I have always thought the statement “Think for yourself” is among the most paradoxical instructions an individual can give. The statement is generally given in the hopes of the receiving party addressing a particular issue—or a general mode of thought—with an original, unique, critical mindset; yet the instruction is one that orients itself as a self-referential expression that is self-defeating. After all, if the receiving party accepts the advice blindly, then he or she is in fact ignoring the very theory of the proposal; but, if he or she does not accept the advice, then it is supposed that he or she is dictated by the concepts, thoughts, and ideals of others. The irony here is obvious: either way, one fails to think for oneself. The concept of reciprocity dominates a intellectual function that is supposed to be counter-reciprocal.

But all hope is not lost. It seems as though the only way out of this ad infinitum regression is a critical analysis of the statement itself. In order for one to actually think for oneself and avoid intellectual subjugation (even if that subjugation is intended to liberate), one must approach the advice with a sense of critical skepticism. Whether one chooses to implement the instruction immediately, postpone the observation, or ignore the proposal entirely should be a reflection upon one’s own conscientious discernment. Thus, the statement can be observed legitimately, or can be ignored legitimately: the true basis of the decision is borne in the individual’s distinct thought, and not as a product of external persuasion, manipulation or instruction.

I have always been very interested—if not perplexed—by the occasional break from the actor-audience relationship in the form of when an actor, primarily in skit and comedy shows, turns to the camera in an expression that is clearly a deviation from the actual script. I have seen this most consistently on Saturday Night Live; the actor will turn towards the camera and portray a reaction that is almost indicative of a dialogue between the actor and his audience. It is almost if the actor means to say: “Yes, I recognize that this is a representation of reality, and, though I am supposed to convince you of its authenticity, I have decided to postpone this relationship to establish a deeper bond.” This deeper bond is perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the expression. It is, in fact, the quintessential (re)development of the Goffman-Schechner performativity theory: through the actor deviating from the defined act—an act that is intended to redefine the confines of reality—the “real” reality is reinvented through the invention of the “false” reality. In this sense, the relationship between the audience and actor assumes a far greater, psychoanalytically-based understanding: in a way, the resistance of the “real” reality, which is produced through the introduction and development of the “false” reality, substantiates the “false” reality as itself a legitimate deviation from the “real” reality. It assumes the visage of the simulacra: it is a representation of the real that can only exist if there also exists a representation of the representation of reality simultaneously.

Thus, the dialogue between the actor and audience assumes a new tone. The relationship now includes the actor expressing to the audience in such a way that he or she is stating “I know this is fake, and I know that you know this is fake. In fact, you know that I know this is fake. Thus, I am no different than you.” But the actor or actress is not one of the audience—the relationship attempts to transcend its own defined limitations and reach into an unprecedented area of familiarity where the original confines an entirely redefined in such a manner that the “false” reality completely supersedes the “real” reality by defining itself as false. It therefore becomes “real” through its extension of its own falsity into a self-defining falsity. It is not restricted by the expectations of traditional standards of acting; instead, it labours as a representation of the representation of the “false” reality with impunity. It is no longer defined by the expectations of the audience, but strictly by the newly formed relationship that is purely contingent upon the decisions of the actor. Thus, the audience loses its ability to criticize or critique and instead advocates that ability to the actor; it is an action committed by the depicters of falsity that redefines falsity as an acceptable replacement of reality and transfers the control of the criticism of reality from the audience to the actor. In a direct way, it is very reminiscent of Brecht’s alienation effect—the contours of the performativity relation are implicitly addressed and simultaneously disseminated into a newly-formed equilibrium of strategic performativity in which the performance itself is a self-reference of performative theory.

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.

The purpose of this blog will be priamarily concerned with the application of postmodern theory to contemporary social issues; by analyzing social, literary and political advances through the lens of postmodern theory, the hope is to produce a comprehensive overview of how these developments interact with each other and the greater sociopolical sphere. The issues that we shall cover are numerous and varied--there is a considerable amount of material we can and will analyze, so please feel free to browse the posts. After all, one week's topic may have nothing to do with the next weeks; there is a little something for everyone. Please enjoy!