Roland Barthes' Semiotic Analysis of the Representation of Social Criticism on the Instagram Account @Freakind.Media

Authors

  • Syaiful Halim Communication Science Study Program, Faculty of Law and Social Studies, Mathla'ul Anwar University Banten Author
  • Hadi Anwar Mutha Communication Science Study Program, Faculty of Law and Social Studies, Mathla'ul Anwar University Banten Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60036/g25bbs37

Keywords:

Roland Barthes semiotics, social criticism, Instagram, social media, digital communication

Abstract

The development of social media has transformed public communication patterns and created new spaces for individuals to express opinions, share perspectives, and deliver social criticism regarding various social, political, and economic issues. Instagram has emerged as one of the most influential platforms for communicating social criticism through creative and widely accessible visual content. One account that consistently produces critical content is the Instagram account @freakind.media. This study aims to analyze the representation of social criticism in the content published by @freakind.media using Roland Barthes’ semiotic approach. Employing a qualitative research method, data were collected through observation and documentation of selected Instagram posts published between April 1 and April 25, 2025. The analysis was conducted using Barthes’ three levels of meaning: denotation, connotation, and myth. The findings reveal that the content of @freakind.media utilizes visual signs, symbols, illustrations, and satirical narratives to represent criticism of contemporary social, political, and economic issues. At the denotative level, the posts depict actual events and public phenomena. At the connotative level, visual elements construct meanings associated with criticism, satire, and resistance toward social inequalities. At the mythological level, the content reproduces broader understandings of power relations, social injustice, and the role of citizens in monitoring public policies. This study demonstrates that Instagram functions not only as a platform for entertainment and information sharing but also as a space for meaning production and the articulation of social criticism within the digital communication environment.

References

Aini, N., & Rahmawati, D. (2022). Representation of social criticism in political memes on Instagram. Journal of Digital Communication, 5(2), 115–128.

Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.

Barthes, R. (1977). Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana Press.

Castells, M. (2013). Communication Power (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DataReportal. (2024). Digital 2024: Indonesia. Retrieved from https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-indonesia

Fitriani, R. (2020). Digital memes as a medium of social criticism in the era of digital communication. Indonesian Journal of Communication Sciences, 8(1), 45–58.

Gumilar, A. (2021). Instagram as an alternative space for the formation of public opinion and social criticism. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 4(2), 89–103.

Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage Publications.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.

Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sugiyono. (2023). Qualitative Research Methods. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Moleong, L. J. (2021). Qualitative Research Methodology (Revised Edition). Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Kriyantono, R. (2020). Practical Techniques of Communication Research: Accompanied by practical examples of Media Research, Public Relations, Advertising, Organizational Communication, Marketing Communication. Jakarta: Kencana.

Downloads

Published

2023-10-04

How to Cite

Roland Barthes’ Semiotic Analysis of the Representation of Social Criticism on the Instagram Account @Freakind.Media. (2023). Journal of Sustainable Community Development, 1(1), 40-52. https://doi.org/10.60036/g25bbs37