Cultural Infiltration vs. Cultural Contamination and Little Green Men
R. Lee
October 16, 2006
‘Cultural infiltration;’ more accurate and far less judgmental than the term cultural contamination. Although there is a bit of judgment and insinuation in the term cultural infiltration. Infiltration suggests an air of suspicion, sneakiness, covert activity. Still, it’s not always bad. Infiltration could be a good thing, it could be neutral or negative. Things become pop icons and cultural landmarks for all kinds of reasons. Calling them a ‘contamination’ simply based on the image smacks of superiority. It creates the idea one must choose sides; you’re for or against. If you’re against such “contamination” of course you want to clean it up. Take part in that Crusade Against the Weird, clean up the UFOlogical Landscape, sterilize it along with the rest of popular culture. Rid it of green tinged aliens, flying saucers, gray hued triangular faces with inscrutable huge black eyes.
Like anything, like just about everything, UFO imagery has saturated pop culture. Some of it’s good, some bad, a lot of it silly. A lot of it entertaining. Some of it even informative.
We’re infiltrated by images of all kinds of things every day, including flying faery saucer stuff. We have been for decades. Sometimes it is a “contamination” I suppose, but so are many other things that are more offensive and much worse than UFOs. (the easy, casual use of the word “pimp” for example, especially when bandied about by eight year olds.)
We’ve certainly been infiltrated by flying saucer imagery, no one can deny that. But is it really a “contamination?” Its mere presence doesn’t equate “contamination,” that’s a matter of subjective interpretation. It’s not by definition that a word or symbol is a contaminant; i.e., anything UFO is a contaminant.
One could say there is the so-called “contaminant” of the phrase “little green men” in referring to UFOs. This is a phrase used for decades, usually with derisive humor, to marginalize and trivialize the complex subject of UFOs. No one is sure how the term originated, and the fact that few actual little green men have been seen seems to be beside the point. LGMs (little green men) is shorthand. When used, you can almost always know its purpose; to ridicule, to tease, to ultimately reject any sincere inquiry into UFOs. ‘LGM’ may be a type of contamination in this way: use of the term has a purpose; to reject the serious consideration of UFOs. For the person (Pelican, skeptic, scofftoid, or even mainstream average citizen) LGM may be used in order to contaminate but it is not in itself a contamination.
U.S. pop culture, as with much of westernized cultures, are infiltrated with alien/UFO imagery. Seeing it as a contamination is subjective opinion. What is ironic and insidious -- certainly more insidious than some notion of being contaminated by this imagery -- is the fact that, while we are being infiltrated by these images, we are not addressing them in any serious way.
There is a oppositional dynamic occurring here. All around us are the usual motifs of aliens and UFOs, infiltrating our senses from all angles. At the same time, little about these ubiquitous symbols is being seriously discussed in our culture. This wasn’t always the case; in the 1950s and 1960s, ‘flying saucers’ were being discussed, debated and argued about in the mainstream media with complete seriousness. Far more than today.
The issue isn’t one of contamination. The issue is one of disappearance. A contradiction in experience; surrounded by UFO imagery, we at the same time ignore its implications. It’s been reduced to advertising and cartoonish entertainment; who’s going to seriously discuss that? Leave it to those wearing the tin foil hats.
That’s the “contamination;” the subliminal message that accompanies the infiltration of UFO images. Which is: don’t take it seriously folks. We sure don’t. And anyone who does, is a kook.
Like anything, like just about everything, UFO imagery has saturated pop culture. Some of it’s good, some bad, a lot of it silly. A lot of it entertaining. Some of it even informative.
We’re infiltrated by images of all kinds of things every day, including flying faery saucer stuff. We have been for decades. Sometimes it is a “contamination” I suppose, but so are many other things that are more offensive and much worse than UFOs. (the easy, casual use of the word “pimp” for example, especially when bandied about by eight year olds.)
We’ve certainly been infiltrated by flying saucer imagery, no one can deny that. But is it really a “contamination?” Its mere presence doesn’t equate “contamination,” that’s a matter of subjective interpretation. It’s not by definition that a word or symbol is a contaminant; i.e., anything UFO is a contaminant.
One could say there is the so-called “contaminant” of the phrase “little green men” in referring to UFOs. This is a phrase used for decades, usually with derisive humor, to marginalize and trivialize the complex subject of UFOs. No one is sure how the term originated, and the fact that few actual little green men have been seen seems to be beside the point. LGMs (little green men) is shorthand. When used, you can almost always know its purpose; to ridicule, to tease, to ultimately reject any sincere inquiry into UFOs. ‘LGM’ may be a type of contamination in this way: use of the term has a purpose; to reject the serious consideration of UFOs. For the person (Pelican, skeptic, scofftoid, or even mainstream average citizen) LGM may be used in order to contaminate but it is not in itself a contamination.
U.S. pop culture, as with much of westernized cultures, are infiltrated with alien/UFO imagery. Seeing it as a contamination is subjective opinion. What is ironic and insidious -- certainly more insidious than some notion of being contaminated by this imagery -- is the fact that, while we are being infiltrated by these images, we are not addressing them in any serious way.
There is a oppositional dynamic occurring here. All around us are the usual motifs of aliens and UFOs, infiltrating our senses from all angles. At the same time, little about these ubiquitous symbols is being seriously discussed in our culture. This wasn’t always the case; in the 1950s and 1960s, ‘flying saucers’ were being discussed, debated and argued about in the mainstream media with complete seriousness. Far more than today.
The issue isn’t one of contamination. The issue is one of disappearance. A contradiction in experience; surrounded by UFO imagery, we at the same time ignore its implications. It’s been reduced to advertising and cartoonish entertainment; who’s going to seriously discuss that? Leave it to those wearing the tin foil hats.
That’s the “contamination;” the subliminal message that accompanies the infiltration of UFO images. Which is: don’t take it seriously folks. We sure don’t. And anyone who does, is a kook.
Print
Email
