The Progressions of Cool Culture

August 29

2014This dissertation is intended to walk readers through the progressions of Cool culture. By the end of this analysis one will be able to discern the essence of cool and decipher any misconceptions attached to the media’s discourse of coolness.

Shaka Tafari Newcastle University Student ID:B3023384

Table of Content

Key Terms: 3 – 5

Key People: 6 – 8

Introduction 5 – 7

Methodology: 7 – 12

The analysis techniques, discourse comprehension, and underlined contextual observations

Chapter 1: 13 – 19

1.1 Theoretical Background: The era of authentic Cool

The History: The Coolest Revolution, the Players, and Countercultural Intersection

Chapter 2:

2.1 Theoretical Background: Cool went Cliché 19 – 26

The Shift: Form Hipster Cool Movements to Hip Consumerism – The ruins of marketing practices

Chapter 3:

26 – 31

3.1 Theoretical Background: Social media, desire, and consumer mentality

Coolness the Abstraction: The acceptance of false perceptions and generation X’s interpretation

cool

Conclusion:

Contextual Observations 31 – 34

2 | P a g e

Key Terms and Definitions

1. Cool or Coolness/Hipster:

Within this analysis it is person or a group with a considerable amount over cultural versatility. They embrace ideologies such as equal rights, world peace, cross cultural unification/collaboration, sexual liberation, and self exploration, etc.

2. The media:

Any type of media or capitalist institution that disseminates, facilitates, and influences discourse through print, radio, television, film, or internet.

3. Critical Discourse Analysis:

Discourse [is] ‘the social activity of making meanings with language and other symbolic systems in some particular kind of situation or setting (Lemke, 1995).

It involves analyzing text, styles, and semiotic symbols/signifiers in order to order derived meaning(s) from a particular discourse.

4. Dominate Society / Hegemonic:

- Dominate society: pertains to white middle to upper class men. White men who contend that they are superior to minorities and countercultures.

- Hegemonic: Refer more to the political regimes and the medium they have at their disposal to influence the masses. In this analysis it is important to note that white men constitute and control hegemonic power.

5. Civil Rights era/movement:

Taking place in the sixties alongside other revolutionary countercultures, The Civil Rights movement represented a united black American stance against racial inequality politically and socially. It was strongly supported by black youths, entertainers, various religions affiliates, and progressives white youths and interracial movements (i.e. Hippies)

6. Hippie/Love movement:

- Visionaries: These were individuals that gave birth to the core ideologies of the hippie movement. Visionaries “offered a serious, though not well articulated,

3 | P a g e

alternative to conventional [hegemonic] social systems. To the extent that there was a theory of change implicit in their actions, it might be summed up by the phrase ‘transformation by example.’ Unlike political revolutionaries, they attempted no seizure of power. Rather they asked for the freedom to ‘do their thing’ (Howard, 1969).

- Freaks and Heads: “Drugs are a common element on the hip scene… To account for the use of drugs among hippies, one must understand something of the mythology and ideology surrounding their use. Marijuana is almost universally used by the hip and by hippies. For [freaks and heads] it is simply a matter of being ‘in’; others [found] it a mild euphoriant. [freaks and heads placed] the use of drugs within a religious or ideological context” (Howard, 1969).

- Note*: the media tends to group all hippies together in the image of the freaks and heads

7. Binary Opposition:

- “Meaning depends on the difference between opposites. We recognize that, through opposition –white/black, [conservative/liberal,] masculine/feminine, [etc] – have the great value of capturing [people’s attention] and diversity of the world within their either/or extremes (Hall, 1997)”

- Note*: In this analysis binary opposition places two opposing group’s ideologies against each other. It is not about whose ideology is right or wrong, the threat direct threat of opposing views is what gives each group cultural relevancy

8. Hip consumerism:

- A brand of media advertising pertaining specifically to menswear that emerged during the 1960s and continued to evolve throughout the following decades. As frank explains ad media and corporate practice “were conspicuous users of countercultural symbolism – they were, if you will, the leading lights of co-optation (Frank, 1997).”

- The notion that a cool culture identity can be purchased

9. Baby Boomer:

- Anyone born after WWII. Dates ranges from 1945 through 1965.

10. Abstract Desire:

4 | P a g e

- An object of desire that some believe is attainable, but often is illusionary. (i.e. believing that one can attain the same degree of coolness if he or she purchasing a product marketed in a particular fashion)

- Exaggerated social meanings not rooted in fact.

11. Modern:

- “Refers to the ways of producing and classifying knowledge,” within a consumer based society (Hall, 2006)

-12. Separatist Consumer:

- An individual that is completely content accepting a reduced image of coolness, so long as he can purchase elements that give him a superficial sense of authenticity. The separatist consumer is ignorant or does care about the discourse behind the passions or desires. He enjoys being a part-time affiliate as long as he can separate and return to his often suburban reality, rather than seek and understand the real countercultural experience.

5 | P a g e

Key People

Barry Gordy:

Gordy founded the legendary record label Motown Records in 1960. The original Motown was headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, which would later be nicknamed “Hitville USA.” During the sixties the record label would become home to some of R&B music’s brightest stars (i.e. Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gay, Stevie Wonder, The Temptations, and The Jackson 5). Due to success of Gordy’s artists the Motown sound was affectionately coined “The Sound of Young America.

Figure 1: Gordy standing outside of his residence and home of The Motown Sound. Right: Gordy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Photo credits courtesy of The Motown Museum.

Gordy was also recognized as a role model in the black community for his entrepreneurial spirit. His efforts proved that a black man could lead a successful, visible, and predominately African American enterprise.

The Rolling Stones:

Figure 2: The Rolling Stones 1967. Photo credit courtesy of VirginMedia.com

6 | P a g e

The young Londoner proclaimed themselves “The World Greatest Rock Band” as early as 1962 with a string of hits records that have lasted over 50 years. With led man Mic Jagger at the helm and band mates Keith Richard, Charlie Watts, and Ronnie Wood, The Stones infused the sound of black Rock & Roll into an alternative rhythm all their own. There have also been many studies that have discussed at length about how cool R&B/Rock artists influence The Rolling Stone sound. To this day the band is still touring the world to sellout shows. The Stones, along with their British counterparts The Beatles were the biggest stars of the baby boomer generation.

- Note* The Beatles also discuss how their music was influenced by cool R&B/Rock music

Patrick Swayze:

The late Patrick Swayze was an Actor/Dance who starred in a string of hits during the eighties. He is most known for his roles in Dirty Dancing (1987) and Ghost (1990). Before reaching superstardom he can be seen in various sitcom and commercial ads during the seventies.

Bo “BO Knows” Jackson:

Jackson is a former “All American” three sport athlete. He is one of a few American athletes to achieved success in multiple sports at the professional level. At the height of Jackson success he and Michael Jordan were two biggest names in sports and advertising.

Spike “Mars Blackman”Lee:

Lee is best known as a director of critically acclaimed “Blaxplotation” films such as “She’s gotta have it, “Do the right thing,” and “Jungle Fever.” He is accredited as one of the first African American director to achieve widespread success in Hollywood.

Michael “Air” Jordan:

Figure 3: Michael Jordan photographed with his six basketball title rings and Jumpman logo. Photo credit courtesy of Nike.com

M.J. is regarded as the best professional basketball player of all time and arguably the one of the best athletes ever. His participation in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics propelled basketball into a

7 | P a g e

global phenomenon. The list of his professional career accolade is extensive, he has 6 National Basketball Association (NBA) titles, 5 Most Valuable Player (MVP) honors, and 3 Athlete of the Year awards just to name a few. Moreover, he is the face of or various products, such as Haines and Nike. His partnership with Nike has made him a global household name despite being 10 years removed from his pro career.

Chuck D of Public Enemy:

D is considered one of the founding fathers of Hip Hop/Rap music. As a member of Public Enemy he made records about growing up in the brutal realities of black America in the early nineties. His music was often politically charged due to the growing awareness of police brutality in the inner city. He and his band mates were often regarded as thugs in the media, but adored by millions of suburban white fans.

8 | P a g e

The Progression of Cool Culture

Cool is not a new cultural phenomenon. In many ways it has existed and evolved

throughout the decades. How people define what is cool can vary depending on background, and

within pop culture it is a distinctly powerful marketing tool. For branding purposes it is about

personal edginess and image. It can determine how people purchase trends or remember

products. This type of cool can reflect the people or attitudes that one wants to be associated

with. However, do people know or care about the underlying meanings behind the cool labeled

products they buy. Where does coolness come from? Is cool exclusive? In this analysis we are

going to look at one particular type of coolness – an urban coolness that originated in youth

culture and reflects the entertainment qualities of the inner city.

In essence, cool is perceived to be the edgy personification that rejects dominate society’s

social constraints. First let’s consider the historical context in which black people have been

marginalized as outcasts in both America and Great Britain. This is very relevant when

examining the framework of cool because similar to race, “cool cultures” are often initially

labeled as the outcasts. Moreover, coolness originated in jazz music – a black cultural art form.

Before a people or movement can be labeled cool they are often regarded as an inferior

counterculture, categorized as “otherness.” Once a subculture begins to gain momentum it

forces dominant society to recognize its significance, which ultimately leads to greater and

widespread acceptance.

The impact of “urban cool” has grown considerably throughout the years. What makes

this version of cool so compelling is its ability to change, transform and reinvent, and in many

respects it can help unify people. The evolution of urban cool has shaped our cultural thought

process, while at the same time it has become arguably the most effective consumer marketing

9 | P a g e

mechanism (Frank p. 27, 1997). Now it seems like everyone wants to be a hipster and not just

ordinary hip but hip with an urban appeal. Focusing on specific eras we will explain how race

and youth movements reshaped cultural perceptions and morphed into what we believe urban

cool culture is today. We will explore the 1960s, a time in which the Civil Rights and the

Hippie/Love movements began as subcultures but would establish themselves as distinct urban

cool cultural identities. Both groups had diverse messages and cultural elements that would

leave a lasting impression on pop culture and influence future generations.

These movements were about inclusion and unifying younger people. These were “the

other people,” the groups on the outside of dominant society (i.e. middle class white men). It

was noticeably a time in which young white people were co-mingling with black youths more so

then ever before. Together these young people were listening to the same music and in fashion,

wearing similar apparel. This period in time was revolutionary because people were changing

the way they thought about one another. It was becoming part of city culture to intermingle,

attempt to understand and to engage in dialogue with those who were not of similar upbringing,

and there were no greater topics than equality and cultural difference. Young people were

challenging what they had been taught to believe socially and began expressing themselves more

freely. Urban coolness and the cultural transformation of the time became the tools to unite

millions. In the 1960s “urban cool” both eased and forced dominant society to recognize the

change in social sentiment.

Shifting forward we then will discuss today’s pop culture and social media generation

and how this new brand of urban cool culture is produced and consumed. This analysis will

draw on historical references in order to debate how cool has evolved, with questions such as

how has the media packaged and branded “urban cool” and the ways in which merchandizing

10 | P a g e

changed its impact? Is cool still edgy and culturally significant? Can cool or coolness still

promote broader acceptance? Lastly, and perhaps the most intriguing question this analysis will

ask is, does “urban cool” or coolness have cultural limitations? In the end, this research will

explain how cool has all the qualities to unify cultures, but having been co-opted by

consumerism cool now is no more than a product. And as a product, young people only want to

buy the so called coolest items rather than truly appreciate and understand the cultural discourses

underneath their possessions.

Methodology: The analysis techniques and discourse comprehension

We will begin by exploring performances of coolness in a historical context (i.e. Black

identity in the 20th century). As mentioned previously, the 1960s is regarded as one of the most

revolutionary decades in US history. The self-proclaimed land of the free was being contested

by racial divides, which sparked violent protest, political unrest, and social transformation

(Carbado, 1999). Although still in its infancy, at the root of social change during that era we saw

coolness and the cool culture phenomenon begin to take form (Smith, 1999). During the era

black Americans were fighting for equal rights in a country that they helped build to prominence.

Moreover, black Americans began to gain more recognition and credit for their artistry, style,

and creativity. It was during this era that a more urban type of cool gained its unifying and

cultural significance. Urban attitudes and coolness would eventually lead to broader discourses

and theoretical frameworks.

In order to analyze cool in a theoretical framework I will utilize the methods of critical

discourse analysis (CDA). According to Jay L. Lemke, “Discourse [is] ‘the social activity of

making meanings with language and other symbolic systems in some particular kind of situation

11 | P a g e

or setting (Lemke, 1995).” It makes sense to use a diverse method of research when critically

analyzing a very dynamic topic such as “cool,” a subject that consistently evolves based on

opinion, eras, and now technology. To adequately analyze a cultural phenomenon that has

several interpretations, styles, and images, I had to choose a method that gives my thesis the

most reach. This analysis will be exploring historical texts, pop culture and branding practices to

show the impact cool has on individual and public perception.

We will look at how society perceives and labels those “other” groups and how those

groups responded to conventional society’s generalizations. For example, many could argue that

dominant society’s negative characterizations of the black cultural experience gave them

influence. Critical discourse analysis gives a researcher the ability to evaluate text and question

the underlying messages embedded in the discourse. Stuart Hall notes “[discourse is] a system

of representation that has developed socially in order to make and circulate a coherent set of

meanings about an important topic area” (Hall, 1980). This theory illustrates how certain

references and dialogue can depict an image of a person or group of people based on what

dominant society anoints as the appropriate identifiers for those individuals, which led to

stereotyping.

As it pertains to African Americans, many of the negative stereotypes were

predominantly correlated to black literature, dance and music that became a staple of pop culture

during the 1960s (Frank, 1997). On a macro level, critical discourse analysis allows me to

expand the research arsenal. With CDA I can use the content found in music, as well as explore

the role that sexuality and attitudes played throughout the evolution of cool. These concepts will

illustrate how the idea of urban cool and those who possessed it gained greater appeal by

12 | P a g e

establishing a crossover brand that would eventually be praised beyond the urban areas where

young people flocked to witness, listen, and learn.

Much of this is accredited to the motor city of Detroit, Michigan – also known as

“Hitsville USA,” where Barry Gordy developed the Motown sound. Although Gordy is often

perceived as a controversial figure in many respects, his vision to make black music relatable to

a white audience is wildly documented. Gordy wanted to dispel the title of “race music.”

Instead his goal was to sell African American music as the fresh new sound of popular culture

(Macias, 2010). Anthony Marcias asserts that “Gordy’s successful black capitalist enterprise, the

Motown Record Company, and its slick [and] soulful [rhythm established itself as the] ‘Sound of

Young America’ (Macias, 2010)” was what brought black music and urban cool personification

to the forefront.

Gordy is also a role model because he was one of many successful black capitalists.

Before the 1960s, the discourse about African American entrepreneurs insinuated that they had

no direction, and if they had a vision they were not smart enough to execute a plan. Gordy

defied that theory and with artists such as, The Supremes, Marvin Gaye, and The Jackson 5, he

broke racial boundaries in a cool and vibrant fashion (Smith, 1999). Through critical discourse

analysis I will show how urban cool went through several progressions. Exploring how inner-city

cool started as a personification within black communities of America, then it morphed into the

“[image] and sound of young America.” Because of Barry Gordy and others urban cool became a

universal sound.

The “Hippie/Love” movement went through a very different transformation during the

1960s. Stereotypes that describe hippies are mostly negative – they are more often associated

with drugs and apathy. However, many people do not realize there are many types of hippies.

13 | P a g e

John Robert Howard notes “there are four types of hippies (Howard, 1969).” The media more

often sensationalized images of the “freaks and heads,” because they were the hippies who were

easier to exploit for entertainment value (Howard, 1969). It the case of the hippies, my research

will focus on why dominate society choose to illustrate hippies in a singular fashion. Did hippies

have to be depicted as drug users in order for their cool to be a crossover success?

The Visionary hippies took a stand against war, racial injustice and gender inequality, yet

they are not regarded in the same light as other profound revolutions. They were not popular for

the same reasons as the Civil Rights movement. Both movements were occurring

simultaneously, but hippies were different. They were so anti establishment that they did not

have a face or vocal leaders to advance their agenda. On the other hand, the Civil Rights

movement had several leaders, from musicians, activists and religious affiliates, most noticeably

Martin Luther King. Nevertheless, the hippies made their message known flamboyantly. It was

the hippies that made a form of protest fashionable. Their clothes protested the war in Vietnam,

as well as vehemently disapproving the decisions forced upon them by hegemonic society

(Tudde, 1971). Because most hippies were young and white, they did not have to follow the

same rules as civil rights protesters. It was their audacity that gave them their attitude and

established their urban cool character.

Using CDA we will explore some of the other values that made the hippies so impactful

in pop culture. There is no doubt they have had a significant role in the urban cool identity that

has influenced the masses. However, has the influence of the hippie movement of the 1960s

been reduced to fashion trends? It seems people appreciated the ease of the hippie/love

mentality just as long as they did not have to believe in the same ideas or thought processes

(Arsel and Thompson, 2011). Is it cool to resemble a hippie without fully embracing their core

14 | P a g e

beliefs systems? These questions are critical in a broader context, because my research questions

whether any movement can successfully unite groups of people once capitalism recognizes

marketing opportunities.

Moving forward to the late 1990s and to the present, I will use critical discourse analysis

to discuss how cool is advertised. During these two decades urban cool transformed from a

subculture that included black and liberal hippies to a global marketing tool. According to Clive

Nancarrow, cool has increasingly become the favored language of popular culture. It is arguably

the popular zeitgeist of the new [generations], the mindset of considerable swathes of consumers

across the globe and, seemingly, a very desirable commodity in itself (Nancarrow, Nancarrow

and Page, 2002).” Nancarrow’s assessment of cool affirms that cool ness has broken major

ground. Cool is no longer a persona that once identified the outcast of conventional society, it is

now an advertising necessity that can be employed easily by thousands of corporations.

Capitalism and big business has reshaped the discourse of the urban countercultures. Big

marketing campaigns use select elements of a culture to sell virtually everything from smart

phones to automobiles. Corporations recognize and understand the desire to identify with urban

subcultures, so they simplified the messages within these countercultures to allow consumers the

opportunity to buy a “cool pass.” The level of authenticity had diminished. Certainly anyone

can buy a Kanye West album and love him, but that same customer may have no real clue about

inner city life in Chicago. A person from the suburbs can buy a bright, obnoxious t-shirt that

rebuffs the powerful establishment or regime, but do they really understand the why’s behind

that discourse? The unifying qualities that made these countercultures so cool in cities across the

Americas and influenced rock legends overseas are less evident. Instead, marketing practices

15 | P a g e

created and sold a sensationalized version of urban coolness that allows us to buy products but

overlook or not care about the cultural substance.

Chapter 1

The History: The Coolest Revolution, The Players, and Subculture Intersection

1.1 The era of authentic Cool

“The sixties are more than merely the homeland of hip, they are a commercial template for our times, a historical prototype for the construction of cultural machines that transform alienation and despair into consent. {The baby boomer] Co-optation [was] something much more complex than the struggle back and forth between capital and youth revolution; it’s also something larger than a mere question of demographics and exploitation. Every few years, it seems, the cycles of the sixties repeat themselves on a smaller scale, with new rebel cultures bubbling their way to a happy replenishing of the various cultures industries’ depleted arsenal of cool. New generation obsolete the old, new celebrities render the old one ridiculous, and on and on in an ever – ascending spiral of hip upon hip… And we will have new generations of youth rebellions as certainly as we will have new generations of [product] or footwear (Franks, 1997).”

Franks theoretical recollection of the sixties reinforces the historical assertions of my research.

The impact of the sixties is essential to this analysis because there were so many changes and

social transformations. In short, the decade saw the rise of two prominent countercultures that

took it upon themselves to challenge the hegemonic rhetoric of past generations. The sixties can

be remembered as the pivotal era in which the baby boomers made the mark on society.

Moreover, Franks believes there was something more complex about the baby boomers gaining

acceptance into mainstream society. It was not the typical tug of war between hegemony and

subculture. There was a different element of cultural and collaborative interactions between both

the Hippies/Love and Civil Rights movements. It is my conclusion that their differences and

quintessential strengths came from the respect each group shared of the other’s agenda.

Together these groups, along with their cultural components, such as music and fashion, created

a refreshingly contagious/authentic urban cool identity.

16 | P a g e

It is this desired urban hipster identity that impressed hegemonic capital opportunists to simplify

coolness for monetary gains. As we have seen history has a strange way of repeating itself,

especially on a small scale as Frank iterates, but we have yet to see a youth generation since the

sixties to develop an interactive authenticity. However, we do see that capitalists have

effectively positioned themselves to take full advantage of the urban cool phenomenon,

regardless if their involvement does nothing to facilitate discourse about the cultural cohesion.

The 1960s were a critical time in black culture because it established a strong urban

identity. It was an attitude that saw many black Americans and subculture groups demand their

civil rights both socially and politically (Bowser and Hunt, 1981). Other movements, for

example the Harlem Renaissance 40 years before, demonstrated the creative accolades of black

America, but was virtually void of any tangible political action. Within the music, the literature,

and the creation of a black identity, the 1920’s is perhaps where cool planted its roots, but it was

during the 1960s when black people made a decisive statement. Young black Americans were

united and collaborative, and along with the hippie movement(s) they would establish cool as an

influential force going forward.

For example, by the late 1960s, urban cool became an international movement. Mega

bands like The Rolling Stones credited the sounds and styles of the inner city as having a major

influence on their music. John E. Hellerman states:

“American Negro music known as rhythm and blues and went on to become the primary artistic figures in a mass ‘transfusion’ of American urban Negro attitudes into the dominant white cultures of both America and Britain. Rejecting the banalities of their own culture and adopting instead the more realistic, if less "noble" and comfortable, attitudes of the black American ghetto resident, the Stones laid the foundation for the counter-culture by translating [cool and] black attitudes into an attractive image for alienated white [people] (Hellerman, 1973).”

17 | P a g e

This is not the first time black music had been endorsed by white musician, but given the

timing and mass reach of The Rolling Stones it was nonetheless significant. Moreover, when

thinking about this passage from a critical discourse point of view, Hellerman’s view affirms the

underlying message – African Americans created a persona and art form that is desirable,

consumable, and most importantly it can be emulated. The Rolling Stones endorsing black

musicians who were taking a stand against racial injustice and embracing their white fan base

was a unifying moment. It marks the moment in which cool went mainstream.

Before we make a link to Frank’s theory pertaining to the cultural impact of the sixties

(refer to T.L.R section 2.1), let’s understand the discourse that often summarized the hippies and

black Americans. Together these groups were pivotal in America’s ‘progressive’ attitude

towards equality and social acceptance. Although there are theoretical discussions that debate

the degrees of change in practice (as opposed to legislation) that resulted from the 1960s, there is

no question that urban cool manifested at the core of these movements (Smith, 1999). Both

groups had a hipster cool aura and inclusive attitude, which led to expansion and noticeably

gaining more attention. However, the hegemonic discourse of the decade was not so kind when

reflecting on hippies and young black Americans.

Many would attest that once any movement is accepted into the mainstream, the media

commercializes and distorts its core ideologies and meanings. “The debates as to whether the

cool ideology triumph[s] or whether it was effectively co-opted and exploited consumer

capitalism” is what contemporary research says is to blame for urban cool’s sensationalized

image (Nancarrow and Nancarrow et al., 2002, p. 313). In many respects the media of the late

1960s only wanted to recognize the black man and black community for their hyper macho

behavior and rough exterior. Sensationalized elements of sex and violence were the messages

18 | P a g e

that were closely related to urban black American identity. Marketing executives were

consciously and subconsciously implementing the notion the blackness and inner city cool was

inherently dangerous.

Frank illustrates that the Black Panther Party, also popular in the sixties, was depicted as

“a sinister group of diabolical charlatans, architects of a national madness from which” society

and young people can only be saved by the benevolent president Ronald Reagan (Frank, 1997).

Moreover, in the decade following a period of social collaboration and political progress for

black Americans, the 1970’s film media seemed to perpetuate a rather limited view of the black

community. There were not many depictions of the highly motivated, intellectually proven, black

persons. Instead, the decade’s most lucrative black films (i.e. Sweet Sweetback and Shaft)

perpetuated some rather demeaning stereotypes (Diawara, 1993). Simply put, for consumption

purposes it was easier to sell limited stereotypical images, rather than the expanded black

identity.

Black cool meant one had to be hyper masculine, use strong language, and constantly in

pursuit of pussy (Murray, 2004). The urban cool that began as slick R&B sounds and style of the

city was co-opted into a one sided aggressive attitude. Due in large part to dominate media

depictions, the black experience of the inner city was slowly transforming into a discourse about

hustlers, sex, and gangster mentality. Unfortunately, these are images that have stuck and are

very prevalent in the Hip Hop culture that came about in the mid eighties, nineties, and 2000s.

As mentioned above, during the 1960s we saw the emergence of a more lax revolution –

the Hippie/Love movement. This free spirited wave was extremely popular amongst young

people of all races and like the Civil Rights movement highly controversial. According to Paul

19 | P a g e

E. Willis, hippies were comfortable with the unknown or not having a set agenda. This “state of

ontological insecurity was welcomed as liberation, and not feared as a disease: it set the mind

free from that micro-dot of consciousness called normality (Willis, 1978).” Therefore, the hippie

generation was willing to explore themselves and others in ways that previous generations

perceived as distasteful. For the most part, hippies represented a nonchalant rebuff of tense

schedules and organized routines. Hippies were cool because they indulged in the perceived

naughty pleasures of life. These young people obviously had a difference in opinion, which their

abstract fashion taste and liberal protests demonstrated. It was also recognized in the constant

partying and spiritual drugs use. Lastly, hippies did not discriminate; they included multiple

races, sexualities, religions, and whomever else they pleased.

The media tended to portray hippies as a cult, rather than a movement. The media also

sensationalized hippies as lazy, over sexed, and prone to drug addiction. However, there were

several types of hippies. As mentioned above there were “four types of hippies: the visionaries,

the freak and heads, the midnight, and plastic hippies (Howard, 1969).” The “freaks and heads,”

were the individuals in which the media grouped all hippies. Due to the media’s overused

stereotypical images, the idea of spiritual drug use is often synonymous with the young rebels of

the 60s. To be hippies meant, in discourse, to get high and embrace a cult like culture.

Consequently, the message has been reduced from embracing free will, ending the war in

Vietnam, and racial justice for people in exchange for a singular psychedelic image. The

language that dominant society attached to the entire hippie movement strongly insinuated they

merely were a joke or phase. It would not be until later that the hegemonic powers came to find

there was substance and influence within the hippie/love narrative.

20 | P a g e

Despite what the media perpetuated about hippies their ideals were authentic. They were

cool because they were not afraid to reject or completely discard mainstream society’s rhetoric.

In fact, J. Patrick Williams’s theory is that hippies were the most critical subcultural group of the

century. He explains that hippies were characterized as the most “careless of the subcultures,

[they were] the twentieth century’s most salient, and arguably greatest, representation of

[countercultural] resistance (Williams, 2011).” Due to their prominence and contagiously cool

mystique, they continued to gain popularity. Hippies were becoming so influential they were

rallying young people to their cause by the millions.

Although hippies had attained globally widespread popularity, conventional powers

despised their free spirited ideologies. What conventional media may have failed to realize is

that the more they attempted to disparage and categorize their extreme differences, the more the

hippie/love movement grew. It was a classic case of binary opposition. As Stuart notes,

“meaning depends on the difference between opposites. We recognize that, through opposition –

white/black, [conservative/liberal,] masculine/feminine, [etc] – have the great value of capturing

[people’s attention] and diversity of the world within their either/or extremes (Hall, 1997).” This

quote is critical in understanding the power dynamic between dominant conservatives and liberal

hippies. For instance, dominant media has the power to control language, thus controlling

meaning and people’s attention simultaneously. Therefore, placing cool hippies at the opposite

end of the binary makes their identity relevant. It is that relevancy which gave hippies more and

more influence.

Simply put, how hegemonic society responded to the hippie movement made them even

cooler. Consider how long dominate society placed limitations on social behaviors such as

interracial cohesion and sexual fulfillment. If one’s social behavior or attitude did not reflect the

21 | P a g e

ideals of established power structure, the dominate power had the right to condemn him or her.

Yet, societal pressure did not stop any generation, past or present, from experimenting behind

closed doors. Moreover, many members of hegemonic society were secretly participating in (i.e.

drugs, extramarital sex, gay sex, etc.), but were too concerned about their image in the face of

their peers (Shilo and Mor, 2014). Hippies changed the way people thought about indulging

themselves because of their willingness to be open, express, and share experiences. In cities

across America as well as Europe, hippies cemented their urban cool identity as being the group

brave enough to show themselves, for better or worse. Ultimately, hippies represented the free

spirited alternative lifestyles that perhaps their parents denied themselves.

It was both the Civil Rights and the Hippie/Love movements that brought about social

and political change. Both groups showed that it was acceptable to think unconventionally.

Moreover, these urban cool revolutions allowed people to have more flexibility in what they

could and would be willing to accept. People could embrace the unknown rather than accept the

hegemonic status quo. The sounds of R&B and the prideful stand again racial oppression

opened the minds of all Americans to a more united country. Young people, both black and

white, became united as new“hipsters.” They were listening to the same music, going to the

same schools (i.e. Brown vs. The Board of Education of 1954), and most notably they were

willing to rebuff conventional society altogether (Nancarrow and Nancarrow, 2002). Unlike

other movements in the past these urban cool cultural evolutions were highly televised, which

made them valuable for capital opportunist as they began to reshape coolness within pop culture.

Looking at how these urban movements were redefined by marketing practices is critical

to the thesis of this research. In order to understand how hip consumerism came to be the

powerful driving force in marketing, we will have to discuss various form of media (i.e. text,

22 | P a g e

pictures, film, etc). Urban hipster has many different meanings from which one can derive many

different conclusions. This analysis wants to focus on how superficial messages embedded in

hegemonic media practices prevented cool countercultures from affectively unifying groups of

people as it once did in the sixties.

Chapter 2

The Shift: From Hipster Cool Movements to Hip Consumerism – The ruins of marketing

practices.

2.1 Cool went Cliché

“The expansion past the boundaries of print media and a few small ( albeit increasingly well publicized) bohemian enclaves to the consciousness of a mass audience by means of television, film, and multiplatinum records. The long march of the countercultural idea from serious(and square) social analysis to [cool] mass culture took place as this idea was more and more thoroughly mediated into public life through an aesthetic of hipness. Since the 1960s the countercultural idea has increasingly become the ideological master trope of almost every cultural field: literature, advertising, journalism, film, humanities scholarship, the visual arts, fashion, and so on (Ford, 2002).”

Ford asserts a rather obvious theory as to why the 1960s stand out more than other revolutions.

Media technology blossomed into medium in which discourse and meaning could travel more

rapidly than ever before. However, what makes this passage so integral to this analysis is the

notion that coolness became a cliché within the cultural spectrum. Also, what Ford did not

explicitly say, is that through the lens of CDA it is discernible that coolness is no longer unique.

How could the urban identity that defined the 1960s still be original if it can be incorporated or

co-opted into so many arenas of pop culture? The urban cool persona of the baby boomer

generation shifted from an exclusive element of authenticity when it became the commercial

zeitgeist of generation X.

23 | P a g e

Gradually cool took on different meaning within hegemonic discourse. It seems as if the

message morphed into a more “individualistic identity and individual performance in subculture

where young people do identities rather than have identities. They no longer see the term group

as possessing permanent [ideologies] (Blackman, 2005).” Cool is a trend and like the seasons,

trends come and go. Now young people concern themselves more with the latest urban hipster

fads, rather than interact or align themselves with the culture itself.

The shift took effect when the corporation applied a stereotypical framework to coolness. It

became acceptable for one to believe that urban hipsters were solely about themselves. The

media created the individual rebel, as well as the fashionable image one needed to follow in

order to perform such an identity. As a result, young people today do not have to commit to a set

of ideals, nor do they have to collaborate or interact with those outside their comfort zone – they

have the ability to buy any perception of coolness they desire (i.e. tattoos, footwear, and music).

They no longer have to challenge themselves to understand or care about the interactive spirit

that made the urban movements of the 1960s so profound. Coolness now is easy, simple, and

provided almost exclusively by the dominate society the Hippies and Civil Rights revolutions

rejected.

Coolness changed dramatically in the decade following. During the seventies c coolness

took on a self-gratifying persona (Cross, 2002). A version of stereotypical coolness was

employed by corporations to market products to those individuals who wanted to simply act

“hipster.” Globalization meant cultural discourse and meanings travelled at unparalleled speeds,

which lead to a boom in product merchandising (Frank 1997). As more goods were made

available and the competitive capitalist spirit began to manifest, corporations sought out a

cultural agent to bolster consumer appetites. Fortunately for those corporations, the affection for

the urban cool and hipster of the sixties was still so potent that it captured the desires of

generation X.

24 | P a g e

However, by the seventies the hegemonic media powers witnessed a decade of youth

movement integration, and like the general public they saw how each group used their coolness

to rally people of all races. They fully understood how smooth R&B and the Civil Rights

movement impacted young whites as well as how the Hippie/Love movement changed the

physiology of interactive freedom. Having had the opportunity to watch and adapt to both cool

cultures, corporations were better prepared to control the meaning of cool going forward. As

more people recognized the seductive qualities of urban youth cultures, more companies aligned

their products with agents or people who could portray coolness – it was of no consequence if

the depiction of cool was superficial, the message just had to seem authentic enough (Olson,

Czaplewski and Slater, 2005).” The seventies and eighties was a time in which “consumer cool”

influenced pop culture.

The authentic origins of cool date back as far as the 1920s, but as the decades passed it

maneuvered as more of an undercurrent – not the cultural phenomenon that it came be in

opposition to dominant society during the sixties. By the seventies however, coolness had been

dissected for branding purposes. For example, in 1979 at the height of the disco era Pabst Blue

Ribbon (PBR) used their “All American” classic beer as a “semiotic marker of hipster style,” in

what is now an ironic commercial featuring the late Patrick Swayze (Coskuner-Balli and

Thompson, 2013). In the commercial Swayze, who had not yet achieved superstardom, is the

quintessential middle/upper class white boy who performs coolness as a part of assimilating with

the disco scene. As the advert begins Swayze find himself popping his collar and styling his hair

just before leaving his lavish cobblestone Manhattan apartment. He then meets a lady friend,

also white, before stepping into what looks like a Bronx nightclub – just to enjoy a refreshing

PBR (Pabst Blue Ribbon, 2014). The commercial is interesting because it is void of any real

25 | P a g e

subculture behavior, with the exception of the music. PBR used the rhythm of disco and a

handsome fashion conscious couple from considerable financial means to mask any message of

countercultural interaction. There were little to no signifiers of racial or homosexual

intersection. Despite disco being heavily influenced by the black Rock and R&B culture of the

sixties, as well as serving as the flamboyant theme music for gay community, somehow PBR

managed to hide those identities from the audience.

During the eighties major sports brands used a fusion of simplified cool elements to sell

their products to consumers. The recognizable sound of The Beatles song “Revolution” appealed

to the baby boomers, many of whom were considered old by eighties pop culture standards

(Nikeinc.com, 2014). This decade would be marked by the emergence of America’s newest

youth culture, Hip-Hop. Hip-Hop was also influence by black rock and R&B and cultivated in

black communities of New York City. I will discuss Hip-Hop in more detail in the following

section, but it notable to mention that during the late seventies and eighties more and more

African Americans were featured in the various media facets. Therefore, the fashion branding of

the black male athlete was critical and abundant. Without a doubt the most successful campaign

belonged to Nike and featured the sports world’s most recognizable faces – Bo Jackson and

Michael Jordan (Nikeinc.com, 2014).

The “Bo Knows” commercials were popular because Jackson was a multiple sport athlete

in football, baseball, and track. In the most popular of his three “Bo Knows” commercials he is

introduced to multiple versions of himself wearing different sport and team attire (Youtube.com,

2014). Throughout the entire 66 seconds of the advert Jackson’s intelligent is in question as he is

unable to recognize replicas of himself. Moreover, as he is unable to recognize his own image,

he does happen to notice the footwear on each version of himself repeating “nice shoes” several

26 | P a g e

times. As it pertains to this analysis it is interesting how the commercial employed racial

difference to accentuate coolness. The one person who is not Bo Jackson in the ad happens to be

a slim unattractive white man, who is visibly out of place when Jackson humorously whispers,

“What’s he doing here?”

Several meanings are portrayed within the “Bo Knows” commercial when addressed

critically. For example, what does Bo really know? If he cannot conceivably recognize his own

face, but able to recognize a pair of “nice shoes,” then the cultural capital belongs to anyone

wearing the exact same pair of Nike cross-trainers on their feet. Furthermore, when race does

intersect with the commercial’s audience it was used to exclude whiteness – as if black men or

black athletes are the sole epitome of cool culture. In the sixties, coolness belonged to and

included anyone who rebuffed the unequal ideals of hegemonic society. However, ad media

successfully swapped the meaning of what it meant to be cool. The cool hipsters throughout the

sixties promoted in all races are included in the discourse, but by seventies and late eighties the

dialogue began to define those were not allowed to affiliate with coolness.” (i.e. mature white

men, women, etc). As the shift continued over the next 25 years, coolness began to lack any

notions of a socially conscious viewpoint.

Michael Jordan’s (MJ) 1988 commercial featuring Spike Lee gives credence to the same

meaning found in the “Bo Knows” discourse. Basketball is arguably the most appreciated sport

of inner city youths in America; and consequently most of these children are African American

or minority. Therefore, based solely on his basketball ability, (MJ) has since the early eighties

been anointed in coolness. Spike Lee, at the time the most recognizable black director in

Hollywood, specialized in critically acclaimed “Blaxploitation” films (Christensen, 1991). The

pairing of these two gave Air Jordan and Nike products an air of urban authenticity. The

27 | P a g e

commercial showcased a highlighted reel of (MJ) flying through the air ducking a basketball, all

the while Spike Lee’s character “Mar Blackmon,” reminds viewers to buy the Air Jordan IX’s.

Lee explicitly states to the audience, “You can buy the shoes,” but what you cannot do is fly like

Jordan (YouTube, 2014). Again the coolness can be purchased in a clean fashion. There are

no opposing social binaries. Air Jordan’s are the main attraction and because the coolest

basketball player and a Hollywood director/actor are adorned in Nikes, then consumers should be

as well.

Looking at the PBR commercial through a CDA lens one is able to see how cool is

marketed as an escape from hegemonic reality, rather than a lived experience to which one has to

truly commit. The commercial allows the audience to believe that Swayze is cool with the help

of a few superficial elements (.i.e. Pop collar, the music, and the disco venue). By omitting the

other elements that are essential to the disco era prevents any real understanding of the people

behind the multicultural disco scene. The PBR advert successfully transformed the urban cool

identity into a discourse solely about beer we drink and the materialism of designer clothes. The

discourse that seems to emanate from the short narrative is about a performable image. The PBR

message affirms the shallow misconception that cool kids look, talk, and dress a certain way

(Milner, 2006).

The Nike commercial featuring Michael “Air” Jordan and Spike Lee as “Mars

Blackman” has it underlying messaging rooted in race as a performance and the appeal race has

on young white eighties babies. Firstly, the commercial is set in black and white illustrating a

then and still constant racial binary. His “Airness” (MJ) then puts on a jumping display that is in

the words of “Mars Blackmen” not repeatable – asserting “that white man can’t jump” myth

(McCall, 1997). Furthermore, the constant push from “Mars Blackmen” to buy the Air Jordan

28 | P a g e

IX sneaker allows people to think maybe there is something about the shoes that gives a person

some inherent ability to fly or play like MJ – never mind the high price of the shoe itself ($110)

(Nikeinc.com, 2014). However, CDA allows us to consider what is missing from the Nike ad

discourse. Where is the mention of the limited opportunities of black men who see basketball as

their only potential lifeline from the harsh realities of growing up poor – not to mention the

mothers who work double time to afford “Air Jordan’s” for their sons (O'Neal and MacMullan,

2011)? Ironically so many inner city youths work tirelessly to enhance their level of skill in any

sport, but Nike’s media ads allows them to believe they can only be cool playing basketball in a

pair of “Air Jordans.” Because of brand media like PBR and Nike it seems society has become

so obsessed with the consumption of all things cool that people fail to ever really understand the

discourses behind the products.

Cool in its original capacity had the ability to facilitate a discourse about acceptance, as

well as encourage people to question the social construct. However, when hegemonic society

began to categorize coolness in the media is when unifying qualities of cool culture ideologies

became less important. As a result, we are now overly concerned about how we look ordering a

type of beer and the name on our shoes, rather than engaging in the various dialogues that could

augment cultural improvement. However, when hegemonic society began to categorize coolness

in the media this is when unifying qualities of cool culture ideologies became less important. As

a result, we are now overly concerned about how we look ordering a type of beer and the name

on our shoes, rather than engaging in the various dialogues that could augment cultural

improvement. When coolness went commercial it ushered in a new dilemma. “Separate but

equal” may no longer be recognized, instead we all actively participate in a “separate but cool”

consumer society (a term that will be addressed in chapter three).

29 | P a g e

Chapter 3

Coolness the Abstraction: The acceptance of false perceptions and generation X’s

interpretation cool

3.1 Social media, desire, and consumer mentality

“Many commodities are designed and marketed not to meet a particular concrete need or desire, but meet a generalized, abstract desire: a desire for ‘more things’ ‘the latest stuff,’ ‘what’s hot’ or ‘what’s cool.’ Objects are desired and acquired not for their direct use value, but for their status value – as means to enhance or display one’s social standing. Of course, people have been concerned about status symbols in all societies, but for most of history only decadent elites could put this at the center of their lives. Now this process is central to the experience of many people in developed societies [with the advent of social media]… [The media] markets [cool culture as a commodity] by selling images of the self and the other: the self we desire to be and the other that we desire. But the other we desire and the selves that we desire to be are increasing abstractions. Often celebrities epitomize the form our desire takes. Their public images are often carefully constructed abstractions (Milner, 2006)”

Milner’s theoretical framework about desire is the perfect explanation of our now very robust

consumer culture. It is a culture that promotes instant gratification through the things we

purchase and cool culture/content has been commoditized to appease our materialistic desires.

However, Milner makes a valid point about the desired self is based on abstractions that are

constructed by hegemonic mediums. Today it is harder to decipher which or what urban

coolness is authentic. Since the sixties the hipster has went through so many progression that it

is easy to have an unclear definition of coolness today. As it stands, coolness is what consumers

perceive to be the latest item to amplify their social value and nothing is more valuable than

various form of cool content.

It is also important to make note that technology has only improved and with the internet people

are constantly in a consumer state of mind. But the instantaneous acquisition of products, items,

30 | P a g e

and content forces an individual to keep a rather limited social consciousness – which has kept

the hegemonic power structures intact. In essence we all participate in what I have coined a

“separate but cool consumer” society. Society remains separate because people do not have to

engage in the underlying meanings underneath our materialistic habits. The masses are obsessed

with the image of coolness, but fail to realize those images are like stereotypes, which “can be a

rather crude and reductionist way of establishing meaning (Hall, 1997).” Milner’s theory

captures the core message within this analysis. When dominate media incorporated specific

elements of urban identities as a ploy to inspire consumption, they created the illusion that one

can simply purchase an ideology.

That being said, the coolness that drives suburban young people to purchase exaggerated images

of black culture and the willing to pay a considerable amount of money for a designer belt is

based on simplified notions of a culture’s identity. The individual has grown far too accustomed

to keeping their reality separate, but use their possessions to affirm a false sense or hipster

credibility. The cool countercultures of the sixties showed society how authentic the hipster

could be, but that authenticity did not come from just looking the part of a hippie, listening to

Rhythm and Blues music, or stating ones support for equal rights. It came from the spirit of

inclusion. Millions of young people were willing to experience the totality of “the other” and

through that experience he or she gained a diverse authenticity. Coolness was not intended to

promote products and provide an escape from a particular reality. Instead it is meant to be a

cultural device bestowed upon the individuals who desire more understanding and have the

willingness to experience/accept difference.

Society has now come to a self indulged modern reality. People are constantly compelled

to establish their identities in a capitalistic nature and coolness is emphasized as a narcissistic

display to gain social capital. This means self image is more crucial to the consumer in such a

way that they are not concerned about cultural meanings, but rather absorbed with individual

presentation. The hipster portrayal has become so valuable to the self image that the masses

willingly accept constructed fantasies of urban coolness without any proof of authenticity

31 | P a g e

(Scruton, 2005). Again technology is largely responsible for facilitating a forum in which

constructed fantasies can be more rapidly reproduced – social media is the new medium that has

redefined cool culture.

The seventies and eighties reflected how ad media constructed specific images to market

products, but nowadays coolness is used to promote an ideal image of the self through cyber

networks. Via social networks people have the ability to craft their ideal self in an instant just so

long as they have an email address and have access to a computer or wifi device. This adds

another layer of reduced meaning in the progression of cool culture. According to Christine

Rosen,

“Our screen-intensive culture poses three challenges to traditional [discourse]: distraction, consumerism, and attention-seeking behavior… These technologies have also dramatically increased our opportunities for distraction. It is a rare Web site that presents its material without the clutter of advertisement… We live in a world of continuous partial attention [making it difficult to read future into any social discourses beyond what is posted on our cyber wall] (Rosen, 2009).”

The three challenges Rosen describes in her critical assessment of social networks affirms that

modern societies may never again immerse themselves in discourse that goes beyond the self.

New media has orchestrated our social thought process in such a way that we are distracted by

consumerism and obsessed with our individual behaviors. As a result, coolness may no longer

be the inspirational inclusive phenomenon that inspired the sixties generation. People are far too

consumed with maintaining an abstract personification that they are unable to recognize any type

of cultural authenticity. Similar to many other campaigns, the hipster’s portrayal has been

grossly manipulated in the process of developing a new millennium’s ideology of consumption

(Nancarrow, Nancarrow and Page, 2002). The media has diluted the consumer’s physiology

with mediocre signifiers and culturally abbreviated aspects to the point we have lost sight of a

32 | P a g e

greater social consciousness. It is also unfortunate that capital intervention undermined the

cultural intersecting qualities of the last cultural device (coolness) capable of restoring a

collective social awareness.

Let’s now discuss the term “separate but cool” consumer, which is mentioned briefly in

the previous chapter. The term is similar in theory to the “separate but equal” rhetoric of the Jim

Crow laws in the southern region of America. The Jim Crow law promoted the notion that white

and black people should not share the same neighborhoods, schools facilities, or the same

everyday freedoms. Instead they should be given their own “equal” sections of town and

facilities (Carbado, 1999). However, in a region known for its hostile racial relations, “separate

but equal” meant African Americans should maintain their distance -- a type of societal division.

If one were to consider the “separate but equal” theory of Jim Crow within this analysis of urban

cool culture, he or she will find similarities.

For example, the “separate but cool” consumer represents the individual who desires the

social capital of the urban cool identity, but only if it means he does not have to participate in the

discourse thoroughly. He or she does not want to experience or interact with “the other,” beyond

what they see in the media. For instance, Chuck D one of the pioneers of Hip-Hop, felt when he

performed the words of Public Enemy’s hit song, “Fight the Power,” to an arena full of suburban

white faces (Chuck D and Jah, 1997). A large majority of those teenagers were under the

influence of hip consumerism. They grew up in the era when images of blackness represented

the epitome of coolness, and to appreciate Public Enemy’s music gave them a sense of abstract

rebelliousness. However, once the concert came to an end these same devoted fans made their

way back to the suburbs – where they could return to their separate comfort zone. A comfort

zone where they went to better schools, took piano lessons, and naïvely thought they were cool

33 | P a g e

because they had Public Enemy blasting from their speakers. Ironically these same faces did not

realize they would grow up to be members of the hegemonic power Chuck D encouraged people

to fight against.

Thinking about the how people consume cool culture in order to acquire social value

affirms that the phenomenon has not dissolved entirely. Coolness is still seductive to the masses,

but not in a way that brings different cultural groups together, as it once did. How people use

coolness ultimately determines its cultural significance. If it is used online to promote the self

through attention seeking behavior we distract ourselves and others from larger social dialogues.

As online users if we avoid social discourses that require our cultural understandings, then we

are no different than the corporations that facilitated the cooptation of coolness and many other

identities.

The “separate but cool” accepts ignorance just as those who supported the beliefs to the

Jim Crow south. It is acceptable to appreciate another culture’s music, but it is also important to

listen and be conscious of the embedded meanings. Social awareness is what Chuck D’s and

Public Enemy’s song “Fight the Power” embodies. Chuck D’s message is about deconstructing

a power structure that has kept minorities and countercultures oppressed for far too long, which

is a notion rooted in a historical context (Schiele, 2005). If one were to think about the song

“Fight the Power” critically, he or she would find it interprets a modern dialogue of how society

views race, but also speaks of race as it pertained Civil Rights movement. That context affirms

that music is a lot like history and if one does not listen or reflect, then we are doomed to repeat

the events of the past in some form or another (i.e. “separate but cool” consumer shares

similarities with the “separate but equal” south). Also being socially aware is the first step to

34 | P a g e

breaking down social barriers and by understanding, from that knowledge one is able to unlock

the essence of cool’s authenticity.

Concluding remarks: contextual observations

When put into chronological and analytical context one is able to see progression of the

urban identity of cool culture. Even before the explosion of the 1960s, coolness was brewing

underneath the surface waiting for the right time to make a beneficial impact. The cool that

exploded onto the scene during the sixties was untainted by capital mechanisms and was able to

influence people in significant capacity. Before urban cool went mainstream it made people buy

into an ideology, especially youths comfortable with changing their constructed belief systems.

The hipster was an individual who was open to diversity. The person who was willing to expand

their social awareness had a great deal of influence and not just for his fashion or choice in

music. It was due to his enhanced social versatility. The realization that social interaction was

necessary for society to grow and develop a more elaborate cultural identity is what made the

hipster attractive. The most important myth I intend for this analysis to dispel is the idea that

coolness is exclusive. It is true that cool originated from an urban identity, but what makes it

seductive and universally appealing to all people is that it promotes inclusion.

The inclusive appeal that radiates within coolness has a direct correlation to when it

emerged in society. The sixties was a time in which society was growing tired of archaic

discourse and young people were willing to explore themselves and others more openly. This

led to the formation of two pioneering and relatively new revolutions – The Civil Rights and

Hippie/Love movements (Willis, 1978). Although each group was significantly different in

scope they both believed in equality, opposed the Vietnam War together, and appreciated the

same music/cultural manifestations – the Rhythm & Blues, which influenced Rock & Roll,

35 | P a g e

sexual liberation, and cross cultural intersection. It made sense that coolness materialized as the

identity of the era, it was the perfect persona to describe societal change in social attitude.

However, it did not take long for capitalism to notice the cross cultural reach of cool

culture. Thomas Frank argues that cool did not make it out of the decade before ad media began

to co-opt coolness (Frank, 1997). By the seventies and eighties coolness began to look

completely different from what it meant throughout the previous decade. It became the branding

mechanism to market products, which ushered in a new type of consumer mentality.

Consequently, the hipster was marketed much like a commodity, “and given the aesthetics of

designer labels and niche brands (Nancarrow, Nancarrow and Page, 2002).” Moreover, he now

was exclusive and his cultural relevance became an object of desire. As the media doused

consumers with simplified and new images of coolness it no longer possessed the same

collaborative spirit that saw it bring people together in protest of the hegemonic discourse.

Instead, the urban hipster was used as a means to push products and drive people into the

shopping centers across the globe.

Now the hipster is online and obsessed with promoting a self absorbed image. The

instantaneous nature of social media is not conducive for in depth cultural dialogues. Instead

people rather perpetuate their perception of coolness as a means to demonstrate a degree of

social capital. Social media has emerged as a forum that encourages a “look at me or look at

what I have” mentality. Because people are so self absorbed online, it is hard to decipher any

discursive meanings (Rosen, 2009).

In closing, today people are completely content accepting a reduced image of coolness, so

long as they can purchase elements that give them a superficial sense of authenticity. The “separate but

cool” consumer is ignorant or does not care about the discourse behind his possessions or desires. He

36 | P a g e

enjoys being a part-time affiliate as long as he can separate and return to his often distant/suburban

reality, rather than seek a greater understanding of an authentic countercultural experience. Having the

option to buy whatever identity that consumers find appealing allows the masses to be socially

apathetic. Social apathy is the reason why coolness does not have the same impact as it once did

during the cool revolution. We remain socially divided by race, class, and gender, because

consumers do not have to seek true authenticity through experience. Capitalism and the media

made it too easy to purchase superficial elements of coolness. Now the “separate but cool”

consumer is empowered by a false sense of belonging and has the ability to promote himself as

authentic via cyber space. No one has or wants to interact with other people; instead they believe

what they see in the media. As a result, coolness as society knows it today is rendered powerless

to inspire inclusion.

However, there is a silver lining at the end of this assessment. I conclude that cool culture

is patient and response when society is in dire need of rescue. Then will be a time when cool

surfaces and when it does the impact will be the same: revolutionary influence.

37 | P a g e

References

Arsel, Z. and Thompson, C. (2011). Demythologizing consumption practices: how consumers

protect their field-dependent identity investments from devaluing marketplace myths.

Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), pp.791--806.

BARTON, A. (2005). Shane Blackman (2004), Chilling Out: The Cultural Politics Of Substance

Consumption, Youth And Drug Policy, Maidenhead: Open University Press, 227

pp.,pounds 17.99 pbk, ISBN 0-335-20072-9. Journal of Social Policy, 34(02), pp.336--337.

Bowser, B. and Hunt, R. (1981). Impacts of racism on white Americans. 1st ed. Beverly Hills,

Calif.: Published in cooperation with the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Social

Problems [by] Sage Publications.

Cain, R. (1991). Disclosure and secrecy among gay men in the United States and Canada: A shift

in views. Journal of the History of Sexuality, pp.25--45.

Carbado, D. (1999). Black men on race, gender, and sexuality. 1st ed. New York: New York

University Press.

Chuck D, and Jah, Y. (1997). Fight the power. 1st ed. New York, N.Y.: Delacorte Press.

Coskuner-Balli, G. and Thompson, C. (2013). The status costs of subordinate cultural capital: at-

home fathers’ collective pursuit of cultural legitimacy through capitalizing consumption

practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), pp.19--41.

Cross, G. (2002). Valves of desire: A historian’s perspective on parents, children, and marketing.

Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), pp.441--447.

Diawara, M. (1993). Black American cinema: The new realism. Black American Cinema, 3,

p.25.

Ford, P. (2002). Somewhere/Nowhere: Hipness as an aesthetic. Musical Quarterly, pp.49--81.

Frank, T. (1997). The conquest of cool. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

38 | P a g e

Hall, S. (1980). Culture, media, language. 1st ed. London: Hutchinson.

Hall, S. (1997). Representation. 1st ed. London: Sage in association with the Open University.

Hall, S. (2006). Modernity. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hellmann, J. (1973). " I'm a Monkey": The Influence of the Black American Blues Argot on the

Rolling Stones. Journal of American Folklore, pp.367--373.

Howard, J. (1969). The flowering of the hippie movement. The Annals of the American Academy

of Political and Social Science, 382(1), pp.43--55.

Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics. 1st ed. London: Taylor & Francis.

Mac'ias, A. (2010). “Detroit was Heavy”: Modern Jazz, Bebop, and African American

Expressive Culture. Journal of African American History, 95(1), pp.44--70.

McCall, N. (1997). What's going on. 1st ed. New York: Random House.

McLeod, K. (2006). " A Fifth of Beethoven": Disco, Classical Music, and the Politics of

Inclusion. American Music, pp.347--363.

Milner, M. (2006). Freaks, geeks, and cool kids. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.

Murray, D. (2004). Hip-hop vs. high art: Notes on race as spectacle. Art Journal, 63(2), pp.4--19.

Nikeinc.com, (2014). NIKE, Inc. - History & Heritage. [online] Available at:

http://nikeinc.com/pages/history-heritage [Accessed 28 Aug. 2014].

Olson, E., Czaplewski, A. and Slater, S. (2005). Stay cool. Marketing Management, 14(5),

pp.14--17.

O'Neal, S. and MacMullan, J. (2011). Shaq uncut. 1st ed. New York: Grand Central Pub.

Rosen, C. (2009). In the Beginning was the Word. The Wilson Quarterly, pp.48--53.

Schiele, J. (2005). Cultural oppression and the high-risk status of African Americans. Journal of

black studies, 35(6), pp.802--826.

39 | P a g e

Scruton, R. (2005). Modern culture. 1st ed. London: Continuum, Bloomsbury.

Smith, S. (1999). Dancing in the street. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

tuddé, o. (1974). FASHION POLITICS AND THE FASHION IN POLITICS. Off Our Backs,

Vol. 4, No. 8 (July 1974), pp. 17-19, Vol. 4(No. 8), pp.pp. 17-19.

Willis, P. (1978). Profane culture. 1st ed. London: Routledge & K. Paul.

Youtube.com, (2014). bo knows commercials 1980s - YouTube. [online] Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bo+knows+commercials+1980s [Accessed

28 Aug. 2014].

40 | P a g e