Kaitlin Schwan responds to “Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization” by Douglas Haddow, from adbusters #79.
Are hipster and indie cultures becoming increasingly contentious? The popularity and wide-spread discussion of the cover story of Adbusters Issue #79 entitled “Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization” is one indication that they are. While the article cleverly observes many of the signifiers of this sub-culture, I’d like to suggest that the meaning the author associates with these signifiers and their supposed cultural and historical significance is, at a minimum, questionable, and at most, offensive.
The following is a list of premises I take to be dubious that are either explicitly stated in or logically implied by the article. I hope I can offer an explanation of why indie culture is a site that is more interesting than it is vacuous. I encourage anyone to respond to the article, or to reply to what I take issue with here.
1. Indie culture is more mimetic than other subcultures.
If this were the case, it would seem that indie culture would be more original in the sense that human behaviour appears to have manifested itself uniquely in its case. Regardless, this is a hard claim to attempt to prove, empirically or otherwise.
This allegation also relies upon a hostility towards cultural imitation, which, at a minimum, needs to be explored more deeply to explain why mimesis itself is such a problem. Could it not be the case that an interest in originality is wrapped up with capitalist consumption? If Haddow is going to charge indie culture with being grossly mimetic and consumeristic, he might first analyze how the alternative notion of originality itself might be part of consumer capitalism, too.
2. Youth movements in the past have been genuinely rebellious and counter-cultural.
A claim like this presumes knowledge of the “authenticity” of actions taken by individuals who were part of older movements, and seems to deny the way these movements also participated in the very systems which they sought to destroy. It also denies that these movements had internal fissures, conflicts, and were neither monolithic nor united in intent or methodology. Various sects of women’s movement, for example, have invariably disagreed on what goals are worth achieving, and how they are to be achieved.
This argument also relies on a rhetoric of nostalgia which is at least a little suspicious because of the way such rhetoric has been used historically to justify various forms of oppression. The usual examples come to mind here, including racist regimes’ reliance on the supposed connection between genetic/racial homogeneity and physical or political health, or right wing political organizations’ claims that homosexuality erodes the traditional family and thus morality itself.
3. The rebellion and resistance of the past should be replicated (in some form) in current youth culture.
Would the historical forms of rebellion and resistance Haddow romanticizes appropriately address the socio-political culture the Western world now finds itself in? While I don’t think these forms of resistance aren’t great resources and sources of inspiration, I would suggest that it does not necessarily follow that they would be able to provide (entirely) adequate strategies for current activists.
4. Hip hop culture and punk culture has died or sold out.
I would suggest that it’s possible that the death of these cultures is what has been sold by mainstream media, and that various sects of both sub-cultures continue on, some of which have grown, or continued to be, extremely politically engaged (which appears to be the mark of “authenticity” for Haddow).
5. The appropriation of the aesthetic of the working class is disingenuous and problematic.
While this might be the case, and much can be said about how these appropriations are offensive and oppressive, the alternative seems to imply that class mobility is immoral, or immoral if it is downward, or that having wealth creates a moral obligation to exhibit that wealth in the appropriate social signifiers.
So we’re willing to blame those who have been born into wealth and vehemently opposed to blaming the underprivileged for being born into lack. While many arguments can certainly be made to expound how the wealthy are morally obliged to share their wealth, develop a consciousness of their priviledge, etc., I would observe that is it (politically and socially) counterproductive to paint the privileged into a corner such that they are morally reviled for eschewing that wealth.
6. The indie crowd is unthinking and unconscious.
I would observe that all people are more complicated than is apparent in a night club or party, whether that be an indie party scene or not. Without repeating the old dictum of “don’t judge a book by its cover,” I would suggest that we are all struggling with a desire for acceptance, a way to deal with the daily suffering we encounter, and the pressure and weight we feel about our mortality. This doesn’t make all cultural or sub-cultural activity defensible, but it at least suggests that there are more (compassionate) ways to understand what appears to be vacuous behaviour, and that there are reasons to believe that people’s lives are more complicated than they immediately apparent. I also think that this criticism implies Haddow’s apparent ability to transcend modes of cultural participation which are based on forms of imitation, which I find hard to believe.
7. The eschewing of the term “hipster” is an indication of the scene’s meaninglessness . The hipster culture “doesn’t feed cultural evolution.”
I would suggest that the inability or lack of desire to “own up to” concrete cultural identities (as the author goes to great lengths to point out) does not mean they are not there. This eschewing might be better understood in the context of postmodernity and its theories around identity and so-called progress. I would argue that the resistance to labels and the post-modern “mash-up” that the author is so hostile to reveals that the culture has an interest in exploring what the death of the subject and the rejection of notions of progress and (implicitly hierarchical) evolution means for cultural production itself. Whether or not individuals do or do not or can or cannot articulate this is, in my opinion, not nearly as central as the author takes it to be. And can an individual or group of individuals represent an entire heterogeneous subculture correctly or authentically?
So maybe hipster culture isn’t so bad. At a minimum, is it certainly less despicable than Haddow would have us believe. Various manifestations of this culture have actually been involved in all kinds of socially progressive moves, including gender bending, environmentally-conscious consumption, attention to animal rights and workers rights, community formation, and an interest in the consumption of local goods. And what’s wrong with partying anyhow?
Recent Comments