I don't understand why people believe there is some inherent need to only associate with one side of society. Specifically for this blog, mainstream or anti-mainstream. Why are individuals placed on one side or the other. I find it especially offensive that people who claim to be ardent opponents of conformity are the ones so quick to generalize. Yes, the anti-mainstream movement, or however you want to refer to it, begins with an individual's desire to "revolt" against the mainstream. But lately, possibly as a result of my poor observations skills, I've noticed an influx in the amount of hipsters (whom don't refer to themselves as hipster... because that's even more hipster to do) on a perverted moral tirade against "the others". Though I've personally always found solace in aspects of mainstream and underground, apparently I've been sucked into the conformity of mainstream as of late. But rather than bash said conformity, I'd rather take the opportunity to share some thoughts on this anti-conformist, anti-establishment, anti-mainstream mumbo jumbo.
What I've always found ironic is this "noble revolt" of mainstream is an attempt to distinguish oneself as an true individual always ends up as a conformity of its own, albeit minority. A significant portion of these so-called "individuals" kill themselves trying to find aspects of life and culture that currently are not embraced by the mainstream in efforts to disassociate themselves with the more popular trends and fads. These "outsider" interests and pleasures serve as characterizations of this group, whom share a mutual disdain for all contemporary, popular aspects of culture. In its purest theoretically form, this revolt could be respectable. There is nothing quite as liberating as the discovery of the "new", which serve as unique personal treasure that are yours and yours alone. But what I find puzzling is although this personal struggle stems from a desire to separate from the allegiance to mainstream, they in turn become zombies of their own conformity. Take hippies for example. Free love, no war, chill music, and drugs. Is this a generalization? Sure. Is it an accurate generalization? You bet your tie-dyein', bong hittin', denim wearin' ass it is. The effort to listen to "different" music, wear "different" clothes, live a life "different from those cursed soulless conformists has in effect created a social group of its own.
But what irks me the most is the baseless sense of of vanity and high sense of self that usually develops with this anti-everything mindset. Because you hate what the radio usually plays, and hate what shows are on television, and hate what's in magazines, and hate the emptiness of conformists does not give you some moral and intellectual superiority over those that do. It just makes you a hater.
As I was pondering this topic, I couldn't help but think of that quote that Yoda shares in an exchange with Anakin Skywalker in StarWars about fear: "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering".
Sidenote: I'm sure this quote was derived from one or a collection of brilliant quotes by nonfictional characters, but I'd prefer to juxtapose commercial success with refuting anti-mainstream's bloated sense of self.
The fear is experienced by this group, as it is with each person. It stems from the transition from sheltered life to falling flat on your ass when you realize how much the world actually has to offer. Obviously, we experience this at different stages in our life. Furthermore, I can promise that each person DOES in fact experience this. Many are just content with the comfort zone they've already developed. For those that aren't entirely sure they want to continue living in their bubbles that they've created, they consequentially attempt to expand their exposure to this newly discovered world. However, these first steps to better understand the organized chaos that consumes us are suffocating. And as respectable as this path is, I would imagine this is what prompts the misguided sense of moral achievement. That is to say the choice not to embrace the prestablished pleasures (and perhaps confines) of mainstream pop culture makes you better than those that choose to maintain what they already know and enjoy. But, you quickly realize that this path of unknowing is vastly overwhelming. It is then, during your own personal struggle, that you start to resent those that, in your opinion, took the "easier" route. Why should you have to wade through the entire ocean of culture while the mainstreamers are content building sandcastles? Sandcastles rule, btw. This resentment stews into long term hate. Sure, you discern that you in fact don't hate, you only wish to dismiss those bloody conformists, the unenlightened. You are simply who you are and you will not deny that. But 'who you are' is merely the form that follows the function of 'what you are' (like that V for Vendetta reference?). And what you are, or rather what you claim to be, is undefinable.
But you see you are definable. We are all definable. Who and what you are may be unfamiliar to some, or it may be unfamiliar to most. But that doesn't mean you've transcended the shackles of society; you are not some existential demigod that deserves more admiration and adoration than others. You are just another person that wishes not to be part of my, or anyone else's, generalizations. And I certainly do not mean to marginalize your being by generalizing; I'll be the first to admit the source of my generalizations is pure laziness. You should find solace that I'm admitting I respect you. So much so, that my exposure to you in turn helps me to expand my own interests, beliefs, and understandings. Don't resent me for "copying", for I am simply trying to learn.
Admittedly, at times I like to convince myself that I am undefinable as well. But in reality, I am. I still struggle to get a handle on my diverse set of interests. At times I feel like some sort of chameleon that does just to conform to its surroundings. But I realized I'm not compromising myself by being open to new things, mainstream or underground.
I am NOT sorry that I worship Lady Gaga and Nicki Minaj, nor will I apologize for enjoying Aventura, Muse, Santigold, or Janelle Monae. I will not throw away my Lacoste polos to make room in my closet for purchases from UrbanOutfitters; I happen to like both. I do enjoy hip hop dance, but I secretly wish I knew how to ballroom dance. I'll even admit I occasionally have a PerezHilton.com tab in between my NewYorkTimes and FoxNews tab on my computer. And I'd be happy to take a break from watching Glee and the Harry Potter movies to watch a B-rated Euro film (with an erotica theme, obviously) or C-Span (only when the Senate is on... the House bores me).
Wes, this is outstanding. I'm obsessed with it. You are quite the philosopher, my friend.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarI feel like a lot the detached attitudes from the "hipster" countercultures is a reaction against how quick we judge based on media/cultural consumption.
ResponderEliminarI don't think the trend is too paranoid in certain ways. The hippies didn't find their utopia and instead saw musicians get their profits extorted out of them by record companies while Charles Manson killed in the name of the White Album. While John Lennon's "Revolution" got used to sell Nike sweatshop shoes, we realized even the most earnest of intentions can get manipulated under this competitive media culture. I think that's why people are weary to attach themselves to any particular media. We can't resist the consumption though and therefore we find the impotence that forces the response of irony and detachedness.
We feel that media consumption defines our experiences in certain ways, it's just that we don't expect it to define us to others or accomplish anything beyond expressing our hopes, fears, frustrations. Hipster Nietzche Nihilism feels like there is more to accomplishing something than simply consuming and so it's afraid to take things too seriously.