Rebel with your dollars!

In Why Johnny Can’t Dissent, Thomas Frank explains how the rebellious ideals held by the counterculture of the 1960s have been adopted in the Information Age by corporate America in order to sell products. While large corporations were once seen as a repressors of individuality, they has now come to embrace ideas of rebellion as a means to keep up with the ever-changing tastes of consumers. Consumerism is no longer about fitting in, but about distinguishing yourself from the masses. Information Age capitalism utilizes this desire of consumers to defy rules and structure in their marketing campaigns, putting a “rock and roll” spin on things in order to make them seem edgier, and “new”. The persistent desire for newness in American consumers is satiated by this “constantly updated individualism” (273), perpetual rebellion from whatever becomes “old”, or too popular (and thus, no longer a mark of distinction). The article mentions the partnership between Nike and the edgy and subversive author William S. Burroughs, explaining how corporations are going further than just appearing “hip”, digging into the “underground” to further this idea of rebellion. While its been said that Burroughs “sold out”, Frank goes on to explain that it is the structure that has changed, and not Burroughs himself. The merging of countercultural rebellion and corporate ideology is a wildly successful way to market to the consumers of the Information Age, drawing parallels between punk rockers like Henry Rollins, and the idea of the “self made man” in business.


(This sweater, taken from UO online, costs 50$)

This idea of the “commodification of the counterculture” reminds me of stores like Urban Outfitters and Hot Topic. They both allow the instant adoption of an entire lifestyle by commodifying their respective countercultures - the “hipster” and “goth/punk”. Shopping at either of these stores can allow a person to completely transform their appearance and lifestyle - stores like these are a one-stop shop for the music, clothing styles, books, and even home furnishings specific to what is popular in their specific genre. When I visited Portland last year, one of my aunt’s friends (young aunt, typical Portlander) was complaining about how Urban Outfitters stole their “culture” (referring to their announcement to sell Polaroid film). UO commodifies the “thrift store” look, making it very expensive to look like you dug through a sweaty pile of clothes in a dirty warehouse to find the perfect Bill Cosby sweater. Stores like UO are responsible for the mass-production of hipsters by making it easy for people to purchase an entire identity, effectively removing any legitimacy that this “counterculture” may actually have. (This reminds me of the adbusters article about hipsters, so I’ll link to it...good stuff: http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html )