Martin Dust
Techno Zen Master
Because I felt it was "prepared".
Patter
- Thread starter Martin Dust
- Start date
Because I felt it was "prepared".
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
that kind of extreme relativist devil's advocate point of view is fine, and I never denied that power relations were complex, but if you're saying anything goes because there is no way of ascertaining anything objectively, then that's a fundamental point of difference. Sometimes which group is more powerful is very clear, and sometimes something is clearly inauthentic.
Not speaking for minority groups, rather suggesting they MIGHT not want their culture used in that way. Maybe they would, but maybe they wouldn't.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Authentic behaviour is also 'prepared', but the preparation has been done for one - one talks and acts the way one does because one's environment has led one ineluctably to do so.
Ironically, the more authentic the behaviour, the less say one has had in it.
The authentic man is a self-effacing figure, through whom we can see society.
If one decides to act inauthentically, then one must create the environment oneself (and still with the backdrop of one's local milieu to contend with).
A push to inauthenticity (accelerating purposefully away from one's habitual, authentic ways) is easily forgiven when it brings one closer to local norms, rather than further away from them - it's called 'fitting in'.
Personal inauthenticity is generally pleasing when it panders to the locally dominant group.
Personal inauthenticity is generally displeasing when it undermines the locally dominant group (for instance, by identifying with a non-local group).
Personal authenticity is generally pleasing when it panders to the locally dominant group.
Personal authenticity is generally displeasing when it undermines the locally dominant group.
Inauthenticity as such is not always displeasing.
Ironically, the more authentic the behaviour, the less say one has had in it.
The authentic man is a self-effacing figure, through whom we can see society.
If one decides to act inauthentically, then one must create the environment oneself (and still with the backdrop of one's local milieu to contend with).
A push to inauthenticity (accelerating purposefully away from one's habitual, authentic ways) is easily forgiven when it brings one closer to local norms, rather than further away from them - it's called 'fitting in'.
Personal inauthenticity is generally pleasing when it panders to the locally dominant group.
Personal inauthenticity is generally displeasing when it undermines the locally dominant group (for instance, by identifying with a non-local group).
Personal authenticity is generally pleasing when it panders to the locally dominant group.
Personal authenticity is generally displeasing when it undermines the locally dominant group.
Inauthenticity as such is not always displeasing.
Last edited:
mistersloane
heavy heavy monster sound
I use 'sorry, fella' alot, especially with girls.
Slothrop
Tight but Polite
I'd say that the thing that makes yer public school cockerneys and oxbridge rastas embarassing is that they give the appearance of making a grab for cultural capital and failing - and you lower your opinion of them because they seem to need to make a try-hard attempt to act like something they're not in order to get on socially. It's embarassing in the same way as someone's dad trying to use slang. (http://xkcd.com/166/)
To be honest, appropriation of (sub)cultural capital doesn't bother me that much - partly because it's always been a part of youth / street culture to be in a constant linguistic arms race to stay ahead of the wannabes - and the very existence of that arms race is maybe part of what gives definition to the subculture[1] - and partly because most of what we're talking about is obvious enough to be funnier than it is insulting.
And partly because, as other people have suggested, there is question to be asked about where to draw the line - if it's bad to appropriate a way of speaking from a group you don't belong to (even if you like how it sounds), is it alright to appropriate a way a way of dressing (if you like how it looks) or your choice of music (even if you like how it sounds)? Is everyone not from an estate in east london doing a little to undermine grime culture if they listen to it?
[1] similar to the way that a subculture disdains non subcultural media but is partly validated by its impact on them.
right, people like YT, Collie Budz, Gentleman, etc, etc, etc, etc, should be locked up.
and people like you have no business participating in any way in music coming from different ethno-economic-cultural backgrounds than your own, things such as hiphop, house, techno, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I'm - very clearly - not saying that. I am saying that there is no universal law of authenticity that allows you or anyone else to sit around determining in the abstract on what is and isn't acceptable. I am saying you have to use your best judgment & common sense based on the context of each situation, & indeed, sometimes it will be very clear whether something is or isn't right. sometimes it won't be so clear. I am also saying that you run into trouble very quickly when you start trying to synthesize vague absolutes about "power relations" & so on.
so you're defending - but not speaking for - hypothetical minority groups who may or may not feel the same way you do about who is and is not allowed to, depending on the pov, usurp/venerate pieces of their cultures? that it, pretty much? cos I'm not sure how it's different from every other middle-class white guy (not excluding myself) telling mostly other middle-class white guys, on the behalf of non-middle class white people, what is & isn't cool. albeit a version dressed up w/a bit of garbled sociology - as opposed to sneering hipster condescension or whatever - & run through a p.c. wringer.
grizzleb
Well-known member
I basically agree with padraig. Regarding the example used, if someone who is of a rich, white oxford background and surrounded by people who emphasise that culture, and you didn't like it - I'm sure a good way to distance that might be to 'act black', and in that context I can't see how you would say that it's a bad thing. I can't see anything wrong with people trying to relate to their perceptions of other cultures and use those as part of their personality. I guess the problem I have with it is that neither group should really hold much stock in such trivial things as accent, clothing, or music you enjoy. These days everyone 'wears' different kinds of cultural garb, and there's no 'authentic' or 'inauthentic' way to go about it. 'Being true to your background' well, what if that background is one of racist mysogyny? I'd rather be a patois spoutin' wigga myself...
grizzleb
Well-known member
Surely by this rule, a truly authentic person or culture is one which entirely static. I wouldn't call that authentic at all, I'd call that dead. Or if I'm not being sarcastic, set in their ways, nobody is like that, and no society has ever been.
Sure, you can laugh at people who have some daft affectation - but (back to slightly tongue in cheek) wouldn't THAT be racist?
luka
Well-known member
i grew up around mostly black kids. i wanted to talk like them. why is that?
i never took it to extremes but i did adopt cadences and intonations and stuff. who wouldn't? some of that stuff still lingers in my ever shifting accent.
west indians have a nice way of talking. who wouldn't want to sound like that? you dont get no one trying to sound nigerian do you?
i wonder if passionate joyceans adopt a dublin brogue.
i never took it to extremes but i did adopt cadences and intonations and stuff. who wouldn't? some of that stuff still lingers in my ever shifting accent.
west indians have a nice way of talking. who wouldn't want to sound like that? you dont get no one trying to sound nigerian do you?
i wonder if passionate joyceans adopt a dublin brogue.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Well, societies aren't static because people will always make inauthentic moves - there will always be some behaviour that deviates from the prevailing norm. So, yes, there is no absolutely authentic person, but there are, relatively speaking, people who act less authentically or more so.
Bear in mind that the popular conception of authenticity, as commodified in theme bars, for instance, freezes culture in time, as you say.
Madonna shows how far inauthenticity can take you.
grizzleb
Well-known member
It seems arbitrary to call style bars authentic and madonna inauthentic to me. For me the possibility of what you can 'authenticity' is excluded for me wholly as a rule from culture, it's not possible to act wholly under the prevailing norms because there is never a single set of standards for a particular area, or group (household), outside say maybe heavily codeified religious or fraternal organisations. The very fact of culture excludes authenticity.
Hang on, hang on. Since when was YT a white rasta? Or Collie Budz for that matter?
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
Hey man, it wasn't me who broght sociology into it. Hate Spiral Tribe all you want, but I'm arguing against the possibility of sociological explanations for your personal likes and dislikes.
Last edited:
Well, it's 'sociological' in that white rastas sadly still inhabit our society. But the main reason I don't like them is cos they smell.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
I wasn't arguing that there is a universal law of authenticity. As to talking in the abstrast - I was trying to give a real-life example in my first post to AVOID it becoming abstract! This whole discussion came from the original example that Martin posted, and the example I gave from real-life experience of when this kind of practice is inauthentic and annoying. Of course you have to take each case in context and on its own merits - that's why I'm not able to answer some of the devil's advocate questions thrown at me about what if such and such...
As to hypothetical minority groups...well, no, I'm just speaking from what I've observed about various minorities... Just as some pubs have a minority identity (as in, a space where people who feel themselves in a minority in some way or other, want to be with others from that minority, and dont' appreciate members of the majority being there), and some places are 'mixed'...extrapolating from this, I think it is overwhelmingly likely that some people will be cool with other people borrowing 'their culture', and some people won't be.
I don't know what a PC wringer is.
Anyways, I think the key question is - why does most (not all, obv) inauthentic behaviour (again, talking from real life experience, not in the abstract) involve, for example, white people trying to ape the stereotype of black people's style, and not vice versa? If there was true miscegenation of culture, I think that would be cool- but there quite clearly isn't. Most of it runs in one direction.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
Are you sure about that?
grizzleb
Well-known member
Just seen this comment - yes!