TRANS Nr. 16: Symeon Degermentzidis (Thessaloniki, Greece): The melting point of social reproduction and cultural innovation through the Repro-novation Model

Social structures are characterized by indices of coherence and equivalence; mechanisms for ensuring and regulating qualitative and quantitative parameters in terms of economic competitiveness and cultural productivity. The postmodern conditions prevailing in the globalized version of society transform the attempts for a semiotic decoding of the major modifications into a process of continuous readjustment of criteria and axiological mechanisms. On the basis of one of these - an evolved version of the theory of structural holes, as formulated by Ronald Burt - my aim is to dig up some of the complex aspects characterizing the interactive relationship between social reproduction and cultural innovation. In other words, my aim is to show how the social and cultural orientations together form the prospect of a reorganization of the theoretical and practical framework that rules the lives of modern people, through a system of decoding sign operations. My analysis focuses on the interaction of the socio-cultural role that the manager and the artist are playing nowadays, in order to propose an alternative version of synthetic consideration of their seemingly conflicting roles.

My starting point is the interaction and combination of verbal and non-verbal signs in a "general homology model". This is to be used as a methodological tool for approaching the uniform nucleus of production, both on an ideological and communicative level. By accepting the general terms set up by the "homology of material, sign and mental production" (Bernard 2004: 47-68), I would like to make some crucial remarks on the interaction of "artefacts", "signifacts" and "mentefacts" and the synthetization that the uniform consideration of the dichotomic expression "culture versus ideology" entails. The advantage of the above model in this case lies in the detailed stratification of correspondences stemming from the material and bio-energetic substance and ending in the overall conception of "culture", driving me to define cultural innovation as a long process of transformations and modifications on every level. In this sense, the unified inner and outer space complies with heterogeneous, though homologically convergent, conditions as long as the deterministic regime of the general homology model allows me to study certain approached per level, in order to give the social reproduction the role of a parallel, complementary process. Thus, the dialectical relation between cultural innovation and social reproduction presents some complex parameters, and perhaps only the semiotic treatments of analyses are able to penetrate into their social background. Along with their simultaneous interaction, I could say that cultural innovation contains social reproduction, since in every stage of the model one can detect the work factor, which is subject to a final - though entirely unshaped - ideological reconstruction. On the other hand, what is equally important is the fact that the "genetic code" of the general model is substantially social, thus setting production as the key concept in the solution of the inside/outside puzzle. This complex relation forces me to consider the two processes both as components and resultants of a flexible and particularly mutable interactive network. The Rossi-Landian synthesis of production, exchange and consumption, which is reflected in the above general model, helps me to conceptualize the reproductive and innovative role as factors aiming at the maintenance of a continuous dialectical relation between mental and physical work (Posner 1988). However, since the main power of the above general model stems from the mediating attempt to redefine the conjunction of inside and outside productive process, the semiotic orientation may prove extremely fruitful if related to the evolved structural approaches of the sociological data (Burt 1983a: 176-194). Such a perspective provides the theoretical background to the structural holes, a theory of Ronald Burt’s which strengthens the tie among the members of a network - by an increase in the flow of information and exercise of power -, in the lack of repeated contacts and the entailing creation of gaps. Therefore, if I chose the artist as the typical representative of cultural innovation and the manager as the typical representative of social reproduction, I would proceed to a couple of stereotypical characterizations, compatible with the comparison between the inside world - whose agent is the former - and the outside world - whose agent is the latter. Thanks to Burt’s theory, I can define the manager as an intermediary of non-repeated meetings and guarantor of a prolonged absence. Absence creates a new presence, unknown until then, and able to trigger off another absence. If I compare this presence with the social reproduction in the sense of a planned circle of contacts in the context of an ego network, then the absence automatically lends the concept of social capital (Burt 2001: 31-56) the dynamics of a cultural reproduction/innovation. Certainly, this is my assumption, since Burt’s reasoning is limited to a level of sociological and economic parameters. However, expanding on his thought, I shall first attempt to define the relation between social reproduction and cultural innovation based on the identification of social innovation and cultural reproduction. In other words, along with the terms "reproduction" and "innovation", I shall adopt the schematic arrangement of the concepts of non-reproduction and non-innovation, thus creating a kind of structural holes in the semiotic correspondences. This means that the substantial characterization of a semiotic sequence as productive is not only connected with the terms "reproduction" and "innovation", but there is an intermediate axiological mechanism of productivity, which controls and confirms the degree to which the above terms are freed from the concepts of non-innovation and non-reproduction, respectively.

First of all, I should point out that, for Burt, the theory of structural holes refers to networks ruled by a manager, a leading character who guides his/her group. I may conceive of the microcosm of a network as a cell of our individualistic and capitalistic society, where the objective is to satisfy personal aspirations and achieve as high level of productivity as possible. This model is personified in every individual who joins little social groups, while in its more typical expression it is detected in a group of professionals with common objectives. On the other hand, it is equally worth noting that this particular consideration is founded on the contradistinction between individual and society, between manager and subordinates. This sheds light on the dialectical relation between individual and collectivity, from a viewpoint that gives priority to the sovereign individual against the subjugated individual, even though the predominance of the former is virtually based on the latter. The innovative practice of the ego network depends on the activities of the leader-manager, while the other members are simply vehicles of the reproduction of the cultural codes contained in the decisions of the former (manager). The schema "individual-collectivity" creates complex interactions of relations (individual regarded as psychosomatic entirety, resultant of social practices and cultural data, group meant as unit due to material, social, economic, and cultural similarities and relationships, formation of further sub-groups echoing subcultures, etc.), and, apart from the deterministic regime that governs every particular system of relationships, I ought to consider the mapping out of a policy with a farsighted horizon. However, the adoption of a general framework of activities cannot pay off if it remains attached to inflexible operations: It should be characterized by innovative initiatives and by the ability to invent new, effective methods for each case. Flexibility, adaptability, productivity, competitiveness, and social reward, are the features that characterize the struggle of every "individual ensemble" and every "total unit". Thus, if I want to cross the dipole "reproduction/innovation" with the dipole "individual/group" and draw some fertile conclusions, it would be useful to adopt the reasoning of the structural holes in a semiotic context. Thus, I can create a quadripartite bipolar superstructure joining these two pairs with the aforementioned ones, i.e., "social/cultural" and "inside/outside". To sum up, I could say that the General Homology Model with its Rossi-Landian background combined with the evolved theory of structural holes as formulated by Ronald Burt may help me analyze the structural chain "social innovation → cultural reproduction → social reproduction → cultural innovation → social innovation". I need the proposed complex methodological tool, because, if I want to decide on the degree of productivity of the above semiotic sequence, I must free the term "reproduction" from the concept of "non-innovation" and the term "innovation" from the concept of "non- reproduction". Thus, the fields of the ego networks where the theory of structural holes is primarily applied, assimilate a bipolar superstructure consisting of four levels ("individual/group", "inside/outside", "cultural/social", and "innovation/reproduction").

In every ego network, I can detect a system of relations governing the contacts a person has with the members of the group, as well as the contacts between the others. If I consider that a node is the centre of the network, reticulated with every other node, then, the following question arises: "How will the interweaving of activities among the active subjects of the ego network bring about the maximum possible productivity?" The answer Burt gives to this question makes productivity and success dependent on the multiplicity of structural holes that the particular ego network possesses. In other words, the concept of innovation - in terms of the semiotic framework where I follow Burt’s reasoning - turns out to be the result of many gaps, a condition ensured by the lack of contacts. The greater the lack of contacts, the higher the economic - according to Burt - or the cultural - according to me - innovation: the criterion of redundancy broadly determines the system of relations that promotes better conditions of productivity. When the mesh of inner connections becomes thicker, the ego network becomes more cumbersome and ineffective, and, by extension, it moves in the field of reproduction rather than in the field of innovation. The role of the gap seems to acquire more and more value, marginalizing the significance not only of direct - but also of indirect - contacts, for the benefit of new connections outside this particular group (Burt 1997a: 339-365/ 1997b: 157). I am associating the concept of reproduction with the process of sign use and the concept of innovation with the process of sign production. At first glance, it seems that only the node that is taken for an ego within a network represents a vehicle of innovation, and that the other nodes represent vehicles of reproduction. However, the new contacts of the ego outside the network also render the connected nodes, which belong to the other network, implicit vehicles of innovation. Therefore, I notice a condition of complementarity, where the ego of one network works as a vehicle of innovation for this network, and as a vehicle of reproduction for another network; on the other hand, the nodes of a network work as vehicles of reproduction for this network, but some of them are also implicit vehicles of innovation for another network.

In every network, the ego plays the role of intermediary both inside the network and with regard to another network; this also applies to some selected nodes in every network. In the meantime, any mediation comes up as an expression of the operation of signs between mental and physical work. The structural sequence "absence → presence → absence", which refers to the decisive part of the gaps for the establishment of new contacts, also represents the triptych "cultural reproduction → social reproduction → cultural innovation", based on the criterion of the dipole "outside/inside". I believe that the social reproduction is either related to a contractual direct/indirect contact inside the ego network, or to a new contact, which is contracted to a node of another network. In addition, absence as a result of social innovation refers to the process of cultural reproduction, since it seeks to spread the use of tried cultural codes blindfold, i.e., ignoring the next contact. Right after presence as an expression of social reproduction, absence reappears in the form of cultural innovation, given that the preceding contact enriched the relations of the ego with new cultural effects. Just as the absence of cultural innovation is due to the presence of social reproduction, so the absence of cultural reproduction is due to the presence of social innovation: the ego undertakes to proceed to enterprising operations and innovative methods, drawing new resources from the manpower of other networks, so as to attempt in this way a "transplantation of structural cells" to its own network. In this way, the constant redefinition of the social capital based on the acquisition of returns (Lin 2001: 6) sets the prerequisites for direct or indirect contacts, firing an innovative mechanism of selection of similar ideological and social reserves, a kind of "habitus" I might say according to Bourdieu (Bourdieu 1979). Thus, starting from the final phase (i.e., cultural innovation) I have taken the reverse course in order to reach the first phase (i.e., social innovation), which needs a special analysis, so as to clarify why it is related to presence.

The phase of social innovation is located in a mesh of structural homologies, detected in networks related to the system of relations, which may possibly present great variations in terms of the material realization of work. In this light, I realize what a great part Bourdieu’s theory plays in the first phase of my semiotic chain, connecting the inside and the outside world, the ideological and sociological interweaving. First of all, the conception of "habitus" allows me to seek the deeper relation between one’s ever-changing perceptive ability and the activities that reproduce the terms of his/her social integration and classification. The selection of the values of one’s social identity in the bosom of a wider prevailing system is determined by himself/herself, although it is based on the reception of the same representations. The very structures are characterized by certain coordinates affected by the "habitus", which intervenes in their operation. This remark is particularly useful to me, because the ego must search for networks, whose nodes will be characterized by a different habitus, if he/she seeks to achieve as much productivity as possible through the structural holes. Here I shall propose the connection of habitus with the "artefacts, signifacts, mentefacts" included in the General Homology Model, and I shall underline their deeper affinity. Thus, the artefacts are related to economic success, promotion and dominance, the signifacts are related to the proportional verbal wording and the semantic gradations of sociological terms; and the mentefacts are related to the mapping out of an ideological policy and complex cultural mechanisms. The first phase of the social innovation, which concerns me here, implies the presence due to parallelism in the sense of habitus. This presence refers neither to the active nor to the passive voice of the subject - the ego, in this case - and combines the mental and the material form of productivity. In other words, the ego selects external nodes, forming the ideological actors of their selection. These actors come from the social background of ego, and I would expect them to be described by reproductive programming. However, a complex process takes place, during which every new node is a projection of an implicit image of ego. This means that the ego contains the seminal transubstantiation of every new node, with a singular regime, which is determined by the structural holes. The node does not only belong to a foreign network; he/she implicitly belongs to the ego network, and in an unusual coincidence, it may possibly be ideologically related more to it, than all the other internal nodes. This occurs because the ego selects the new nodes, carrying in himself/herself and applying on them his/her habitus. If I want to go deeper into my reasoning, I shall notice that every selection of a new node by the ego is determined both by micro-structural criteria (latent mechanisms of comparison with similar cases of selection of nodes in the past) and by macro-structural criteria (social background and principles of forming the ego’s class consciousness). The maintenance of the organic continuity between the experience and the new activity detected in the first phase of social innovation, is counterbalanced by the organic discontinuity observed in the fourth phase of cultural innovation, where the cultural code consolidates its authority in the dominance of an unknown cultural ideology, which will prolifically engraft its then prevailing version. This means that there is a feedback operation between the fourth phase of cultural innovation and the first phase of social innovation.

Analyzing the structural chain "social innovation → cultural reproduction → social reproduction → cultural innovation → social innovation", I detect another interesting point, which was raised above. If I consider the term "reproduction" as a primarily passive concept based on sign use and the term "innovation" as a primarily active concept based on sign production, then I shall be led to superficial results. Thus, I choose to use the equation that results from the above structural chain: "social innovation/cultural reproduction ≈ social reproduction/cultural innovation", in order to express the homology between the mediating role of habitus and my semiotic interpretative approach. What I mean is that on no occasion should I interpret the terms "reproduction" and "innovation" as incompatible with the concepts of "non-innovation" and "non-reproduction", respectively. This condition would equate the active or passive quality with the cancellation of the opposite condition, and would also signal a secondary chain of cancellations, placed in structural limits. The concept of "non-innovation" in its extremity would be equal to the concept of "non-reproduction", thus drawing the attention to the primary condition of the material or bio-energetic substance. However, these concepts are useful, since their special semiotic weight may help me better understand the degree of productivity of the four phases of the structural chain. The following schema arises: social innovation ≈ innovation + non-reproduction → cultural reproduction ≈ reproduction - non-innovation → social reproduction ≈ reproduction + non-innovation → cultural innovation ≈ innovation - non-reproduction. Always staying in the field of parallelism with the habitus, I can define the concept of non-innovation as an experienced fact that derives its power from its proportional repetitive action on the active subject, i.e., on the ego; on the other hand, I can approach the concept of non-reproduction as resulting from experienced facts that help the active subject expand its perceptiveness thanks to the fictitious operation of the anagogic and diachronic interface. The non-innovation is the mask of habitus, whereas the non-reproduction is its virtual reality; as far as the ego is concerned, the former is a cloned structural tissue, while the latter is a "bioethical" experiment, to make a well-timed wordplay.

Adopting the proposed structural chain, which has been enriched with the sociologically charged background of the habitus, I am practically giving the concepts of "non-innovation" and "non-reproduction" the part of a double mechanism for application to the bipolar superstructure consisting of four levels (i.e.,"individual/group","inside/outside","cultural/social","innovation/reproduction"). The analogy between non-innovation and non-reproduction appertains to the analogy between denotation and connotation, or between the syntagmatic and the paradigmatic axis: the non-innovation contains echoes of a social denotation, whereas the non-reproduction contains echoes of a social connotation. Thus, approaching the first phase of the structural chain, I realize that innovation works as an addition to the anagogic experience, changing the ego into a coordinator of innovation included in the new nodes and the imaginary horizon delimited by his/her social experiences. In the second phase, the practice of cultural codes engrafts the ego with examples drawn from the ruling ideology of the society where he/she is placed, taking the power of the experienced social facts and refuting the ambition of their analogical perpetuation. In the third phase, the reproduction of social behaviour patterns and activities is enriched with the analogical experiences and the accumulated semantic content of their collective repetition (diachrony - synchrony). In the fourth phase, innovation is founded on the formation of a hybrid structural framework, where abstraction and inventiveness are connected with the lack of fictitious experiences, in search of the full liberation of the productive process from the primacy of social influence on the cultural coordinates. Finally, the recycling observed between the fourth and the first phase moves the structural focus to the anagogic feedback of the cultural and social practice. I arrive at the following schema:

The "Repro-novation Model" is given a nodal role in the mediation of the economic expediency as link between the habitus and the cultural identity. The economic expediency lays the foundations for spreading its ideological values to the social achievements of the past and derives its relative supremacy from the flexible methods and the appealing investing directions of the social capital. In this sense, it is easier to understand the attempt of ego to escape from the restricted circle of his/her own network and the will to make new contacts. The enrichment of the social capital multiplies the requirements for increased productivity and promises to open up new horizons by programming and implementing developmental operations that entail social action (Blau 1964). Between the emphasis laid on the social factor - a view chosen by Bourdieu - and the emphasis laid on the economic factor - according to Burt - the "repro-novation model" proposes a complex methodological tool for interpreting the successive, and often conflicting, phases of the structural chain of productivity. It attempts to shed light on the internal and external aspects of the transformation of the capital into an economic, social and cultural means of supremacy and dominance. The ego and the nodes adopt in advance the system of values of the ruling ideology - i.e., the capitalistic system for Western Europe and the USA - and invest the accumulated stock of their experienced activities in a network of relationships. The seemingly common objective is practically cut into small units of social capital, and the roles assumed by both the ego and the nodes is described by the essentially hypocritical capacity for fellow feeling and ideological agreement: it is evident that the ego represents the ruling ideology and the nodes the ruled class consciousness. As a consequence, it is a foregone conclusion that the concepts of reproduction and innovation cannot possibly go hand in hand in the two opposite camps. As an alternative to this pessimistic perspective I may propose an enterprising strategy for bridging the gap and turning the weak ties of the structural holes into functional joints of a transcendent dialectical cooperation. I shall later cite a typical example of intersection of an ego network located in the artistic field and another network appertaining to the business field, so as to point out the creative inter-semiotic interaction between their social and cultural ties, a consideration that may even lead to a retracing of career advising (Blossfeld & Mayer 1988).

Comparing a business-oriented ego network with another artistic-oriented network, I observe one a priori differentiated version of their social and cultural codes. The economic primacy is evident in the first one, and the cultural primacy in the second one; as a result, the first ego network runs a much greater risk of promoting the mechanistic character of the social reproduction for utilitarian purposes. Therefore, one solution for deconstructing the utilitarian policy is to confine some techniques of the "repro-novation model" to the business field, changing the structural correlations of this particular network. If I consider the concepts of non-reproduction and non-innovation as basic mechanisms of structural holes, it will be interesting to discover channels of communication between the cultural ego network and the business ego network based on the interaction between cultural and social ties. In the third phase, the ego of the business network is affected by the social commands of his/her era in the micro-society, where he/she is placed, and the chain reactions induced by the globalized market. In addition, the diachronic character of the habitus affects the development of the ego’s business strategy through the ideological weight he/she (ego) is transplanting to the social practices experienced in the past. The nodes of the business network adopt a secondary social consideration of the micro- and the macro-society where they are placed, since the internal ties and the parameters that rule their regime are gradually modified by the ego, resulting in the gradual transformation of the nodes’ habitus. This means that this particular field of the business network drives the ego and the nodes to a latent opposition/hostility that structures their relations: the ego is obliged to perpetuate the social reproduction and, while seeming free, he/she is actually forced to choose the socially imposed direct contacts with certain nodes; on the other hand, the nodes are forced to review the social reproduction, and, while appearing to be ruled, in fact, they have considerable latitudes for affecting the ego, given that the subgroups with "structural equivalent actors" (Burt 1983b: 262-282), which are formed outside the network, affect the indirect contacts of the ego. Thus, a kind of secondary break of the socio-denotation appears in the bosom of the ego business network: the ego represents an actor of the socio-denotation with regard to the nodes, the nodes are the actors of the socio-connotation with regard to the ego, and every node that becomes an ego presents a course of transition from socio-connotation to socio-denotation.

If I consider a cultural ego network - for example, a theatre company, a literary or painting school, a writer and his/her audience - I shall find that, in the stage of social reproduction, the field of the network is structured according to the latent struggle fought between the ego and the nodes, and there is analogy with the business ego network. The internal ties would have a one-way ideological charge if the role of socio-connotation was not developed in the interior, since the primary structural holes allow the network to acquire multidimensional internal identity. However, the main action area of the structural holes is found in the contacts with other networks of the same field. I might add that the structural holes gain greater value when they become secondary.- i.e., links among different fields - and are then changed into "social holes" and "cultural holes". Then, the interweaving networks are not only invested with a multidimensional external identity, but they also confirm the power of the "general homology model" in a more effective way. Thus, in the third phase, when the process of social reproduction takes place, communication between the two ego networks may become possible through the nodes or through the nodes before they become ego, although they refer to different fields. The two aforementioned social actors as vehicles of the socio-connotation enclosed in the socio-denotation allow for the formation of a creative inter-semiotic melting point. When I move on to the fourth phase of the cultural innovation, where one is moving on a level of supremacy of the socio-connotation, the ego both in the business network and the cultural network realizes that the stock of his/her social experiences is not enough to offer him/her a satisfactory fictitious experience. Thus, breaking the barriers set by the ideological framework of the micro-society, where he/she belongs, and by the international economic climate, the ego seeks to build new structural analogies by inventing or even discovering new methods, which will release the concept of productivity from merely social standards. The secondary social consideration of the nodes for the micro- and the macro-society where they are placed is described by the adoption of an hermeneutic aspect of the habitus with cultural standards and abstractive character. In this way, the hidden ties of opposition/hostility, which act underground in each one of the two networks, find a common ground of communication in the innovative strategy of both the ego and the nodes: the ego is free to take initiatives in order to achieve the cultural innovation, and, while he/she seems to be limited by the lack of analogical experiences, he/she is practically free to choose the right nodes and seek as much "investing" risk of the capital as possible; meanwhile, the nodes have limited room for taking initiatives, and, while they seem ruled, they are able to actively shape the innovative policy of the ego, if the latter criticizes their own choices in a fertile way, questions the utilitarian primacy and reviews his/her one-dimensional economic precedence, which they (nodes) are obliged to maintain as supreme value. Therefore, I discover a kind of secondary break of the socio-connotation within either of the two networks: the ego represents an actor of socio-connotation with regard to the nodes, and they are actors of socio-denotation with regard to the ego. Among networks of the same or different fields I can see an upgrading of role of socio-connotation in the fourth and fifth phases, where the ego replaces the lack of analogical experiences with the anagogic contribution of the nodes. Through the mediating role of socio-connotation, the constant enrichment of every network is achieved: the structural function of the rejection of repetition sets the conditions for an original contribution to the interweaving relations between ego and nodes, which reflects the fertile interaction between social and cultural ties. The same role of complementarity between socio-denotation and socio-connotation is also found in the first two phases, given that the relation of opposition/hostility and complementarity between ego and nodes is maintained. The result is the following schema where the signs + and - refer to the relation of socio-denotation and socio-connotation with the concepts of non-reproduction and non-innovation:

I conclude this presentation by making a reference to the "Repro-novation Model" as the proposed solution for the attempt to make a semiotic approach to the structural chain that connects the process of productivity with the terms "reproduction" and "innovation". The general framework of the model - as presented above - constitutes a synthesis of the "general homology model" with its Rossi-Landian background and an evolved version of the theory of structural holes, as formulated by Burt, whereas in terms of its sociological content, it is influenced by Bourdieu in the formation of basic concepts, such as the concepts of socio-denotation and socio-connotation, which result from the conception of the habitus. Analyzing the relations of the ego with the nodes among networks of the same or different fields, I am led to the complex consideration of the interaction between social and cultural ties in the four phases of the "repro-novation model", with the aim of forming a system of a more detailed decoding of the sign operations: the typical application of analyzing the interaction between the business ego network and the cultural ego network provides an enterprising suggestion for their creative inter-semiotic combination.

Bernard, Jeff (2004). "Inside/outside, ideology, and culture". In: Semiotica 148 - 1 / 4: 47-68.

Blau, Peter (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Blossfeld, Hans-Peter; Mayer, Karl Ulrich (1988). "Labour market segmentation in the Federal Republic of Germany: An empirical study of segmentation theories from a life course perspective". In: European Sociological Review 4: 123-140.

Burt, Ronald (1983a). "Range". In: Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction. Ronald S. Burt / Michael J. Minor (eds.). Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 176-194.

Burt, Ronald (1983b). "Cohesion Versus Structural Equivalence as a Basis for Network Subgroups". In: Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction. Ronald S. Burt / Michael J. Minor (eds.). Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 262-282.

Burt, Ronald (1997a). "The Contingent Value of Social Capital". In: Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 339-365.

Burt, Ronald (1997b). "A Note on Social Capital and Network Contents". In: Social Networks 19: 355-373.

Burt, Ronald (2001). "Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital". In: Social Capital: Theory and Research. Nan Lin / Karen Cook / Ronald S. Burt (eds.). New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 31-56.

Lin, Nan (2001). Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Posner, Roland (1988). "Semiotics vs anthropology: Alternatives in the explication of ‘culture’". In: Semiotics of Culture. Henri Broms and Rebecca Kaufmann (eds.). Helsinki: Arator, 151-184.

For quotation purposes:
Symeon Degermentzidis (Thessaloniki, Greece): The melting point of social reproduction and cultural innovation through the Repro-novation Model. In: TRANS. Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften. No. 16/2005. WWW:www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/01_2/degermentzidis16.htm

1.	Social innovation ≈ innovation + non-reproduction	Socio-connotation	Anagogic presence
2.	Cultural reproduction ≈ reproduction - non-innovation	Socio-denotation	Analogical absence
3.	Social reproduction ≈ reproduction + non-innovation	Socio-denotation	Analogical presence
4.	Cultural innovation ≈ innovation - non-reproduction	Socio-connotation	Anagogic absence

	Social innovation	Cultural reproduction	Social reproduction	Cultural innovation
Ego	Socio-connotation +	Socio-denotation -	Socio-denotation +	Socio-connotation -
Nodes	Socio-denotation +	Socio-connotation -	Socio-connotation +	Socio-denotation -
	Non-reproduction	Non-innovation	Non-innovation	Non-reproduction