'alternative' = antisocial (?)
 

this is inspired by some of the banter in dali's tattoo thread. it got me to thinking... are alternative trends inherently antisocial? when i say antisocial i am referring to this:

an·ti·so·cial
?an(t)e'soSH?l,?an(t)i'soSH?l/
adjective
1.
contrary to the laws and customs of society; devoid of or antagonistic to sociable instincts or practices.
"a dangerous, unprincipled, antisocial type of man"
synonyms: sociopathic, distasteful, disruptive, rebellious, misanthropic, asocial
"worrisome antisocial behavior"
2.
not sociable; not wanting the company of others.
synonyms: unsociable, unfriendly, uncommunicative, reclusive, withdrawn, avoidant; informalstandoffish
"I'm feeling a bit antisocial"

so don't come at me with a bunch of stuff about antisocial personality disorder cause i'm not diagnosing anybody here.

but it seems to me that alternative trends are inherently antisocial in that they seek to undermine or invert mainstream values and trends. mainstream values and trends are basically just the propagation of cultural memes throughout a population. ideas which appeal to the greatest number of people rise to the mainstream through this statistical advantage. sort of like natural selection/evolution.

alternative trends seek to undermine these trends by providing its own set of cultural memes that are meant to replace the mainstream ones for its adherents. you can say this isn't antisocial because alternative trends develop their own community of adherents and so they're actually pro-social trends for the people that adopt them. but since they challenge mainstream values they seem inherently bound to alienate the vast majority of the population, which is why i think they are antisocial.

then you can go a step further into antisocial behavior and find 4chanish trolls who lash out against the current counter culture, creating a sort of counter-counter culture. this is even more antisocial and alternative than the original set of alternative trends, because it appeals to an even smaller group of cultural dissidents. i have a friend like this who literally can't enjoy most forms of music or movies or even comedy because he resents the counter cultural memes that they perpetuate.

i suppose you could indefinitely keep generating new counter-cultures to undermine the last one.

what do you guys think?

Well if it's an alternative trend, some of those people are doing it to impress other people who are following that trend. That sounds like quite the opposite of being anti-social to me. That's not to mention that if your group is different from everyone else, it's likely that you're in a closer-knit group because of that alienation. It could be the case that some people are anti-social who pick up on these things, but I'd say it leans more in the other direction.

i already addressed that point in my initial post

the pro-social aspect of it only applies within that subgroup, but in general the subgroup exists as an antisocial response to the current mainstream

I know you mentioned it, I just elaborated on it. I think the fact that it's a group response goes against it being an antisocial thing, even if it's technically antisocial when compared to the whole of society simply because it's a social event in itself.

It may be pro-social on the group level, but the individuals are acting anti-socially by joining the counter-culture in the first place. What they do afterward doesn't erase that. The counter-culture will be anti-social by nature.

I forget where I heard this, but [they] said even though that Heavy Metal is music for outsiders, anti-socials, et al Metal fans dress alike. It's basically non-conformity through conformity. They wear concert or band shirts and jeans, some might wear chains on their wallets and maybe spike wrist bands, a few might have a tattoo of their favorite band or maybe not their atf band but a tattoo they think is cool it evokes the gods of metal like something along the lines of runes or maybe Thor's hammer, or maybe Dio or another Heavy Metal singer.
for example:
http://www.deep-purple.net/grollywood/gillan-tattoo.jpg
Now if that doesn't scream individuality and anti-social subcultures, then I don't know what does. Because I bet you dollars to donuts a non Heavy Metal fan wouldn't be caught dead with that tattoo. That tattoo just scream "I'm Metal as hell and I am not going to take it any more."or it can say "In your face society, I'm a Metal fan, and what are you going to do about it?!" The possibilities of Metal fandom expressions is countless.

Fine, I'll have sex with you if it'll stop your whining. Jesus Christ.

i dunno, the way i think about it is basically that the group activity manifests as a response to current cultural trends or values. and since it seeks to undermine those trends or values it is an antisocial response, even if it's taken on by more than one person.

sort of like cults. i think cults are pretty antisocial tbh. especially when they pressure their members to cut off ties with non-cult members. yet if we say that groups can't be antisocial then you'd have to say the same thing about cults, which just doesn't correct to me.

Good point, I suppose it's to judged on a case by case basis. I'd say by and large that it's what I discussed earlier, though.

well forgive me if i sound like i'm arguing just for the sake of it, cause that's not what i'm trying to do, but the point of this thread sort of relies on making generalizations. to me, anyway. so i don't want to default to a case by case basis. i want to see if we can make any general statements that will apply across the board.

so as to what you discussed earlier, if i'm interpreting you right, you mean that some people join in just to impress the existing members of the trend? this could be true yet i feel like it's questionable exactly why they want to impress that particular group, as opposed to a more mainstream group.

as social animals, it would seem more effective to try to impress the more mainstream group because there you're dealing with a larger number of people. so i think the fact that they are drawn to that group in the first place sort of reflects their alienation from other mainstream cultural trends.

this is a conversation me and a friend had on the subject

i decided to copy and past it here cause i think it expands on some of my points, and i'm too lazy to try to convert it into essay form.

When it comes to joining an alternative culture, I think people are driven by the rewards of belonging to that culture. Rather than wanting to alienate or be anti-social, I think people who want to be part of alternative culture generally exist in an environment where major trends is alienating them or their interests to some degree. Major trends outcompete minor trends, pushing them to the fringes.

Some people probably enjoy being part of a cultural movement partly because it is minor and that can be viewed as anti-social, but the dominating incentives are pro-belonging, pro-social and pro-whatever it is about that culture that appeals.

Generally speaking, we're social creatures before we're anti-social creatures (but of course there's the always the odd nut job).

i think you're right that people in general want to belong in one way or another. but i feel like the pursuit of belonging can lead to antisocial behavior. i see alternative trendsters spending a great deal of time and energy ****ting on the mainstream cultures that many of their peers adopt. in the process of doing so they find a sense of belonging but part of that sense of belonging is in the shared alienation from mainstream culture. so it doesn't seem mutually exclusive to me.

also, could you comment on the example of cults that literally pressure their members to cut of ties with the outside world? they give their members a sense of belonging while simultaneously promoting behavior that is seen as antisocial outside the context of that cult, imo.

Alternative culture is the same as regular culture, it's just marketed as being alternative culture.

red car is the same as blue car. it's just painted red

Regarding this, I think it is interesting to go outside the current scope of this discussion and look at meme theory.

What you're describing is something that generally happens in extremist religious groups, but maybe not exclusively. I think what such groups generally have in common is that they adhere to a belief system, values and culture that is basically out of sync with the greater society which they find themselves in. As such, there is a real threat of corruption from the outside. Mainstream thoughts, values and culture are a threat to the very existence of such groups.

Undoubtedly, many such alternative cultures have died out, possibly due to outside pressure (knowledge, belief, values) seeping in or perhaps internal pressures driving people away. As the outside world shares information faster, survival probably becomes even more difficult. The groups that do survive with their strange ways intact are the ones who have employed some trait or tactic that makes them competitive. Isolating their members from outside influence is a powerful strategy in this respect.

So I'd say it's not necessarily that everyone with strange beliefs are anti-social and want to isolate themselves. It's just that you have a natural selection on the meme level that removes such strange ideas unless they are somehow protected, such as by an isolationist culture.

JWB, what are your thoughts when you apply this to religion?

I AM USING RELIGION AS AN EXAMPLE. PLEASE DO NOT START A F*CKING CRUSADE HERE PEOPLE. (This is directed at everybody btw)

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/12/01_groups.png

According to this pie graph and your theory, anybody who is not a Christian is being antisocial. You tell a Muslim he's not adhering to the norm, being Christianity, and he'll be offended. Hell, I would. If I'm doing something, it's either because I believe in it, or I find it most comfortable.

I guess my point is, who is to say what the social norm is and what isn't? In my mind, the only way you're being antisocial is if you're not socializing with ANYBODY. Just because you're part of a group that likes different thing from the masses doesn't mean you're antisocial.

Hell, even Bronies are social with other Bronies.

A Muslim isn't being antisocial because they were likely raised by Muslims in an environment that was conducive to becoming a Muslim. They exist in an environment that believes differently, but they're socializing with their more immediately relevant environment (i.e. their Muslim family/community).

I think when joining a religion can be antisocial is when you get crackerass, wannabe hippies and celebrities becoming Buddhists because they want to feel special. They were likely raised, if not as Christians, then in an environment that was more accepting and encouraging of Christianity than any other specific religion, but have chosen to go an entirely different direction, likely as a reaction against cultural norms.

Maybe it's a word usage issue? I just don't see that as being anti-social at all. Like, what exactly are we talking about here? If I see a kid outside practicing his Buddhist five star exploding palm technique in the courtyard with 20 of his hippie friends, my first thought isn't "Wow, look at those anti-social f*cks". Like, that's just silly. They're outside and active.

If I liked everything that everybody else liked but I spent every single day locked up in my room by myself, am I less anti social than a homosexual Buddhist liberal that likes free form jazz, yet also goes out every single night?

I just don't get the definition of anti-social everybody seems to be using in this thread.

I don't think that alternative trends are inherently antisocial. I think an alternative trends can be antisocial, but it isn't because it is alternative.

Take Antony Hagarty for example.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vMa9KQlxNj8/hqdefault.jpg

She used to walk around NYC in the early 2000s wearing a trench coat, combat boots, and the words "**** off" written on her face. This is objectively antisocial, both in the antagonistic, psychology sense, and in the more general "don't talk to me, I don't want to interact" sense.

You can look at Leigh Bowery, for example

http://www.wgsn.com/blogs/wp-content...wery_Looks.jpg

Someone who took drag and turned away from the 'feminization' of the male sex, instead opting for an abstract, almost masculine aesthetic -- very tall, very big, very imposing, very intimidating. This was incredibly antagonistic in the culture Leigh Bowery exposed his visual and performance art to (1980s-1990s England). It wasn't necessarily avoidant, moreso antagonistic, and counter to the very stiff, rigid, uniform, almost aesthetically communistic mindset of England at that time.

Ignoring the psychology definition of antisocial, and looking it from a social standpoint, I think that the concept of being antisocial is, nowadays, very subjective. You could argue that nothing is really antisocial in the same way you might argue the nonexistence of universal morality. It's all a matter of perception, really.

If I saw someone dressed up like Leigh Bowery walking down the streets of NYC I would definitely want to interact with them. I think that in contemporary culture, it's less a matter of antisocial and more a matter of mainstream stigma vs things misunderstood, or a sheer lack of even attempting to understand.

You could argue that in the deep, rural south of the US, being gay is antisocial. In Russia, the punk group Pussy Riot is seen as antisocial. We can look at it objectively if we deem the concept of being antisocial as counter to the mainstream, but that would be the easy way out.

I think that in contemporary society, with the way culture is now, there is a place for everyone with the internet. No matter who you are (generalizing for the sake of fluidity), there is a community or culture where you are an antisocial and one where you are normality.

yea i guess you're right it is a bull**** theory.

Alternative counterculture (not anti-socialites but counter-CULTURISTS) are a generational reactionary embrace of a set of sociopolitical principles and values contrary to those of the establishment and of the prior generation.

The Dadaists arose as a reaction to the nationalism and rationalism that brought about WWI. Its mockery of materialistic and nationalistic attitudes was counter-culture to the society surrounding it.

"Longhairs" were a later incarnation of the same anti-authoritarian spirit which celebrated peace and free love as a response to the Vietnam war. And like most of these movements, they adopted their own fashion trend to communicate their position and value-set socially. Nearly all subcultures adopt a uniform to identify their brethren in the wild.

Punk and later indie music were still further rejections of the status quo which dominated commercial television and radio - the then-primary mediums of media consumption.

And the so-called hipster culture was effectively the postmodern equivalent of the dandy as observed by Michael Reeve, who noted that Baudelaire’s description of the nineteenth century dandy almost perfectly mirrored the hipster in all its incarnations:

"a man who places particular importance upon physical appearance, refined language, and leisurely hobbies, pursued with the appearance of nonchalance in a cult of Self."

Like the dandies, hipsters co-opted antiquated fashion elements of aristocracy (both classical and retro) to create an ironic and anachronistic identity in defiance of the norms of their day.

Each of these and countless other countercultural, alternative social movements were reactions to popular culture. However, each was inevitably consumed by pop, ever-hunting the hip and the new. Soon after the birth of each movement, one could simply go to the mall and buy its uniform, ready to wear off the rack.

Sure, there are "pousers" in every social group great and small. Many put on the uniform to superficially occupy the newest cult on the block. But the true spirit of every "alternative" counterculture is the norms it rejects and the values it adopts. New Wave, Post-Punk, Indie... each is a manifesto of a subculture's search for identity and a clarion call to like-minded misfits the world over - that they are not alone.

^good post. very informative.

Thank you. The bit on hipster culture was an excerpt from a paper published on academia.edu titled, The Hipster as the Postmodern Dandy: Towards an Extensive Study (2013) by Michael J. Reeve. For all the trite conversations I've seen online poking fun at the social group, this paper really enlightens the reader and validates hipsterdom as a culturally-significant movement.

I guess the only logical argument against JWB's and my position that I can see, is that for counter-culture movements to have remained as prevalent as they have throughout history, then they have to have some kind of cultural evolutionary purpose, which would make them not anti-social, since they would be serving a purpose that increased human society's progress as a whole, even if the adherents were themselves anti-social.

I suppose they introduce and preserve ideas that would otherwise never exist (for example, the liberal/hippy movements of the fifties and sixties' rebellion against blind government trust that had existed almost unchallenged previously), thereby going some way to prevent cultural stagnation in a society. Whether each individual movement is itself useful or not can only be considered on a case-by-case basis, but in general, they may very well be "social" in a wider sense.

Holy balls. I spent the last five or six years of my life thinking she was a man. Mind is blown.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

nah, not sarcasm. they're right it's bull****. it's just some **** that sounded good to me atm. but reading through the last few posts i realized it is basically an empty shell game

Transgender. You must've not delved too deeply into her music because gender dysphoria is a huge element in the lyrics.

Yeah I'm not that into her.