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-

I don't know why I stopped posting.

It's time to get back into blogging.
I know I don't have an audience at all right now, but I still relish the idea that someone will take an interest and actually read this one day.

I woke up this morning in an awful mood. Getting kinda pissed about the way Humber is handling its Frosh/Orientation events. This year, the Humber Student Federation (HSF) decided that it would be a good idea to limit numbers and make everyone buy tickets to the Frosh events in advance. So instead of waiting 30 mins to get into an event that's a bit crowded, now I've waited a total of 5 hours in line, only to be told that there were no tickets available for the first two events. Now I could buy a 50$ connection card and get in, but i dunno. It also gets you into pub nights... I'll have to think about it.

I just got out of class, and I am in the best mood. I got to see my pal Mayowa for the first time in months, and we've been talking about composing some music together. Keep your eyes on the horizon for some unique stuff.

Stay posted for more on this. Hopefully we'll be productive tomorrow.


-WC-

The "Death" of the Web - Post # 13 - Week 12 Pt 2

Applications are reactive to the web’s success. They don’t generate their own model. An app that utilizes the internet utilizes the web. It cannot stand alone. An app is like the stock of a rifle. It makes using the gun easier, but without the gun, a stock is worse than useless.

The article also made some odd statements about the nature of certain websites. The most important part of the word ‘website’ is the ‘web’ part, but the authors appear to have forgotten this. According to Wolff, at the peak of its success, “Facebook became a parallel world to the Web”. Just because a particular site dominates the population of internet users doesn’t somehow transform it into another entity. If you believe this, you would have to accept that if enough people got together on a huge boat, that boat would suddenly become a new country. It’s just a boat in the vast ocean, and the people on it are just a portion of a greater whole.

Google represents a sort of Roman Empire online. Since Google owns such a vast portion of the web, there are others who try to reinvent the web in order to pull the carpet out from beneath Google’s feet. This article promotes the idea that apps are here to do just that, but apps support the web instead of replacing it. In essence, apps have solidified the position of the web in everyday life.

Recently, I’ve noticed mounting evidence that companies are beginning to get the message – give the customer what they want, with limited effort on their part, but with ample options and variety. Some systems that use this well: iTunes, with its vast library, but quick service; amazon.com, which features a huge repertoire of items, with a million instant checkout counters; and Craigslist, which manages a large assortment of goods with a geographical emphasis. The sites that run with the customer in mind are the sites that get used. The thing is, customers don’t want to pay for what they don’t have to pay. Thus, piracy and open-source software has an advantage over other sites and apps. What balances this is the increased reliability of sites and apps that are paid for. At least, it’s in the corporate interest if users believe their experience is superior to the experience you could get for free. Whether or not this is true is up to the user to decide.

Not the Pointy Rocks Thing Again... The "Death" of the Web - Post 12 - Week 12 Pt1

Only things that are alive can ever die.

I’ll be talking about this article. If you actually take the time to read it, I am honestly impressed, but I must make a suggestion: read the comments section too. There are several excellent comments near the top of the stack, that definitely complement the article. Note that I said ‘complement’ and not ‘compliment’. The best comments are the ones that tear apart the claims of the authors of this article, Chris Anderson and Michael Wolff.

Why do technology writers rely so heavily on grand, sensational analogies in their work? I thought I had made it clear back in my Pointy Rocks post (which the authors clearly didn’t read) that the Web is not a living organism. It is an exceptionally pointy rock, not the adoptive child of the entire world. The web isn’t dead because the web was never alive. The web is certainly changing, but to announce its death is as ridiculous as claiming your can of Sprite just asked to use the washroom. It just doesn’t happen.

The authors got a lot of things half right. Chris Anderson made the statement that since youth have more time than money, they are more apt to use elements of the web that take more effort, but have the advantage of being free. For example, fire sharing is prevalent among youth, because they are willing to put forth the effort necessary to download torrents of pirated movies. More aged users have more money and less time to spend than youth. Because of this, they would rather just pay to get exactly what they want quickly. Both young and old want the same final product, but the methods to get the item changes with the resources available. Anderson got up to here right, but when he tries to relate the above information to the popularity of apps, his arguments fall short.

Anderson states that people pay for the quality of service (QoS) and convenience of apps. According to him, the best quality of an application is that it brings to the user exactly what they want with limited effort on their part. If this were true, we would never have moved away from desktop applications. We would be using Google.exe or the Mac equivalent if applications were king. Instead we use applications to access the web, which in turn provides users with a vast selection of services. There is ample selection and variety. It is much more convenient to open one application and browse using it than it is to open a specific app for the specific action you want to perform. Why use 5 apps when you can open one and get all the same information? It doesn’t make sense.

According to this article, HTML5 is an attempt to make the Web more app-like. Developers want to make websites run smoothly and easily. In its youth, only those with technical knowledge could aptly use the web. Since then, the web has become more accessible and easier to use without advanced knowledge of network systems. The authors of the article mistook the ease of use of applications for the next step of development. Apps are so easy to use because they present such a limited amount of stuff. There’s no other word to use than stuff. The typical browser has to show so many different types of media, that it is just not feasible to make it perfectly streamlined. When web controls improve, apps will be entirely unnecessary.

This post is about piracy – Post # 11 – Week 11

I’m on a roll tonight. I just finished post # 10, and now that I’m feeling better, it’s time to go back to what this blog is really about: analyzing literary works that are concerned with communication technology and culture.

We’re back to Matt Mason and The Pirate’s Dilemma, chapter two in particular. I’m sure you all have a copy by now. If not, they released it online for free, so go ahead and get it so you can be smart and stuff. In all seriousness, the book is pretty solid, despite being a few years old. For y’all who ain’t down with the kids’ slang, solid = good. Anyways, lets get on with it. I’ll begin with a picture. 

I like this image a lot. It’s not in The Pirate’s Dilemma, but I think Mason would like the picture too. This “handy little guide” is a comprehensive explanation for the piracy newbie, but it falls a bit short when you try to explain patent piracy. With patent piracy, once someone copies your patent, you really don’t have any power anymore. I’m not sure that I really agree with patenting to begin with. I understand that the creator wants some recognition for inventing whatever the patent is for, but it seems wrong to allow inventors to hold a monopoly over the use of what they made.

For example, Mason references the medicine situation I touched upon in my last post. Western companies that own patents for medicines sell their goods to developing countries at Western prices. The majority of people can’t afford the medicine at the prices it is offered at, but there is no cheaper alternative. The cheaper alternative can’t be made because the major company won’t let others copy its precious, patented formula. So thousands die, unless pirates come to the rescue. Patent pirates just don’t care about what the company thinks is important (i.e. their profits), so they risk everything by making copies of the big brand medicine and sell it for an affordable price. And you thought piracy was a bad thing.

What does this mean? Well it certainly shows how committed the health industry is to protecting health. Drug companies clearly don’t make drugs just to help people. They make drugs for the paycheck, and the whole “betterment of humanity” thing is just a side effect that helps them sleep at night. After being revealed, certain drug companies dropped their prices by 80% when selling medicines to developing nations. By doing so, they made their product more competitive. When there are cheaper alternatives, people will buy those. So the big companies dropped their prices. The fact that they shed 80% of the price tag is one thing, but the intentions are another entirely. Drug companies were made to look bad, and they lost money. So to fix it, they drop their prices in an attempt to fit in. Not only do they appear to have realized their wrongs, but they can start making money again. They can’t lose!

This post is not about piracy - Post # 10

I’m sorry, and it won’t happen again. I’m perfectly aware of how much of a snore that last post was. I don’t know what’s happened. I think the veneer of blog writing rubbed off. The first few posts were great. Remember Pointy Things? I loved that. Writing these posts has become a chore. It hurts to admit that. I made the last post because I realized that I had to submit a total of 12 posts with only 10 readings to write about. Now I’m running out of time and I have to write this one and two more. I’m not confident that they will be my best work. I still have to decide what I’ll write about for my last post, which I don’t have any readings to supplement. I hope my readers, and especially my evaluator, won’t mind if I use that opportunity to discuss some of the internal debates on ethics that I’ve been having throughout this course. Without further ado, I present my next blog post. Don’t get excited, I have low expectations for the next few posts.

This post is about piracy…

What an awful way to start a blog entry, especially when the topic is actually interesting. I read the chapter and everything, but with the mood I’m in, I think piracy is going to have to wait until the next entry. Just like that, this just turned into a completely different blog post, right before your eyes!

This post is not about piracy.

I recently joined Twitter. There’s a link on the right side of this blog. I’ve noticed that among the trending topics, #thingsthatpissmeoff is there pretty regularly. Sure enough, I just checked and it’s not there. The point I wanted to make, but which now seems pointless, is that the #thingsthatpissmeoff trend pisses me off. It’s just a series of people complaining about the dumbest things. For example:

“Old crusty people taking up space on the highway in rush hour traffic is on the top of my list…” – Nathan Riddell.

I have no idea who this Nathan Riddell is, but I don’t like him. If the elderly in traffic are at the top of your list of things that anger you, where does that leave things like Monsanto completely monopolizing farming or governments supporting corporations that have complete control over the media (I’ll talk about Monsanto in my next post). Stuff like that makes me really angry, and they’re not even on Mr Nathan Riddell’s list. They can’t be, or else “crusty old people” wouldn’t be at the top.

I’m trying to figure out exactly why things like the Monsanto situation make me angry. One reason is that I can’t stand the fact that humans can ignore the throes of death in order to preserve their own bottom line. How fucking sick do you have to be to watch calmly as thousands of your fellow human beings shrivel to a lifeless, bloody pulp at your feet because:

            You wouldn’t sell them the medicine they need.

            No-one can grow food without paying you first.

            You’re pumping oil into their backyard.

            You won’t tell anyone about the genocide going on.

The worst thing is that I’m doing this, too. I’m supporting the people (do they deserve that title) who condone the murder of millions of people by using their medicine, eating their food, driving their cars and being ignorant to the plight of others. I line the pockets of greedy, awful people, and it makes me sick. I am actually nauseous right now, just thinking about it. (It could have been the awful mac and cheese I had for lunch, but the poetic side of me says that my current gastro-intestinal instability is being caused by my conscience.)

That’s why I’ve been struggling with assignments these last few weeks: I’ve been struggling with myself for these last few weeks. A lot of things, including this course, have turned my concept of humanity on its head. I’ve been doing everything in my power to observe and take in content from a variety of sources, and my work has been suffering. I’ve been focussed on input rather than output. While others are frustrated that I’m not doing “work”, I know that something way more important is going on. I’m gobbling up ideas and concepts from everywhere, and I’m chewing on them very carefully and very slowly. I think it’s called learning, and I’m not ready to make a conclusion just yet. In the mean time, I’ll make more blog entries.

Social Networking and Participatory Surveillance - Blog Post # 9 - Week 10 Pt 2

Anders Albrechtslund strikes me as slightly more optimistic than Zimmer in the last article I examined. You can read Albrechtslund’s article here. Don’t misunderstand me though; Albrechtslund is just as aware of the privacy concerns that many have about the web. The difference between the two is that while Zimmer examines the need for monitoring and aggregation of data and the privacy concerns associated with that, Albrechtslund is instead considering the empowering and playful nature of participatory surveillance. In my head, I imagine Zimmer saying “Watch out!” while Albrechtslund says “Hey look, isn’t this neat!”. I have to say, I associate far more with Albrechtslund.

A lot of online privacy concerns occur in a manner that combines both the virtual and physical world. For example, a naïve teen posting a status that says “Dominican with the whole family for 2 weeks”, they have essentially invited thieves into their home. Albrechtslund makes the point that social networking needs to incorporate both the physical and virtual world in order to be successful. It is by isolating the virtual world that people put themselves at risk – actions online often have real-world consequences. The once mega-popular site MySpace gave users a sense of owning a space online. The problem is that the space allotted to each user is a bit like a bedroom with glass walls. Everything in the room is visible and should be presented as such. Users need to realize that the advancing social web is increasing the amount of required accountability. Using social networking sites eliminates the protection of anonymity, which too many take for granted.

Albrechtslund talks about invisible audiences – the people who access your information despite without you intentionally revealing it to them. The intended audience is not always the actual audience. Therefore, users must be prepared for anyone online to read their information. Users cannot assume that the intended recipient will be the sole recipient. Therefore, posting any sort of delicate information online is dangerous. Internet users need to become acquainted with how sharing information in the virtual world can have repercussions in the physical world. Instead of blaming the evil interwebs for identity theft, it is more appropriate to blame those who make their information available for people to take advantage of. This reminds me of the whole “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The difference between guns and the web is that guns were made for only one purpose, and it certainly isn’t sharing.

Sometimes, it isn’t a user’s fault that their information gets into the wrong hands. A testimonial from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre goes to show that banks are slimy gits who can’t take responsibility for ruining lives. This kind of thing irks me to no end.

Privacy Undone: How Convenient - Blog Post # 8 - Week 10 Pt 1

Are we selling our souls online? In my last post, I talked about how users pay for a website’s service using their personal information as currency. We aren’t always aware of the transaction, but Michael Zimmer certainly is. The recent course readings included an article by Mr. Zimmer concerning online privacy and surveillance, which you can find here. It has an obscenely long title, but thanks to the advances of Web 2.0 (namely linking), I don’t have to write it out in order for you to find it. All you have to do is click on the underlined blue text up there. How convenient.

I fear being too pretentious, but I’d really like to coin a new term: the Mephistopheles Complex. The Mephistopheles complex refers to the common practice of corporations making grand promises to encourage users to surrender their information (and ultimately their anonymity) unknowingly and permanently. This goes hand in hand with the “Faustian bargain” Zimmer describes in the article with the obscenely long title.  In the ancient German tale of Faust (or Faustus depending on which story you read), the demon Mephistopheles mediates a deal between the devil and titular scholar Doctor Faustus. In exchange for his soul, Faustus receives ultimate power and infinite knowledge – or so he is made to believe. It is Mephistopheles who persuades Faustus to seal the pact and in the end, it is Mephistopheles who collects his soul and sends the doctor to his damnation. I read Christopher Marlowe’s The Tragicall History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus back in high school, and I can’t help but find similarities between the themes of the play and the current state of the Web. The Wikipedia entry on Marlowe’s work is rather inaccurate, but you can read the play in its entirety here. How convenient.

Users willingly sacrifice their information in order to receive the rewards promised by Web and Search 2.0: “breadth, depth, efficiency, and relevancy”. In his article, Zimmer is specifically referring to Search 2.0, but I would argue that the terms could just as easily be applied to the social web. Users want sites that are all-inclusive, and that effectively spoon-feed them the specific content they want. It is very difficult to provide specific content along with a variety of content. Sites that achieve this (eBay, Wikipedia, Facebook) allow users to seek out specific content and also provide content that the site deems relevant. Sites that accomplish this are often the ones that experience the most success. YouTube provides recommended videos in the same way that Facebook recommends friends. The site recalls your stored information and makes an effort to provide you with content of interest to you. The problem is that we rarely consider the cost at which these services are rendered. How convenient.

More on Zimmer in the next post.

Voluntold: Who Benefits from my Unpaid Work? - Blog Post # 7 – Week 9

There have always been volunteers who provide labour without financial remuneration. For every tree-hugging activist, there are two YouTubers who have uploaded videos. Those who archive sites for others to discover using StumbleUpon do so for free – at least in the traditional sense of the word. Volunteers do not work for nothing. Instead of money, volunteers receive a different type of payment: satisfaction.

           

The exchange of labour for payment between an employee and his/her employer has changed, albeit slightly. This change is not sudden, nor all-consuming; rather, it has been with us for a long time. The difference now is in the proliferation of the number of people who work for personal satisfaction. The social web has provided opportunities for millions of users to volunteer their time towards an ultimate goal. The (professionally unpopular) online encyclopedia known as Wikipedia does not pay its contributors. Those who invest time and effort into the creation of Wikipedia entries do not receive any monetary gain from doing so. However, they do gain a sense of worth for contributing their valued input to the site.

“Valued input.”

How can a series of thoughts, expressed in words and reproduced (for free) on monitors worldwide be “valued input”? Because value is relative. In this week’s reading, Changing Notions of Labour – From Participation to Exploitation, Søren Mørk Petersen states that nothing has an inherent value. “Usually we would ascribe significance or value to objects and subjects as if it came from within.” Instead, we need to realize that value is assigned relative to the supply and demand for an object.

Real life example: A starving man would give his life savings for a piece of bread.

Digital Age example: Digital music is so abundant online that there is no (rational) point in paying for it. People do pay for it, but more out of pity and favouritism than anything else.

As we have seen in the past few decades, web technology is dynamic. As the technology changes, so does the value of communication, information, and entertainment. Stamps are far less commonly used now than when mail was the only communication option short of smoke signals. The value of stamps has decreased in general opinion because of the advent of new communication technology. There is less demand for stamps, therefore their value is diminished. The internet is going to change the notion of supply and demand, because it eliminates the first half of that equation. Once something is online, it can be reproduced ad infinitum.

Capitalism is also dynamic, Petersen points out. It reinvents itself in order to turn a profit. Those who profit from capitalism are already cashing in on the web. Corporations don’t have to worry about maintaining a supply of their online product. They just have to ensure that there is demand for it, and that someone is available to rake in the money. But pirates are here to break the mould. Since the corporations have their product online, ready to be reproduced and sold, pirates find a way around paying for it.

With pirates on the horizon, capitalists have a crisis on their hands. In order to battle it, they have created opportunities for internet users to “volunteer” their time, while taking the information they provide and selling it. This allows other corporations to advocate their product more effectively, ensuring their own profits. What concerns many is this system’s reliance on users to “volunteer”. Some worry that this is exploitation. By definition, exploitation is the unfair treatment of others for personal gain. In this case, corporations have been called exploitative for not paying users for their work maintaining and contributing to websites. However, if the site leads to personal satisfaction, then the users are being paid, just not in the traditional sense. But here’s the kicker. Many popular sites today allow users to connect in order to exchange information through linguistic communication in order to benefit general knowledge. In his article, Petersen references Paolo Virno, who in his 1996 work, Marxism Beyond Marxism states:

“Science, information, linguistic communication, and knowledge in general – rather than labor time – are now the central pillars on which production and wealth rest.”

Are those who work for “Science, information, linguistic communication, and knowledge in general” attaining wealth? I certainly think so.