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-
No comments:
Post a Comment