A study on commodity criticism from the perspective of marxist semioticsAbstract:
Marxist semiotics provides a comprehensive and critical framework for understanding and challenging the contemporary information society’s socioeconomic dynamics. By integrating Marxist theory and semiotics, this paper is to examine how commodities function as both material objects and carriers of meaning, and how digital advancements have intensified phenomena, such as alienated labor and symbolic consumption. Secondary data sources, including case studies and theoretical analyses, are utilized to explore real-world contexts that demonstrate the material and symbolic roles of digital commodities. Currency, as a meta-sign, interprets commodity signs and shapes societal values and relationships. The study addresses the information society, where the production, circulation, exchange and consumption of information form a cohesive trinity of media, intelligence and consumption. The fundamental arguments include the transformation of human survival in the digital age and the need for new academic interpretations, which contributes to both policy and theoretical discussions by bridging the gap between economic production and symbolic consumption. The study concludes with recommendations for further research on the socioeconomic implications of digital technologies.
Keywords:
Marxist semiotics; Commodity; Currency; Information society
Resumo:
A semiótica marxista oferece uma estrutura abrangente e crítica, para compreender e desafiar a dinâmica socioeconômica da sociedade da informação contemporânea. Ao integrar a teoria marxista e a semiótica, este artigo examina como as mercadorias funcionam como objetos materiais e portadores de significado, e como os avanços digitais intensificaram certos fenômenos, como o trabalho alienado e o consumo simbólico. Fontes de dados secundários, incluindo estudos de caso e análises teóricas, são utilizadas para explorar contextos do mundo real que demonstram as funções materiais e simbólicas das mercadorias digitais. A moeda, como um metassigno, interpreta os signos das mercadorias e molda os valores e as relações sociais. O estudo aborda a sociedade da informação, na qual a produção, a circulação, a troca e o consumo de informações formam uma trindade coesa de mídia, inteligência e consumo. Os argumentos fundamentais incluem a transformação da sobrevivência humana na era digital e a necessidade de novas interpretações acadêmicas, o que contribui para as discussões políticas e teóricas, ao preencher a lacuna entre a produção econômica e o consumo simbólico. O artigo conclui com recomendações para pesquisas futuras sobre as implicações socioeconômicas das tecnologias digitais.
Palavras-chave:
Semiótica marxista; Comodidade; Moeda; Sociedade da informação
Introduction
Marxism focuses on the socioeconomic structures that shape society, while semiotics critically examines how meaning is constructed through symbols. However, existing research has predominantly focused on either the material or symbolic aspects of commodities, with limited integration of both in the context of the digital economy. This creates a research gap where Marxist semiotics can bridge the understanding between the material production and symbolic consumption of digital commodities.
Beckett’s 2024 study on the economy of surplus-enjoyment sheds light on the complex interactions between currency and commodities in the context of a rapidly evolving digital economy. Ricci’s 2024 work, “Deciphering the Commodity: The Social Code of Value,” delves into the intricate relationship between value and commodities, proposing that value functions as a social algorithm that facilitates the equivalence of commodities in exchange. The socioeconomic implications of recent developments, as discussed by Mingers and Willcocks (2023), Fuchs (2023) and Kashindi (2018), collectively emphasize the need for adaptive strategies to address emerging challenges and opportunities across various sectors.
Apparently, current literature on commodity criticism often highlights either the economic processes that shape commodity production or the symbolic meanings commodities acquire through advertising and media. This separation overlooks how these two elements interact, especially in digital capitalism where products, such as smartphones, cryptocurrency and digital platforms, embody both material and symbolic values. There is a gap in understanding how communication labor creates interpretative codes that shape the symbolic value of commodities within contemporary digital economies.
While prior studies have contributed to our understanding of symbolic consumption and alienated labor in a digital context, they often fail to explore the complex relationship between the material and symbolic nature of commodities in an integrated manner. Existing research also lacks a focus on how digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence and communication platforms, have intensified this interaction. The research gap exists due to the lack of an interdisciplinary framework. Such a framework would combine Marxist socioeconomic critique with semiotic analysis. It is needed to examine how digital commodities function as both economic and symbolic objects in today’s information society.
In essence, there is a dialogue between Marxist political economy and semiotics. Marxist semiotics is able to incorporate issues, such as commodities, currency, information society and digital survival to its own vision, which not only constructs symbolic representation mechanism therein, but also unveils the interpretive metalanguage behind it. In this context, terms, such as “commodity signs”, refer to the symbolic value commodities acquire through their exchange, and “meta-signs” are signs that interpret other signs, like currency interpreting the value of commodities.
This study aims to address this gap by employing Marxist semiotics to analyze the dual roles of commodities as both economic entities and carriers of meaning. By integrating economic critique with semiotic analysis, this study seeks to fill the void in the current scholarship, offering a comprehensive framework that captures both dimensions of digital commodities. Specifically, this study aims to fill the research gap by investigating the dual roles of commodities in the digital economy through the integration of historical materialism, structuralist semiotics and Peircean semiotics.
Revolving around the analysis of economic bases and commodities from the perspective of Marxist semiotics, issues, like commodities, currency, information society and digital survival, are dealt with and unfolded one by one in the following.
1 Marxist semiotics
Both Marxism and semiotics are recognized for their openness and critical perspectives. Marxist semiotics, as an interdisciplinary approach, is dedicated to addressing the realities and challenges posed by human existence in the digital age. This framework combines the socioeconomic critiques of Marxism with the analytical tools of semiotics to explore and understand digital survival. Its critical paradigm extends from Saussure’s dualistic structuralist semiotics to Peirce’s triadic logical semiotics, eliminating the weakness of being metaphysical in dualistic semiotics and highlighting the value dimension of historical materialism. The interdisciplinary integration of Marxism and semiotics breaks through the limitations of semiotics in its focusing too much on textual form, and, on the other hand, compensates for the deficiency of Marxism in textual research, forming a theoretical transition from textual analysis to realistic concerns and criticism.
While Marxist semiotics integrates the socioeconomic critiques of Marxism with the analytical tools of semiotics, it is not without its criticisms. Some scholars argue that Marxist semiotics may struggle to address the complexities of non-Marxist contexts. For example, the emphasis of framework on socioeconomic power structures might overlook cultural and ideological nuances that do not directly align with economic determinism (Chen, 2022, p. 34-45).
Moreover, the applicability of Marxist semiotics in contemporary digital realities has been questioned. Critics suggest that the rapid evolution of digital technologies and the information society’s rise introduce new forms of symbolic exchange and consumption that Marxist semiotics may not fully account for. The proliferation of digital signs and the fluidity of online identities challenge traditional notions of commodity and currency, necessitating further theoretical adaptations (Zhu, 2018, p. 80-90).
1.1 Basic premise: digital survival, meta-sign dominance and trans-textual trend
The construction of each theoretical system has its own specific historical background, which creates possibilities for the emergence of a theory (Zhao, 2022, p. 38). Similarly, the construction of Marxist semiotics is predicated on the humanity’s contemporary digital existence, characterized by the dominance of meta-signs and trans-textual trends. Scholars, such as Tang (2022) and Chen (2022), have explored these concepts, highlighting the critical role of digital survival in shaping semiotic practices. Recent studies, such as Sadikeen (2024) on critique, contradiction and the commodity form, and Berger (2024) on binary oppositions in American society, further support the need for a comprehensive framework that includes Marxist semiotics and hermeneutics. This study posits that Marxist semiotics provides a critical lens to analyze the socioeconomic implications of digital technologies. By examining the interaction between virtual and physical realities, this approach reveals how digital advancements influence social relations, labor and consumption. Through Marxist semiotics, we can better understand and challenge the socioeconomic structures perpetuated by digital being.
Today, with the continuous development of information technology, humanity has entered the realm of being digital, navigating between virtuality and reality, and switching between online and offline. The following questions remain to be answered: how to make a unified interpretation of virtual and real texts, and how the two types of texts interact, negotiate and interact? Information technology has eliminated spatiotemporal obstacles among people, and human society has also been divided into virtual and real ones. Human beings are not only “Semiotic animals” (Cassier; Gan, 1985, p. 36), but also “Animal metasymbolicum” (Zhao, 2017, p. 19).
In a sense, human beings are animals with sign awareness. People are fully aware of their actions when using signs to make the world meaningful. It is through this self-awareness that human beings are distinguished from other animals in the world. The number of economic and cultural signs created is ever increasing, and semiotic activities are becoming increasingly diverse. Human beings nowadays are facing three simultaneously emerging realities: physical reality, virtual reality and interactive one. “Specifically, real text (i.e. physical text) is a sign text, and virtual text is a meta-sign text, while interactive text is a trans-text that connects real texts and virtual texts” (Tang, 2022), which is also a shared boundary between the virtual world and the real one, and we live in an era dominated by meta-signs and trans-texts.
The transformation of human way of survival is a realistic prerequisite for the construction of Marxist semiotics. Based on Peirce’s triad of signs, virtual reality text is a representamen, physical reality text is the object, and interactive reality text is the interpretant (Tang, 2022, p. 202). Different interpretive communities, due to various intention pinpoints, tend to construct different interactive texts.
1.2 Paradigm shift: from dualism to trialism
Marx’s critique of commodity exchange, inherently grounded in historical materialism, is complemented by structuralist and Peircean semiotics in this analysis. While historical materialism emphasizes the material production and exchange of commodities, structuralist semiotics is employed to understand how these commodities are imbued with symbolic meaning through communication labor.
Saussure’s dualistic model of the signifier and signified helps us comprehend the fixed meanings assigned to commodities in capitalist societies, but Peircean semiotics goes further, allowing us to see how these meanings shift and evolve through the process of semiosis, as commodities are consumed and reinterpreted by different groups over time. Subsequently, many Marxists presented two paradigms of commodity criticism: “dualism” and “trialism”. The former pointed to Saussure’s structuralist semiotic tradition, shadowed by its metaphysical defects, while the latter pointed to Peirce’s logical semiotic tradition with more emphasis placed on the extension of meaning, so as to gain more valuable significance of historical materialism.
Structuralist semiotics is constrained by the dual concepts of the signifier and the signified, neglecting the interrelationship between the signifier and signified, viewing the consumer society as a sign system that presents the value of goods based on its internal structural differences, and ignoring the use value and external context of goods (Zhang, 2021, p. 40).
Marxist semiotics critiques commodity exchange based on material production, but it is crucial to recognize that commodities acquire symbolic meanings not solely from their economic function, but also through cultural practices. For instance, the symbolic consumption of luxury brands, like Gucci or Louis Vuitton, often reflects not just economic power, but also ideological positions related to status, identity and societal belonging. Peirce’s triadic semiotics allows for a deeper analysis of how these meanings evolve within cultural contexts, reflecting shifting societal values and norms.
1.3 Theoretical trend: from text analysis to criticism of reality
Theoretically, Marxism and semiotics converge logically due to their inherently critical nature. Semiotics views the meaning of signs as a result of cultural and discursive power structures, aligning well with Marxist ideological critique (Zhao, 2011, p. 16). Existing literature supports this convergence, with Kuang and Zhang (2019) and Zhao (2011) demonstrating how Marxist semiotics transcends traditional textual analysis to address real-world socioeconomic issues. This synergy allows Marxist semiotics to transcend the traditional focus on textual analysis, directing its critique towards real-world socioeconomic issues.
Marxist semiotics recognizes the limitations of semiotics when confined to textual analysis. By applying Marxist methodologies, it reforms semiotic practices, breaking free from the constraints of textual autonomy and addressing broader social realities. This integration moves from a purely literary and textual critique to a more expansive sociocultural criticism, thereby enhancing the understanding of social phenomena as interconnected texts.
For instance, in the digital age, the proliferation of meta-signs and trans-texts in virtual and physical realities underscores the need for a Marxist semiotic approach to analyze these evolving communicative structures. This approach reveals the socioeconomic dynamics and power relations embedded in everyday interactions, as evidenced in various contemporary studies (Kuang; Zhang, 2019, p. 35). This shift from text to reality marks a significant development in the theoretical landscape of Marxist semiotics, highlighting its relevance and applicability in analyzing modern societal issues.
2 Commodity Is a sign
The digital age has significantly altered the nature of commodities, increasing their abstraction and symbolic value. This section elaborates on how commodities now function not just as material objects, but also as carriers of symbolic meanings. For example, Apple Inc.’s products, like the iPhone, serve not only as tools, but as symbols of creativity, innovation and social status. This perspective aligns with recent findings in digital semiotics (Beckett, 2024) and further supports the socioeconomic role of commodities in digital capitalism.
Commodities are the starting point of Marxist political economy research. Marx proposed in “Commodities and Money,” Chapter 1 of Volume 1 of Capital, that “[…] every commodity is a sign, because as value, it is only the material shell of human labor expended on it” (Marx, 2004, p. 110).
Commodity is essentially a sign, with many characteristics of signs, and is a combination of matter and meaning. Similarly, the production of a commodity also requires two types of labor: physical labor and communication one, both of which belong to productive labor (Hu; Chen, 2016, p. 66). The production of commodity signs is ultimately completed through consumption, and consumers generate meaning from the commodity, just as Peirce said: “Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign. Interpretation, then, produces the sign” (Greenlee, 1973, p. 99).
2.1 What is a commodity sign
Zhao (2011, p. 1) pointed out, “The human spirit, human society, and the entire human world are immersed in something whose existence few people are aware of but they can never get rid of. This kind of thing is called signs... Signs are regarded as a perception carrying meaning”. We live in the world of goods, and almost everything around us is a commodity, that is, a commodity sign. The task of semiotics is simply to try to understand how meaning and material are mixed in human understanding (Zhao, 2011, p. 7). This perspective is echoed in Marx’s (2004) and Greenlee’s (1973) work, who emphasize the dual nature of commodities as both material objects and carriers of meaning. A commodity contains two elements: material and meaning, which cannot be separated and correspond to two types of labor in the production process of the commodity: material labor and communicative one. Scholars, like Hu and Chen (2016), have emphasized that the production of commodities also involves communication labor, where marketing and branding contribute significantly to shaping the symbolic value of goods. Without this aspect, commodities would remain mere physical objects, devoid of the cultural meanings that drive consumption in contemporary society.
Marx (2004, p. 1) clearly pointed out that “[a] commodity is a thing that, by its properties, satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference”. Marx (2004, p. 2) believed that “[t]he ‘utility of a thing’ makes the thing a use-value”. What is the use value of a commodity? For instance, our daily means of transportation is cars. Then, is the value of sports cars also a means of transportation? Boiled water can be used to quench thirst, and the same is true with Coca Cola. When we are hungry, what kind of food do we need? Do we need protein and carbohydrates, or do we need dumplings, hamburgers, sushi, Italian pasta? There are countless examples in life like this. As Marx (1973, p. 92) said, “Hunger is hunger, but the hunger gratified by cooked meat eaten with a knife and fork is a different hunger from that which bolts down raw meat with the aid of hand, nail and tooth”.
Obviously, we need material goods, as well as the social significance they carry. In other words, we need commodities, just as we need signs; the two are inseparable, and commodity is a sign.
2.2 Communication labor in commodity signs
“A commodity is a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants” (Marx; Moore, 1977, p. 43). But the utility of a thing is not determined by its own properties. Because every object possesses various properties, and is thus capable of being applied to different uses (Marx; Moore, 1977, p. 177). That is to say, a commodity has multiple uses, and the excavation of these uses not only depends on the material foundation of the commodity, but also on the interaction and negotiation between human needs and the materials of the commodity, in order to produce the “use value for others”, which is the object of exchange. The value of a commodity is not only material, but also closely related to its cultural context.
Obviously, value of a commodity is determined by the two kinds of labor: one is material labor, which produces material products, and the other is communication labor, which produces demand power (Kim, 2000, p. 8). Both material labor and communication one are indispensable for the production of commodity, just as a commodity is a sign, a combination of material and meaning. Correspondingly, the production process of commodity value involves both material production by factory workers and demand-driven production by advertising and marketing personnel. The former is our usual material labor, while the latter is communication one, manifested in market research, analysis, copywriting design and advertising promotion.
Without communication labor, commodity production cannot provide new “series code”, which is the interpretant for commodity signs, and cannot generate new “meanings” in commodities. Ricci’s (2024) work on the social code of value provides a critical perspective on how commodities acquire their symbolic and social significance. This understanding is crucial for analyzing how commodities acquire symbolic value in contemporary digital economies, reinforcing the central theme of the relevance of Marxist semiotics in critiquing modern socioeconomic structures. For example, Apple Inc. invests heavily in marketing and branding to create “series code” around its products, transforming a smartphone into a symbol of innovation, status and lifestyle.
The “Think Different” campaign effectively linked the use of Apple products to creativity and non-conformity, illustrating how communication labor produces demand and shapes the consumer’s perception. Without the blessing of the semiotic meaning of the product, each product of the same type is identical and consumed by the same group of people in the same way. Beer is always just beer, just like boiling water is still boiling water, whether it is Sprite, Coke, or Pulse. It is the communication labor that stimulates demand and desire for new products and models, elevating products into commodities with exchange value, thereby ushering in an increase in personal wealth and progress in social civilization.
2.3 The consumer’s role: consumption as interpretation
The production of commodities can only be ultimately completed through consumption, which not only depends on the material characteristics of the goods, but also includes a series of code provided by the communication labor. The commodity sign relates to both the object and the interpretant, and the expected model consumer uses the series of code generated in the production process to consume the various utility that the commodity sign may have, thus interpreting a specific meaning contained in the commodity sign. Beyond production and economic value, the consumption of commodities often involves an interpretive process shaped by cultural identities, preferences and social influences. For example, in platforms like Netflix, content recommendations are not just shaped by economic algorithms, but also by cultural and ideological trends that reflect its consumers’ identities. Consumption, in this sense, becomes a means of negotiating personal and cultural identity, showing how symbolic meanings in commodities are not fixed, but are continually reshaped through interaction with cultural contexts.
Take the case of digital platforms, like Amazon or Netflix, where algorithms personalize product recommendations based on the consumer’s behavior. These platforms use big data analytics to craft targeted advertisements, which not only meet material needs, but also cater to personal desires and identity construction. For instance, when Netflix suggests content to its users, it is not just providing entertainment; it is constructing an individualized symbolic world, where consumer preferences are shaped by and further shape the algorithmic logic of platform. In such cases, digital commodities are interpreted through the lens of consumer data, demonstrating the intertwined relationship between material goods and symbolic interpretation in the digital age.
As Marx (1973, p. 92) wrote in the introduction of Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, “Production not only creates objects for the subject, but also creates subjects for the object”. That is, production produces consumption, and it produces the object of consumption, the way of consumption and the driving force of consumption. Similarly, consumption produces the model producers’ ideal quality because it elicits a specific need in consumers to pursue a certain purpose embodied by the commodity.
Production inherently shapes consumption. The “series of codes” or interpretants embedded within commodity signs, during the production process, dictate consumption patterns and predefine potential consumer models. This is where marketing advertising or communication labor plays a role. For example, the laundry detergent advertisement “Superpower Women Use Superpower” (here, “Superpower” is the brand name of the laundry detergent), endorsed by Li Sun, a Chinese superstar, who we are familiar with,, not only indicates that the product quality is excellent, but also shows that celebrities, like ordinary people, are home-oriented women. Ordinary people can use this product to be as capable and beautiful as celebrities. Ordinary laundry is turned into a sign of being fashionable, capable and beautiful. Another example is “Hengshui Liquor, a masculine flavor”. Apparently, the advertisement provides the mode of consumption or “series code”, by endowing Hengshui Liquor with a so-called man’s flavor. Commodity signs are the unity of material and meaning. It is the “series of code” or the interpretant produced by communication labor that enables commodity signs to be interpreted with new “meanings” in consumption. The interpretant or “series of code” prevails throughout the production process of commodities.
3 Economic logic of currency signs
Currency functions as a meta-sign, interpreting commodity signs and shaping societal values and relationships. This section investigates the historical evolution of currency as a meta-sign and its role in the contemporary digital economy. By examining the sliding meaning between things and signs, we reveal how currency influences social relations and economic structures, supporting the thesis that Marxist semiotics provides critical insights into these dynamics. Also, Beckett’s (2024) study on the economy of surplus-enjoyment offers valuable insights into how currency and commodities interact in the digital economy.
Currency is a meta-sign that can interpret commodity signs. It has undergone the historical evolution of thing to universal equivalent to sign to symbol, to ultimately become an absolute abstract being with inherent features of independence and illusion (Chen, 2022, p. 34).
Currencies exist without physical entities, relying on national credit system behind them. The exchange of goods, facilitated by currency, refers to the exchange of meaning, and the currency that coordinates meaning accelerates the expansion of human social relations and evolves into a representation of ideology.
3.1 Currency is a meta-sign
The so-called meta-sign, also known as the sign about signs, refers not to a thing, but to another sign (Zhao, 2017). In Marx’s view, currency is a sign that interprets the signs of commodities, a meta-sign, and its ultimate interpretant is the value of commodities. The meta-sign characteristics of currency determine its flexible external form, which is not limited to paper, silk, gold and silver, but may also be virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin, Dogecoin, and so on.
The support behind the currency sign is credit, which needs to be recognized by the community where the currency is used. As Marx (2004, p. 152) said, “The currency sign itself needs to be objectively recognized by society”. The community here refers to a country with financial strength, not an individual. Currency has the country’s credit endorsement, and the great figures’ portraits on various types of banknotes and coins, as well as the emblems engraved on ancient coins, all serve as guarantees of national credit. Digital currency and encrypted assets also cannot do without the country’s credit guarantee. The rigid repayment of monetary credit maintains the economic order in our daily life and avoids situations in the era of barter, where transactions may not be possible due to factors, such as lack of trust among traders, long distance and inconvenient time. Essentially, the object of currency signs is not the value itself, but the guarantee of value realization provided by the national credit system (Chen, 2022, p. 36).
The exchange of goods is the exchange of the meaning needs of both parties in the transaction. The currency sign has changed the unidirectional ideographic mode of “sender-sign-receiver” in the process of ideographic expression, and replaced it with a bidirectional ideographic mode of “sender (receiver)-sign-receiver (sender)”, elevating the original individual behavior of the exchange of goods into socialized behavior, thus entering the human community’s meaning world.
3.2 The sliding of the meaning between things and signs
Zhao (2011, p. 27) pointed out that “[a]nything is a ‘thing-sign’ double union. It can approach one end of the pure thing, completely becoming a thing without expressing meaning; it can also approach the other end of the pure sign carrier, purely expressing meaning”. In the history of the evolution of currency sign, they have also experienced a sliding of meaning from thing to universal equivalent to sign and symbol. The exchange between different commodities is based on abstract social labor, and the evolution of currency signs, from pure things to symbolic things, is also highly abstract. “In the actual exchange process, this abstraction must be materialized, symbolized, and realized through a certain sign” (Marx; Engels, 1979, p. 88).
Currency, a meta-sign, is often seen as a “pure sign” due to the country’s credit guarantee behind it, while ignoring the materiality of the evolution process of currency. From the initial exchange of livestock and food, to the later use of gold and silver, as universal equivalents, and to contemporary paper money, electronic payments and virtual currencies, the commodity value, embodied by currency signs, has been replaced by a series of Arabic numerals, and the physical properties of currency signs have disappeared, becoming an abstract existence.
However, from the perspective of historical materialism, currency, as a sign, is inevitably inseparable from its materiality and must have a material form to support its semiotic form (Chen, 2022, p. 37). In its own evolution history, currency signs have undergone a continuous process of sliding from things to signs, that is, a diachronic evolution from pure objects to pure symbols. In the process of “thing-sign” meaning sliding, the materiality gradually fades away, the circulation of commodities accelerates, the exchange effect of currency signs continuously strengthens and, finally, elevates itself from pure natural objects to symbolic ones. As Marx and Engels (1979, p. 89) said, “A commodity used as a medium of exchange is only gradually transformed into currency, into a symbol; after such a situation occurs, the commodity itself may be replaced by its own symbol”. Now it has become a sign with its exchange value recognized by people.
4 Commodity criticism in the information society
This section analyzes how the production, circulation, exchange and consumption of information create a unified system in the digital age. By clarifying the current situation of signs, information and information society from the perspective of Marxist semiotics, we uncover the socioeconomic implications of these processes, reinforcing the thesis that this approach is crucial for understanding the information society’s impact on labor and consumption.
4.1 Information is a commodity: a meta sign
In the information society, the value of digital commodities, such as cryptocurrency, is not purely determined by economic utility. It also reflects ideological beliefs related to decentralization, freedom from institutional control and empowerment through technology. These beliefs are embedded in cultural discourses that challenge traditional power structures, showing how commodities serve as platforms for ideological contestation as well as economic exchange. An illustrative example is the role of cryptocurrency in digital economies. Bitcoin, for example, functions as a digital commodity and a meta-sign that represents not only monetary value, but also a set of cultural and ideological beliefs surrounding decentralization and financial autonomy. The value of Bitcoin lies not merely in its potential for financial exchange, but in its symbolic representation of resistance to centralized banking systems, making it a product of symbolic consumption in the digital age.
It is rather difficult to express meaning with a single sign, and text is a combination of signs with a certain temporal and semantic dimension. We generate and express meaning through text. The information society’s text is not limited to online texts, but rather double-layer ones. Just as our living world is not just online, but also offline, the virtual world and the real world together constitute our living one, and they are indispensable. Virtual reality texts and physical reality texts interact with each other, forming interactive reality ones, further expanding our living world’s boundaries and enriching our forms of life. The digital society, we live in, can only be a single cohesive text. This makes us always face two texts simultaneously: one is the real text, and the other is the virtual one. Our culture is constructed in the intersection and interaction of these two texts (Tang, 2022).
From the perspective of materialism, real texts and virtual ones jointly construct our surrounding world, which can ensure that our understanding of the world is more realistic and practical, and avoid moving towards nothingness and illusion. There is also a hierarchy between the two texts themselves. Specifically, the real text is a sign one, while the virtual text is one level higher and is a meta-sign text. The two texts interact with each other and have their own accompanying texts, forming the heterogeneity, hierarchy, interactivity and negotiation of the overall form of the text.
Tang (2022, p. 201) believes that “[w]e do not live in the physical reality world or the virtual reality world, but rather in the composite space (interaction space) constructed by the interaction between these two worlds, a space dominated by interactive texts”. From the perspective of Peirce’s triadic semiotics, physical reality texts, virtual reality texts, and interactive reality ones correspond to object, representamen and interpretant, respectively. It is precisely the constant changes, in the interpretants of interactive reality texts, that form infinite semiosis in the information society.
4.2 The concept of information: shaping reality through interpretation
The information society is fundamentally organized around the production, circulation, exchange and consumption of information. In this digital context, the basic unit of information is the BIT, signifying binary data. As such, information itself has become the most valuable and crucial commodity and resource. This shift underscores the transformation of economic and social structures in the digital age, where data drives interactions and value creation. From the perspective of etymology, the “form” in the word “information” represents the shape, the prefix “in-” represents “within”, and the suffix “-action” represents “action” and “process”. Thus, information means to give form to something, so that its form is presented, that is, the representamen in semiotics.
Information shapes things, but how to shape them? It can be said that the process of information shaping is the process of interpretation, giving things an interpretation. Once things are interpreted, they have form and become humanized or symbolized entities. Therefore, shaping behavior is inevitably a subject behavior, and it is a practical interaction between subject and object (Tang, 2022).
Things call for interpretation, and the subject gives form to things through interpretation. The endless interpretation endows old things with new meanings, and it is interpretation that endows a thing with the potential to become a new thing. For example, during a cyber-attack on a certain country’s earthquake-monitoring center, the originally ordinary earthquake information presents little value to ordinary citizens, yet becoming a source of intelligence with unparalleled value for another country’s military. It is precisely because the military has given new interpretations to earthquake information. Information is always in the process of formation, and interpretations are constantly emerging. The subject’s interpretation of things is not limited, and information naturally thrives and is in a state of infinite semiosis. In other words, interpretation is a game of signifiers, which is a re-encoding of things, rather than “decoding”, and its ultimate signified is always unreachable.
From an etymological perspective, the English word “information” also includes the section “inform”, which refers to informing and notifying. It can be said that while information shapes things, it also fulfills the responsibility of dissemination and communication. Information is actually a dual entity of shaping and dissemination (Tang, 2022, p. 31). Obviously, the information here is different from data. Data is straightforward and objective, while information is essentially subjective, implicit and practical. Data can only be transformed into one’s information after it is understood by individuals (Zhu, 2018, p. 80). Data itself cannot replace the processing and reproduction of big data by the subject. From the perspective of the Peirce’s triadic semiotics, data is the object, information is the representamen, and the human subject is the interpretant. Only the human subject can perceive the connotation of big data and elevate them to the status of information.
It is undeniable that, in the information society, data has become an information asset. Enterprise data resources can be capitalized as intangible assets or inventory, and confirmation of data ownership might become a reality: Enterprises could confirm, price and value their data elements, confirming them as the asset entry on the company’s balance sheet.
4.3 Information society: a trinity of media, intelligence and consumption
From a semiotic perspective, the information society differs significantly from previous societal forms due to its multifaceted nature, integrating media, intelligence and consumption into a cohesive trinity. This integration highlights how information functions as a commodity in the digital age, which is a key aspect of the central theme of the critique of Marxist semiotics related to the socioeconomic dynamics. In the case of social media platforms, like Instagram, where users consume not just images, but curated identities, symbolic consumption becomes paramount. The use of likes, shares and comments of the platform turns personal expression into a commodity that is exchanged and interpreted within a socio-digital space. This interaction exemplifies how information, identity and commodity are interconnected, further reinforcing the critical role of symbolic value in digital consumption.
Also, Lagopoulos’ (2024) work on the semiotics of settlement space provides a broader context for understanding how digital and physical spaces intersect in the information society. For instance, the use of big data analytics in personalized advertising demonstrates how information (intelligence) shapes consumer behavior (consumption). Companies, like Amazon and Netflix, utilize algorithms to recommend products and media content, creating a feedback loop where consumption patterns generate data that further refines marketing strategies, exemplifying the trinity of media, intelligence and consumption. This integration creates a “media society”, “intelligent society” and “consumer society”, each contributing to the unique dynamics of the information age (Tang 2022, p. 39). Scholars, such as McLuhan (2000) and Tang (2022), have extensively explored this integration, highlighting how information shapes socioeconomic dynamics and cultural practices in the digital age.
In semiotics, the concept of information shaping reality, through interpretation, is fundamental. Interpretation allows humans to assign meaning to objects and phenomena, a process that has evolved with technological advancements. Marx emphasized that tools, machines and other technological artifacts are extensions of human labor and intelligence, embodying objectified knowledge (Marx; Engels, 1980).
The rapid development of the Internet and artificial intelligence in contemporary society, such as smart classrooms, intelligent ideological and political education, smart homes, and so on, are manifested in Marx’s prophecy as an extension of the “intelligence” of the “human brain organ” and the “materialized knowledge power”.
As an information society’s pioneer and prophet, McLuhan’s many propositions, such as “The Medium Is the Extension of Man” and “The Medium Is the Message’”, also echo the current social form of the “media society”. All new inventions and technologies, in human history, are extensions of the human body and central nervous system, such as clothing as an extension of the skin, wheels (cars) as an extension of the feet, and the network as an extension of the brain. Media has become the scale and standard for us to observe, understand and explain things. Shifting from the initial oral transmission, meaning-phonetic Chinese characters and printing, to the current electronic and digital media, media presentation has undergone radical changes, and its significance for human life far exceeds the specific content transmitted by the media. Just as McLuhan and He (2000, p. 15) commented that “[t]he content of media is like a delicious meat, which thieves who break in use to distract the attention of the watchdog”.
Undoubtedly, whether it is a media society or an intelligent one, the main driving force behind it is still consumption (Kim, 2000, p. 100). Marx and Engels highlight that the critical factor is not abstinence, but the advancement of productive forces. The development of production inherently involves the capacity to develop consumption and the means to achieve it. The ability to consume is a prerequisite for consumption, which fundamentally depends on the development of individual talents and productive forces (Marx; Engels, 1980).
The development of artificial intelligence and digital media has not only provided us with the materials and conditions for consumption, but also prompted us to expand the object of consumption from material goods to human beings’ all aspects, including human desires, emotions, self-esteem, health and even the body, ultimately leading to comprehensive human development. From the perspective of the Peirce’s triadic semiotics, the medium is the representamen, intelligence is the object, consumption becomes the interpretant and is also the main driving force for the information society’s advancement.
Media functions as the textual form within the information society, intelligence serves as the factual representation, and consumption encapsulates all inherent codes. From the perspective of meaning construction, media acts as the ideographic mechanism, intelligence as the production mechanism, and consumption as the driving mechanism within the information society (Tang, 2022).
Conclusion
To conclude, this study addresses three key problems: the increasing abstraction and symbolic nature of commodities, the evolving role of currency as a meta-sign, and the impact of digital technologies on social relations, labor and consumption.
Commodity is a sign and its production inevitably involves communication labor with new “series of code”, serving as the interpretant for commodity signs. The consumption of commodities becomes an interpretive process shaped by the consumers’ cultural identities, preferences and social influences. Thus, production inherently shapes consumption with the ‘series of codes’ or interpretants, embedded within commodity signs, during the production process. Also, the increasingly digital information society has led to the proliferation of meta-signs, such as currency signs, where the materiality of objects is becoming increasingly scarce and the sliding of the meaning, between things and signs, becomes a norm. This transformation underscores the necessity of addressing the fundamental socioeconomic structures that shape our digital age where information, as a meta-sign, shapes reality through interpretation and consumption becomes the interpretant as well as the driving force for the information society’s advancement.
Our findings reveal that, in the digital age, the symbolic value of commodities has been amplified, making communication labor essential in creating and sustaining these values. The evolution of digital technologies and platforms has transformed how commodities are perceived and consumed, often resulting in alienated forms of labor and consumption detached from their material origins. Marxist semiotics effectively critiques these developments by highlighting the intertwined nature of commodity production and socioeconomic structures in the current information society.
However, this study has limitations. It is primarily theoretical and would benefit from empirical studies that explore specific case examples in greater depth. Additionally, the scope of digital platforms and technologies examined could be expanded to include more diverse and emerging forms.
Future research should include empirical studies to investigate specific instances of how digital commodities and communication labor shape consumer behavior and social relations. Incorporating insights from other disciplines, such as behavioral economics and cultural studies, can enhance the critical framework and provide a more holistic understanding of the information society.
References
- BECKETT, S. Design Semiotics and the Economy of Surplus-Enjoyment. Design Issues, v. 40, n. 2, p. 68-80, 2024.
- BERGER, A. A. Binary Oppositions in American Society and Culture: A Socio-Semiotic Analysis. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 2024.
- CASSIER, E.; GAN, Y. (translator) Ren Lun. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation, 1985.
- CHEN, W. B. Economic Logic and Cultural Criticism of the Semiotics of Currency. Signs and Media, v. 1, p. 34-45, 2022.
- FUCHS, C. A Marxist-Humanist Perspective on Stuart Hall’s Communication Theory. Theory and Society, v. 52, p. 995-1029, 2023.
- GREENLEE, D. Peirce’s Concept of Sign. The Hague: Mouton, 1973. p. 99.
- HU, Y. R.; CHEN, W. B. Selected Works of Contemporary Marxist Semiotics. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press, 2016.
- KASHINDI, R. M. Understanding Marxism as a Critical Study and Research Paradigm. European Journal of Political Science Studies, v. 1, n. 2, p. 36-49, 2018.
- KIM, J. From Commodity Production to Sign Production: A Triple Triangle Model for Marx’s Semiotics and Peirce’s Economics. Semiotica, v. 132, n. 1-2, p. 8-100, 2000.
- KUANG, C. J.; ZHANG, L. Y. 20th Century Marxist Semiotics: Development Stage, Theoretical Paradigm and Trend. Journal of Yichun University, v. 41, n. 8, p. 35, 2019.
- LAGOPOULOS, A. P. The semiotics of settlement space. In Semiotic Approaches to Urban Space. Glos: Edward Elgar, 2024. p. 16-31.
- MARX, K. Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy. Beijing: People’s, 2004.
- MARX, K.; ENGELS, F. The Compilation and Translation Bureau of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin’s Works of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (translator). Complete Works of Marx and Engels (Book 1, Volume 46). Beijing: People’s, 1979. p. 88-94.
- MARX, K.; ENGELS, F. The Compilation and Translation Bureau of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin’s Works of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (translator). Complete Works of Marx and Engels (Book 2, Volume 46). Beijing: People’s, 1980. p. 219-225.
- MARX, K.; MOORE, S. (translator); AVELING, E. (translator). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1. Moscow: Progress, p. 43-177, 1977.
- MARX, K.; NICOLAUS, M. (translator). Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. New York: Random, 1973. p. 92.
- MCLUHAN, M.; HE, D. K. (translator) Understanding Media. Beijing: Commercial, p. 15, 2000.
- MINGERS, J.; WILLCOCKS, L. P. Towards a methodology for semiotics research. In The Semiotics of Information Systems: A Research Methodology for the Digital Age. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023. p. 193-213.
- RICCI, A. Deciphering the Commodity: The Social Code of Value. Rethinking Marxism, v. 36, n. 1, p. 59-81, 2024.
- SADIKEEN, S. Dead Ends: Critique, Contradiction and the Commodity Form. 2024. Doctoral dissertation. Auckland: Research Space Auckland, 2024. p. 1-45.
- TANG, X. L. Semiotics of Information Society. Beijing: Science, 2022.
- ZHANG, B. The Paradigm Transformation of Semiotic Criticism in Marxist Political Economy. Foreign Literature Research, v. 4, p. 40-50, 2021.
- ZHAO, S. F. The basic premise and contemporary significance of constructing Chinese Marxist semiotics. Qiu Suo Journal, v. 6, p. 38-45, 2022.
- ZHAO, Y. H. Semiotics: Principles and Problems. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2011.
- ZHAO, Y. H. Philosophical Semiotics: The Coming into Being of the World of Meaning. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press, 2017.
- ZHU, H. J. Big Data, Cognition, and Planned Economy: A Discussion with Professor He Da’an. Journal of Zhejiang Gongshang University, v. 5, p. 80-90, 2018.
