Subcultures, cliques and identity

It really infuriates me how everyone has to label people. When it comes down to it, people are just people. I like the punk style, so I like to implement some "punk" elements into my own personal style (ripped, stitched up pants, colors that don't match, studs, etc.) and so people label me as a conformist to the punk culture. Aren't I just pursuing what I favor as an individual? Isn't purposefully refraining from styles like "punk" or "goth" conforming to the supposedly "non-conformist" group? It's such a paradox. If you like those styles as an individual, then how is dressing them being conformist when you're just doing what you want to do?! Then I tell people that I don't believe in identity and labels, and they look at my clothes and laugh, calling me a hipocrite.
"Punk" was originally supposed to be about fighting all that [stuff] anyways. It was about individualizing your dress, dying your hair the color you wanted it, etc. It pisses me off how the self-proclaimed "non-conformists" just categorize punk as another clique for the kids, when they don't even know what punk is supposed to be about. Yeah, you have the kids who will only wear "authentic punk vintage clothing" and stuff, who are just another consumerist buying into [poopy] but when you look at stuff like anarcho-punk, the artists use different kinds of sounds, instruments, and don't really fit into one style of music (except their common beliefs about the world) but each have different views on how to make the world a better place. Some practice veganism, others feminism, others just plain anti-authority and anti-capitalism, but they dress the way they want to dress and believe what they want to believe.

The only "posers" are the people who call other people posers. They make it just another commodity on the market. "You're not punk rock unless you buy doc marten combat boots you [gosh darned] poser!" Give me a break, any true non-conformist "punk" would just wear whatever footwear they wanted to. :bnghd: But then again, "not conforming" is a form of conforming, and me labelling people as "conformist" is being really hipocritical.

Anyways, people need to stop categorizing human beings, we are all PEOPLE!!! The concept of social groups is just another imagined creation that doesn't physically exist in reality.

[edited out vulgarity and censor circumvention -nygdan]

[edit on 8-1-2006 by Nygdan]

Here's some very good advice I learned from one of the most iconoclastic individuals I ever met. Never wear anything that wasn't in style 10 years ago or anything that won't be in style 10 years from now. That goes for hair styles, too. Visual cues are very important to humans. It's primal. It 's not about what should be. It's about what is. Think LL Bean and Brooks Brothers. As long as you look traditional and non-threatening to the majority of the populace, you can do virtually anything you want. It's called flying below radar.

haha That's why I always get aprehended for what conventional dressers do every single day

People will find a way to make anything marketable and fashionable. Everything from being a nerd to not even having a style has been turned into a style of its own. I used to be really angsty about the whole "What's happened to punk" thing, but I eventually just gave up and stopped caring. Be who you want, listen to what you want, dress how you want, don't judge other people. I think that's originally what punk was supposed to be about.

I'm tired and it's my bed time. Normally I'd have more to contribute.

Wear what you like to wear and don't be concerned about what other people think unless there is a legitimate reason to do so. (e.g. you're going for a job interview)

Originally posted by the_individualist
Aren't I just pursuing what I favor as an individual?

Well, no. You've said yourself, you like the punk style and try to conform to it.

Isn't purposefully refraining from styles like "punk" or "goth" conforming to the supposedly "non-conformist" group?

Sure.

If you like those styles as an individual, then how is dressing them being conformist

Because it meets the definition of conforming. Unless one defines it as doing something you don't like, just because everyone else does it. But if you like it, who cares?

"Punk" was originally supposed to be about fighting all that

Punk was never about anything, as far as I understand it. I don't think that there are very many punks left today, certainly not under the age of 30.

The only "posers" are the people who call other people posers.

...

It was about individualizing your dress, dying your hair the color you wanted it, etc. It pisses me off how the self-proclaimed "non-conformists" just categorize punk as another clique for the kids,

But the description you give it is as a clique. Punk had nothing to do with fashion and manic panic hair dye.



I think that one of the most intersting things from this rant is that it shows that a trend I noticed when I was younger is becoming more mainstream. Used to be that 'punkish' people were ostracised for being to bizzare, now the trend has come full circle and they're beeing derided for being too mainstream or weak-willed. Intruiging.





[edit on 8-1-2006 by Nygdan]

i think you are wanting to join my clique


the notcarist.


why?

because you wouldn't and couldn't give a crap what label someone is trying to put on you. their just trying to do that so they can justify disliking or liking you.


your "punk" style has been infected by emo-ism.


it all boils down to this imo:

F'all.

no matter what you do someone will hate it and someone will love it. please only yourself.

I think you are too concerned with what other people think of your tastes.

Really, being concerned with what other people think is just conformism in itself.

Aren't I just pursuing what I favor as an individual?

Well, no. You've said yourself, you like the punk style and try to conform to it.

No, it's not like I see a punk wear a certain type of shirt and say: Oh! I need that to dress the punk style! I just think that parts of the fashion are good ideas. I try to conform to parts of the style that I like, not the style as a whole.

If you like those styles as an individual, then how is dressing them being conformist?

Because it meets the definition of conforming. Unless one defines it as doing something you don't like, just because everyone else does it. But if you like it, who cares?

I personally define conforming in this case as doing what a particular group that you want to join does. Ex.: the group wears a kind of hat you don't like, but you wear it to gain their acceptance.

"Punk" was originally supposed to be about fighting all that

Punk was never about anything, as far as I understand it. I don't think that there are very many punks left today, certainly not under the age of 30.

Punk had to be about something in order to even be considered a group in the first place. Even if it was specifically about nothing, I guess that would still be considered something.

The only "posers" are the people who call other people posers.

...

lol, someone's got to say it

It was about individualizing your dress, dying your hair the color you wanted it, etc. It pisses me off how the self-proclaimed "non-conformists" just categorize punk as another clique for the kids,

But the description you give it is as a clique. Punk had nothing to do with fashion and "manic panic" hair dye

You're right: it had to do with dressing how you wanted and dying your hair how or if you wanted: basically doing what you wanted like I said in the first place. If you liked orange hair, you dyed it orange, if you liked your hair the way it was, then you would keep it. A clique would be like they all dyed their hair red or something.

I think that one of the most intersting things from this rant is that it shows that a trend I noticed when I was younger is becoming more mainstream. Used to be that 'punkish' people were ostracised for being to bizzare, now the trend has come full circle and they're beeing derided for being too mainstream or weak-willed. Intruiging.

But I thought you said that there weren't many punks left, so who's there to be "derided"?

[edit on 14-1-2006 by the_individualist]