Consumption, Culture, and Identity @cci2012 - Tumblr Blog

Posts

Final Project Multimedia Curations

Meryll - The Czech Consumer

Lisa - Japanese pop group AKB48

Lauren - The American Soccer Mom

Melissa Y - Male Harley Davidson Bikers

Andrew - Cosplay Consumption

Dhanya - Nostalgia in the Indian Diaspora

Amanda - Sneakerheads

Aimee - Tween Girls

Mathilde - Beurs in France

Alanna - American Jewish Identity

Nicolette - American Foodies

Arielle - Electronic Dance Music culture

Matt - British Youth and Ibiza

Sydney - Professional women

Cara - Mommy bloggers

Ryann - Ironman Triathletes

Allison - Park Slope Food Co-op Members

David - Gay Bears

Javy - Little Monsters

Mel - Latina women

Green Consumption

In the article “Green Consumption: Life-Politics, Risk, and Contradictions,” John Connolly and Andrea Prather detail a study they conducted exploring the relationship between consumers and the environment. They conducted in-depth interviews with seven people in Dublin who considered themselves to be environmentally conscious. From these interviews, Connelly and Prothero made several conclusions about how green consumers engage and identify with environmental issues and how they use green consumption as a means of environmental reform.

Connelly and Prothero write that green consumption is generally indicative of an overall environmentally-friendly lifestyle, and because green consumption has entered into all facets of life it poses some complex issues. Through interviews, the authors found that in many cases, green consumers take individual responsibility for their impact on the environment because of both health-related and political pressures. Because of the “late modern” age we live in and the increasing individualization that comes along with it, people believe that they can play a key role in finding the solution to environmental problems. Yet, at the same time, Connolly and Prothero bring up that we also living in an increasingly globalized world, so people’s actions still have to fit into a larger social, political, and cultural framework. The authors quote Giddons, who says, “the narrative of self-identity has to be shaped, altered and reflexively sustained in relation to rapidly changing circumstances of social life, on a local and global scale.” (121)

Connolly and Prothero discovered that the main ways people make changes in their own lives and hope to make the world a better place are through green practices like recycling and conscious food consumption. But, one of the interesting points that they bring up is that this can create tension across the larger social fabric of society. They write that “compromise and negotiation, which are involved in maintaining social relationships, can place pressure on one’s moral beliefs and certain types of consumer practices while at the same time, one’s beliefs or moral stance on specific practices can also challenge and pressure one’s personal relationships.” (125) This is an interesting thing to consider because commodities are so integrated into our lives and dictate how we relate to people, so laying out this dichotomy is useful in showing how certain buying behaviors can layout different social groups.

Another issue the authors bring up that I found really interesting was the “pick and choose” attitude that many of the so-called green consumers have. “People deliberately insulate specific practices or lifestyle segments from the environmental considerations they accept and apply as legitimate rules most of the time and for most other segments of their lifestyles,” Connolly and Prothero write. “In this study, we found a range of inconsistencies, ambivalence, and dilemmas in relation to a variety of consumer practices.” (126-127) From my personal experience with green consumers that I’ve encountered, many of them operate on a type of “green capital” where the greener you are the better. Many are almost militaristic about their shopping habits and adopt a holier-than-thou attitude towards non-green shoppers, fitting into the moralizing tendency of green shoppers that authors discuss, which creates a form of consumption that is “other” and “bad.” These types of green consumers gladly take on the individual political responsibilities and the associated risks of the unknown that green consumption entails.

One of the troubling things that the authors touch on but don’t go into detail about (and that we’ve talked about in class relating to other topics) is that fact that only certain groups are able to participate in these kinds of consumption practices. The study Connolly and Prothero conducted was very small and not indicative of the larger socioeconomic makeup of Dublin. They also say that while they included some working-class people in the study, they were all of higher education. This raises questions about whether green consumption (which can still be considered a niche habit) is limited because of access, knowledge, money, and power.

--Allison Rutter

Reading post-Ethical Consumption

In Cosmopolitan Caring, Joan Littler explores the ways in which brands and organizations promote charitable consumption. Littler explores three different examples of “caring cosmopolitan consumption” by looking at the RED campaign, Mecca-cola and Oxfam. The RED campaign has been successful in terms of publicity and revenue for participating brands by targeting middle and upper class consumers, spreading the message to help while consuming. Without using guilt or shaming consumptions habits, brands such as American Express and GAP who participate in the RED campaign give consumers the opportunity to continue with their consumption, but simultaneously help people in Africa with AIDS. While CRM (Cause-related Marketing) seems like an ideal situation, Littler goes on to discuss Inger Stole’s ideas that it is in fact quite an unfair arrangement on the part of organizations and causes. For one thing, only causes that will add “value” to brands will be chosen. There are various brands that participate in breast cancer awareness. This is because breast cancer is comparably “prettier” than other cancers like rectal or colon cancer, when in fact colon cancer kills more people than breast cancer and is a much deadlier illness. No brand wants to be associated with something as “ugly” as colon cancer. As Littler outlines, CRM also allows brands to act as “saviours of disastrous situations” despite the fact that in many cases they are helping to cause. (31)

“Cosmopolitan solidarity” is another form of “caring cosmopolitan consumption” that is promoted by Mecca-Cola in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Mecca-Cola is named after the city in Saudi Arabia known as “the holiest site of islam and is marketed as a pro-Muslim drink.” (33) It has since expanded into a brand that not only pro-Muslim, but is also anti-America, specifically American homogeneity. Mecca-Cola is unlike the RED campaign in that it gives a large amount of its profits to charity. While this generosity can be seen as a marketing tactic in itself, it is much more true to its portrayed values than the RED campaign.

Lastly, Littler discusses Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair campaign to promote fair trade. By encouraging mainly middle class consumers (just like the RED campaign) to buy fair trade goods, they placed the power in the consumer as did the RED campaign and Mecca-Cola. All of these campaigns took neo-liberalistic approaches and focus on the individuals. Littler mentions a promotional image used by Oxfam with a woman being disgusted with her coffee since it includes “poverty and misery for coffee growers.” (42) While it attempts to encourage people to think about where their coffee is coming from and how fair the coffee trade has been, Littler mentions that by featuring two white women, the “imagined conceptual horizons of the project are restricted to the imperial dynamics of depicting only white European women as potential consumer activists.” And is thusly not as democratic as it attempts to appear. (44)

While brands and organizations attempt to promote “caring cosmopolitan consumption,” we can see that many of these campaigns have been contradictory. By combining consumption with global issues in an attempt to gain more donations and awareness, brands seem to have profited but organizations such as the Global Fund to fight AIDS seem to have only gained publicity and consumers are still left unaware and detached from these issues.

Example Post - Ethical Consumption and Environmentalism

When speaking of the success and popularity of Dr. Suess’ The Lorax, Michael Maniates states:

“For the lack of a better term, call this response the individualization of responsibility. […] [T]he serious work of confronting the threatening socio-environmental processes that The Lorax so ably illuminates falls to individuals, acting alone, usually as consumers.” (33)

Over the past few years, I think that we’ve seen the phenomenon of commercializing social issues grow exponentially. As we discussed last week in class, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy the widespread call for personal donations of food, clothing, and money via specific organizations speaks to this directly. The prime example that we discussed last week, the Red Cross, epitomizes how an organization has successfully made large, social issues into everyday problems of the consumer. In constantly asking people to “Text Redcross to 90999” the social responsibility one feels to participate only grows. Even further, it provides a space for social capital to be tied to ethical consumption.

Another example of an organization individualizing responsibility (while creating a new source of social capital) is the Gap. The Gap’s (Red) campaign – a clothing campaign that aims to create awareness of AIDS and raise money to help find a cure for the disease. Rather than donating directly to Product Red organization, the Gap (along with other co-sponsors) have successfully created an avenue through which consumers can seemingly “ethically consume” – not taking into account the fact that perhaps the shirts, tote bags, and shoes that they are wearing are not in fact produced ethically.

In attempting to make consumption ethical, these companies seem to have successfully taken their own corporate agendas out of the picture for the masses. Rather than directly helping a cause in need, they’ve individualized the responsibility of solving the problem. This being said I’m not sure who is worse off in this situation – the consumer or the cause.

Reading Post: Ethical Consumption + Environmentalism

The reading for this week entitled,“Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?," brought up several interesting points concerning ethical consumption in our consumer oriented society. Maniates opens his article with a retelling of the popular children story, “The Lorax”. The reader learns that this story has gained in popularity since many of the story’s themes fit perfectly into our society’s new brand of environmentalism. In this story the idea that the younger generation will be able to fix the problems caused by an older generation is a continual theme. Also, as the author points out, since this is children’s literature many people can finally confront serious issues on the knowledge that they can at any time write off the story as being trivial (32). Lastly, the author points out that this book mirrors the belief in our society that any environmental damage can be repaired through individual and consumer based solutions, such as planting a tree, which the young boy is entrusted to do at the end of the story (33). The author details the rise of what he calls the,“individualization of responsibility,” through the history of mainstream environmentalism, the tenets of liberalism, the rise of globalism, and capitalism’s ability to commodify dissent. He concludes his paper with a discussion of his alternative to IPAT: IWAC. IWAC proposes a focus on environmental impact, quality of work, meaningful consumption alternatives, and political creativity (47).

Before I address the idea of IWAC as an alternative to IPAT, I would like to discuss this notion of the “individualization of responsibility”. Throughout our class lectures, we have discussed the concept of neoliberalism and this focus on an individual’s responsibility to make a difference is a clear by-product of neoliberalism. Yet, the problem as the author points out is that by placing the responsibility on individuals, we narrow the solutions that are possible (34). When we are only focused on what individuals can do, we forget to address the problems associated with institutions, such as the government and larger corporations. Also, the idea of individualizing responsibility is problematic since it promotes increasing fragmentation in society. A fragmented society is unable to mobilize and take real political action against the government and larger institutions. Ultimately, individualizing responsibility will fail when citizens do not see results from their efforts and they will cease with their environmentally-friendly, consumer practices (44).

However, the author is still hopeful and he proposes the idea of IWAC as a possible alternative for people to consider. This idea of quality of work can successfully raise questions about the workplace in America while still addressing the impact on the environment (48). The meaningful alternative part of his idea can serve to raise conversation about the institutions in our society. The routine of blinding taking what the marketplace presents us with can begin to be challenged with this promotion of meaningful alternatives (48). Perhaps the most intriguing part of IWAC is the call for political creativity. As the author explains, images and ideas have the power to impact society (49). By imagining the world we want to live in and using this image to mobilize politically, the environmental movement can become far more powerful.

Fire Department Collectors

Example Post "Cosmopolitan Caring"

Throughout Jo Littler’s chapter called “Cosmopolitan Caring” she talks about the burgeoning trend in consumer cultures to partake in “cosmopolitan caring consumption.” In this way, people can consume while simultaneously feel like they are doing something charitable, to help another culture. On Black Friday, despite the fact that throughout the week leading up to Thanksgiving I vehemently denied that I was going to partake in any of the craziness, and I vowed to avoid the crowds, my shopping addiction got the better of me and I managed to venture out for a little while. However, this was at the much more reasonable hour of 11AM, and with the intention of seeing if I came across anything interesting, rather than trying to find something specific. I recognized that my purpose for shopping was a selfish one; I went out with the intention of seeing what deals I could find for myself, and if I found something that happened to work as a gift for someone else, then that was a plus. Although Black Friday seems like the day for one to do their entire holiday gift shopping for less, it is also the ultimate consumer day where one seems to shop for personal consumption for less. When I spoke to my friends about it later, an interesting dynamic I found was that while one had a story about her mom leaving at 12AM to get the best deals and returning home at 3AM, another left at a much later time on the hunt for herself. Perhaps it is a generational common thread, or familial dynamics, but the purpose of why my friends compared to their [typically] mothers went shopping was clear: personal consumption versus consumption for a purpose. In attempt to take advantage of consumers, either like myself with guilty consciousnesses or who wanted to act in good nature, the local volunteer Fire Department paraded around the stop lights that surround the mall completely dressed in their uniform with their boots held out to cars, collecting donations. This at first seemed solicitous and intrusive to me, and yet it worked because it put my guilt for self-consuming in my face, and let me immediately appease it by donating to the Fire Department. My conscious was purged and I was free to shop, that is until I left the mall and I was again faced with the Fire Department collectors. As one moves in to the realm of excess consumption, will a guilty consciousness always be present, and should it be present? Littler questions if “cosmopolitan caring consumption” is actually working, or doing more harm. The harm, however, would be to exacerbate its greater cosmopolitan purpose instead of ameliorating it, rather than pertaining to the self as I have questioned.

http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2009/11/bridgewater_firefighters_shake.html

By Sydney Kipen

Reading Post - Green Consumption

In his work, Green Consumption, John Connolly takes on the relationship between responsibility and the individual in regards to the environmental issues. He tackles on the notion of the green consumer and how he/she takes on co-responsibility for addressing environmental at an everyday level and in turn regulate their own consumption. Individuals feel both responsible and empowered when dealing with the environmental risks to the world and to themselves.

Connolly references Anthony Giddens' theory regarding late modernity, suggesting that globalization and individualization are interlinked. With the increasing presence of globalization, people are more interconnected with one another, integrating the global environmental problems into their personal lives and experiences. Giddens notes, "The narrative of self-identity has to be shaped, altered and reflexively sustained in relation to rapidly changing circumstances of social life, on a local and global sale. " (122) Thus such consumers construct their identities and daily practices based on the global concern of the environment's status making it a concern of their personal lives.

The study used in-depth interviews and diary entries on seven individuals who considered themselves green consumers in Dublin, Ireland. One of the observation of the study noted where shopping took place which included green commercial enterprises, organic markets, natural ingredients from health food stores, farmer's markets, etc. as well as the purchasing of green products and goods. Connolly goes on to say, "all of the participants purchased goods from a large grocery changes, the participants had a variety of responses, including complimenting the stores, criticizing them of remaining ambivalent on the range of green options available." (127) Although this is true, I believe this highlights the question of availability of places and to exercise green consumption. Most of these products are twice the price of the regular products. Some people don't have the financial support to live that lifestyle or have the resources to travel to certain markets. These consumer practices can pressure and challenge personal relationships. Compromises and negotiations must be made given the fact that people may not have the power or wealth to consume "organic" products versus the basics. It can also cause further tension, when the "green" lifestyle conflicts with those who don't follow it, including what to eat, where to buy, etc.

It also brings the question of not only how to live and the right way to live. It seems as if green consumers believe it's morally right to live the green lifestyle, negatively associating with material consumption. However this concern draws on the fact that particularly green food choices are "catalyzed by fear of consequences for the consumer’s body rather than abstract planetary health." (136) People see things that are organic and ultimately associate them with healthier, worthwhile products, however that's not always the case. Individuals take it upon themselves that the environmental problems are something they have to address but on a more personal level — more to say what's right and good for their lives— ignoring the fact that such concerns should be also placed on a global scale. In addition, being "green" also can relate to aesthetic disposition, outwardly exercised practices placed as representations of self. People identify themselves with the green movement as the right way to live. This brings forth the question of what is the right way to live? Is it morally right to consume green versus not to? There seems to be a negative connotation to material consumption practices overall, including driving a car and using a cellular phone; however, some of these individuals still use/need such things in their daily lives. As the individual feels responsible to take action in addition to the question of morality, he/she can also feel uncertain on what to do to actually make an impact in the context of their daily practices.

People believe they are central to environmental solution through their own consumption —asking themselves what they need to do and how they need to live to make this world a greener place. As more people take on the environmental issue, more on a personal level, does that help the pressing global issues of today? Connolly references Maniates who "writes: ‘the individualization of responsibility, because it characterizes environmental problems as the consequence of destructive consumer choice, asks that individuals imagine themselves as consumers first and citizens second’" (139) As the individuals place more responsibility on themselves, thus further increases the concern for the self as well embedded within the conflicts. In what way can the green consumer exercise consumption practices that not only benefit themselves but well-being of those on a national and international scale? It should be noted that the study included individuals of higher education, furthering the question of how they learned to be “green” as well as deciding what practices they should exercise personally. How can higher institutions help enforce the education and information needed to address the environmental problems at hand? The pressing issues involved with the environment assumes to leave the responsibility with the individual, picking up the pieces to decide what is right to do and feel as it is an obligation to address such concerns within their personal experiences and daily life. However, the uncertainty of how to help and what to do still remains apparent, questioning the moral choice of being green up for debate. How can such “green” lifestyles make a bigger impact?

—M. Preposi

Example Post - Meta Monumental Gar(b)age Sale - MoMA

In an attempt to get away from the overwhelming celebration of hyperconsumption that was Black Friday, I went to the MoMA – ironically during the Friday free hours, which are sponsored by Target. In the Marron Atrium was a temporary exhibition entitled “Meta-Monumental Gar(b)age Sale”, which consisted in a garage sale in which objects – clothes, shoes, books, records, jewelry, tools, personal letters, art works, Playboy magazines, underwear… - had been currated by Sabine Breitweiser. While the visitors were searching through the pile of stuff, “…a slide show and an audio meditation on the role of commodities in suburban life (were) included in this installation, alongside with visitors posing with their new acquisitions for a professional wedding photographer” (Rosler 2).

This meta-monumental garage sale reminded me of Garcia Ganclini’s piece on post-national formations. I though that this exhibit was a reflection on the construction of American identity through landmarks of hyper-consumption such as Black Friday. The curator describes in her statement that garage sales offer a space for community building in the sheltered environment of suburban America: “They provide a temporary site for neighbors, friends, relatives, and strangers to congregate, swapping advice on canning tomatoes and passing along children’s clothes or never-used yogurt makers” (Rosler 5).

In short, and without going into all the level of meta of the gar(b)age sale, I thought that the key component of the exhibit was the American flag that was hanging over the fair gave this event it’s authentic American-ness, and incited the visitor to participate into the sale as a part of the American/ Black Friday experience.

example 2 -Personal Experiance of Resistance

This weeks readings are my favorite so far because they encompass a slither of childhood. I'm just not good at putting things into categories, including myself.

I did roll with peeps that self-identified as things, and that experience creates my media world history particularly musically, artistically, visually,(my consistent pirating of Real Housewives aside). I grew up listening to all kinds of music and all kinds of punk was my favorite (and ska). I would record over my mothers christian music tapes so she would not throw my devil music away and sneak out to go to punk shows.

In Anti-consumption as tactical resistance: Anarchists, subculture, and activist strategy

The tension between not- consuming while consuming is not a hypocrisy it is still a form of expressing liberation, Dr. Portwood- Stacer explains it as "anti-consumption is better understood as a lifestyle orientation than as a straightforward description of actual abstinence from consumption. That is, anti-consumption encompasses both abstinence from consumption and forms of consumption that are meant to signify opposition to consumption, even if the objective content of the practice seems to involve consuming something." (88).

Ian MacKaye from the band Minor Threat and Fugazi on vegetarianism - In my eyes he's King of the Straight Edge. 2 min video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Quqgdx09xRc&feature=related

- pic below - I used to draw X's like these on my hands (this symbol of straight edge'ism which came from being under age, going to punk shows and the venue door people drawing this on our hands with a sharpie as a marker to not to be served alcohol). There was always Hari Krishna around when I rolled with straight edge peeps, at the shows

This weeks readings remind me of an Electric Six song. Speaking the social capital part of performing punk identity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3QveYlBHQk

Lyrics

"It Ain't Punk Rock" It ain't puck rock 'til the punk rockers say it's punk rock. It ain't puck rock 'til the punk rockers say it's punk rock. Don't waste your time examining the mind of a stripper You're gonna get gripped in the grip of the gripper. It ain't puck rock 'til the punk rockers say it's punk Rock! Rock! Rock! Rock! Number eighty-eight, number eighty-eight, number eighty-eight Number eighty-eight, number eighty-eight, number eighty-eight Why are all the white people filled with hate? (filled with hate) Why do archeologists excavate? (excavate) Number eighty-eight, number eighty-eight, number eighty-eight Number eighty-eight, Number eighty-eight, Number eighty-eight Loads can be made We should wrap this debate So decide under the covers where the good times await Every life needs a fate Every lad needs a mate Every seller needs a buyer Every oven needs a fire And if you're on fire, you're gonna need some water And if you're underwater, you're gonna need some air And if you're in the air, you're gonna need a place to land And if you're on land, you can come and see my piece of shit band! It ain't puck rock 'til the punk rockers say it's punk rock. Number eighty-eight, Number eighty-eight It ain't puck rock 'til the punk rockers say it's punk rock. Number eighty-eight, Number eighty-eight Is this really happening? Yes it is! (Yes it is!) Are we always doing this? Yes it is! (Yes it is!) I'm gonna be a sweet billionaire, lover.

Example Post - Subcultures

In Craig O'Hara's article "The Philsophy of Punk: More Than Noise," one particular quote stuck out to me:

Unfortunately, whatever good this [rock] music served by giving praise to freedom and disdain for social hypocrisy, it met the same fate as all the earlier and later forms of popular Rock: 'commercial dilution/creative exhaustion, co-option and takeover by mainstream forces.'

As somebody who occasionally drops in on shows in the New York/New Jersey punk scene, the 'commercial dilution' of punk is something that I've become pretty attuned to. The popularity of Hot Topic in malls around the United States is a testament to this. However when speaking of music, the rise of new subcultures that people associate with punk due to the ties these subcultures have with music movements (particularly of the emo and hipster variety), has become glaringly obvious. Even further, it's definitely demonstrated to me the fact that "Punk is dead" -- at least in terms of how it was originally conceived.

The greatest living example of this, for me, took place last December. Within the span of a few weeks, I saw several hipster concerts in warehouses in Williamsburg as well as The Bouncing Souls (a NJ punk band from the late 1980s) in Asbury Park, New Jersey.

The crowds were so incredibly different: the crowds in Williamsburg were generally concerned with drinking PBR, dressing a particular way, and adhering to a specific social pattern that's been set by the subculture (for me, this comes across as general nonchalance). On the contrary, the audience at The Bouncing Souls went absolutely crazy -- for the music. The consumption patterns of both were incredibly different in that for hipsters, it was not just about consuming music but a variety of other visual and material goods that demonstrated their subculture. For the punks, it appeared to me that they were most concerned with consuming the music, and physically embodying their consumption via moshing, fighting, etc.

(Please observe the occasional crowd shots in the background -- and this is The Dirty Projectors!!)

Ultimately, I think that this just points to the fact that the widespread knowledge/acceptance of a subculture forces it to change and adapt. This being said, I find it difficult to associate punks, hipsters, and emo kids under one umbrella as many people do because so much of the culture is based around music. The creation of these subsidiary music-based subcultures is very interesting, as it just illustrates how consumption habits and material goods play such a large role in creating subcultures. The question is: if everybody knows about the subculture and wants to be a part of it, how 'sub' can it be?

Example Post: Subcultures and Resistance:

While reading this week's articles I kept thinking about a point raised in Sarah Thornton's article on club culture. In her article "The Distinctions of Cultures Without Distinctions", Thornton discusses the idea that through the media, subcultures have the ability to go mainstream. One example of this that fascinates me is Ru Paul's show Drag U, which has mainstreamed the subculture of drag queens. Unlike his show Drag Race, which focuses on professional queens, Drag U is a makeover show which teaches average, middle aged, women how to become drag queens as a source of female empowerment. Throughout the course of the show, these women are taught how to dress, act and perform like drag queens, culminating in a final reveal of their drag personalities and a choreographed dance number. In this clip from the show something that stood out to me was a moment in which a son of one of the participants exclaims that he is so happy for his mother for doing this show, that it was an experience that she deserved. This proves just how mainstream the drag culture has become. Something that was once considered inappropriate deviant behavior gay men engaged in in dark nightclubs, is now considered acceptable behavior for a suburban mother. It would be interesting to know what other drag queens think about this show. Would they consider these women to be "posers" making a mockery of their lifestyle, Or would they be supportive as the drag queen coaches on the show are shown to be?

-Cara McMahon

Reading Post: Subcultures and Resistance

The existence of subcultures within mainstream society creates differing and varying degrees of beliefs that often conflict with each other. It is the main purpose of certain subcultures to completely separate themselves from the “norm” and otherwise mainstream part of society. In “The Distinctions of Cultures Without Distinctions,” Thorton makes this clear by saying that “rather than the art world’s dread of ‘trickle down,’ the problem for underground subcultures is a popularization by a gushing up to the mainstream.” Subcultures do not see themselves as above the rest of society, but outside of it, and therefore their status as existing below the radar is integral to their continued existence. It would be the downfall of the subculture to be popularized and normalized in the media, especially since subcultures are measured against their relevancy and presence in the media. I found this ironic because it is the “kiss of death” to receive any approving reports in mass media, and yet so many other groups within society vie for attention, and go to great and even extreme lengths to get it. People strive to reach celebrity and fame through traditional and not-so-traditional ways, and yet certain elements of it can be reached just by rejecting normalized society as a whole. Thorton defines subcultural ideologies as “a means by which youth imagine their own and other social groups, assert their distinctive character and affirm that they are not anonymous members of an undifferentiated mass.” People recognize their presence and membership of subcultures in order to assimilate themselves within a certain group, while simultaneously retaining their unique-ness, moving away from the mainstream in order to be part of a “different stream.” However, I wonder how many people can move away from the “mainstream” before that move and whatever they are moving to become the new mainstream? We live in a society today in which many people strive to fit in and be normalized, but also many more are seeking to differentiate themselves and retain some personal sense of separation. Yet, if so many people seek this sense of separation in the same place, will they not eventually create the new normal? Thorton says, “distinctions are never just assertions of equal difference; they usually entail some claim to authority and presume the inferiority of others,” thus some groups are not just moving away from the mainstream, but moving up from it while making claims upon authority so as to assert their power and place in society above those who have not made this move. Certain subcultures do not want to be normalized by the media and adapted within mainstream society, yet certain actions and beliefs are making this more of a reality for them, especially if believe their ideologies are superior to the mainstream.

As Portwood-Stacer examines in her article, to construct one’s identity is an individual and collective process; it is the performance of one’s self. With the example she explores in anarchists, Portwood-Stacer asserts that people who actively anti-consume still consume and “a purely non-consumptive lifestyle is an impossible achievement for anyone.” It is this fact that still places subcultures under the umbrella of the mainstream, since they cannot escape completely from normalized society. It is here where “The Interaction of Drag Queens and Gay Men in Public and Private Spaces becomes relevant” because it illustrates the act of one subculture to extricate members of a subculture within themselves. The idea that drag queen subculture is ostracized from larger mainstream gay culture seems hypocritical, since both cultures have struggled so much within society in order to be accepted. And yet, it also makes sense as the gay culture tries to assimilate within mainstream culture and separate itself from anything that might jeopardize that. Berkowitz, Belgrave, and Halberstein note, “drag queens comprise a community that is not only labeled as deviant by mainstream society, but is also separated from the stigmatized groups of non-cross-dressing gay men and heterosexual transvestites,” thus drag queens incur multiple negative identities. The existence of subcultures within subcultures becomes complex, since certain ones wish to remain clearly separated from society, while others wish to become assimilated within it. The desire of one subculture to become part of the mainstream, may necessitate the separation with anything that might put that assimilation at risk.

A deciding factor in the mainstream existence of a subculture that seems to emerge is the media. As Thorton says, the place of someone or something in society largely correlates to the media’s coverage and consumption of the thing or person, thus communicating a hierarchical status upon which it should be granted. People who wish to remain and be part of mainstream culture tend to look up to what the media tells them they should, and they consume and assimilate with what is popular, thus it is up to the subculture to decide whether or not they want to be part of the mainstream and how they can or cannot do that.

Sydney Kipen

Example Post: Subcultures

In this week’s reading, “Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital,” Sarah Thorton is literally right on the money when she says that “admissions to dance events are substantially higher than those to sporting events, cinemas and all the ‘live’ arts combined (15). The obsession with electronic dance music (EDM) is growing so rapidly among young people and event and dance festival coordinators are now finding that they can charge people as much as $350.00 for a single weekend filled with memorable DJ performances, spectacular light shows, and masses of enthusiastic ravers. Some of the most “hip” members in this scene, however, are discovering how to leverage their “subcultural capital” in order to attend such events for free.

Event promoters frequently award free admissions, or ‘press passes’, to popular EDM bloggers and photographers with the understanding that these influential people will then post a review or upload photos of the event on their respective sites. As Thorton points out, “while subcultural capital may not convert into economic capital with the same ease or financial reward as cultural capital, a variety of occupations and incomes can be gained as a result of ‘hipness’” (12). EDM bloggers perfectly demonstrate Thorton’s insight, as they are typically not compensated for their work with anything other than free admissions to events. Some very popular sites can profit from advertising, but this is not usually the case for the majority.

Moreover, as event promoters are well aware, bloggers and photographers are hugely responsible for building and upholding a sense of community within the electronic dance music subculture. When they attend shows and festivals, these bloggers not only take photos of the DJs and the technical equipment but also of individuals in the audience. After they snap a photo, the bloggers will usually hand out a business card with the name of their site so that others can go online and check out photos and write-ups from the event. Though a professional camera can cost over $1000 and an online domain name averages $10 a year, EDM bloggers certainly see a return on investment, as most of them rack up hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars in event tickets while living out their passion in a subculture that they are so deeply invested in.

(Business cards I collected from bloggers at Electric Zoo 2012, a EDM music festival held on Randall's Island in early September.)

Reading Response: Alienation in Sub-Culture Groups

In the introduction to Distinctions, Pierre Bourdieu maps out three types of capitals that come into play in the social structure: economical, cultural and social capital. The two latter hierarchies differ from previous conceptions of social hierachization in that they are dissociated from the individual’s income per se. This week’s readings go into further depth about showing that these hierarchies apply to sub-culture groups. In other words, how does sub-cultural capital (Thornton) operate outside of the hegemony?

Most sub-cultures define themselves in contrast with a certain mainstream ideology, and these group are equally labeled as deviant is a particular domain by mainstream society. Very often ostracized, disadvantaged, and marginalized, the individuals belonging to sub-cultures adopt a life-style that is – willingly or not -constructed and performed in contrast to “normality” and is therefore politicized. In the gay community, the fear of being labeled as deviant and a-normal leads to the segregation of other groups of the same community, as explains one of the participant of the Berkowitz, Belgrave and Halberstein research project: “I do have problems with some, like with the transsexuals and the hookers. I have a problem because other people get hurt from their actions, a lot of people look at them and think we are all like that” (B,B, H; 26). Here, the will of the gay sub-culture to fit into mainstream discourse pushed its members to take part in a panopticon where the visible transgression of mainstream norm is punished by segregation, and dissociation.

Indeed, Berkowitz, Belgrave and Halberstein argue that these hierarchies further marginalize groups embedded in sub-cultures, and lead to the alienation of those deprived of sub-cultural capital. This alienation mirrors the dominant ideology, as Drag Queen Krystal puts it: “People just like to judge other people. We are a product of the society we were brought up in” (B,B,H; 25). This idea gestures to the fact that sub-cultures are not impermeable to the hegemonic ideology, and reproduces its power mechanisms. Indeed, in the words of Portwood-Stacer, “..an individual accrues social status in the anarchist milieu based on the extent to which their tastes deviate from the mainstream and conform to anarchist norms” (PS, 99). In her article, Anti-consumption as tactical resistance, she describes a similar mapping of hegemonic power structures and hierarchies in a reversed political context: in anarchist groups, the transgression of mainstream norms is rewarded and granted high sub-cultural capital. However, the relationship between capital and hierarchies mirrors that of the hegemonic ideology. She explains the case of anarchist Matthew: “Matthew’s taste for television was ‘revisioned’ because of his politicization and simultaneous immersion in a sub-cultural milieu in which a rejection of mainstream was the norm” (PS 100).

In that regards, the anarchist milieu is similar to club culture. Sara Thornton describes the complex and intricate relationship between media and subculture: “…within the economy of sub-cultural capital, the media are not simply another symbolic good or marker of distinction (…) but a network crucial to the definition and distribution of cultural knowledge” (Thornon 14). In short, cultural and social capital are orchestrated by endogenous media within the sub-culture, mimicking the power-knowledge apparatus of mainstream society.

Reading Post: Week 11

While briefly reading through O’Hara’s “Why Punk” article, I came across a statement that made me think: “human beings act as if they have nothing in common with each other” (22). O’Hara then elaborates on how this relates to subcultures and people’s need to be amongst a group of people where they feel they may fit in better, they are able to relate. I would argue that the mere concept of subculture is an extension of neoliberalism, as individuals are able to separate themselves through choosing to create identities revolving around products and activities that express these identities. It was interesting to even see this through Professor Portwood-Stacer’s article on anti-consumption where it was highlighted that a life without any consumption is impossible: what matters is how members of subcultures consume.

On a more micro-level, it was also interesting to concentrate more on the dynamics within subcultures rather than the usual focus on the relationships between mainstream society and subcultures, or even high culture versus popular culture. This theme was carried throughout the articles we read for this week:

(1) the different rave and club members and the hierarchies within the clubbing culture

(2) the drag queen as a double negative identity within the gay community,

(3) the varying degrees of anarchists and how they choose to “avoid” consumption

(4) the punk rock styles of Britain and the US

This was interesting to me because we do not typically perceive popular culture to have a hierarchy of power but rather as more of a flat culture as Thornton mentioned in “The Distinctions of Cultures without Distinction.” After reading this week’s articles, I would perhaps go further to say that although it is not always a hierarchy of class (club culture focused more on gender), subcultures portray power struggles even more than the mainstream. If one considers this, he or she will realize that it is understandable such power struggle would be more prevalent to a subculture that consists of a group of people with an overarching single mindset. This is different from mainstream society, which is filled with different groups of people and therefore creates a blurrier understanding of power hierarchies.

Lastly, in tying these readings into our overall course objective, what I always find interesting is how degrees of these subcultures more often than not, end up in mainstream culture. Through media outlets the mainstream is able to pick up on certain cultural capital that is necessary to belong to specific groups. It is through this process that we begin to see more vegetarian and vegan restaurants and begin to wear hipster and punk-like fashions. What is important to note though is the fact that is this process of mainstreaming subculture, the public obtains a very basic knowledge of the subculture it tries to imitate. For example, I may wear skinny jeans and my friends may wear “nerd glasses,” but that does not mean that either of us knew at the time we purchased these products what it actually meant to be hipster. It then becomes our choice whether or not we want to delve deeper into a culture of interest or stick to the bare minimum and take what we like about the subculture in order to appropriate it.

- Alanna Miller

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Consumption, Culture, and Identity