At last, I have discovered the one political buzzword that both the American left and right use, and that both use to mean the same thing: “culture war.” Here exists the concise expression of the social issues, or more appropriately the views and attitudes about those social issues, around which the nation is fracturing. It is a buzzword capable of encompassing all political buzzwords in the WRD DSRPTR 2 project. And for this reason, the noun “culture war” functions in the same way that the noun “buzzword” functions in WRD DSRPTR 1.0, and “buzzword compliance” in WRD DSRPTR 1.2, to indicate the full deck (if you will) of tech entrepreneurial buzzwords. Uniquely then, this is the singular WRD DSRPTR 2 noun phrase pairing that lacks a leftist or a rightest analogue. In spite of all our talking past one another, we can at least name and define the occasion of, and for, our vitriol.
Now, I cannot help but sense that widespread discussion of the culture war does not merely amplify it, but makes it more immediate and real. This may sound trite, yet we should ponder the implication of the use of the descriptor “war” as opposed to, say, “debate”: it signifies an active conflict with a hostile and implicitly unjust adversary in which compromise — the ambrosia of democracy — is recast as concession, [à] la a defeated power in an actual military war. Objectively this characterization is worsened by the application of the “culture war” to uncompromisable principles, most shockingly and recently the constitutional right to privacy among them.
Why do I mention this? The perception that our national fracturing around social issues is a “war” incentivizes brutal treatment of the topics touched upon. Every front in the “war” presents ample opportunities for takedowns and gotcha moments on social media and the memeification of nuance; for loud proclamations of fanaticized viewpoints for the intensification of such fanaticism; and for the expression of approval for that fanaticism. The algorithm both rewards outrage and manufactures it. You see, it’s good for sales.
The “new release” referenced here could be any number of things, commodities or media stories alike. Its only qualification really is that whatever thing it is is new and controversial enough to get drawn into the “culture war” vortex and remain, or become, relevant therein. Just as seasonal lines or new product offerings keep a brand fresh, so does any “new release” in the “culture war” play the same role —regardless of whether one is enamored of or offended by the new release. It is as though American politics has become a marketing engine for a particularly bitter brand of simplified politicking, and moreover is frighteningly adept at maintaining the hype surrounding it, namely by convincing millions of Americans to iterate such marketing on social media by “sharing,” viewing, and inevitably commenting on content that represents and enacts this politicking.
There is a profundity to this last point — that “American politics has become a marketing engine” — that gives me pause. For indeed, if what is marketed is merely “a particularly bitter brand of simplified politicking,” meaning that simplified politicking is the product, then those engaging in such marketing hardly have an interest in resolving any aspect of the “culture war” whatsoever. Such resolution would decrease hype and ultimately be bad for the brand, insofar as resolution would render the brand irrelevant. There has always been an exploitative bent to the WRD DSRPTR project, as it seeks to at once describe and take advantage of, or find expediency in, the social conditions it ponders. For WRD DSRPTR 2 then, we might concisely state that it exploits the tendency of political speech online to become the advertisement of political ideas, or “simplified politicking,” for the purpose of accelerating this tendency toward speech as advertisement, not as dialogue, and, at one and the same time, more efficiently monetizing that tendency by way of utilizing the integration of social media and ecommerce.
May 22 and 23, 2022