Quantcast
 Wallace Wylie

Hating Hipsters: How The Mainstream Hijacked Authenticity And Made Non-Conformity A Joke

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

In a modern capitalist society, we are bombarded constantly by product, and it would seem that when confronted with such a bombardment it would be helpful to have a strong sense of taste, to approach each product with discernment. Yet the anti-hipster movement finds authenticity in uncritical acceptance of all correctly marketed products. It demands unyielding conformity and untroubled passivity to all cultural artifacts that pass a certain popular threshold. It also imagines that absolute conformity somehow frees a person from the burden of conforming to what non-conformity looks like. In a wonderful twist of logic, non-conformists are the true conformists; you are merely being you, which involves looking the same as the majority. You don’t look like that in order to conform, however, you just dress like that because the look appeals to you. In the past, the label non-conformist was a pejorative term. People suffered social ostracism because they didn’t conform perfectly. These days, because people don’t like to think of themselves as a conformist, a new word or term was clearly needed to deride those who make reasonable, everyday people uncomfortable about their choices. The word had to undermine a person’s whole being, destroying their credibility by implying a pathetic motive for their actions. It had to be able to render a person’s entire existence laughable. Well, now we have it. It’s hipster. Wait, don’t tell me. You just use that word because you genuinely hate hipsters though, don’t you? My mistake.

Attention Hipster Doofus

1. In a patriarchal society, masculinity is considered natural, while femininity is considered unnatural. For this reason, any way a woman dresses is viewed with great scrutiny. Women are placed in a bind in regards to their fashion choices, which goes something like this: if a woman accepts a feminine approach to fashion then she is consciously or unconsciously inviting men to look at her. She is asking for attention. She cannot complain about being objectified because she is objectifying herself by playing up to societal notions of femininity and female sexuality. If she rejects a feminine approach to fashion then she is being contrary. She is probably a ‘feminist’ (all negative connotations implied). She is clearly not doing herself any favours. A criticism often made by men about attractive women is “She’s beautiful but she knows it”, as if women should exist in a state of childlike innocence in regards to their looks and sexuality. The moment a women is aware of the power of her appearance she is conceited and manipulative. Women are scrutinised for signs of hypocrisy, attention-seeking, and superficiality while the way men dress and act is seen as natural and uncomplicated. Unless men make fashion choices that are seen as feminine. At that point they will be viewed with a similar scrutiny to women. Western societies were set up to reward masculine traits while suppressing and dominating feminine ones. Berating hipsters is one small but not unimportant aspect of that.

2. It’s interesting to note that the American alternative music scene that emerged in the early 80s was one that enforced strict masculine, puritanical guidelines. Since then any kind of dressing up or gender blurring has been looked at as suspicious and silly. Even though credible artists such as David Bowie, Roxy Music and Funkadelic all looked and sounded out of this world, the post-Hardcore American scene seemed to view such antics as distasteful. It was all about the music, such Puritanism being a deliberate stand against the image-conscious pop stars of the 80s, pop stars who were for the most part women, African-Americans, or males who seemed to ignore traditional notions of masculinity. The ruling white, Christian, uptight mindset that permeated every aspect of American society appeared to have its strongest supporters in the alternative American music scene. Glam created gender confusion in the ‘70s, and ‘80’s pop was the real offspring of glam (pop is viewed as feminine and as such is accused of the same ‘crimes’ as femininity itself, while masculine rock is seen as natural and proper). American alternative music fans felt more comfortable in well-defined gender roles and overwhelmingly masculine musical expression and the Riot Grrrl movement was, if anything, an all out attack on the stifling masculinity of this scene. It’s no surprise that Portland (and the Pacific North West in general) is seen as the ultimate home of hipsters.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

11 Responses to Hating Hipsters: How The Mainstream Hijacked Authenticity And Made Non-Conformity A Joke

  1. emma October 16, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Excellent read! Although I’ve discovered that I have a little bit of hipster in me. Should I be ashamed or just embrace it!

  2. Daniel October 17, 2012 at 12:48 am

    Nicely done. I had never given any thought to contempt for hipsters being an enforcement of a masculine ideal. I’m not sure I completely agree, but you make a lot of valid points.

    Probably the most puritanical thrust in American tastes is the notion of “guilty pleasures”. It seems to be a mark of arrested development from some manner of junior high trauma. We’re adults, so it might be time to embrace your inner dungeon master and forego striving to impress a nonexistent clique with whom we have little in common.

  3. peter November 24, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    Really enjoyed this. I’m a teacher so I see lots of examples of attempts at ‘non-conformist’ dress – and funnily enough the indie/emo/goth/rock kids chiefly express their rebellion by wearing some of the most heavily branded product available. But why the hang-up about ‘authenticity’? The Romantic conception of the tortured artist is something that rock has always found hard to wrestle free from – as if the idea that something is constructed and marketed immediately renders it inauthentic – but even the most lo-fi outsider music is in a sense a ‘performance’, and it is bought and sold as much as Milli Vanilli were in their day. It’s daft and it’s dangerous: it costs lives.
    I was an avid Mudhoney fan in my teenage years – their records were a cartoon reflection of all my adolescent rage and alienation. Imagine how gutted I was when a friend and I met them before a gig (Hole supported) and they turned out to be these polite, friendly college boys!

  4. nick November 25, 2012 at 10:09 am

    Your article was excellent, I agreed with the lion’s share of it, and I hope it invites discussion. I think you failed to mention a key area that draws ire to the current incarnation of ‘hipster,’ however. If I could summarize it, I would call it an approximation of poverty through extremely expensive purchases. Scan the price points of items that are lambasted as hipster: fixed gear bicycles with high-end accoutrements, hi-fi turntable stereos and record collections, Urban Outfitters’ $300+ jeans, etc. All of these began as make-do accessories for those without the money for cars, CD collections, and other current gadgets and luxuries. The billboard for the Eatery, which I see almost daily on the corner of Hennepin/Lagoon here in Minneapolis, I feel is directed mostly at the celebration of a Bohemian, struggling-artist lifestyle at a price point that could be considered astronomical to any struggling-artist. The upper-class exclusivity associated with ‘hipster-ism’ as a counter-culture deserves inspection, and to the degree that its participants look down upon actual poverty, deserves its share of criticism.

  5. Wallace Wylie November 26, 2012 at 5:19 am

    Hello nick, fellow twin cities resident. I think the cultural approximations you mention have been going on since popular culture began. Rock n roll was one big race/class cultural grab by mostly middle class kids. To cite another example, someone like Townes Van Zandt was ultra privileged. Oil rich. County named after your family rich. I don’t see why this current group of people we call hipsters should be singled out. Especially considering that when you look at the Occupy movement, and the fact that they’re still doing very meaningful things (but the media is just refusing to talk about it for the most part), it doesn’t take long to realise a lot of these people fit the stereotype of hipster. They’re actually doing something to try and battle the inequality of American life. Yet we have to constantly read about the fact that hipsters are inept, lazy, and incapable of doing anything not laced with ironic intent. Also, I refuse to believe that a billboard that offers free valet parking has some kind of class critique in mind. It’s just taking a pot shot at an easy target that everyone can laugh at.

  6. colbyrasmus November 26, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    This is retarded

    “In a patriarchal society, masculinity is considered natural, while femininity is considered unnatural. For this reason, any way a woman dresses is viewed with great scrutiny”

    The only people who care about woman’s fashion are other woman.

  7. Gen May 16, 2013 at 11:12 pm

    colbyrasmus – “The only people who care about woman’s fashion are other woman.”

    I think any woman who’s been subjected to sexual assault (or threat thereof) and then asked what she was wearing at the time would disagree with that statement. (See: recent loudmouthed policemen and politicians who’ve suggested that women who don’t want to get raped should dress discreetly.) As would many women living in societies where women’s clothing is subject to legislation or severe societal judgment. Or any woman who’s been called a slut for wearing skimpy clothes, or any woman who’s been told she looks like a dyke or lesbian because she doesn’t wear clothes that represent her figure in a “sexy” or “feminine” way.

    Late to the party reading this article… anyway. Great reading, and valid points throughout, and the demonstrated correlation between external judgments on a subculture and gender attitudes is an interesting and legitimate one. As you say, it does ultimately come down to collective self-policing. I’d agree strongly with nick’s points though. Some of the folks I encounter who engage in hipster hatred (and there are many) are not particularly mainstream-friendly either – they distrust chart pop music, or the popular ‘indie’ that joins its ranks, as cheap and inauthentic), regard hipsterdom as merely an attention-seeking and deliberately perverse version of that (e.g. the aforementioned glorification of expensive junk, a carefully curated faux-poverty), and seek out art that appeals closely to their particular clique. I’d agree that they’re engaging heavily in their own version of conformity, I’m just not so sure about the hipster vs mainstream argument here. It seems to me much more like a lot of aesthetic tribes fighting amongst themselves.

  8. elroy September 11, 2013 at 3:40 pm

    yes i realise i’m quite late to the party as well but it occurs to me that part of the disdain for “hipsters” (at least from the viewpoint of someone who is probably lumped in as one by the great unwashed – what’s the percentage of perceived hipsters who self-identify as such?) has to do with the adoption on a relatively large scale of bad fashion – which figures into the ‘guilty pleasure’ side of things, i think, since they’re both manifestations of the hipster irony that has somehow supplanted all other forms of irony as of late. it’s hard to say what’s bad or good of course in music or dress or anything else but myself, i’ve always wondered why ANYONE would wear one of those deep-v t-shirts, and i pretty much limit those who i view as hipsters to people who wear those fucking things. so in effect when i see something that makes absolutely no sense to me (and not just to my personal sense of style – there are tons and tons of garments being worn in front of me every minute of every day that i unflinchingly accept though i would never wear them) i believe that the people who are doing or wearing or listening to such things are operating out of a desire to conform as an outsider. (i.e. i’m declaring that no one person could possibly actually like those damn t-shirts on their own.)

    sure i think this is ridiculous on my part but in such an information-over-saturated time as this there is some interesting glimmer to the idea that the only way to identify your group is to adopt something truly unlikeable as a signifier. and if that has even a tiny unconscious corner of truth to it that’s damned nasty – a symptom of the desire to always have an escape hatch, to be able to say to anyone who makes fun of you for absolutely anything that you don’t even really like it, that you just think it’s funny. if there’s any legitimate disdain for “hipsters” out there it’s exactly that: the feeling that anyone who doesn’t “actually” like the things they like can get fucked.

    i don’t know if anyone is truly like that, but i think the term ‘guilty pleasure’ is awful and unnecessary and that perhaps we’ve now grown a subculture who subsist SOLELY to pay homage (unconsciously or no) to that concept – and that’s the modern hipster.

  9. elroy September 11, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    you know, though, in a culture so obsessed with nostalgia we had to evolve at least a pocket of people whose futures are immune to our dalliances, right? and if “hipsters” (or at least the version i’m trying to define) don’t actually like anything that they like – if music and fashion, etc have for them become secondary to the IDEA of liking certain those things, for whatever perceived extreme reason (currency/rarity/obscurity/annoyingness/modernity/&C) that only ends up being because THAT’S WHAT HIPSTERS DO (what a yogi berra concept! behind the wizard’s fucking curtain…) – then when it comes time for them to reflect on their misspent youth THERE WON’T BE ANYTHING THERE. how cleansing.

    i suspect though that the main problem is in the perception of the underground as something that doesn’t exist. of course there are just as many bands no one has heard of as there’s ever been; of course there are fashions no one can predict right on the horizon. ad infinitum. erringly though we see modern hipsters as in possession of arcane knowledge, on the cusp of the cutting edge of culture. but they aren’t. they see their friends’ bands, who no one has heard of, but that doesn’t make them any more attuned to the obscure; on the contrary that’s about the most obvious thing ever. no one has to try to know about their friends’ bands. they get invited to three thousand events on facebook every month. we’re allotting the same space to hipsters that we did to the progressive rockers of the mid-’80s and it’s just fucking wrong. being a hipster requires a minimum of effort and there’s nothing to lose. it’s the same as being a steve miller band listener in 1978 or something (at least those folks stood up for their taste!). kiss was never underground once they got a record deal, y’know – they were different, but not underground. forgotten things, different things – these aren’t obscure things. when there’s a resource as ubiquitous as pitchfork reviewing every fucking record you wanna classify as obscure, there’s something wrong with your definitions. our definitions. whatever. i’m coming up with too many tangents and disavowals for each but i’m gonna post this anyhow. thanks for the rant space.

  10. Pingback: Make hipsters history (bibliografia) | La Rassegna Della Domenica

  11. Pingback: Bourdieu and the (non)genre of Dolewave | youth class culture

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *