The Emergence of Virtual Communities

It can be agreeably said that the internet has changed our lives, most of our lives - those who engage in the technologies of our century to make life easier and faster in some parts. The global economy is becoming so much more competitive because it has become so small due to the use of technologies, especially the internet. The internet has many purposes. Kahn and Kellner address that the "emergence of the utpoian rhetoric of cyberdemocracy and personal liberation" have allowed the growth of new online communities. I feel the internet can be both dangerous and extremely beneficial for people. Kahn and Kellner also introduce that the internet (World Wide Web) "constitutes a dynamic and complex space in which people can construct and experiment with their own identity(ies), culture, and social practices. People are able to "act out roles" of themselves that they wouldn't really do in real life. Posts of social networks like Facebook of the "daily me" statuses allow people to publicize their lives they otherwise would not think to share to others in person - this makes information about other people more easy to find than ever. The internet is a place that embodies reconstructions of citizenship as Kahn and Kellner argue in their essay "Oppositional Politics and the Internet". This youtube video below demonstrates a good example of what this essay is talking about. It is scary when you think deeper on this idea.

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 )

Counter-culture

The article by Thomas Frank was very interesting. One area that interested me was when he walked about how capitalism was trying to repress pleasure (35). He compares this fact to musicians like the Beatles and Bob Dylan and their association with counterculture and the rebellious nature that constructed the time periods they were both performing in. This constructed the counter culture nature of sixties and seventies. This "movement" broke boundaries, getting past the sexually repressive and conservative lifestyle that the fifties featured.

Companies started "changing" as the article pointed out. Companies like Burger King, Levis, and Toyota had their mottos made to reflect the culture of the time. I think that the whole era of rebellion is very interesting and a critical step for our understanding of culture of today and of the past. There are many political, social, and economic reasons behind the repressive nature before the era of rebellion.

One major event that fueled rebellion in the late sixties/early seventies was the Vietnam war. People rebelled through protests, music, drugs, and general anti government behavior. I think the time of major rebellion has past due to historical differences between the past and present. However, there are still many groups and people who rebell in today's world.

Here is an image regarding counterculture/rebellion that I believe fits well with the article. (click on it to read)