Around this time last summer, I read a really great book called Streetstyle by Ted Polhemus. It was published in I think... '94? So, kind of old, by a lot of standards. It's this rundown of "street style" and subcultures from maybe the late 50's to the early 90's. The interesting part is the ending of the text, in which Polhemus predicts a sort of post-modern "supermarket of style" in which everyone kind of grabs whatever they want without adhering to any specific subculture - Dr. Martens and tie-dye tees and stovepipe trousers alike. It's really great, mostly because he's essentially describing a mannequin at 2014 Urban Outfitters.
Obviously, that idea stuck with me a lot. It's interesting to me how surprisingly accurate Polhemus' prediction actually was, but I think it also raises a lot of really interesting questions about social identity. Clothing has a really strong, inextricable tie to identity - something I think about pretty frequently, can you tell? And that identity has always been incredibly fluid - like I've said, it's not the pieces themselves, it's how we use them. Finally, some items have stronger, more clearly defined social meanings than others - blue jeans as opposed to a headscarf, if we're going to take it to extremes. So you kind of have to ask what it means for us all, socially, when you can pick and choose any old identity and slap them together. Does it ultimately make us more individual - and is that a good thing - or is there something to be said for having a broader social identity? Or do we ultimately take away those powerful meanings and associations when we remove them from their contexts?
First, let me say that I don't think Polhemus' prediction came true perfectly. Polhemus seemed to imply that the wide accessibility of objects would ultimately dilute the value of those objects - that if anyone can buy something, you lose the exclusivity that gives it really clear social meanings. And although I would definitely agree with that, I don't think that's exactly what's happening over at good ol'Urban Outfitters. I think what we're ultimately seeing, in most cases, is the dilution of the subculture itself to the effect that there's no longer a really clear image. He's putting the horse before the cart, is what I'm saying. Any old object can be come a "subcultural object" if people of that subculture start to use it in meaningful ways, but if no one knows what "people of that subculture" are and do, then it's hard for objects to be used meaningfully.
I think a modern example is needed here. So let me start off by saying that I absolutely despise the word "hipster." About eight years ago it was a really, very truly interesting Cultural Thing That Happened and which I totally intend to write coherently about someday, but these days it's come to be completely meaningless. Own an Apple product? Hipster. Like music? Hipster. You get my point. It's become code for "Anything that I find threatening." I used to call condescendingly people hipsters all the time, and so I can totally admit to that.
Anyyyyyways, getting to the point: so once upon a time, right when it was really getting to be a major Cultural Thing to be a "hipster," thick black rimmed glasses were a really strong "subcultural object." If you wore them, you could be called a hipster, and you wouldn't have a ton of room to argue. And now, everyone wears them. It's not that glasses became so mass-market that everyone bought them, it's that "being a 'hipster'" became so mass-market, and that we started calling so many people "hipster" that the term lost all meaning. It used to refer to a pretty specific subculture, and now it refers to... I don't even know. Does anyone? Literally anything, basically. It's had it's moment, and it's over. You can still buy those glasses and a lot of people will still condescendingly call them "hipster glasses" but that's becoming rarer and rarer.
To be clear, I think you can still see the cultural dilution of an item itself without subcultural dilution - that is to say, I don't think everyone that bought thick black-rimmed glasses between 2004-2011 were trying to make some kind of social alignment to hipsters. I just think that certain associations are, at certain times, overpowering.
But, okay, that's not exactly every case, and what if Polhemus was talking about the point right before the term becomes meaningless? Like, they're still "hipster glasses," but anyone can buy them, because it's still cool to be a "hipster." And I think Polhemus is suggesting that now you can have your "hipster glasses" but you can also have your, I don't know, your tie-dye hippie t-shirt. (I'm just using really broad, obvious examples for clarity).
I think the appeal of combining those objects is that you're ideally using the social power of both at the same time. Like, you're an intellectual barista who's super into free love and acid? Or something. You see what I'm saying here? The appeal is that you get to be both, and I think that's what Polhemus is extolling, this idea that in The Future we'll all get to use objects in meaningful ways to align ourselves to whatever social ideals we feel like extolling. And I get the draw of that, it's very democratic and it's great.
But then I think, where Polhemus really trips up, is that you fall into the pit fall of post-modernity: if everything is meaningful, then nothing is. So you're wearing glasses and a tie-dye. But who the fuck are you? What I mean is, when objects lack that cultural power - and whether from object accessibility or from subcultural dilution - then you, as an individual, can't really make those statements as well because your objects are lacking a clear social context: "I AM A HIPSTER AND THESE ARE MY GLASSES." If everything else about you is perfectly nondescript and "mainstream," then those glasses will certainly still read that way. But if you're mixing in all these other strong subcultural items, no one knows what to make of you.
Obviously, items that are still quite culturally pungent (that was fun, let's make that a real term) will still be more easily "read". But as they dilute - and they will - that changes. And that's how you end up with 13 year old girls in pink glitter Dr. Martens. Which are nonetheless awesome, and I really want a pair.
I mean, ultimately though, I think people get nervous when you talk about the dilution of their identities. As a self-identified cat lady, I know it's easy to walk into an Urban Outfitters and feel weird about how it's suddenly super trendy to be One Of Us. I'm obviously (kind of) kidding here, but the point is, is there something to be said for having a broader social identity? People get hellllla mad when this behemoth monster image of "fashion" suddenly starts taking over certain subcultures, like "punk," - see above image. And there's such a strong rebellion against that, this whole "Fuck the man, you can't commoditize my culture," thing going on.
I mean, I really don't know what to say to that. That's someone's identity. It's not just clothes, it's more than that. Commoditization and dilution probably really sucks, but man, that's what happens. I don't know if there's anything we can do to change that. I'd really love to discuss it and hash this out with someone.
I think it's cyclical. There's always going to be something. Probably not your particular something, but something. And then at the same time I think people bounce between the need for a social identity throughout their lives, just kind of depending on where they are emotionally - so it's hard to make sweeping cultural statements about that.
So much of fashion is about that process. It's how a leather jacket is still "kind of badass" but also socially acceptable to wear to work. It's how I can wear jeans even though I've never performed manual labor in my life. People kind of laugh when you talk about the workwear heritage of denim as if it wasn't just 50 years ago. That's how ridiculous and distant it feels. I don't think it's even necessarily selling your culture back to people as it is, in a lot of cases, jumping on board with an interesting and fresh aesthetic and running with it, but I'm not a designer. And so I'm not getting on some sanctimonious soapbox about ~cultural identity~. I don't think the dilution of power is a bad thing at all. Again, it's cyclical. Something will always arrive in its place to shock Grandma and enthrall Junior.
Polhemus, I'm thinking, got the movement right, but what he got wrong was how it was going to go down. The book was published just in time to miss the Internet really taking off, and I don't think most people really foresaw the degree of social melange we were going to get in the next 20 years. Not only does the process of social dilution happen so incredibly quickly these days, the process of meaningful object to commodity is even faster. So I'd say he was correct, but it's less about some accepting democratic spirit and more about capitalism. Or something.
No comments:
Post a Comment