| The process outlined in the article echoes the theory that capitalism always will take over and repurpose any opposition to it, and it echoes some of the ideas from the Situationists Society of the Spectacle. The "Society of the Spectacle" is an awful term, but it basically means a consumerist society. A consumerist society is one where having the appearance of something is more important than the actual something. The process is one from: being to having to appearing. For example being very wealthy (an upper class landed gentry family) to having wealth (middle class earning money) to appearing to have wealth (people wearing the same clothes as rich people, bling). I'm thinking the same process is in effect with subcultures.
The creators are the ones who are cool (being cool) - the fanatics are the ones who have cool (they have good taste, have the things the creators produce) and the masses afterwards buy the appearance of cool (the image of what is cool is able to be bought, authenticity is less important). Another example: hippys being all hippy and being all free and socialist, later on other hippies having the music and then later on everyone else buying jeans to look like a hippy. This leads me to thinking of today, and The Hipster. Is being a hipster about buying things, or appearing to have things? Is it mass marketable? (beards, haircuts, clothes) Is it a sub culture? Does it have any defining principles? |