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…