http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html#comment-5671
First and foremost, I'll be the first to admit that the title the article is more than likely very hyperbolic. The author's argument provides us with a very interesting topic worth looking at despite the fact that the article itself lacks any concrete and substantive evidence for his claim. The "countercultural movement" of the hipsters (is it really a movement when there doesn't seem to be any forward progress/motion? Or countercultural for that matter when it shares the same basic principles from that which it tries to distinguish itself from) has had a negative effect on cultural development by recycling the past while at the same time refusing to define its identity, by embracing consumerism, and by co-opting from others while at the same time cheapening its significance and value.
The problem with calling hipsters countercultural is that they don't reject the elements of the status quo but instead they embrace them. The tenets of mainstream culture and society--capitalism, mass consumerism, social climbing, etc.-- are very present within the hipster circle. These, of course operate under different guises. Perhaps the best manner to observe hipsters is by placing them in a sociological context, and I can think of no other person whose work better applies than Thornstein Veblen. In his book, "The Theory of the Leisure Class", Veblen presents the argument that people within a certain social structure try to mirror those higher up in their respective heirarchy in order to obtain more status for themselves. Hipsters still play the proverbial rat race.
"The moment a trend, band, sound, style or feeling gains too much exposure, it
is suddenly looked upon with disdain. Hipsters cannot afford to maintain any
cultural loyalites or affiliations for fear they will lose relevance"
In order to stay at the forefront of cultural relevance within the hipster social structure, they must constantly be on the look out for the next big thing, and like vultures they rush to it and eat it up until there is nothing left to consume. As a result, culture is commodified and is stripped of its value, thus leaving nothing more than cultural nihilism. They are not the creators, they are the users. Culture for them is meant to be used and consumed. It's no surprise that the two biggest time periods that hipsters embrace are the post-WWII and 1980s culture. These, after all, are the periods in which mass consumption was more prominent.
Another thing that should be of great concern is the manner in which other cultures are being appropriated to satisfy this endless hunger. The article mentions that part of the hipster uniform is the keffiyeh, which was "initially sported by Jewish students and Western protesters to express solidarity with Palestinians" but it now has lost its political and symbolic meaning as a result of this co-option. Hipster culture then is not only vapid and superficial, but it has adverse effects on what is indeed culturally relevant.
Hipster culture is definitely hard to define. What is real and what did they take from other people? In a sense, defining what's hipster is similar to the way Clarence Thomas once defined porn, "I'll know it when I see it". I strive not to be an alarmist, but if this (anti-) cultural trend continues, we're in real trouble.
Posts
