Quote:
Originally Posted by HavelockV
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.
|
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