One of the most important components in forming a more just, utopian-like society is an account of how its inhabitants express themselves.  As anyone who has read any of my past writings will be aware-using Fredric Jameson, Herbert Marcuse and the notion of a historical, thus malleable interpretation of human nature as a launching pad-I have spoken of a “reconstruction of subjectivity.”  My focus has been, mainly, on our freedom to defy etiquette and the importance of being able to discern when, in a truly egalitarian society, it is appropriate to argue in favor of oneself and when it is not.  I do not wish to discount my previous ideas as a whole, I do still believe these are noble aspirations; I do, however, believe that my talk of a “reconstructed” person was too ambiguous, more dramatic than comprehensive.  So I now hearken back and hopefully build on my previous thoughts by discussing a specific facet of human beings within a society, namely our forms of expression and the ensuing culture this creates.  My paper’s overarching inquiry is whether or not popular culture, viz. the fluctuation of socially acceptable trends and styles, has any place in utopia.

The ambience of an ever-changing society can be measured at a given time by its popular culture-it is a representation of the characteristics of people within their community.  For pop culture to exist at all it is necessary that a thing, whatever that is, be widely exposed to create the publicity that is vital in making it admissible within a given social context.  Given the massive availability, whether we’re speaking of music, literature, clothing, film etc., of these “bits” of culture, it seems unlikely such a bell curve should exist.  I do not wish to make any overbearing claims regarding the severity of the coercion we are subjected to, but it is no secret that popular culture is cast at us by various forms of media-often with commercialized ends.  We become overtaken by a whirlwind of “nudges” that assist us, rather impolitely, in our search for what it is we are interested in:  I cannot get on the internet without a swarm of pop-up windows informing me of what I want to purchase.  I cannot watch a sitcom without a laugh track letting me know what is funny, persuading me to join in on the fun.  It is easy to be lured in.  If we look at music, the number of budding musicians-some legitimate, some not-is exponential, yet a wholly unique musical preference requires some serious digging, because even when our interests cross genres, we are all essentially exposed to the same music.  Should this discourage us?  We pride ourselves on our musical tastes; it is often times one of the first topics discussed when we begin a personal relationship with another person-yet it seems that this badge with which we identify ourselves with is no more a product of us than of powers that are beyond our control. While we may be tempted to state that popular culture is an entity that stems from the pulse of a people, it seems more apt that it is the pulse of the people-their style, personalities and interests-which stem from the outside force that is pop culture.

Even more problematic is that popular culture gives off an illusion of being progressive. It shifts rapidly from one phase to another, and as a result there is competition amongst those trying to “stay ahead” in this evolution. No one wants to be a duplication of their peers, yet those adhering to the rules of popular culture do not want to be outdated either. In clothing and style our standards are often initiated by celebrities on red carpets, along with the ensuing gossip shows featuring a flamboyant fashion guru (because in our culture, it is socially reasonable that a flamboyant male, presumably homosexual, is naturally disposed to critique fashion) informing us whether what we are looking at is a success or failure. I think it would be interesting to weigh the reactions if I were to somehow have the foresight to exhibit styles and taste that are 30 years ahead of schedule-would anyone experience a sense of progress when looking at me?

When I was in elementary school, my buddies and I all thought that getting our left ear pierced was the end-all way of expressing ourselves. Some of us got the piercing while others didn’t because of parental restrictions. There was then a distinct line drawn between those with pierced ears and those without in which those having their ear pierced were undoubtedly viewed as being more respectable. This, in a very devolved way, shows where problems are created when we express ourselves in these ways. Then in middle school every last person in my school was classified as a “scrub” or ”prep.” Although both terms could be thought of as derogatory, it was my understanding that everyone wished to be a “prep.” This distinction was made soley by the wealth of a student’s family and the way it was reflected in their appearance. And in this system nothing else mattered; the tragic case being a “scrub” who had the ability to make everyone laugh but remained unwelcome amongst the higher classes. There was no revolt, none of us seemed to find injustice in the fact that these lines were drawn by factors that had nothing to do with us as individuals, we merely accepted that some of us were privileged and deserved to be treated as so while others of us were not and did not.

This of course culminates in much more complex ways in high school, where many of our stances regarding pop culture that stick with us for the remainder of our lives are formed. This is where many sub-cultures are formed, however these, from my experience, tend to be socially acceptable “options” that fall under the larger cultural umbrella-most high school rebels are fulfilling a token role that seems necessary for popular culture to thrive.

In high school many of us learn that there is nobility in admitting that it is “what’s on the inside” that is important, rather than these other forms of expression. This seems to be a concept that is widely accepted yet rarely seen or understood; and it can become competitive in itself. For instance, recently I was in a class that discussed the troubles many people will go through to create an exterior that they are proud to be associated with.  As I left class that day I found myself staring at every person I passed on the school’s lawn, making note of the obvious effort that they had put into preparing their appearance.  I remembered myself that morning, I knew that I had gotten ready in less than ten minutes, and that I genuinely felt uninterested in my appearance-and with that in mind, that “praise” for myself, I caught myself, paradoxically, looking down on my peers solely because of their appearance-perpetuating the exact habits of insecurity creating competition that I wished to purge!

This sense of competition is so indoctrinated within us, that we are often unaware of our needless competition. This is why we read accounts of utopia. Of all of those that I have read thus far, Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward is in my opinion the most plausible, and complete society I have seen offered. In the story, Dr. Leete states that his daughter Edith is an “indefatigable” shopper. This does not, however, mean that she is consumed with her family’s privileges as it may today. In Bellamy’s Boston in the year 2000, each family is given an annual credit that they are allowed to spend as they please, so each of Edith’s peers has the same means that she does. This is a more authentic manner of expression-where our styles, interests and appearance are not created by our uneven means.

When Edith takes Julian shopping she tells him that the clothes she is choosing from are the same clothes offered in all clothing shops. There is a kind of socialist stigma that is attached to this idea, which had to have been overcome. Many of us fear that we would become robots, replicas of everyone else if we were unable to wear clothing that was unique compared to those around us. At this point we must embrace a more mature version of our “it’s what’s on the inside that counts” motto and begin to believe that we are better off not being identified with our clothing, musical preferences, favorite films, novels and so on-and on a greater scale: our political ideologies, religious beliefs, stances on popular moral issues etc.-we identify with each other as fellow human beings, fellow Dasein. When, in a society like Bellamy’s, everyone is given equal access to the same material goods, pop culture ceases to exist. Pop culture has no place in utopia because there are no commercialized motives, no sleight of hand tricks informing us of what we want, and no incoherent competition to stay ahead of curve.