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.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
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:
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-
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-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)