Subcultures, Bodies and Spaces

Essays on Alternativity and Maginalization

Samantha Holland, Karl Spracklen, Samantha Holland, Karl Spracklen

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781787565135
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Popular Culture
• Index: Social Sciences

Alternativity delineates those spaces, scenes, club-cultures, objects and practices in modern society that are considered to be actively designed to be counter or resistive to mainstream popular culture. The idea of the alternative in popular culture became mainstream with the rise of the counter culture in 1960s America (though there were earlier forms of alternative cultures in America and other Western countries). Alternativity is associated with marginalization, both actively pursued by individuals, and imposed on individuals and sub-cultures, and was originally represented and constructed through acts of transgression, and through shared sub-cultural capital. This edited collection maps the landscape of alternativity and marginalization, providing new theory and methods in a currently under-theorized area, setting out the issues, questions, concerns and directions of this area of study. It demonstrates the theoretical richness and empirical diversity of the interdisciplinary field it encompasses, and is deliberately feminist in its approach and its composition, with a majority of the contributors being women. Divided into three sub-sections, focused on sub-cultures, bodies and spaces, contributors explore this exciting new terrain, both through critiques of theory and new theoretical developments, and case studies of alternativity and marginalization in practice and in performance, expanding our understanding of the alternative, the liminal and the transgressive.

Part I

Subcultures

Chapter 1

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep Dressed in Street Fashions? Investigating Virtually Constructed Fashion Subcultures

Therèsa M. Winge

Abstract

In May 2016, Aleks Eror’s op-ed article ‘Dear fashion industry: Stop making up bogus subcultures’ on the HighSnobiety website accuses the fashion industry of creating ‘quasi-subcultures’, such as Normcore, Seapunk and Health Goth to promote specific fashion trends via the Internet. Eror argues that these fashion subcultures do not exist in resistance to mainstream culture (as he understands subcultures), but instead offer the specific fashions and their designers cache for being associated with a counterculture and connecting with alternative trends. Setting aside Eror’s narrow understanding of subcultures, he raises questions of authenticity and the current state of virtual fashion subcultures.

Still, there is evidence of these subcultures online and growing in substantial numbers regardless of their inception. Furthermore, persons identifying themselves with these groups practice alternativity, which delineates their scenes, artefacts, and practices from those of mainstream Western society. I pursue questions of authenticity regarding these recent fashion subcultures who appear to emerge in close proximity to the launch of specific fashions. The author explores the ways in which these fashion subcultural experiences differ from known subcultures. The author investigates notions of constructed resistance and perceived alternativity and marginalisation, as well as how that positionality manifests into a fashion subculture identity.

Keywords: Dress; street style; subculture; Seapunk; Normcore; Health Goth

During the last decade of the twentieth century, the Internet was readily available to the public. Accordingly, many subcultures were present on the Internet, but not necessarily originating online or classified as cybercultures. For example, in the late twentieth century, Modern Primitives and Cosplayers used the Internet and social media as modes of communication for disseminating information about the subcultures. Therefore, it is a natural progression to find twenty-first century subcultures emerging from online sources or being directly tied to the Internet for essential elements of the group. There is evidence of subcultures’ evolution from online and offline sources. Furthermore, persons identifying themselves with these groups practice alternativity, which delineates their scenes, artefacts, and practices from those of mainstream Western society.

In May 2016, Aleks Eror’s op-ed article, ‘Dear fashion industry: Stop making up bogus subcultures’, on the HighSnobiety online lifestyle news site accuses the fashion industry of creating ‘quasi-subcultures’ such as Normcore, Seapunk and Health Goth to promote specific fashion trends via the Internet. Eror argues that these fashion subcultures do not exist in resistance to mainstream culture (as he understands subcultures), but instead offer the specific fashions, and their designers, cache for being associated with a counterculture and connecting with alternative trends. Setting aside Eror’s narrow understanding of subcultures, he raises questions of authenticity and the current state of online subcultures. In this chapter, questions of authenticity are explored regarding these recent fashion subcultures that appear to emerge in close proximity to the launch of specific fashions. I also explore the ways in which these online fashion subcultural experiences differ from known subcultures. I investigate notions of constructed resistance and perceived alternativity and marginalisation drawing specific examples from Seapunk, Normcore and Health Goth subcultures, as well as how that positionality manifests into a fashion subculture identity.

Subcultures

Earlier scholars of subculture speculated on the reasons why these groups were formed and attempted to understand their activities, particularly those that deviated from mainstream society. Over time their theories have become canon despite the dynamic ways that continually morph mainstream societies and globalisation impact countercultures or subcultures. Editors and scholars, David Muggleton and Rupert ­Weinzierl (2004), gather diverse subcultural research in The Post-Subcultures Reader, which offers new ways of understanding subcultures that exist as not always in opposition but in alternativity to mainstream culture/society. Contemporary research about subcultures extends and at times contradicts the Chicago School and Birmingham Centre (The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies) (Williams, 2011, p. 6–7). Current subcultures are reflexive to the changing mainstream culture and are significantly impacted by globalisation and technology in greater ways than past subcultures.

Contrary to the fixed descriptions of subcultures, the fluidity in subcultural groups parallels mainstream global cultures. Subcultures are complicated and difficult to describe with their complexities, intradynamics and contradictions. Moreover, internal and external factors contribute to the motivations driving a subculture in directions of alternativity and resistance, often in reaction to perceived marginalisation.

In my research, I employ the following definition for ‘subculture’:

a group smaller in population than mainstream culture as a whole, and who consciously set themselves apart from the mainstream society with any combination of the following: dress; ideology; music; language; technology; geography; and/or activities. (Winge, 2012, p. 5)

This understanding of subcultures is reflexive to my research with subcultures and their participants simultaneously belonging to multiple subcultural groups or moving between different subculture(s). In addition, individuals are often hesitant or unwilling to be identified as belonging to an individual group, but acknowledge or embrace the ‘subculture’ or ‘alternative’ label for their active rejection and invalidation of homogeneous mainstream mores, dress and beliefs. This working definition encompasses an array of differing groups who may be understood as subcultures in ways of understanding their alternativity. Additionally, this definition accounts for individuals who transfer from one group to another, and those who belong to multiple groups concurrently, without individual preference to one group or seeking specific reasons for subcultural membership (Winge, 2012, p. 5–6).

Subcultures Online

Subcultures have had online presence since the Internet was first publically available. In 1994, members of the Modern Primitive subculture created the website Body Modification Ezine (BME.com) for people to post their body modification images and, eventually, videos. Their website also functions as a way for body modification enthusiasts and subculture members to connect and communicate regardless of their geographic location, as well as disseminate information about body modifications and related events. Due to the worldwide access to the Internet, online subcultures are impacted by global factors combined with innovations of cyberspace. Without the need for being geographically fixed, these subcultures no longer need to be localised or physically located. Global access provides subcultures with benefits such as virtual exchange of ideas or artwork that can exist solely as digital constructs and not be anchored in a real-world environment (save for the technology that houses or relays such information). As a result of this online existence, time is ubiquitous, while simultaneously an unknown, for online subcultures. These subcultures’ relationships to time are complex, as they exist as both atemporal and temporal. Their posts are timestamped but have little to no relevance to active temporal time because these posts become an integrated part of digital life of the subculture. Still, significant posts (usually in retrospect) become markers on the subculture’s timeline. There are surely posts marking the beginning and possibly the end of an online subculture; such delineations of a start and a finish delineate the temporal nature of subcultures. These online posts also have the potential to archive a subculture for the first time in their own words, in real time (relative to the timestamps).

Adding to the complexities of time for online subcultures is how posts (texts and images) and other digital content will remain online forever, which has intertwined drawbacks and benefits. Online subcultures post images, texts, tweets, videos etc., which are viewable by anyone regardless of subcultural affiliation. Regardless of the subculture archives, the subculture’s online content never goes away completely. While this permanence is not afforded to most subcultures, online subcultures’ existence persists long after the subculture dissipates. Whether archived or resulting from a random search, even the most insignificant and temporary subcultures potentially remain relevant and inspirational.

Online subcultures primarily communicate through asynchronous streams of consciousness.

Despite the disconnected interactions, the online platforms facilitate building virtual communities that strengthen the subculture overall. Their sociotechnical experiences generate shared commonalities and even encourage interactions of play and creativity, which may lead to innovations for the subculture. Subcultures or cybercultures that emerge entirely or almost entirely online are a more recent incarnation but increasing in numbers. Online subcultures tend to have two types of existences: 1) entirely online without in-person physical interactions, or 2) both online and in-person interactions between subculture members. Both types weave aspects of the online and real world together, because the real world will always bleed and be carried into the virtual. Subsequently, online subcultures, regardless of level of emersion, live intertwined existences in both the real and virtual worlds. For example, the first type of online subculture includes groups created in the Second Life, World of Warcraft or Sims videogames. These subcultures require an online avatar or identity to interact with other members and conduct subcultural activities while in the game. When participating in the subculture there is a deep level of immersion into the virtual world for the subculture member.

Seapunk, Normcore and Health Goth subcultures are examples of the second type of online subcultures as members carry specific but common subcultural tropes into their physical, real-world existences. These subcultures negotiate between their physical identities versus online identities where they are determinant in both. While each of these online subcultures is distinct, they share commonalities in their use of social media and online identities.

Seapunk

The Seapunk subculture and subsequent fringe art movement is closely associated with aquatic hues, styles and imagery. The subculture draws on imagery reminiscent of the 1990s tropes in their fashions, styles, music and videos set in low-quality water-themed backgrounds posted on social media platforms. On 1 June 2011, the Brooklyn DJ Lil’ Internet (Julian Foxworth) posted a brief synopsis of a dream he had on Twitter: ‘Seapunk leather jacket with barnacles where the studs used to be.’ This tweet is commonly credited with naming the subculture (Stehlik, 2012). In January 2012, Miles Raymer interviewed Shan ‘Zombelle’ Beaste and Albert ‘Ultrademon’ Redwine for the online article ‘The Week Seapunk Broke’ about the emerging Seapunk subculture (2012).

Due to the significance of music and music videos to the Seapunk subculture, the online subculture launched a music scene and record label – Coral Records Internazionale (Raymer, 2012). According to The Guardian’s journalist Alexis Petridis, Zombelle announced in a tweet that the Seapunk movement is dead (Petridis, 2014); however, closer examination of her post suggests that she is remarking about co-opting of subcultural aesthetics without the ideology (@zombelle_, 2012).

Drawing on the Seapunk subcultural aesthetics, on 10 November 2012, performer/entertainer Rihanna performed her song Diamonds on Saturday Night Live in front of a green screen featuring Seapunk imagery (Perpetua, 2012). Then, on 12 November 2012, rapper Azealia Banks’ Atlantis song and video drew heavily from Seapunk imagery and themes; the video was released to multiple online sources (Hawkins, 2016). The online feedback from Seapunk enthusiasts was overwhelmingly negative towards Rihanna and Banks, stating that they borrowed imagery and themes without being...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• Part I: Subcultures
• Part II: Bodies
• Part III: Spaces
• Conclusion: Making Sense of Alternativity in Leisure and Culture: Back to Subculture?
• Index