Analysis of Contemporary Phrasology
I have been increasingly interested in the term “so 15 minutes ago.” Now, I understand the connotations of this term are rather, for lack of a better term, stupid—it is usually applied to the stereotypical representation of the average “valley girl” who complains about her friend’s dress, purse, etc. The implication, of course, is that the fashion that the friend is wearing is already out of style; where it may have been popular “15 minutes ago,” it is no longer a particular strong or acceptable fashion statement now. The same theoretical framework goes beyond fashion to include phrases, trends, and so forth.
There are a couple reasons this phrase is significant. Firstly, I think it is important that we place it in a greater context: in fact, the term itself has evolved over the last decade. Where we can trace the origins of the phrase back to the term “so 5 years ago,” the temporal reference of the phrase has been compounded as time goes on—“so last year,” “so six months ago,” “so last week,” etc.
What is most interesting about this linguistic evolution is how closely it has reflected the advent of decentralized communication technologies; as the internet has become more sophisticated, with more and more users participating in social networking sites, video-sharing archives, and related functions, the role of information has been drastically altered. The opinions, information and ideologies that filter in and out of the public sphere have found considerable overlap into the cyberculture; the two sociological frameworks are inherently interrelated in a symbiotic synthesis. We see this phenomenon most pronounced in the popularity of certain videos—Chris Crocker’s “Leave Britney alone!” video, for instance, received 4 million views on youtube within the first week of being posted. Of course, Crocker’s video is not unlike certain other pop-cultural, iconic phenomena that have mimicked such a successful introduction into the public sphere: “dramatic hamster,” “Shoes,” “harry potter puppets,” “The landlord,” “Charlie bit me,” and “Candy mountain” are just some examples of videos that have been circulated around the net with astonishing and seemingly random popularity.
These are extraordinary and deeply significant examples of social development, and are intrinsically connected with the conceptual basis of reality T.V.: the popularity and noteriety of Omorassa, for instance, is an interesting example of a character that has clearly outlived her “15 minutes of fame.” We see the same examples in American Idol contestants, Survivor contestants, The Real World participants, the characters of The Hills, and so on—these are individuals whose fame is deeply intertwined with a social decentralization and continued fascination with “15 minute stars.” But the implications of this are far more important than simply defining “15 minute stars” or criticizing the simplistic language of the “so 15 minutes ago” phrase; rather, the implications inherent in these examples point to a far greater, far darker truth of contemporary society writ large.
It is at this point that postmodern critique provides the perfect analytic lens: drawing heavily from Baudrillard’s critique of contemporary consumer culture, we find a glaring theory behind the supposedly innocent phrasal diction of mass culture. Indeed, it is surprising how very true the phrase “so 15 minutes ago” actually is. We live in a society, it seems, where its consumption of products and materials—the consumption that in turn instigates the duplication of a false realistic system and subsystem, a world of images, lights, sounds and no referential node—is equaled by the consumption of culture, the production and dissemination of information, ideology and technology. This system, however, is reaching its maximum internal capacity: it has begun to consume at such a rate, feeding the demands and needs of the “silent majorities,” that the culture itself cannot support its own referential necessities. Indeed, our culture has begun to consume itself as the simulated singularity, the infinite reference of a limited-reference node.
“So fifteen minutes ago” is very much a true statement—the rate in which our culture consumes culture is astonishing. It needs newer, more complete reference nodes in order to sustain the demands of its consumerist structure; more and more is required to uphold this behemoth of a reality, this neon “GARAP” that’s fuel is its own production and consumption of culture—not objects and things (though these too play a role), but the conceptual-theoretical underpinnings of social consumption itself. It is the concept of fame, of information, of unlimited technology that is feeding this giant machine; information is no longer the focus of the advertisement, the market-run divisions and distinctions. Instead, you can now purchase the concept of information, the theory of informed compatibility—the implication, of course, is that anything else is inferior, unacceptable, inappropriate in such a rapidly forward-moving age. Thus, not only does the cultural singularity require a self-referential implosion, it forces any deviation from this ideological framework to be met with social exclusion: the very inclusion of the system excludes contradicting theoretical conceptions insofar as the progression of the singularity to consume itself is not disrupted.
There are a couple reasons this phrase is significant. Firstly, I think it is important that we place it in a greater context: in fact, the term itself has evolved over the last decade. Where we can trace the origins of the phrase back to the term “so 5 years ago,” the temporal reference of the phrase has been compounded as time goes on—“so last year,” “so six months ago,” “so last week,” etc.
What is most interesting about this linguistic evolution is how closely it has reflected the advent of decentralized communication technologies; as the internet has become more sophisticated, with more and more users participating in social networking sites, video-sharing archives, and related functions, the role of information has been drastically altered. The opinions, information and ideologies that filter in and out of the public sphere have found considerable overlap into the cyberculture; the two sociological frameworks are inherently interrelated in a symbiotic synthesis. We see this phenomenon most pronounced in the popularity of certain videos—Chris Crocker’s “Leave Britney alone!” video, for instance, received 4 million views on youtube within the first week of being posted. Of course, Crocker’s video is not unlike certain other pop-cultural, iconic phenomena that have mimicked such a successful introduction into the public sphere: “dramatic hamster,” “Shoes,” “harry potter puppets,” “The landlord,” “Charlie bit me,” and “Candy mountain” are just some examples of videos that have been circulated around the net with astonishing and seemingly random popularity.
These are extraordinary and deeply significant examples of social development, and are intrinsically connected with the conceptual basis of reality T.V.: the popularity and noteriety of Omorassa, for instance, is an interesting example of a character that has clearly outlived her “15 minutes of fame.” We see the same examples in American Idol contestants, Survivor contestants, The Real World participants, the characters of The Hills, and so on—these are individuals whose fame is deeply intertwined with a social decentralization and continued fascination with “15 minute stars.” But the implications of this are far more important than simply defining “15 minute stars” or criticizing the simplistic language of the “so 15 minutes ago” phrase; rather, the implications inherent in these examples point to a far greater, far darker truth of contemporary society writ large.
It is at this point that postmodern critique provides the perfect analytic lens: drawing heavily from Baudrillard’s critique of contemporary consumer culture, we find a glaring theory behind the supposedly innocent phrasal diction of mass culture. Indeed, it is surprising how very true the phrase “so 15 minutes ago” actually is. We live in a society, it seems, where its consumption of products and materials—the consumption that in turn instigates the duplication of a false realistic system and subsystem, a world of images, lights, sounds and no referential node—is equaled by the consumption of culture, the production and dissemination of information, ideology and technology. This system, however, is reaching its maximum internal capacity: it has begun to consume at such a rate, feeding the demands and needs of the “silent majorities,” that the culture itself cannot support its own referential necessities. Indeed, our culture has begun to consume itself as the simulated singularity, the infinite reference of a limited-reference node.
“So fifteen minutes ago” is very much a true statement—the rate in which our culture consumes culture is astonishing. It needs newer, more complete reference nodes in order to sustain the demands of its consumerist structure; more and more is required to uphold this behemoth of a reality, this neon “GARAP” that’s fuel is its own production and consumption of culture—not objects and things (though these too play a role), but the conceptual-theoretical underpinnings of social consumption itself. It is the concept of fame, of information, of unlimited technology that is feeding this giant machine; information is no longer the focus of the advertisement, the market-run divisions and distinctions. Instead, you can now purchase the concept of information, the theory of informed compatibility—the implication, of course, is that anything else is inferior, unacceptable, inappropriate in such a rapidly forward-moving age. Thus, not only does the cultural singularity require a self-referential implosion, it forces any deviation from this ideological framework to be met with social exclusion: the very inclusion of the system excludes contradicting theoretical conceptions insofar as the progression of the singularity to consume itself is not disrupted.