3 ms·

This is true of pretty much every tribe/culture. You want to be a hippie and stick it to the man. You must have dirty hair or dreads, wear sandals, have those b

This is true of pretty much every tribe/culture. You want to be a hippie and stick it to the man. You must have dirty hair or dreads, wear sandals, have those baggy light pants (no idea what they are called). South Park made fun of this years ago with their depiction of goths but it's true for pretty much all groups. My brother in law (I love him, just taking short cuts to explain) is monster truck loving heavy metal loving hick stereo type. He hates suits and dressing up but at the same time he has his outfit (jean shorts and a t-shirt with a print on it) and it fits with his tribe of friends and it's just as much of a conscious fashion statement. An attempt to fit in by dressing like your peers. I'm just as guilty. I can't really imaging having a video game company in the offices of E-Corp.

rhizome 10y ago
You, like South Park, reverse the arrow of influence in service of punching-down. It's not "I want to be like all the different-people," it's that aesthetics derive from the values of a cohort, and that subcultures exist in opposition to the mainstream by definition. You want to be a hippie and stick it to the man. People don't wake up one day and say "I want to be a hippie," they realize that they share the values of hippies (to whatever degree, never 100%), values which include aesthetic sensibilities. Note that we don't say people who listen to Maroon 5 are just trying to be game show panel members, or that people who wear suits are attempting to convince people they're CEOs or national leaders. Perhaps suits are an unconscious fashion statement? That the mainstream attempts to victimize itself in response, where the only thing stopping a person from being goth or a monster truck person is a choice to acquire the appearance of the subculture, speaks to the vindictiveness of squares against anybody who would reject mainstream values. You yourself say that a person's looks qualifies as "sticking it to the man," illustrating perfectly a representation of subcultures as a threat. Alternatively, implying a mechanistic relationship between hippiedom and political upheaval (or even lawlessness) speaks to a kind of paranoia where the most extreme interpretation appears to be the most reasonable one. Not only that, but "an attempt to fit in by dressing like your peers" is a normative interpretation that asserts that everybody is only ever trying to join whatever mainstream will accept them, which is about the least charitable interpretation of subcultural dynamics possible. The stereotypes you hold people to, using their appearance as the only signal, is as much a political act as signaling membership in a subculture via aesthetic choices. The problem is that only one of those acts has a positive connotation.

rhizome 10y ago

You, like South Park, reverse the arrow of influence in service of punching-down. It's not "I want to be like all the different-people," it's that aesthetics derive from the values of a cohort, and that subcultures exist in opposition to the mainstream by definition. You want to be a hippie and stick it to the man. People don't wake up one day and say "I want to be a hippie," they realize that they share the values of hippies (to whatever degree, never 100%), values which include aesthetic sensibilities. Note that we don't say people who listen to Maroon 5 are just trying to be game show panel members, or that people who wear suits are attempting to convince people they're CEOs or national leaders. Perhaps suits are an unconscious fashion statement? That the mainstream attempts to victimize itself in response, where the only thing stopping a person from being goth or a monster truck person is a choice to acquire the appearance of the subculture, speaks to the vindictiveness of squares against anybody who would reject mainstream values. You yourself say that a person's looks qualifies as "sticking it to the man," illustrating perfectly a representation of subcultures as a threat. Alternatively, implying a mechanistic relationship between hippiedom and political upheaval (or even lawlessness) speaks to a kind of paranoia where the most extreme interpretation appears to be the most reasonable one. Not only that, but "an attempt to fit in by dressing like your peers" is a normative interpretation that asserts that everybody is only ever trying to join whatever mainstream will accept them, which is about the least charitable interpretation of subcultural dynamics possible. The stereotypes you hold people to, using their appearance as the only signal, is as much a political act as signaling membership in a subculture via aesthetic choices. The problem is that only one of those acts has a positive connotation.