Monday 30 March 2009

Save our Nerds

All subcultures are appropriated, hollowed out and reoriented for the purposes of capitalism. This is just true - and Dick Hebdige wrote about it a long time ago. But I guess we don't care about it much when it's somebody else's subculture. I got it around 1992-1993, when Indie became Britpop and a world was lost. Other may feel that Topshop selling metal band t-shirts to townies was pretty insulting. Now this guy feels it's been done to nerds. True - but so late: I'd guess Weird Science started the rot in 1985. The Big Bang Theory is simply the coup de grace.



6 comments:

Benjamin Judge said...

I don't want to burst your bubble but isn't Weird Science just a weak reimagining of The Nutty Proffessor which itself was just one of a long string of films about nerds? Is nerd a subculture? Also aren't subcultures a result of capitalism? Are they not actually reliant on capitalism being, as they are, merely a clumsily meshed together appreciation society for a group of bands, films, clothing etc (ie products)

Essentially as scenes/subcultures get more popular their original meanings will get diluted as more people have their interpretation of what they mean. This isn't evil it is just mathematics.

As for Top Shop selling metal T-Shirts, surely this is exactly what subcultures want. Most only exist so people can feel different and special, which is of course an illusion. As Frank Black (of all people) put it "I don't conform, I wear a different uniform". If a big company starts selling the things that make up your subcultures 'look' you can wear something else and feel smug about being one step ahead/to the side of everyone else. Thus fulfilling the main reason for adhering to a subculture.

In short: Fuck nerds.

The Plashing Vole said...

I see your point, but no, subcultures weren't originally the product of capitalism: capitalism only started targeting subcultures in the 1950s - after which you could buy clip-on quiffs etc. I think some current subcultures are certainly market-generated, but most form independently and then (more and more) rapidly become appropriated. I suspect that nerdism isn't really a subculture - it's a tag attached to people who then claim it as a mark of pride rather than an identity generated away from the scrutiny of wider society.

You've definitely got the metal shirts at Topshop bit wrong. Metal fans aren't buying them - they buy shirts for particular bands at gigs or in scummy shops. There's been a fashion in mainstream/celebrity circles for metal shirts (I seem to remember Victoria Beckham wearing one). The originators are horrified by another, dominant, group taking a badge of identity and turning it into a hollowed-out signifier which no longer has anything to do with the 'original' 'meaning' of Iron Maiden's Eddie or whatever. I don't think the metal kids will stop wearing their shirts, they'll just bide their time until the mainstream has moved on.

The Plashing Vole said...

Oh, I haven't seen either incarnation of The Nutty Professor and don't intend to, but I take your point - nerds in films are clearly much older. Maybe there's a paper in this.

Benjamin Judge said...

You miss my point with Top Shop. I know Lily Allen isn't a fan of the Ramones and that Fern Cotton doesn't dig Saxon. What I am saying is that it was a boring fashion not a dangerous or offensive one. I would spend more time worrying about who manafactured the garments than on worrying what the finished product signifies. Slave labour to produce cheap T-Shirts is the real evil face of capitalism. Upsetting the 'real' Iron Maiden fans by selling a T-Shirt to Lindsay Lohan is not.

Incidentally if you wear a band T-Shirt you are an advert. You are part of a capitalist system. Doesn't matter if it is Guns 'n' Roses bought at Primark or at the actual gig.

I just don't buy the 1950's bit either. Isn't it closer to the truth that the 1950's (in America particularly) saw the rise of television and car ownership and the spread of rhythm and blues/ rock 'n' roll into mainstream audiences. Wasn't this era the first time that a scene or subculture was large enough and, more importantly, rich enough to be worth selling products to.

In other words until there was a large enough middle class capitalism could not take a large enough bite at subculture for it to be noticeable?

Subcultures of the poor could only be sold in cinema because people could not afford disposable goods like we can today. Cinema was a cheap escape from reality. So, for example, films such as Public Enemy or Little Caesar should be seen as the exact same process as Top Shop's T-Shirts. The films were made by people with no connection to gang culture to sell to people who want to buy into gang culture.

The spread of media makes this look like a modern phenomenon but I don't believe it is. Roman helmets are found with Celtic bands on them because they soldiers posted in Britain liked the designs. Within the Roman Empire a British tribe would be a subculture.

Also, to use your example of rock T-Shirts, didn't the rock scene steal most of their look from bikers anyway? A real fan of a rock band in a leather jacket is a "hollowed-out signifier" of the Hells Angels leather jacket design of the late 1940's which in turn is a "hollowed out signifier" of an American Bomber squadron jacket.

The Plashing Vole said...

I do see your point - and largely agree: we just have different emphases.

Benjamin Judge said...

I guess that's fucking alright then.

love you x x