Lobster in a Bucket

Matt, this is unrelated but an earlier post said you read a book about the Talking Heads. I have been really into them lately. They are great. If I was still organizing hall skits I would make them the next background band. I was having visions again for a skit set to "Wild Wild Life".

I am finding this discussion on hipsters an enlightening one, but feel in need of some remedial work. Can someone tell me where I can go to get a little more comprehensive idea of what a hipster is, rather than relying on piecing things together from your postings and comments?
Thanks from one I think you would call a "suit".

Matt, I responded to your latest post on my blog...

"Many people that participate in 'corporate' America are short-sited greedy little goblins that are completely content to strive for a materialist nirvana."

Heavens, Matt. I admire your enthusiasm, but I don't see any real people in your post. I see causes. Same with Ryan, actually: both of you are pitching "hipsters vs. suits" as the epic battle of our time, instead of a bunch of people trying to figure out how to lives lives with meaning, in whatever context. This isn't the worthless bums against the soulless squares, it's you and Ryan, two guys with strengths and sins, both searching for Christ within your contexts.

Mesh I'm trying to give an archetype of the evil side of a context. While there are people of the hispter mystique who are pointlessly contrary, and whose significance is ultimately vapid. I'm mearly trying to point out that the nastiness of people runs both ways.

Yes it does, and even though I've come down hard on the hipsters, to write out things valued by the status quo and the hipsters on a piece of paper, odd's are I'd end up more on the hipster said.

And if both sides are as equally filled with sinners, one might think it's viewing it on the "movement" level that is uphelpful and ultimately unproductive for defining "yourself." Again, maybe we should just look at it on a person to person, immediate community basis.

I'm pretty confused here. Obviously no one that you actually have a person to person relationship with needs to be put in any contrived social category. To even use the words "hipster" and "suit" demands that you talk on a big level. Anything else would mean objectifying the person.
However, in terms of self-description, it is really important to identify oneself with a larger, national, social group. We have always do this. I'm a Christian, a Democrat, a Republican, a Flapper, and Progressive, a Yuppie, a Hippie, a Beatnik, and even a Hipster.
Now my point is that there is a fundamental viewpoint on the world that the social movement of hipstericity(heh) has that is good.
Now I guess, Josiah, that you would say this societal conceptualization gets in the way with personal relationships where we have cause to know somebody a lot better than superficial social justifications give justice to. You may be right there, but my mind just compells me to think about America, about where our society is going, about how our generation thinks, about how the hipster way seems like a bright spot in a generation that seems to be defined more by MTV spring break and Abercrombie than anything else.

But the hipster movement isn't any different from the status quo, they just wear different clothing and listen to different music. They still alienate, they still consume, etc. etc. etc.

There's a difference between being part of a "social" group by virtue of where you live and what church you go to, it's very different that choosing to be part of a group because you like their style of clothes, ideology, and music. It's a very American, individualistic thing to do, which is markedly un-Christian.

It's seems even more of a sham when you do it in the name of "being authentic." Yes, the MTV generation and all that shlack is, well, shlack. But so what? Be you, be your loving to your friends and family. Work hard. Server your community. Server you church, etc. etc. etc. If you happen to like wearing a particular style of clothes, that's great, do it, but don't freaking do it to try to live up to some sorta image. That's just as in-authentic as the MTV generation.

I don't know that it is. If you are a hipster at heart, then it seems totally legitimate to live up to the image. Now we really can't know why a said person takes on the characteristics of the hipster. But it seems a bit presumptuous to say that it couldn't be because they were feeling shackled by the dominant youth culture and felt like they wanted to express themselves in more alternative ways.

good greif, you people are dizzying. I can hardly follow, but maybe that's just because I've been working third shift all weekend. Whatever happened to "I had eggs for breakfast." That would be a post I could sympathize with. Do you guys ever say anything nice to each other?

Kati,

We love each other. We know each other. We can talk this intensely and not worry about the other person hating them. Sometimes we might go over the line, but we're pretty good at calling each other on it and not holding grudges...

Howdy, Matt. I've really enjoyed reading the dialogue that you've begun. I question this comment from your last post:

"In Christianity we have two other options. One is the fundamentalist rout of widespread isolation and irrelevance. The other is the mainstream evangelical of Christian Contemporary Music (CCM). To me this typifies the Christian suit."

Sounds like a false dilemma to me. It seems that the problem you have with both hipsters and 'suits' is that they force their identity to conform to a preselected image, rather than allowing the image to spring from an identity formed in some other way. If this is the case, then 'inauthentic' or 'falsely constructed' personalities fall into many more categories than the three (i.e., hipster, fundamentalist, CCM) listed above.

I doubt that a satisfactory answer to the questions you're raising will come from any of these three categories, and while I'm interested in your observations about the hipster movement, what I'd really like to hear from you is what you think a legitimate Christian individuality ought to look like.

Whatever it is, I know two options aren't John Gregor MacDougall or Richie Iserman.

I'm a bad person.

Josiah, I am giving you the finger.

i am too but just for the hell of it.

Finger or no finger, any thoughts on structures for Christian identity?

Katie,
Thanks for joining in on the discussion.
I would suggest that there are two basic attitudes that Christians can take to pop culture. One is this unquestioning acceptance appropriation. This view tries to swallow secular pop culture whole. For the producers of art, this means CCM. Ironically, the consumers of art that fit into this category usually don't bother with the pale imitations of the pop forms, rather they just go for the original, the secular art, the eminem and timberlake. The people that consume the art produced by the "acceptance" attitude artists generally are people from the fundamentalist camp. The fundamentalists don't really have any artists of their own. I suspect this is because fundamentalism as an attitude suppresses the creative areas of the brain in a particularly nasty fashion.
This leaves the third camp. The "engagers". By engage, I mean to not just imbibe secular culture, but to analyze it, see what it's saying, get a "world-view" you know a lot of the stuff that we learn at Covenant. The engager artist sees herself as a member of not just her Christian world, but also the greater cultural landscape (props to Mesh's reference to Augustine). The artist produces art that reflects understanding of overall art forms and development of trends. This is key, I think that the accomodationist artist just appropriates whatever is hot. This engager moves along the line of development, progressing. The engager consumer, is always on the lookout for good art from a Christian perspective. Ideally, these things should give the engager consumer the best experience. But the engager consumer is also be aware that good art is being done in the secular world and needs to be engaged.

Now relating this to hipster. I think that we all want to say that we are engagers. It's what Covenant has taught us to do. My feeling in this whole discussion is that in our intelligent reflection and analysis of the cultural commodities we traffic in, we share common ground with the hispter. Both us and the hipster are always looking at secular culture with a degree of distance through refletion.

Now Josiah and Ryan have done a very good job at nailing down some of the more annoying and negative attributes of the hipster culture. But if we really do share a lot of the same ground with these people then we need to recognize the same potential for snobbery and cynicism in us. I believe that this is the point that Josiah has arrived at. And it is a point well taken.

A true Christian individual is in my mind going to have a critical attitude to much in life that refelcts a constant battle for self-awareness. Everything in life must be engaged. At the risk of sounding too existentialist a TCI more responsibility that the unreflective sort, responsibility to walk a fine line between being too cynical and therefore irrelevant to anyone else, and being too accomodating to anything that may come along.
Fortunately, the TCI will hopefully have other TCI's to help him out. This community usually happens witin a church, but at a crazy place like Chattanooga it could just be a group of old Covenant ex-pats.

See Katie, I like to look at the entire discussion in light of the Sacred - John Gregor|Richie Iserman disctinction.

Like Matt said, we could take one approach to Macdougall/Iserman, and simply embrace them wholeheartedly.

You often see this sortof approach in less savvy Christian parents who send their children off to public schools hoping to expose their children to the Macdougall/Iserman and make them more "socially adept."

The concern from many parents, who hold to a hard and fast sacred - Macdougall/Iserman split, is that these parents are sending their Children off to bow before false idols. I have some sympathy with this view, since I feel that Macdougall/Iserman have personalities somewhat befitting 6 ft tall solid bronze statues, but that's not my point...

So the other position is to avoid Macdougall/Iserman all together, pursuing a wholly seperate Sacred art, leaving Macdougall/Iserman to burn in the Holy Fires of Christ's Second Coming on Judgement Day when there will be a new heavens and new earth.

Now, of course, one might think like some more thorougoing transformationalists that it is possible to engage Macdougall/Iserman to the extent that they might be redeemed and survive through the holy fire. Many intelligent people hold to this viewpoint, like Calvin College.

But we all know at least two things a. Calvin sucks and b. Michigan is damn cold

So the question is, is engaging Macdougall/Iserman a risk you want to take? Consider your gender for a second: as a young Christian woman you have the difficult situation of a. having a gender that has been oppressed for 6,000 years and b. as a Christian woman this oppression has been institutionalized, particularly by Canadian Christians a crazy-eyed Germans.

It might be appropriate then for you and your exceptional gifts to, Joan of Arc style (sans stake-burning), transcedend the Macdougall/Iserman dilemma, and attain a bold new Christ-like freedom for women everywhere.

Ok, I have work to do now...

The hipster culture lacks vision. It seems to me, Matt, that the people who constantly check Pitchfork and try to buy all the albums that it suggests do not really know what they want. They want to be told what they should want to that they can be, well, hip. You have spent a lot ot time defending what the hipster culture is, but what seems to be missing from this discussion is something about what the hipster culture should ultimately become. I am not talking merely about what the next musical trend or fashion statement should be. I mean what kind of person do you want to be at 40 years old that you hope being a hipster at 20 will help you to become. When I look at the hipster culture, I see music and a fashion that portrays and encourages complacency, cynicism, selfishness, and vanity. So where is this all supposed to lead? Is it really leading to a positive transformation of our culture or is it just leading to a negative degradation of our souls? I know I am being a little bit preachy. I have just been thinking though, that Pitchfork Media and the Holy Bible have a lot in common. They both sort of serve as written guides to which groups of people cling to for identity. It seems like hipsters cling to something like Pitchfork, always reading it and keeping its content fresh in their minds, so they can maintain their sense of cultural identity and "otherness." I do think it is prudent to say that as Christians, if the Bible isnt serving that role in our life and we are spending as much time as the unbeliever striving to stay fresh with other sources of cultural identity, then something is not right. That is why I think Josiah is on to something in saying that the battle we are facing is much more intimate and personal than the battle between fashion and music ideologies. We are literally waging war against spiritual forces and it is a war that can only be won through diligent time in the Word and in Prayer. In light of that, I think we need to be a little less conscious of where we stand in relation to relatively minor cultural trends and spend much more time focusing on the bigger picture. The fact is, over two-thirds of the world doesnt have much of a "culture" beyond the culture of waking up every day and hoping they can get something to eat and stay out of the cold. Am I starting to sound like a fundamentalist with an emphasis on cultural escapism and naivety. Well, maybe a little, but then again, remember what Jesus said. "Foxes have holes, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head." We cant get too comfortable with this world and we cant expect to be "hip." Well Ive gone on long enough. Lets all join the John the Baptist club and start wearing camel skin.

Now, in mores specific reference to your discussion of the analogy of the hipster culture and the Christian culture and how we should learn from the hipster's williingness to reflective and self-aware I have a few more things to say. Going beyond my earlier point that I dont believe the hipster culture is all that reflective and self-aware (I think they want to be told what to like just like everyone else. Its the human condition to depend on a higher source for enlightenment), I want to make the point that I dont think that Scripture is necessarily calling us to a "constant battle for self-awareness" as you indicate. Rather, the life of prayer and self-denial that Scripture talks about seems to ask us to give up that quest everyday in order to be more aware of Christ, who He is, and how high, long, wide, and deep is His love for us. The battle for self-awareness in the words of Freddy Reidenschneider in The Man Who Wasnt There is meaningless. The more you look, the less you know. I am really coming to believe that Christians are called to a mindset, not where the first and primary goal of their life is to understand their own existence, but where the very notion of their own existence would be a small sacrifice to make for the sake of God's eternal glory. Paul was a rare man indeed when he said he would gladly forfeit his own soul for the sake of His brethren. Jesus Himself set the example by counting His existence as nothing. THis is why I think what you call the analogy between hipsters and Christians is really the antithesis between them. Hipsters spend countless vain hours in self-reflection. Christians throw themselves before Christ in self-abandonment as clay before the potter. They see themselves as changing into something (a reference to my earlier post) that only the Lord can see. Therefore, what comes out of a Christians mouth isnt so much "Lord help me to understand myself today so I can engage the world authentically" but rather "Lord thy kingdom come, thy will be done." I am sorry, but the existential quest for authenticity ends up being, more than anything, a waste of our time. It actually kind of reminds me of the man who, when asked to follow Christ, wants to return home first to bury his father. Well Ive rambled long enough.

Im sorry but I am compelled to say one last thing. While I feel that most Contemporary Christian Music is exceedingly corny and deserves the kind of critical lambasting that something like Pitchfork Media would give it (and so therefore I do see a positive place for cultural criticism) I think that if you sink yourself too deep in the "forker" mindset, you are going to end up not appreciating a lot of music that is profoundly beautiful but could in no means, meet up to a music snobs standards. And thats because half the beauty comes from the heart of the artist, who, because they are so compelled in their artistry by the love of Christ, could never be successfully imitated by a non-Christian artist. Examples of great Contemporary Christian artists that portray a genuine beauty and craftsmanship in their work, I believe, include the following: Charlie Peacock, Keith Green, Caedmon's Call, Rich Mullins, Carolyn Arends, Margaret Becker, and Sarah Masen. I honestly wish we would be less critical toward artists like these because of their affiliation with CCM and give them more support and encouragement. The fact is, these artists and others like them are writing some really good music for the church and for our souls to find encouragement and edification in listening to. We shouldnt be so impervious to the idea of non-ambiguous "Christian music" that we completely sell ourselves short of the blessing of listening to some of it.

In fact, there is sort of a Christian equivalent to Pitchfork called Grassroots Music. It explores a lot of what is going on in the Christian independent world. I suggest you guys check it out. There are some real gems to be found in that world. Take Julie Miller or The Innocence Mission as examples. I first heard Julie Miller when I was a kid on Christian radio. There is good stuff out there and I think guys like us could be more supportive of it.

Actually, Matt Allison and Seth Parks are both independent Christian artists that can be found on Grassroots Music Samplers #5 and #7 at Grassrootsmusic.com

Damnit Todd, talk about monopolizing the comments...5 comments in a row?

Next time to a post on your blog and trackbackit to this post. Everyone will know it's there because it'll display a trackback(1) under Matt's post and link them over to your blog. It'll save room and be easier to read...

Oh, but I liked what you had to say

I'm sure no one will ever read this, so it's safe for me to post it. How in the world, Josiah, did you ever come to associate MacDougall/Iserman with pop-culture? Knowing a little bit about you, I would assume that this is some kind of absurd, subliminal joke, but even then it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense that MacDougall and Iserman are grouped together in the same category. However closely either one of us may resemble bronze statues (I'm flattered, by the way), we are hardly similar enough in any way to merit such an association.

Well, at least I can content myself with the knowledge that I have had the last word. Even if none of you heard it.

Slight emendation to previous post, just for the sake of posterity: Josiah speaks of the MacDougall/Iserman distinction, but then proceeds to talk about the possibility of embracing them wholeheartedly, as if they were some sort of unit. If I am confused, it is because of the unclarity lingering within this apparent disparity.

I don't swing that way. Never did, never will.

Will anyone ever read this? Who knows?

I'm a hipster, though I'll never admit that publicly. If you spend an inordinate amount of time wondering if you're a hipster, then you are. Why do we do that, albeit privately? Because the majority of us were the unpopular dorks in school, more intelligent, but less socially adept creatures who were consistently mocked growing up. We turn the tables by embracing the irony of the culture that we grew up with and becoming much cooler than the jocks who once poked fun at us. We become cool, whether geek chic, or retro trash. So that when we return to our little hometowns and we see Dave the homecoming king with a beer belly and three kids, we can rub in his face the fact that we are much cooler than he ever will be.

At it's heart, I think that's what motivates people to be hipsters, though none will ever confess it.

If you want info on hipster culture, read the Hipster Handbook.

A true hipster does not need resources like Pitchfork, just to be told what to listen to or what to buy. A true hipster lives in a community surrounded by other hipsters and artists so that he's always prone to the latest music, the latest trends and styles. AND he doesn't just wear what every other hipster wears, but ideally cultivates a personal style for himself. (Though this process may take some time.)

Yes, we consume, yes we wear similar clothing sometimes, and yes we do partake of pop culture on occasion. But the key to it all is a sense of community. Where I live, I never have to buy anything from a "warehouse store" or a commercial chain? Why? Because every store I need is owned and run by other hipsters. Gourmet cheese stores, the video store, the wine shop, the record store, the book store, the ice cream shop, all of our own ORIGINAL designer clothes stores, and of course, a slew of restaurants. We create the society we want, so we don't need to be a part of Wal-Mart culture.

And when you view it that way, our culture has a lot in common with core American values. Small businesses and supporting the community just like our grandparents did.

Why do we wear certain clothing that looks, ultimately like our mothers still shop for us? Because we take the memories we have as kids and utilize that to build our identities. Let's face it, life was a lot cheerier when we were kids. So if we wear striped shirts, or a hat that looks like it's our grandpa's, or crocheted capes, or Care Bear ear muffs, it's because these things mean something to us. They represent an innocence in life which we don't want to lose. At least that's the way I look at it.

And the trust fund thing is crap. Crap!

Yes, I guess a lot of kids do start out living with some support from their parents after college. But many hipsters I know work much harder than the average person. Many of us own our own businesses or are tirelessly working in fields which we care about. Making very little money because we refuse to SETTLE in life. And sometimes, we get lucky and find financial success. But not often.

Anyway, there are a lot of other points I think are valid, but I don't feel like writing about them now. Just some things I thought would be helpful coming from someone who is inside the culture.

And by the way, I'm a member of the First Presbyterian church in my community and am actively involved not only in the church and religious aspects of it, but also the community outreach programs by which I hope to make some contribution to serving my fellow human beings.

matt, I have read your blog in the past. why no update?