Printable View
Read the full articleQuote:
In March of 2003 I wrote an opening editorial for the late lamented Swag magazine project. The editorial was about how a lot of freaks internalize the negativity the larger society has for them. It was about how punk was supposed to promise the allure of a classless society. It was about how we shouldnt hammer...
well since this is old, I think we've talked about this before. the question that I asked was how do you define successful?
is it getting to a point where people can respect and give the credit and appreciation for your art? is it the abilty to inspire a whole new generation of folks to follow in your path? is it creating a business environment where you can't tell anymore where your business and personal relationships end, because that's just the kind of people who you attract? In my mind these are the things that I imagine for blueblood. Is it when you come to the realization that you no longer care about being deemed sucessful because having outside limitations and definations about who you and what you do don't matter?
or is it having Blue Blood on 150 million products that are made by 150 million sweatshops, and 150 billion in the bank. where name recognition means just that- and the product istelf, well that doesn't really matter.
I don't know, that's not for me to say. It's up to all of us to decide what we want to get out of our time, and I don't think such things should be left to any notions that are outside of the person experiencing it.
How do you define the rewards of larger society? Or success?
Countercultural critique; be it dadaist, situationist, hippie, punk etc; will tend to revolve around criticism of mass society. Thus, it becomes difficult to reconcile anything associated with society with one's own values. The "hipsters" you mention are not doing anything subversive. Looking different or being "cool" will not lead to a more egalitarian society. You may gain more tolerance for looking different, but I would not credit it with any substantive gains.
Law school is probably more egalitarian than any subculture I've been around. The diversity by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background etc far exceeds most subcultures. (I'll credit LGBT and other "alternative sexuality" scenes but little else.) This was achieved through civil rights, feminism, gay rights, disability rights and other social movements that operated primarily within the legal system and civil disobedience. The changes came by working to change the system, not via countercultural critique.
What remains less diverse are the actual worldviews of those who enter the field. By definition, one has accepted the legitimacy of the "system" (or at least the ability to fight to change it from within) to get into this gig. I can't say the ability to express myself through appearance or enjoying my obscure interests has been affected. I simply pay no attention to the criticism.
I think successful subcultures ultimately stand on their own. Acceptance or rejection by other people should not be a factor. Again, it all depends on how you define success. I would be weary of any definition that relies on externalities. You win some, you lose some. You can't let others define the terms of your success. We do need a definition though :P
OEC