Portrait posed for Jon Cartwright – you should check out his stuff ‘cos it’s got pictures of me in it. And also, he’s pretty good. 
Discussing the finer points of the culture known as ‘hipster’ has as of late, become as fashionable as extraditing yourself from it. A slew of articles have emerged recently with the intention of unraveling the loaded term. Along with more serious article such as The Guardians, ‘Why do people hate hipsters?‘ and adbusters.com somewhat hysterically titled ‘ Hipsters: The dead end of western civilisation‘ we have popular humour sites such as ‘Look at this fucking hipster‘ and the highly circulated ‘Being a dickheads cool’ video, which became something of an online sensation this summer. Most of these express a similar sentiment; The hipster movement is a vacuous non-culture, a scene which has taken all the codes which marked former youth movements, and spliced them together to create a mutated monster mouthing the words ‘kill me’ to its creators. Gleefully these articles proclaim how hipsters have no collective political ideology, and no art movement that expresses its particular ethos. Their political stance is apathy, their art movement is selective consumerism. Hipsters appropriate the symbols of other groups, and re-assemble them to create a nonchalant look that belies the excruciating nature of its own self awareness. People really, really don’t like this. And what’s more, not liking hipsterdom does not make you a square. Unlike proponents against other youth subculture, hating hipsters actually propels you up the cool ladder. Because – and this is where it starts to get complicated- being part of the complex cultural exchange that informs hipsterness, requires the direct denial of being any part of it. It is such a loathed term, that even those who wear its mass of ever transforming symbols will insist that they themselves have nothing to do with it. As the joke goes…
Why is the hipster culture so troubling to people? What is it exactly that marks it out as being so different from any other fleeting youth movement of an era? Essentially, hipsters are young, white, privileged, and disenchanted youth. They occupy urban spaces, ride bicycles and are meshed in a constant hunting pattern for the obscure and the authentic. To be a hipster is to take the Foucaldian idea of self regulation to a whole new level. The hipster must be intune not only to their bodies, but to the never ceasing wash of information that characterises our age. It is this awareness that crystalises to form a knowing look based on an odd form of bricolage. Old and new merge and transmography to create a walking set of symbols that communicate an understanding about semiotics of past style. What makes hipsters approach to bricolage different to say, punks however, is that the objects and styles chosen are done so in a manner that essentially only communicates an intellectual elitism about knowing their original symbology. For the punks, the wearing of the safety pin was an intended homage made to the everyday nature of its intended use, and its association with the British working class. Something seemingly mundane and innocuous we taken up, and re-established with a new meaning through its relationship with other objects. When a hipster places an original 1940s fedora hat on top of their newly cut hitler-youth hairstyle, what is being communicated is not political. It is about knowing the right vintage clothes shop, the right kind of pieces to wear at that particular moment in time, and the right way in which to mark themselves out to other hipsters as being of a selective group.
All youth movements have had an elitist element to them, a desire for the underground and the not yet discovered. Something which can be seized upon as ‘theirs’, that is rejected by the mainstream mother culture. Hipster culture is also carried by this desire, but has found itself faced with the free exchange of information that typifies modern western culture. The internet has meant that everyone and anyone has easy access to all forms of creative expression, the most obscure bands can be found in a matter of minutes on google, self published zines can be read online by anybody. To know about a particular band from the depths of musical history, or from the outer reaches of the globe, is just not t hard anymore. Bob Dylan built a career from discovering a rare collection of Woody Guthrie records, barely heard of by most people of his generation. It is inconceivable that such a thing could happen now. That sense of a few people all tuning into something at the same time, the essential blood to counter culture, is no longer possible.
Not only do we have the free and mighty internet, we have a consumer culture that has finally caught on to the fact that kids will buy cool. Scenes barely have enough time to emerge, before ‘cool scouts’ are taking photos of what they’re wearing, and selling them to fashion conglomerates. The organic and natural progression of a youth culture has been stunted by a constant media fascination with what kids are wearing and listening to, and how exactly it can be re-packaged and sold back to us.
A hipster girl in Hackney gets 'cool scouted'
In the face of this, hipsters have created a scrabbling culture, that moves more quickly, and rejects more swiftly past trends than any other youth movement that has come before it. It centres around the need to know ‘obscure’ music, that ‘you probably wont have heard of’ because it recognises that this is something that has been taken away from us, something that was at the cornerstone of all other counter cultures, but is now unreachable. In the past, young people would rally together with those few others that had heard they’re much loved but sidelined bands. Jonny Ramone couldn’t help but be friends with DeeDee because he was one of the few other people to like The Stooges. There is an awareness that this how it used to be, and hipsters try to recapture this sense of belonging through music, drawn by the need to find things that haven’t yet been seized upon, sanitized, de-politicised, and made appopriate for mass consumption. Hipsters are left trying to keep one step ahead of a constant barrage of products that have been distilled from counter culture and then re-sold. The mother culture can no longer be resisted in the same way. It has come to realise the lucrative potential for absorbing dissonance and re-selling it. Reification baby. Hipsters are criticised for being consumerist, for being smug and apathetic. But this seems to me only a natural reaction to the suffocating situation young people have found themselves in. We have no real movement, because as soon as anything springs up, it will be plastered across magazines and news articles, picked up by fashion houses, and any political resistance it could potentially have is neutralised. Young people know that any political ideology would quickly be gobbled up and regurgitated out by mainstream culture as merely a trend, and so hipsters have embraced the mentality of style over substance. We simply do not have any space in which to express a political movement, we are too scrutinised, too self aware. When young people have as of late reacted in a political manner, they are treated as though they are bad parodies of a bygone era, as if they are only poor imitations of the ‘real’ young people of the 60′s and 70′s. Is it any wonder that hipsters fetishize objects of the past? The hipster movement is, as all youth cultures are, a direct reflection back upon the nature of our culture as a whole. The 60′s beats were a product of a changing understanding of the world, a desire for change and belief in the new. The 70′s punks reflected back across middle england the dissastisfaction of a country being squeezed by Neo-Liberalism. The 90′s grunge scene saw young people reclaiming music from the bloated corporate music industry in a renaissance of the punk spirit. And hipsters.. Hipsters show us the ultimate result of a world saturated with information. Of a world that hinges around globalised knowledge, and high speed consumption. Hipsters give insight into the core experiences that inform our modern age, of consumerist culture and deadening of resistant politics. Ultimately, it seems to be that most people find it far easier to mock and belittle the actions of young people trying to forge a collective sense identity, than it is to look with a critical eye upon the culture they are reacting too. The Hipster movement does not exist in a vacuum, and if it is to be problematised, so too should be the consumerist nature of our capitalist society.
This article is interesting. Surprisingly. Always good to see some research about sexuality not informed by a projected fear of the unknown. http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/
It’s not a weapon. It’s not a means in which to attract a mate. It’s a sensory probe. I always suspected the Narwhal had tusk related super powers.
Awesome.
There’s this dating website. A dating website that seems to have taken hold on near about every second person I know. It has been more than a couple of occasions now, where a friend has told me wide eyed and excited that they have a date. “A date!” I cry, “How wonderful! How delightfully and charmingly American! Where did you meet?” the reply, invariably, is delivered in sheepish tone, with shuffling feet and possible irony. “It’s this website… Okcupid… Have you heard of it?” To which I can only offer a knowing nod and wry smile because, yes, I do know it. I have more than dallied with it myself.
If you are not familiar with it however, Okcupid is one of the most popular and free dating websites currently available. You take tests, build a profile, and peruse others people pages. The site links you up with people who have answered lifestyle questions in the same way as you, and who have mentioned similar interests. You are granted awards based on your personality in relation to other people, for example, a politics award for being more political than the average user, or a literary award for being more literary. There are various personality based tests that tempt the procrastinator in us all, and flatter the ego. There are lots, and lots, of myspacey photos taken in bedrooms. And there are lots, and lots, of users.
Until a recent encounter, I myself have been floating around on that site for a while now, occasionally chatting to someone, or taking a test when bored. But never really giving it any substantial amount of time or energy. A very good friend of mine however, has been a pathological Okcupid user. In the last few months, he has been in a relationship with more than 3 women, all met online. They start with an unusual intensity. The initial emails quickly become instant messaging, then phone conversations at all hours of the day, and then long Skype calls. The women are generally not close enough geographically to visit without a deal of planning, and so the relationship is mostly played out over the internet. He gets to know their personality through his computer modem, and no face is connected to the voice held close to his ear. Each time he gushes incessantly about how lovely they are, how clever, how pretty, how perfect. Each time, the presence of reality has shredded the seeming perfection that was created online. Yet he has returned again and again to the internet, and to Okcupid, as a means in which to meet people. It seemed baffling to me.
Having recently had my own flutter on the Okcupid gambling machine however, its pull has become somewhat more understandable to me. The website perpetuates a particular form of delusion we all engage in. Namely, that the qualities we list as being desirable in our potential mates are the things we are actually attracted to. I think to an extent, we all have certain things we tell each ourselves we desire. That we are looking for someone with a certain level of education for example, or for someone who has read this book and likes that movie. On a website such as Okcupid, it is possible to pop such qualities into a search engine, and find a plethora of potential mates just waiting to be messaged. It is these verbalisations of desire that Okcupid works with, for of course, it cannot process the raw qualia of human attraction. For this reason I think Okcupid and its contemporaries are fundamentally flawed. As a species, it seems that human beings are actually not very good at knowing what it is they want. The users of Okcupid may fill out its many questionnaires and tests with a particular notion of themselves and the person they are looking for. But the realities of that user can never really be translated, their desires never truly transferred. The intangible and unplaceable qualities that draw us to people are not the ones we are necessarily aware of. The smell of someone for example, is a hugely important element when it comes to attraction, and one that largely works on a subconscious level. So while we may believe we were initially drawn to our partner because they had a good haircut and liked Doctor Who (using myself as a model here) other more covert factors, such as smell, are acutely important. There is also that ‘j’ne se quois’, which can lead you to fancying someone who is not conventionally attractive at all, and could in fact be down right ugly. Online, it is easy to dismiss those who do not fit your usual aesthetic type, because there is no way of gaging the potential for chemistry in a virtual environment.
The other main problem I have found with Okcupid relates largely to my friends experiences, and has something of a Lacanian feel. It pertains to Desire vs Reality. Lacan theorised that in the process of desire, melancholy occurred not when desire is frustrated (such as the frustration of one’s ‘l’objet petit a’ existing behind a computer screen) but when desire is forced to interact with reality, and we are faced with the disappointment of the real. The object continues, but the cause of our desire has withdrawn. Over and over again, my friend was caught up in the creation of an ideal lover. The somewhat painful sweetness of their inaccessibility only heightened the experience, as the object of his adoration was always just quite out of reach. Everything circled around the pulsating interplay of desire and reality, as both parties constructed particular versions of their internet loves. Then when the time came to meet, and the interplay was removed from its creating realm of the internet, reality destroyed the desire and thus the relationship(s). But the intoxicating intensity of an online love always blotted out the consequential melancholy, and so the cycle continued. The headiness of a frustrated love can be hard to beat.
Lacan poses for his Okcupid profile picture
So I have been left with more than mixed feelings when it comes to the world of internet dating. I understand that it allows people to communicate with others in a way which can be less intimidating, and seemingly more straightforward. You want an earnest brunette who listens to Tunng and works in media? Just type those key words in and find a choice of dream girl/boys with varying match levels and geographical locations. No stumbling over to someone who looks vaguely interested/interesting in a noisy bar, no straining your alcohol addled mind for an opening line, and no awkward experiences of rejection. If someone doesn’t like you, they’ll just not message back, and there’s no face lost because it was only an email to begin with. It’s when we move beyond initial contact that problems seem to crop up. There is the fact that, as I mentioned, attraction is a slippery character to pin down and can draw you to someone who on paper would seem entirely unsuitable. Vice versa, a person can possess all the physical and mental attributes you think you like, and yet have elicit no desire whatsoever. Yet in the online universe, there is no way in which to know this. Attraction is not an easy thing to identify without the living breathing, creature of your desire in front of you, because essentially, we are animals. We need more than text on a screen and disembodied voices on a phone to successfully work out if we like someone. We need smell, we need body language, we need the presence of facial expressions. It is what we are biologically tuned into, and without it, reality is a ticking time bomb.
Carnivorous flowers, walking fish, adorably tiny octopodes… The recent deep sea exploration in the waters off Indonesia has revealed up to 40 new species of animal and plant life. Including this little critter who sports tiny flabby sea legs with which he can explore the oceon floor. With a constant grump face.
It is reassuring to know we are still discovering life on our planet that is removed enough from human beings to be able to happily continue its peculiar deep sea business. For now, at least.
This is what a feminist looks like?
Let’s start with the second wave.
In the 70s, second wave feminism was beginning to have a direct effect upon policies and cultural consciousness, and women across the western world became aware more than ever before of the restrictions placed upon them. Second wave feminism was also characterized a belief in patriarchy, which links all women beneath its oppressive power. The spirit of unity is important in understanding the second wave, as a priority for the movement was the creation of groups and networks that could practically aid women in different ways. In 1972, the first refuge for battered women was established, and other such enterprises were soon undertaken.Second wave feminism took on much of the politics held by contemporary Socialist and Marxist activists and turned their attention to subjects that had until then been neglected by academia and political activism, such as the home. For this reason, much of second wave politicizing is influenced by socialist and Marxist conceptions of capitalism and consumerist society with the belief that a unified approach is required to tackle the inequalities of power it creates. It was also criticised however, for being a point in which women felt they had to conform to a strictly formed ideals to be accepted as being truly feminist. Manifestos had to be observed, clothes and sexual partners were scrutinized. These criticisms helped form what is now termed as being third wave, or post feminism. The intention was to breathe life back into feminism, by allowing it to become more accessible. The third wave understanding of feminism is crucially individualistic in nature. It does not base itself upon the meeting of women as a political force, but as individual units that tackle inequalities separately. This is a reflection not only of the distaste towards the tendency of second wave feminism to homogenize the experiences of women, but a reflection of the neo-liberal flavour of 90s politics.
With the increased presence of neo-liberalism across the world stage, came the individualistic, capitalistic, post-feminist agenda of third wave feminism. This capitalistic form of feminism embraced the Western culture of consumerism through the visibility of the media. Feminists such as Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards believed that feminism needed to be re-invigorated, through making it accessible within mainstream mediums such as television, advertising and film. Placing feminism within the media was the best way to remove feminism from the peripheral position of subculture. Identity politics taught that if the portrayal of certain marginalised groups (in this case, women) within society changed within the media, then this would lead to the subsequent change of society as a whole. In theory, this all sounds great. Things changed when the ideals of third wave feminism ran into the realities of the capitalism. Because, at the same time, mainstream corporate culture became aware of the need to approach female consumers in a new ‘modern’ manner, and the individualistic values of third wave feminism tuned in nicely with the consumerist ideology of freedom through freedom of choice (between products). Advertisers managed to reduce the complexities of feminist politics into a style, which was manageable, saleable, and supportive of consumerist culture. Groups like the Spice Girls promoted the idea that YES you can be sexy, feminine, and working in the mainstream media, whilst embracing the idea of female power (or girl power). Through the paradigm of ‘choice’ It became possible to be a stay at home mother, and also call yourself feminist. You could run around town with your three 30 something buddies in ridiculously expensive Manolo Blahniks and call yourself feminist. A word that was initially used to tackle the inadequacies percieved in the second wave, came to embody a completely empty understanding of feminism. In the desire to allow all women to feel empowered, not just a select feminist elite, feminism has managed to derail itself. Now, any action taken by a woman, from pole dancing to cavorting around Hugh Hefner’s mansion as a playboy bunny, can be called emancipation. We have seen everything become muddled under the term ‘choice’.
And this is where we return to Palin. When the term choice is thrown around to excuse and explain all manner of actions and beliefs, it’s little wonder that someone such as Palin is able to adopt the term for her own agenda. If it can be used to explain a tit job, surely then it can also be used to explain the use of fire arms. Ultimately, where’s the line being drawn? It seems to me that feminism’s eagerness to embrace mainstream culture has destroyed it’s political barb. The nature of our consumerist culture, is that anything can become a commodity, used and manipulated for purposes beyond its original conception. In this case, feminism is being induced as a way in which the Republican party can tap into female voters. Which is quite understandable, as feminism’s seemingly sensible desire to become mainstream, has come round to bite it in the ass. Anyone who calls themselves a feminist needs to start to question what that word now means in our current place in history. The didactic mentality of the second wave managed to alienate a generation of young women, who set out to reform the ways in which feminism is viewed. To try to make it less stuffy, more fun, and sexy. But we have now moved to another extreme, where permissiveness is the order of the day, and ‘feminism’ is such a loose term that near about anyone, or any political party can adopt it. Choice is an important element to feminist thought, and to attempt understanding of different ways of being female is crucial. But we need to reinvigorate all the other things feminism has been, and can be, or I fear we are going to lose it to those such as Palin.
