There is no doubt that all anybody is talking about, thinking about, concentrating on and hearing about is the coronavirus. It's the closest thing to the old monoculture I've seen in years. The last real stronghold of the monoculture was 80s MTV, the maker of hits, superstars, kings (of pop) and madonnas. Since then everybody has more and more retreated into their own silos with their own interests and even their own news that only agrees with them (as in Facebook's news algorithms). People no longer watch "appointment TV' all at one time. We live in an on demand culture. Has the coronavirus changed that? Will something of the "one thing" or "one mind" mentality remain when the virus finally fades from view?

There is no doubt that all anybody is talking about, thinking about, concentrating on and hearing about is the coronavirus. It's the closest thing to the old monoculture I've seen in years. The last real stronghold of the monoculture was 80s MTV, the maker of hits, superstars, kings (of pop) and madonnas. Since then everybody has more and more retreated into their own silos with their own interests and even their own news that only agrees with them (as in Facebook's news algorithms). People no longer watch "appointment TV' all at one time. We live in an on demand culture. Has the coronavirus changed that? Will something of the "one thing" or "one mind" mentality remain when the virus finally fades from view?


I think life will mostly return to normal, but the coronavirus is definitely something that people will remember where they were when it happened.

I think life will mostly return to normal, but the coronavirus is definitely something that people will remember where they were when it happened.



They will continue to talk or have discussions a year later.

If monoculture means everyone should think and feel the same thing, then that concept should be buried and burned in the deepest of hells.

If monoculture means everyone should think and feel the same thing, then that concept should be buried and burned in the deepest of hells.


THIS. Not bashing the OP or anyone, but for such diversity in the 2010s, it'd feel like we went backwards if that was the case

If monoculture means everyone should think and feel the same thing, then that concept should be buried and burned in the deepest of hells.


At no time did the monoculture mean that everybody should think and feel the same thing. That's not to say there weren't a hell of a lot of sheeplike people. But the exact same thing is true today.

An example of the monoculture is that say in the 60s, 70s and 80s  (the 80s being the MTV music video era) everybody knew what songs were hits, the top 40, certainly whatever as #1. That didn't mean they had to like it, buy it, or pay attention to it. It just meant everybody was AWARE of it. Although the ones that participated in this did have a "communal feeling" about it. This is how MTV was able to make Michael Jackson, for example, into the superstar he was in the 80s and beyond after he had already been big and even come down a bit. 

THIS. Not bashing the OP or anyone, but for such diversity in the 2010s, it'd feel like we went backwards if that was the case


It would seem so, would't it? But the plain fact of the matter is that during the monoculure era there was far more diversity than one ever sees in popular culture today. The top 40 of the 1960s and 70s was filled with every kind of music and artist you could possibly imagine. From the soul of Motown to the Beatles to the Monkees to blues based artists to hard rock to classically influenced "prog" rock to Joan Baez type folksingers to jazz instrumentals to a capella songs to Jimi Hendrix to country songs to long, long songs ("Hey Jude"), etc. etc. What do you get with the top 40 of today, if there even really is one? Rap and pop. That's it. Oh, I know they have all their little sub-genres but they're still rap and pop. By the way, back in that earlier era the word "pop" had a far more wide ranging connotation than  the limited scope it encompasses now. Now THAT was diversity.

It would seem so, would't it? But the plain fact of the matter is that during the monoculure era there was far more diversity than one ever sees in popular culture today. The top 40 of the 1960s and 70s was filled with every kind of music and artist you could possibly imagine. From the soul of Motown to the Beatles to the Monkees to blues based artists to hard rock to classically influenced "prog" rock to Joan Baez type folksingers to jazz instrumentals to a capella songs to Jimi Hendrix to country songs to long, long songs ("Hey Jude"), etc. etc. What do you get with the top 40 of today, if there even really is one? Rap and pop. That's it. Oh, I know they have all their little sub-genres but they're still rap and pop. By the way, back in that earlier era the word "pop" had a far more wide ranging connotation than  the limited scope it encompasses now. Now THAT was diversity.


I don't think there's any "monoculture" now. Diversity in music still exists. Streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music have over thousands of popular and underrated artists with tons of subgenres and millions of songs to be explored.

It would seem so, would't it? But the plain fact of the matter is that during the monoculure era there was far more diversity than one ever sees in popular culture today. The top 40 of the 1960s and 70s was filled with every kind of music and artist you could possibly imagine. From the soul of Motown to the Beatles to the Monkees to blues based artists to hard rock to classically influenced "prog" rock to Joan Baez type folksingers to jazz instrumentals to a capella songs to Jimi Hendrix to country songs to long, long songs ("Hey Jude"), etc. etc. What do you get with the top 40 of today, if there even really is one? Rap and pop. That's it. Oh, I know they have all their little sub-genres but they're still rap and pop. By the way, back in that earlier era the word "pop" had a far more wide ranging connotation than  the limited scope it encompasses now. Now THAT was diversity.


Oh. Never looked at the pop culture aspect like that. If it does become like this, then I'm all for it. But, if it's one primary view of politics, social norms, and whatnot, then count me out  ;D Most of what I said had to do with the general public's way of thinking :p 

Oh. Never looked at the pop culture aspect like that. If it does become like this, then I'm all for it. But, if it's one primary view of politics, social norms, and whatnot, then count me out  ;D Most of what I said had to do with the general public's way of thinking :p


Glad I could clear that up. That's what I'm here for.  ;D The monoculture never meant everybody felt or thought one way. It just meant everybody knew all the same stuff, HOWEVER they felt about it. If there was a #1 record everybody knew it, but that didn't mean they had to like it. Nowadays not a large majority of people have heard of all of the people on the charts, because everybody's in  their own silos, not to mention that music doesn't drive the culture as it once did. In the 60s, 70s and 80s there were basically three main TV networks and that was it, so everybody knew what was on them. When MTV came along everybody was watching it, because our choices were still limited, so MTV had enormous power to make or break stars. Many people were sheeplike and just blindly took what was spoonfed to them, but there were also many (myself included) who went their own independent ways.

I don’t consider a crisis that everyone is going through to be a monoculture. It unites us as people because we are all going through the same struggles, but it seems weird to label the crisis a “culture”. I get where you’re coming from though. It’s been a long while since society as a collective has put so much attention on one thing.

Glad I could clear that up. That's what I'm here for.  ;D The monoculture never meant everybody felt or thought one way. It just meant everybody knew all the same stuff, HOWEVER they felt about it. If there was a #1 record everybody knew it, but that didn't mean they had to like it. Nowadays not a large majority of people have heard of all of the people on the charts, because everybody's in  their own silos, not to mention that music doesn't drive the culture as it once did. In the 60s, 70s and 80s there were basically three main TV networks and that was it, so everybody knew what was on them. When MTV came along everybody was watching it, because our choices were still limited, so MTV had enormous power to make or break stars. Many people were sheeplike and just blindly took what was spoonfed to them, but there were also many (myself included) who went their own independent ways.


While it's true that we're all focused on the virus because it radically affected our lives in such little time, I wouldn't consider it a "culture" of sorts, because this affects us in many different ways.

The 2000s had every genre on it’s charts.

It would seem so, would't it? But the plain fact of the matter is that during the monoculure era there was far more diversity than one ever sees in popular culture today. The top 40 of the 1960s and 70s was filled with every kind of music and artist you could possibly imagine. From the soul of Motown to the Beatles to the Monkees to blues based artists to hard rock to classically influenced "prog" rock to Joan Baez type folksingers to jazz instrumentals to a capella songs to Jimi Hendrix to country songs to long, long songs ("Hey Jude"), etc. etc. What do you get with the top 40 of today, if there even really is one? Rap and pop. That's it. Oh, I know they have all their little sub-genres but they're still rap and pop. By the way, back in that earlier era the word "pop" had a far more wide ranging connotation than  the limited scope it encompasses now. Now THAT was diversity.


I agree. The greatest form of irony in popular music since the 2010s is the need for artists to be 'distinct' or 'individualistic', which has done the double whammy of making the people whom listen to deemed 'brave and hipster music' become more jaded due to their own self aggrandizing 'opinions' (we've all met the fedora wearing hipsters that swear up n' down why their preferred form of Indie music is 'posh') and yet at the same time the variation of music itself has been becoming less and less diverse in musical instrumentation and lyrics when compared to other artists (sometimes, even from completely different deemed 'genres') than at any point in history.

Even up to the 2000s, you still had a pretty wide array of musical genres (& thus, subcultures one can find community in, even when aware of more deemed 'mainstream' cultures and opposing subcultures) despite there still being 'gatekeepers' of sorts for music, such as MTV or Billboard. So it's hard to say, because one would assume that with less consolidation, such as MTV steadily losing influence, there would be more innovation in music. The rise of musicians using the internet to break through into mainstream successes, as an example, I felt like that was actually working at first. However I feel like, with any institution of course, "Power eventually Corrupts".

This is a much deeper conversation on the role of the internet in modern society, and how that has changed dramatically over the years. From being the 'wild wild west' 20 years ago, to just a further consolidation of corporate power as displayed ever simply by the Trending list on YouTube today. That's an uncomfortable truth that I don't think people wan't to talk about, especially younger people. Is music really in a better shape now than it was in the 1980s? I'm not even sure if there is a clear cut answer to suggest one or the other.

I agree. The greatest form of irony in popular music since the 2010s is the need for artists to be 'distinct' or 'individualistic', which has done the double whammy of making the people whom listen to deemed 'brave and hipster music' become more jaded due to their own self aggrandizing 'opinions' (we've all met the fedora wearing hipsters that swear up n' down why their preferred form of Indie music is 'posh') and yet at the same time the variation of music itself has been becoming less and less diverse in musical instrumentation and lyrics when compared to other artists (sometimes, even from completely different deemed 'genres') than at any point in history.

Even up to the 2000s, you still had a pretty wide array of musical genres (& thus, subcultures one can find community in, even when aware of more deemed 'mainstream' cultures and opposing subcultures) despite there still being 'gatekeepers' of sorts for music, such as MTV or Billboard. So it's hard to say, because one would assume that with less consolidation, such as MTV steadily losing influence, there would be more innovation in music. The rise of musicians using the internet to break through into mainstream successes, as an example, I felt like that was actually working at first. However I feel like, with any institution of course, "Power eventually Corrupts".

This is a much deeper conversation on the role of the internet in modern society, and how that has changed dramatically over the years. From being the 'wild wild west' 20 years ago, to just a further consolidation of corporate power as displayed ever simply by the Trending list on YouTube today. That's an uncomfortable truth that I don't think people wan't to talk about, especially younger people. Is music really in a better shape now than it was in the 1980s? I'm not even sure if there is a clear cut answer to suggest one or the other.


As I aforementioned, there are still multiple genres and subgenres being played by loads of artists (NPR Tiny Desk, Bandcamp, Soundcloud, Spotify, etc), but they just aren't getting scouted by label A&Rs who now care more for pop stars or rappers. Pop and rap is what's selling now, and has been for several years.

But the mainstream charts aren't the be-all and end-all of diverse music. The Internet is awesome for finding more artists at your own disposal.

If monoculture means everyone should think and feel the same thing, then that concept should be buried and burned in the deepest of hells.


Everybody kind of is thinking and feeling the same thing right now. I don't know about you but I'm feeling anxious as hell over this pandemic. My uncertainty about the future is equal to or even greater than it was right after 9/11. I'm worried that I might lose some loved ones over this whole deal, and I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that way.

Perhaps the term "monoculture" may have a different meaning to you than it does to me, but for me it means that right now we're all in this together and we all need to try and keep cool heads (which to be honest hasn't always been easy for me) and look out for one another.

I don’t consider a crisis that everyone is going through to be a monoculture. It unites us as people because we are all going through the same struggles, but it seems weird to label the crisis a “culture”. I get where you’re coming from though. It’s been a long while since society as a collective has put so much attention on one thing.

Agreed. The whole world is going through it, but this isn't a "culture" it's people being afraid and all the uncertainty of the current times.

It will be interesting to see the consequences of the pandemic a year or two from now. I wonder if the west will masks the way east Asians already have. I wonder if there will be more bedroom performances after this. And what will happen to movie theaters? They're facing collapse.

It will be interesting to see the consequences of the pandemic a year or two from now. I wonder if the west will masks the way east Asians already have. I wonder if there will be more bedroom performances after this. And what will happen to movie theaters? They're facing collapse.


I think movie theaters a year or two from now will be pretty much long gone.

It will be interesting to see the consequences of the pandemic a year or two from now. I wonder if the west will masks the way east Asians already have. I wonder if there will be more bedroom performances after this. And what will happen to movie theaters? They're facing collapse.


Movie theaters are one of the things that will be swept away as a result of this. They have been dying a lingering death for some time. Macy's, another failing woolly mammoth, won't make it.

This is speculation, but I think there may be a fundamental change in movie content as a result of this. Possibly less of the blockbuster Marvel superhero type thing, which everybody has had enough of anyway. Perhaps a trend more towards introspection. We'll see.

Movie theaters are one of the things that will be swept away as a result of this. They have been dying a lingering death for some time. Macy's, another failing woolly mammoth, won't make it.

This is speculation, but I think there may be a fundamental change in movie content as a result of this. Possibly less of the blockbuster Marvel superhero type thing, which everybody has had enough of anyway. Perhaps a trend more towards introspection. We'll see.


We'll still be watching films at home, buy a bag of popcorn, grab a can of soda and there you saved a bunch of money.

We'll still be watching films at home, buy a bag of popcorn, grab a can of soda and there you saved a bunch of money.


You, sir, have read my mind.  8)

We'll still be watching films at home, buy a bag of popcorn, grab a can of soda and there you saved a bunch of money.
You can still buy popcorn?  http://www.inthe00s.com/Smileys/easter/grin.gif

The monoculture is real. Whenever I talk to my friends, coworkers and family they're all talking about the same thing. The EXACT same thing. Did you hear Boris Johnson is in the hospital? Did you hear a tiger at a zoo contracted corona? Literally the SAME topic of discussion with each different person I talk to.

In the summer I modified my news reading habits so that I receive news slower (I think it's better to read about something after the dust has settled than the 24/7 "140 characters" low-information instant news we have today), so I feel like a total weirdo when I say no, I haven't heard that piece of news yet.  :-[

It will be interesting to see the consequences of the pandemic a year or two from now. I wonder if the west will masks the way east Asians already have. I wonder if there will be more bedroom performances after this. And what will happen to movie theaters? They're facing collapse.

I think in the west, people will become more germaphobic and health conscious, and masks in public may very well become a thing from now on.

I think in the west, people will become more germaphobic and health conscious, and masks in public may very well become a thing from now on.
Also there is the element of meeting someone new for the first time, or passengers strangers when walking?

I think in the west, people will become more germaphobic and health conscious, and masks in public may very well become a thing from now on.


I think hand-shaking will still be a thing, but it probably won't be used as often.

I think hand-shaking will still be a thing, but it probably won't be used as often.
It seems that elbow nudging has taken over now, along with bowing like the Japanese, personally I am waiting of the day when it is safe to shake hands again.

I think hand-shaking will still be a thing, but it probably won't be used as often.


Handshaking is a thing that needed to go a long time ago, so good riddance. Let's just hope it doesn't get replaced by the foolish and undignified "elbow bump" being touted now. If it were up to me I am fine with the slight bow that is the protocol in some Asian countries.

It seems that elbow nudging has taken over now, along with bowing like the Japanese, personally I am waiting of the day when it is safe to shake hands again.


Considering how many people don't wash their hands, the practice probably needs to be retired for something else, maybe a shoulder pat if people still feel the need to touch. Even as late as March 10/11, I noticed people not washing their hands after using the toilet in the gym washroom. It was disgusting.

The monoculture is real. Whenever I talk to my friends, coworkers and family they're all talking about the same thing. The EXACT same thing. Did you hear Boris Johnson is in the hospital? Did you hear a tiger at a zoo contracted corona? Literally the SAME topic of discussion with each different person I talk to.

In the summer I modified my news reading habits so that I receive news slower (I think it's better to read about something after the dust has settled than the 24/7 "140 characters" low-information instant news we have today), so I feel like a total weirdo when I say no, I haven't heard that piece of news yet.  :-[


The mid-century monoculture I grew up in was a three network world (ABC, CBS, NBC). Everybody literally knew everything. I hasten to add, for the skittish among us here, that does not mean everybody AGREED with everything or felt the same way. They just KNEW it.

Considering how many people don't wash their hands, the practice probably needs to be retired for something else, maybe a shoulder pat if people still feel the need to touch. Even as late as March 10/11, I noticed people not washing their hands after using the toilet in the gym washroom. It was disgusting.
I have noticed that too, even just before the lockdown started, ugh!

BTW:

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/624/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2020/4/8/518560b2-3a4e-4af5-b86e-be13b45f421b.png

The mid-century monoculture I grew up in was a three network world (ABC, CBS, NBC). Everybody literally knew everything. I hasten to add, for the skittish among us here, that does not mean everybody AGREED with everything or felt the same way. They just KNEW it.


I get what you are saying. It’s like making a tv show quote and everyone gets the reference. Nowadays is possible no one else in the room has seen the show.

I think in the west, people will become more germaphobic and health conscious, and masks in public may very well become a thing from now on.


And wearing gloves too.

I think hand-shaking will still be a thing, but it probably won't be used as often.


fist bumping are the new handshakes.

fist bumping are the new handshakes.
...but the hands are still touching?

Handshaking is a thing that needed to go a long time ago, so good riddance. Let's just hope it doesn't get replaced by the foolish and undignified "elbow bump" being touted now. If it were up to me I am fine with the slight bow that is the protocol in some Asian countries.


I don't think a slight bow's gonna catch on in America, especially in youth culture, sad to say.

Waving hands at each other sounds good to me, though.

...but the hands are still touching?


How about a bow?

How about a bow?
Yes, just the Japanese do.