burners

Nicole Horton

Sociology 131

7/25/2013

Youth Culture

In order to form an understanding of the significance of youth culture relative to

dominant forms of culture, and how and why youth culture develops, it is important to consider

the context in which youth form their identities. Youth cultures should not be categorized strictly

as either modes of resistance to dominant social and ideological forms, or artifacts of consumer

culture, because in fact, youth cultures, while morphing into various forms throughout the

decades, have taken on both characteristics, at times simultaneously, and to varying degrees. To

complicate matters further, youth cultures of the past are structurally different from youth

cultures today. Whereas in the past, it may have been appropriate to apply the term “subculture”

to youth cultures, today it becomes questionable whether that term is still accurately descriptive

of the forms of youth cultures which have presented themselves in postmodernity. The preceding

are the concepts which this paper aims to clarify for the reader through the following discussion.

Youth are at a unique stage of development within a context in which they are defined by

the rest of society as the ‘other’ (Thorpe, Lecture, and summer 2013). They are not yet accepted

as adults, but neither are they children, so they are uncomfortably placed into this ‘other’

category, similar to the way in which “civilized” societies have historically viewed “tribal”

societies as an ‘other’ who are seen by the “civilized” as inferior, primitive, and naive (Thorpe,

Lecture, 2013 & Brady Robards and Andy Bennett, 2011: 303-317). Youth are often portrayed

as a demographic which needs to be closely watched and controlled, and the mainstream reasons

for this are twofold and contradictory (Holland, 2004: Ch. 5). One reason that youth are

considered to need close supervision is so that their innocence can be protected (Holland, 2004:

Ch. 5). The other reason society has suggested a need for supervising youth, is in portraying

them as inherently evil and if not reined in, that their inherent tendencies would be detrimental to

society (Holland, 2004: Ch. 5). Within the context in which youth are eyed with skepticism and

sought to be controlled, they are simultaneously struggling to develop autonomy and a sense of

self in relation to the group (Thorpe, Lecture, summer 2013).

Because youth are no longer children, and not yet accepted as adults, by default they are

left with their fellow youth as the category with which to identify, and find acceptance. In light

of their position within the social structure, it is of little wonder that youth have historically

formed subcultures as a haven from mainstream cultural elements, which they may find

oppressive. The dominant sociological perspective on the subject in Britain in the 1970s was

that, “each new generation of young people uses consumer products to construct surrogate

communal identities, subverting and resisting the norms and values of the dominant system”

(Hall, Winlow and Ancrum, 2008:93) As capitalist society progressed further through the

decades, clever marketers responded by viewing underground subcultures as new niche market

opportunities (Moore, 2009:). The new target generation for marketing was labeled “Generation

X” (Moore, 2009:10-11).

        Generation X was the generation after the Baby Boomers (Moore, 2009:10-11). The latter

had been an easier consumer demographic to market to (Moore, 2009:8-11). Corporations

appropriated the hippy style and ethos for their marketing schemas, and were able to profit by

selling the hippy culture back to the baby boomers who had originated it (Moore, 2009:11). The

Baby Boomer generation would come to be viewed as inauthentic for their cozy relationship with

mainstream (Moore, 2009:37-44, & Thorpe, Lecture, 2013). Generation X was a problem child

for the marketing industry (Merchants of Cool). This generation grew up in an environment

saturated with advertisements, valued authenticity which they viewed as essentially antithetical

to mainstream, and recognized resentfully when sales pitches tried to copy their subcultural

styles to sell back to them through marketing (Moore, 2009:57-59, & Merchants of Cool).

Subcultures were viewed amongst their participants as valuable because they were not

mainstream (Merchants of Cool, 2009:28-29 & Merchants of Cool). When the marketing

industry latched onto a subculture and marketed its values, music and style, it would become

mainstream and thus rob the subculture of its cultural capital, which would spell death for that

subculture (Moore, 2009:28-29, & Merchants of Cool).  Those who had been a part of the

subculture when it had been underground, would then have to go out and find or form something

else that had not yet been appropriated by the mainstream (Moore, 2009:27-28, & Merchants of

Cool). For marketers, this meant that they always had to be searching for the next subculture to

exploit, because the second they were successful was the beginning of the end for that market

(Merchants of Cool).  

        With the advent of MTV, the problem child demographic from a marketing perspective,

became less problematic (Moore, 2009:28-29, & Merchants of Cool). MTV was immediately

popular when it started, airing music videos which doubled as entertainment and covert

advertising (Merchants of Cool).  This strategy was wildly successful and was incorporated into

the “length and breadth” of MTV broadcasting (Merchants of Cool).  Not only music but also

movies, programming, and everything being broadcasted have been stated by MTV

representatives themselves to be advertising schemas (Merchants of Cool). Another marketing

strategy breakthrough came when Sprite discovered that rather than having to continually spy out

and exploit the ever shifting subcultures, they could in fact engineer youth culture themselves, by

convincing viewers that the ideas contrived by marketing were actually hip and authentic

(Merchants of Cool).  Youth identities are now mass-produced and sold to the masses of youth,

and in turn, youth seek acceptance from their peers by trying to emulate the packaged image and

sell it back to the talent scouts and market researchers of the culture industry (Merchants of

Cool). The makers of “The Merchants of Cool” refer to this process as “the feedback loop”

(Merchants of Cool).

        Despite the wild popularity of the entertainment industry, sometimes subcultures still

form, whose participants self-identify as opposed to mainstream. An example would be the

subculture that formed around the band Insane Clown Posse (Merchants of Cool). Followers of

ICP, who called themselves “Juggalos”, thought that they had escaped the feedback loop by

being so abrasive that they were indigestible to mainstream (Merchants of Cool). Their music

was called “Rage Rock” with lyrics which ridiculed women and homosexuals (Merchants of

Cool & Thorpe, Lecture 5b, spring 2013). Far from being too abrasive for mainstream, these

characteristics of ICP were mere reproductions of the characteristics of the crass, misogynistic

“mook” invented by MTV to target testosterone driven males who in turn copy the image

(Merchants of Cool & Thorpe, Lecture 5b, spring 2013). Moore writes, The mook is a

consuming machine, yet prides himself of not being taken in, for he uses his cynicism as armor

against anyone who might threaten the immediate gratification of his most primal self” (Moore,

2009:57). It is therefore not surprising that ICP went on to sign with a major record label,

landing a comfortable spot in the mainstream spotlight (Merchants of Cool & Thorpe, Lecture

5b, spring 2013). Some argue that in light of these new marketing developments and wide

acceptance by youth culture, that subcultures in postmodernity do not actually construct their

own authentic identities and culture (even though they may self-identify as authentic), but rather

are mere recreations of the identity being packaged and sold to them through the mainstream

(Merchants of Cool & Thorpe, Lecture 5b, Spring 2013,  & Hall, Winlow and Ancrum, 2008:

93-98). I contend that the idea that subcultures today are only reconstructions of mainstream

ideals, does not address the entirety of youth culture in post modernity, though it may hold true

in certain cases such as in the case of ICP.

Other shifts have taken place in the composition of youth relations and identity

formation. For example, the advent of social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook,

Twitter, and others, has constructed a virtual social world where youth can pick and choose how

they represent themselves online, and their peer interaction through this medium further enables

them to form and express likes and dislikes that do not shape the totality of their identity

(Thorpe, Lecture 5b, Spring 2013, & Robards and Bennett, 2011:303-317). One could find an

online arena devoted to a specific interest such as a style of music, without ever meeting face to

face with other fans, and appreciating this music does not come at the exclusion of appreciating

other forms of music, and does not necessarily dictate style of dress, etc. (Thorpe, Lecture 5b,

Spring 2013). In short, youth identities in postmodernity are partially pieced together from

various interests formed online, where individuals can participate in discussion with others

regarding these interests, though those involved in the discussion may never meet face to face

and a particular interest does not dictate ways of life to the individual (Thorpe, Lecture 5b,

Spring 2013, & Robards and Bennett, 2011:303-317). Robards and Bennett suggested the term

“neo-tribe” to describe youth culture today as post subcultural in that they select interests without

necessarily adopting membership into a group which would dictate other facets of identity such

as subcultures did in the past (Thorpe, Lecture 5b, Spring 2013, & Robards and Bennett,

2011:303-317).

Taken together, the mass packaging and reselling of identity to youth through marketing,

and the “neo-tribe” dynamic are still incomplete pictures of what comprises youth culture today.

There are other spheres of youth culture, which still suggest within themselves certain modalities

of dress, ideologies in opposition to mainstream, musical taste, behavioral traits, etc. An example

of one such sphere has been fostered by the annual Burning Man festival which annually takes

place in Nevada’s Mojave desert, and has been the subject of growing infamy amongst youth

cultures in expanding parts of the globe. Attendees refer to themselves as “Burners”, and self

reportedly leave shaped by the values they learned at the Festival, often with the intent of

bringing these values back to their communities. Burner culture is essentially anti-capitalist, as is

evidenced in part by the communities they form over the course of the festival, which are strictly

resource based, meaning that they trade services and commodities, excluding money from the

exchange process. A common object in Burner fashion is the use of the feather, which conveys a

rejection of industrial modernity, and a sense of belonging (Thorpe, Office Hours, and summer

2013). However, burners are not an actual tribe as they do not remain together, but rather come

together for the duration of the festival and then go their separate ways once again (Thorpe,

Office Hours, Summer 2013). Although there are common threads of concepts, ideologies and

stylistic themes within the Burning Man culture, participants are glorified by other burners when

they individually create a look, piece of music, writing, or art which is considered authentic, but

which in fact often incorporates reflections of past themes into itself. Individual burners also

differ in other ways, such as the extent to which they devote themselves to the culture both

during and after the festival takes place, and they come from a variety of life paths and career

choices. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Burning Man in Nevada’s Black Rock Desert has

been trying to balance its idea of “decommodification” with the fact that many of its attendees

are wealthy techies who spend loads of cash on art projects, fancy campsites and Burning Man

hairdos....tech-industry leaders like Google CEO Larry Page and Tesla’s Elon Musk are repeat

burners” (The Wall Street Journal, 2011). One of the photographs below, depicts a female in a

modern looking headdress, with other parts of her outfit looking reminiscent of both 60s hippy

culture, and even a punk rock element (Thorpe, Office Hours, summer 2013). Such exhibitions

of dress as demonstrated by the female in question, suggests a level of self-awareness that

Burners are a neo-tribe. However, not all burners are neo-tribal. Instead, within the Burning Man

culture, participants vary in the degree to which the culture consumes them. Some may be more

like weekend Burners where there affinity for Burning Man does not largely affect their

identities from day to day, whereas others may more or less devote more of a totality of identity

to the Burner culture (Thorpe, Office Hours, and summer 2013). The latter type of Burners are

illustrated in the wedding pictures included below, where a couple went back to their home town,

had an open wedding with anyone invited, and tried to recreate elements of Burning Man on a

small scale into their wedding. This couple incorporates the Burning Man ideology into their

day-to-day lives in literature, style of dress, music, participation in protests against capitalism,

etc. Burners also seem to borrow cultural elements from various other cultures across history,

including but not limited to: the 60’s counterculture, Kundalini Yoga, Punk Rock style of dress,

and Dadaism. In short, Burners cannot be neatly categorized aggregately as either entirely

against mainstream consumerism, or as recreating consumer culture, or even as neo-tribes or

subcultures, because to be a Burner does not dictate that a person must exclusively belong or not

belong to any such category, and individuals vary in their placement along such continuums of

ideation (Thorpe, Office Hours, Summer 2013 & Wall Street Journal, 2011). 1

1 All information in sentences in this paragraph which following the end of the sentence, do not site Dr. Thorpe or The Wall Street Journal, contain content drawn from conversations I have had previously with repeat burners.

Whereas in previous decades, circles from which youth formed their identity were once

relatively tight, mutually exclusive circles with relatively strict codes of dress, speech, ideals,

and music, the circles from which youth recreate identity today seem to be expanding to

increasingly global spheres, are not mutually exclusive, and are less evocative of total identities.

This means that youth cultures no longer fit neatly and exclusively into packaged terms like

“neo-tribe” or “subculture”, and cannot be generalized as either resisting or appropriating

dominate culture. Instead, youth identities today seem to oscillate between such constructs.

Bibliography

Patricia Holland, Picturing Childhood: The Myth of the Child in Popular Imagery (2004),

chapter 5 “No Future: The Threat of Childhood and the Impossibility of Youth.”

Ryan Moore, Sells Like Teen Spirit: Music, Youth Culture, and Social Crisis (New York

University Press, 2009).

Brady Robards and Andy Bennett, “My Tribe: Post-Subcultural Manifestations of Belonging on

Social Network Sites,” Sociology 45(2) (2011): 303-317

Justin Scheck, The Burning Man Experience for Silicon Valley-ites. The Wall Street Journal.

Retrieved from: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/09/02/the-burning-man-experience-for-

silicon-valley-ites/

Charles Thorpe, Lecture 5b & office hours, summer 2013

Hall, Winlow and Ancrum, Criminal Identities and Consumer Culture, Chapter 5:

“Consumerism and the Counterculture.”

The Merchants of Cool, PBS Frontline, 2001