The Unpopular Mainstream

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.

Fashion: The Super Model of Late Capitalism

Finally, I get to use a bad pun! If I didn’t want my posts to be easy to find via Google searches, I would do this more often.

There have been a number of attempts in pop culture to get behind the more superfluous aspects of the fashion industry – for example, the comedy film Zoolander, and recent novel Zero History. The former, while jokingly implicating the industry in international conspiracy, also highlights the political-economic realities (namely, sweatshops) associated with it; the latter explores the relationship between the fashion industry and defense contracting. Of course there are other examples as well.

While avoiding any attempt render the industry as some sort of conspiratorial cabal, an examination of the industry along with the phenomenon of “fashion” and “trends” more generally can provide a good glimpse into the rhythms and logic of late capitalism.

By late capitalism, I mean the post-WW2 era, specifically characterized by fully automated production, “Fordism,” multinational corporations, and mass consumption. Several key problems resulted from its extraordinary successes (demonstrating the point that capitalism is based on contradictions that threaten its very existence): the prominence of sectoral (as opposed to regional) inequalities expanded the role of research and development and increased the risk of investment; mass production and consumption left fewer and fewer avenues for profitable investment (thus the turn to financialization) as well as a level of production grossly disproportional to human needs; and a high level of state spending and gradual devaluation of currency (responses to the aforementioned problems) destabilized the international monetary system.

It is also important to note that changes in the methods and organization of production in the post-WW2 era have sharply increased the turnover time of capital (and hence, accelerated the rhythm of production). As the value of capital depreciates over time, increasing its turnover time (approaching zero) is a natural tendency of capitalism.  Thus... constant bombardment with NEW! things.

And how does fashion (as an industry or a phenomenon) embody these trends?

First and foremost, of course, a basic human need (protection from the elements) is transformed into a commodity, but more importantly, a commodity which one must constantly purchase and replace. Through media and socialization, we acquire the mindset that one should have a variety of clothes (bearing no relation to the need clothing is supposed to fill). We believe with religious fervor that an outfit should never be worn more than one day in a row (even if, privately, we do not wash it between uses). Clothing begins to take on specialized functions. There are work clothes, leisure clothes, formal wear, athletic wear, summer clothes, winter clothes, etc. etc. And then, if that isn’t enough, things are constantly going out of style that so we continually feel a “need” to update our wardrobes. We see something new and have to have it. We give our old (perfectly functional) clothes to charity.

One thing that makes style so important to us is the idea, implanted into our conscious, that clothing expresses identity. What you wear says something about who you are as a person. In fact, the fashion industry has absorbed many of the people who, as a result of the capitalist division of labor, are able to devote their labor entirely to “artistic” productions, as a livelihood. Fashion has become an art form (as have other human necessities such as food and shelter). The fact that it is an “art” in some way legitimizes the attention people devote to personal style. Of course, as a type of art, clothing has also become a means of identifying and expressing class affiliation (in Pierre Bourdieu’s terms, a form of cultural capital). Wealthier people will spend inordinate amounts of money on clothing, purchasing high-end brands, just to demonstrate to everyone that they can spend inordinate amounts of money on clothing.

The thing that real galls me is the seeming aversion of many celebrities to wearing a piece of clothing more than once. Must clothing really be that dispensable? Talk about senseless waste.

Another thing to pay attention to: why is it that every event, organization, vacation, any occasion whatsoever, requires a t-shirt? (College students have this down to a science.) How many people have many more t-shirts than they need or could ever wear? And somehow, t-shirts come to function as holy relics, objectifying the memories and emotions of past experiences. (People make quilts out of them!) Why something so silly and cheap as a t-shirt?

As the actual human need gets increasingly obscured, we are impelled to buy more and more. We are socialized to shop for new clothes at the beginning of every season. Clothes are not meant to last. All because demand and short production cycles are necessary for capitalist profitability.