Sometimes, philosophy does something a little different. Sometimes, philosophy is absurdly pretentious (though for a reason). Sometimes, philosophy enjoys super specific concepts that we don’t much care about. Then, sometimes, philosophy does all of that but also talks about things like fashion and pop culture in an elevated way. 

People think of philosophers, especially 20th century philosophers, as smarmy little jerks who just like to use a bunch of fancy words to talk about things that don’t really matter. But the truth is, the things we discuss in philosophy are the baseline of things that do matter. They are the foundations.

Some philosophers decided to climb down from the ivory tower, where things like truth, existence, aesthetics, the good life, etc. often reside. They set their feet to the ground and took a more mundane path, deciding, instead, to look into everyday life and culture. 

Roland Barthes (1915-1980) was one such thinker who decided to take a step outside of literature and linguistics and into pop culture. Barthes, whose work spanned from literary criticism to studies of fashion, lived, studied, and taught in France during that time when being a philosopher was kind of a cool thing.

In many of his works, he used what we call semiotics, that is, the study of signs, to examine everyday objects and illustrate larger philosophical points. Let’s talk more about this practice and how it is used.

Sign of the Times: Semiotics and Barthes

Semiotics is just a fancy term for the study of signs. And when we say signs, we can mean literally a stop sign, or we can mean the sign that a dress can be, when worn at a picnic, gala, or work. Signs are what we use to convey to each other important things. When you look at the red of an octagonal stop sign, for instance, you are seeing something that you know, by its bright red hue, is meant to convey danger or warning. The sign itself, now iconic, emphasizes an urgency that transcends itself. 

The dress functions differently in a different environment. Worn at a picnic, it can denote an attempt at being casual. Worn at a gala, it can be perceived as an attempt at being too casual. Worn at work, it can be perceived as work appropriate or inappropriate, given the cut and the circumstances. The dress is one fixed thing, but its meaning changes depending on its context.

In other words, for Barthes and others, there are two levels of meaning. There is the real meaning of an object such as a stop sign, that is, the way we can describe it, its physical existence. It is a metal red octagon with the word STOP on it. And the symbolic meaning: when you see that red sign, you know that you are supposed to stop your vehicle right there. You know that if you do not, you could get a ticket or the police.

So it is with other objects. For Barthes, for instance, fashion was a parade of semiotics. He delved hard into fashion magazines, discussing the difference between describing a dress with words and depicting a dress with photos, for instance. In deconstructing the anatomy of a fashion magazine, Barthes peels back layers that most would not even consider in their daily life.

Christian Dior dresses on dress forms at an exhibit in Paris in 2017. Courtesy of Wiki Commons.

The Study of Signs: A Whole New World

But why do this? Anyone who has read Barthes can probably tell you he’s A Lot to read. His paragraphs are lengthy and complex, and he uses a lot of higher level words that perhaps might not be necessary. But his process is worthy even if veiled in jargon.

Structuralism, the field to which Barthes, a jack of academic trades, not-so-neatly belongs, breaks down imagery and builds meaning from it, in a larger framework. Barthes’s mission was to pull apart, examine, and share the analysis of a thing’s overarching meaning. In doing this, Barthes elevates such things as pop culture or fashion for more than just pretentious academic reasons. He shares their importance to the culture.

In examining the overarching meaning of pop cultural items, for instance, Barthes reveals that these items often have ideological meanings attached to them, symbolism that could even reach the point of propaganda. Even cutesy fad items could have a darker significance, if they are taken apart and examined in through a wider cultural lens.

A linguist at heart, Barthes likes the intricacies of language, and translates these to the intricacies of, well, everything else. The process is, in many ways, exhausting to read. Lengthy sentences that do not flow well, but try to be as exhaustive as possible end up being exhausting to read. But it is a process worthy of doing nonetheless.

Why Does It Matter?

It’s not entirely unreasonable to ask why looking at overarching cultural meanings in items like cars and dresses even matters. Why, you might ask, even do such a thing, other than to hand in a fancy paper to an academy?

When we examine things beyond their mundane function, we can understand more about how they are used within our society, and therefore understand more about ourselves. Have you ever wondered why, for instance, people are obsessed with those little Labubu dolls? Or why rich people seem to like absurd things? Or what about why we seem to take national pride in certain symbols, like birds or certain kinds of alcoholic beverages?

The interesting thing about semiotics is that it gives you the tools to see the world around you through a different pair of eyes. It gives you the critical thinking to question things, and it allows you to wonder why. If that is not philosophy, I don’t know what is.

Can we say that people like Barthes take this too far? Absolutely. Work like semiotics can become so intricate that it can veer into the realm of the uninteresting or unimportant. It can seem like a thing someone is doing to appear fancy or pedantic. But that is a debate that spans literary and cultural criticism.

When do things become irrelevant to the majority of people? When should we just sort of clock out of listening to something, or reading something that appears overly pedantic or not for us? I would argue that most of philosophy, even challenging philosophy like semiotics, is for us. Could it use an interpreter? Perhaps. But it remains a powerful way to examine the world around you. And for that, I will take a little bit of pretentiousness.

Small Personal Note on Goth and Semiotics

In my own studies of the goth subculture, for which I am preparing conference papers and (hopefully) a book, I came to understand that, for goths, the way of dress has a meaning outside of the clothing. For instance, dressing entirely in black is not just a thing that a goth does for no reason. 

An outfit is intentional, and the look conveys more than just, "Oh, this person is goth." For the goth, the clothing can mean more than one thing. It can mean that the person wants to unnerve people with their closeness to death, it can mean that the person wants to indicate that they are part of a specific subculture. But it can also be an indicator that the person wants to separate themself from people who would otherwise share physical traits with them.

To dress goth is to dress with intention. In saying so, I leave you with the note that often we can find helpful philosophers even when we weren't looking for them. Barthes and semiotics will be, for my own project, very helpful.