3 ms·

Fussell's book was written prior to "hipsters" as we know them, but many tenets of "hipster fashion" are predicated on some of the same logic as "upper-class fo

Fussell's book was written prior to "hipsters" as we know them, but many tenets of "hipster fashion" are predicated on some of the same logic as "upper-class folks intentionally dressing down" -- educated, urban, corporate-employed, well-to-do young people dressing "down" in streetwear or workwear like Carhartt (this one really confused my parents). Obviously they will not be construed as a member of the rural working class, as they live in a city, and the racial dimension also plays a (fairly disgusting, if you think about it) role. Also, although the parts you selected are pretty reasonable and provide insight in this discussion, I would advise taking Fussell's book with some caution: it is an entertaining read but it is not definitive or really all that well-supported beyond his personal observations, and it slices a particular time and culture that seems to be on the wane (as the American middle class disappears, and the nature of the working class changes).

ashark 9y ago
I think it's still fairly useful. It provides an interesting framework for understanding Trump's tastes—or, maybe, the taste he projects in order to market specifically to prole and middle (not upper-middle or higher) people who've moved into higher wealth brackets—for instance. I think it's also useful for understanding which class is being targeted by advertising—the class markers and attitudes it covers, and others that one might infer, are everywhere in advertising. His "Class X" stuff was way off, of course, and is another thing the trappings of which became just another class marker (for hipsters, in fact, and some other fashion/lifestyle movements). Probably that's a recurring cycle with countercultures. Some specifics have shifted, though trends and anxieties have not so much, I think. A lot of the visible wealth now is (as usual) new money—often tech folks—so I think it remains to be seen whether their kids and grandkids will retain "lower" (largely upper-middle) class tastes and behaviors or integrate fully into the upper classes.
Inconel 9y ago
If you have time would you mind expanding on your point about the racial dimensions of workwear? Aren't most urban "hipsters" white, as are most rural working class people?
- Nav_Panel 9y ago
  Streetwear is where the racial dimension comes into play, not as much with workwear. I could elaborate on some of the racial dimensions of the "hipster", though, if you'd like.
  - Inconel 9y ago
    Ah yes, I could definitely see it coming more into play with streetwear. I could elaborate on some of the racial dimensions of the "hipster", though, if you'd like. It's not a topic I know much about, so yes, I'd definitely love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
    - Nav_Panel 9y ago
      I don't feel 100% qualified to dive in too deeply with my own words, but this article dives right in: http://nymag.com/news/features/69129/ http://nymag.com/news/features/69129/ The crux seems to be: > [The] hipster—and the reference here is to Norman Mailer’s “The White Negro” essay for Dissent in 1957—was explicitly defined by the desire of a white avant-garde to disaffiliate itself from whiteness, with its stain of Eisenhower, the bomb, and the corporation, and achieve the “cool” knowledge and exoticized energy, lust, and violence of black Americans... > The hipster, in both black and white incarnations, in his essence had been about superior knowledge—what Broyard called “a priorism.” He insisted that hipsterism was developed from a sense that minorities in America were subject to decisions made about their lives by conspiracies of power they could never possibly know. The hip reaction was to insist, purely symbolically, on forms of knowledge that they possessed before anyone else, indeed before the creation of positive knowledge—a priori. Broyard focused on the password language of hip slang. > The return of the term after 1999 reframed the knowledge question. Hipster, in its revival, referred to an air of knowing about exclusive things before anyone else... The rest of the article is sort-of a history of various trends in "hipsterism" over the period from 1999 to 2009. But this is quite a digression from the dominance of jeans...

ashark 9y ago

I think it's still fairly useful. It provides an interesting framework for understanding Trump's tastes—or, maybe, the taste he projects in order to market specifically to prole and middle (not upper-middle or higher) people who've moved into higher wealth brackets—for instance. I think it's also useful for understanding which class is being targeted by advertising—the class markers and attitudes it covers, and others that one might infer, are everywhere in advertising. His "Class X" stuff was way off, of course, and is another thing the trappings of which became just another class marker (for hipsters, in fact, and some other fashion/lifestyle movements). Probably that's a recurring cycle with countercultures. Some specifics have shifted, though trends and anxieties have not so much, I think. A lot of the visible wealth now is (as usual) new money—often tech folks—so I think it remains to be seen whether their kids and grandkids will retain "lower" (largely upper-middle) class tastes and behaviors or integrate fully into the upper classes.

Inconel 9y ago

If you have time would you mind expanding on your point about the racial dimensions of workwear? Aren't most urban "hipsters" white, as are most rural working class people?

Nav_Panel 9y ago
Streetwear is where the racial dimension comes into play, not as much with workwear. I could elaborate on some of the racial dimensions of the "hipster", though, if you'd like.
- Inconel 9y ago
  Ah yes, I could definitely see it coming more into play with streetwear. I could elaborate on some of the racial dimensions of the "hipster", though, if you'd like. It's not a topic I know much about, so yes, I'd definitely love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
  - Nav_Panel 9y ago
    I don't feel 100% qualified to dive in too deeply with my own words, but this article dives right in: http://nymag.com/news/features/69129/ http://nymag.com/news/features/69129/ The crux seems to be: > [The] hipster—and the reference here is to Norman Mailer’s “The White Negro” essay for Dissent in 1957—was explicitly defined by the desire of a white avant-garde to disaffiliate itself from whiteness, with its stain of Eisenhower, the bomb, and the corporation, and achieve the “cool” knowledge and exoticized energy, lust, and violence of black Americans... > The hipster, in both black and white incarnations, in his essence had been about superior knowledge—what Broyard called “a priorism.” He insisted that hipsterism was developed from a sense that minorities in America were subject to decisions made about their lives by conspiracies of power they could never possibly know. The hip reaction was to insist, purely symbolically, on forms of knowledge that they possessed before anyone else, indeed before the creation of positive knowledge—a priori. Broyard focused on the password language of hip slang. > The return of the term after 1999 reframed the knowledge question. Hipster, in its revival, referred to an air of knowing about exclusive things before anyone else... The rest of the article is sort-of a history of various trends in "hipsterism" over the period from 1999 to 2009. But this is quite a digression from the dominance of jeans...