An ode to those who enjoy the trappings, but know nothing of the culture
 

Just the other day, I was having yet another of those discussions we all have concerning the misappropriation of stereotypical elements from the Gothic subculture. It inspired me to write a (hopefully decent) poem.

Now, I'm a writer but I've never claimed to be a poet. However, I think this goes to the heart of my general opinion on "Goth" as a trend: that it is a waste of time to rail against the fashionistas who wear white pancake make-up and skull jewelry in an attempt to add something "edgy" to their "look". They do not insult; their vain attempts are only shallow cuts not bone shots that threaten the meaning we have derived from the culture. The trendsetters simply flatter us with their imitation, then fade into irrelevance.


- Heretic

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These designers, these fashion mavens, these trend followers
They are simply cultural hyenas, scavenging scraps
from game they were too fearful to bring down themselves

They are sated for a time
and then they will cast about for fresh blood
caring nothing for whence it comes

Do not lament their fleeting celebration
of our prey, our game
our hard-won meat

We will continue to feast upon it
long after they have forgotten the taste
bittersweet flesh and ashes

oh my daizzz ur so clever

.... and then on to **** yet another subculture!! Wooo!!

Silly gawfs. Giveth me thine spikes and black leather, for thou art not metal.

Oh, and gimme your back patched jacket, you stole those too.

Oh, and yea, the lace, the Victorians want that back.



Don't kid yourself, there's nothing original about any subculture, so moaning about "stealing" is retarded.

Personally I never thought that one's natural predisposition to attire oneself in a certain fashion was tantamount to jealously guarding and displaying the trophies of a hunting expedition. I am neither too proud nor too contemptuous to refrain from complimenting someone if they are dressed in a manner that is appealing to me, even if their doing so is transient at best.

On the face of it, what you point out is an obvious and self-evident truth, though I don't think there are many people left who believe that anything we see or hear in this day and age, in and of itself, is original in any way. But what you overlook is the actual point of contention: the context and, therefore, meaning of symbols. The "retarded moaning" isn't over who gets to wear what.; it's about the cultural symbolism these objects represent, and the meaning that will therefore be derived from them by society at large.

Personally, I couldn't care less about who wears what, just as I couldn't care less who drives what, or eats what. That does not mean that I am blind to the larger cultural meaning underlying many seemingly petty social concerns.


- Heretic

It's just how things naturally go. The "outsider" look becomes mainstream, so the outsider look evolves. Look at the James Dean look. Or tie-dye. Or skulls.

What meaning? It's not some spooky voodoo witch tribe with exclusive access.

Agreed. And as the old symbols are adopted by new subcultures, they are imbued with a newly-defined cultural meaning. As context changes, so too does meaning.

The cultural meaning that forms an integral part of fashion relates to the semiotics of dress and adornment. Not to get too deep into sociology and anthropology, your question can best be answered by looking at the definition of the discipline of semiotics: "Semiotics assumes that visual images and their respective signs can be read similar to a text". Essentially, an individual's chosen appearance not only describes the conscious construction of identity, but the unconscious definition of personality.

I've read about this sort of thing, applied to everything from geography to climate to body art, quite a bit over the years. If you're interested in a general overview of how this sort of study applies to things like fashion, I ran across an extremely interesting wiki book on the subject called "Visual Rhetoric/Semiotics of Fashion" you may want to have a look at.


- Heretic

I just can't see "poseurs" being guilty of cultural appropriation. Be honest here, the most annoying poseurs aren't the ones who merely dress goth and don't listen to the music (and I can't see whats so wrong about that) but the ones who go on about how gothy goth they are and how proud they are of the "culture" like it consumes their identity. And then get butthurt when someone just isn't goth enough.

Psssshaaaa!


Conformists...

Dude, we just got goth served.

*drag* Life is nothing bud darkness and pain.

Well, the Rap and Hip-Hop subcultures have dealt with similar issues. How often have we all seen that subculture's poseurs, people with little or no understanding of that subculture, "appropriating" aspects of it and attempting to make it their own. I don't know about you, but that's just about as painful a thing to witness as anything I've ever seen Goth "poseurs" do. They even compound their error by undercutting the credibility of others who choose to explore the subculture, again something we see often enough ourselves.

I suppose it all depends upon how much "street cred" an individual has. If a trio of White Jewish guys (Beastie Boys) can be featured on a show like the "Hip-Hop Honors", or a skinny White kid from Detroit (Emenem) could be named Best Rapper Ever by Vibe magazine, I still hold out hope that the appropriation we've seen of the Gothic subculture will eventually do it justice, rather than beating it into the ground.


- Heretic

I fear I fail to understand why you believe that we should allow ourselves to be unduly concerned with the passing fancies of others. After all, I daresay some members of this board initally started out as "poseurs" - though they'll likely never admit it. The eager enthusiasm of discovery (which of course may manifest itself in something as superficial as personal adornment, or a desire for attention) can naturally lead one to overindulge in newfound interests. Inevitably, some will have their fill of the experience and move along until they find something more to their taste. Others may stay the course and further their exploration, expanding upon their knowledge.

While I confess to being amused by some of the outlandish gestures of such neophytes, there's no reason to be condescending or mean-spirited. Accept the fact that most will not remain, but support and encourage those who are willing to learn.

Don't you ever get the urge to just say "what's up bro?" or "that was tight"?

Occasionally, but I find that a fine glass of scotch snuffs out the impulse in short order.

I'm not sure where I might have advocated that anyone be "unduly concerned" about anything. I believe my first post communicated the opposite intent:

"I think this goes to the heart of my general opinion on "Goth" as a trend: that it is a waste of time to rail against the fashionistas who wear white pancake make-up and skull jewelry in an attempt to add something "edgy" to their "look""

The poem I wrote was based on a conversation I had a few days ago. I decided to post it here in the Literature section (the appropriate section for this sort of thing, if I'm not mistaken) simply because I thought the subject matter might be of interest to some; nothing more, nothing less.

The changes and nuances of culture are a particular interest of mine. If this subject holds no interest for others, C'est la vie; there are other threads here to explore.

This is an opinion I can appreciate. My own experiences in the subculture have all reinforced the idea of inclusion, rather than the elitism and exclusivity I've heard stories about.


- Heretic

*rereads with greater care* Well, sink me, you are correct! My sincere apologies.

I think that my confusion stems from this particular quote of yours from a previous posting:

That passage gave me the (apprently erroneous) impression that you feel participants in a subculture need to justify themselves to society and that "poseurs" may compromise these efforts.

Mea culpa.

No worries, mate.

The difference I was outlining was the line between people who are seeking to explore a given cultural symbol as a means of understanding it and/or redefining it for themselves, and those who co-opt cultural symbols while maintaining a willful ignorance of their established meaning. Cultural identity relies upon clarity of definition for the symbols that help establish and maintain it. The propagation of conflicting definitions erodes established identity. It isn't about what society at large "thinks" once it recognizes the symbols of a subculture for what it comes to represent so much as maintaining the integrity of a complex foundation of symbols that support a subculture's identity.

Of course, the "meaning" of cultural symbols is a fluid, multifaceted thing. Which "meaning", or cultural definition should be examined and addressed when considering issues of identity? The meaning an individual derives from a symbol? The meaning people in the individual's peer group derive from a symbol they have adopted? The meaning society at large, both from the cultural point of origin (for the current meaning) and from those outside that culture of origin? Which meaning predominates> The old meaning? The current meaning? The redefined meaning the dominant subculture assigns to the symbol?

The "poseur versus 'true' member of a subculture" question is just the surface of a deep and constantly shifting discussion.


- Heretic

All of these vapid "sub-cultures" are nothing more than a futile attempt at perpetuating some sort of "uniqueness" amongst the populace in which they reside for no other purpose than attention whoring. The fact is, you will conform to whatever society dictates you to in order to ensure your own survival, be it financial or social, in some form or another.

WORD.



messg2shrt

This opinion ignores...well.....all of human history. EVERY change in any culture starts with the thoughts, opinions, and actions of an active minority subculture, the vast majority of whom are similarly dismissed as worthless or transient fads. And I'm sorry, but I have an extremely hard time agreeing with the sentiment that absolutely every subculture exists only as a means of drawing attention to ones self. Recognition and adoption by the majority culture does not mean that the language, behavior, and style of dress specific to a group evolved because that group was attempting to gain validation from the majority culture.

As far conforming to what majority culture dictates as a survival mechanism, I would refer to this as a pressure as opposed to an absolute of human behavior. The Revolutionary War, Women's Suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement are all prominent examples of nonconformist behavior in which people chose severe social stigma or even death over compromising on their ideals.


- Heretic

Did you seriously just draw a parallel between the Civil Rights movement and being a goth?

One of the nice things about subculture is that, with its outer trappings, one may have an easier time recognizing another person as at least having some things in common with them. Its like recognizing a relative that one hadn't met yet.

I think its some sort of weird tribal Identity thing. That being said, it's perfectly natural for us to get a little peeved, when we feel like our tribal identity has been hijacked by a rival tribe.

I try not to worry about it too much though, because there are a fair amount of those kids who are baby-goths. People trying to break out of the mainstream and what-not, I'd imagine that its rather hard if you're not used to going against the flow as a matter of course. It starts small... an unusual piece of jewelry, a shiny black pair of boots, but it can grow into something truly amazing and beautiful.

And finally, lets face it, its pretty easy to tell a real goth kid from some one who "just likes some of the jewelry", that is, if they open their mouth. *wicked grin*