style over content

MySpace reaches accord with Attorneys General - May. 21, 2007

so via Broadsheet, i noticed the news that MySpace has partnered with a "background verificantion" firm (Sentinel Tech Holdings Corp) to create a database of convicted sex offenders, which MySpace then used to begin expunging users who were cross-listed. of course, not all sex offenders are pedophiles, and statutory rape laws still mean that sometimes consenting teen couples have sex across age lines, and the older partner is charged and becomes a registered offender. but fine, so MySpace is trying to keep convicted sex offenders off the site, as a way to respond to charges from both legislators, the press, parents and others that social networking sites are havens for predators seeking to lure naive children to their lairs (or wherever) and abuse them.

According to CNN (via Reuters), MySpace worked out a legal way to hand over this information to government officials (a group of state attorney generals). So far, they've deleted about 7,000 profiles identified as belong to sex offenders (out of a total of about 180 million (that's about 0.00004% for the curious).

as usual, i think this raises some issues of privacy -- does being convicted of a sexual offense deprive you of your right to create online profiles, and is any profile you create subject to government surveillance? i imagine MySpace has some legal standing in denying accounts to sex offenders, but i think targeting all sex offenders so widely tends to conflate a range of offenses as equally dangerous, when they may not be.

but in my mind, the bigger question still revolves around the visibility of MySpace against the actual risk to young people who use the service. the Connecticut attorney general was quoted as saying "Social networking sites should not be playgrounds for predators." and yet, most children are still at much greater risk from people they know than strangers on the internet -- a risk which can be further minimized by basic safety practices around meeting new people online.

perhaps it makes sense for all minors with MySpace accounts to have private profiles, so only their friends can see their personal info -- but digital technologies tend to make it difficult to ascertain the real age of members. digital media require learning new habits for safety and protection, similar to being cautious with personal financial information. the danger of "predators" on MySpace is continually hyped in the media (even the usually critical blog Broadsheet jumping in), at the expense of the most common forms of abuse experienced by children. perhaps after we insure that all American children have health insurance and are free from violence or abuse at home, we can begin to concern ourselves with digital dangers. until then, though, we have to keep asking why sex offenders seem to capture the legal imagination and divert our attention away from the less sensationalistic violence of the everyday.

Posted by jordan at 01:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

in further video news, i'm not sure how i missed last week's perceptive news report from WDAZ in North Dakota, but clearly, emo really is the new goth. and just like goth, emo began as a subgenre of punk music (emotive hardcore) that has morphed into a distinctive youth style complete with fashion codes (skinny clothes, floppy black hair) and alleged behavior norms (self harm, mopey poetry, morbid introspection). this current version of emo strikes me as difficult to distinguish from the darker side of indie/hipster style, and has become inseparably imagined alongside myspace and youtube, and similar digital sites of youthful social interaction.

the video is pretty predictable -- new youth subculture poses risks to YOUR kids! be on the look out for skinny pants and tight sweaters in dark colors -- they might lead to suicidal ideation! but the best part appears to be the newscasters' misrecognition of internet humor sites as legitimate guides to emo culture. such as the "Insta Emo Kit" at Sykospark.net. they also report on a supposed "point" system, which they acknowledge may be more symbolic than literal -- and of course, youth subculture often does rely on schema of cultural capital (specialized knowledge of scene norms, taste preferences, and slang) to confer status and credibility.

but as usual, hyping fears of the internet, self harm, and youth subculture does little to address the real difficulties many young people face navigating the educational system, media, and consumerism in a postindustrial world where they are frequently targeted by mass media and corporate interests, and where "youth" has become a dominant symbol for what's new, hip, and desirable in mass culture.

I Must Be Emo - News Report

Posted by jordan at 03:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

i woke up this morning to more social anxiety about youth -- this time, NPR's Day to Day was covering a recent study which claims that "[college] students today are more narcissistic and self-centered than a generation ago." now, my mother assures me that she never told me i was special, so perhaps i escaped the worst of the "self-esteem movement." but according to psychologists at San Diego State, this recent trend can be traced to the indiscriminate emphasis on self-esteem and praise popular in parenting during the 80s. of course, the researchers then went on to add that this growing narcisissism is "fueled by current technologies such as MySpace and YouTube." ah, technological determinism.

at the risk of tooting the same tinny horn all the time, this just clamors "social anxiety! social anxiety!" the study purports to have relied on the "Narcissistic Personality Inventory," in which over 16,000 college-age students were surveyed between 1982 and 2006 using this psychological evaluation survey. admittedly, i tend to be wary of this kind of quantitative data, largely due to my own investments in ethnography and qualitative methods. what does it really tell us that students are increasingly agreeing with statements like "I think I am a special person" and "I can live my life any way I want to?" could this represent a part of larger cultural shifts in how we conceive of ourselves in American society? does this index actually indicate anything about social and behavioral changes, and is it sufficient to assess such cognitive trends?

but now i'm confused, because only a few days ago, APA researchers were all worked up about the negative effects of media on girl's self-esteem -- so it self-esteem good, or bad? or are researchers just bandying the term about without careful definition? given the cultural specificity of Western conceptions of selfhood, some care and clarity would be welcomed here. still, lead author Jean Twenge seems to think that today's youth are less empathic and more self-centered, and cautions that this shift could have damaging ramifications for society generally. as i've said before, youth are often a site where social anxieties are expressed concerning social reproduction, and youth are frequently and vaguely blamed for social changes that many find threatening. but are youth initiating these changes, or products of them?

the best part of this morning's interview with Twenge was when she claimed to hold the media responsible first, then parents and schools. ah, of course. but which media? that's right, magazines and television, in particular those that pander to youth. at no time did she point out that those media are generated for the sake of attracting advertising revenues, and that corporate interests tend to shape the media through which they promote their products. lastly, of course, Twenge includes MySpace and YouTube as proof that media are increasingly capitalizing on the narcissistic tendencies of today's youth, sites which revolve around individual identity. but perhaps these websites embody the same kind of cultural shifts that lead students to respond differently to the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. before asserting that changing attitudes signal dangerous trends in personal relationships, clearly closer research is needed to investigate how young people conceive of themselves, how they relate to others, and how they use (and produce) media.

Posted by jordan at 09:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A Piercing Look At Goth Culture And Fashion - washingtonpost.com

goth is back in the news media again--not as dangerous, deviant teen cult, but as fashion interest item! The Post has featured Gothic Beauty magazine, a slick goth lifestyle rag that largely conflates "gothic" fashion with busty women in tight corsets and heavy eyeliner, suggesting in the article that contrary to popular image, goth is really very forward-thinking and cutting-edge.

while it's nice to see goth treated a little more fairly in the media, Gothic Beauty offers a rather vapid representation of a subculture that has more going on creatively than implied by photoshoots of women in their undergarments, parading about in tight vinyl and poofy synthetic hair. Gothic Beauty largely propels itself by capitalizing on the sex appeal of its tattooed and pierced models, reducing goth fashion to freaky chicks in skimpy outfits. and as much as i'm in favor of alt models and creative clubwear, i think it does goth and other alternative women a disservice when our aesthetic is exploited for its purely erotic allure (reminds me of a certain quasi-controversial alt porn website...).

for something a little less shiny and more diy, check out Drop Dead Magazine (devoted to deathrock music and fashion, the horror-tinged, punky side of goth). sadly, the days are largely past of goth/industrial magazines that featured both music, fashion, and culture, at least in the US (r.i.p. Carpe Noctem).

as usual, though, the news media still can't quite decide if goths are just edgy, misunderstood artistes, part of the emerging "creative class," or an appropriate trigger for moral panic over loners who obsess over the occult and plot to murder their schoolmates. i suspect that context will reveal some of the disparity -- at times, media outlets are content to exploit the latter trope, dipping into broader social fears about youth to explain some sort of violent act or tragedy, yet the rest of the time, reporters prefer to mine colorful (or monochrome!) subcultures for their value as spectacle. at the risk of proffering an overly simplified explanation, both cases give off more than a whiff of prurient sensationalizing.

Posted by jordan at 12:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

the BBC's Culture Show appears to have done a short, upbeat segment on the UK's biggest biannual goth fest, Whitby Gothic Weekend (which i attended once, a few years back). it's a mostly evenhanded piece, portraying goth as a subculture that creates community for its culturally misfit members, with a charmingly dated and nostalgic score from the early 80s. then again, according to the Culture Show, goths are mostly aging computer geeks who dress up in corsets and lace on the weekends, and are otherwise pleasantly middle-class members of society. did all the under-thirty art freaks, students, and club kids just stay home?

view the clip on youtube:

Posted by jordan at 12:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

according to Bones, Fox's latest forensic drama and David Boreanaz vehicle, smug, angsty teens dressed in black and sporting lip-piercings are... emo? i suppose this is what i get for tuning in to mediocre primetime television (sadly, i have class when Veronica Mars airs on Tuesdays). last night's episode turned on the classic plot twist where the most likely suspect, in this case, the spooky teen, is absolved of the crime in favor of the less obvious "normal" character, his pageant-contestant younger sister (the emo teen, on the plus side, was played by cutie Kyle Gallner, whose quirky character on Veronica Mars was not similarly redeemed).

it's the character's mother, however, that outs him to the audience as "emo," and expresses her revulsion and despair at his sartorial choices. on the one hand, the show seems to be trying to keep up with the times and with current trends in youth culture. but on the other, the imagery of the angsty teen in black mostly serves to reproduce adult fears about youth as rebellious and violent, and doesn't seem particularly grounded in "emo" style or affect at all.

Posted by jordan at 02:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

(from a proposed paper on the role of digital media in the lives of young people)

For young people, commodity culture offers an important site for the production of individual and collective meanings. Digital spaces such as the internet provide an excellent arena for do-it-yourself culture and creative consumption, but are ultimately structured by the same logics that determine how popular culture operates more generally. Discourses of credibility and authenticity afford us a glimpse into how young people navigate the complex interplay of social networks, cultural commodities, and subcultures in a mobile, mediated society. Given the role of cultural engagement in developing social capital, digital media offer a means for young people to become more invested in their social and cultural worlds.

Continue reading "Authentic Youth: Cultural Capital and Credibility in Digital Youth Culture" »

Posted by jordan at 01:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

in less upbeat youth culture news, apparently a gunman opened fire late last Friday night/early Saturday morning at an afterparty for a zombie-themed rave, killing six partygoers and then himself. the event, and subsequent news coverage, has provoked nervous responses from the local electronic music scene, which are unsurprising in some ways, yet don't seem entirely warranted. the initial news reports actually seemed pretty even-handed to me -- no wild speculations about the gunman being a drug-addicted Marilyn Manson fan who secretly worshipped Adolf Hitler and was an occult-loving loner (as opposed to how the media first described the Columbine shooters, or Scott Dyleski).

but at least some kids in the local scene (dubbed "rave" culture by the media) are worrying that their subculture will be blamed, classic moral-panic style. which is understandable -- both the media and public officials have a bad habit of looking to youth culture as depraved and destructive in order to explain these kinds of incidents, demonizing KMFDM or MySpace or whatever else is a convenient way to get parents worked up about their dangerous teenagers. because pathologizing adolescents is apparently easier than actually addressing the causes of alienation and disaffection in society.

in this case, though, the local scene's concerns seem more based in fear than reality. Rave, goth and other subcultures are targeted so easily and often that now we expect it regardless of how the media or local community might actually be responding. i have to wonder if amplifies this effect to have subcultural youth feel defensive anytime something dramatic like this happens. for the moment, at least, the police seem to be treating this as a freak shootout, possibly premeditated, but not precipitated solely by drugs or alcohol or dance music.

Posted by jordan at 05:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I went to see V for Vendetta last weekend, which made for a fun outing, but something bothered me about its feel-good revolution-through-truth message. The movie certainly succeeded in bringing some of the essence of graphic novel to the screen, while rendering the original message more provocative and relevant to the current political climate. As a fan of the original -- a pivotal work that elevated comics to a more respected medium -- I loved Hugo Weaving's mysterious, literate, and somewhat twisted vigilante hero.

But the movie version is premised somewhat precariously on the notion that ideas alone can have enough force to change the world, as long as someone takes initiatve to broadcast the message. This strikes me as a convenient theme for mass-produced media, and it's not exactly a new one. In the Wachowski brothers' first hit, The Matrix, the movie ends with Neo promising to free the denizens of the computer-generated Matrix with a wakeup call to their communal predicament (unfortunately, the following films in the trilogy failed to make good on this storyline). Another more recent favorite comic of mine, Channel Zero, features a renegade filmmaker who fights theocratic fascism by hijacking public media.

While I can concur that ideas are powerful and can bring about real political and social change, I find something a little suspect in a mass-produced film patting itself on the back for spreading a grandiose message of action and revolution. Fight censorship, watch this movie! Beware governments that use fear of terrorism to clamp down on civil liberties -- find out the truth by watching this movie! Subvert the dominant paradigm -- watch this movie! Of course, presumably you're not taking much action of any kind while you're sitting in comfy stadium seating sipping soda and enjoying the surround sound.

I mean, I'm as nervous as the next liberal about the war on terror, illegal wiretapping, the Patriot Act, Total Information Awareness -- but sometimes I think that the current administration doesn't need to go as far as the fascist governments in 1984 or V to stay in power, or to pursue their pro-business agenda of protecting their wealth and privilege. They have Hollywood and the mass culture industry to ensure that people limit their rebellion to consuming edgy movies and music, showing up for their sober day jobs to support their weekend habits.

I don't mean to regurgitate the thesis of Theodore Adorno, that mass media produces an uncritical mass audience susceptable to the control of fascist governments. I think, as Paul Willis has argued, that media and pop culture can provide the raw material for meaning-making, the "symbolic work" of communicating through a shared set of images and ideas. We live in a communal web of significance which we call "culture," a structure that shapes how we interact and how we communicate. So I can't argue with the movie's premise that ideas can have potency. But ideas require people to organize around them and implement them, rather than just consuming another work of pop culture warning us about the evils of censorship, surveillance and totalitarianism.

Posted by jordan at 05:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A new music swapping website went live earlier this week, that seeks to offer an extensive and diverse music catalog online while fostering communities of like-minded fans. Lala.com's model appears to combine a social networking site with an online place to trade used cds, without violating copyright. The move toward networking-style sites like this doesn't surprise me, but I have to wonder how strongly it will appeal to most people. On the one hand, youth culture tends to revolve around musical genres, so building community according to musical taste shouldn't be difficult. The site, however, apparently charges a $1 per album swapped, which seems like a good deal -- except that you don't get to keep the cd. Nothing can prevent you from burning a copy, of course, but that may be the snag that gets this new venture into trouble.

I suspect Lala.com will prove most adept at helping people find more music they like, through meeting others online with similar taste. But I wonder how effective its business model can be -- would you pay a $1 to borrow a cd for a while? Would you just rip it to your music library and pass it on, or would you respect copyright law and purchase your favorite new discoveries? It may come down to how members of Lala.com listen to and consume music, and whether this approach can successfully override our endless thirst for accumulation.

Posted by jordan at 05:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been away from here for a bit, thanks to the holidays and other demands on my time in the past few months. Hopefully, I'm back now, and will be able to continue writing regularly! Among other topics, I was amused the other day by NPR's coverage of a recent study suggesting that low-fat diets don't lower the risk of heart disease and other health problems.

One commentator suggested that consumers (when did we become consumers?) may be confused by the results of this study, given how long the AMA and other medical organizations have been promoting low-fat, high fiber diets to prevent disease. If you actually read any of the many articles online the study, of course, it wasn't all that confusing in the least -- the researchers tracked a large group of women over a number of years, noting total fat intake but not distinguishing between different kinds of fat. Moreover, most of the participants on the "low-fat" diet didn't succeed in lowering their percentage of calories from fat to the target level, so their diets were only slightly lower in fat than the control group. Ultimately, the study concludes that lowering fat in general may not have much of an impact on longterm health, but had little to say on the advantages of a diet low in saturated fat and higher in vegetable oils.

Suffice to say, of course the public finds the study confusing -- reporters all over the country proclaimed "low fat diets have no impact on disease!" and then go on to explain how actually the study is more complicated than that. As far as I can tell, the researchers didn't find the results nearly as surprising as the news outlets, who are selling the story based on its supposed divergence from mainstream medical thought. It's the media creating the story -- and the confusion! So it seems a little ironic for anyone in the media to wonder why the public might be confused. Thanks, NPR!

Posted by jordan at 02:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently, I decided to try the new iTunes video downloading feature. I don't have a video iPod, but I realized I could probably just watch the episodes on my monitor at home. Since moving into a very small studio apartment in San Francisco, I've opted to have a flat-panel computer display instead of a television, since I use my computer as my primary work and media tool (which conveniently doubles as a DVD player). I've forgone television and cable for high-speed internet (wirelessly, of course) and Netflix. This setup works great for movies, and even older television shows which area available on DVD. At first, I thought this arrangement would suffice, while harboring fantasies of buying a USB TV tuner down the line.

But to my surprise, I miss TV. Or rather, I miss parts of TV. Not the surfing around part, finding little of interest and settling for some mediocre piece of shock voyeurism or info-tainment. But I do miss my occasional evening bouts with decent dramas like The West Wing, or my guilty pleasure, Veronica Mars. I'm still not sure I want a TV – I find it too easy to be sucked into sense-dulling shows, regularly interrupted by abrasive, instrusive commercials (with a few clever exceptions). So instead, I've turned to that joy of modern living, the Internet. The iTunes store now makes recent episodes of select network shows (like Lost) available for download, although at a relatively low resolution intended for the new iPods. The files are quick enough to download, and run only $1.99 a pop -- but the cost adds up over the course of a season, especially given the low quality of the files (at 22 episodes a season, you'd end up paying about the same as if you waited and bought the much higher-quality DVD). And if more shows were available, and you bought five a week, suddenly the cost begins to rival some cable packages.

So financially, iTunes may not yet be proffering a workable model for purchasing individual, ad-free shows online rather than through cable television (or attempting to tune in with an antenna!). By contrast, of course, peer-to-peer networking technology has already expanded to fill this gap somewhat -- I can easily go online and use a program like Bit Torrent to take advantage of "distributed networks," where files are uploaded and downloaded over a dispersed network of users. Undoubtably, the entertainment industry will feel pressured to formulate some response to the increasing availability of digital media files, as the RIAA did when faced with the rise of Napster and the popularity of MP3s. But what does internet file-sharing mean for the television industry? TV programming is produced primarily with the revenue from ad sales, which in turn are funded by marketing budgets that depend on product sales. Ultimately in television, the viewing audience becomes the product sold to advertisers, and the money we spend on consumer goods supports those viewing habits.

For now, of course, most people will continue to buy bigger, thinner TVs and pay for cable, even as new business models show promise, like the iTunes store and Netflix. But will the lure of ad-free, easily acquired shows erode the advertising model on which television currently depends? Moreover, will a feasible price-point suffice to meet programming budgets? I wonder, though, about the effect dwindling outlets for advertising will have on the consumer economy. Will GoogleAds simply replace TV and radio advertising, listed visibly on podcasting and bit-torrenting sites? Or will the consumption of "durable" goods slowly decline as music, movies and TV shows are increasingly available directly in digital format, sans paid advertising? Then again, perhaps a model in which consumers purchase digital media directly from producers will have a "democritizing" effect, a benefit long proclaimed by proponents of an internet society. While I have little sympathy for the RIAA or the entertainment industry giants (five of whom control 90% of all television channels, publishing houses, record labels, and most other media outlets), I'm deeply curious as to what the impact of slippery new digital media technologies will have on such a signficiant chunk of our media-saturated economy.

As a side note, after writing this (but before I'd had a chance to post), I heard a tidbit on Marketplace yesterday about a leaked memo from Microsoft. Apparently, I'm not the only one giving this issue some thought -- it looks like the Associated Press and Redmond's finest are teaming up to provide news video online. Sounds like executives at both companies are nervous about new technology outstripping older business models.

Posted by jordan at 06:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm fascinated by the disparity in how certain subcultures are sometimes represented in the media. Just a few weeks ago, 16 year old murder suspect Scott Dyleski was being described by CNN as a "goth loner" who "followed the occult and dressed in black," including that ubiquitous signifier of teen depravity, the black trenchcoat (thank you, Highlander movies!). Dyleski has been charged with bludgeoning Pamela Vitale to death in Lafayette, CA, allegedly because she received his marijuana-growing supplies that were being financed by stolen credit cards. Of course, whenever a white, middle-class teenaged boy commits some atrocious crime (Columbine, Red Lake), the media immediately finds someone (usually other students, who may or may not actually have known the suspect) to describe him as a goth, a loner, an occultist or Satanist, and usually a Nazi sympathizer to boot.

At the other end of the spectrum, however, the New York Times fashion section a few days ago declared goth style to be "in" -- or, more specifically, the "Gothic Aesthetic." (Embrace the Darkness, Oct. 30, 2005, in Fashion & Style) Admittedly, the Times doesn't really distinguish between "goth" (the contemporary subculture that revolves primarily around music and nightclubs) and "Gothic," a Victorian genre in literature and architecture in the 19th century that appealed to a decadent, macabre sentiment thought to be embodied in medieval architecture.

The Times article cites the imagery in Tim Burton's latest animated movie, Corpse Bride, not to mention a litany of recent works (a musical, a best-selling novel, a Met exhibit) -- and consumer fashion. Apparently, Goth fashion allows respectable New Yorkers (instead of "freaks" who embrace "subversive" imagery) to be "edgy." In all fairness, there's a common thread here, where "goth" is used to denote the dark, morbid and socially marginal. But I think it's telling that this demarcation is used perjoratively to frame the behavior of wayward, dangerous teen boys (at least, when they're white and middle-class), but is permissible for well-off women on the Upper East side of New York when they want to be "edgy."

I recognize, of course, that the use of subcultural imagery in the media is largely divorced from actual subcultural practices. This was entertainingly illustrated by local San Francisco news coverage of the Vitale murder, when reporters showed up at the DNA Lounge for a monthly industrial night called MEAT. After much deliberation, one of the promoters consented to an interview (which you can watch here). After the promoter described goth as a non-violent club scene that attracts adults over the age of 21 who want to dance and listen to dark-themed electronic music, the reporters concluded that the actual goth subculture had little to do with the allegedly "goth" teen murder suspect.

Still, the use of goth as a cultural category in the media attests to the semiotic value of imagery associated with the subculture. Goth, or rather, the stereotyped images associated with it (black clothing, dark makeup, an obsession with morbidity and death), has become shorthand for a particular kind of rebelliousness, whether that's the largely sanitized vision promoted by fashion designers, or the instant assumptions made in the press about teens like Dyleski, given a lack of better information (ultimately, for instance, it turned out that the Columbine shooters Klebold and Harris were not really into goth at all). The New York Times, however, is about 15 years out of date, since Victorian fashion was big in the goth scene in the early 90s -- subcultural styles continually shift just like in popular culture, and recent goth looks include more futuristic "cyber" styles, 80's-influenced deathrock looks, and retro/hipster fashion.

What I find interesting, however, is the relationship between goth imagery in the press and popular culture, and how goth style is used within the actual subculture (a community of semiotic "practice" and common interest). Of course, the goth scene is not immune to its stereotypes, especially as media exposure often attracts newcomers. Hopefully, these newcomers discover that the subculture is somewhat different from how it's popularly portrayed -- but presumably, these codified images of goth re-enter the scene through new participants. As a subculture, however, goth operates comparably to other communities of practice, using semiotic signifiers like style or slang to communicate identity and in-group affiliation to other members. Goth, as the newsreporters in San Francisco discovered, consists of a subculture concerned with music, clubbing, fashion and socializing, largely by young people in their twenties and thirties, and not brutal murders or sacrifices to Satan (or Marilyn Manson, for that matter). While I'm not convinced of the simple thesis that "mainstream" interests co-opt subcultural styles and diffuse their subversiveness, clearly the look of the goth scene has taken on symbolic meaning in popular culture, in intriguing and revealing ways.

Posted by jordan at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While waiting at the pharmacy today, I picked up a copy of Rolling Stone (with a very aged quartet of the same name on the cover, I might add), and discovered the article the magazine had run on Burning Man, sending a journalist and a photographer to the desert to cover the event. At the risk of being an apologist for something which I think can be legitimately critiqued, this article reminded me of all the reasons I dislike journalistic approaches to human social behavior.

Unfortunately, I can't provide a link because I'm pretty sure the article isn't available online -- just the photos:
http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/_/id/5392537

So I'll have to try and sum it up first. The author purports to approach the event with an open mind, then proceeds to ridicule the majority of participants for being hairy, naked and benighted. He denigrates a pair of topless passersby as "freaks," and concludes that Burning Man is just about a bunch of middle-class white folks with corporate day jobs blowing off steam one week a year in the desert.

Of course, it's not that I haven't suggested a similar critique myself. I think there are legitimate questions of class and race that should be raised in the face of narratives about the value of temporary community or an uncommodified "gift" economy. Burning Man is only available to those with the resources -- time, money, material goods -- to take off a week (at least) and pack in everything needed for desert survival (food, water, camping gear) not to mention fun and creative expression (costumes, drugs, elaborate art installations). And furthermore, it's worth considering where the social benefit lies in devoting a significant amount of time and resources every year to an escapist festival far removed from everyday society, at least if you embrace the language of social change while doing so.

Burning Man, I would agree, is problematic in light of the stories participants tell about their involvement in it. But the pat, unexamined dismissal penned by this Rolling Stone journalist is just as limited and myopic. The author, for example, is unable to address any questions regarding the value of "symbolic creativity," the act of making meaning through everyday creative acts, from assembling a countercultural outfit to burning a mix cd. Perhaps thousands of people gather in the desert to walk on stilts and drive their art cars precisely because they do not find sufficient meaning in the everyday world, and Burning Man provides a site where this kind of creativity can be expressed, articulated, and realized.

What hampers this article is its complete lack of any kind of underlying method, or familiarity with the significant body of work that has already been devoted to examining youth subcultures and counterculture. There are no simple answers regarding the efficacy of symbolic rebellion. In a world of symbolic meaning and signification, why shouldn't creative acts have real consequences? Or is the symbolic expression of dissidence destined to remain an empty gesture?

Regardless of the value of cultural movements such as Burning Man, this kind of superficial journalistic attention fails to address the complex issues which underlie any form of cultural production. Instead, the article allows Rolling Stone to profit from flaunting the gaudier aspects of the festival -- fire, nudity, weird art -- while safely panning behaviors and attitudes the author (or editor, or readers) may find uncomfortable.

Posted by jordan at 05:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)