Performing the City

“You self righteous, blind, arseholes. You cannot control the use of public space.”

-Sidewalk Surfer, 23, Jan.-Feb. 1998

I’ve always been quite contemptuous of skater culture. Their two endearing aspects are their super comfy shoes and their somewhat enjoyable video games. Besides that, I’ve always viewed the skateboarding subculture as one of hypocriticism, self-aggrandizing, arrogance, disrespect, and thinly veiled capitalism dedicated to an imaginary freedom through the repurposing of public space.

As you can see, I’m quite opinionated about that particular clique, mostly because I’m sick of their juvenile attitude. So when I read Iain Borden’s article, I struggled to find points I could relate to. There are two general statements that I found very insightful. First, the common thread that we’ve observed running through all subcultures - the opposition to a vaguely defined ‘mainstream’. Skateboarding employs this through rejecting preconceptions about urban space and its uses. The idea that buildings can be used for purposes of entertainment separate from their goal of accumulation of wealth is quite interesting. I’m all for questioning the established norms. This is what generates progressive change. The second statement Borden made that stood out is his examination of how skateboarding involves individual labour with no productive purpose. Skateboarders are perfecting a skill that has no value outside of that activity. Inside the activity, it is essential. This is similar to the idea of cultural capital. Within skater culture, cultural capital = skill and notoriety. This is similar to gamer culture, where the countless hours spent in the virtual world have no real value in real life.

Now here’s why I don’t like skaters, and how Borden’s article reaffirmed everything I dislike about skater culture. I’m going to quickly fly through my criticisms listed above, for your reading pleasure.

First off, skaters are hypocritical in their condemnation of the capitalist model. Borden’s article contains numerous quotes establishing the sentiment, “I’m never going to work a day in my life, I’m too dedicated to skating. Meanwhile skaters flaunt corporate symbols and emblems like personal flags. From my experience, the goal of a skater is first to get good, then get attention, then get sponsored and then make money. In the mean time, they’re practicing and observing and financially supporting the same consumerist, wealth seeking attitude that they vow they’ll hate til they die. Borden states, through a quote from a skater that the culture has ‘moved beyond shiny products and consumerism’. And yet advertisements fill their magazines and there are designated styles with brand names and stores and displays. I’ve seen self-professed skaters doodling company logos in and on their notebooks. Why? I have no clue. Next criticism.

Self-aggrandizing (and arrogance too). I’m just going to shtick a quote in here: “All of us we’re all existing beyond their shit stained grasp. They […] can’t understand us now […] . We can all become higher types.” Are you kidding me? You ride on a plank with wheels. Next criticism.

Disrespect. In my experience, skaters at the entry stage of the subculture are entirely indifferent to the preservation of others’ property  (professionals seem quite amicable). There is a strange desire to just not give a fuck, and it’s pathetic. The skater culture encourages public rudeness, destruction of property and self-entitlement. Take for example the quote that Borden used to begin his essay. It’s the same one I’ve used as a heading at the top. This quote comes from a skateboarding magazine, denouncing those who would inhibit their use of public space. They complain about those who would limit their access to the urban environment, while simultaneously limiting others’ enjoyment of that same environment. Roaring along the sidewalk, being an obstacle to traffic and pedestrians, and being a nuisance in general is hardly a respectful or productive criticism of the preconceptions of urban use.

/endrant

I’ll end my post with some lyrics by a band that’s always among my top three favourite artists, Say Anything:

When you walk by a group of quote-unquote normal people you chuckle to yourself, patting yourself on the back as you scoff. It's the same superority complex shared by the high school jocks who made your life a living hell, makes you a slave to the competitive capitalist dogma you spend every moment of your waking life BITCHING about!

Social Logic of Subcultural Capital

              Social Logic of Subcultural Capital

One can only achieve subcultural capital, or have worth, after their categorization.

From what I gather, it sounds as though Sarah Thornton would agree with Heath & Potter’s position that consumption originates in “‘opposition’ to vague social bodies variously called the parent culture [… or] the ‘mainstream’” (201). According to the theory, youthful consumerism stems not from artistic or political acts, but from this ‘vague opposition’. The source of distinction is less an assertion of equal difference (discussed by Mercer) and instead a claim to superiority over less enlightened others.

I found it quite interesting while reading an essay by Thornton that the hipster label has been around since the 60s. Thornton writes about Ned Polsky’s research of 1960s Greenwich Village Beatniks, and found that they categorized society into three distinctive groups: the hip, the square, and the ‘in between’ or ‘hipster’. The ‘in between’ shared the Beatnik fondness for jazz and drugs, but was superficial in his hipness. Or, as Polsky puts it, a “mannered show off regarding his hipness” (201).

The common hipster stereotype now is relatively unchanged, and there is still some lingering, poorly concealed contempt. The hipster category represents a sort of superficial hipness, like Polsky examined half a century ago. The interest in things unknown simply because they are unknown is what creates that claim to superiority for the hipster genre. What may be the case is that the nature of the hipster’s type reduces their opportunities for attaining cultural capital.

Cultural capital is different from economic capital in that wealth is not earned through paid labour. Cultural capital represents one’s status within their subculture. Tyler Durden of Fight Club is also the leader of the titular organization, meaning his cultural capital is immense. His power to evoke change in the group is unmatched. But does cultural capital count for anything? Returning to fight club, Durden/the nameless narrator receives special treatment wherever he goes thanks to his widespread influence on the public/members of the fight club.

Still, there is friction between economic and cultural wealth. One does not necessarily lead to the other. There are those with a great deal of one and not the other. Thornton uses academics as an example of an individual with great cultural capital but little economic capital, and professional athletes as individuals with great economic capital but little cultural capital. While this may be true for particular academics, I assume there are some who have made a fair bit of money from their work (Stephen Hawking  is worth $20 million). Additionally, athletes enjoy a celebrity status and corresponding following. When advertisers use athletes as spokesmen/women, I think they’re invoking that cultural status. So while I agree that one does not necessarily come with the other, I feel as though there is a definite correlation between the two. Now if only I could get my hands on some…

Narcissism + art = graffiti?

Identity is a complicated thing. What Nancy Macdonald has taught me is that there is a distinction between what and who you are. Her method of demonstration? Graffiti culture.

While narcissistic in nature, graffiti is as much about development of self and identity as it is about becoming known. In graffiti culture, ‘writers’ create an alter ego using a tag, a sort of analog username. Like the digital world, the alter ego creates a distinct separation between the virtual self and the actual self. There also exist boundaries, in that the different ‘selfs’ may not intersect. Distinguishing characteristics that exist in the actual realm hold no ground in the graffiti world. Issues of race and image are unimportant among writers. The exception to this seemingly accepting subculture is the basis of gender. Unless you are female, “you are  what you write” (313).

This form of identification through actions is perhaps the purest form of identification, is it not? People are judged on their ability to create powerful artwork instead of their appearance. Even shy people find an outlet in graffiti, as they feel it provides an escape from the need to represent one’s self. The art serves that purpose instead. In this manner, a freak can be king. If that freak can make art, that freak can be respected. Cultural capital comes from external actions rather than social expectations.

One graffiti artist described graffiti in three words: “Look at me.” I find there is a definite trend of narcissism among some street artists. “Graffiti artists are literally honoured for nothing more than being - for existing” (314). There are those who create art and there are those who just inundate the urban environment with their name. And most combine the two.

Perhaps the most insightful yet troubling concept is the duality in the concept of being known. I frame it like this: writers want to be known of, but remain an enigma. They want to be famous, but unknown. They enjoy their fame from behind a disguise.

Once again, the subculture concerns itself with an oppositional stance to mainstream culture. There is a necessary attitude and aggressive stance to graffiti art, because it is intended to make a powerful statement. This aggressive identity serves “as a communication to the world about how one is feeling about oneself and what it is about oneself one would like to advertise” (316). This image does not have to be represented by the writer. In most other subcultures, the members are concerned with their own style, and how they dress themselves. Graffiti artists are concerned with dressing their artwork instead.

The temporary nature of graffiti is also important to the importance of identity to the members of the associated culture. Because their work and their identity by extension is perpetually threatened, graffiti artists feel the need to defend and proliferate their image, much like other cultures feel the need to defend their identity and distinguishing characteristics.

This culture is far more than a bunch of rowdy kids with aerosol paint cans. I feel as though it is one of the few authentically underground subcultures.

Street markets and the Exchange of Goods

Second-Hand Dresses and the Role of the Ragmarket

There’s no doubt about it, there’s been a recurring vogue for nostalgia for a long time. Retro-styles have cropped up time and again and they often originate in second-hand markets. These markets offer the lower class an opportunity for the lower class to participate in fashion. Second-hand markets rely upon a surplus of goods that have retained their use value. This is a common occurrence in the current environment of bandwagon jumping. When a particular fashion is in, the others are discarded. Those who operate the second-hand markets snatch them up and wait for the items to resurface as stylish pieces.

This means of subversive consumerism, where the sellers evade the mainstream associations of mass produced items with inflated prices. What ends up happening is a battle for distinction between those who buy clothing from mainstream stores and those who buy from second-hand markets. Those who favour typical stores consider their tastes refined as they have proven their ability to afford stylish clothing. Those who favour markets consider themselves thrifty, authentic and self-innovators of style. The store and market could offer an identical selection but that divide seems constant. In between the two are stores that offer mainstream clothing for second-hand prices (the men’s section at H&M comes to mind). They try (successfully, in my opinion) to bridge the gap between the two. There are other stores that fill other parts of the spectrum as well. Thrift stores such as Liquidation World and Value Village fit somewhere near the street markets popularized in beatnik, hippy and punk culture, but are not nearly so anarchic.

Markets exist in many immigrant communities, offering traditional styles otherwise unavailable to the ethnic culture. Toronto’s Chinatown district has extensive markets selling goods in a way that typical North American society does not. The market means that the culture has the opportunity to retain some of their native culture and avoid indiscriminate homogeny among North American citizens. The ethnic market is demonstrative of a nation’s willingness to embrace other cultures and stimulate their sense of belonging through more traditional anti-corporate consumption.

There is more to buying and selling than the exchange of goods/currency. The culture of the rag market is often reliant on the desire for an alternative society. This led to a separate but connected subcultural network of semi-entrepreneurs. It is a rare chance for a member of a subculture to embrace a career within their subculture. Simultaneously, some were disenchanted with the idea, as selling products was a touch to similar to the consumer society the counter culture was supposed to be an alternative to. There was a fear among those at the heart of a subculture of ‘selling out’, where commodifying their counter culture was a fall from grace. Once again we see this notion of desperate avoidance of anything considered too mainstream...

A post of Distinction

The Rebel Sell

“If we all hate consumerism, how come we can’t stop shopping?”

There’s a great deal of difference between a popular idea and a popular practice. Anti-consumerism is alive and well in the minds of North Americans. But few walk the talk. The theory is attractive - anti-consumerism means fighting against worker conformity, sexual repression and most importantly, conformity in consumption.

There is a common desire to be unique, to reject the mainstream. Or as Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter put it, “distinction.” The problem is, that’s what capitalism relies on. People consume with the intent of cementing a particular image that is superior to the perceived mainstream. The general public has agreed that being cool means expensive clothes, fine food and handcrafted décor. All this stems from a desire to disassociate one’s self from the perceived mainstream/boring/unhip individual with little wealth, no taste and no individuality.

There’s a great quote in Heath and Potter’s The Rebel Sell from Pierre Bourdieu: “taste is first and foremost distaste.” Our individuality is based more on discarding what we deem too ‘normal’ and less on things we actually find appealing. Companies are profiting from their own (imaginary) rejection by the public.

For a brief time, there was a collective sentiment of distaste for the ‘hipster’ subculture. The idea of “I did/knew/wore [blank] before it was cool” was seen as elitist and snobby. And now, like dye stirred into water, it has homogenized. It has become acceptable and commonplace. What is notable is that the hipster subculture represented a brief surfacing of a pre-existing and quite commonplace notion. This concept of individuality courses through the veins of all North American subcultures, but a stigma arose against those who openly admitted it.

The irony is that the hipsters, supposedly all for anti-consumerist individuality are the same people fuelling the evolving consumer market for new things. As soon as a bandwagon reaches capacity, the initial members abandon their once distinctive quality in search of something non-mainstream. Thus, they create a new wagon for the population and companies to jump on. All while denouncing consumerism.

I would be guilty of this too if I were more of a trendsetter. I’m typically among the last few to jump on a bandwagon before it becomes passé. The one exception here is tight pants. I remember the initial stigma for the style of dress as it was associated with the emo kids. When I started wearing tight jeans, I was branded as a member of that stereotype. Since then (early high school), tight pants have become far more commonplace. I’ll have to wait and see whether I decide my tight pants have become too mainstream and it’s time to get thuggy.

A Tragedy Confined to Distant Lands

Sex Trafficking

“A tragedy confined to distant lands”

Not so much. This seems to be the typical Canadian mindset regarding many things such as sex trafficking, racial violence and major illegal activity. Nothing like that happens here, it’s Canada, the most accepting and tolerant multicultural nation there is. But it does. The mindset that it doesn’t occur means that people aren’t looking for it, which means perpetrators have a safe haven.

This oversight of the exploitation of women is a perception that is convenient for the general population. If it isn’t seen as a problem, it isn’t a problem. In fact, it wasn’t even a recognized problem until 2005, when Canada made human trafficking a criminal offence. The current definition of Canadian “justice” for traffickers is a joke. Between April 2007 and April 2009, about 30 people were charged with human trafficking in Canada. Five were convicted. Compare that to Belgium, where there have been 1200 reported trafficking cases between 2007 and 2010 and more than 200 convictions. It has five thousand police officers specifically trained to handle trafficking. What does Canada have? A law and five people who went to jail for less than five years. It’s a start, I suppose.

And now, the other side of the argument. Canada already has laws regarding forcible confinement, prostitution and extortion. What point is there in creating more laws that serve the same purpose? Perhaps exploitation is overlooked, perhaps not. From the brief summary of Invisible Chains, the author focuses on a lack of legislation rather than actual evidence of a trafficking epidemic. While the efforts of lawmakers may be inadequate, this does not necessarily constitute a problem.

Let’s say there’s a restaurant with two mouse traps in the basement. Saying that the lack of dead mice is the sole result of too few traps is illogical. You could spend the money and blanket the entire floor with traps, but if there are no mice, it won’t matter. The argument for more traps needs to be made based on evidence of mice. Similarly, the argument that human trafficking is an unseen problem because not many people have been caught doesn’t stand up. There must be evidence that it is occurring, instead of evidence that it isn’t being reported.

Now what does this mean for subcultures? To me, trafficking in Canada is akin to the few members of a subculture that give the other members a bad reputation. Those individuals are largely trivialized and ignored in the same way trafficking is in Canada. No-one wants to be in the same category as particular individuals, which leads to those individuals being shunned from the spotlight.

Marbles.

            How’s your hair today? Is it properly socialized?

            I read Kobena Mercer’s piece Black Hair/Style Politics today, and she has some great points regarding the ‘cultivation’ of hair and the symbolism it evokes, particularly for blacks.

            [Take note that when I use the term ‘black hair’, I am referring not to the colour of the hair, but to the hair of people of African descent.]

            As many know, black hair is very unique in its nature, with distinctive kinks and curls, along with a typical coarse texture. This does not fit into the Western ideal/tradition of ‘good hair’ - straight, soft and blonde for women and brunet for men. Thus, the process of hair preparation for blacks living in Western cultures can be extensive. In Mercer’s piece, she examines the notion of  “cultivation”.

                        “When the hair is completely dry, you start cultivating it with a hot             comb ... now the hair is all straight.” (422)  -A hairdresser describes the process of hair straightening.

             In essence, to cultivate means to bring out something of value from something that has none. Because of this notion, the natural state of black hair is labelled worthless. By extension, unkempt hair receives the same label. The mindset coerces people to feel the need to cultivate their hair into the closest possible semblance of the Western ideal.

            The introduction of the afro and dreadlocks into black hair style made a powerful statement of black pride, celebrating the ‘natural’ character of their hair. Because they were styles that could only be properly worn by blacks, they were seen as a source of racial pride and an ethnic signifier. Mercer recognizes this as demonstrative of hair’s unique status as a natural feature with a political statement. Is there a comparable human characteristic with the same ability to combine aesthetics with political ideals? The message a hairstyle carries changes between its appropriations between subcultures. Skinheads - commonly associated with anti-black racism - wore hairstyles similar to that of black men. Instead of a model where one hairstyle means one thing, Mercer posits, “diversity of contemporary hairstyles is something to be proud of” because the inventive nature of style should be valued. This unity in diversity, Mercer says, is an “aspect of Africa’s ‘gift’ to modernity” (435).

            This plurality equates to a sort of equality through mutual difference. Encouraging uniqueness creates a culture of difference, a culture with less rigid categorization. If every individual has their own category, what purpose do the categories serve?

            I liken this to a bag of five marbles. Each marble is a different colour, has different texture and has a unique degree of opacity. What point is there in categorizing these marbles if they share no similarities but their identity as marbles? On a much grander scale, humans with varied styles cultivate an image in order to fit into a predetermined category. Even those who purposely try to avoid fitting into a category unconsciously form a category of their own.

            How does this entrapment relate to hairstyles? It’s quite simple, really. An infinitesimally small number of people do nothing to “cultivate” their hair. Those who don’t often cannot. As there is no way to escape entrapment into a subculture or the mainstream, there is no way to escape the pressure of society to do something to your hair.

Education Rant ft. Paul E. Willis

So I read some of Paul E. Willis’ work, namely Culture, Institution, Differentiation. He spoke at some length about the education system, which I have had an interest in due to my mother’s career as a schoolteacher. As I interpreted it, Willis described the education system as an apparatus for conditioning children to the nature of society.

The systems used in institutions of education are metaphoric mirrors of social systems. Respect for whoever sits in the position of authority is particularly emphasized. Every aspect of a typical grade school reinforces the inferiority of the students. The tightly ranked desks set facing the teacher’s vast work surface demonstrate the proportion of wealth and/or power between modern-day proletarians and patricians. Another aspect of grade school is the regimented schedule followed week after week. Bells and timetables prepare students for life in the real world. These schedules are reinforced by the authorities, and stepping outside the line incurs punishment. At recess, students are cleared from the school and expected to go outside. Those who remain indoors must have a reason to do so.

They are deprived private space, nervously knocking on the staff room door. Students are constantly faced with locked doors, or places that are deemed “off-limits”  like boiler rooms, cupboards, and the like. I say let ‘em roam. If they want to know what’s making the noise behind the door, take a class in there, show them the boiler, explain why it makes the noises it does and the role it plays. The “because I said so” mentality is only harming the inquisitive nature of students. I apologize, let’s get back to the point.

In schools, the teachers control all the resources worth having; knowledge, keys and authority. They control when and what to discuss. This social control generates an oppositional mindset in the students. In last week’s post, I mentioned an article called Subcultures, Cultures and Class. In this work, the authors note that in a system where there are dominant and subordinate classes, the relation between them is always oppositional. The subordinate class resents the dominant class for having what they don’t and the dominant class resents the subordinate class for trying to reach their level. So schools are doing a pretty good job of getting kids used to the idea of the class system, but there’s a problem here. Opposition creates a barrier to control. Because of the oppositional mindset, kids feel they should be disobedient. This academic disobedience leads to ignorance when the student values rebellion more than their education. This is a big deal! Kids need to focus on being educated without feeling the need to rebel against their superiors. The current system sets kids up to choose ignorance over education.

The respect demanded by grade school teachers has no foundation. Students do not respect teachers without cause. The best teachers I have ever had are the ones I truly respected, not the ones whose power I feared.

Bros, Einstein and Punk Rock

So I lied. I’m not going to talk about style in this post. Instead I’m looking at the way subcultures represent more than an ideological construct. There is more to a culture than the ideas and clothing of its members. Instead, it provides somewhat specific guidelines regarding particular aspects of life. It defines space, marks territory and suggests activities. It defines what [not] to do and how [not] to do it. The rituals prescribed by subcultures also include a specific vernacular used by members. The current ‘Bro’ culture (prep+jock+idiot=bro) comes to mind with such words as “wheels” and “chirpin” in their vocabulary. There are even typical intonations and mannerisms associated with certain cultures.

There’s a article by John Clarke, Stuart Hall, Tony Jefferson and Brian Roberts called Subcultures, Cultures and Class published in 1975 where the authors suggest that despite the numerous codes, there are few solutions for real problems like “youth unemployment, educational disadvantage, compulsory miseducation, dead end jobs, … low pay or loss of skills” (104). There is no subcultural career. At first I disagreed with this. The jocks that went to my high school all intended to be professional athletes. Is this not a subcultural career? I feel as though the authors would have responded by stating that jock culture formed around those dedicated to athletics, instead of the other way around. Athletics led to jocks. There was never a point where a jock said: “Hey bro, let’s try gym class, it might be fun.” So while there may not be a specific career path designated for a subculture, the similar interests of the members lead to similar lifestyle choices.

Subcultures have at least some influence on a future career, but they have a far greater effect on an individual’s leisure time. A subculture predominantly involves the domain of leisure. Therefore an individual largely defines themselves through leisure. If a worker only feels like himself outside of work, their labour is only a means to an end. It is important to note the distinction between how an individual is defined by society and how they define themselves.  Some individuals are defined by their work (Einstein, Shaq, etc.) but they might have defined themselves entirely differently…

Style, Soccer Moms and Juxtaposition

Blog post # 3

Let’s talk about style. I’ll be talking about it in the next post too, but here’s a good place to start.

As much as people try to deny it, a person’s style will greatly affect how they are perceived by others. I figured I should get that out of the way quickly. It’s naïve to think that you aren’t being judged by your appearance. Last year, there was a big fiasco when a Toronto cop made an unofficial statement saying: "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."

There was a big to-do about this, understandably. The statement makes it sound as though men are incapable of controlling themselves (meaning they are not at fault), and that women invite sexual assault by dressing provocatively. Both of these are false, and therefore the uproar is justified. However, I was involved in a class discussion at the time, where the female portion of the class felt that they should be able to wear whatever they want and not be judged based on that. I could do nothing but shake my head. Let’s step back into reality here, folks. If you step out in public wearing less than a square foot of clothing and you are going to be treated differently than if you go out wearing a paper bag. That’s just the way it is. That’s why we dress up for job interviews, so that we can present ourselves in a professional manner. If we truly didn’t judge based on appearance, we’d all be naked. Well at least indoors, where the unpredictable Canadian weather can’t reach us.

Back on topic. The outfit worn in public often signifies one’s tastes, finances and preference as well as demonstrating the individual’s position in socially prescribed roles. A soccer mom looks like a soccer mom because articles of her appearance are characteristic of that role. She’s got a Subaru stationwagon/Dodge Caravan and it’s got a soccer ball sticker/air freshener on it and she’s wearing jeans and a grey hoodie and glasses and has short-medium hair. Her class status is apparent through these symbols. This nice lady’s choice of outfit is her expression of normality, but it’s a “loaded choice”. Everything in her life makes her a “soccer mom”, but she feels as though it was her decision to become one. And perhaps she holds a certain sway in the matter through her decisions regarding other aspects of her life (i.e. what kind of car to buy), but in the end, her decisions reflect her identity, rather than her choosing her identity directly. If she suddenly decided, “I want to be a scene chick!”, no one would take her seriously; her image is not easily transferable. She would be far too busy rockin Tumblr and screaming at shows to ever take her kids to practice. The subcultures display codes of their own, that directly contrast each other.

I haven’t even brought up Hebdige yet. But I’ve been bringing up a few of his points. Hebdige gets really insightful in the second half of Subculture: The Meaning of Style. He’s talking about juxtaposition. So here’s a formula: Object + Meaning = Sign. Got it? Now, signs are generated, assembled and relocated by subcultures. So when a subculture takes multiple objects and juxtaposes them with meaning, we get signs that point us to conclusions. When it comes to clothing, these signs point to the wearer’s identity. So when someone takes a cross, an icon of Christianity, and combines it with a necklace, they have created a wearable sign, pointing viewers to the conclusion that the individual is Christian. The punk subculture is unique here, because their signs don’t always have intended conclusions. They often have intended results, but the concepts that the sign represents may be irrelevant. Two examples: The swastika and the bike part braclet. Wearing a swastika incites anger because of the acts committed by those wearing the symbol. It isn’t worn because punks are fascists, it’s worn because you won’t like it. The bike chain bracelet doesn’t mean the punk is a cyclist, it means they’re unconventional, which is a pretty vague term. The signs don’t show a way, they are intentional means of evoking a reaction. Hebdige summarizes this “unfashion” with a great moniker: “If the cap doesn’t fit, wear it.”

What I find fascinating about rebellious subcultures, such as punks, hippies and the more recent hipster culture, is that their intent of being anything but normal (re)defines what normal is. What happens when the icons of hipster culture become ‘normal’ or ‘mainstream’ as they are already?

New rebellious subcultures. That’s what happens. An old rebellion against normality is trivialized and a new one forms. The expression through rupture, as Hebdige puts it, is constant, and frankly, I’m glad. There always needs to be a voice of opposition to provide that moment of “Wait, maybe they have a point. What if I’m wrong?” But that’s a sentiment for another post. I’m off to do something artsy.

-WC-

Jam Jars.

We watched another movie. I didn't like it either. It's called Kids.
Somehow I don't think our professor's intention is to show us movies we'll like.


Film:
I don't really have anything to say about Kids. It showed us youth culture in the US, and it did a good job of that. But it didn't REALLY challenge my preconceptions.

Readings:
Okay Gordon, let's take a look at what you have to say. A world within a world, I like that. Ooh and I like the bit about how a particular subculture relates to one's access to the rewards of national culture. I'll talk about that first.
I think I speak for us all when I wonder about the futures of the various members of the various high school cliques. Which cliques have the most members that are deemed successful by the standards of society, i.e. wealth and happiness? Is it the preps, who come from money? Or the nerds, who busted their asses to get the grade? Now we're a bit more grown up and you can't tell the subcultures apart by the lunch tables. But which ones have members who consistently succeed? The problem with this question is that people are rarely devoted to a sole subculture during their lives. As such, they typically fall into multiple groups before settling into normality. Many metaphorical hats are worn and then cast away in favor of new ones.

Is there a common denominator in the personality of members of a particular subculture? Sure, sometimes. Take a look at the youth in the movie Kids, who are generally great at not giving a fuck. Take a look at members of true punk culture, who are generally trying really hard to make it look like they don't give a fuck. But it would be wrong to think that the situation is so black and white. There might be a lot of people who can be categorized under Punk, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're all going to have the same or even similar views. Many will, but there are exceptions to every rule. What I mean is that for every hardcore punk, there is a casual punk. To think they're all the same is silly. Unless every aspect of their life is covered by an all-encompassing doctrine, punks are going to be different people, with different upbringings, outlooks and ideas.

All I'm saying is: Go ahead and categorize all you want, but people aren't jam jars (this metaphor brought to you by Caroline Casey, whose TED talk will stick with me for a looooong time). The contents won't always match the label.

Oh and Hebdige, I haven't forgotten about you, I'll get to you in my next post.

Okay, this time for real.

Okay, so I'm actually going to start blogging again. For real this time.
My hand is being forced, but I'm not complaining.
Once again, I'll be doing weekly posts about the content of class discussion and analysis of course material.

It was recommended that we mention our blogging service and reason for using it in the first post. The main reason I use Blogger.com is because I used it last year, and I already have infrastructure in place. The reason, I'm sticking with Blogger is because it's in bed with Google. And Google opposes (opposed?) SOPA.

Film:
We're one week into the semester now, and I've got mixed feelings about this course. I was delighted to find Fight Club in the list of film titles to be screened. That elation faded quickly once Breathless started playing. I have nothing against subtitles (Pan's Labyrinth, anyone?) or black & white films, but this film rubbed me wrong. I can appreciate the demonstration of subcultures, but this film felt more like a blatant, unexciting caricature of mid-century stereotypes. The director didn't leave it up to the audience to interpret the subtleties of cultural ideals. Instead, he smacked you in the face with them. Oh look, here's the classic gangster taking advantage of a woman while being playfully cavalier and wearing a fedora. How original. The character types were as black and white as the film itself. "This is a man, he thinks typical man thoughts and does manly things. This is a new age woman, she thinks new age woman thoughts and doesn't wear a bra. Feel free to substitute 'The French', 'Americans', 'Police', or 'Gangsters' into these sentences.

This film paints an extremely basic portrait of subcultures. Subcultures in reality are hardly ever so well-defined. There are varying degrees of members' immersion and acceptance of a group's rules. There are always subtle details that further divide and combine general cultures, and this film ignored that entirely.

Readings:

"We seek, if possible, solutions which will settle old problems and not create new ones." Well, no shit, Albert Cohen.

Okay Al, you impressed me later on, but come on. You can do better.
You raised a great question, which I'll share with the readers:
          "How is it possible for cultural innovations to emerge while each of the participants [... are] so powerfully motivated to conform to what is already established?"

The problem here is that there are often incentives to avoid deviation from established groups. Everyone, it seems, would rather follow along than risk being ostracized for striking a new path. It's better to follow the rules and belong than to do something different and be rejected. However, the degree to which you follow the rules can fluctuate. It's not enough to say "follow the rules". To what extent? Are ALL the rules being upheld? Not following ALL the rules can still allow membership in a subculture, but it seems that those who do follow ALL the rules are those who covet membership the most. The guy who changes his entire wardrobe, demeanor and attitude to "be" a thug is clearly quite fond of being seen as a thug. The guy who starts wearing baggy jeans just isn't as desperate to fit in. Similarly the Christian who follows some of the rules isn't as desperate to be a "good Christian" as the one who follows all the rules.

So if everyone wants to conform (to some extent) to the rules of their subculture, how do new cultures emerge and existing ones change? I've got to agree with your answer to this, Al, but I want to add to it as well. You said that change occurs when multiple members of a group have the same discontent regarding an established norm. The members' response must be more desirable than the established norm in order for the subculture to move in that direction. When the time is right, a member will dip their toes in the water with their new idea. Doing so, they can observe the other members' reaction to their idea. If they warm to the idea, a new direction is found. At the same time, if the idea is rejected, it is easy for the member to retract their toes with minimal damage to their image and connection with the rest of the group. Such exploratory gestures seem to be the root of subcultural change, according to you, Al.

There are two things I would like to add, though:
     1. Particularly charismatic members of a group often single-handedly change the direction that a culture is travelling.
     2. What about the normalization of subcultures? Items that until recently defined a "hipster" are now found in the wardrobe of many others who have little or no interest in being labelled as such.
     3. I know I said there were only two things, but I just thought of this one. What about the people who want to be seen as a hipster and then adopt the associated rules?

Hoping for more intriguing films in the future,
-WC-