ground war snippet.

In general, subcultures worry about co-optation. Gramsci, Subaltern classes, etc. The issue, however, is not being co-opted, but what would be co-opted.

Subcultures are more or less defined publicly by the visual / auditory cues they throw out there in an attempt to 1) keep people of other groups at some distance; or 2) attract people of their own group. By this I mean that the clothes, hair, music, slang, and so on that is integral to the identity of a member of a subculture is the way they let people know they are special, different from the mass, and part of a group. It's a statement of value.

However, when co-optation happens, the only things that get taken are the clothes, hair, music, slang. This still manages to either damage or devalue the subculture in question, stripping it of it's cultural relevance and it's esteemed place among the hipster cognoscenti. People taking the outward cues kills the thing, at least incrementally. Sure, people will talk about the 'real' thing, and how it was ruined, but really, we live in a world where someone, somewhere, considers the first Avril Lavigne album punk, in some capacity. Punk, as a label, has been devalued in the public consciousness.

I find this interesting, because it either means that the ideology of a subculture is of less importance than the visual cues associated with it, or that there's no ideology to begin with, beyond 'we like this grouping of interests'. Ask someone within a subculture, and they will probably disagree with you on that point. I would have, at other points in my life. But I think it rings true, at least somewhat.

I base at least some of that on my inability to think of a subculture that doesn't separate itself in terms of appearance, but instead ideology. I guess there is a communist community out there, but most of the ones I encounter seem more involved in mentioning Marx constantly and adopting a brooding, minimalist, doomed, chain smoking aesthetic than anything related to the improvement of the human condition in their society. Oh, and often, bad haircuts.

Subversivity is most likely impossible if you are screaming 'I'm not like you' at the top of your lungs. And yet, the people who most want to change the system are usually the loudest voices in the chorus.

The interesting thing, is that if there was no outward sign that you were of a given group whose ideology is to affect change, you would be co-optation resistant. It would be hard for someone to sell a watered down version of 'I will play the game, but my goals are different.' Or, even better, co-opting an ideology would be the dream, because it means that people are actually listening, rather than just salvaging fashion.

The clothes and the hair and the music get taken. They get repackaged and sold with the same gloss, but with none of the ideas. So why let them be part of the message at all? The only people they are going to convince are the ones you don't want on your side in the first place.

[Maybe this will clarify some points of the 'conversation with singha' post. Anyways, I should probably try to clarify with my prof tomorrow that I'm exploring some of these points on my blog, lest he thinks I'm plagiarizing this 'broken gentleman' character. Academia really doesn't fit well with the new self-publishing paradigm.]