Yes- secret message or bad subtext?

It's questionable whether I really understand what semiotics are:

even The Beginners Guide is pretty complicated. But, using my usual short-hand attitude, I define semiotics as the study of sign systems. Then I put down the book and use the theory like a hammer.

Today I am going to be hammering Jim Murphy. I have mocked The Murph in the past – he was Scottish Labour's leader during the 2015 election, and got a hard time on social media. The party got a right spanking in Scotland, and Jim was a bit of a scapegoat. I was pretty rude about him (generally, politicians are exempt from my calls for compassion). Like many contemporary politicians, The Murph liked a photo opportunity. I am going to use one of his photographs to consider the overlap between semiotics and dramaturgy. 

This ought to be fun. 

Let's do some half-assed theory first. If you want to get to the bit where I laugh at Jim, skip past the image. 

When I talk about dramaturgy, I assume (I think this is the a priori truths bit) that there is a conscious being behind any presentation, and that this being did it on purpose. This isn't uncontroversial: it assumes there is free will, and that the being is not an automaton (in the case of politicians, I am willing to make an exception).

That being is in a dialogue with a set of givens. The givens are the stuff that the being has limited control over: for Jim, I'm talking about male pattern baldness, his big old beady eyes, the whispers of the party machine, the failure of Scottish Labour to maintain dignity during the Referendum Campaign. There's also the weather, that kind of thing. And social conventions of course: Jim is in no position to decide that he fancies visiting a nursery school in the nip, for example.

Yet against these givens, the being makes choices. These are choices within a semiotic system. Those choices are based on the intentions of the being, his desires (gender bias noted). It is the way the being chooses to present themselves. That's dramaturgy.

If you like, dramaturgy is the creative process that determines the meaning within the sign system. It's a bit like a jigsaw (dramaturgical metaphor ahoy!).

This also assumes that there is not just a being making choices, but there is an audience for the final product, which is capable of understanding the semiotic system.

Apart from the off-chance that it might make me look smart (although it is more likely to encourage academics to think I am talking of things I don't understand and make non-academics fall asleep), I don't like theory on its own. I need an object (loaded term) to impose (yes) my theory onto the world.

Today's object is unpopular former Scottish Labour leader James Murphy (aka Jim, The Murph, Sonny Jim, Boggle Eye, Him off the television, that one who wouldn't resign after his party tanked, a relic of the old Glasgow Labour machine, the family man, Blair's Mate, An Honest Man Trying to do his Best in the Face of Opposition, An Integrity Driven Politician, The Idiosyncratic Socialist et c).

This photograph was taken during Jim's election campaign. On a simple level, the intention is obvious: Boggle Eye is showing that he is down with the kids (nursery school provision is probably a Hot Topic). But far from suggesting that Jim is happier hanging with youngsters, or implying that he has a mental age of three, this is a classic man of the people shot. He's taken off his suit jacket (the guy behind him still has his on, retaining the formal aspect), and has got all paint on his hands.

The kid looks pretty happy, and Him off the television is getting involved. There is a fourth person behind him, possibly a teacher, watching. Perhaps Blair's Mate didn't update his clearance to work with kids.

Anyway, that's the surface. Let's look at the symbols.

It's one thing to show pride in the colour of socialism-  Sonny Jim made a point of establishing his concern for the working class and even proved he knew how to spell it. But having a big red hand? In Glasgow? It is associated with a specific protestant group - The Orange Order, and they are not always the most popular gang in

town. In fact, left-wingers tend to throw shit-fits when they turn up.

The semiotics of the Red Hand are, frankly, suggestive of two things. The entity behind this image - whether it's Jim or the photographer - is either not spending enough time thinking about semiotics or wanted to associate the family man with traditional Unionism.

Is that a mistake, a deliberate attempt by Jim to woo The Orange Order or a photographer trying to mock him?