Some time ago, I read a post by someone that was basically complaining how “everything was better in the 2010s” The stories and games were better. There was more sense of community. Everyone had shared interests that you could bond over or talk about at the coffee machine at work.
They thought it might just be nostalgia. Or that the 2010s were simply a more formative period for them, as they were younger.
But all the comments below the post immediately had a different theory.
“You don’t miss show X or game Y specifically, you miss monoculture.”
I had never seen that word before—monoculture. At first glance, it sounds bad, right? It sounds like the opposite of culture and diversity. And, well, it kind of is.
I also immediately felt, however, that these commenters were right.
For example, I think the first few seasons of Game of Thrones are amazing, and whenever I find time to watch a show I am more likely to rewatch that than start any of the modern shows. I, too, have this feeling that things were just better back then, including all art and media.
I manage to go past that feeling, it’s easy to see that this simply isn’t true. Amazing movies and shows are being made today too. Amazing books come out, amazing new game ideas become hits, and so forth. Some of my favorite games and shows, or at least ones I’d consider objectively great and well-made, came out way later than 2010.
The issue is … that I have nobody to play those games with, nobody to talk to about those shows, no community close to me with that shared interest.
And thus, what I actually miss, is monoculture.
Everything is so fractured now. Everyone is at different points in different shows. Everyone is following different subreddits or newsletters or influencers. Everyone has its own algorithm that tailors all its recommendations specifically to them.
I realize now that I’ve subconsciously been trying to hold on to the old way of doing things ;) I always try to watch shows/films together with my siblings. When they push to binge watch the whole season in one go, it’s always been me who says “Nope, let’s watch the next one next week!” I’ve tried to give recommendations, or follow up on things recommended to me, because it means we’ll have this shared interest for a bit. If I have to choose a show to watch, I’ll pick the one my sister mentioned yesterday over the one I’m actually more interested in (or that “has higher ratings”).
And now, this summer, for what feels like the first time in forever, we’ve had an example of monoculture again. Nolan’s latest movie, The Odyssey, has become so big that everyone has gone to see it and is talking about it. Newspapers have repeatedly devoted full-spread articles to this movie in the past two weeks. (Whereas they normally just mention a movie has released in a sidebar somewhere, once, on the release date.)
Some love it, some hate it. I’ve written a review that basically says the movie excels in some aspects and completely fails in others. The quality of the movie doesn’t actually matter here! It matters that a large group of people have a shared experience and a shared interest. It matters that it creates an instance of monoculture for a few weeks.
And that’s nice, isn’t it?
- I can read those newspaper articles with interest, because I have seen the movie and know what they’re talking about.
- I can discuss different parts of it with the family members with whom I went to the cinema.
- I can talk to others about it, because they’ve likely seen it, or at least heard of it.
- Local book stores report selling out all their copies of Odyssey translations. This one movie actually spawned a bigger piece of monoculture where everyone suddenly gives more attention to Greek mythology in general.
On a smaller scale, I’ll have to mention Hadestown in Carré (Amsterdam). It’s a folk opera/musical adaptation of the Greek myth of Orpheus & Eurydice. It’s a rare event that it was performed in the Netherlands, at a high quality, directed by the original director. When we went, the theatre was PACKED. All shows were sold out. I heard people around me talk about this being their third or fourth time going.
The show was good. Hadestown is a great musical. But what actually made it MATTER to me, what made it better, was the 1000 people around me who were ready to love the show with all their heart, from start to finish. If I had seen that exact same show, but WITHOUT all the (enthusiastic) people around me, it would probably feel like a very hollow and expensive trip to Amsterdam.
Most of all, humans simply value things more when other humans value it. Monoculture means that loads of people are also giving attention to this one thing, which automatically makes it feel … real and worthy to us. Watching a movie in a crowded cinema is so different from watching one in an empty cinema. Watching a show and knowing everyone around you watched it to, makes it feel like more than just a show. It gives it more value and more staying power.
For someone like me—who probably has ADD—this is extra true. Our brains really only value physical, real, human things. I even struggle to really value money, because it’s just some numbers on a screen to me and doesn’t feel valuable. (Our brains are basically made for hunter-gatherer times where all you cared about was essential needs like food and safety.) Monoculture basically makes popular media feel real to me. Oh, everyone else in my family cares about this show? Then I care about it too and will try to watch it. Oh, this show gets 10/10 ratings, but nobody else seems to have heard of it? Nah, it’s just a show, let’s not waste time on it.
Looking back, I can see that, everytime a bit of monoculture appears again, it made me feel a bit better. It made me tune back in to what’s popular (in books, shows, films, games, whatever) after being tuned out for years. It made me able to actually take time off work and get over that initial reluctance to try something new.
At the same time, I’ve written countless articles about how important diversity is in general, for everything. When I say diversity, people usually think that I’m talking about perfectly representing skin colors or something, but I’m not. I’m talking about the actual meaning of the word “diversity”, which is a large amount of variation within a group. Diversity adds richness to anything. Diversity is crucial to the survival of anything. Diversity leads to creative ideas, innovation, change.
In biology, we can clearly see that the animals that survived did so because they were flexible and diverse. For example, foxes are a pretty old species that exist all over earth, in all the different biomes. That flexibility and diversity is what allows them to survive catastrophes or food scarcity. Similarly, the diversity in human skills and talents is important. If all of us were exactly the same—amazing at X, bad at the rest—then we would have gone extinct long ago.
I’ve often lamented the lack of this kind of diversity in media. Stories that always follow the exact same formula with the exact same tropes or story beats. Movies that all have the same dull blue/gray look from start to finish. Games that are afraid to do anything different because they fear gamers will say “it’s too difficult / I don’t understand” and stop playing.
It’s quite easy to conclude monoculture is the antithesis to this. If everyone is focused on this one show, then there’s not a lot of diversity in what’s being made/watched/talked about it, is there? If everyone is buying and playing the same hit game, then all the other developers that made these really creative and diverse games are left in the dust (and broke), right?
I started asking myself: is monoculture better or is it not? Which one do I actually prefer?
And the more I thought about, the more I realized they are not actually opposites. They are just two sides of the same coin. It’s actually best if they exist together, at the same time. That way, you get the best of both worlds.
- Most of art is diverse: small communities around small projects with small impacts.
- But there are always a few stand-out things that create a moment of monoculture.
And then I realized: this is what trends/hypes actually are.
For as long as I’ve lived, there has always been some clear trend going on. One genre of books that’s outselling everything else. Everyone talks about it, everyone buys it, all authors try to pivot to it. One game that’s being played by everyone. One new TV show that’s being bingewatched by everyone and their dog.
And I must admit I’ve made the mistake of hating these “hypes”. Of feeling like it’s all just marketing and nonsense and people are joining in for no reason. Of feeling like people are sheep following the hype, instead of looking a bit further and trying my books :p But now I realize this is just (modern) monoculture and, with a better mind-set, I’ve actually grown to really enjoy them and jump in myself too.
All the other art isn’t going away. Outside of the trend/hype/viral thing, lots of people are creating lots of creative and diverse things. And one of them is building and building right now, destined to become the next moment of monoculture in a year or two.
But without global trends … I have to say that things would probably feel much more empty. Even though I am not inclined to buy a “romantasy” novel, I am glad that it’s a piece of monoculture that brings people all over the world together into a shared interest. Similarly, I don’t have money/time/interest to play this new video game, but I am glad that millions of gamers are gushing over it and starting fanclubs and whatnot.
We need monoculture so much that it keeps happening in waves of trends, hypes, and viral moments. Even though it can often feel unfair or stupid—Why is THIS SILLY THING popular now? Why do we let social media and marketing dictate our interests so much!? Why are people not interested in MY work?—it’s still important and good that it happens.
What’s the point of this article? I don’t know. Just an explanation of monoculture, how that feeds into trends/hypes, and how my mind-set about them changed. Maybe it’s interesting to read for someone.
I’ve been a bit vague so far to keep the article succinct, so I’ll give some specific examples of what I mean.
I’ve been an author for quite some time, although I could only start to write seriously once I finally finished degree at university. In that time I’ve joined writing contests, talked to publishers, studied the market, read hundreds of books, and so forth.
And it’s actually quite easy to cut up my entire life into a few periods of monoculture. Because, well, that’s the point: these things were so big and everyone was talking about them, that they even left an impression on 5-year-old me.
- First we had FANTASY. Harry Potter released, Lord of the Rings movies released, fantasy novels were being written and bought everywhere.
- Then we had YOUNG ADULT (APOCALYPSE/VAMPIRE). The Hunger Games and Twilight, which led to watered-down versions like Divergence, and eventually this whole new genre of “young adult” that didn’t exist before. And by now these young adults are 30+ years old, but still like to read the same books, so they renamed some of the books to “new adult” :p
- Then we had ROMANTASY. Fifty Shades of Gray was kind of a precursor here. Then we get Court of Thorns and Roses, The Fourth Wing, etcetera. Mostly female writers who managed to couple romance/erotica with fantasy/sci-fi, which allowed people to read them (in public) without feeling uncomfortable and kind of moved the genre into something with more plot and a higher status.
- And now we have COZY CRIME. Thursday Murder Club, Only Murders In The Building, Murdoku/Murdle, etcetera. Everything is turned into a murder mystery, possibly an interactive one, but in a kind of cozy and family-friendly way to make it accessible to all.
If you’re not a reader or author, you probably recognize some words here, but they don’t mean much to you. You might think “oh I guess I heard of that, but that wasn’t a big thing, right?” But the fact you heard of it, while being outside the bubble entirely, says enough. I can tell you that these things are/were massive. Authors selling a gazillion books. A year later, a gazillion authors suddenly writing their first novel in that genre or for that market.
In a world full of chaos, with millions of pieces of media releasing all the time, monoculture gives clarity and structure. It tells you where to put your attention. Not sure what to read? Pick what’s hot right now. Not sure what to write? Pick something that’s buzzing with excitement right now. Yes, the authors on the right side of this are incredibly lucky and get rich, and on the wrong side you’re kind of looking on feeling unfortunate. Yes, if you chase trends then you will likely always release something too late, but you’ll be working on the thing while the trend is happening, and that is a major source of motivation and inspiration. (Journey before destination and all that.)
But I don’t think this can actually change (or needs to change).
My greatest memories (and understanding) of media and culture have all come from monoculture, never anything else.