Friday · March 31 2006
I read the NY Metro Grups piece earlier this week and I didn't post it. But I'm posting it today, because, well, I want to hear what you all think of it.
Don't obsess on the label part of it…that's the least interesting bit. I don't care who's a “grup” and who's not. To me, the interesting part is how the having babies crowd (e.g. me) is clinging to the youth culture of today rather than the youth culture from when I was 19. It's easier than it ever was to know “what the kids are dancing to” because of the internet. Even easier to download it.
The other juicy bit in the article is about kid-molding…treating your children like little Mr. Potato Heads upon which to impress your sense of taste. No judgements here, just all good stuff to think about. Could probably make for a good book club discussion group in and of itself.
I think Dan might fall into this category. How many people with two kids are in an indie rock band? The only thing I absolutely cannot relate to is having tons of disposable income. Yes, we all desire to be independently employed, but most people I know are not. And, c'mon, $200 on a pair of ripped jeans? But the idea of "not growing up" is right on.
that was truly facinating. I was struck by how American the phenomenon is. Maybe as I get to know more people here my perspective will change, but in the Netherlands there is absolutely no such parallel trend. People are staying "younger" for longer, I'd agree, but there's not the affluence for people to really go deep-end, if you know what I mean.
Maybe it's not possible here. The labor market seems to be a bit more inflexible than in the States. Like our radio stations. I swear to god, I hear Bruce Springstein's "Born in America" at least three times a week. Seems like every generation is stuck in the 90's here.
I sort of fit into that, except for the gross materialism of it. $200 for ripped jeans is just plain stupid (ok, ok, I have spent that much for an authentic replica hockey sweater...or three). I'm certainly adverse to the notion that being an adult means pretending to like things that I don't care much about (golf,suits, wine, ambition, money) or stop caring about things I do care about (comic books, sneakers, new music, PS2, etc).
And I agree that this business about looking "professional" and what not is just a load of crap foisted on us by the ruling class.
But even if you don't wear a suit and you do listen to Bloc Party on your iPod, if you're 35 and still concerned with what is "hip" and fashionable (as that article suggests. Why else would you spend $400 on jeans if not for some sort of status symbol?) , then you've completely missed the point of growing up and you might as well just follow the pressed-khaki yuppie herds of yor.
Being a grown up should be about figuring yourself out and making up your own mind and developing your own tastes and ideas, not following trends like the popular kids in junior high.
I don't have kids, but my brother does and while I was playing basketball with my nephew (he can make shots on the 6 ft rim. he's 2) it occurred to me that maybe we've got it wrong thinking of childhood as the time when we learn how to be adults. Maybe the point of life is to be a child and enjoy every new thing and live in the moment and therefore the point of adulthood is to make the world better for kids.
Just a thought.
I agree with the gross materialism aspect you mention. When are trends going to be more concerned with who a person is rather than what items they own? I guess that would be never, since most trends depend on how much money can be made by "The Man". I don't need no frickin' Bloc Party playing on my Ipod to feel that I'm a hip 30-something-year-old. I'm too old for that scheisse.
Speaking of which: "crap foisted on us by the ruling class" reminded me of that cell phone commercial where a white collar executive is talking about sticking it to the Man with his ultra-cool, new low price plan with Sprint (?). His assistant reminds him, however, that he is the Man - so in essense he's sticking it to himself. Food for thought.
I was overcooking it there a bit on purpose, but there is something to that. So many of our ideas of formal dress and manners derive from the dress and manners that rich people traditionally used to distinguish themselves from the rabble.
Yeah, but that's hardly a new phenomena. Humans have always tried to distinguish themselves through dress and behavior in all societies. Before though, it wasn't just the sort of shit you bought that distinguished you, it was also what you did, what family/cast you were born into, your sect, your tribe, what-have-you. In the past how you dressed was a way to tell other people about these distinguishing characteristics. Think of republican Rome where only senators were allowed to where purple on their togas.
It seems like it's all getting reduced down to the language of crap. Who you are is defined by what you own and what you own tells people who you are. So if you're filthy rich, you need the "right" people to notice your ugly jeans cost more than your last flight home.