It's amusing to see anarchists protesting against hipsters. Hipsters are a consequence of the world anarchists helped to create, so the whole affair has a futile quality.
Anarchists are fighting for a world where traditional loyalties (family, class, nation, religion, etc) are done away with. In their place are meant to be loyalties that are personally chosen by the individual.
Enjoyment is tolerated, solicited even, but on condition that it is healthy, that it doesn't threaten our psychic or biological stability: chocolate, yes, but fat-free; Coke, yes, but diet; coffee, yes, but without caffeine; beer, yes, but without alcohol; mayonnaise, yes, but without cholesterol; sex, yes, but safe sex …
Did you read the next comment I posted? I think I elaborated on it there. Anarchists are fighting for a world where traditional loyalties (family, class, nation, religion, etc) are done away with. In their place are meant to be loyalties that are personally chosen by the individual.
Despite perhaps his being distasteful to many anarchists, one expression of this ideal is the hipster, whose identity is a personal, ironic and playful expression, and not something that points at the higher goods and commitments that transcend the individual.
Perhaps in an anarchist society everyone will be hipsters? I doubt it though.
Perhaps in an anarchist society everyone will be hipsters? I doubt it though.
Wouldn't the abolition of hierarchy also remove - or at least, massively reduce the significance of - the sort of deeply rooted social identities that hipsters are usually defined in opposition to, though?
I'm not sure. The discussion in this thread seems to be very much about rootlessness, dilettantism and the idea of cultural tropes as things that you affect for a while without really being committed to the culture that they came from. And this would seem to be a thing that to some extent increases as you reduce the significance of social / racial / sexual / economic hierarchies.Forgive me if this is a rather obvious point, but surely the figure of the hipster is defined (regardless of whether this is still strictly true or not) by his/her outsideness? They're the alternative to the mainstream. So when everyone is 'alternative' then the alternative is the mainstream and they very concept of 'alternative' becomes meaningless.
If you seek His monument ...
John, do you think it's fair to say, as Wikipedia does, that anarchists advocate a society constituted from "institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations", and that, "anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations"?
I'm not sure. The discussion in this thread seems to be very much about rootlessness, dilettantism and the idea of cultural tropes as things that you affect for a while without really being committed to the culture that they came from. And this would seem to be a thing that to some extent increases as you reduce the significance of social / racial / sexual / economic hierarchies.
Hmm, yeah I see your point - but are hipsters really still as detached and ironic as all that? The current wave of young(ish) people who cycle everywhere, grow their own beansprouts and wear organic, locally sourced underpants surely represents an inversion of that - a culture based around authenticity, or at least trying hard to be as authentic as possible as life in a developed country in the early 21st century will allow.
Surely Boris Johnson is being disingenuous, as in many things he says? Whatever plays best, he'll say - he's nothing if not canny.
I'm not convinced by Vim's assertion that the deterritorialized world that yer stereotypical hipster inhabits is a creation of anarchism
I'm not claiming that the world as it exists is solely the creation of anarchists. It's more that in the world anarchists have helped to bring about, -- and the end anarchists are oriented towards -- hipsters are a natural result (if perhaps one of many).
Anarchists might dislike hipsters (which betrays an interesting nascent conservatism -- the hipster has no gravitas and is aesthetically unappealing), but it's ultimately a futile dislike. If you do away with peoples' settled identities and throw them back on their own devices, there's nothing to guarantee that some form of wider commitment can be spontaneously regenerated.