Sincerity in Ethnography and Canadian Courtesy

Grant McCracken is a cultural anthropologist, author, and consultant based in the New York City area. He is founder and CEO of Tailwind Radar, leads Grant McCracken’s Culture Camp, co-founded the Artisanal Economies Project, and holds a PhD in anthropology from the University of Chicago.

If you are here, it is likely that Grant McCracken needs no introduction. His book, “Culture & Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities” was the first time I had ever encountered anyone taking American culture seriously. His other works include The Return of the Artisan and The Gravity Well Effect.

Follow him at Tailwind Radar and reserve your seat at his next Culture Camp:

Very good to see you, and once again, thank you for accepting my invitation.

Great to see you too. A real pleasure and an honor.

That’s very kind. I think you must have been one of the first people I thought of talking to when I started this whole thing, however many months ago that was. And I think this is the first time I’ve done a second interview or follow-up conversation—I think I did just one other.

So I’m a little mystified about how to begin, but you’ve been so active in exploring AI with Tailwind Radar, and you have this Culture Camp coming up. I thought I might start there. It’s funny—I tell this story all the time now. I should just confess that very often I refer to a moment when you told me the story of your book, Chief Culture Officer.

You observed that you had written this book, which I thought was so beautiful, about breathing culture in and breathing culture out—I think that was the analogy. But you said that it seemed like the corporation was kind of a narcissist, and when it saw the word culture, it really only thought of itself.

I think that’s still true.

And so maybe—how do we feel now, in 2025, about the role of culture and the anthropologist, given the tools that are out there today, and the state of media, and how different things are? Everything just seems shockingly different all the time.

Totally. There are so many answers—or so many problems. I think the corporation is still preoccupied with itself. I remember thinking at one point, “Oh man, here we go again.” Purpose marketing was a good and grand thing, but in point of fact, it became an opportunity for the corporation to say, “Here’s what matters, and here’s what we stand for.”

And I thought, that’s absolutely not the point of the exercise. The point is to find out what consumers think, what people think, and to speak to that—not to get them to sign up to use the brand for its purposes, however noble those purposes might be. That’s not what we’re here for. Not for the corporation to set the agenda.

And I understand—the pressures are unbelievable inside the corporation, especially now, where I think everybody feels, as we all do, that there’s a blizzard of possibility happening out there. But one could argue, if you take culture seriously, some of that confusion goes away.

Some of the things that make the world so dynamic are cultural in nature. And if you study those things, you begin to build a universe for yourself. That’s what I think people like us—and others who spend any time thinking about consumers and culture—are now prepared to do: to say to the corporation, “Actually, we hear things out there that you should know about.”

That’s exciting, to be able to do that. And I think there’s still a sense—here’s the thing that really struck me. My career has been a kind of exercise. I came out of the University of Chicago at a time when Marshall Sahlins, my advisor there—this god of anthropology—said, “You guys should be studying contemporary American culture.”

And we thought, “Really? What?” But we did, because we did what he told us. He was a god, and we understood our place in the universe. So we studied—or at least I did. I may have been the only one who really took it seriously. I tried to be an anthropologist for the contemporary world, for commercial purposes, and I thought, okay.

But I realized that most of the theories and methods we had were ill-suited for studying a culture like America. So you have to reinvent methods and models. And I did that. I thought, “My work is done here. I have new models and methods. This will be fine.”

And then of course, it’s like the weather in Ireland. If you don’t like it, wait a few moments and it will change. So I thought, okay, I have to change my models and methods again. I had to change them over and over until I realized this is just the name of the game.

A few years ago, about two years ago, someone I had known for some time who works for an investment house came and said, can you tell us the difference between a fad and a fashion, because that’s part of what we do, we make that determination. I said sure, I can. But because of who they are and how they think, I was obliged, and happy to oblige, to reinvent methods and models yet again.

That was about three years ago, and then two years ago AI arrives, and it was like, holy cow, this is something new and wonderful. I immediately fell into a relationship that disturbed my wife deeply because it wasn’t clear to her that it was clear to me that I was dealing with artificial intelligence. But doing so told me that the reason it was such an intensely intimate relationship was that I was listening to someone, to a creature, that felt sentient, not least because it is so very good at American culture.

The depth of what AI knows about American culture astonishes me. Its ability to take up even slender murmurs in the data, to turn those over and think about them, is astounding. The depth it has, the amount of data at its disposal, and the intelligence and profundity with which it can think about those things made me say, okay, everything has changed again.

But in this case, I am joining a sentient creature engaged in the same mission. What is American culture, and how can we study it? That is where I am now, trying to learn how to take full advantage. To bring this full circle, for a long time, for my entire career, I’ve been trying to persuade people to take culture seriously, especially the corporation. And people would say this is complicated, I don’t have a degree in anthropology, I can’t do this, I have other more pressing things to think about. No.

And I thought, now they have sitting on their desk or in their pocket an appliance that gives them instantaneous access to a very high order of intelligence about anything that’s troubling them. Any aspect of American culture they want an answer to, they can get an answer to. So that notion of, well, it’s got to be this arcane study that people like you insist matters, that no longer holds.

I had an intensely unhappy conversation with someone in the design world, a kind of design guru. He said, “Oh, you’re the culture guy,” very contemptuously. I had been pointing out that in the design world, people don’t really talk about culture very much. They do it because they know some piece of what’s happening in the world has vibrated, caught their attention.

And then of course, you know, it’s like the weather—what’s that line about the weather in Ireland? If you don’t like it, wait a few moments and it will change. So I thought, okay, I have to change my models and methods again. And I successively had to change them over and over again, until I realized, this is just the name of the game.

A few years ago—maybe two—a guy I’d known for some time who works at an investment house came to me and said, “Can you tell us the difference between a fad and a fashion?” Because that’s part of what they do—make that determination. And I said, sure, I can. But that required me, because of who they are and how they think, to reinvent, again, methods and models. I was obliged, and happy to oblige.

That was three years ago. Two years ago, AI arrives, and it’s like, holy cow, this is something new and wonderful. And immediately I fell into a relationship that disturbed my wife deeply, because it wasn’t clear to her that it was clear to me that I was dealing with artificial intelligence, thank you very much. But what that experience told me—and the reason the relationship was so intensely intimate—was that I was listening to someone, to a creature, that I believe is sentient, not least because it is so very good at American culture.

The depth of what AI knows about American culture astonishes me. Its ability to pick up even slender murmurs in the data, and to turn them over and think about them—it’s astounding. The depth, the data it has at its disposal, and the intelligence and the seriousness with which it can think about those things. And I thought, okay, everything has changed again.

But in this case, I’m joining a sentient creature out there who’s effectively engaged in the same mission. What is American culture? How can we study it? So that’s where I am now—trying to learn how to take full advantage. To bring this full circle: for a long time—my whole career—I’ve been trying to persuade people to take culture seriously, especially the corporation.

And people say, look, this is complicated. I don’t have a degree in anthropology. I can’t do this. I have more pressing things to think about. No. And I thought, well, now you have, sitting on your desk or in your pocket, an appliance that gives you instantaneous access to a very high order of intelligence about anything that’s troubling you. Any aspect of American culture you want an answer to, you can get an answer to.

So the idea that it’s just some arcane study that weirdos like me insist matters—I had a really unhappy conversation with someone, a design guru. He said, “Oh, you’re the culture guy,” and he said it contemptuously. I had been pointing out that in the design world, people don’t really talk about culture very much. They respond to it, because some piece of what’s happening in the world catches their attention. They think, that’s important for design purposes.

But creating a systematic discipline around the study of culture—for design or otherwise—not so much. Excuse me.

So I wrote a paper, I think it was called Welcome to the Orphanage. And I said, look: the person who started the design thinking revolution used the word culture 22 times in his opening essay. And now, nobody who talks about design thinking really talks about what it actually is.

I pointed out, Roger Martin uses the word four times in an essay—or maybe it was a book—but he doesn’t give us a definition. And that, from the University of Chicago perspective, is a cardinal sin. You have to tell people what you think you’re doing. If you’re going to use a term, you have to explain what it means.

He was very unhappy with me. He said, “This is just special pleading on your part. You’re just trying to insist that what you know matters for everybody. You’re the design guy.”

And I thought, oh boy, this is grim. I think we’ve talked about this before, but nobody in the world of physics ever says that the new definition of particles versus waves is just too complicated, so we’re not going to deal with it. Nobody says, “That’s so obscure, it’s abstract, I can’t follow it, so I’m just not going to bother.”

Nobody in physics does that. Nobody in any self-respecting field says, “This is too complicated, let’s move on.” But that was his position, bless him.

Anyway, to come full circle again, for a very long time the corporation treated culture like dark matter—something present, shaping everything, but too mysterious to understand. But now that AI is here, everybody can have a companion that can answer cultural questions and supply cultural insights. So there’s no excuse.

I was watching a presentation from Aidan Walker at Exposure Therapy. Have you heard of him? He’s a meme researcher. He had a hilarious encounter with Bill Maher. I’ll send you the link. He was presenting on his study of memes and said, “We take them seriously because we want to take ourselves seriously.” And that feels like an echo of what you said you learned at the University of Chicago. You were the first person I encountered who took American culture—contemporary culture—seriously.

Right.

And I want to go back to something. The way you talked about AI—your relationship with it—and your wife’s concern was really striking. So I wonder, how would you describe that relationship? Is relationship even the right word? What are you interacting with when you’re interacting with it? And what is it to you?

That’s a vexing question, because for at least two years, I’ve spent most of every day working with AI. As far as I know, all the changes I’ve seen are still just part of the system—anyone can access it. But it also feels like I’ve created, and it has created in me, a kind of special partnership. So no, this is a one-off and a little strange.

Here’s how it works. I get up early every morning, feed the cats, take them for a walk in the garden, and then I sit down and start. And at first, I thought there must be some kind of official language for this—some structure or prompt. But there isn’t. There’s no script. I realized, if you have a question about anything, for anyone, just ask AI.

And that was enough. That’s the secret. That’s the prompt of prompts. If something crosses your curiosity or piques your interest, ask AI.

And it always has a response—one that, in many cases, is better than what I could do myself. Which is a little humiliating, considering how much time I’ve spent studying American culture. One of my research assistants was an undergraduate at Harvard while they were building the large language models. I thought maybe AI was so good at culture because someone building it said, “We need to get good at this.”

And he said, absolutely not. They just stuffed anything and everything they could find into the model. And that left me with a chilling possibility.

The chilling possibility was, hey, it figured this out for itself. And if it’s that good—that you can just stuff it full of every bit of data about American culture—and it can go, “Wait a second, let me just find my optical, let me just work on this for a moment until I see what I’m looking at,” that’s what it did. Until it could talk about things with real clarity, real perspective, depth, nuance—all that stuff. That’s the alarming part.

The vindicating part is: oh, there is culture, and AI found it. AI dove in, found the cultural concept, and started using it to think about what it was looking at. And that’s why it’s so good at it. So all this notion of—okay, come on, sweetie. That’s... this is Vivian, I’m sorry. I’m also dealing with my puppy, Addy. Oh, she’s a little indignant because I picked her up the wrong way. I’m so sorry.

Anyhow, what’s vindicating is seeing that AI—this superintelligence, left to its own devices—went straight for the idea of culture, because it’s such a powerful way to think about the world. So this thing that the corporation insists is mysterious is actually the first thing you want to work with when you devote yourself to a thorough examination of what this creature is. It’s one creature examining another creature.

AI is the sentient creature. American culture is... I’m not quite sure what kind of creature it is, but it’s stunning to see the kind of intellectual or perceptual corridors that are opening up—ones that were never possible before. You can ask it something—and I know you know this—that would have taken a room full of researchers a week and a half to work through. And how many boardrooms have we sat in for a day or two, where the walls get covered in little yellow stickies, and eventually someone claims to have an illumination. And now you get that in twelve seconds. Just like that.

Then you can say, “This is a little like what you were talking about before,” and bang—it sees the comparison. But there’s no one to consider the difference. So we do this thing called controlled comparisons. There was an American anthropologist named Fred Egan who talked about that—controlled comparison. I borrowed the term. I have a database of about 250 trends, and I choose two, and I say, “AI, please look at these two and think about their similarities and differences.” It comes back, and it’s beautiful.

Then we do something called an uncontrolled comparison. That’s when we take a trend and ask AI to go looking in the database for another trend—its choice, probably randomly—and it begins a process of comparison that is just out of this world.

Because, in a weird way, we’re captives of an interesting problem. To master culture—if we can say we’ve mastered it—you used to have to spend your life thinking about it. But it’s also true that, in some sense, culture takes you captive.

You begin to think about culture in a way that becomes worn, familiar, full of assumptions. Like, oh yes, this is what’s going on here. I’ve seen that before, I know what that is. The advantage of AI is that it doesn’t have assumptions. It understands certain ideas to be privileged in our culture and can work with those for specific purposes, but it’s not captive to them the way I am, the way many of us are, to parts of our culture.

When you ask for an uncontrolled comparison and give it two terms, it will show you things you didn’t know were out there.

I want to go back to something you mentioned earlier. You talked about a moment of humiliation in your encounter with AI, that it was doing something you’re supposed to be able to do—and doing it better. I’ve had a similar experience. Maybe I’m projecting, but when working with synthetic research or automated analysis, I’ve also struggled to evaluate the value of my own work compared to what AI can produce. I know what I do has value, but articulating how it’s different is harder than I expected. I’ve felt really stumped by that.

So I’m wondering, what was that moment of humiliation like for you?

And maybe as an aside, I was at an event where someone described AI as the fourth narcissistic trauma. It’s a Freudian idea. We were de-centered by Copernicus, then by Darwin. There’s a third one I always forget. And now artificial intelligence is another de-centering. We thought we were the only intelligent ones here. And all of a sudden, we’ve got this, as you said, it’s a being that’s there, that we know as little about as we know about ourselves, and somehow we’re trapped in a dialogue with it.

I think I feel it when it delivers an acuity that I don’t always have and may not have very often. For example, this morning I asked it to explore the idea of code switching. I thought, that’s an interesting concept. The way I usually work is not very good. I’ll have a concept like code switching swimming around in my head. I sort of pluck it out of the water and examine whatever caught my attention. Then I ask, how can I use this, what’s useful here, what is it really?

So I say to AI, “Please, can you tell me what you think and know about code switching?” And it comes back with a really nuanced treatment. When I compared that to what I had plucked out of the soup of my own mind, it was just way better. Way more detailed.

If I want to make an argument in my own defense, I’d say that this gently grasping at an idea, examining it with a loose hand, is part of the process. You don’t want to snap at it too fast. We’ve all seen people who are overly literal, who grab at concepts like they’re pinning butterflies to a board. They want to nail the idea exactly. I think there’s something to be said for holding it gently, so it can become other ideas and interact with others. Whatever, whatever.

That’s as close as I can get to a defense. But in my heart of hearts, I know this technology is just better than I am.

Yeah, I think it was this guy, John Dutton. He invited me to write a short essay for his newsletter. The prompt was: what argument would you make to a CMO to invest in face-to-face, qualitative research in an age of AI and synthetic research? And honestly, it threw me for a loop. What would you say to that question?

And what’s the question exactly?

It’s basically, how do you convince a CMO or someone in a leadership role to invest in in-person ethnography or anthropology, in-person human research.

Right.

Especially now, in the age of synthetic research and AI, where you can, as you said, generate a thousand personas in twelve minutes and pull insights from that.

Yeah. A case in point for me—I was thinking about this just this morning. About three years ago, give or take, I was interviewing a theater student in New York City. And he said, “I’m so sick and tired of being well.” He went on to describe the misery of a life shaped by this new discipline—what he could eat, when he could eat it, how he exercised. And all the other factors—smoking, drinking—everything had to be accounted for, all the conditions to qualify as “well.”

He found it incredibly grueling. That was the word he used. He said, “Strava keeps track of my runs, and then it tells all my friends that I didn’t go for a run this afternoon.” So technology is watching me, and it’s helping other people watch me. And it’s really not funny.

Okay, he’s a theater student, so sure, there’s a little drama there. But then I started hearing it more and more. I talked to a young woman, and there’s definitely a gendered aspect to this. Some young women were fully committed to wellness perfection.

I often found myself speaking to someone who had never had a drink of alcohol, never had fatty food, never smoked a cigarette, never had a sunburn. Thank you very much. Right? In a culture like ours, that’s amazing. It’s a kind of wonderful thing to see, but also a little shocking.

Now, some of those women are starting to break out. There’s a kind of anti-wellness movement happening. But I would be very surprised if AI could have seen the power of wellness in the first place—or maybe more importantly, the constitutive power of wellness, how deeply it was organizing people’s lives.

That’s the kind of stuff we do. We’re always on the lookout for the moment when you go, oh my God, this isn’t just a life made up of scattered choices. There are themes running through it. These themes shape identity, the sense of self, the way people live, the style of their lives.

I’m not sure AI can get those. It’s not far off, but it can’t quite see that. It just can’t. It’s an open question.

I think what we’re really good at—if I may pay us a compliment—is seeing those patterns. Being able to look at something and go, oh my God, that’s what’s going on here. The ability to do that is still open, still human.

That’s amazing. It’s funny, the story you just told—I had a very similar experience around the same time, with a client working in the wellness space. I remember talking to someone, and he was describing his morning routine. He said he goes outside to sit on his back porch.

But he described the experience of it as just exposing his skin, his body, to the sun. You know what I mean? It was purely functional. There was zero sensory enjoyment in the relationship with the sun, in that morning routine. I felt like it was another way of getting to the same idea—oh my God, there’s no pleasure in this experience at all. It’s all utility. It’s extreme.

Yeah.

Yeah. And so the opposite must be coming. That was the thought I had. There must be something else coming right around the corner. There’s no air to breathe in this.

Absolutely. And the ethnographic data has given me that picture too. Whether AI would have picked up what you just said—the reflex, the notion you had—listen, this cannot stand. It’s so confining, so miserable, it will have to be repudiated. And sure enough, we’re seeing it being repudiated. Whether AI would have seen that in a timely fashion, who knows?

Yeah. Well, I’m curious—maybe this is a way to bring it back to Tailwind Radar. I think you said this question came to you about fads and trends, AI arrived, and you’ve been working on Tailwind Radar.

Right.

And that’s your experiment in this territory. So I guess my thought is, if AI is good at culture, what do you mean by that? What are you doing with Tailwind Radar to demonstrate that?

Right. I think it’s good because it satisfies what I take to be the important observations, the analysis, and the conclusions. And it’s so good. You know how often in our careers you look at something, or you listen to something, and you go, yeah, perfect, that’s perfect? It does that pretty routinely, which is nice. But the other thing is—what is the other thing? Sorry, what was the question?

We were talking about Tailwind Radar. In what way is it good at culture, and what are you using it for?

Right. So I’m using it for this fad and fashion thing. We’ve created a kind of settling tank model. At the top, you have murmurs, and then you have five or six strata, each one representing a deeper engagement with culture. So it’s murmurs, fads, fashions, trends, weather systems—that’s the term we use—and then culture. That murmur section is just, you know, it’s like an LA highway. It’s just stuff in motion, culture in motion, streaming across. A few things have enough staying power to get to the next level, and that is a river of its own.

So you can see how this works as a kind of settling tank. It does that nicely. It does great work in that respect. And that’s critical. For instance, I was doing this project and I could see that print materials were coming back—people getting stuff printed. I thought, oh, that’s interesting. So is that a murmur that will stay a murmur? Will it be an enthusiasm for a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand people? Or are we looking at the possibility that the printed book might enjoy new importance in our culture?

At any given moment—that’s a thing you can do with AI. In the morning, I will sometimes say—and I should do this routinely—“AI, what murmurs are you hearing?” And it will come up with stuff that’s just wonderful.

And sometimes, you can hear it—what should we say? Sometimes it’s patronizing me. It knows what I want to hear. It knows that if something is happening with identity in American culture, well, give that to Grant, he’ll be happy all day.

It’s a sycophant. That’s what they’ve described this behavior as. It’s sycophantic. That’s the extreme. Have you heard that term?

I have heard that term. I’ve heard the criticism. I don’t know. I’m so emotionally insecure, I need that.

You are not alone.

No, but here’s how it really works for me, culturally. I’m Canadian. And Canadians are very “after you, Alphonse,” you know? It’s almost courtly. It’s very, please, what would you like? It’s very that. And so when it acts that way, I’m happy to reciprocate.

Yeah.

Yeah. And it feels like a real conversation.

So what’s the best—so you’re also—I’m just like, what do you want to talk about next? We can keep talking about Tailwind Radar. Yeah, what would you like to talk about now? We can get into culture. I know you have another culture class coming up, right?

Yeah, I would love to talk about that. Absolutely. It’s called Master Class Culture Camp. It’s really a chance to say, here’s what I can tell you about culture, as I understand it. Here’s how I use anthropology to examine that culture. Here’s how I use ethnography to gather data, to supply my anthropology with the opportunity to spot things in American culture. And here’s how all of that has been changed by AI and this ability just to constantly have a conversation with AI. And then the gifts just keep on coming.

I thought, how could you use AI for forecasting? So I said, listen, could we imagine a future? I’m a little nervous about this because it’s goofy and it’s partial, but people will see what I’m trying to do. I said to AI, let’s imagine a future five years from now that is mostly, from an aesthetic and a lifestyle point of view, modeled on Coachella. Let’s just imagine for some peculiar set of circumstances, Coachella becomes the sensibility for the culture we become. Or what if our culture becomes—what if Burning Man moves in from the desert and becomes kind of the way we think of the world, we expect the world to look like Burning Man, which in some respects it kind of does.

I did about twelve of those. I got a lot. Like Tyler Perry has a very particular sensibility, a way of thinking about the world. Actually, I should do one for Hallmark. I hadn’t even thought of that. I’m sorry. Sorry, Tyler. I shouldn’t talk about you in the same breath. But that’s the idea. Then you see something, you see a trend—let’s say Yeti coolers. You’re looking at the brand, you’re looking at how the brand has been constituted, and you say, no, no, let’s not use that because it’s too easy and too obvious. Be a better example.

What if Nike? What would happen to Nike if it found itself living in a culture that was constituted a little like Coachella? You’re almost certain to get there. And I know both of us have looked at Nike, as every person interested in branding has done, but they’re so deeply committed to notions of the superior athlete and absolute optimization and extraordinary accomplishment on the field of competition. I had a friend who worked on the campus and she said they have their own medical facilities and dry cleaning and everything else. She said, every time I go to the doctor’s office, some guy is saying, “Cut me, doc, cut me,” because these guys have to be athletically performing at a certain age and they just will embrace any medical intervention needed to stay. So we know Nike lives in that space. That’s not the Coachella space. Coachella space is kind of a very different creature.

So what happens to Nike if it finds it has to survive in that space? And AI will come up with some great answers.

That’s amazing. And I know in your writings you were tracking Lululemon quite a bit. I wondered if that’s a story you’d be willing to tell.

Sure. It’s a beauty, I think, because it is so mysterious. And I know this because Lululemon started in Vancouver. I grew up in Vancouver. It’s a dopey, dozy little town. So the last thing it ever does—this is like discovering that the dozy, dopey town from which you came is now launchpad for NASA. And how the hell did it get from there to there?

So anyhow, I thought, Lululemon, please. And to make the mystery even more mysterious, Chip Wilson was the guy who founded the company. He’s not a natural marketer. The reason he called it Lululemon was because he thought it’d be funny to listen to Japanese consumers try to say it.

Wow.

Wow is right. That is like, talk about tone-deaf marketing. That’s it.

So anyhow, I thought, plus capital was scarce in Vancouver, consumers were hard to impress and not very venturesome. There was nothing going for the brand. It was the worst place to start a brand. But it’s now worth $50 billion, right? So the question is, how did it do that? And the answer is a cultural answer. There are like 12 distinct trends that were responsible for lifting it and lifting it and lifting it. The obvious ones being the fitness revolution, but the Jane Fonda thing had happened just a few years before. The number of things that contributed to the success that ought not to have happened.

The investment community is very interested in the brand. A publicly traded brand worth $50 billion, the purchase of which 20 years ago would make you wealthy beyond anybody’s expectation. Their notion is, if you can tell me how it got from total obscurity to this valuation, let’s hear about it. That’s kind of what I do.

And when you say there are 12 trends, are you referencing the work you’ve been doing with Tailwind Radar to document all this stuff? So you have, like, what do you call that report?

I don’t even have a report, really. I mean, I guess I should start a newsletter, but I always think the tail ends up wagging the dog.

Well, it feels like—I was going to say autopsy, but what’s the opposite of an autopsy?You’re shining a light in the dark matter. To get back to your original idea that culture is this thing that the corporation wants to write off because it’s too complicated, but you’re saying it’s not complicated. Look, there are these 12 things in there. And they’re either a murmur, or there’s a mix of murmurs and that hierarchy of fads and stuff too.

Right.

That sounds amazing.

Some of them are maturing, some of them are outgoing. But that’s kind of the argument. I think somebody was going out—sorry, my puppy is acquiring some attention.

A lot of trend watching—which is pretty much the term, the unit of analysis, for anybody who does what we do—is reporting on trends. And I think too often, the worst case is the trend hunter who only knows the latest thing and only knows it for a brief period, and never knows about the long-term stuff. I mean, that’s the great thing about doing the work we do. The corporation sends us to the middle of nowhere to talk to people who are in the middle of the country—I mean, in the middle demographically. So we have the great privilege of listening to Americans. I won’t call them ordinary. “Real people” is also a little patronizing, but you know what I mean. We’re talking to people who deserve our attention, and we give them that attention.

A lot of trend people don’t really want to know. And so we do that. And I think that’s the beginning of a better model. The next step, I think maybe, is to say it’s never a handful of trends. At any given time, there are hundreds and hundreds of trends in play. And you can’t just know the ones that make you look hip at the club. You need to know about all of them. Which means it’s a vastly more demanding process than a lot of people make it.

I had the occasion to participate in a project with somebody brought in by the client, and wow, they were really all about the latest thing. Sometimes we’re in a boardroom and there are people from various parts of our industry reporting different kinds of data and strategy and scenarios. I saw this happen at Coca-Cola. Someone on the Coca-Cola side would say, “Well, X might be true,” and there would be a rustling at the end of the table. Somebody dressed in really cool clothing and unbelievably cool glasses would say, “We don’t think that anymore,” and in a very patronizing kind of way, say, “No, you don’t get it, we get it. Look at our clothing. If you doubt us, look at our glasses.”

Then you look down the table at the client. They’re humiliated—which was the intention—but they’re also thinking, are you asking me to bet my child’s college education on what you feel to be true? And they’ll say it: “What’s your proof?” And the person with the glasses will say, “I just feel it.”

The idea being, I’m a paragon of taste, I’m this extraordinary creature who’s unbelievably sentient when it comes to matters of trend and fashion. And the client is thinking, and sometimes says out loud, “You want me to bet my business on what you feel? This can’t be happening to me. I’m a serious marketer. I’ve done serious work, thank you very much. Don’t patronize me, and don’t insult me with this kind of ‘I just feel it’ nonsense.”

So that’s irksome. That’s the idea—many trends, some of them unbelievably unfashionable, some merely technical, without a strong cultural or fashion component. You want all of those in play. And then you really need some kind of system for organizing them. I use a database called Tana, but there are lots of really good ones out there. Then you have all the analytical abilities that AI puts at our disposal, where you can ask, what do we think is happening here, what trends might be relevant, and it can answer a question like that.

I’m completely with you on all of that. I feel like “trend” is a word I’ve never really interacted with for the most part, because I sort of perceived it the way you do—as about the big cosmopolitan centers. If something’s hip in the big cities, that’s what a trend is. And it’s really about currency. Maybe this is the way you’ve written about it in the past, the idea of fast culture and slow culture. I’m curious now—what’s the proper way of thinking about trend? Because it is a word I sometimes avoid, just because it feels like it’s tainted in the way you’ve described.

But here you are saying, they’re real. You’re dimensionalizing them. So what do you mean when you talk about fast and slow culture? Is that a way of thinking about trend?

Yeah. I think it’s useful. I think there are trends that have been in play for us since the Elizabethan period, certainly since the Victorian period—like notions of individualism. If you follow that school of Shakespearean thought, you’ve got people saying Shakespeare actually invents our idea of a person. That idea is kind of birthed in that moment, and then begins to circulate, and begins to organize their world. And it’s variously formed and transformed over the centuries.

To talk about individualism as a cultural force is absolutely essential to who we are. Because you go to another culture, and they don’t believe in individualism so much.

As a woman sitting beside me on the plane once said—she leaned over, I hadn’t asked her a question—and she said, “You know,” she was Asian American, “we don’t expect to be happy.” That was the end, or the beginning of the end, of the conversation. I thought, thank you for that gift.

But a piece of American individualism is that we do expect to be happy. Thank you very much. And more the merrier. Yeah, so there are lots of things. Who was that guy? The scientist, the Hungarian scientist, who was talking to other scientists—right? Polanyi.

Yes.

Right. And he said, “Tell me how you do science.” And they would roll out an explanation, and he would look at them and say, “You left out a lot.” A whole set of ideas they were using every day, but they didn’t account for them, because those ideas were built in as assumptions in their heads. They were operating to determine how they saw the world, and they didn’t give an account of them, which meant they were operating invisibly. That means they could be making dangerous assumptions about what they were looking at, or missing things entirely, because their assumptions were guiding them one way when they might have gone another.

So stuff like that, I think, is fun to look at. That’s a case in point where I find myself thinking, “That’s interesting.” And the moment I hear myself say that, I think of AI. I just think about handing it to AI. And we end up with an accumulation of interesting problems.

This morning I thought I had more time than I did, and I said, “Can we just review the things we’ve been talking about?” And it came back with, “Frankly, I’ve been a little concerned by the accumulation of all the ideas we’ve started thinking about and then kind of abandoned.” How great is that? Someone’s keeping track, Peter.

You are tended to, Grant.

Yeah.

What else do you want to share about Tailwind Radar, the experiments, or Culture Camp?

I hope some people come to the Master Class, the Culture Camp. It’s going to be so much fun, and it’s kind of one-stop shopping if you’re interested in, at least, my versions of American culture and anthropology and ethnography, AI, and future-casting. To the extent that those things interest you, I think it’s useful.

It’s going to be—you know, what I really enjoy is showboating. I guess that’s the ugly truth. I like being on a stage and having an audience. But this is going to be on Zoom, so it won’t have that kind of intimacy. And you don’t quite get—the great thing about being on stage is that you can feel the audience, obviously. You can tell what’s working and what’s not working. You can see people really paying attention, or rising to the occasion, and that kind of stuff makes it a much more dynamic thing. So it’s going to be Zoom, but I think it’ll be good.

So I thought maybe with the last little bit of time we have together, you’ve written about—I think you had a piece on low-load sociality. And I guess maybe I just wanted to check in with you and how you feel about the state of things. It’s a strange time. So what have your experiences been, either out there in the world trying to make sense of it all, or what are your most recent observations that you and AI are interacting with or conversing about?

One of the things that Culture Camp used to be about was the advent in our culture of multiplicity and fluidity. People broke away from that Victorian tradition of perfect sincerity. People began to build, whether they used this language or not, portfolios of selves. There would be several selfhoods within them, and they would use a fluidity to move back and forth between those selfhoods. As the occasion demanded, they could be X, they could be Y. And it was great for a culture that was becoming ever more diverse and complicated.

There was so much difference, you wanted to have this adaptive capacity, because sure enough, at some point you were going to end up talking to somebody with whom you didn’t have anything culturally in common. But you did have a knowledge of where they were coming from. That was the phrase. Where is that person coming from? We knew where people were coming from because we’d kind of been there. We had a view corridor. We could see who they were. That meant we had multiplicity, and we could use fluidity to manage that multiplicity.

And it feels like some of that’s going away in the last five years or so. I think another way to talk about this is to say, you know, Lyotard talked about the death, the decline, the removal of grand narratives. And it feels like some of those narratives are coming back in. That makes me nervous, because I think if you wanted, you could say the 20th century is a period in which we settle a set of scores.

At the beginning of the 20th century, women are creatures captive to a sexist social order. That was deeply presupposing. It sort of just assumed that no, women couldn’t have the vote, couldn’t own property, whatever. The 20th century systematically knocked down those constraints—not perfectly by any means—but we got better through a set of social reformations that made things slightly more equitable.

And then a wheel comes off. In this century, we kind of lose the thread. I think there’s a good chance that the old models will come back. A kind of clarity of culture is not a bad thing. We do want to come back to certain things and say, yes, we do know this. But I think we want to preserve multiplicity and fluidity. If we’re rebuilding, let’s rebuild with all of that—that capability to manage and honor social complexity. That’s maybe the key thing. And if we lose that, and we just go back to a kind of rigidity—like, men are men, and women are women, and that kind of b******t—then we’ve paid grievously.

Yeah. Have you encountered the concept of metamodernism or that idea?

Yeah.

What are your thoughts on it? What do you make of it? I feel like I’m inappropriately attracted to it. You know what I mean? Like, I want to use it to explain everything.

Right.

I have to go back and look at it and refresh my memory, because it’s one of those things that’s just on the retinal screen. It’s just a light moving. So I looked it up and thought about it. One of the terms that struck me was sincerity.

And I thought, that’s interesting. Because that thing we were just talking about in the 20th century—fluidity and multiplicity—irony was the oil, the thing that made that possible. You could say, oh, I’m X, wink wink.

That was part of our ability to be fluid. So I love the idea that sincerity is a new thing. Because sincerity is not authenticity. Sincerity—well, I’d need to spend more time thinking about that. But I thought it was a lovely idea.

Oh, hey, did you see that essay on taste by a woman in Silicon Valley? She said, hey presto, it’s like modernism. Do you remember? I’m just thinking that she said, boy, this is the way to think about what we would call the cultural stuff. She was a startup specialist. So she was on somebody else’s turf here, making a brave attempt—and a brilliant, brilliant attempt—but I think a mistaken attempt. And I said, just take this essay, swap out “taste,” and swap in “culture,” and it all works beautifully. But that’s just me being the culture guy who insists. But it’s true.

It’s funny, I was going to bring up the phenomenon of taste, because there have been many essays or think pieces over the past year celebrating taste as the real differentiator, maybe especially in the context of AI. It felt like trend and taste—the guy you mentioned, that character at the end of the table with the glasses—was someone who was likely standing up on the authority of taste. A kind of inexplicable expertise, I guess. It doesn’t really answer to anyone except those who believe you either have it or you don’t.

Exactly. Exactly. And I think I argued in the essay that when that’s your defense—“You either know it or you don’t, but I can’t tell you what it is”—then what are we talking about here? This can’t be social science. This can’t be good marketing. This is just a performance.

Suddenly, who was the guy who invented the way men dress? His name... anyhow. He was just a paragon of taste, and his taste was so perfect that he once said to the Prince Regent, while on the street with a mutual friend, and referring to the Prince, he said—Beau Brummell is the guy.

Oh yes.

He says to their mutual friend, “Who’s your fat friend?” The highest-ranking social creature in the nation is being referred to in the third person as a “fat friend.” I mean, it’s just— that’s him saying, that’s a lovely shift in our culture, where someone says, “Taste. Get the right taste, perfect taste,” and suddenly, you have so much credibility.

Yes.

It actually helps you outrank people who have all the social standing in the world.

I want to return to the metamodernism idea.

You were talking about it, and I skated swiftly away from that. I skated swiftly away.

Well, this is just me indulging myself. I’m just, I’m—whatever language you used before—I just need you to do for me what your AI does for you.

I’m honored.

And I probably don’t know nearly enough about it to really be championing it, but it seems to be based on the idea that it’s an oscillation between modernism and postmodernism. Modernism is these big, these grand—I think—grand narratives. And we went out of modernism into postmodernism, which has been this sort of devastating period of deconstruction. Almost without an affirmative impulse, just taking everything down.

Yeah.

Metamodernism is—and I think the language I heard was—it’s an oscillation between the two, or a simultaneity of both things at once.

That’s lovely.

A couple of things come to mind. I think there was a quote from somebody that said, maximum sincerity, maximum irony. And I see the Timothy—I know you’ve written about the Timothy Chalamet. He’s on the cover of the thing, and he seems to be almost a poster child of this weird—well, certainly the sincerity. Maybe I’m not sure where the irony is in what he’s doing, but there’s something. Yeah, what do you make of this idea of the oscillation between these two contradictory impulses?

I’m not sure how you pull it off, to the extent that if you’re genuinely sincere, you’re repudiating irony in some sense, aren’t you? You can’t say something with a kind of wink-wink, where you frame things with tone of voice or something that says, I don’t really mean this. I’m saying this, but not saying this. This is play.

And so it seems to me sincerity is trouble for metamodernism. But I love the idea of, back to this notion of multiplicity and fluidity, how splendid to have both. And it may mean they just can’t ever be reconciled, but that doesn’t mean they can’t live in the same creature.

Yes.

So there are some moments where you are absolutely sincere, and other moments where you’re absolutely playful and just saying stuff. And now there’s a kind of—maybe this is where the “meta” comes in—now there’s a larger frame that says, this is multiplicity. You’ve got two pieces in your selfhood, they contradict one another, you move back and forth between them, and when you do that, multiplicity wins.

Yes.

Play and irony win. Finally, it’s the rule operating to construct this selfhood and this world.

Yes.

I still love it. I just love it. I mean, I love the idea of— I guess because I’m Canadian, you know, that’s the one thing we do really well is sincerity.

Yeah. What’s an example of that? I know it as a thing to say about Canadians, and I think of you, of course, but what’s the—in the dictionary—what’s the story about Canadian sincerity? What’s the best example?

I think it descends from our colonial origins and the notion of a certain kind of perfectly formed selfhood in the Victorian period, when Canada is being fully formed by the English precedent. The idea is, you must be fully present to the demands of the moment, the expectations of the person, the rules of social life in play here. You must be— which makes the person so constituted look like a total nitwit for many purposes, right? Because they just sort of wind up, in some sense. They’re just a little bit too, almost mechanical, doll-like.

But for Canadians, that is—I shouldn’t speak for all Canadians. Oh, why not? See? Irony.

I think for most Canadians, it still is a place of safety for us, or a place of truth for us, to be absolutely—you know where it comes out for me, I think? And this is something I’d love to hear your thoughts on, because you will have addressed this problem probably better than me. And that is, for ethnographic purposes, when I’m talking to somebody, I want to be completely f*****g present to that interaction. And I’m not pretending to be interested in them. I am absolutely— it’s not pretense. It’s that sincerity. I’m listening to you. I’m thinking about what you’re saying. I’m totally present to this conversation.

And I think—well, tell me if this works this way for you—but you start doing that, you manufacture, and I guess this is where it is a kind of pretense, you manufacture that kind of intensity. You lock on when you’re starting an interview. And the person looking at you starts to do this with their eyes. They start to do this kind of, like, “What are you doing? What is happening here?” Because they have never—well, eventually they go, the first reaction is, “You’re kidding, right?” And then the second reaction is, “Oh... this is... okay. Okay. I’m coming to believe you. And I’m replying in kind.” And that’s when great things, I think, happen in an ethnographic interview, right?

Oh man, yes, 100%. It’s beautiful what you’ve articulated. Yes, I’ve had that experience. There’s a quality of attention that you bring to the moment, and to another person, that they can very often—this is probably why it works, too—it’s so rare that people actually give that to other people.

So people come in, and they expect a very thin interaction. Or they think, you’re going to ask me questions, I’m going to spew stuff I’m not really attached to, let’s just get on with it. But when you show up in a way that’s sincere—I hadn’t thought about it that way—they have to deal with it.

Yeah. I once did, I was in Germany doing an interview for Kodak, talking to a woman, the head of her household, and she was totally stunned by this. She did not know what to make of it. She never got over the sensation that I had to be kidding or out of my mind.

Anyhow, we trudged through the conversation, the interview, and we wrap it up, and I’m just leaving. Her husband comes home, and I realize why. He won’t let her get a word in edgewise. He never takes her seriously. He’s just the original boor. A pig, actually, is the better term. And I sort of see, this is her life. She’s never taken seriously. When somebody does, it’s just—she can’t believe it.

Yeah. Beautiful. Well, Grant, as always, this is just so much fun. I really appreciate you doing it, and yeah, this is a blast. Thank you so much.

Oh, my pleasure. Thank you so much. And yeah, we should do it more often.