“I have a large collection of obscure Belgian techno mastermixes on limited edition vinyl. That’s pretty deck, right?” (Lanhan 118). An answer of “Yes!” or “Me too!” to this question (or knowing what “deck” means, for that matter) would likely label one as a hipster. If your answer was “What?,” consider yourself familiarized with some current ornaments of the hipster aesthetic. For the hipster, the aesthetic, or “items and dress “in accordance with the principles of [their] good taste” (Oxford English Dictionary), is a primary means of establishing identity and front for political articulation (Arsel and Thompson; Haddow; Hendlin et al.).
In the article “Demythologizing Consumption Practices: How Consumers Protect Their Field-Dependent Identity Investments from Devaluing Marketplace Myths,” Marketing Professors Zeynep Arsel and Craig Thompson report that “hip was [initially] a category [of style and taste] exclusive to urban black culture” appropriated by the suburban middle-class as a means of creating an authentic identity (Arsel and Thompson 795). In the early second-half of the 20th century, the hipster attainted a measure of politicization “through Beat Generation writers, such as Allen Ginsberg, William Burroughs, Jack Kerouac, and the broader swath of younger anticonformists” (qtd. in Arsel and Thompson 795). The horizon (functional limit) of the hipster aligned with that of other left, socialist leaning movements; e.g., the hippies (795). In addition to coolness, the aim of the hipster was emancipation from the conservative agenda of the “squares” (795).
The contemporary or “neo-hipster” is mostly related through non-academic media outlets. Writing for the counter-culture publication Adbusters, Douglas Haddow describes the neo-hipster aesthetic as a “mutating, trans-Atlantic melting pot of styles, tastes and behavior” (Haddow). This effectively summarizes the ambiguity of the hipster’s current constitution. Additionally, and while justifiably inconsistent in conception, the aforementioned sources are mostly critical (Grief; Haddow; Horning). In a New York Magazine article entitled “What Was the Hipster?,” Mark Grief portrays the neo-hipster as a “poisonous conduit” between mainstream and counter culture (1).
While an internal entanglement of aesthetics and politics is a constant for the hipster, the entanglement of these elements with the advertising industry (corporate interests) in an advanced state of free-market capitalism (e.g., America) differentiates the neo-hipster from its ancestry. As Haddow relates, the neo-hipster “is the first ‘counterculture’ to be born under the advertising industry's microscope,” and the hipster aesthetic is the product of a desire to avoid the manipulative eye of this corporate device (Haddow). Coupled with this new horizon for the hipster, criticism from peers begs the following question: does aesthetic emphasis within the corporate horizon have a critically devaluating effect on the neo-hipster?
I argue that (despite any outward appearance of opposition) the neo-hipster is relegated to apolitical banality through aesthetic entanglement (avoidance and re-appropriation) with profit driven, corporate interests in the advanced, capitalist state of America. Before presenting my argument, a few qualifications of cultural analysis will serve to establish functional limits (a horizon) for this sort of debate. Through this, the realization that analyzing culture is inherently subjective, a broader aspiration for this exercise is established: to bolster societal awareness and inspire ongoing and purposeful discourse. As ancestry (e.g., hippies) suffers a similar fate to that of the neo-hipster, the possibility of an alternate course becomes central to the function of my argument. Therefore, a posthumous call for neo-hipster politicization is related through discussion of responsibility and potential for such. That movements like the neo-hipster may aspire to politicization is debated, but current research is presented to demonstrate the proposed devaluation of neo-hipster culture and render politicization importunate to the integrity of sub and counter-culture movements in the current state (advanced capitalism) of many western societies.
Reviewing a book entitled The Hipster Handbook, writer Rick Marin proclaims the following qualification of cultural analysis: “Trends are subject to their own Heisenberg [quantum uncertainty] principle. The act of observing, or in this case defining, changes things being observed or defined” (Marin 1). As Terry Eagleton expresses in his book The Idea of Culture, “The very word ‘culture’ contains a tension between making and being made, rationality and spontaneity, which upbraids the disembodied intellect of the Enlightenment as much as it defies the cultural reductionism of so much contemporary thought” (Eagleton 5). We will return to the disembodied intellect of Enlightenment as debate over the political potential of neo-hipster culture unfolds, but the term “cultural reductionism” immediately evokes a second component of qualification for my argument.
Elizabeth G. Traube, a Harvard educated Anthropology Professor, argues against cultural reductionism in her essay, “‘The Popular’ in American Culture.” According to Traube, “popular culture, in this conception [referencing essays by anthropologists Stuart Hall and Tony Bennett], was not reducible to a form of social control imposed from above, but neither could it be understood as a purely expressive culture emergent from below (Traube 133). Further on in her article, Traube conveys research into this cultural form in the advanced, capitalist state of America: “Indeed, a characteristic of the production of a national-popular culture under advanced capitalism is the increasingly complex character of its circuits, as the culture industries incorporate the popular commercial entertainments of subordinate groups into new, mass-marketed commodities” (qtd. in Traube 134).
Expressed by Marin, Eagleton, and Traube, ideas of ambiguous and entangled culture are instantly relatable to the neo-hipster, but contrary to the function of this exercise. While culture in form is certainly an ever complicating entanglement of influences, a preference for entanglement over imposition from dominant-culture suggests equilibrium of influence that is (in effect) reductionist in purpose.
My argument is concerned with the function (within the greater form) of the neo-hipster, which suggests a gradual shift in the overarching balance (or lack thereof) of power among above and below influences. Through the advanced, capitalist society related by Traube, anti-conformist movements such as the neo-hipster come to be defined through oppositional, aesthetic entanglement with ancestral arch nemeses; i.e., corporate interests. That this is so, however, does not necessarily constitute a call to active politicization. To that end, responsibility and potential may stand as inspiration in lieu of hipster lineage, which lies dormant or with the enemy.
In addition to commenting on the aesthetic, Douglas Haddow refers to neo-hipsters as “a defeated generation, resigned to the hypocrisy of those before us, who once sang songs of rebellion and now sell them back to us” (Haddow). Through these words, Haddow associates the neo-hipster with an ancestry that has “sold out.” Although defeated, he implies that the neo-hipster is a torch bearer to “a succession of counter-culture movements that have energetically challenged the status quo” (Haddow). This status imbues neo-hipster culture with a measure of responsibility to politicize and fill an oppositional-culture vacuum created by its forerunners. Of course, it is arguable that the neo-hipster bears nothing of its lineage (outside of the label), but a measure of responsibility for politicization is inherent. As the aesthetic of the neo-hipster is re-appropriated by corporate interests, the integrity of the culture may aptly stand as an antagonizing device (front) for politicization among associated persons. In the words of Cultural and Political Theory Professor Oliver Marchart, “The moment in which your identity becomes politicized is the moment in which you run up against something in the order of antagonization” (Marchart 420).
In addition to antagonization, the potential for politicization of movements like the neo-hipster is forwarded by Marchart in the essay “New Protest Formations and Radical Democracy.” Marchart argues for the reclassification of “certain youth cultures and subcultures” by “taking into account the macro-political context in which they emerge” (Marchart 416). This macro-political context is the formation of active political entities such as the anti-globalization movement in 1999: “new protest formations” (416). These groups, according to Marchart, are composed of a “pastiche [hodgepodge] of global subcultures… sometimes united by a symbolic ‘tribalism’” (415).
Holding the symbolic tribalism in Marchart’s essay equivalent to the neo-hipster aesthetic, the operation of his protest formations under a new horizon (radical democracy) relates the potential for an aesthetic to act as an associating device. However, associating potential does lay stage for a sustained legitimacy that differentiates new protest formations from the fate of traditional ones. Confirming the plight of neo-hipster lineage presented by Haddow, Marchart also discusses “the disintegration of traditional horizons for the left;” e.g., Marxism and socialism (Marchart 417). According to Marchart, these horizons are objects of devaluation and disdain in popular discourse (417). As may be the result of aesthetic entanglement for the neo-hipster, devaluated cultural entities act as counter-culture retroviruses: homogenous with peer movements (e.g., the anti-globalization movement) in the eyes of mainstream culture.
Terry Eagleton, while acknowledging that culture is “intensely relevant” in a world of authoritarian capitalism, belies the idea that culture may aspire to act in political matters (Eagleton 50) In The Idea of Culture, Eagleton relates that “there are many forces which may resist this cheerless prospect [authoritarian capitalism], but culture does not rank particularly high among them” (50). His reason for this is that culture is an ideological front; a place of “activating capacity” (inspirational device) that is intimately tied to aesthetic emphasis (19). According to Eagleton, oppositional culture, “so boundlessly eloquent as to be speechless,” may reveal a glorious future, but “the success or failure of radical culture is determined in the end by one fact alone: the fortunes of a broader political movement” (19, 86).
While most of Eagleton’s conception of alternative culture is in keeping with Marchart’s (inspirational device), Eagleton severs it from that which it inspires. To this end, culture may be relieved of any responsibility to the greater cause when it “passes the torch” thereto, but the critically devaluating effect it has on such in an advanced, capitalist society is notwithstanding. In presupposing that the aesthetic is intimately tied to inspiration, stated manipulation of such by corporate interests creates a paradox; whereby, aesthetic emphasis is both essential and essential to avoid.
Returning to “the disembodied intellect of the Enlightenment,” this paradox calls to mind the work of Friedrich Schiller, who famously said: “It is through beauty that we arrive at freedom” (Schiller 4). Schiller coupled aesthetics (as inspiration) with reason and politics to attain freedom (Schiller). For Schiller, this “state” (freedom) is both figurative (internal) and literal (external), as the former would transcend inspiration to render the latter in society. Whereas, in the modern, capitalist state conveyed by Traube, the aesthetic is manipulated to serve an agenda that bears no inherent consideration for an accompanying political agenda. Therefore, and while counter culture and its aesthetic may ideally serve-sans friction-to inspire freedom, corporate re-appropriation intimately ties the aesthetic to the devaluating effect of entanglement. A renowned historian and philosopher, Schiller’s time was that of early capitalism; the dawn of the French and American revolutions, when capitalism was an element of counter culture’s horizon of emancipation from feudal aristocracy (Perry 431). Schiller lacked opportunity to perceive aesthetics acting in a state of de-facto corporate aristocracy (advanced capitalism); where wealth, rather than lineage and property, acts as an entitlement to unrestrained expression of will (power). Current research details the effect of this new horizon on the neo-hipster.
In the article “‘Acceptable rebellion’: marketing hipster aesthetics to sell Camel cigarettes in the US,” Yogi Hendlin, Stacy Anderson, and Stanton Glantz convey research conducted for the National Cancer Institute. Hendlin and his team uncover an R.J. Reynolds initiative to boost sales of Camel Cigarettes at the expense of neo-hipster identity. To this end, R.J. Reynolds appropriated the hipster aesthetic and infiltrated alternative marketing channels; e.g., indie consumer publications and social venues (Hendlin et al.). The re-appropriation strategy of Reynolds, revealed by “over 200 tobacco industry documents and industry marketing materials,” was at first to associate the Camel brand with artists, musicians, and other “young trendsetters” (Hendlin et al.). Aware of hipster influence on the greater culture in American society, R.J. Reynolds sought to create a chemical and financial dependence among these consumers; i.e., to foster an addiction to Camel Cigarettes and provide funding for artists’ projects (Hendlin et al.). The campaign was highly successful: “Between the end of 2006 and 2007, retail share of Camel cigarettes went up 0.4% to 7.8%, more than double the market share increase of any other RJR brand” (Hendlin et al.). While the boost in sales may primarily have resulted from peripheral consumers (i.e., poseurs), the devaluating effect of re-appropriation is no less exhaustive of neo-hipster integrity. The research conveyed in Zeynep Arsel and Craig Thompson’s article (mentioned in the second paragraph) echoes this point.
At first, it is important to note that Arsel and Thompson separate neo-hipster culture into two phases: the first beginning in the early 1990s and the second in the early 2000s. They propose that the current conceptualization of the hipster was applied recursively to the first phase through corporate re-appropriation of “indie” culture that was faithfully executing the practices of hipster lineage; e.g., combating commercialism (Arsel and Thompson 795). Through appropriation, followed by disassociation and avoidance from alternative culture (Haddow’s article in Adbusters is mentioned), the neo-hipster became a caricature of itself; a “marketplace myth” or “trivializing stereotype that threatens the value of their [indie consumers’] identity investments in the indie field of consumption” (Arsel and Thompson 792).
At this, the realization that aesthetic emphasis within the corporate horizon is critically devaluating of the neo-hipster, we observe a commonality between the neo-hipster and new generations of indie consumers: the search for a meaningful cultural identity. As antagonization and the potential for politicization have not unwound the aesthetic coil that tightens around and spirals the neo-hipster into the cultural oblivion of its ancestry, one may wonder what is wrought from this observation. The answer, and crux of a politicized cultural movement within the corporate horizon, is found in the struggle for ownership of cultural identity. Likewise, the implicit front for this struggle with the neo-hipster is the integrity of aesthetic identity. To this end, the neo-hipster attempts to obscure its aesthetic from the corporate eye. Paired with re-appropriation, this entanglement renders the trivializing effect demonstrated in my argument.
However, before taking up the cause of peers and turning a mocking eye toward the ambiguous expressions of the neo-hipster, turn inward and reflect on your aesthetic integrity. Refer to the labels on your clothing, and ponder the origin of these aesthetic ornaments. Where were they made? Could they have been made in a sweatshop? Is that in-keeping with the meaning you want your aesthetic identity to convey? Through the answers to these questions, you may heed the eerily relevant call of another Enlightenment-philosopher: Jean-Paul Marat. In the spirit of the French Revolution, Marat would have us turn to active politicization and engage corporate aristocracy:
Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you, and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don’t be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there’s no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight; because, if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. (Marat)
Works Cited
"Aesthetic." Oxford English Dictionary 2nd. (2011): n. pag. OED. Web. 19 Apr 2011. <http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/view/Entry/3237?redirectedFrom=aesthe c#eid>.
Arsel, Zeynep and Craig Thompson. "Demythologizing Consumption Practices: How Consumers Protect Their Field-Dependent Identity Investments from Devaluing Marketplace Myths" Journal of Consumer Research 37.5 (2011): 791-806. Web. 2 Apr 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/656389 >.
Eagleton, Terry. The Idea of Culture. 1st ed. 1. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2000. 1-131. Print.
Greif, Mark. "What Was the Hipster?." New York Magazine 24 Oct 2010: 1-5. Web. 9 Apr 2011. <http://nymag.com/news/features/69129/index4.html>.
Horning, Robert. "Marginal Utility." PopMatters. PopMatters Media, Inc., 13 Apr 2009. Web. 9 Apr 2011. <http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/the-death-of-the-hipster-panel/>.
Lanhan, Robert. The Hipster Handbook. 1st ed. 1. New York: Anchor Books, 2003. 118. Print.
Marat, Jean-Paul. "Jean-Paul Marat Quotes." Goodreads n.d.: n. pag. Web. 19 Apr 2011. <http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/363881>.
Marchart, Oliver. "New Protest Formations and Radical Democracy." Peace Review. 16.4 (2004): 415-420. Print.
Marin, Rick. "The Good, the Bad and the Frado." New York Times 09 Feb 2003: 1-3. Web. 9 Apr 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/books/the-good-the-bad-and-the frado.html>.
Perry, Marvin. Sources of the Western Tradition. 8th ed. 1. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2010. 431. Print.
Schiller, Friedrich. "Letters Upon the Aesthetic Education of Man." Literary and philosophical essays: French, German and Italian. With introductions and notes. 'Comp'. The Harvard classics, 32. New York: Collier, 1910. Print.
Traube, Elizabeth G. ""The Popular" in American Culture." Annual Review of Anthropology 25. (1996): 127-151. Web. 6 Mar 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155821>.
Yogi, Hendlin, Stacey Anderson, and Stanton Glantz. "‘Acceptable rebellion’: marketing hipster aesthetics to sell Camel cigarettes in the US." Tobacco Control 19.3 (2010): 213-222. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 7 Apr. 2011.
