Hey! This week, for our
discussion on Hipster Activism and Slacktivism, I want you guys to pay special
attention to what constitutes activism (or the lack thereof) and how hipsters
utilize such. That said, here are some questions to jog your thoughts…
In Stacey Patton’s article,
“Why blacks aren’t embracing Occupy Wall Street,” the reason for African
Americans’ failure to participate in Occupy Wall Street is explored. She begins
by quantitatively arguing how economically marginalized African Americans are
in America today (this should stir you to make connections to our discussion
two weeks ago about marginalization breeding hipsterdom). Such marginalization
has bred existentialism (this is 1950s suburbia-esque) amongst African
Americans, and blacks are under the impression that “Nothing will change. [They]
have been here already. It’s hopeless.” Thus, is it more hipster to be a white,
protesting for economic change, or to be a black, less optimistic for a change
in the status quo? Likewise, this article begs the question whether or not
hipsters need leaders. Hipsters are alleged to be followers, cherry-pickers of
various social capital that they have neither earned nor innovated. If the
black church were to exert more effort into the Occupy Wall Street movement,
civil rights groups were to no longer sell out black America for corporate
money, and African American pop culture icons were to get involved first-hand, would
black involvement be any greater?
Eyder Peralta’s coverage of
the hipster cop (“Out of Wall Street Protest, An Unlikely Celebrity: ‘Hipster Cop’”)
refocuses us on the strength of the hipster versus that of the man. In a time
where being hipster and sticking it to the man has become the mainstream, is it
now more hipster to work with the law, rather than against it? Does working
with the law merit slacktivism, as one is failing to protest, or activism, as
one is working for a purpose?
Lastly, “Small Change” by
Malcolm Gladwell argues the failure of social media to promote effective
activism. He concludes “activism that challenges the status quo – that attacks
deeply rooted problems – is not for the faint of heart.” Personal connections
are the greatest variable as to one’s degree of involvement or willingness to
fight an injustice at a high-risk level, and social networks like Facebook
simply don’t accommodate those. Thus, is in unauthentic and inactive of
hipsters to try and promote change via the Internet? Formal protests are
clearly more effective and more danger, as was demonstrated by the Greensboro
sit-ins, but is simply raising awareness worthy of being counted a failure on
the hipster’s behalf? Or, to play devil’s advocate, is awareness the
quintessential first step to activism?
Hit me with your ideas and
thoughts, and please feel free to contribute, share, or answer any other
questions you might have. Examples are encouraged in your responses!
Happy hipster-ing!
Last week during a talk a scholar, who was a freedom rider, argued that the failure of Occupy Wall Street was due to poor organization and planning. I think Gladwell also argues towards a similar direction. Networking does not produce leadership nor strong ties. I thought both arguments are really interesting which also points to black involvement. A problem of OWS was that non-white citizens did not feel represented by demonstrators. How could have inclusion of minority groups worked?
ReplyDeletePatton argues that the influence of the black church is too small to reach black youth. I agree with that and would probably encourage other institutions to stimulate activism, e.g colleges and universities (HBCUs), maybe even high schools in marginalized neighborhoods. The NAACP and other civil rights organizations were not interested in joining this movement because imho it was framed as a particular white social movement. Inclusion is great, but African American civil rights activists did a lot more during the 20th century to achieve little in 2014. Maybe selling out is a way of survival in this harsh world.
This could lead to a thought-provoking conversation, I guess.
To answer one of the first questions that Evan posed to the class, it seems as though being white and protesting for economic change is more hipster than being black and protesting for economic change. If Occupy Wall Street consisted of mainly black protesters it would not have been seen as a hipster movement at all, and this in part is due to the fact that we've already seen African American communities fight for equal wages before. It's nothing new, exciting, or rebelious; therefore, it does not fit the hipster profile. On the other hand, a white protest about wages in America is a bold move coming from the so called privileged, making both ironic and completely unexpected. What a perfect hipster combination.
ReplyDeleteReferring to the question about Peralta's article, I personally don't believe that it is now more hipster to work with the law than it is to work or rebel against it. The reason that Hipster Cop was such a big deal is because of the rare intertwining of hipster and law enforcer that he so perfectly exhibited. When our society speaks of hipsters it is almost always with a slight connotation and they are usually perceived as law breakers or insurgents; therefore, the sighting of a hipster cop is almost unheard of and makes for an interesting story. As for the following question on whether working for the law is slacktivism or activism, it depends on the hipster. As we've already established, there are countless types of hipsters with different values and belief systems. Maybe one hipster who likes "sticking it to the man" would view working with police enforcement as slacktivism, but a hipster that is described as a pseudo-intellectual might see it a different way.
I think that, in regards to Evan's first question, it is now more hipster to be a black person advocating for change. This is only because of the popularity (note distinct lack of the word "success") of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Before OWS, African Americans were identified as the underprivileged and lacking in economic support. OWS raises the issue of white oppression to the top of the bill. Now, the effort is said to be more collective (as in We are the 99%). However, the lens has just been turned on the whites as the oppressed ones. If we follow the typical definition of hip as in out of the mainstream and cool, the black protesters are now out of the mainstream, and more hipster. If the three conditional statements at the end of your paragraph (the black church, civil rights groups, and pop culture icons) happened to be true, yes, of course, black involvement in OWS would be greater. However, I think it is truly a unique moment for white, middle-class outrage. I don;t think the black community had much to gain from the effort, besides being labeled as "always causing trouble." I think they should certainly express their voice, but in a venue where there issues will be addressed more specifically, which may never exist.
ReplyDeleteI think, in regard to the hipster cop questions, it is more hipster to be among the defenders. The classic "screw the foundation, anarchy" viewpoint is very much more punk than it is hipster in the first place. However, this also brings to light the idea of how much punk culture has intruded into hipster culture. I think being on the side of the police is more hipster because, if hipsters truly stand for change, then the cop is the one likely to make more of a change than any occupy protester. I think working for the law is definitely activism. While it is working through the constructs of society, it is the opportunity to make a difference, and is much more worthy of accolades than OWS. The purpose of cops is not to increase the power of the mainstream or popular cause. It is to protect and serve. That is certainly not slacktivism in any sense of the word.
Addressing the third paragraph, Gladwell presents a really interesting point of view. I think he offers an accurate and, shall I say Demystified, view of the OWS protests. I certainly think it is authentic for hipsters to protest via Facebook. I do not think it is very "active" or effective really at all. The "boiling point" or what set off a large chain of events in, I believe was Tunisia, for the Arab Spring, was that a man covered himself in gasoline and set himself on fire. I doubt any occupier would be willing to go to those lengths for their protest. That does not mean that self harm or a drastic example such as that is the only way to draw attention to something or effectively protest it, but it certainly sends much more of a message and actually, if you look at it closely, had a greater end result than the occupy protest. It was not an active protest at all. I think raising awareness, as the OWS protest did, should not be regarded as a failure, just a catastrophic letdown. Taking into account that they failed to capitalize on the national, if not global, stage they were given is certainly discouraging. They didn't fail, they put a lot of new ideas in a lot of people's heads. But they did not maximize their potential for effectiveness. Awareness is the first step, but that does not mean we should not expect more.
With regards to the first question posed, I believe that by default the average African American who lacks faith in the status quo cannot be a hipster. As previously mentioned, the classic white hipster is known for appropriating his cultural capital, and therefore tends to hold only a superficial level of knowledge/interest in his affairs, such as his so-called political “protests”. Whereas the white hipster will protest with a congregation of other whites against corporate greed in America in the Occupy movements, the average African American has led an entire life of being exploited, not just by this corporate greed but by a prejudiced society in general; the average black man does not have superficial knowledge of these issues like the white hipster, but rather deep first hand experience. I think that African Americans in general view the Occupy movements as a white phenomenon, so they would likely be indifferent as to how exactly the NAACP receives funding or whether wealthy celebrities support the movement (regardless of their skin color).
ReplyDeleteAs for whether hipsters should collaborate with law enforcement, I think the most effective thing for them to do would be to try to effect change from within. Rebellion against the police will only hinder progress in the long run; perhaps more law enforcement personnel should become like the “hipster cop”, in the sense that they choose to rebel against negative stereotypes of police officers by ultimately doing their best to benefit the public.
As for the third question, whether it is inauthentic to attempt to promote “change” via the internet depends on what exactly your end objective is. If the objective is simply to raise awareness for a cause, then the internet can be a mightily useful tool. Take the “Ice Bucket Challenge” for example; the challenge went viral within days, and people who barely knew anything about ALS went through with the challenge because as Gladwell notes, it involves little true effort other than a little bit of time and willingness to have fun. Nevertheless, if a hipster believes that he is going to effect true revolutionary change over social media, then I would have to agree with Gladwell in that he would be sadly mistaken. Social media serves a vast number of unconnected people, and the only way that true “high risk” activism can work is if a number of people have a specific personal connection to a cause; oftentimes when political turmoil occurs in third world countries, news of this political oppression will spread on FB, and while Americans may disapprove of what is occurring, they are not very likely to become directly involved in any physical protesting unless they have some connection to the issue. Hence, social media has certainly allowed for a vast amount of superficial assistance and potential for awareness (and “awareness” can certainly be worth raising if that is your end objective), but it has not changed the nature of what is required of people to become true advocates.
I'm noticing that the majority of people seem to agree with Gladwell in that activism through social media is not activism at all. Well just to play devil's advocate, I think that social media is an excellent medium to use in any social revolution. In today's society, technology and access to information are rapidly changing and we hae to change with it. Utilizing a medium as powerful and accessible as social media is key to any modern day revolution and has had success in the past. As Nick mentioned, "The Ice Buck Challenge" raised over 100 million dollars, an impossible feat without the use of social media. I also think that one might argue that the use of social media is, inherently, a hipster concept because it is relatively new and sometimes quirky way to connect with the general public. The pink equal sign that swept through Facebook last year, for instance, was a very subtle and "hip" way to raise awareness about gay and lesbian rights; it was a form of activism with a hint of "hipsterism".
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to raise a new question, is a social movement that wields a hipster label taken less seriously by the public? I believe, similar to our discussion about hipster literature, that that label does take away from the movement. From personal experience, I recall all of the "hipster" girls at my school going to protest with the masses after school everyday. They were teenage girls who wore their docs and ratty flannels and made cardboard signs and took 1,000 pictures and posted them all over their instagrams. These were the same girls that had Chase debit cards that their parents filled with cash and ate at au bon pain for lunch because food cart food grossed them out. But they romantically craved the idea of being part of a hip young movement so without understanding what they were fighting for, people like this began to spend all of there time with the occupiers. I think that these individuals, that flock to hipster activism without any right, desire, or understanding, are the ones that give hipster movements a negative connotation.
I think that part of what makes social networks like facebook and twitter ineffective in promoting activism, is the fact that it doesn't require any physical action. People have been lulled into this sense that sharing a video on facebook or retweeting a tweet and using a hashtag results in change and promotes activism. That's what they should do, but the reality is that they don't because generally people will think that they covered their bases, that they did their part, and that now all their friends know that they are activists promoting social change. I think that the idea of hipsterism being associated with authenticity or lack there of relates to this conundrum.
ReplyDeleteThe use of social media in some ways essentially begs for inauthenticity, because you can post anything on the internet, and it’s so easy to act like you care. If hipsters are so devoted to being authentic, then I agree, the use of social media to promote change and activism is not hipster. However, social media isn’t always as completely shallow and useless when it comes to change. Communication and spreading the word about inequality or whatever the most recent challenge in our society is is incredibly valuable. To whatever extent - things like the #nomakeupselfie or the ALS ice bucket challenge succeeded in raising awareness and funds for their respective causes. (Yes, I do acknowledge the numerous flaws in both of these trends, but I think that to some extent they worked)
Just a heads-up: I have a couple additional articles about Kony 2012 pulled and will drawing on those a lot. If ya'll have time, go ahead and do some research on the movement and start collecting your thoughts!
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the question of whether or not hipsters need leaders to be effective activists, I think that much of what makes the political/social-activist side of hipsterdom unique is that it lacks the type of solidarity we have observed in most other social movements in American history. Gladwell continually describes the online variant of social activism as being a network rather than a traditional hierarchy. The obvious difference between the two is that networks lack a single central authority, uniting people through awareness, consensus, and loose ties rather than high-risk strategy, order, and solidarity. This type of social order is a defining aspect of hipsterdom. Hipsters deny the presence of hierarchal figureheads because they maintain a haughty sense of individuality. They take part in spreading social awareness rather than acting on premeditated, high-risk situations because they arguably do not have any specific social movement that they are all united under and wholly passionate about. I view hipster activism as being united under the desire to follow the trend, supporting the idea that hipsters will take part in social change if and only if it is the “hip” thing to do, and not because the movement contains a deep-rooted attachment to them. I believe this is the reason that most of what we consider to be hipster social activism takes place online today. The internet and social media platforms go hand in hand with the “hipster movement.” Such a platform creates a loose, non-hierarchial community of individuals who view activism as promoting awareness and getting the word out to the rest of the world. However, to a certain extent, this type of “activism" is minimally active. While awareness may in some instances be effective in promoting social progress and change (as we have recently seen in the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge) it lacks the sense of solidarity and unified passion that I believe is necessary to make any activist movement most successful, impactful, and historically influential. I think this is exactly the reason why the OWS movement lacks a dominant African American force; African Americans have historically been unified under powerful high-risk acts of social change that are led by powerful leaders. Hipster movements do not act as such, therefore there proceeds to be somewhat of a racial divide between what constitutes white/hipster activism and African American activism.
ReplyDelete