subcultures reading
Oct. 21st, 2007 10:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethI read the bit in the reader about Hebdige talking about punks. There's bits where I wonder if he actually talked to any, or listened if he did. There is a bit where he says that the rhetoric may not mean what it says, and okay, fair enough, but...
There's another bit where he says most subcultures differentiate between those that invented it, who understand it, and those that follow on, who do/can not. And, well, yes and no... I mean I haven't personally originated a style, yet, but I think the distinction I've noticed is between those who wear things as signs, as object+meaning, and those who just wear them as objects. People who unify the style and values, like he stresses subculture is about, or people who just go 'oooh, shiny!' and are all about the look and not noticing the values. In other words, it isn't that those who go first are the only ones that understand, but the ones that understand are the ones who put the signifiers on it and go first. Followers may be plastic or poseur, or they might just be baby, newbies, with potential to grow up. It isn't, like, built in.
... possibly though this has something to do with him studying new subcultures? I mean goth has been around long enough to have generations, so maybe attitudes shift a bit.
*rereads*
... watch me use words I learned on the net. :eyeroll:
fandom is a subculture. but it's a really diverse one. and while you can describe typical modes of dress as 'refers in some way to source text', that really do cover just about every way of looking.
Different texts, different values, yesno? Possibly why some fandoms family tree into each other and others very rarely overlap?
... is time to sleep now, I have big thinking later.
There's another bit where he says most subcultures differentiate between those that invented it, who understand it, and those that follow on, who do/can not. And, well, yes and no... I mean I haven't personally originated a style, yet, but I think the distinction I've noticed is between those who wear things as signs, as object+meaning, and those who just wear them as objects. People who unify the style and values, like he stresses subculture is about, or people who just go 'oooh, shiny!' and are all about the look and not noticing the values. In other words, it isn't that those who go first are the only ones that understand, but the ones that understand are the ones who put the signifiers on it and go first. Followers may be plastic or poseur, or they might just be baby, newbies, with potential to grow up. It isn't, like, built in.
... possibly though this has something to do with him studying new subcultures? I mean goth has been around long enough to have generations, so maybe attitudes shift a bit.
*rereads*
... watch me use words I learned on the net. :eyeroll:
fandom is a subculture. but it's a really diverse one. and while you can describe typical modes of dress as 'refers in some way to source text', that really do cover just about every way of looking.
Different texts, different values, yesno? Possibly why some fandoms family tree into each other and others very rarely overlap?
... is time to sleep now, I have big thinking later.