In the past two years or so, I've heard many of my peers use several phrases which seem very characteristic of the times we live in. Despite conscious attempts on my part to avoid using these catch-phrases, I find them seeping into my own language. Two of my favorites are "It's all good" and "It's all relative." To many, these may seem unrelated, perhaps even forming a "random" collection of expressions, as it were. But to me, these two phrases all point to one theme: our culture of triviality.
Let's look at each of these terms and its usage.
"It's all good" is used to communicate one's acceptance of all things in life, be they "good" or "bad" (somewhat quasi-Eastern, with its implication of the bond which connects all things). Example: "Don't worry about it -- it's all good." The speaker purports to not really worry about anything which may happen, because "everything is beautiful," and "it'll all work itself out in the end."
Now certainly, it's nice to take an optimistic view of life, especially in the midst off all the cynicism which surrounds us these days. Yet to take such an undiscerning view of the merits of all things reeks of slackerdom. I'd wager that most people who use this phrase don't actually consider whether absolutely everything is really "good," or even believe that everything is good. It seems to me that it's mostly a conscious effort not to attach much importance to choices, so that one seldom has to think, "Maybe I should've done this ... " (because, in the end, no matter what you do, "it's all good.")
"It's all relative" is a close relative of "it's all good." The phrase displays an unwillingness to rank things hierarchically. For example: "You can't say Shakespeare is a 'better' writer than me, man! I mean, it's all relative." The reasoning goes something like this: because our notions of "good" and "bad" are arbitrary and highly individual, nothing can truly be said to be "better" than anything else. This phrase arises from our modern habits of scrutiny and revisionism, under which old standards of quality are pinpointed as arbitrary and inadequate, and give way to ideas of equality among authors, flavors, ideas -- except for old, hierarchical ideas. Paradoxically, they are deemed worse than newer, revisionist ones.
So what do these two cultural catch-phrases tell us? A lot, as I see it. They both point to a sense of indifference and a tendency to shrug things off, a certain blase state of mind which seems to pervade collegians. Or at least collegians, I should say, because I don't know how extensively this characteristic carries over to people in the outside world, or people in other age-groups. We live in a more complicated era, it seems, than our predecessors. Gone are the roaring '20s, the rockin' '50s, the psychedelic '60s, the groovy '70s, and the ... '80s. I could wax on about many modern malaises, but you get the picture.
Complexity grows at a staggering rate, so that to process all the latest findings and assertions of technology, revisionism, "Generation X," and all other modern trends (without growing cynical and impatient) is a daunting proposition. Isn't it easy to just avoid comparisons without really thinking about them? Solutions are elusive, and all I can say is, "It's just another sign o' the times."
