Drew Cohen

4/19/17

English 117 Thorne

Grunge-bob Needs Spare Pants

Might our drive for a better life beyond our reach actually ruin our chances of ever having one?  Now, I don’t mean “better life” in terms of fast cars, solid gold faucets, or cashmere cardigan sleeves tied in knots around our necks as we tour the green.  No, I mean the “greeting every day with a smile on our face” and “happiness without the tender consolation of our bed-pillow” kind of better life.  Stick with me and I’ll show that killing the “grass is greener” pipe dream can make a “job” seem more fulfilling than a “career.”  I can prove that if we’re made comfortable with the idea that settling for less is a legitimately satisfying option, we can be fooled into believing that we would all live happier, more meaningful lives in mediocre dead-end jobs.

This notion seems impossible to the rational, college-educated sector of civilization, especially to a certain well-intentioned, grouchy German named Theodor Adorno, who, with the help of Max Horkheimer, wrote about stagnancy and uniformity in the 1940s after escaping to America from the twisted Third Reich.  

Adorno criticized the “unending sameness” of industrialized American popular culture and the notion that “nothing is allowed to stay as it was” with technology and innovation, and that this promised that “nothing will change” and “nothing unsuitable will emerge” (Adorno 106).  America’s counterintuitive use of new technology to both keep society from advancing and decrease individual quality of goods justifies Adorno’s frustration: what’s the point of technology if not to improve our daily lives?  To Adorno, our new ability as an industrialized nation to mass-produce anything we see fit is poison to our take on the quality of our lives, and emphasizing minute differences among cultural products of industrialization that are, on the most basic levels, the same, ruins our ability to see what’s really good for us and what’s phony crap.  Is he right about this?

Well, consider the cartoon Spongebob Squarepants.  

Our bubbly and optimistic titular sea-sponge’s life is filled with excitement and eye-popping color by his friends, neighbors, and undersea environment in his hometown of Bikini Bottom (note the colorful flower outlines in the “sky” that function as clouds).  The hugely popular cartoon’s creator, Stephen Hillenburg, was noted by Jonah Lee Rice to have said that the show’s characters are “intentionally bizarre and have strange shapes and that they all share the same strangeness” to the explicit purpose that Spongebob “emphasizes sameness among creatures that seem different” (Rice, 2009).  This seems like the classic “unity from diversity” ideology that drives modern liberal mentality, something positive, rather than harmful ideology, derived from a focus on “sameness.”  Viewers see examples of all types of sea life (fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, squirrels in diving suits, even people!) coexisting in an intact, inclusive community without the fish equivalent of racism.  Along these lines, Sean McElwee of Salon.com calls Bikini Bottom a “liberal utopia,” an idealized place not only for the intended child viewers but also for the parents and adults that watch alongside them (McElwee, 2013).  Sandy Cheeks (above mentioned squirrel in diving suit) is a key example of this, portraying a woman who devotes her life to scientific research rather than, as McElwee mentions, “staying at home and cooking for the kids” (McElwee, 2013).  

But like most cartoons, Spongebob incorporates frequent examples of violence ranging from Spongebob and Sandy’s playful love for karate to large-scale destruction of property and massive car wrecks, leading to the inevitable wail of sirens from police cars and/or ambulances.  Countless inconclusive studies have been carried out testing children’s tendencies to mimic the violent behavior seen in cartoons like Spongebob, often with results that contradict other studies’ findings (Kirsh, 2005).  Adorno expresses his own distaste for violence, not in terms of the impact on physical behavior it has, but rather of the humorous response it often receives, calling it cruel that laughter mostly prevails in modern pop culture “when there is nothing to laugh about” (Adorno 112).  Adorno goes so far as to say that in our “wrong society,” laughter is a “sickness infecting happiness and drawing it into society’s worthless totality,” acting as a consolation for a life poorly lived (Adorno 112).  I disagree with this sentiment, and I’ll explain my disagreement by considering Spongebob Squarepants as an example:

 

Adorno claims that “laughter about something is laughter at it” in any context (Adorno 112).  There are examples of this anywhere you look, even in Spongebob: characters like the grouchy Squidward Tentacles practically subsist by means of derisive laughter, mostly at Spongebob’s misfortune or misery.  Even some of the more lax characters like Spongebob’s friend Patrick Star laugh at violence on occasion, one case being when Patrick laughs at a character on TV getting hit in the head with a coconut.  Adorno would argue that this laughter “replaces pain … with jovial denial” (Adorno 112).  Derisive laughter is a primary indicator of the exhaustion, dissatisfaction, and lack of fulfillment Adorno blames industrialized culture for.  Squidward, who hates his job at the Krusty Krab, feels the weight of the limitations of his life regularly and is seemingly jealous of Spongebob for his happiness and optimism.  Patrick’s example is more contextual, as his laughter at violence is present after he returns home from a long day at “work” (actually just watching TV) in the episode “Rock-a-Bye Bivalve.”  As Adorno would argue, these characters indulge in this derisive laughter to cope with daily struggle.   

But this type of laughter is rare and dwarfed significantly by the amount of laughter on the show not necessarily directed at anything or anyone, but rather erupting from the joy of the moment.  The two primary sources of laughter on the show are Spongebob and Patrick: pretty much any time Spongebob isn’t working at the Krusty Krab, he and Patrick are playing games together or catching jellyfish in Jellyfish Fields.  Neither one of them laughs at the other: both laugh simply because of their shared joy.  Studies have shown that associating laughter with interpersonal communication, whether face to face or by device, indicates a higher average level of happiness from both people interacting (Vlahovic et al., 2012).  Spongebob and Patrick’s laughter makes their genuine happiness together clear, and in these cases this laughter is much more similar to carnivalesque laughter, common when considering movies like Jackass.  When carrying out crazy, “ball-busting” antics, such as when Ryan Dunn gets beat up by female world boxing champion Naoko Kumagai, the men of Jackass don’t laugh at Dunn, but rather at the absurdity and joy of the situation.  Much like these Jackass stars (and young children, the two groups likely on the same intellectual plane), Spongebob and Patrick laugh together simply because they’re happy and having “fun,” which Adorno claims, mistakenly in this case, “makes laughter the instrument for cheating happiness” (Adorno 112).  

But when this laughter is taken away, both Spongebob and Patrick lose that happiness they share.  In the episode “Patrick Smartpants,” a freak accident makes Patrick a genius and he hates his life because he doesn’t find his usual activities fun.  Losing his ability to have fun and laugh with his best friend makes Patrick’s once fulfilling life miserable.  

Adorno would say to this that if losing your ability to laugh makes you unhappy with your life, your life was never fulfilling in the first place.  I see this hearty crock of bullshit and raise one Spongebob Squarepants to meet his claim.  

Spongebob, aside from being kind, optimistic, and dedicated to his work, is notably unambitious, simply due to having a job he enjoys.  Once he gets his position at the Krusty Krab, Spongebob makes no attempts to work anywhere else or move past his beloved greasy spoon.  Spongebob’s boss, Mr. Krabs, is cheaper than cheap so Spongebob earns minimal salary, but he never once complains about this and is even fine with regularly having his pay docked to solve the “issue of the day” or avoid getting fired.  Squidward often notes on the show that Spongebob has an “abnormal” relationship to his work, and Sean McElwee goes so far as to label Spongebob a “marxist” because of his love for his labor (McElwee, 2013).  But Spongebob’s daily satisfaction is far from Adorno’s “austere” description of joy (Adorno 112).  Spongebob is known worldwide for his nasal, dolphin-like laughter which frequently makes itself known, especially while he’s working. Spongebob finds fulfillment in making Krabby Patties, his happiness marked by his signature laugh.  Interestingly enough, the only time Spongebob ever gets as thoroughly depressed as the times when he (briefly) loses his job is in the episode “Funny Pants,” in which Squidward tricks him into thinking that he’s broken his “laugh box” and can never laugh again.  When Spongebob wakes up the next morning and actually can’t laugh, he shuts himself in his house and cries uncontrollably until the morning after that when Squidward tells him that he was just joking.  

Spongebob’s laughter is the purest manifestation of his happiness: losing it doesn’t simply expose pre-existing dissatisfaction as Adorno claims, but rather removes Spongebob’s already present satisfaction with his life, which makes laughter the absolute antithesis of Adorno’s claim for him.  Adorno is wrong here, simply because he fails to understand that not all laughter is derisive or malicious – in cases like this, laughter is an expression of satisfaction.

So how can we be tricked into settling for less? Well, children watch Spongebob all around the world and are influenced by this cartoon role model who laughs and plays with his friends just like they do.  Children pay more attention to products in stores that have characters like Spongebob on them, and one study shows that boys aged 6 to 7 tended to choose food items in grocery stores advertised with pictures of Spongebob, even if they’re healthier and less appealing than unhealthy foods (Ogle et al., 2016).  We see Spongebob’s happiness and optimism and want to have the life he has, forgetting that he lives in a literal utopia (and a literal pineapple) and that his life is completely unrealistic – not only because he’s a talking sponge, but also because he can casually be docked a year’s pay and be fine with it.  I mean, we could try to live in a pineapple too – it’s all we could afford on Spongebob’s salary.  Adorno’s incorrect claims about laughter actually make his complete argument worth deeper consideration.  Spongebob, meanwhile, proves that laughter itself can be used to fool us into thinking that settling for subpar pay and treatment is a good option, maybe even the best option for us.  We’re trained to accept unjust labor expectations as long as we love what we do.  We see not even just Spongebob but Squidward also unwilling to actually leave the Krusty Krab for something better.  Meanwhile, Patrick is perfectly content with being unemployed.  Watch any episode of Spongebob Squarepants and tell me whether or not you feel some urge to abandon your current dreams and become a fry-cook as well.  Then, if you will, look up “gelotophobia” and see if you can still look at Spongebob the same way you might have as a child.  In short, Spongebob recreates the world as a child might imagine it: void of financial issues, higher education, and regulation of fair employment standards, but still satisfying and, you know, full of laughter.

 

This essay was read by Chloe Henderson.

 

References

Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M. (1944). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.  In T. Adorno and M. Horkheimer.  Dialectics of Enlightenment. Translated by John Cumming.  New York: Herder and Herder, 1972.

Kirsh, S.J. (2005), Cartoon Violence and Aggression in Youth. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11: 547-557.

McElwee, Sean.  “Spongebob Squarepants is a Marxist!” Salon.com. 14 November 2013. http://www.salon.com/2013/11/14/spongebob_squarepants_is_a_marxist/.  Accessed 15 April 2017.

Ogle, A.D., Graham, D.J., Lucas-Thompson, R.G. and Roberto, C.A. (2016), Influence of Cartoon Media Characters on Children’s Attention to and Preference for Food and Beverage Products. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 117: 265-270.

Rice, J. L. (2009), SpongeBob SquarePants: Pop Culture Tsunami or More?. The Journal of Popular Culture, 42: 1092–1114.

Vlahovic, T. A., Roberts, S. and Dunbar, R. (2012), Effects of Duration and Laughter on Subjective Happiness Within Different Modes of Communication. J Comput-Mediat Comm, 17: 436–450.