Deconstructing the Hipster and Youth Culture Movements
just another youth movement or a revolutionary departure?
Posted May 4, 11:12 am in consumerism, culture, postmodernism
The following is a response to this article from Adbusters, which seeks to dissect the curious and ubiquitous hipster subculture. On the whole, it is a highly dismissive article that sees few redeeming qualities in this way of life. The author views the hipster as the culmination of a Western fixation with conspicuous consumption and self-absorption. In other words, it does not paint a pretty picture of hipsters. What follows is a two-part commentary about the article, which consists of my response to the article, followed by a response by an insightful friend who wants to be called “Derry.”
Response by Rahul
This article is as hilarious and ugly as the scene itself. While I find many of its observations incisive and funny, it’s hard to argue that the hipster scene is derivative and unoriginal as the author claims. In fact, he has given dozens of details about behaviors and artistic movements within hipsterdom that are essentially original— like fixations on fixed-gear bikes, odd mixes of disparate music, and obsessive photo-taking on old-school cameras. The author’s argument seems to suggest that these are not valid expressions in themselves, but instead are gross, consumerized actions in which identity is created through purchasing power. I find this a somewhat curious and circular argument to make, as the way he is identifying people within the movement is by looking at the products they carry with them (fixed-gear bikes, non-prescription glasses, keffiyahs); By his definition, someone who has certain possessions, looks a certain way, or attends certain parties is a hipster, so naturally the conclusion he’s going to come to is that hipsters base their identities on consumption patterns.
Still, it is probably true that through such unifying signals that scenes coalesce in the first place (of clothing, you could say that beats had those black shirts, grunge guys had flannel shirts, country guys have cowboy hats, hippies had tie-dye, etc.). Yet, the author seems to argue that hipsterdom is an outlier from other youth scenes throughout history. I would challenge the author to find a youth scene anywhere in history that cannot be criticized on the same terms that he criticizes hipsters on. I think it would be hard, because, like the author, we identify those scenes largely by their visual aesthetic, not by a collective ethos— if that term can even be reliably applied when discussing a scene. Sure, we have some vague ideas about what certain movements stood for, but ultimately, we call someone a hippie because they smoked dope and wore tie-dye, not because they were against the Vietnam war. Some guy who was against the war doesn’t automatically gain admission into the hippie movement on account of his political views; first and forement, he has to look the part. Even aside from that, is it even possible to ascribe a unified ethos to a movement (e.g. did all hippies embrace ‘free love’ or did some of them just want easy sex?; were they all against Vietnam, or were many of them indifferent to it?).
Admittedly, I do not particularly relish the hipster movement by any means, but that may be simply out of envy for those in it. Hipsters are young, having fun, they seem to have tons of friends, they’re fashionable, and are privy to a vibrant arts scene. Of course, there’s something that rubs me the wrong way about hipsters (vacuity and self-obsession come to mind)— but once I start thinking about it, it’s hard for me to put my finger on exactly why any of this might be problematic. Lots of people are vacuous and self-obsessed, and I don’t invest particular time in condemning them; such people seem to make up the bulk of Western society, and likely the world. Hipsters are having fun while they’re young, and they’re not really hurting anyone, so why should I care what they do? Rampant consumers they may be, but a scene that is divorced from commerce would actually be the exception, not the rule; groups forms largely due to similarity in consumption patterns (shared aesthetics in music, books, TV, clothes styles, etc.— indeed, defining lifestyles as being similar largely hinges on consumer consumption habits).
Besides, it’s hard to tell from this vantage point what cultural contributions hipsters might have in the long run. There’s too much data (fashion, music, etc.) for bystander to effectively parse at this stage; we need time to separate the wheat from the chaff. Maybe in 10-15 years it would be clear what hipsterdom has given modern society, but before that time comes, it seems like a pre-emptive dismissal to write off the whole movement as worthless and self-indulgent. Such criticisms have been leveled against every youth movement during its time.
Response by Derry
While I agree that most, if not all, youth subcultures could be justly criticized on the same terms as the author uses to criticize Hipsterdom, I believe that Hipsterdom is, in a sense, an “outlier” of youth subcultures. Past subcultures, such as the hippie, punk, and grunge cultures, seem to have been at least the partial result of philosophies of anti-establishment that stemmed from objectionable views of mainstream society. Hippies were identified, in part, by their shared opposition to the war in Vietnam. Sure, many “hippies” were simply along for the ride, looking for an easy way to get laid, but the initial catalyst of Hippiedom was, I believe, a result of genuine repulsion in regard to the Vietnam war and the American public’s widespread paranoia and fear regarding Communism. Without that societal catalyst, I don’t think hippies would have found the reason to band together. Grungers rebelled against the vapid materialism of the 80’s, creating and listening to music that was an abrasive rebuke of the antiseptic synth-pop of Phil Collins and of the extravagant lifestyles of coke-sniffing yuppies.
What is the unifying cause of Hipsterdom? Does it even have a cause? Unlike past subcultures, I don’t think its cause is rooted in anti-establishment philosophy or an opposition to mainstream society. Instead, I think (as does the author) that hipsters are simply a bunch of privileged white kids trying (in vain) to appear genuine; to escape the shame and guilt of leaving a consequence-free life, free of responsibility and without any true cause to support. Hipsters are even ashamed of their own hipsterhood, as most will deny that they are, in fact, hipsters and will get angry at the insinuation. I doubt the same was true of hippies, grungers, punks, or even Goths, who wore their labels proudly. Why the difference? I think hipsters, unlike past subcultures, don’t really have a reason to exist, a unifying struggle against mainstream society that defines them. They are the post-modern youth subculture; a subculture whose defining cause is their lack of cause and apathetic dismissal of anything that gains mass appeal (i.e. their dislike of good music because it becomes popular). I suppose this still counts as a “cause,” but I am arguing that this cause is dramatically different that the anti-establishment and reactionary causes that propelled past subcultures into existence.
Regarding the clothes and products that these subcultures display; every tribe needs a way to communicate, and the way members of a tribe dress and behave allow them to find each other. This is true for any tribe, not just youth subcultures, from religions (yamikas and crosses) to sports fans (jerseys). The fact that these tribes have identifiable clothing does not, by itself, make them shallow. Hipsters, on the other hand, do not seem to have a unifying cause and, as a consequence, I think their clothing and attachments to particular products appears to be shallow, representing nothing beyond itself. Hippies wore tie-die shirts, which identified them as hippies, but this identification meant something. It meant that they were affiliated with a group that espoused anti-war, free-love views. There were some hippies, as you point out, that just wore the tie-die shirts but didn’t share hippie ideals, but that doesn’t change the fact that there was a unifying set of views and causes that defined Hippiedom. When you see a hipster with non-prescription glasses and a torn vintage tee, you don’t think of the cause that the subculture represents, because there is no meaningful cause. WYSIWYG. There’s really nothing to it, at least nothing that I can put my finger on.
I suppose nothing is wrong with being a hipster. As you said, who am I to give a [expletive deleted] about what people do and how they dress? If they are having fun and feel a sense of community, good for them. But I think that hipsters do represent an outlier of youth culture for the reasons described above.
Brief Response by Rahul
One thought: you mention the inability or unwillingness of hipsters to self-identify. I believe the reason for this has everything to with the underlying ethos of the hipster movement: unyielding individuality and non-conformity. The entire movement celebrates idiosyncrasy, eclecticism, and a lack of adherence to what is perceived as societal norms. This is somewhat ironic in my view, since clearly there is some, perhaps large, level of uniformity in the symbols depicted within this group. Nevertheless, admitting to being a hipster is tacit acceptance of conformity to a group, which is anathema to the most important facets of hipster ideology, the uniqueness of the individual. In other words, acceptance of the “hipster” title paradoxically violates the very premise of the group’s collective ethos, and preservation of self-identity will disbar anyone from doing it. Weirdly, this means that hipsters as a group do not exist to hipsters, but only to outsiders!
Do you have any thoughts on the hipster movement? Post in the comments!
Yo dude, have you seen adbusters? even maximum rock & roll is more readable and that is printed on god damn 1-ply elementary school toilet paper. adbusters is fucking unreadable glossy anti-fashion fashion. fucking stones in glass houses, yo.
— Yo Dude · Jul 16, 01:26 am · #