Deconstructing what it means to be basic

Perched outside Trojan Grounds, you’re studying and generally minding your own business, when it arrives — the wave of long brown hair of a girl walking out of Starbucks. Donning oversized sunglasses, a loose tank top, lululemon leggings and Ugg boots, she clutches her venti Caramel Macchiato with whipped cream as if it alone gives her life at this very moment. You grimace and roll your eyes. How basic.

Yeah, that person was probably me — yesterday, or the day before, or whenever I went to Starbucks last. Sometimes, I’m so basic I can’t help but reclaim the identity as my own. But what exactly makes me basic? Perhaps our description of “basic” itself reveals more about us than about the subject of our characterization.

Urban Dictionary — the chief encyclopedia on all things pop culture — defines “basic” as among many things, uninteresting, vapid and boring. Perhaps the triteness of the action, then, plays a large part into our exasperation towards all things basic. And as our society moves closer and closer to the total reverence of hipsterdom, we more heavily reject those that like what is popular. It’s an argument that assumes that popularity implies insincerity, and while such a characterization is sometimes valid, the universal application of such a theory seems critical just for the sake of being critical.

We also tend to define basic-ness in terms of consumption — in the framework of Sperrys and pumpkin spice lattes. Perhaps the term “basic,” then, is a criticism of materialism itself. American economist and philosopher Thorstein Veblen might agree that our economic purchases define our social attitudes. In the idea of “conspicuous consumption,” he points out that consumption is so often a mechanism to publicly tout economic prowess. And certainly intuition tells us that social status and economic status are inherently intertwined. But perhaps our choice to draw the conclusion that certain purchases (e.g. lululemon leggings) are always indicative of certain personality traits (e.g. superficial and “basic” characteristics) indicates that we are the materialistic ones.

And yet, it’s hard to deny that the immense privilege that being “basic” entails is irritating. A basic girl attends yoga religiously yet has no idea of its religious impact, eats sushi weekly but can’t be bothered to learn how to use chopsticks and waits for hours in line for the newest iPhone whose features she doesn’t even know about. But such attitudes of entitlement span far greater than just the Instagram-happy, coffee-loving college girl; there’s no need to single girls out for their personal life choices.

I also can’t help but look at the feminist critique of being basic. It is yet another double standard that women are subject to — a woman shouldn’t be fat but should have curves, she shouldn’t wear revealing clothes but shouldn’t dress too conservatively, and she shouldn’t act too out-of-the-ordinary but god forbid she be basic. Where is the male counterpart to the “basic” — where is the term to degrade the unimaginative frat bro wearing a polo and cargo shorts?

“Basic” has become just another excuse to roll our eyes at those with different lifestyles than ours. So, the next time I say “basic,” I’ll be referring to a chemical substance with a pH above 7 (and happily sipping on a pumpkin spice latte while doing so).

Sonali Seth is a freshman majoring in political science. Her column, “Sonacrates,” runs Tuesdays.