[unfocussed_mike]

> The article sets out to explain the use of the term to allow more objective introspection but then only gives satirical examples. That's a bit disappointing.

The quotes in the article don't strike me as inherently satirical. They are an attempt to write in a completely distant fashion, applying the same anthropological rules to US culture from outside as they would any other strange culture.

It's just that modern media has so many examples of satirically exploring our own culture in this way that they inevitably read that way.

For example, in Bones, though Bones herself does not usually do it satirically, she does it earnestly; the satire emerges from the disconnect between her and her colleagues.

It may not be possible to do this sort of thing without evoking satire, but there are many attempts lately to encourage US readers to consider how, for example, the Trump era would have been described by US foreign correspondents if it was happening in another nation.

But then, almost anything reads like satire if you choose to read it as satire. Food packaging for example. "Serving suggestion"