1.1 Introduction

Well, I think hipster is just a fashionable term, like generation golf or millenial. It doesn’t really mean anything.

This was the first comment I heard after I presented my proposal to the institute. The term hipster at times seems like an empty signifier. The first obstacle when trying to identify what and who is hipster and why, is that no one admits to being one, and everyone that does have an opinion on what being hipster means, starts listing everything a Hipster is not.

The aim of this dissertation thesis is to analyse the phenomenon of hipsterism with a cultural sociological approach, as an example of new forms of conceptions and cultural practice within recent modernity.

Hipsterism is especially distinguished by the strong desire for individualism. This makes it a phenomenon that is exceptionally significant for a cultural sociological analysis of modern society. The influences of a capitalistic, affluent society on the development of forms of alternative lifestyle and the development of identity and building of groups can be derived by a deeper understanding of hipsterism. By understanding hipsterism is meant understanding both the practices of hipsterism and the manner in which Hipsters interact within societal circumstances. Hipsterism is shaped through a conceptual framework that also is significant for capitalist, globalised and consumerist societies at large.

Defining hipsterism had a few challenges that I encountered, such as the one I quoted above. One especially interesting challenge is that hipsterism is a very current phenomenon that is subject to frequent change and also is strongly associated with individualism, which makes it difficult to categorise and define Hipsters as a group, or to objectify them under this label in any way. Furthermore, the defensive attitude against labelling and stereotyped thinking supplemented with an almost fierce yearning for individualism causes many to deny they are Hipsters and requires precise observation to develop to a definition. A particularly interesting factor is that Hipsters create hipsterism themselves - not by defining hipsterism, but by their practices, and paradoxically by distancing themselves from the label Hipster. The concept of hipsterism is based on a refusal of a categorisation and defence against any attempts at a definition. This constant avoidance and resistance, supplemented with recurrent change in order to distance from the ordinary or conventional, is a main characteristic of hipsterism.

Because it is in a fluid state and its features are vague, the objectification of the concept of hipsterism is a major difficulty. Moreover, hipsterism is associated with youth culture and is mainly founded in consumption patterns. Hipsterism could be interpreted as a mere consumption of commercial fashion and Hipsters could be defined as mere imitators of a collective fashion style. If Hipsters are merely fashionable imitators, no underlying connection to the social structure and conflicts of society should be found. These factors, as well as the notion of extreme individualism and the actors’ refusal of a definition, could lead to the presumption that hipsterism as a concept has only very little influence on the development of identity. Under such circumstances, one could even doubt any definition of hipsterism as a sociologically identifiable social form is possible.

However, the observation of the social milieu associated with it raises the assumption that in our globalised and digitalised modern age, hipsterism demonstrates a specific mode of identity typical for our fluid, modern society.

This is the focal point of my work.

Why did I want to explore this phenomenon in a practical way? Why not just do discourse analysis on the labelling process and the denial of the categorisation?

In my immediate surroundings, I observed people with all the cultural capital that (Bourdieu, 2012) said they needed to be distinguished, with creative jobs and successful businesses in the sense of Boltanski et al. (2018) and Reckwitz (2014), but my hipster friends still rolled their eyes at them, as soon as they started speaking about it. What were they doing wrong? There seemed to be something more subtle about hipsterism. Something more political and moral. There was a quiet judgement of someone who was too convinced of his work, even though it seemed that Do-What-You-Love was so important in hipsterism.

My work explores these contradictions that I observed. From the beginning, my research was a kind of a follow up of these confusing dichotomies. I observed that it seems to be important in this milieu to do something you are passionate about, but the slogan “Do-What-You-Love” is embarrassing. I had noticed that there was constant adaption of hipster fashion trends, but being called hipster was an accusation or an embarrassing act of labelling. The act of belonging together, by distancing, seemed to work in practice, even though I could not explain it through the theories I knew. I also observed strong criticism of consumption, even though the milieu described as hipster was consuming in an identity shaping way. The respondents denied the label Hipster, but identified as vegans or ethical or low-waste consumers. The way they spoke still expressed collectivity. I observed highly politicised statements being made, but a distancing to politics happening at the same time. Generally there were many discrepancies between what was being said, how it was being portrayed, and what was being done.

This is where my research comes from, a place of genuine curiousity about the people around me and the subtle art of being cool. Being hipster was navigated by many balance acts and could not be merely explained away by distinction.

Because it became clear that the Hipster as an idealtype does not exist in a sociologically identifiable way but is rather a descriptive term for various cultural practices, designated as hipster, in this work the term is mostly used as an adjective and not a noun. When referring to a a possible ideal type, a Hipster will be capitalised. hipsterism in turn describes the social milieu that I observed and the practices undergone in this milieu collectively in a holistic way.

My procedure was along an emergent design, which allows for the story of hipsterism to gradually unfold along participant observation complemented by self-reflection throughout this work, taking you on a journey of how recognising that hipsterism was more than merely a distinction mechanism made it worthy of a serious sociological consideration. Hipsterism emerged slowly and gradually as a model for the development of agency in a complex, liquid, consumerist and globalised world. Actions within hipsterism did not stem from a lack of understanding how to contribute to progress in the world, but rather emerged as young people searched for ways of effective engagement, expressing their solidarity towards an imagined global community, and raising conscious consumption to a politically intended lifestyle.

We will begin with some historical considerations and theories about counterculture that shape the understanding of hipster and hip through different ages. This will lead us to the research on hipsterism so far, and the questions about this phenomenon that remain unanswered. These questions lead to the theoretical framework of this study that constitute an analysis of contemporary society from the perspective of modernity, consumerism and capitalism.

After this overview we will delve into a fickle area that already requires reflections on the label Hipster: methods and methodology. These are comprised of an emergent design and data collection with an ethnographic imaginary and a self-reflective element. Further the lens of space will be introduced, by which hipsterism can be utilised to show the contradictions of current, western, consumerist society.

The analysis and argumentation consist of two general parts: the first addresses the question what? answered as a social milieu with underlying practices in a liquid, capitalist and consumerist society and with the help of the concept of space. It explores the various facets of the contradictions in the field of hipsterism with the help of the theories introduced in the theoretical framework. The data will be analysed through the lens of hipsterism as space, and thus make the implicit contradictions of urban space in contemporary society explicit.

The second part explores the question why? that results from the conclusions of the chapter before. As a countercultural tendency in contemporary society hipsterism demonstrates young adults’ reading of their social reality as a conceptual framework and their reaction to this reading, expressed in a pattern of action. Hipsterism turns out to be a paradigm for young people and their attempts to contribute to progress in modern, western societies. It also demonstrates how they are hindered by developments in modernity or their own framework in doing so, and how that results in contradictions in their behaviour and their ideals.

As an example of developments in western, globalised modernity, I conclude by answering the question whether hipsterism can be associated with counterculture in a highly individualised society. The results can give us an idea about one of the most important questions of a comprehensive analysis of the present: how does change happen in society and what enables or hinders progress?

My data consists of what is marked in this work as extracts from my field diary, logbook entries that stem from my self-reflection, pictures taken in the field, and extracts from narrative interviews that are all labelled as such in the text. Some data is also shared as Conversation Notes that are spontanouesly jotted down in the field during a longer conversation and sometimes contain direct quotes of the respondents or summaries of points they shared. Sometimes single words used often by the respondents are built into the text, with quotation marks to signify that this is a word not chosen by the author of this work, but used in the discourse, such as the signifier of Berlin being “colourful”. All the names of the respondents have been changed.

1.2 Hipsters and (other) Countercultures Through the Ages

In the following chapter the history of the Hipster and questions relating to current hipsterism will be raised.

First we will examine the Hipsters of the Jazz and Bebop era of the 1950s and the beat generation as forerunners of contemporary hipsterism. We will analyse them in the light of refections of counterculture made by classic theorists (Yinger, 1977). These classic models of counterculture will be supplemented with more recent studies of modernity (Bourdieu, 2012) (Giddens, 2013) to base our study on a holistic understanding of how counterculture relates to modernity.

The example of the hippie counterculture of the 1970s will help us analyse the influence of consumerism on countercultural tendencies in society. This leads us ultimately to the contemprary counterculture according to Schwartz (1987) understood as an indicator of what is going on in society at large, rather than a serious opposition to conformity. The influence of consumerism will be described to reference to Bauman (2008) and remains an afterthought in the following chapter, where we will look at the backdrop of the emergence of hipsterism in contemporary modern western societies.

Tracing back the term of the Hipster, roots that can be found in the era of Jazz beginning in the Roaring Twenties. As a movement that expressed the fusion of European and African music styles, Jazz as an art form represented a progressive transformation, a break with traditions of the past and leap towards modernism—still relevant for the Hipsters’ self-narrative today. However, this leap was not unconventional enough yet, to associate it with the anti-commercial Hipsters of the Jazz era.

In the early 1940s a younger generation of professional musicians developed a more radical modernist posture. Improvisation and nonconformity became their trademark. A high art ideology stemming from elements of Jazz culture was then carried over into the swing era. The disdain for whatever popular audiences enjoy, similar to the contemporary Hipster practice, of liking things before they become cool, was understood as a rejection of the dictate of conventional popular Jazz. (Lopes, 2002)

Dizzy Gillespie who together with Charlie Parker exemplified the development of further complexity, layers and anti-commercialism of Jazz music, looked very similar to how the Hipster of today is portrayed—at least in terms of edgy fashion style and his apathetic posture whilst performing. First and foremost the Hipsters, following their leader Dizzy Gillespie, had to distinguish themselves from what was labelled “square”, the popular, yet dull and conventional musician, who was a slave to the establishment. (ibid., pp. 204–216)

The late 50s then gave rise to what has come to be known as the Beat Generation, which cannot be seriously named a generation at all, consisting of only a few (albeit influential) writers and poets.

As Jack Kerouac described:

The Beat Generation, that was a vision that we had, John Clellon Holmes and I, and Allen Ginsberg in an even wilder way, in the late forties, of a generation of crazy, illuminated hipsters suddenly rising and roaming America, serious, bumming and hitchhiking everywhere, ragged, beatific, beautiful in an ugly graceful new way (Kerouac, 1958)

He described the concept of beat as something run down, as in beaten, but still so intense that it included passion and conviction.

Kerouac was a writer who applied the concepts of Bebop Jazz, the improvisation and spontaneity, to his writing. The same way Hemingway’s distinctive, controlled and nuanced voice captured the Lost Generation a few years prior, Kerouacs intuitive, inconsistent and volatile narration mirrors the fluidity and distancing of the Hipsters from any conformity, their desperate urge and desire to distance themselves from labels that would reduce them to anything other than individual and authentic.

Another of the key figures of the Beat Generation was John Clellon Holmes, who explains the notion of Beat as follows:

The origins of the word “beat” are obscure, but the meaning is only too clear to most Americans. More than mere weariness, it implies having been used, of being raw. It involves a sort of nakedness of mind, and, ultimately, of soul; a feeling of being reduced to the bedrock of consciousness. (Holmes, 1952)

He explains the backdrop of his generation as follows:

The burden of my generation was the knowledge that something rational had caused all this (the feeling that something had gotten dreadfully, dangerously out of hand in our world–this vast maelstrom of death...the concentration camps that proved too real) and that nothing rational could end it....The bombs had gotten bigger, but the politics had stayed the same. The burden of my generation was to carry this in utter helplessness—the genocide, the overkill–and still seek love in the underground where all living things hide if they are to survive our century. (ibid.)

The indivuals of the Beat Generation wanted to distinguish themselves from this rationality, the politics and the status quo. Holmes describes a feeling of helplessness, that can be found in today’s Hipster as well (see 3.3.1).

In the late 50s Mailer (1957) describes these ‘beat’ Hipsters in his provocative and controversial but topical essay “The White Negro”, as the prototype of the American Existentialist. He explains that the environment for the development of the Hipster—the only extreme nonconformist of that time—is the psychological mayhem caused by the second world war and the atomic bomb. The setting is crippling anxiety, caused by the awareness of the frailty of life, and that death and as much as life also, was meaningless. Conformity was seen as just another death, though slower and more stifling, with every creative and rebellious instinct destroyed. The only solution, the only way to give life some sort of meaning, is for the modern American Existentialist to become a Hipster, “to accept the terms of death, to live with death as immediate danger, to divorce oneself from society, to exist without roots, to set out on that uncharted journey into the rebellious imperatives of the self”. (Mailer, 1957, p. II)

With their attitude that science, rationality and logics cannot encompass all of human experience the Hipsters of the 1950s are reminiscent of American existentialism. Mailer emphasises the Hipsters’ mistrust of formal institutions, but still a belief that a different better world is possible, by power of example and through a spontaneous revolution. (ibid.) As early as in the 50s this reflection by Mailer associates hipster practice with a reaction to the stresses in society and mistrust in institutions that we will detect in hipsterism too (4).

Mailer explains his thoughts on the racial dimensions of the “Hip” also in relation to Jazz culture. With this dangerous backdrop the existentialist, looking to give his life a radical meaning and expose himself to danger, turns to African American culture. From Mailer’s point of view, seeing as politically the African American has to live in a state of constant danger and never enjoys the privilege of security, any kind of unconventional action takes disproportionate courage, which make him the source for any hipness in his situation. He “has been living on the margin between totalitarianism and democracy for two centuries.” (Burdick, 1969) Mailer goes on to describe the position of the African American population, who as such is free from the conventional pressure of fitting in, at the forefront of experimenting new lifestyles and questioning conventional norms, as they explore the moral wildernesses of life, which contrasts them to the “Square”, who condemns these behaviours from the outset, rendering them immoral, evil, immature, etc.

Thus, the Hipster can be described as a “White Negro”, as he turns to this hipness and tries to oppose conventional society by imitating a “black” lifestyle, living primitively for the present and for the satisfaction of physical pleasure.

Mailer emphasises the emancipating power of the unconventional and the rebellious, especially in terms of sexuality and violence, and reinforces the racist myth of black sexuality. He glosses over Freudian theory to justify his arguments, but also angered the beat generation individuals. They did not reflect the racism and criticise it, but rather disagreed with his underlying cultural and psychological assumptions.

Mailer distinguishes between state violence that is stifling and dangerous, and individual violence that can be freeing. He imagines a revolution in society from its conventions, through a radically individualised rebellion. However, the potential he sees, is not reduced to the subcultural phenomenon he describes, but rather insinuates the possibility and potential of counterculture in western society.

Kerouac himself, as the example and model of the Beat-Hipster distanced himself from Mailer’s theory. He denied trying to distinguish himself through violence and to gain freedom through delinquency as an act of rebellion against conformity. He emphasised that the “beaten down” implication of the beat generation was never supposed to mean to engage in youthful and meaningless acts of crime, but rather evoking a state of consciousness, something akin to spirituality even, calling it a “holy new feeling out there in the streets” (Kerouac, 1958)

Kerouac describes that they felt solidarity with the French youth who, inspired by Sartre, were uprising against conformity and had a political agenda and an aim to transform society. The modern day Hipsters also negotiate ways of being political in their current circumstances.

In the 1970’s awareness of the notion and potency of countercultures rose, especially through further social movements in addition to the marginal Beat generation described above. The Bohemian Movement of the late 1800’s that had preceded the beat generation and the more globalised hippie movement of the 1960’s that followed the Hipsters of that time prompted thinkers to analyse the meaning of groups that had values or norms counter to their respective societies.

John Milton Yinger (1977) emphasised the role of normative systems, which are in sharp contrast to the prevailing culture. Yinger defined these as groups and individuals that are proponents and carriers of an oppositional culture. He linked these systems with what is commonly called counterculture, but dismissed the term itself as too blurry, because it is often not a counterculture, but a emphcounter group or counter society. Yinger refers to Westhues and explains that one can define countercultures ideologically or behaviourally. In an ideological sense, a counterculture is based on a set of beliefs and values, which reject those of the dominant culture. In a behavioural sense countercultures behave in a radical non-conformist way. While Westhues insists that behavioural counterculture must conclude in a dropping out of society, Yinger explains that this is a problematic claim and while some members of the counterculture do in fact drop out, others stay engaged hoping to influence and transform society, but they do not leave it. The behavioural countercultures are similar to the way Mailer described the Hipster, as a nonconformist dropping out of society and living his most radical self. However, many Hipsters did not drop out, but merely had a nonconformist attitude, and avoided criminal or deviant behaviour.

While ideals can be expressed by the contemporary Hipsters, these ideals could also be seen merely as a non-conformist attitude. The attitude might be fashionable to adopt in the sense of Georg Simmel (1957), who would argue that this behaviour is not really relevant or embedded with the potency that Yinger sees.

Yinger (1977) however provides a reasonable approach. He explains that countercultures are a continuing part of human experience and are rooted in social constants, so they should be found, in one form or another, in all societies. Yinger explains that there is a tendency, especially in illustrative descriptions of counterculture, to stereotype and exaggerate both the dominant and the counterculture, with the aim of drawing the sharpest possible contrast. Mailer’s essay is ample proof of this. The way he describes the fears and horrors that the individuals are subjected to, the way he describes the conformist square—as something to eschew from under any circumstance—and his description of an ultimate aspiration to live on the margins of society, demonstrates his tendency to exaggerate these circumstances, maybe in his own terms searching for a revolutionary, society-transforming idea.

Especially in comparison to the way these individuals described themselves, such as Kerouac or Ginsberg, his descriptions seem less inspired by the movement itself, but rather by his own ideas on the duality of man, his conception of an individual as saintly or psychotic.

Instead of describing the tensions between the Beats’ drive for individualism, he opts for a provocative sexualisation and describes the ultimate goal as the rise of one’s full potential, rather than describing nuances of the New Left movement and the subtleties of the emergence of a counterculture in the United States.

With more distance and from a sociological point of view Yinger (ibid.) describes that while there are unique elements in every counterculture, these should not be the central focus of attention when defining a counterculture. The term should be used, whenever the normative system of a group primarily contains a theme of conflict with the values of society at large. Another indicator of counterculture would be when personality variables are directly involved in the development and maintenance of the group’s values and system and these values are only understood with reference to the group’s surrounding dominant culture. Hipsters do not portray this tendency exactly. As mentioned before, the only thing the descriptions of Hipsters all have in common is that they distance themself from this label. The distancing process from society has yet to be analysed through the lens of indivdualism and distinction. However a constant renegotiation of who one is in relation to others has become a standard in modernity (Giddens, 2013). This might make contemporary counterculture more difficult to detect, because it is the dominant culture that is developing a tendency of distancing for the sake of distinction.

To overcome this hurdle, it is interesting to look at how Yinger differentiates mere deviant from real countercultural behaviour. Yinger explains that we must differentiate between the two. Deviation, he claims, is merely nonconformist individual behaviour, while countercultural behaviour is supported and framed by the values and system of the group. Although these two may appear similar from the outside, they differ in cause and consequence (Yinger, 1977, p. 837).

Following Yinger, one could interpret the cause of deviant behaviour as something that is not backed by group values. The intention with deviant behaviour is to be nonconforming at any price. Relating it to current hipsterism, this responds to fashion in the sense of Simmel (1957), who describes the dynamics of fashion as flight and chase. He describes fashionable practices develop when individuals are trying to distinguish themselves and frequently changing in order to keep a distinction between themselves or their group and others. This is of course much less radical than behaving nonconformist to the extreme of deviant behaviour with very different consequences. However, in its cause this deviant behaviour can be likened to a sense of fashion according to Simmel. Indicators of this kind of behaviour could be erratic and inconsistent actions and positions, without group values becoming clear in participant observation or conversation. The notion of countercultural rather than deviant or fashionable behaviour the way Yinger describes it (as a value-based distinction between the norms of the group and those of wider society) could be related to lifestyle in accordance with Bourdieu (2012) or Giddens (2013). In this case it is tied closley to social practices that often derive through taste that also position individuals in a field. The notion of countercultural behaviour can thus be seen in modernity as connected with the habitus and include consensual values, which are contradictory to the values of society, within the group. As such they position the individuals in distinction to the wider society. Also, as Giddens (ibid., p. 81) describes, lifestyle includes practices that an individual embraces because they form a particluar narrative of self-identity.

Furthermore Yinger (1977, 845 ff.) explains that countercultures are often engines and/ or results of social change. Countercultural movements are an indicator that a society is experiencing extreme stress. Especially considering the historical backdrop of the Beat Generation and late Jazz Avant-garde, it is clear that there was stress generated by the circumstances. The backdrop of the original Hipsters was a post-World War II insecurity and the threat of the cold war looming over their heads. The horrors of the concentration camps had shown young people what societies are capable of and led them to question how they were living their lives, and whether adaption to the mainstream was not only “square” as in “not cool”, but could also even be dangerous. Living life and unfolding one’s own potential in an artistic and creative way became a key imperative for that generation. Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac had nothing good to say about Norman Mailer or his article, they felt offended and misunderstood. They criticised its lack of heart and of neglecting the spirituality that the Beats intended to practice and express. As one of the Beat’s members said in an interview:

I don’t mean to be presumptuous, but I thought the essay was very square, and Kerouac thought that Norman was being an intellectual fool. The whole point of [Kerouac’s novel capturing the beat generation’s lifestyle] On the Road, plus his fifteen or twenty other books, as well as all of Burroughs’ writing, all of mine, and everything going on with the Beat thing had to do with American tenderheartedness. Norman’s notion of the Hipster as being cool and psychopaths and cutting his way through society with jujitsu was a kind of macho folly that we giggled at. We giggled at it because it’s silly and misses the point. [...] what I’m trying to say is that Kerouac’s take on “The White Negro” was that it was well-intentioned but poisonous, in the sense that it encouraged an image of violence. Mailer still saw some element of Dostoevskian heroism in juvenile delinquents stomping an old man to death. Kerouac hated that. He thought it was laying a violent trip on his scene, which had never been any violence. I agreed with him, except that he was too puritanical, too proud and rejectful of people he thought were not his equals, were not Shakespearean in terms of tongue and mind. (Manso, 2008, p. 257).

The Beats insisted not only on their tenderheartedness, but on their spirituality. They felt holy and they claimed their experience of life was holy. The Beats work is full of tension, between the misery of life and its ultimate joy and happiness—often associated with religiousness and a holy, spiritual beauty. Allen Ginsberg (2015) describes his experience in his most well-known poem:

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,

Angel-headed hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night

The ‘Angel-headed hipsters’ Ginsberg describes are looking for a heavenly connection and claimed to be inspired by Buddha, Moses and Christ. They turned to drugs, sexuality and anything intense enough to hope to evoke a spiritual awakening from within. Religious scholar Stephen Prothero (1991) went as far as claiming they deserve a place in the history of American Religion.

A counter-cultural movement aimed to transform religiousness to such a degree, religion that was often associated with the more conform—or “square”—societal segments, demonstrates a cultural appropriation that Mailer failed to capture. To create a holy and spiritual experience of life, “heaven” in society, on the margins of society, in a radically alternative kind of way, hints at the potential of a transformative and negotiating power that countercultures could have fulfilled. This raises the question about hipsterism in contemporary society and whether it has this potential as well (see 3.2)

Tripold (2012, 256 f.) explains that the 1960s and 1970s can be categorised into two main countercultural movements, which can also be understood in light of Yingers theories: the rather sober political activism of the new radical left student movements, and the colourful hippie lifestyle movement. The Hippies’ criticism of society was confined to a drastic rejection of capitalism in the form of an alternative lifestyle, rather than a serious political action with an alternative concept of government. As Willis describes in his work on subversive culture, the hippies saw themselves as an overthrowing power that chipped away at the roots of conventional society. While their rejection of capitalism and conventionalism, hand in hand with their drug consumption and ideals of sexual liberation, brought them together as a group (Willis, 2014, p. 146), their implied criticism of society was not based on a political analysis (ibid., p. 161).

Their lifestyle however was characterised by a set of ideals, which rebelled against capitalism and a planned, authoritarian way of life. Hippies emphasised the promotion of individualism. The Hippie movement was hostile towards a collective perception of society, they believed that every individual was responsible for her- or himself and that self-realisation and the spiritual experience of the self was extremely important. In reference to Marianne Weber, Tripold (2012) describes the youth countercultural movement of this era as a carrier of modern individualism. As Tripold describes, the Hippie movement made use of specific practices to forward their ideals. These practices, including the consumption of drugs, sexual liberation, ecstatic music, and spiritual practices, all aimed to develop an authentic self and unique individuality.

The Hippies did not want a redistribution of wealth or a more just system, they rather saw the material aspects of life as random and coincidental. Every disadvantage was interpreted as the fate of an individual that he must deal with and treat as an opportunity to grow. Instead of establishing equity, not only in a material sense, but even between the sexes, Hippies believed in accepting the differences and criticised the development of society from a pompously hierarchical order to a standardised, affluent, democratic dullness.

This raises the question of how Hipsters in contemporary society would interpret inequality. To different degrees, but all to some extent, the social milieu I observed did engage in reflecting the material aspects of life and did not interpret them as random or coincidental. The degree of understanding the root causes of distinction varied, but the denial of wanting to be labelled and the discomfort of talking about practices that are milieu forming, might reflect an implicit criticism of such an order (see 3.4.2).

Work was seen by Hippies as something every individual should do for his or her well-being. It should not be boring and must fulfil the individual. This explains their dislike and reluctance towards communism. In the sense of Hippie ideals, any form of equality and standardisation suffocated the development and freedom of the self. This notion can be associated with the attitude of Do-What-You-Love in modernity (see 3.3.1).

As Tripold (ibid.) describes, the end of the Hippie era and the subversion of their ideals were executed by mechanisms of capitalistic culture. Hippies were discovered as potent consumers, especially with their passionate urge to express themselves, and thus established a new market for specific consumer goods. This new market was developed with commodities that satisfied the needs of hippies for authentic goods, such as records, clothing etc. In this context, expressive advertising was developed, aimed at the hippies and their need for the accentuation of their personality as the target consumers. These forms of advertising spread the idea that consumer goods are the means for self-expression and influenced society as a whole. Eventually, the cultural movement lost its subversive and countercultural power. Through the character of capitalism this movement became a small cog in the big wheel of capitalism. Has this happened to hipsterism in modernity, or is consumption a pattern of action that has subversive power itself (see 4.3)?

After observing the Hippie movement fizzle out and become increasingly commercialised, Gary Schwartz (1987) understood the counterculture as an indicator of what is going on in society at large, rather than a serious opposition to conformity. In his studies on rebellion, youth and conformity he uses the example of a variety of communities in the 70s and 80s and youth culture in America, explaining that the actual situation of youth in such groups is more fluid and ambiguous than radical and conservative positions claim they are:

What is significant for the culture at large is going on within the youth culture. The ways in which young people define themselves in relation to their peers and adult authorities illuminates as much about the conflicts implicit in their parents’ aspirations as it does about the meaning of youth culture identities and styles. Instead of thinking of youth as a force for conserving or changing societal institutions, we shall look at them as people who are working their way through tensions that exist in the environing culture. (ibid., p. 3)

Since the 90s a new figure has emerged, the contemporary Hipster. Any form of countercultural tendency works its way through the tensions of society and contains themes of conflict with the values of society at large as Schwartz (ibid.) described. More recent studies on counter- and subcultures will help position the contemporary Hipster idealtype as it has been defined in literature so far.

In a more recent approach, Kipnis (2001) explains in his article on countercultures and subcultures that student subcultures and counterculture have a lot in common in wealthy, western nations. In his text he tries to clarify the differences between the concepts of counterculture in contrast to student resistance, or polarised student subcultures. Kipnis defines student subcultures as student groupings formed around particular expressive values, while he defines countercultures as subcultures whose expressive values critically dismiss values of a specific kind. While Kipnis names school countercultures as ones that dismiss school and academic values, Hipsters would counter other societal and political principles that influence their social reality, more specifically consumerism and capitalism (3).

Just over a decade ago Marciniak (2008) describes counterculture in the context of humour and politics in a greater sense. He explains that while the term counterculture is often used in a tiresome way, with many thinking merely of a generalised, ambiguous and commercialised term for cliché groups, such as hippies and Woodstock, it is in fact closely associated with contemporary pop culture and lip service to drugs and sexual liberation (ibid., p. 13). Another factor Marciniak describes is the close association between countercultures, politics and creativity, especially with regards to music. Slogans, songs and logos play an important role for the aesthetics of political activism (ibid., 16 f.).

To gain a holistic understanding of Hipsters as a group that could belong to a contemporary counterculture, it is necessary to understand the environment and dominant culture. Because hipsterism combines issues of labelling and distancing, modernity and capitalism, it makes sense to observe the milieu and ask questions from all of these philosophical and social perspectives. We need to see how they are socially embedded, which tensions characterise their environment, and how they react to stresses of society. Countercultural tendencies, however strong and radical or moderate and subtle, can function as a paradigm to understand modernity.

Hipsterism as a practice and a continuation of the practices of the Hipsters of the past, reacts to a different backdrop. The social environment for such social developments determines their meaning. How does a distancing process work in a society like this, and does this backdrop allow for the potency to actively transform, rather than conform? What are channels of engagement within the specifics of the given surrounding culture—are they political? What role does spirituality play in the dominant culture and how does it express itself in this counterculture? How is criticism expressed in such a society and when does it turn into more than just ideological, but behavioural (implicit or explicit) criticism towards norms and conformity? What do individuals and groups engage in, influence, and transform, or distance themselves from? If countercultures have a normative system that conflicts with the values of society, the development and maintenance of these can only be understood from the starting point of the dominant culture.

Ultimately the question is whether countercultures in the classical sense cease to exist in highly individualised societies. If anything akin to a contemporary counterculture exists, it will surely differ from all the countercultures of the past, because it has evolved in a society that is shaped strongly by individualism, distinction and distancing. In any case, this milieu can give us a unique insight about these processes.

The process of identity-building within the surrounding dominant culture can explain how personality variables and the narrative of life choices could be more than mere distinction mechanisms, but a reaction to social stress and anxieties. Because countercultures of some form exist in every society, their differences can acclaim for the development of the wider population. By understanding the environment that hipsterism developed in, we can analyse the tendencies specific to the development of society beyond modernity, that offers a deeper understanding of western and central European culture.

1.3 Research So Far

An early academic perspective on contemporary hipsterism is offered by the anthropologist Daniel Rosenblatt (2013) who in an article analyses the success an extremely popular book “Stuff White People Like”. The book describes a variety of cultural practices and tastes, such as engaging in religions that your parents don’t belong to, or buying organic food at farmers’ markets. Rosenblatt (ibid.) attempts to define the class of people described in this book and explains that there is a new type of class workers in the various culture industries, such as artists, writers, journalists, people in advertising or entertainment etc. He defines this class as having work that shapes culture. While Rosenblatt (ibid.) does not go into detail about the hipster ascription and how it is used, he claims it is an obvious fact that a lot of what is described in the book “Stuff White People Like” is about the taste of what we call “Hipsters”, but the whole phenomena of Hipsters needs to be understood within the cultural history of the middle class. Rosenblatt associates Hipsters with casual, nonconformist, diversity-loving, creative individuals.

Hipsters are often also mentioned in the context of gentrification (Lin, 2019), meaning the process of young, affluent and artistic individuals moving to working class areas and increasing the areas desirabilty and thus prices.

Generally, Hipsters are often associated with art, culture and aesthetics, but also mentioned in the context of sustainability and glocal considerations. Often the context in which Hipsters are mentioned is consumption. In an anthology about consumption of food and specifically eating out, Joe Hardin (2016) mentions two fundamental ideologies of hipsterism: sustainability and a glocal perspective (ibid., p. 45).

Attempts to capture this contradictory and volatile phenomenon have so far been mainly limited to conceptual considerations rather than empirical field work. There are some portrayals of Hipsters as thoughtful, reflective individuals, concerned with their environment and sustainabilty, but others that reduce them to affluent millenials whose main concern is self-fulfillment and finding a creative job.

In 2009 a conference took place in New York under the title “What was the hipster? A Sociological Investigation”. The conference was organised by n+1 magazine. Various writers and journalists (what Greif calls a idiosyncratic group with collective knowledge (Greif, 2010b, p. viii)) were invited to discuss and debate the theme of hipsterism. The script of the discussion, the conclusions and essays submitted in the context of this conference were published as the first work on the subject of hipsterism.

As Mark Greif (ibid.), the main editor of the book and co-editor of n+1 magazine emphasised, it is truly difficult to analyse a subcultural formation while it is still taking form (ibid., p. viii). He admits that this culture is one that is still forming, so the title of the conference and book “What was the Hipster?” are somewhat misleading. He claims that hipsterism is the dangerous thing that can happen to middle class whites, if they focus on struggles for own pleasure and luxury, instead of asking why their kind of people are entitled to these and who might suffer on the other side (ibid., p. xvii). Another definition he offers is that hipsterism is a specific type of subculture that is generated under neoliberalism, as we live in a society that privatises goods and causes an upward distribution of wealth (ibid., p. xvii).

Greif (ibid.) offers many initial attempts at a definition, which can be helpful to analyse the picture of society has of hipsterism today. All the articles in Greif’s book rise questions that have yet to be answered, but are significant starting points of a debate on hipsterism. He claims that Hipsters must belong to middle class whites, which one could define as a specific social and economic class.

Bourdieu (2012)’s work on lifestyle and distinction can be a helpful tool to analyse the standing of Hipsters and whether their common features can be attributed to one specific class. Their constant renegotiation with society and the perpetual distinction from any groups or categories could contradict such a notion.

Greif (2010b) raises the interesting theory that Hipsters could be a feature exclusive to neoliberalism. The analysis of hipsterism in context with a new spirit of capitalism could determine this theory. If so, structures of neoliberal consumption and principles must be integral to hipsterism. If neoliberal structures are essential and rudimentary to the trend, the consequence of their actions must accord to neoliberal thought.

Greif claims that hipsterism is a new form of subculture, without the radicalism of subcultures as they have shown before (e.g, Punks, Grunge). According to Greif they have abandoned the claims of counterculture, while merely retaining the “coolness” of subcultures (ibid., p. xvii). The question that rises here is whether the unquestionability of neoliberal and capitalist society lead to this detachment of serious political reaction. In a sense, an analysis of hipsterism could demonstrate that underlying problems and structures of society have become self-evident and unquestionable to all subcultural groups in modernity and therefore they have detached themselves from any political reaction.

In a symposium during the conference Greif (ibid.) explains that hipsterism has developed from the 1990s onwards starting in Chicagos Wicker Park, as a movement originally known as “neo-bohemia”, a culture of artists working primarily in bars, cafés and clubs. He also mentions the influence of the ‘90s culture of Indie. Greif claims that since the 1980s a “subculturalisation” of consumer capitalism has taken place, resulting from a diffusion of the ethos of Punk. So while contemporary hipsterism developed out of many youth subcultures, which have tried to remain independent from—or at least alternative to—consumer culture, they cannot be considered a real subculture and have been destroyed by the circumstances of society (ibid., pp. 5–6). He does not explain what means have destroyed the Hipsters’ intention of staying independent of consumerism, but likely the pattern of consumerism itself as described by Bauman (2009).

Concerning the historic origin of the term hipsterism, Greif puts forward the notion of race. He explains that the first mention of a Hipster was a black subcultural figure of the 1940s, then turning into a white subcultural figure in the 1950s, defined by a desire of whites to detach themselves from whiteness and achieve the attributes of black Americans that seemed exotic to them (Greif, 2010b, p. 7). This corresponds to the description of Mailer (1957) mentioned above in the context of the historical background of hipsterism 1.2.

In various definitions, Greif offers possible descriptions of a Hipster, the first of which is closely associated to what he calls “nostalgic suburban whiteness” (Greif, 2010b, p. 10). This prototype of a Hipster fetishises the rebelliousness, violence and instinctiveness of the lower suburban middle-class. Greif associates Hipsters with whiteness, but as Rosenblatt (2013) describes in his anthropological article on the habits, likes and dislikes of specific groups of people, it is important to challenge the theoretical frames of thought we use to think about race and class. Rosenblatt (ibid.) argues that often a racing of class takes place, which shows that race is closely intertwined with class in the United States and that a competitive consumerism saturates all aspects of life. As such, the concept of race will not play a large role in my study of hipsterism. We will rather look at the differences in cultural consumption, religion and language that comprise the neighbourhood identified.

Class plays an important role for Hipsters in Greif (2010b)’s definition. As he goes on to describe two further possible definitions, he explains that one can also associate hipsterism merely by people who belong to hipster culture, which he defines as a radicalisation and aestheticisation of the mode of pastiche. As this mode of creating art includes immitating others this can be related to classic fashion behaviour according to Simmel (1957). He does not further explain what determines hipster culture specifically, and the explanation he gives does not define Hipsters’ existence as a sociologically identifiable social form.

His last possible definition is based on modes of consumption. In reference to Tom Frank’s notion of rebel consumerism, Greif explains that a Hipster is by this definition someone who does not create art or artistic fashion, but merely consumes it in the “right” and “hip” way (Greif, 2010b, p. 12). This definition can be closely linked to Bourdieu’s theory of taste and distinction, in the sense that choosing hipster clothing, listening to hipster music, and having the hipster taste in food, is seen as a form of art and difficult to achieve. Greif explains that this radicalisation of the display of taste, especially being avant-garde and picking up trends and hipster fashion items and habits before anyone else has, stems from the new form of capitalism, where it is extremely hard to pick up tiny changes in consumer distinction before everyone else, since mass media, such as the internet, makes it very hard to keep these developments hidden.

This mode of distinction can be especially interesting to study as a paradigm for identity in modern society. It can be associated to the notion of individualisation as a task and the fluidity of modernity in the the sense that Hipsters do not rely on a firm identity, but rather renegotiate themselves in the context of the society at large by constant distinction. In reference to Giddens (1991) and Bauman (2001) we will explore this in the next chapters.

Clayton, another contributor to the symposium, argues however that purchasing power has very little to do with the Hipster when observed as a global phenomenon. By example of the Mexican Hipster, he explains that he only realised through accumulation what the signs of Mexican Hipsterism were. As an American, he did not detect the Hipsters, because they looked different than the ones he knew from home, with influences of the retro-coolness of the ‘70s (Clayton, 2010, p. 25). He goes on to explain that Northern European Hipsters, as well as those from Dubai for example, that have more purchasing power, look similar, while those from less affluent societies look different. However, it is still possible to detect them (ibid., p. 28).

Unfortunately Clayton does not offer any explanation or indicators of how to detect Hipsters apart from what they are dressed in, which would be an accumulation of randomly exchangeable signs in the sense of Georg Simmel (1957)’s fashion style. The only information we can gather from this, is that for Clayton it is not necessary for a Hipster to be part of a very affluent western society. The question he brings up with his theory, is whether the signs of hipsterism are randomly exchangeable because they are merely following a commercial fashion that is founded in setting trends that others follow, or whether these signs are interchangeable because they are founded in constant distinction and renegotiation of individuality that bases on ideals. These ideals could even be politically intended. This question can only be answered by participant observation of everyday practices and of the self-constitution of Hipsters.

According to Clayton, Hipsters are often associated with negative movements in society, such as gentrification, where Hipsters move to more urban and ethnic neighbourhoods and make these more popular, while also more expensive to live in. He criticises that other groups that are more neutral and less polarising than the Hipster, do not have to own up to this claim (Clayton, 2010, p. 29).

Horning (2010), who also contributed to this collection, advocates the theory that it is only outsider groups that make it possible for new forms of cultural capital to develop (ibid., p. 79). He explains that Hipsters are a type of “permanent cultural middleman” in mediated late capitalism. They sell out alternative sources of social power that are originally developed by outsider groups. These outsider groups look for new modes of unification, pride, power and resistance through social expression, much like today’s Hipsters’ predecessor, the black Hipster from the ‘50s (ibid.). According to Horning, Hipsters could merely be a group that takes these social expressions from outsider groups to appropriate new cultural capital forms and delivers them to the mainstream media, thereby stripping the glory, resistance and unification from these outsiders (ibid.). Horning goes on to say that there is no way we can objectively find out, as the distance to hipsterism is not given. As soon as researchers are concerned enough to deal with this matter, to analyse and discuss it, they are already in the continuum of hipsterism and trying to rid themselves of the danger of being called hipster themselves (ibid., pp. 80–81). He ultimatley implicitely reduces the definition of Hipsters to everyone taking part at the symposium. If you are interested in art, Hipsters, culture and events of such kind, you are Hipster. My respondents, however, would disagree. Negotiations of hipsterism show that there are right and wrong ways of being hipster, mostly related to authenticity, this will be explored in 3. However, the necessary distance that Horning describes is missing, can be established by a thorough methodology, including vigilant self-reflection that enriches the data, and an inductive approach. Instead of observing Hipsters as an ideal type, one can observe the cultural practices that actually occur. Apart from various forms of consumption, the denial of the label Hipster is one of these practices.

The thoughts on hipsterism in this anthology of ideas collected by Greif interpret hipsterism as a practice of consumption and fashion. While western affluence does not necessarily play an immense role, following all of these lines of thought, Hipsters are defined as a part of mainstream capitalism with mass products and marketing. With regard to Bourdieu, one could define them as middle and upper class youth, affluent with economic, social and cultural capital. With regard to Simmel (1957), we can qualify all symbols of distinction as randomly exchangeable, as the global comparison according to Clayton (2010) shows. All in all, Hipsters could demonstrate the development of a subculture under neoliberal circumstances.

Some of the questions brought up start a debate on hipsterism that can be answered by fieldwork, which does not only capture the medial attention of hipsterism, but observes the everyday practices of those active in this milieu and their self-constitution.

Whether they question their entitlement to the luxuries brought forth by capitalism, whether their practices are associated with their class, and whether neoliberal consumption patterns are integral to hipsterism, are questions that can be answered in the analysis of hipsterism in the light of neoliberal tendencies in society. Greif’s theory that consumer culture has destroyed the Hipsters’ intention of staying independent from consumerism must be observed in light of Bauman’s theories on consumer culture. Furthermore the way in which premises of society can disable subcultures is of interest here.

As mentioned before, another interesting aspect is whether hipsterism is merely a consumption of commercial fashion. As Greif (2010b) describes, one could interpret the Hipster as a highly fashionable individual—in the sense of Georg Simmel—who possesses the ability to consume the “right” and “hip” way. My initial observations have shown however, that it appears hipsterism contains more than this. If we observe that this phenomenon only consists of interchangeable signs of fashion, then Greif could be right.

Youth researcher Philipp Ikrath (2015) attempts a defintion of the Hipster as a subculture and idealtype from a subjective point of view. He starts with a definition based on fashion symbols and creativity that I assume stem from his reading of media discourse on the subject. Ikrath’s understanding of Hipsters is a specific demographic, for example male, of a high class, highly educated and elitist. It is difficult to comprehend how he draws these conclusion that are the premise of his book. However, he argues that because they are highly influential on the rest of society, because of their specific demographic, it is interesting and important to observe them. He makes explicit that he assumes the Hipster exists as a sociologically identifiable form, even though he admits it maybe does not, for the sake of exploring the phenomenon. This is the opposite of the approach I have taken in my research. By assuming the Hipster does not exist, I can rid myself of assumptions of the discourse that dictate the attributes of the Hipster, and observe what is happening in those spaces that are labelled as hipster from within. Then the practices that are actually happening in their entirety—the lifestyles, the modes of consumption and cultural practices—can be observed and a true inductive approach.

An interesting hypothesis that Ikrath (ibid.) puts forward is that Hipsters portray extreme individualism under the danger of a risk society (Beck, 1992) and relates it thus to (Mailer, 1957)’s definition under different circumstances. The dangers and fears of contemporary Hipsters are not as immediate, they will likely not experience the worst consequences of climate change personally. He also explores the image of the Hipster as an apolitical, ironic individual and explains that his attitude should be quite political because of this demographic. However, the Hipster is portrayed as resigned from and bored of politics. All in all, Philipp Ikraths image of the Hipster is exploring it from a youth researchers perspective. He puts forward an ethnography of the Hipster based on his impressions from the discourse.

Examined through the lens of art history Wes Hill (2017) describes that Hipsters express a creative hype of neoliberalism. This can be related to Reckwitz (2014)’ creativity dispositive (see chapter 3). Hill (2017) explains that Hipsters reappeared in the 2000s and portray a generic form of individualism that has become an insult. The fact that it has become an insult makes it harder for those expressing it, because it gives the impression they are deflecting and being inauthentic.

My intuition is that the logic of the hipster entails more than just a style connected to middle- and upper-class privilege. Rather, it is a more complex mode of dis-identification that embodies the very dynamics of distinction, its paradoxical logic found just as easily in the critical review or sociological study, wherever an outside status is intimated in matters of discerning the cultural value of alternative, creative, innovative or ethical things.(ibid., p. 41)

None of the works above base on empirical ethnographic research or participant observation in neigbourhoods labelled as hipster.

Questions that remain unanswered by any exploration so far is whether hipsterism shows integrated patterns of neoliberal thought and whether it expresses in the hipster self-narrative. Is there no political reaction within hipsterism, even though Hipsters are often negatively portrayed as “warriors for social justice” in popular media platforms? What different cultures and classes does the social milieu engage with, if any? Are the symbols of hipsterism constantly changing because of fashion and distinction from the masses, or are there ideals behind the distinction that are related to their reading of society and can thus be understood as countercultural?

Completely disregarded in any of these analyses is the question: what is the meaning of the denial of the Hipster label? Why does this deflection, that Hill (2017) so aptly describes, happen? In no time in history has a counterculture or counter group, vehemently denied being mainstream, but still denied being labelled as such.

In an attempt to truly explore this phenomenon, I chose a purely inductive approach, by entering the space whilst assuming Hipsters did not exist. It was observed in reference to Bourdieu (2012) as a social milieu. The practices associated with Hipsters and the narratives of individuals in this social milieu will clarify stratification processes through lifestyle and everyday practice. Based on my initial observations and the questions I had, I decided to shed light on hipsterism from different theoretical perspectives: modernity, consumption and capitalism.

1.4 Backdrop of Hipsterism Today—A Theoretical Framework

In the following sections we will set the framework for the analysis of the phenomenon of hipsterism. Hipsterism involves defining cultural practices of distancing and denying labels. In the context of theories of modernity, this expresses tensions and pressure to position oneself in a liquid society. Also lifestyle studies and narratives of the self have exceeding importance in positioning in modernity.

As mentioned before, hipsterism is closely associated to consumption, at times as a mere fashion practice, at times also ethically and consciously. However, respondents deny not just the label, but also criticise consumption itself. As such, it is reasonable to include consumption theories in the framework of studying hipsterism.

Often described as young creative professionals, hipster practice may or may not be infused with a spirit of capitalism. This would imply the milieu criticising capitalism, but at the same time stabilising it through there actions. It will be helpful to shed the light of modern theories of capitalism on this phenomenon.

1.4.1 Hipsterism as Modernity

Recent developments, especially the spread of the internet since the 1970s, the increase of mass communication, mobilisation, digitalisation, and fragmentation of the elements of life, led to what Bauman (2015) called liquid modernity. This has had immense influences on the construction of identity and the process of positioning oneself in this age. Liquid modernity is the result of a shift from ‘solid’ societies where individuals try to establish order and stability, to a ‘liquid’ society in which the highest value is the flexibility and changeability of networks, order and positioning. Even those stable orientation points that individuals could adhere to quite loosely in the past, have slowly vanished, leaving the identity and decision-making entirely up to a free set of personal norms, that are most importantly flexible and up for change. Bauman (ibid.) compares modernisation to a psychological disease, in which this renegotiation and change becomes a compulsive obsessive disorder. There is no ideal state to aspire to.

Clearly, however imperfect their fantasy was, the countercultures of the past were striving towards some ideally imagined state of society, or of themselves. The Beats wished for freedom from conformity and the ability to express their tenderheartedness, to create a holy and spiritual experience of life, an independent concept of “heaven” on the margins of society. Before they were appropriated by the mechanisms of capitalist culture, the Hippies yearned for a state of perfect individualism: above all they rebelled against a planned, authoritarian way of life. Ideally every individual would be responsible to develop their expression of themselves, to build an authentic self and demonstrate a unique personality. Various countercultures throughout history have had an idealistic aim. Liquid modernity however, according to Bauman (ibid.), does not lend itself to a state of ideal, however far away. The way Bauman describes modernity, the act of modernisation is embedded into everyday life, and has no end or ideal state. Whilst in the past “being modern” meant striving to renew and perfect, in contemporary society “being modern” is a state of modernisation and constant renewal.

In Bauman’s analysis of the present nature of society that hipsterism emerges in, he describes the impacts of a society in which social movement is less constrained and social networks are disintegrating, for example through the speed, elusiveness, and physical independence of electronic signals. Life patterns are no longer given, according to Bauman (2015), but rather shaped and reshaped through individual’s life choices.

Giddens (1991) also describes this new flexibility. He emphasises lifestyle choices as a feature exclusive to modernity. The existence of lifestyles imply choice and various options. It means that patterns of choices are adopted at a certain stage of life, rather than being handed down from earlier generations. The notion of lifestyle according to Giddens includes habits of dress, eating, acting, milieux, practices etc. routinised and incorporated into self-identity. Giddens associates lifestyle not merely with consumption, even though it may seem that way at first. He explains that lifestyle is attributed to character and the choice of decisions within a lifestyle represent a cluster of habits and orientations. This also allows others to detect if things are “off” or “out of character” (ibid., 81 f.). He further explains that different lifestyle variations between groups are elementary structuring features of stratification and not only the results of class differences (ibid., p. 82).

According to Giddens, in a modern world of various options and choice, strategic life-planning has become important. Giddens explains that through the variety of choices, we have developed a politics of life decisions. These decisions affect self-identity, while self-identity in modernity is a reflexive achievement. As a pattern of living, self-identity is shaped, altered and reflexively sustained in the course of life. Preparing a biography in the sense of planned future actions is a conclusion of post-traditional life forms (ibid., p. 85).

Giddens (ibid.) claims that lifestyle choices are not just a part of day-to-day life, but rather form an institutional setting which helps the social agent shape his actions. Lifestyle seems to give everyday practices consistency and even predictability.

Countercultures in a liquid society have not yet been seen before and therefore we have such difficulty objectifying and defining them.

In a society in which everyones’ choices are elements of developing a unique self, the story of who they are, and where the ultimate norm of society is developing an own, unique and authentic narrative of how you make your choices, what does a counterculture look like? If countercultures are based on norms and values that are opposed to those of the dominant society, but in contemporary society there is a myth of uniqueness, it is difficult to define any counter group to society. Hipsterism could reflect practices of constant distinction and renogotiation of identites, but with the addition that their core values and behaviour express attempts to counter their reading of society. Ultimately we will have to observe what they are doing (3) and why (4).

Hipsterism appears to demonstrate the fluidity of modernity in the sense of Bauman (2015), especially in terms of a globalised, digitalised society. Bauman describes that modern society exists in a constant state of individualisation and that individuals lives consist of daily renegotiation of their relationship to the society. These individualisation processes turn the identity into an activity. Thus, much like we can observe in hipsterism, rather than basing life choices on an identity—or character that can change, as Giddens (1991) describes in his work on the self-identity in the modern age—fluid society causes individuals to renegotiate their relationship to the network of society and reshape their lives as such, in a constant state of individualisation as a task.

This notion of the authentic self in a constant state of becoming rather than actually being, is discernible in hipsterism. While the first and immediate sign of hipsterism is clothing, it is associated with certain ideology and mind set and criticism towards consumerism, capitalism, the upward distribution of wealth, the neoliberal tendencies in society, etc. I have observed the distinction being made between so-called want-to-be Hipsters, who merely dress a specific way and the real Hipsters, who try to be unconventional, claim a critical stance towards society, are concerned with the environment and the issues of a throw-away-society, and question the distribution of wealth. This is especially interesting in the context of Bauman’s claims in Liquid Modernity Bauman (2015).

The label Hipster is shoved back and forth, in demonstration of this liquidness, never meaning a static thing or specific elements, but used first and foremost as an (albeit not completely empty) elastic and fickle category.

As such it makes most sense to look at the practices associated with this notion that can be summed up as the practices of hipsterism. These can be behaviourally associated with a counterculture, as they include norms, do’s and don’ts of hipsterism, that are opposed to some elements of society that cause stress. The practices can be the expression of norms and values that construct identities on the one hand and show how these identities are built by distancing in modern societies. On the other hand, they also exemplify the stress of society at large, as a reaction to the anxieties caused by it.

In the following chapter 3, we will analyse the data and explore how hipsterism shows us a mode of identity, like unto a magnifying glass. We will determine the subject of research and set the references to the sociological literature that is relevant to western affluent society. Hipsterism will emerge as a space marked by contradictions caused by the following circumstances of modernity.

1.4.2 Hipsterism as Consumption

Philosopher Georg Simmel (1957) explains that an individual’s fashion style is of dual nature, in the sense that it consists of two different—while complementary—processes. There is a social aspect, concerning blending and merging on the one hand, and an individual differentiating aspect on the other. Simmel explains that all life forms have a tendency to social equalisation in turn with individual differentiation. Fashion is a good example of how these two tendencies are merged together in a unified action.

In a social sense of belonging, fashion is influenced by imitation, psychological heredity and the transformation of group life into individual life. The individuals are reassured that they are not alone, and feel a strong sense of belonging. Simmel (ibid.) explains that this has to do with practicality and it enables individuals to act without having to think every single decision through. They are also freed from the pain and agony of choice. By the repetition and imitation of actions, they not only acting in concert, but also has a strong foundation—a vessel of social content (ibid., p. 10).

Conversely, there is individual differentiation, in which the individuals aim to stand out and be special, setting themselves apart from the rest of society, usually by adhering to a specific group. He defines fashion as an expression of this twofold desire of humans: imitation as well as the tendency to differentiate by changing the contents. He explains that the fashion of the higher classes has to be different than that of the lower classes. As soon as the fashion of the lower classes starts to adjust and match up to that of the higher classes, the fashion of the higher classes must change by definition. Changing fashion can only exist, when there are different classes to belong to and respectively to differentiate from.

Concerning the distinctive function of fashion, Simmel (ibid., 13 ff.) emphasises its hunting character: While lower classes imitate and hunt the fashion of the higher classes, the higher classes try to escape, by constantly changing and distinguishing their fashion. The monetary economy accelerates this process, because it is merely money that is needed to accomplish equality with the higher classes. As money is accessible to all, the process of hunting and escaping speeds up immensely. According to Simmel, fashion is more than just buying the right goods, but there are also actions and practices that can be fashionable.

Concerning the speeding up of the chase of fashion as Simmel describes it here, it is interesting to find out whether it is possible to buy yourself access to hipster spaces. Hipsterism is associated with cultural capital and fashion, and is also very much a culture of access, so the strategies used by the resondents and by the researcher herself to enter the field in the participation observation must be closely observed. They will answer the question whether it is possible to gain access by consuming the right or hip way. This will be explored in chapter 3.4.

Bauman (2009) explains that while consumption is and always has been an integral, continuous and practised part of society, there has been a development in recent history that has caused what he calls consumerism. He distinguishes consumerism from mere consumption by stating that this process has caused consumption to be the foundation not only of the economy, but of the society and the relationships between people in general. When consumption is not merely important in a society, but the raison d’être, that controls all the desires, wants, yearnings and needs, then we can speak of a consumeristic society according to Bauman (ibid., 37 f.).

Bauman (ibid.) offers three concepts to explain the subjectivity of consumers, how consumers fit into society as a whole, as well as the interaction between one another. He differentiates three ideal types, the first of which is consumerism, which he defines as a type of social arrangement that results from everyday, continuous, permanent, “neutral” human wishes, desires, and longings that result in the principal drive and operating force of society. He describes this as a force that coordinates systemic reproduction, societal integration, social stratification, and the formation of individuals. Furthermore this process is important in the development of the individual and group self-identification and in the choices concerning the life politics of an individual. He contrasts this to consumption, by stating that the consumption is associated with the activities of an individual, while consumerism is an attribute of society as a whole. For consumerism to take place, the yearning and longings of the individuals have to be estranged from the individual as such and instead recycled and reified to an external force. (Bauman, 2009, 41)

Bauman (ibid., 61 ff.) explains that the characteristic value of consumerist society is happiness. It is a promise of consumerism, that one can attain happiness and content in the here and now. Growing consumption claims the status of making individuals happier, while never ending. This means that consumption has to be the state in which each individual finds him or herself in. In this context he introduces the unfulfilled desire as the main motivation in consumer society.

The second ideal type he speaks about is the society of consumers, in which he explains that the individuals are connected to each other in society mainly through their role as consumers. This means that by consuming they invest not only in their individuality, by “becoming” a person, but also in their social membership (ibid., 71 ff.). Festivals are a good example Bauman uses to substantiate his theory: these offer the chance to enjoy individual freedom, while having a feeling of fellowship with the others that are also consuming (ibid., p. 100). In this respect, one can assume that the society of consumers is not a cohesive whole, but rather merely a group of random individuals, that have consumption in common. Especially in regard to fashion and trends, Bauman explains that it is not only the pursuit of happiness that leads to consumption in such a society, but there is also a necessity for it. Consumer goods have become a means to fulfil the obligation of the development of an individual identity (ibid., p. 81).

The third ideal type Bauman refers to is consumer culture. Bauman (ibid., 108 ff.) explains that ties in consumerist society are defined through specific consumer goods and self-identification is achieved through distinction from the masses. With the help of signs of belonging that one can buy in shops, an individual obtains his individual identity. He goes on to explain that this fashion is very temporary in consumerist society; as fashion changes so the individual must keep in pace and keep redefining and re-differentiating himor herself. In order to sustain this kind of approval a lot of effort is necessary. One has to spend money constantly and has the responsibility towards oneself to make the “right” decision for one’s identity (ibid., 122 ff.).

This can be associated with Simmel’s definition of fashion, in which the individual also shows his belonging to a group and the distinction from other groups through his clothing and style, which he generally changes then, when it becomes unfashionable or when the masses adapt this specific item or style in general.

Ultimately, it can be assumed that hipsterism demonstrates this development of society. This perspective will help identify if hipsterism has potential to seriously counter contemporary culture, not inspite the fact that it is closely related to fashion, but rather because it has so much to do with consumption.

1.4.3 Hipster Capitalism

One of the very interesting dynamics in modern capitalistic societies is that despite a great deal of criticism, the individuals’ participation and engagement remains stable. The societal conditions being criticised are simultaneously being reproduced with surprising ease. The historical development of critique and capitalism over the last decades provides very interesting explanations for this. Boltanski et al. (2018) describe all these developments aptly; from the more efficient and subtle form of exploitation through a new and updated type of entrepreneur—a dressed down, laid back, casual, fun and “empowering” individual—to a freedom and autonomy of workers that comes at the cost of security and ease.

The late 60s to the 80s were marked by social movements, active trade unions, security-enhancing social legislation, etc; while product quality and productivity gains decreased. According to Boltanski et al. (2005) the employers’ and corporate leaders’ inability to control the labour force contributed greatly to the decrease of productivity and product quality.

Since the 80s however, there is an absence of social movements. While Boltanski et al. (ibid.) fail to mention some more recent movements—such as Occupy—they describe quite aptly that the unions are disoriented and merely reactive, employment relationships are increasingly precarious and there is greater disparity in incomes. They describe that while there was a great reduction in strikes and social conflicts, the quality of goods and productivity have increased.

Trying to find explanations for this development, they started an investigative enquiry aiming

[...] to understand the waning critique over the last fifteen years, and its corollary: the currently dominant fatalism, whether recent changes are presented as inevitable but ultimately beneficial mutations, or as the product of systematic constraints whose results are never more disastrous, but without it being possible to predict a change in trends (Boltanski et al., 2018, p. IV).

By analysing the management discourse of the 90s and the various forms of critique, they try to find explanations for this development.

Boltanski and Chiapello argue that a new spirit of capitalism has emerged. They understand this spirit as an ideology that justifies commitment to capitalism. They explain that capitalism in modernity possesses the unique capacity to integrate its critiques not only by absorbing them, but also by gaining ideological justifications from them. The origin of the current ineffective criticism developed from a new artistic critique of the late 60s, attacking capitalism for its inflexibility, lack of artistic expression etc. According to Chiapello and Boltanski, the

[...] changes in the spirit of capitalism has revealed a major re-organisation in dominant value systems [...] this provides a very interesting explanation for the absence of any critical resistance throughout the 1980s, and at least until the mid-1990s, to the capitalist sphere. If we consider that criticisms are usually made in the name of values that are deemed to have been betrayed by the capitalist process, any major transformation of a value system serving as a justification for a capitalist world is apt, at least temporarily, to disorient critical activities. (Boltanski et al., 2005, p. 162)

The spirit of capitalism as described by Chiapello and Boltanski is an ideology in which people’s commitment to capitalism becomes unquestionable and is shaped by a stable set of arguments that stem from economic theory. According to Boltanski et al. (ibid.), these arguments are too general in nature and too static over time to be deconstructed. They do not take into consideration the various and unique constellations of an individual’s life and how they might have to take on a particular kind of lifestyle or profession in order to be able to benefit well from these three arguments. Furthermore these very general arguments cannot enable individuals to react to any of their own personal circumstantial criticisms or challenges (ibid., p. 163).

Interestingly, capitalism itself, as they explain, has no moral foundation. It requires commitment from very many people, even though only very few actually profit or benefit substantially. So the quality of the commitment itself cannot only come from economic benefits, because many of the people shy away from actually adopting the kind of lifestyle that would make them benefit substantially from the said system. Many will not want to get involved, because the risk is high and the realistic attainment of major success seems unlikely. Managers and entrepreneurs are expected to adopt lifestyles, that some even find very unattractive. Many individuals also end up developing adverse feelings towards taking those risks to be successful.

What Boltanski et al. (ibid.) argue is that the criticism is actually the catalyst for the changes in the spirit of capitalism and thus provides its morality, as capitalism itself is amoral. The idea that it is somehow oriented towards the common good is one of the main factors in peoples commitment thereto. Capitalism’s only innate capacity is that of accumulation. So its morality is actually added through its enemies and what they incorporate to enhance justice. These “justice-enhancing mechanisms”, as Boltanski and Chiapello name them, are the road to capitalism’s salvation and thus the moral foundation that it lacks, is developed. This means that capitalism is unique in its capacity to turn criticism into justification thereof, and these justifications can be understood as the current spirit of capitalism, the ideology to commit.

They refer to three dimensions that have played a particular role in providing the arguments for capitalism that have led to this spirit. The first aspect is the excitement through the involvement in capitalism, which stem from the liberation it seems to provide. An ideal is generated in which capitalism helps individuals to blossom and succeed. The second aspect is the notion of security, and the argument that capitalism offers a safety net for all those involved—which is of course especially relevant for those families with children. Ultimately, further arguments invoke the idea of fairness, justice and how capitalism contributes to the common good (Boltanski et al., 2005, p. 164).

This spirit is the breeding ground for a new kind of counterculture. If all serious critical activity is disoriented, how are individuals seeking and imagining appropriate forms of civic engagement? How does the framework of this spirit of capitalism influence the way countercultural values of society develop? How does the avant-garde react to this posed framework? If individuals are still seeking appropriate forms to criticise and to engage, hoping to transform some elements of capitalist society that they find critical, how does this develop under such circumstances? How is hipsterism framed and constricted by these contradictions of capitalism? Answering such questions through fieldwork can tell us not only about how the spirit has developed, but how it expresses itself in action. As the avant-garde’s reaction to such entanglements, hipsterism can help us understand more deeply the spirit of capitalism in itself and its influence on behaviour. An analysis can ultimately answer the question, whether hipsterism offers forms of engagement that challenge the capitalist framework itself, or whether it merely reproduces the given order, stabilising it through the criticism itself, the way Boltanski and Chiapello describe. Understanding hipsterism may confirm, complement or even contradict the theory of the new spirit of capitalism, as the return of the hipster is historically simultaneous with the current wave of the spirit of capitalism that Boltanski and Chiapello describe.

In this context it is fundamental to look at the values that define this current—the third—spirit of capitalism that Boltanski and Chiapello describe. They do this by comparing the spirits of the end of the 19th century, with those of the second spirit from the 40s to the 70s, and then ultimately the contemporary spirit which has existed since the 80s. They compare various factors, such as the forms of capital accumulation process, the excitement and where it stems from, the fairness that it implies, and the security which it seems to provide. One very interesting example is job security, which was very important in the 60s as well as today. However in the 60s it involved paternalism, a high importance of personal relationships and personal property. Now job security is reframed through the concept of employability. This employability re-assigns the job of gaining and maintaining security to the individual worker, who develops their own employability as they gain experience. Another interesting example is the argument of fairness in capitalism. While the first spirit of capitalism at the end of the 19th century included a mix of domestic and market fairness, it moved to a meritocracy valuing effectiveness during the period of the 40s to the 70s. Currently there is much more emphasis on innovation and creativity, as well as permanent change. This can be seen as a new form of meritocracy valuing mobility and the ability to nourish networks. (ibid., p. 166)

The notion of fairness characterises the emergence of a new value system, that justifies this commitment to capitalism. A theoretical construct that has helped explain notions of fairness as they exist in different societal contexts was established by Boltanski and Thévenot as a “justificatory regime”. These regimes based on different approaches, filters and categorisation. Boltanski and Chiapello’s study showed that one can recognise a new justificatory regime that is increasingly influential. This regime is different from all those of the past and should thus be observed in hipsterism too. Hipsterism can function as a prism for understanding the new spirit of capitalism, by demonstrating these justifications and how they have developed since the 2000s. This new justificatory regime emphasises activity, project initiation, the ability to get involved, adaptability and flexibility. Furthermore, emphasis on the ability to communicate with others and the ability to generate enthusiasm. An important factor is that within this regime, which they call the “project-oriented justificatory regime”, is that the readiness to sacrifice all that curtail one’s availability and the readiness to give up lifelong plans, is seen as a investment that is necessary to become ‘great’. If one does not wish to sacrifice these, one can stay a ‘small’ person, and heighten one’s employability and trustworthiness, through enthusiasm for project work. The ‘great’ persons help with this through their ability to spread the benefits of social connections and to generate enthusiasm. (ibid., pp. 168–169)

Hipsterism could possibly be a collection of ‘great’ practices that demonstrates the effect of these values on the younger generation of adults in this context.

Boltanski and Chiapello conclude that the changes in the types of organisations have been closely accompanied by changes in values for the assessment of people, things and situations and changed behavioural norms. In this re-ordering changes have not only been made to the values themselves, but of course also in the mechanisms that are intended to ensure fairness, and ultimately the testing systems of fairness have changed. (Boltanski et al., 2005, p. 171)

In trying to find why and how this reorganisation of values and change of assessment system took place, they looked at France between 1968 and 1995. Fundamental here is how criticism functions within the system. They identified two different types of criticism that have developed during the 19th century. The first is a social criticism that dives into the root challenges of capitalism. It is an assessment of the inequality and exploitation in capitalism and values solidarity rather than individualism. The second form of criticism developed in small artistic and intellectual circles in the 60s, criticised oppression, mass culture, standardisation and pervasive commodification. Furthermore the artistic critique demanded self-management, enhanced personal autonomy, and more creativity. At the height of criticism in that time period, which was 1968 according to the authors, verbal criticism translated into actual waves of strike and demonstrations, and genuinely threatened to generate a major crisis for capitalism. In this time period, both artistic critique (that had been thus far only expressed in exclusive and intellectual circles) and social critique came together.

Especially the artistic critique that was somewhat new in this context was triggered through the engagement of students in the protests. There was not only a huge increase of the number of students in the 1960s, but their role in the capitalistic process of production increased. This explains how the artistic critique stepped out from the shadows. Students that took part in the protests caused this kind of criticism to move from the obscure circles of intellectuals and creatives, to gain momentum and visibility. Students possessed a high amount of cultural capital and influenced these protests in the way of artistic critique. (ibid., pp. 175–176)

As analysed by Boltanski and Chiapello, French employer organisations had two strategies to detract the 1968 crisis: the first phase from 1968 to 1973 ignored the artistic criticism and remained attentive to the social criticism. They negotiated within a collective bargaining network, and at the national level under state control and increased the country’s lowest wages, decreased wage disparities and strengthened job security; as well as developing tests that were closer to the meritocratic ideal. This accounts for Boltanski and Chiapello’s observation: the decrease of productivity, but the betterment of working conditions. In the second phase around 1975, the criticism remained acute and the employer organisations developed a new strategy which abandoned the established tests that were expressing social criticism. They now concentrated on the artistic criticism and started to ‘improve working conditions’, a general slogan that developed in the late 70s and has been implemented until today. Addressing these artistic concerns has focused on the demand for autonomy and creativity. Many changes were made, such as smaller units with more independence, temporary work, subcontracting, outsourcing activities etc. These developments made it more difficult for social criticism which was usually voiced by labour unions, to attack and criticise the organisation of work. Without a large integrated firm to oppose, these changes disoriented the unions’ attempts and confused the relationship between them and the employers. The artistic critique also fell silent, largely because those who had been criticising at that time had become satisfied with the changes and with their own position in society. (ibid.)

The history of the years following the events of May 1968 demonstrate the real but sometimes paradoxical impact of the critique on capitalism. [...] What we have observed of the role of critique in the improvement, but also the displacements and transformations, of capitalism— which are not conducive to greater social well-being—leads us to underscore the inadequacies of critical activity, as well as the incredible flexibility for the capitalist process. This process is capable of conforming to societies with aspirations that vary greatly overtime [...] and of recuperating the ideas of those who were its enemies in a previous phase. (Boltanski et al., 2018, pp. 200–201)

Boltanski et al. (ibid.) define the first kind of criticism, the social criticism, as what is expressed in the labour movement, but it would be interesting to look at the criticism voiced within hipsterism. It is questionable, whether it can really be reduced to artistic criticism, or maybe even social criticism to some extent. It could be a new form of criticism entirely, one expressed through consumption choices and consumer pressures on the production process. Especially movements around the responsibility towards the environment and towards fellow human beings through fair trade and sustainable consumption, it could maybe express a criticism of the incessant individuality propagated in capitalism. One could even go as far as to understand this as behavioural criticism, expressed in modes of consumption, as an individual exit strategy, to not adhere to current norms. This could express counter-cultural values. If Hipsters are willing to sacrifice their own comfort and the security and autonomy granted to them by capitalism, in order to make decisions expressing values of equality and solidarity, one can see traces of the remnant of social criticism. It can express itself not just through the mode of consumption, but also in the career path and biographic decisions they make, their self narrative, and the politics of their life choices. These will be closely associated with their identity. However, the way they go about their everyday practices will express the values that stimulate their behaviour.

To understand the verbal and behavioural expressions of criticism in hipsterism will explain the effects and the development of the new spirit of capitalism.

However, another interesting aspect is to observe the model of the laid back and down-to-earth capitalist within this scene. This entrepreneur, who very subtly or even subconsciously exploits his workers, and the Do-What-You-Love motto prevalent in hipsterism are very much interlinked. Artistic critique is based on self-expression and the ability to exist as a unique and authentic self, also expressed through the autonomy and the flexibility of your workplace. Outlook and attitude within hipsterism could be, akin to something one of these laid-back and cool entrepreneurs would say: if you manage to do something that you are very passionate about, it will not only be less like work, but also express your individual identity. To understand these notions, to “buy into” this myth, one must be of the types willing to sacrifice traditional work security and safety, ease of mind, leisure time etc. and must have a “taste” for this idea and get excited about the general possibilities that capitalism offers, in the right context.