Home > Positioning > Persons > Voloshinov

Valentin Voloshinov (1895–1936)

Voloshinov argued that the sign is social through and through. Meaning does not begin in a private consciousness and get expressed in words, nor does it reside in an abstract system of language standing apart from its use; it arises only between people, on what he called interindividual territory, in the give and take of the utterance. From this he drew a thesis about ideology — that every sign carries a social accent and so becomes a site of conflict, “an arena of the class struggle” — and a thesis about mind, that consciousness itself is built from the signs of social intercourse, inner life being a kind of inward speech. His Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (1929) is one of the most original works of the Bakhtin Circle, and one whose very authorship has become a famous question.

Life

Born in St Petersburg on 18 June 1895; he had an early training and lasting interest in music before turning to language and literature. In the years after the Revolution he belonged to the circle of thinkers around Mikhail Bakhtin that formed in the provincial towns of Nevel and Vitebsk and reassembled in Leningrad. He pursued graduate study at the Institute for the Comparative History of the Literatures and Languages of the West and East and taught at the Herzen Pedagogical Institute. His productive years were short: he died of tuberculosis in Leningrad on 13 June 1936, not yet forty-one, before the political catastrophe that would destroy several of his associates and decades before the work bearing his name became internationally known.

The sign as social

Voloshinov’s major book, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (1929; second edition 1930), sets out to found a genuinely social account of language, and clears the ground by rejecting the two schools then dominant. The first he called abstract objectivism — the structural linguistics of Saussure, which studies language as a fixed system (langue) abstracted from the living act of speech, treating the system as primary and the utterance as secondary. The second he called individualistic subjectivism — the line descending from Humboldt through Vossler and Croce, which locates language in the expressive act of the individual mind. Both, Voloshinov argued, miss what language actually is: neither a closed system nor an individual expression but a social event, realised in the utterance and oriented toward another.

The sign is ideological. “Everything ideological possesses semiotic value”; without signs there is no ideology. A sign does not merely exist — it reflects and refracts a reality beyond itself, and it does so from a social position. The domain of signs and the domain of ideology are, for Voloshinov, the same domain.

The sign is multiaccentual. Because signs are shared across a society divided by class, the same sign serves different and opposed interests, which lend it different “accents.” “Differently oriented social accents intersect in every ideological sign,” so that the sign “becomes an arena of the class struggle.” A ruling group works to make the sign uni-accentual — to fix a single official meaning and suppress the others — but the conflict of accents is the sign’s normal condition and the motor of semantic change.

Consciousness is inner speech. If the sign is social, so is the mind that thinks in signs. Consciousness arises and exists only in the material of signs, and the word is “the semiotic material of inner life.” The inner world is not a private theatre later translated into language; it is itself structured as an inward, socially derived speech. A long final part of the book applies this to the problem of reported speech — how one utterance quotes, frames, and inflects another, in forms such as “quasi-direct discourse” — as the clearest case of the dialogic interpenetration of voices.

His earlier Freudianism: A Critical Sketch (1927) had made a parallel argument against psychoanalysis: that the unconscious and its conflicts are not biological depths but are constituted in the verbal, social interchange between people, so that what Freud took for a private dynamics of the psyche is better read as the play of socially organised speech.

The authorship question

Voloshinov’s name carries a dispute that has shadowed his work since the 1970s. From around 1970, beginning with the semiotician Vyacheslav Ivanov, it was claimed that the works published under Voloshinov’s name — and those under Pavel Medvedev’s — were in substance written by Bakhtin, who had let colleagues with sound Marxist credentials sign them in a dangerous decade. Bakhtin himself neither clearly confirmed nor denied it and was famously indifferent to the ownership of ideas.

The question is genuinely unresolved, and the evidence on each side is thin. The case for Bakhtin’s authorship rests largely on later testimony and anecdote (Ivanov’s reported conversations; an alleged copyright declaration); the manuscripts are lost. Against it, Gary Saul Morson and Caryl Emerson, among others, have argued that there is no real case to answer and that Voloshinov and Medvedev should be read as the authors of their own books — a view now widely held — while a middle position treats the disputed texts as the collaborative product of the Circle, written up by their signatories. What is not in doubt is that the works belong to a shared intellectual world; what form Voloshinov’s authorship took within it is the open question.

Where Voloshinov stops

Voloshinov’s lasting achievement is to have made the sign irreducibly social — to have shown that meaning is an event between people, not a possession of either the system or the individual mind. His Marxism then binds that achievement tightly to a single axis: the life of the sign is read as the conflict of class accents, the word as an arena of the class struggle. The binding is the boundary. It routes the whole contestation of meaning through class antagonism, and leaves the many other lines along which utterances differ, answer, and contend — and the question of how accents are produced and shift apart from class position — comparatively undeveloped; it is also the most dated element of the work. And the account stayed a programme rather than a system: Voloshinov died at forty with the project a brilliant sketch, its fuller development left to others in the Circle and, after them, to the long argument over who had written what.

Key works

See also: Dialogism · Bakhtin · Saussure