In a 2014 Dezeen article, Justin McGuirk reflects on William Gibson's observation that burgeoning subcultures are rapidly commodified, losing their subversive potential before they fully form. McGuirk uses the example of a sanitized, commercialized "punk" aesthetic appearing in London shops, devoid of the original movement's anti-establishment ethos. He argues that the internet, with its instant communication and trend-spotting, accelerates this process. Essentially, the very act of identifying and labeling a subculture makes it vulnerable to appropriation by mainstream culture, transforming rebellion into a marketable product.
In a 2014 Dezeen article entitled "Anything threatening to be a subculture is commodified before it can walk," author Justin McGuirk explores the prescient observations of science fiction writer William Gibson regarding the rapid commercialization of nascent subcultures. McGuirk elaborates on Gibson's assertion that the potential for any burgeoning counter-cultural movement to pose a genuine challenge to the dominant societal paradigm is swiftly neutralized through its absorption into the mainstream marketplace. This preemptive commodification, McGuirk argues, effectively neuters the subversive potential of these movements before they can fully develop their own distinct identity and ideology.
McGuirk utilizes the backdrop of a discussion at the London Design Festival, where Gibson was a participant, to contextualize this phenomenon. He highlights Gibson's perspective that the mechanisms of capitalism, particularly within the spheres of fashion and design, are acutely attuned to identifying emerging trends and aesthetics associated with nascent subcultures. These nascent expressions of cultural difference, often characterized by unique styles of dress, music, or other forms of artistic expression, are rapidly appropriated and repackaged for mass consumption. This process, according to Gibson and McGuirk, strips these expressions of their original meaning and significance, transforming them into mere commodities devoid of their initial rebellious or counter-cultural spirit.
The article further posits that this rapid commodification is facilitated by the pervasive nature of modern media and communication technologies. The internet and social media, while potentially offering platforms for subcultures to form and disseminate their ideas, simultaneously provide avenues for corporations to monitor and exploit these emergent cultural trends. This creates a paradoxical situation where the very tools that could empower subcultures are also instrumental in their assimilation into the mainstream. McGuirk emphasizes the speed and efficiency with which this process occurs, noting that subcultures are often commodified before they can even establish a cohesive identity or articulate a clear set of values.
Finally, McGuirk's piece subtly touches upon the implications of this rapid commodification for the future of cultural expression and dissent. By preemptively absorbing and neutralizing potential challenges to the status quo, the dominant system effectively maintains its hegemony. This raises questions about the possibility of genuine cultural innovation and resistance in a society characterized by such pervasive and rapid commercialization. The article leaves the reader pondering the potential consequences of a cultural landscape where authentic subcultures are perpetually stifled in their infancy, continuously being transformed into marketable products before they can meaningfully challenge prevailing social norms.
Summary of Comments ( 232 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42917680
HN users generally agree with Gibson's observation about the rapid commodification of subcultures. Several commenters attribute this to the internet and social media, allowing trends to spread and be exploited much faster than in the past. Some argue that genuine subcultures still exist, but are more fragmented and harder to find. One commenter suggests commodification might not always be negative, as it can provide access to niche interests while another points out the cyclical nature of trends, with mainstream adoption often leading to subcultures moving underground and reinventing themselves. A few lament the loss of authenticity this process creates.
The Hacker News post titled "Anything threatening to be a subculture is commodified before it can walk (2014)" has a modest number of comments, prompting discussion around the commodification of subcultures and the role of the internet and late-stage capitalism in this process.
One commenter points out the inherent irony in Gibson lamenting the commodification of subcultures within a Dezeen article, a publication they perceive as catering to a consumerist audience interested in design trends. They suggest that subcultures are inherently attractive to those seeking novelty and, consequently, ripe for commercial exploitation. This commenter further argues that true subcultures, those driven by genuine shared interest rather than a desire to be different, are not inherently opposed to commodification, and may even embrace it.
Another commenter builds upon this idea, asserting that the internet has accelerated the process of subcultural commodification. The increased speed of information dissemination allows trends to be identified, replicated, and marketed rapidly, effectively neutralizing any potential threat a subculture might pose to the mainstream. They mention “normcore” as an example of a manufactured trend presented as a subculture, highlighting the blurring lines between genuine movements and commercially driven imitations.
The cyclical nature of subcultures and mainstream culture is also discussed. A commenter suggests that subcultures are frequently absorbed and reinterpreted by the mainstream, with elements becoming diluted and integrated into popular culture. This process, they argue, is not necessarily negative, as it allows for the wider dissemination of ideas and aesthetics.
Another comment thread focuses on the definition of a subculture, with some arguing that genuine subcultures are defined by shared values and practices rather than superficial aesthetics. They contend that commodification primarily affects the outward appearance of a subculture, while the underlying principles remain intact. This perspective suggests that the commodification of a subculture's aesthetics does not necessarily equate to the death of the subculture itself.
Finally, a couple of commenters express a more cynical view, suggesting that the entire concept of subcultures is now largely performative, driven by a desire for social signaling and individual branding within a capitalist framework. They posit that in the current environment, any attempt to create a genuine subculture is immediately co-opted and transformed into a commodity.