key issue concerning journalism and racism. The newspaper that is known for adopting racist attitudes is also the most popular UK newspaper. This connection indicates and consolidates that racist views are being circulated and reproduced by the popular Press, and if the mass media and daily Press continue to marginalize ethnic minority and culture in this way, the white hegemonic ideals will become more solidified within our political, economical and social democratic infrastructure.

Another topic commonly “associated with minorities and immigrants is crime and violence.” (van Dijk, 2012: 23). Often, crime is talked in conjunction with influx of ‘illegal’ immigrants, and as a result of this crime reporting becomes “ethnicized”. An example of this is a Daily Mail article by Jack Doyle and Stephen Wright in 2012, of which the title is “‘Immigrant crimewave’ warning: Foreign nationals were accused of a QUARTER of all crimes in London”. The setup and layout of the headline sets out to demonise the ‘foreigners’, the sentence is graphically emphasized through employment of capitals to increase tension and build drama. The techniques employed are “involved in the enactment, expression or inculcation of negative beliefs about immigrants and minorities, and thus contribute to racism.” (van Dijk, 2000: 41). This form of discourse continues throughout: “A string of horrendous attacks carried out by Eastern European criminals in recent months has raised concerns over the lack of checks on new arrivals.” The word ‘horrendous’ is used here to emphasise the feelings of terror and shock. The article finishes with a statistic, “More than 11,000 foreign national offenders are behind bars in England and Wales.” This statistic is obviously going to have a shocking effect on readers, yet they haven’t elaborated on what type of crimes they are imprisoned for, which obviously makes a difference. Writing the article in this way indicates hatred towards the foreigners, with almost xenophobic attitudes. The hyperbolic journalistic style employed here alienates the foreigners and therefore creates racist attitudes that get read by the public.

Another key issue with the relationship between journalism and racism is the lack of ethnic journalists in the industry in positions of power; van Dijk labels them “minority journalists”. The question that arises here is; how can ethnic minorities be fairly and justly presented if there are no blacks in legitimate journalistic roles within the industry? We see an example of this, as in 2011, The Guardian, a supposedly relatively fair and respectable paper, published an article naming who they considered to be the “100 most important people in the media”, of which only one person was not white. This statistic is surely shocking in an age where Britain is becoming more ethnically diverse, with predictions that up to 30% of UK population will be from ethic minorities by 2050. Additionally, in 2011, there was not one national newspaper editor who was not white. This subsequently means that we are being projected news from a predominantly if not solely white viewpoint, not only on everyday news stories but on ethnic affairs also. Due to this dominant white cohort of journalists, it can be seen how underlying beliefs and ideologies of white racial supremacy can be implemented inferentially into the mass media output. Van Dijk encapsulates the effect that this will have, “since minority journalists are virtually absent from most newsrooms, especially in Europe, this not only means that news production in general will be biased by a white perspective, but also that fundamental knowledge and expertise on ethnic communities and experiences are usually lacking in reporting”. (van Dijk, 2012: 21)

Racism in the press and other journalistic forms is almost a moot subject matter, it is not always appropriately addressed and it brushed over by the masses. Throughout history, ethnic culture and communities have been continually misrepresented, reflecting them in a negative and unfair light. Racism exits not only in the overt and blatant sense of the matter, but also in the underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in comparison to the overwhelmingly dominant focus on white culture. Additionally, the little press that is outputted about ethnic minorities is often associated with ‘problem news’, which includes immigration, crime, integration etc. The mass media and press are able to reinforce ideologies of white dominance through positive self-representation and negative other-representation. Additionally, with minimal ethnic journalists in positions of importance and power within the news industry, it seems an impossibility to expand the horizon in terms of an equal and objective representation of minorities. What we don’t see reported is what ethnic minorities contribute to our economy and how it benefits us in terms of culture, arts, multiculturalism and international relations. Slowly, we are beginning to see the isolation, marginalization, and problemisation of ethnic minorities, and this ethnic hostility should not be so prevalent in a modern day and age in which multiculturalism and ethnic diversity is expanding. In my view, the most dangerous implement in this system is the employment of inferential racism, that seems ‘invisible’ and advances exnominantion of whiteness. Essentially the main issue with racism and journalism lies in the fact that “the mass media are currently the most influential source of racist bias, prejudice, and racism.” (van Dijk, 2012:17). In terms of the solution to this problem, I feel that the most effective way to eliminate racism from the press, is to have more ethnic minorities in the industry, in order that they can represent and offer opinion on news stories. If this were to happen, I feel that it would prevent further distortion of ethnic minorities in the media and hopefully ensure a better future for their portrayal.

Bibliography

Gabriel, J. (2000), Ethnic Minorities and the Media, “Dreaming of a white…”, Open University Press: Philadelphia.

van Dijk, T. A. (2000), Ethnic Minorities and the Media, “New(s) Racism: A Discourse Analytical Approach”, Open University Press: Philadelphia.

van Dijk, T. A. (2012), The Role of the Press in the Reproduction of Racism, Pompeu Fabra University.

van Dijk, T. A. (1999), Racism and the Press, Routledge: London and New York.

Chanler, D. and Munday, R. (2011), A Dictionary of Media and Communication, Oxford University Press. An online version can be accessed:

Dyer, R. (1997), White, London: Routledge.

Hall, S. (1995), Gender, Race and Class in Media, “The Whites of Their Eyes”, Sage Publications: California.

The article can be accessed here:

The article was later removed from the Daily Mail website, following an outburst of criticism, but an archived version of the article can be accessed at:

This also means that land is at the center of the settler project, even as the settlers also utilize strategies such as enslavement, racialization, forced assimilation, and genocide. Settler colonialism, as Yellowknives Dene scholar Glen Coulthard reminds us, is “territorially acquisitive in perpetuity,”

In a similar vein, anthropologist Maya Mikdashi emphasizes how settler colonialism’s territorial acquisitiveness is accompanied by the imposition of regimes of possession and dispossession:

Finally, as we learn from the work of indigenous scholars such as Celeste Pedri-Spade, settler colonialism also has an identitarian element to it that is especially insidious: over time, settler ideology is increasingly oriented toward claiming Indigeneity for itself, reinforcing settler regimes of individualism and private property while also waging a biopolitical war on those whose land it has conquered:

So to summarize, settler colonial invasion is all about the permanent transformation of the land, including the people who belong to the land; as Wolfe famously argued, it is “a structure, not an event.” That is to say, despite hegemonic narratives that place “the colonial era” in the distant past, settler projects are ongoing by definition.

At a local and national level, these ongoing projects constitute the deepest of deep structures in the territories where they continued to be carried out. At the global level, settler colonialism has long been a defining structural feature of the modern world. We see this in the systematic facilitation of white settlement in all its forms, from territorial conquest and resource extraction to privileged processes of migration and tourism.

And now for the disconnect: scholars who use settler colonialism as a primary analytical category are rarely quoted in news coverage addressing situations of, well, settler colonialism. Indeed, the category of settler colonialism itself is a kind of ghost whose absence haunts contemporary news coverage. As I have argued elsewhere, settler colonialism is a creature that never speaks its own name – at least not in dominant public discourse. Instead, it speaks of things like security, terrorism, democracy, civilization, progress, multiculturalism, reconciliation, and peace (as defined by the settler state).

To explain this absence and its political significance, I turn to the concept of myth in work of Roland Barthes, the French semiotician and author of the classic book Mythologies. Barthes describes myth as “depoliticized speech” that serves the interest of the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) by “turning history into nature” – that is, taking things that are the product of historical forces and making them seem natural or inevitable.

One of the ways this works in public discourse is through what he calls exnomination – literally the “un-naming” of things. For Barthes, the paradigmatic example of exnomination is the bourgeoisie itself, which steadfastly refuses to speak its own name.

Following Barthes, we can say that “America,” “Israel,” “Australia,” and “Canada” are all myths. They are hegemonic ways of naturalizing what are, in fact, ongoing processes of settler colonization that have their roots in histories of conquest, expulsion, and genocide. These myths are enacted through the exnomination of settler colonialism itself – the systematic refusal to name it.

As Mahmoud Mamdani argues, this form of exnomination is especially strong in the United States: