It Is What It Is : An Addendum

The It Is What It Is Generation

There is no single idiom in modern usage that so appositely expresses the comatose logic of our generation than, “It is what it is”.

The phrase betrays a logical fallacy of such magnitude that it effectively enacts the central flaw of circular reasoning.

If it really is what it is, then surely the question is what is “it?”

But alas. Despite the phrase purportedly defining what “it” is, it only does so by defining “it” as “what it is”.

The author of the article “The Hidden Meaning of “It Is What It Is””, Liane Gabora, in the pop psychology website, Pyschology Today (which is always good reading for a laugh), makes an intellectually feeble attempt to state the case for the phrase, by linking it to people’s new state of comfort with “states of potentiality”.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindbloggling/201405/the-hidden-meaning-it-is-what-it-is

It therefore apparently serves as some sort of function of moral and cultural relativism (although in order to evidence how much more articulate (and possibly intelligent) I am than Liane Gabora Ph.D. It is very important to note that these are my words as opposed to hers).

Oh yes. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the smartest of them all??

I could probably school Liane Gabora Ph.D on her own subject. And if she did not like or agree with my lessons, I could simply remind her that “It is what it is.”.....And then refer to them as alternative states of potentiality.

In all seriousness, I must say that I do find her “hidden meaning” theory to be complete garbage.

The fundamental flaw in her analysis is a human one (and therefore by definition one which I am unlikely to be prone to). She is giving us all too much credit.

The use of the phrase “It is what it is” does indeed signify that people are increasingly reluctant to put things into categories, as Gabora suggests. This is a somewhat obvious point. The phrase is a circular navigation around any impetus to define its subject.

However, where Gabora’s theory starts, namely that this reluctance follows a “more nuanced” understanding of the world, is somewhat off the mark.

The phrase does not indicate an heightened, more sophisticated analysis of situations. It indicates the opposite, namely a complete brake on the activity of thinking critically, defining, or analysing.

“Darling, darling. I heard that because of global warming the polar ice caps are melting, there are going to be more natural disasters, there will be more droughts, more spread of disease and humanity is doomed!!”

“4 real??? Oh babe. Listen it iz wot it iz. Ya na mean???”

“I’m leaving you. The sex was good but I’ve realised that a man without a brain is not what I want.”

“Woteva. It iz wot it iz baby.”

“And I’m also pregnant....With your father’s baby.”

“Lolz. Well. No point worryin now babygurl. It iz wot it iz.”

“Your father’s dead. So you will need to support me financially.”

“Bitch, fuck you!”

Increasing comfort with differing “states of potentiality”....

Is there a more damning advertisement for a generation which has somehow lost the ability or will to think because they have been conned into the attitude that they do not have time to?

Well there is actually.

What is it I hear you ask? Meh. It is what it is.

An Addendum:

Since writing this article I have had (an I would say badly misguided) response centring around the idea that the idiom “It is what it is” does in fact have a sense which I missed.

Some people (in every case non-native speakers of the English language) have stated that there is a logical meaning of “It is what it is” which can be evoked once the critical evaluation section of a conversation has been concluded – so that it does not necessarily signify a suspension of critical thinking.

In this sense “It is what it is” is apparently used almost as a form of punctuation to conclude proceedings.

“I have no further comment to make.”

“It is what it is.”

Now, call me a radical. A maverick. An outlier if you will.

But I would suggest it is perhaps safe to argue that there is a better way to express the sentiment that you have no further comment to make.

You could perhaps simply say: “I have no further comment to make.”

I have = I am not in possession of. No further = any. Comment = statement. To make = to state.

Perhaps in the end not altogether unsurprisingly “I have no further comment to make” really does mean what those words in grammatical order are supposed to mean (eg, “I have no further comment to make”).

In contrast, perhaps equally unsurprisingly, “It is what it is” really just means “It is what it is”.

There is in fact nothing in the English language – despite its cavernous titanic proportions - to suggest that these words should mean “I have no further comment to make” or “I have nothing to add.”

In fact you could just as easily say “It will be what it will be” or “It was what it was.” And you could just as easily argue that these words should mean “This conversation is not over” or “I want to put my penis inside your vagina.”

Provided that “it” is never defined anywhere other than in a circular self-reflecting fashion, the question will always remain, “What is IT?”.

What rule in the English language compels us to define “It is” as “I have no further comment to make”.

And – fatally – even if we do make this huge leap of faith, if we follow the formulation through, what we would be left with would actually be a statement equivalent to the following:

“I have no further comment to make (It is) such that (what) I have no further comment to make (it is)”.

Far out….

1. Dude, what have you been smoking?

2. Dude, can I try some?

There are those who argue that the phrase does make sense within context – as a sort of confirmation of the existence of a state or a situation.

In this sense, they argue, it does make sense to offer – upon being told by someone that they have been fired - the words “It is what it is” as some form of comfort.

The somewhat insuperable obstacle to this interpretation is that the words “It is what it is” do not mean “Oh well, if you have been fired, you have been fired”. Again, semantic liberties aside, if anything “It is what it is” would become “Being fired is being fired”.

Even if we accept that the phrase has this meaning, in this context, it would in fact mean very little at all.

“Being raped is being raped.”

To call a rape a rape in fact adds absolutely nothing to a meaningful discussion of the act.

Why should we accept that a passive, unthinking, state of acceptance of the cold reality of a situation holds more social utility than an interpretation of that reality that we can digest and make sense of?

Ultimately I am not sure that there is anything in the English language which compels us to accept this meaning or sense of this phrase other than a lingering and submissive afterthought of good-will.

Yet it is neither necessarily appropriate in terms of language nor indeed even beneficial from a wider societal point of view to deliberately mistake what people do for what people should do.

I understand that decades of Western liberal pluralism have extolled the virtues of the elasticity of language (albeit without ever really convincingly demonstrating why – if at all – this is a good thing).

I also accept that language is elastic to a degree.

However I am not entirely convinced that we should encourage people to speak in a way which deliberately and flagrantly detaches the words from their true meaning – however disenfranchised those people claim to be.

Language has to be objectively meaningful if it is to perform its proper function of uniting its users.

And if you sell us dirt as gold for long enough, it is only a matter of time before the brighter sparks amongst us question whether we should in fact be buying at all.