/ Alex Mazey - Sardonicism in Semiotics /

Sardonicism in Semiotics

When I look down into the washing up bowl at night, stepping into a familiar site of dissociation and dirty dishes, I am reminded plainly that Scrub Daddy’s smile exists not as a replacement for my own vacant countenance but rather as a mimicry of the smiling children none of us can afford to have anymore. For others, I suspect their relationship with the daddy of all sponges is a profoundly libidinal and intimate one where the sponge today boasts over one and a half inches of serious scrubbing power. Anyone familiar with doing the washing up knows it’s not the size of the sponge that counts but the motion on the dirty dishes.

I know of only one truth that persists under capitalism, which is to say, those things concealed in fancy boxes are far nicer than those things that come wrapped in cellophane. As such, it makes sense that a premium sponge — like Scrub Daddy — would come in a cardboard box adorned with those slogans whose words resemble the libidinal appeal of a Tinder biography, where Daddy today claims he is the ‘perfect partner’ for all your cleaning needs. This is a kind of mythological optics that has less to do with cleaning and more to do with easing the existential loneliness at the heart of dish cleaning, of having to stand at a bowl of tepid water with no one other than yourself.

A ‘versatile smile’ that cleans both sides of your spoons is a weird flex to read on the back of an orange box, let alone the accompanying picture of a sponge that leaves you asking why bro is sticking a spoon in his mouth like that? Another image on the back of the box sees Scrub Daddy the size of a dishwasher — which is terrifying.

‘My eyes provide an ergonomic grip’, he announces only because there is an emptiness where his eyes should be, ‘with just two fingers […] reach deep into cups.’ When you start thinking about how libidinal (creepy) this all sounds, you soon realise Scrub Daddy really has no business being on TikTok at all. Isn’t it the case that his world is one of washing up, of adults looking for some semblance of joy in a world without it?

Walking through TKMaxx I once saw a Sad Daddy — a Scrub Daddy whose smile was inverted — and impressed with the edginess of the gimmick, actually considered purchasing until I considered the reality of confronting his frown every evening; his sad face submerged below the surface of the water as opposed to the familiarity of his consumer-friendly neon. I knew I couldn’t bare to see it, and I wondered in that moment if the real message of Sad Daddy was that we need people to smile up at us before we start putting things in their mouths. With all this being said, what remains so fascinating about Scrub Daddy is his paradoxical templexity on the shelving unit, his coming together of different times to form a marketable product that seems both contemporary in its neon-orange self-awareness whilst simultaneously achieving that old-fashioned naivety summarised in the words of America’s Favourite Sponge!

“Despite the frequently disingenuous and conventionally outmoded appeals that tell us otherwise, media literacy, fostered by the internet, social media, and everyday necessity, has actually enabled the average person to read signs at an unprecedented rate, with cultural products, advertisements, and even political discourse often consumed critically, with an awareness of the mechanisms at play.”

From this reading of America’s Favourite Sponge! it could be argued that the process by which signs accrue secondary meanings through cultural context has not undergone any significant transformation since Roland Barthes first explored how signs carry not only their literal, denotative meaning but also a connotative layer that communicates deeper ideological messages. It goes without saying that our culture differs greatly to the one Barthes’ was writing about in 1957, when he first published Mythologies, since Barthes was writing at a time when signs in media and culture often masked their ideological content in an attempt to appear natural or neutral as opposed to the contemporary landscape, shaped in part by the democratisation of media literacy and the ubiquitous presence of mass communication, where ideological connotations have become increasingly transparent, even self-evident. So whilst it may seem like Scrub Daddy supports the Barthesian hypothesis of 1957 it is actually through America’s Favourite Sponge! where we can, in fact, see how the situation in semiotics has collapsed into an environment where people are increasingly aware of how signs operate.

It is fair to say that despite the frequently disingenuous and conventionally outmoded appeals that tell us otherwise, media literacy, fostered by the internet, social media, and everyday necessity, has actually enabled the average person to read signs at an unprecedented rate, with cultural products, advertisements, and even political discourse often consumed critically, with an awareness of the mechanisms at play. Consequently, the ideological function of signs have become largely recognisable with advertisements no longer merely selling products but openly declaring their strategies for doing so; often playing on the consumer’s awareness of the manipulative techniques at work. As such, it could be argued that Scrub Daddy, as one example, becomes emblematic of those products that frequently incorporate irony, self-awareness, and meta-commentary to engage an audience that is keenly aware of the ‘myth-making’ in a mode of advertisement that represents a profound shift from Barthes’ original conception of semiotics — where ideology was hidden beneath layers of connotation — to a situation where ideology is performed openly and cynically, in full view of an audience that both understands and participates.

What has resulted from this democratisation of media literacy is not some great emancipation from the sign then but the general acceptance of its lived ubiquity, which isn’t so bad if it wasn’t for the accompanying cynicism of understanding how quickly a pathological reality collapses into pathological distrust. To say, what accompanies this understanding is a take on reality which demands distrust by default. Therein, from an anthropological perspective, hypercultures reproduce a profound distrust in the very possibility of meaning, as the endless circulation of signs creates an environment where cultural products cannibalise themselves, exposing the mechanics of signification but offering no escape from their circular logic. Consequently, the cynicism towards authenticity in all signification has brought about an adaptive mobilisation in myth to produce an emergent semiotics whose countenance is one of quiet sardonicism. It may be the case that we have reached this point in semiotics only because our collective humour for the situation offers back to a delirious world a sense of logical consistency.

It is also worth mentioning here the irony of those semiotics that work in tandem with an attention economy where every cultural product, political message, and social media post is imbued with signs that simulate importance. No doubt an audience already predicated upon burnout have become numb to the endless stream of symbols in a phenomenon of sign fatigue in which the over-saturation creates a paradox: while signs are everywhere, meaning is nowhere.

It has perhaps been said before now that these now surreptitious semiotics of contemporary hyperculture — where signs are over-saturated, transparent, and performative — do not merely reflect a nihilistic worldview but actively produce a dominant cultural mythology — a grand narrative — of nihilism. Through the constant simulation of depth, the erosion of authenticity, and the overproduction of signs, contemporary culture presents a vision of the world where meaning is perpetually deferred, fractured, and disappeared. In doing so, today’s semiotics plays a crucial role in formulating this culture of nihilism, where the belief in truth, value, and authenticity is not only questioned but rendered impossible.

The connotative myth, far from being hidden, is rendered transparent in the cultural signs that surround us, perpetuating the idea that in the end, it is not a case of what is being concealed in semiotics anymore when there is, in fact, nothing left to see. This differs greatly from the Barthesian conception in the way that the presentation of images is now one in which there is no ideological surplus anymore. At this juncture, every adaptive response has already been commodified, and this is immensely funny to me.

To say, the paradox generates a semiotics that can be understood as fundamentally sardonic because it operates with a surface of irony and cynicism, mocking the very system of meaning that it ostensibly participates in. This semiotic arrangement acknowledges the mechanisms of signification, yet in doing so, undermines them with a sardonic undercurrent which stems from the fact that these semiotics, while presenting signs as carriers of meaning, simultaneously reveals their emptiness and the absurdity of any sincere search for authenticity or truth in a hyper-saturated media landscape. In essence, semiotics plays a cynical, almost mocking role, not just in reflecting cultural conditions but in actively amplifying the hollow, performative nature of modern communication. It may be the case that in the everyday task of life we sink down into this endless depth of meaning only to better avoid coming to terms with the authenticity of an empty world. In many ways, this is precisely what makes ‘meaning’ sardonic— it’s as if the cultural mechanisms of meaning-making are today revelling in the fact that meaning has been depleted, acknowledging the orchestration that produces this outcome. Rather than attempt to rebuild meaning in any active way, contemporary semiotics doubles down with its mocking indifference.

We can dial this back to an advertising that today incorporates irony and self-referential humour, acknowledging the artifice behind any brand's attempt to sell a product — let alone an inch and a half of yellow sponge. In such instances, brands openly recognise that their marketing ploys are insincere, playing on the audience’s media literacy. This approach isn’t earnest; rather, it mockingly embraces its own superficiality, reinforcing a cynical worldview in which consumers are invited to participate in the joke.

“The authenticity on display is always undercut by its performative nature in which the awareness creates that same sardonic undercurrent where the more influencers proclaim their authenticity, the more obvious it becomes that their image is contrived, revealing a deep cynicism about the possibility of sincerity in a world predicated upon appearance.”

We know Scrub Daddy comes in an neon-bright box because he needs to be seen by us. The signs of advertising — such as images of domestic happiness encoded into Scrub Daddy’s smiling face, or the image of success here exhibited in his allegedly unparalleled ability to clean dishes, and even his identity as ‘the perfect partner’, are delivered with a wry smirk where the very processes of signification become a sardonic gesture. Of course, Scrub Daddy concerns the wider trend of brands injecting emotional relationships into consumer products, reflecting the commodification of human connection where this promise of being ‘the perfect partner’ evokes not only the performative smile which belongs to us as much as it does Scrub Daddy but a loneliness endemic to consumer culture, the warmth of human connection here replaced by the ‘Flex Texture’ of a wet sponge. Sardonicism is saying all of this whilst at the same time acknowledging the transparency of an object which supersedes all myths of ideology. It is not to be confused with a byproduct of cultural critique when it has developed as an essential mode through which meaning is constructed, understood, and disseminated. Unlike traditional semiotics, where signs and symbols are often treated as vehicles for stability, contemporary semiotics thrives on the openness of signs when held in relation to the fixed stability of sardonic interpretation, which is itself predicated upon a critical distance from the world of meaning. When every product, every media text, and even every public figure is encoded with multiple layers of advertising, marketing, and self-promotion, meaning becomes slippery, elusive, and fragmented. Therein, the sardonic dimension allows both the creator and the interpreter to engage with this complex semiotic field while maintaining a layer of ironic, fixed detachment, shielding from the dissociation of full immersion.

It is this situation in semiotics that largely sets the tone for a (para)social media influencer phenomenon in which those influencers often craft images of their lives that project authenticity yet inevitably produce personas that are curated with hyper-awareness, often explicitly acknowledging that they are, in fact, commodified versions of selfhood designed to attract followers, likes, and sponsorships. The authenticity on display is always undercut by its performative nature in which the awareness creates that same sardonic undercurrent where the more influencers proclaim their authenticity, the more obvious it becomes that their image is contrived, revealing a deep cynicism about the possibility of sincerity in a world predicated upon appearance. Ironically, this lack of authenticity promotes a sense of their authenticity. As such, the very concept of authenticity becomes subject to the same sardonic undercurrent, played out in endless repetitions across digital platforms, its meaning eroded and exposed as nothing more than another sign in the cringe economy. (It may be the case that the phenomenon of parasocial interaction represents one of the emergent pathologies of full immersion.)

Nevertheless, it is that economy which repeats the same symbols with increasing detachment as if mocking the idea that anyone would still expect these things to convey anything substantial. And as if in lockstep with influencer culture, this dynamic can be seen in the world of fashion and consumer culture where retro styles are revived not out of nostalgia but in a way that seems to mock the perceived authenticity of their original context. There is absolutely nothing about Primark's range of t-shirts that recalls the cultural meanings once attached to the emancipatory messages of hip-hop or the melancholic resignation of grunge since both are hollowed out through repetition in a space where fashion becomes a sardonic recycling of empty gestures. The more fashion signals rebellion, individuality, or authenticity, the more it seems to laugh at the very idea that these clothes ever carried such meaning in the first place. Over the course of my life I have noticed that high street fashion has given up on conveying anything whatsoever, which is why you might find a convalescent interpretation of contemporary fashion through looking at the demonstrable sardonicism of those TikTok trends that look to spring-tone mini skirts, knee-high boots, milkmaid blouses, puffed sleeves, and lace of 2000s horror games; those styles in survival horror today emulated in the fashion of young people who must perceive the daily act of survival under capitalism as synonymous with rebellion.

It is a fashion which could be perceived as overwhelmingly political if it was not for the way a sardonic recycling of empty gestures in fashion translated so easily to those political spheres where the signs and symbols of social justice were also wielded in increasingly sardonic ways. The ideological signs of freedom and equality, hope and change, are often deployed with an understanding that they are no longer anchored in genuine political action or belief, but instead serve as performative gestures, saturated to the point where they are no longer connected to any substantive political program but used in ways that make wry acknowledgements to the fact that any ideological weight has disappeared. It is banal to even mention how political discourse thus becomes another sardonic performance, where participants, fully aware of the hollow nature of the signs they employ, continue to rely on the profoundly sardonic language of hope and change in a way that keeps the ball rolling in a politically recognisable but comfortably out of touch sort of way.

“This sardonic attitude reflects a cultural condition where authenticity and truth are not only elusive but openly ridiculed. Rather than attempt to recover lost meaning, today’s semiotics emboldens the conditions it helped to create, embracing the performative and ironic nature of signs with a sense of cynical amusement.”

Demonstrably, the pervasive use of the semiotics in question creates a cultural landscape that is, at its core, sardonic spectacle which is not simply a passive reflection of cultural emptiness but an active mockery of any attempt to find deeper meaning or sincerity. As signs proliferate without meaning, and as culture becomes increasingly aware of the futility of traditional semiotic systems, these once newly emergent and perhaps now fully-established semiotics do not seek to resist nihilism. Instead, these semiotics lean into nihilism as its connotative myth, with a sardonic smirk that reflects a resigned acceptance. It is an observable phenomenon in meaning-making seen in just how many cultural products, particularly in postmodern and post-ironic spaces, are designed to highlight their own meaninglessness. Memes, viral videos, and contemporary art frequently play with this paradox, offering no coherent message but instead revelling in their purposelessness. The rise of ‘shitposting' exemplifies this, with such phenomenon mocking the very idea that online discourse should be meaningful or substantial. It is not so much a case of semiotics resembling shitposting as shitposting resembling semiotics as both semiotics and shitposting both go so far as to mock the very system of signification they operate within, exposing the emptiness of contemporary signs by leaning into the irony of meaning-making in a world oversaturated by it.

This sardonic attitude reflects a cultural condition where authenticity and truth are not only elusive but openly ridiculed. Rather than attempt to recover lost meaning, today’s semiotics emboldens the conditions it helped to create, embracing the performative and ironic nature of signs with a sense of cynical amusement. Nevertheless this sardonicism reflects an active engagement with meaning, even in the face of its perceived collapse. In many ways, this ironic detachment and playful mockery of the futility of meaning can be seen as a form of resistance, a way for culture to confront the overwhelming sense of nihilism and emptiness not by retreating into despair, but by embracing and navigating it with humour. I find the nihilism of the culture endlessly funny since a genuinely meaningless world would not have to be so constantly reminded of its existential position. In fact, it is the very sardonicism of this reminder that carries with it an implicit critique of the systems that have rendered signs hollow, drawing attention to their failures, just as these failures exhibit themselves in the hollow eyes of America’s Favourite Sponge. It is, at the same time, a profound coping mechanism for dealing with the overwhelming complexity of modern semiotic environments. Rather than succumbing to despair over the collapse of traditional meaning structures, sardonic semiotics provides a way to adapt to an environment in which the north star of irony becomes the only means of navigating the rising tide of images.

In closing I will stress the key aspect of the broader sardonic semiotic field is its reliance on humour, particularly the dark or ironic humour evident in so much cultural production today and made demonstrable in the sardonic inflections inherent to the aesthetics and objects discussed therein. Although sardonicism often mocks the search for authenticity in a world of simulations, this mockery itself can be seen as an authentic reaction to the conditions of postmodernity. The push and pull of sardonic humour helps to diffuse the contradictory power of all forces by reducing them to the same level of absurdity in which we are commanded to live, stripping them of their privileged status in a total, closed-circuit reality. This adaptability demonstrates that we are not paralysed by the recognition that signs are empty or that meaning has been commodified. Instead, we develop tools to operate within those conditions that not only hold the opportunities for subversive re-appropriation and the hope of renewal through play but the recognition that, in critiquing and mocking the hollowness, there remains open to us a bridge of possibility. In fact, it is the sardonicism inherent to the condition of contemporary semiotics where a final and absolute eschatology of cultural nihilism is yet to be fully-accomplished, and remains, in my mind, the impossible task of capital.

Alex Mazey's Bibliography