The Controversy of the Crosshairs and a Study in Semiotics

Writer's note: I would like to first point out that this in no way is advocating for either side of the issue. I prefer to maintain impartiality and be unbiased. I would also like to extend a prayer to the victims and their families affected by the Arizona shootings. You all are in our thoughts.

I am not an expert on semiotics. I merely understand them, with much help from my professor. Semiotics is in layman's terms, the study of signs. It is much deeper than that (and if you are interested, read Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Sanders Peirce for a more in-depth approach to semiotics), but for all intents and purposes we will focus on this specific part of the theory. Peirce essentially separates signs into three groups: symbol, icon, and index. A symbol is an arbitrarily chose sign that has no relationship to the real world. Examples include the alphabet or a "Caution" sign. An icon resembles something physical, like a picture or a portrait. An index has a direct relationship with the physical world e.g. a footprint. This is where the inflammatory speaking or toxic rhetoric comes into play. We should now all know this image.

This is the now infamous image. What it represents is the districts in the United States where there are currently Democrats where the Palin political action committee would like to have Republicans. The controversy occurs because Gabrielle Giffords is part of this list. There are other implications with this image. Red is the same color as blood, and a red crosshair typically signifies that you have the target in sight (more on signs later). It looks kinda like a hit list. And these implications have counterpoints. The shooter acted independently from this agenda. No other listed representative has been threatened or injured. It was not designed as a hit list and it is the intent that counts. But where the real controversy should occur (at least the root of the controversy) is the use of the cross-hairs as a sign. There are two different interpretations of these signs.

1) The crosshairs are a symbol. They are essentially target signs and they were target signs from the beginning. Our interpretation is not based on guns or firearms but of aim. So it is not inflammatory but symbolic for the Republican agenda.

2) The crosshairs are an icon or an index. When you look through the scope of a gun, you will see crosshairs. So the natural reaction is to relate crosshairs with firearms. So it is inflammatory because of the relationship between the crosshairs and guns and violence.

So the debate is caused by different readings of the same sign. It is, academically, a debate rooted in semiotics. Sound off in the comments (read: do I actually have any viewers?).

Image from Palin Political Action Committee (sarahpac.com).

Update: Apparently inciting a violent act is illegal. So the debate is also a legal debate too because on one side, the map is okay, but on the other, the map is illegal.