One interesting dichotomy structuring many sorts of value judgements is that of the “mainstream” versus the “fringe.” I love it. Not only is this another excellent example of linguistic categories – language as action as opposed to representation – but the power plays and strategies entailed by the use of these terms can be absolutely fascinating to observe.
I don’t think it is particularly earth-shattering to suggest that the “fringe” label is often used to imply that an idea or thing so attributed is more unique and creative, and somehow more in tune with “the truth” – whether that be theoretically or as a subjective understanding of human experience – than the brainwashed, whitewashed mainstream. This fits with the “sanctity of the individual” perspective that is the hallmark of liberalism. People working on their own, in competition with others, in opposition to the common, will necessary create a better, more enlightened product.
Nowhere has this been better assimilated and exploited than among the youths. There, one sees the perennial cycling between the fringe and mainstream: what was fringe becomes cool… until too many people catch on, at which point it goes out of style and lays dormant until it is once again obscure enough to be appropriated by the fringe. Not to get too deterministically economic in this post, but that is a great mechanism for driving the cycles of consumption so necessary in the late capitalist era. See style.
It is a food chain. The hipsters emulate the ignored and forgotten; the popular crowd emulates the hipsters; everyone else emulates the popular crowd; and, eventually, grandma emulates everyone else. And the hipsters emulate grandma. Of course, everyone has different opinions about what is cool and what is mainstream. One person may be proud of the indie band they discovered in a movie soundtrack, while someone else will deride the band for gaining so much exposure. And then there is the constant fear that the great new band that one discovered will “sell out.”
This goes beyond pop culture. In politics, it is common to try to paint oneself as a “maverick” while portraying one’s opponent as a “Washington insider.” No one likes “the establishment.” Everyone dreams about their independent-in-shining-armor, born on the edge of society in a no-name town, emerging with integrity intact, to transform the entire political system. True, this does, in part, stem from the idea that the people currently occupying offices are visibly incompetent, dishonest, and corrupt… but we are committed to the idea that it is somehow being part of the establishment – as a personal trait – that entails mediocrity, and nothing about the structure of the establishment itself (in which case it would not matter which individuals populate it).
I should not leave out academia either, although my discussion is by no means exhaustive. Scholars scramble over each other to be part of the “fringe.” This is particularly true in the critical social sciences and humanities. In this case the “mainstream” schools of thought are associated with forces of dominance – patriarchy, the bourgeoisie, etc. The academic version of coolness is to be “marginal” and speak for (oh, no, wait, I mean “with,” I swear I totally meant to say “with”!) the oppressed. There is nothing necessarily objectionable with that sentiment in and of itself, except that it is often a superficiality which masks the general maintenance of status quo and reluctance to take real radical action. People often attempt to fashion “fringe” viewpoints without addressing the foundations of disciplinary thought, in attempt to gain a certain sort of authority or following (rather than withering in the shadows of the hot-shots). This makes me wonder whether the valorization of “marginality” really emerges from a revolutionary disposition or merely represents the transplantation of “hipsterism” into the university setting.
As for me, I don’t care where I am, so long as I have a good view.
No comments:
Post a Comment