So why was it uniquely hated? Was it just another "everything millennials do is bad" thing? Was it just reactionaries associating them with "muh latte sipping liberal elites"?

Dudes just wanted to dress like 40s farmers. These trends rotate like every 20 years, so why were hipsters in particular hated?

(I have to admit I was guilty of joining in making fun of it too when I was younger, peer pressure is a fuck)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I don't think hipster fashion can be reduced to farm aesthetic from the 1940s or any other period.

People have different reasons to rag on hipsters depending on their own politics, but the universal critique relates to the hollowness and hypocrisy of the trend. From the Marxist perspective it’s pretty clearly a shout into the void, a search for meaning in a capitalism devoid of meaning, which I sympathize with. But that’s precisely the thing about the hipster movement: it rebels by doubling down on the forces ostensibly critiqued by it.

Hipsters want authenticity. From an upper-middle-class, usually white perspective, they peer into perceived “authentic” cultures often of POC and global south. This is coupled with an increase in ✨wanderlust✨, white bougie people traveling to SE Asia or Latin America with a knapsack and a trust fund, with a plan to beg their way through their travels or work an odd job if they must. Back home in the suburbs and cities, they wear choice items that seem to embody the genuine culture of elsewhere. Obviously this is a cynical and materialistic way of obtaining authenticity. Aesthetic over substance, form over function. But that’s the logic of capitalism: culture is itself commodified. Rather than culture being the totality of one’s social existence, it can be congealed into aesthetic, into clothing and vintage record players.

Individualism is another key ethic of hipsterism. The struggle for authenticity immediately confronts a contradiction with privilege. Western individualism is essentially the reflection of privilege, because as a white wealthy person, you must believe in your own difference from the masses, your uniqueness that explains your privilege. But you cannot obtain the authenticity of common folk while refusing to drop privilege and superiority. Hence another layer of hypocrisy. Culture can not only be commodified, it can be worn and removed as necessary, as one would a hat, as the situation demands.

Again, I sympathize with the search for meaning. But meaning is to be found in real existence, not in materialistic consumption, nor in aesthetic.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 10 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    I agree, but you could also say that about any aesthetic though, including cottagecore. We don't tend to afford the same hate to the hollow aesthetic trends today that we did when hipsters were a thing

    Except maybe looksmaxxing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    I referred to it as a trend before, but really I think of hipster as a subculture comparable to punk or hippie. As a subculture, it has to be evaluated on its own terms. There is a parallel between hipsters and hippies, as the name implies, but punk is a whole different thing.

    A mere trend doesn’t go beyond aesthetic; there is no ideology to high-rise pants or plimsolls, although both of those aesthetics might be used by this or that subculture. Aesthetics wax and wane over the years (largely driven by corporate fast fashion, but that’s another discussion) but that movement is perpendicular to culture and ideology as such.

    Being a hipster is the ideology of being a hipster, not just the aesthetic preference for thick-frame glasses and beanies. It was the rejection of the mainstream by a particular demographic, largely white urban/suburban youths, and replacing that with a distorted image of the imperial periphery. The periphery isn’t only geographical; it can include neglected communities inside the core itself, such as hillbillies and indigenous tribes. In a way, it continues a long history of psychological fixation by the privileged classes upon the underclasses. They have always been fascinated about life outside the garden, and that fascination manifests in imitation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    So what you're saying is every rejection of capitalism becomes consumed by capitalism

    joyce-messier

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 16 hours ago*

    The workers themselves hold a contradictory consciousness, on the one hand informed by their class interest as workers, on the other hand tainted by bourgeois ideology and some minor privileges as imperial core residents. Hence you have contradictory subcultures, confused in their lashing against the conditions of the working class.

    The task of communists is to raise the level of consciousness such that the working class can clearly process their own conditions, in order to overcome them.

  • source
  • parent