Language – Zeitgeist

The Macquarie Dictionary defines “zeitgeist” as ‘the spirit of the time; general drift of thought or feeling characteristic of a particular period of time’. Its etymology is from German “time-spirit” and is often capitalised as “Zeitgeist”.

According to Google AI:

“Zeitgeist” refers to the defining spirit or mood of a particular period in history, often characterized by the dominant ideas, beliefs, and cultural trends of that time. It essentially captures the collective mindset and prevailing attitudes of a specific era. The term originates from German, where “Zeit” means time and “Geist” means spirit or ghost.

Google AI gives as an example, the following:

The 1960s counterculture movement, with its focus on peace, love, and social change, is often cited as an example of a distinct zeitgeist, according to Vocabulary.com.

Recently, Justice Derrington in the Federal Court observed in Theo v Edwards [2025] FCA 605 (emphasis added):

The zeitgeist of the Court

[18] I understand Mr Edwards to be a former practising solicitor.  Regardless of his capacity as a solicitor or as a litigant in person, compliance with the Rules is important.  As I noted in Pieman Resources Pty Ltd v Monks [2025] FCA 88 (at [51]), the Court’s time is valuable and precious. It should not be wasted. The Court can no longer afford, with its ever-diminishing resources, to waste its time dealing with applications made by people who do not intend to progress them in a proper way. Of course, leniency can be given to litigants in person who need some time to ascertain what is to happen or what steps they should take. Of that, there can be no doubt, and the Court should never be stringent on people who need assistance in progressing a matter.

[19] But that is not this case.  Here, time, effort and money has been expended by the parties whom Mr Edwards has summonsed to the Court and by the Court itself.  It is an anathema to the zeitgeist in this Court that one would allow the matter to drift by adjourning it to some other time in the hope that Mr Edwards might then deign to appear.  To the foregoing, it can be added that, given Mr Edwards is presently bankrupt, there is some doubt as to whether costs might be recovered by Ms Theo in respect of her engagement of solicitors for the purposes of this application.

And Derrington J, again, in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v National Australia Bank Limited (No 2) [2023] FCA 1118, said (emphasis added):

[30] Having regard to these remarks, and the recent case law of this Court more generally, the current  zeitgeist  is that a concise statement is a legitimate means by which a party, including a regulator, might articulate its case in a proceeding involving the potential imposition of a civil penalty.

Gummow J in hearing the appeal in Astley v Austrust (1999) 197 CLR 1 said ([1998] HCATrans 284):

This seems another manifestation of the tendency we tried to correct last week in Garcia’s Case. Intermediate courts of appeal are saying they do not have to follow this High Court case anymore; the Zeitgeist is now against us. If that is being picked up by trial judges, vis-a-vis, trial judges in intermediate courts of appeal, we are in real trouble.