Having signed up as a Labour supporter two weeks ago, I’m no closer to deciding between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith. Neither candidate will likely solve Labour’s problems and, rather than a real debate of ideas, the leadership election has been defined by mutual loathing, with rival supporters tearing cyber chunks out of each other on social media and news comment feeds. While Corbyn fans on Twitter seem more adept at this, at least it says a lot about Corbyn as a candidate worth fighting for. The passion that Corbyn inspires has brought 200,000 new members and transformed Labour into a grassroots movement with an energy not seen since Tony Benn during the 1980s. Enthusiasm among young people provides a lesson to youth voter turnout campaigns worldwide: you need to feel something.
Yet both sides are descending into an unquestioning worship of their corresponding political spirit animals.
I fear we are unreasonable projecting onto Corbyn an image of a perfect socialist messiah on whom we depend rather than principled policies that his team must promote more effectively. Where policies don’t exist, we take comfort in his glow and curse doubters. At worst, we’ve co-opted him as our trending political brand. A bearded, scruffy anti-politician who oozes vintage socialist-chic as our ironic anti-establishment statement but could end up as out of vogue as the pair of maroon Topshop trousers sitting at the bottom of our wardrobes. As a result, we can be too content with our social media and rally-based validation bubble to acknowledge valid concerns with Corbyn’s leadership abilities and outreach to Labour’s regional, working class English former base. The volume of complaints from former Shadow Cabinet ministers and his economic advisory team members – from lack of political, economic and media strategy to personal blunders – are too large to dismiss as political and media collusion. Critics of all stripes – even soft-leftists or allies like Owen Jones – are accused of treachery. Smith himself is too readily accused of being a pharma-corporate Blair – something of an insult to both his good work as Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary and to working and middle class voters employed by corporations who would feel uncomfortable with such career purism. If Labour is to become the grassroots juggernaut that Corbyn envisions, then he cannot be infallible and must be held the same standard as we hold Smith. Internal dissent for his more questionable decisions can only make the movement stronger.
Ironically, Owen Smith’s campaign is a cult of anti-personality. His main problem is still ‘Owen Who?’ – an unknown who generates little enthusiasm among his supporters. This isn’t Smith’s fault. He seems an interesting, smart, skilled, dedicated politician but this is no longer enough compared to Corbyn. During the last leadership election, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper as calculating, talking point-spouting human cyborgs of Westminster ruined leadership chances for all former Blair and Brown special advisors. Smith as Burnham 2.0 is a vast improvement but provides nowhere near Corbyn’s principled authenticity. He is the Remain campaign of leadership candidates in that no one is passionate about the project but are more driven by fear of the consequences of losing to those whose supporters they deemed ignorant, hysterical and unrealistic. Like with Brexit, this won’t work. As the establishment candidate – with over 80% backing from the PLP and mainstream media commentators – it is difficult for Smith to win support from members who feel ignored and currently denigrated by many of his political and pundit backers. The movement around Smith opposes Corbynism but responds with a Corbynite policy platform wrapped in a bouquet of condescension and vagueness that to many signals a return to top-down, professional politics that Labour members despise. Old approaches are unconvincing in a post-Global Financial Crisis, Scottish nationalist, post-Brexit Britain.
For me, this is a battle between my inner socialist and inner pundit in which I will seek to avoid absolutes. Corbyn isn’t perfect nor will Theresa May garrotte a weakened Labour to death in a ditch unless they follow a bland, outdated conventional political checklist. Regardless of who wins, to keep Labour together and viable the party leadership must equally inspire passion, listen and give real power to party members and run a smart operation that plans ahead and reacts swiftly. Call it a ‘red-vanilla swirl’ for a party that united that to stay together – at least for now – must be equal parts red and vanilla.
On my morning commute today, I stopped to see the gathered press and crowd outside Boris Johnson’s house in Islington, who was greeted with some cheers and mostly shouts of ‘wanker’ on his quick dash to a waiting car that whisked him away for the first day of his possible ascendency to the premiership. Then, in a quintissentially British comedic moment, his car pulled up to the traffic lights at a cyclist-crowded intersection, who proceeded to shake their fists, berate and refuse to let him pass – only cleared away by police a few minutes later. Such a vitriolic reaction is expected in pro-Remain Islington – the home of the political establishment including Boris, Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn – this would be far less likely outside London.
Remain ran a terrible campaign that failed to appeal to peoples’ real daily concerns, instead thinking that a combination of complex economic statistics that no one understood and were difficult to verify, would rationalise the people into voting Remain. By default, this favoured the Leave campaign, who appealed to everyday examples of perceived personal powerlessness such as alleged EU powers to regulate banana bunches and immigration changing the country while Boris and Nigel – disingenuously – offered us our independence back. This was a truly great failure of the political establishment from David Cameron to Jeremy Corbyn and many on the left to truly understand both the political and social divisions within the country.
This is a symbolic divide between London and other large, cosmopolitain cities and the regions – between geographically close locations such as Labour-voting Hackney and Islington and UKIP stronghold town of Clacton-On-Sea. London and regional Britain appear to be different countries with distinctive concerns, experiences and priorities. Brexit confirmed a perception of London as a centre of unaccountable, dysfunctional economic and political power who care little for those outside – an attitude we regularly prove with an open, tolerated contempt. Birmingham is widely known as a terrible place though few of us have actually been. The North is supposedly full of loutish white trash based on football riots and Oasis. Unless the Guardian has done a travel section article on these locations and their bespoke raw food tapas bars, we do little to engage or understand them.
This isn’t isolated to Britain but a worldwide problem among many liberals and leftists from large, cosmopolitain cities who cannot fathom the depth of different experiences and problems of areas outside their immediate confines. Brexit and anti-immigration, Nigel and Boris – these are symptoms of a wider economic and political malaise in which political and economic establishment are gaining too much unaccountable power and tend to be synonymous with the most powerful cities. Many in London, New York, Melbourne, Auckland, Paris, Berlin and others need to take a long, hard look at themselves. Are the ‘common people‘ who we claim to care about only valuable to us to the degree that they think, act, read, listen to the same music, read the same books and use the same analytical frameworks like us? If this is the case, then we are merely elitists who live in in a not dissimilar bubble to the Boris Johnsons and rich kids of Instagram who we criticise for being out of touch.
Predictably, we spent today in a state of defensiveness from insinuations that Brexiters are obese, uneducated, racist chavs, tacky nouveau riche and inbred aristocracy or threats to move to Scotland. Now should be a challenge to try and understand why people outside London might be angry. This transcends fears about immigration as a means for those who want their voices to be heard to be taken seriously. Conservatives worldwide are more successful at this because they are less judgemental of peoples personal tastes and attitudes and are better at finding ways to unite disparate groups under promises of employment, security and consumer freedom. Socialist saviours such as Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders don’t matter if they and we cannot reach beyond our comfort zones and conceive of people beyond their alleged racism, sexism and conservatism as human beings. Political and social change won’t happen with a narrative of ‘everything is shit and your beliefs are stupid’ but through real dialogue and attempts to systematically address our problems together.
Brexit Britons aren’t stupid and their lives are meaningful rather than afflictions to be overcome but as valuable as ours. Former US Presidential candidate Howard Dean once spoke of the need to address the needs of everyone, to great criticism at the time. “I’m going to go to the South and say to White guys who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag details…. ‘We want your vote too because your kids don’t have health insurance either.” If attitudes do not change, then Boris Johnson is going to be perpetually surrounded by Islington cyclist flash mobs during what could be a long tenure as Prime Minister.
‘You say that you hate Max Key, but I think you mean you hate most 20 year olds’
I can’t help but think that Max Key would be far less despised if he was gay. At least we’d see him as an unthreatening, liberated party boy rather than the son of a popular, skilful, trickster Prime Minister. Twitter becomes angry any time he does anything public, so his recent Remix Magazine photo shoot justifies our Freudian hatecrush, whose exposure of exposed muscular chest has ruined our libidos.
This is desperation and helplessness under a popular National Government in action: unable to influence politics, we target our frustration at political leaders and their children’s appearances, bodies and accents in a way we would normally scream body/ fat/ slut/ class shaming.
I’ve always found it ironic in how my political and generational contemporaries react to Max Key’s vanity. There’s arguably little difference between Max Key’s Instagram account and photoshoot with our exotic holidayed, bikini bod and sunbathed leg shot, locally-sourced prosecco potluck, LP-playing, cycling weekend-infested Instagram and Twitter accounts. The digital generation and anyone digitally savvy enough readily indulges in promoting their political, musical, fashion, cooking, sport and sexual tastes, but at the same time are equally motivated to simply share and live publicly, even if they’re occasionally overbearing.
Yet, perhaps we too easily rely on promoting our personal political brand values in direct opposition to those we despise, like the Ya Ya Club or Max Key. They have become lightning rods for everything we despise – privilege, wealth, inequality and even lung cancer. There’s a degree to where I can understand why progressive values often fail to gain public traction. Often the loudest supporters appear to be just as shallow and mean as those they claim to oppose. If Max Key is truly an awful garbage person, then we all are; we just do it with less money and promote different political and consumer lifestyle choices.
His faults can far more easily be blamed on media culture. A social media personality with dreams of stardom is behaving just like we would expect him to and his name is viral on social media and news outlets thanks to politically-motivated rage, while Remix Magazine and George FM are commercial media outlets motivated to increase their audience share and profits. If the arts and media are driven by infotainment and networking, then find solace in the Radio NZ/ Guardian bubble or learn to live with all forms of media. Oppose the system that gave X Factor NZ on Air funding and keep this in mind when the inevitable Max Key reality TV series gets commissioned. The heart of this matter is that fanatical fury and condescension against a socialite son of a Prime Minister will not defeat the National Government and usher in a new age of equality and justice, nor would any of us appreciate being in the position where we are an extension of our parents’ actions.
“If I said, “Boy, I really love corn dogs!” it doesn’t mean I actually love a corn dog. Because love has nothing to do with corn dogs. But it’s just language. It’s a state of mind. You take for granted that my intention is really to express that I enjoy them a lot and I want to eat one right now. That’s what it’s meant to do. But if you have an agenda and you want to take my sentence apart, you could certainly say, “Oh, my God! You love a corn dog? What do you mean by that? Do you want to marry it? Do you want to put it inside of you?” It’s like, “That’s not what I meant and you actually know that’s not what I meant and you’re only using it because you have an agenda so that you could get attention for whatever reason you have.”
We face daily pressure to behave according to gender, race and sexual norms, so it’s ironic that we use the same progressive values that aim to challenge these norms as a new standard of conformity.
In my pretty middle class, inner-city suburban existence, progressive values are mostly a given and something we strive to prove on a daily basis, not only as a personal aspiration but also for social credibility. It usually takes little to align this social-political algorithm, just the occasional Facebook post of a Ta-Nehisi Coates article or an Instagrammed Green Party ballot selfie every election.
Equally important is to avoid accusations of the opposite: racism, misogyny, classism, homophobia or transphobia, the recriminations of which are amplified in the digital age. As a result, personal ‘brand’ purity has become a dogmatic virtue. Our social media identities increasingly resemble political agendas, where our worth and effectiveness is measured by our ability to identify and call out marginalisation and privilege in face-to-face and online feeds. We’re easily wound-up and prone to react, with the onus always on the other, readily diagnose statements with ‘White, cisgendered straight male privilege’ – the predictive text judgement of these times – and respond to skepticism with privsplained logic akin to Hare Krishna or Scientologist street-bothering screed. Our focus has shifted from concrete political, legislative and social change to battles over academic and campus experiences. So dedicated to our new approach that proven allies who oppose our blanket judgements are criticised as enemies and the context of good satirical TV comedy is misinterpreted humourlessly.
These social media scraps against moral depravity is, in my view embarrassingly similar to those of the moral right – the same talkback callers, social conservatives and religious activists whose moral panic on welfare, sex and violence on TV, sacrilegious art and the role of certain musicians in social breakdown we snidely deride. Like them, we fear morally permissive values as driving bad behaviour and seek open confrontation to judge perceived transgressions. Like many born-again evangelists, there’s a tendency to blame others for preventing utopia. While certainly a combination of class, race, gender and sexuality reflect certain overall privileges or disadvantages, privilege, to me, is like meditation or prayer – a good exercise in self-reflection and contemplation of the state of the world. Yet, diagnosing others according to broad formulas that often rely on blanket assumptions simplifies complex individual human motivations and experiences and can easily misinterpret opinions and language without context.
Actions motivated by moral zealotry are always driven by political agendas. As social media users with the ability to play the role of moral arbiters in public, too frequently we act disproportionate to the situation and context to justify our political outlook and to accumulate gravitas as legitimate commentators – including those white, straight, middle class cisgendered males who appropriate others’ experiences. In a New Yorker article on this issue, the generational gap between an English lecturer at Oberlin College in Ohio and her students was noted: “Her generation, she said, protested against Tipper Gore for wanting to put warning labels on records. “My students want warning labels on class content, and I feel—I don’t even know how to articulate it,” she said. “Part of me feels that my leftist students are doing the right wing’s job for it.” Moral politics is ironically turning us into the very people we oppose.
Humanity chafes under moral conformity and history shows progress tending towards the blurring of gender, sexual and racial norms. Feminism, LGBTI and ethnic rights movements have made gains because they have rebelled against such conformity. Not only through protest but by developing concrete goals for bold political, legal, economic and cultural change, working with similarly-minded allies – many of whom they disagreed with on many issues – they have gradually won widespread public support.
Surely, genuine public belief in progressive ideals is more preferable, which depends on opposing moral panic of any political stripe. While real bigotry is inexcusable and should be challenged, not every perceived slight is worth a reaction nor every bigot merely the value of their transgression or their perceived privileges. Rather than replace one set of moral norms with social algorithm and forumla as another, real change must question all norms.
David Cunliffe didn’t make the best choice of opening words, yet the quotes that followed,“Family and sexual violence is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men” and “Wake up, stand up, man up, and stop this bullshit”, were certainly well expressed and on-message. Women’s refuge, whose interest is reduced gender violence, endorsed his speech. However, those whose interest is increased ratings – viewership or political opinion polling – focused mostly on the preceding quote “I apologise for being a man”. Mainstream media outlets overwhelmingly led with that quote, Cameron Slater joked that Cunliffe’s deceased father would be ashamed, and online news comments sections became bastions of conservative males shrieking the battle cry “not all men…”
The substance of the Labour policy of $60 million over four years for more frontline services in emergency housing, prevention, education, and judicial reforms to assist survivors of gender violence was outwardly substantive, especially given the degree of secrecy around gender violence. According to Women’s Refuge, 80% of gender violence goes unreported and, according to the Ministry of Justice, about 90% of sexual assault is similarly unreported. Nor are modern judicial systems well-equipped to fairly assess claims. In Australian journalist Anna Krien’s book Night Games, a coverage of the trial of an AFL player linked to Collingwood Football Club that explores objectification and permissive culture with the AFL, she notably highlights legislative and judicial practice favouring the opinion of defendants over victims, unlike crimes such as theft or robbery. Comparatively National policy, though offering more support to victims through case management and GPS tracking, doesn’t focus as strongly on addressing root causes.
Like the Cunliffe apology quote, media reporting of gender inequality tends to trivialise issues through emphasising the more emotional, entertaining aspects. Labour’s attempt at equal gender representation in caucus was labelled as a “man ban” without proper consideration of the lack of female voices in parliament, let alone in many areas of the public sphere. Similarly with the Roastbusters case, rather than foster public debate led by women about addressing gender violence, the media focused on the downfall of John Tamihere as a combination of “mission accomplished” and the reaffirmation of “not all men…”; the purging of responsibility to allow the audience to feel good.
A huge factor in this inability to discuss gender inequality in the public sphere is due to the successful right wing narrative dominant with regards to all inequality: an absolutist ideal of meritocracy that claims hard work is rewarded, all must play by exactly the same rules, and all results and actions are isolated to the level of the individual. For example, the general argument against the Labour ‘Man Ban’ was that women should be promoted on merit. Similarly on the Cunliffe apology, John Key criticised Cunliffe, saying the apology was “… a bit insulting to all men in New Zealand, because the vast overwhelming bulk of them are good, loving husbands, uncles, brothers”, and supported by many in the blogosphere and in news comment threads across the nation. The problem with such analyses is that they ignore the hidden individual, cultural, and institutional relationships and biases that distort the idea of merit towards outcomes. Between For women, income levels lag behind, they still carry out the overwhelming share of unpaid childcare, household duties, and caring for relatives is done by women, adult domestic violence is committed overwhelmingly against women, and representation in politics and prominence in many other areas of public life is still behind men.
If anything, Cunliffe’s poorly expressed quote indicated that he saw addressing gender violence as a collective responsibility where men must shoulder a burden rather than absolve themselves of any responsibility to ending it on the basis that they’re not individually violent. That the idea of being a man is not just a man only responsible for “him and his own”, but also understanding that the whole issue of gender violence is not isolated to the actions of perpetrator and that social problems require a great deal of collective responsibility and input from all parts of society.
If the last year is anything to go by, the public cannot expect media or politicians to be the sole means to address gender violence. Change in attitudes and solutions to gender violence will ultimately come from grassroots collaboration of activists and women’s services and advocate groups towards finite policy and legislative change. Here, politicians are effective insofar as they either empathise with advocates for change or are forced to make changes by public demand.
Homer: I always wondered if there was a god. And now I know there is. And it’s me.
Marge: You’re not a god, Homer.
Lisa: Remember Dad, all glory is fleeting.
Lisa: Beware the Ides of March.
-The Simpsons, Homer the Great.
In October 2003, as a member of Young Labour I attended the annual Labour Conference in Christchurch. The mood was full of jubilation: an incumbent government elected against a National Party who achieved 21% of the vote, major social reforms passed, and glee at the fortunes of Bill English featuring an over-saturation of “Kill Bill” jokes and condescension about the idea of Don Brash’s likely ascension to the National Party leadership. Four months later, Don Brash was level pegging or besting Labour at the polls and with Labour’s substandard response to the Orewa Speech as a final nail in the coffin, I stopped attending Labour meetings.
The dominant narrative of the New Zealand public, media, and political punditry is that of an inevitable National Party win. While not really direct from the party itself, this is more of a media-punditry narrative based mainly on comparative leadership.
National is aided by the most popular political leader who is personally likable, has excellent political instinct, is an excellent debater both on television and quick witted in the house, and knows how to manage caucus and employs good communications staff. Moreover, he’s been able to shepherd through controversial and often unpopular policies such as partial asset sales, banning offshore protests at deep sea drilling, overseeing cuts of thousands of public sector jobs, and maintaining unemployment rates above 6% and often above 7%. As a politician, he is clearly the equal to Helen Clark. Comparatively, media has concluded already that David Cunliffe has bad personal judgement, is corrupt, and gaffe prone – all over one issue.
This narrative is effectively supported by the efforts of allies, especially popular bloggers in their ability to gain traction in the media. Cameron Slater and David Farrar, whether purposefully or by accident, provide a highly effective “good cop, bad cop” routine: the tribal attack dog who relishes the fight against left wing corruption and knows how to create news, and the principled classical liberal insider who focuses on alleged Labour-Greens illogic and hypocrisy and Government “good news”. Both rooted in the National Party so they know networks and inside gossip. Slater especially has been a source of leaks from Labour and National sources, and Farrar especially appears to have good relationships with journalists and the Press Gallery. Labour and the left do not yet have any equivalents as capable, strategic, or well placed.
However, certainly there exists the likelihood for National Party overconfidence and complacency. National’s success relies on the continuation of the narrative of inevitability, the over-reliance on the leadership of John Key, and an ineffective opposition. If two or all of these change, the political dynamics change.
Helen Clark paid the price for the overconfidence of media narrative and expectations in the 2002 general elections. Despite consistently polling above 50%, this fell to the low 40s due to a combination of factors including the late tarnishing of her image due to Corngate. Similarly during the 2011 general elections, despite polling consistently over 50%, National gained 47% of the party vote. Similarly, John Key’s actions over the ‘Teapot Tapes’ distracted from the election. Judith Collins’ conflict of interest over Ovida could be one of a number of contentious conflicts of interest.
While John Key rates consistently high for preferred Prime Minister, it’s entirely possible for a less popular leader to provide a challenge. Key has relied on an ineffective opposition led by a series of ineffective leaders, which might change. Labour had five years led by the ineffective Phil Goff and David Shearer in which is was unable to develop a coherent post-Helen policy narrative to appeal and mobilise both party base and appeal to practical public needs, captive to internal politics that prevented authentic rejuvenation, and divided between pro-Cunliffe and the so-called Anyone But Cunliffe faction of the Labour old guard and allies. Cunliffe has been only in the job for four months and failed to make headway – so far. As a politician, the Nation interview last Saturday clearly showed Cunliffe as an improving communicator who mastered refined talking points and who’s obviously learned from the John Key school of talking over journalists. If Cunliffe can learn to best Paddy like Key bested Campbell, he’ll be a good politician. In that case, debates probably won’t be a major problem.
To address a series of gaffes and an arguably ineffective opposition, there’s signs that Cunliffe is attempting to run a tighter ship. Hiring Matt McCarten as Chief of Staff clearly indicates the intention of uniting party organisation, grassroots members, union allies, and caucus as a unified force. Perhaps McCarten is an indication that Cunliffe will either placate rivals with plum jobs like Clark did with Goff and Cullen or punish dissenters with lower list placings. Key and National have not faced an effective opposition, but this changes if Cunliffe and Labour can improve leadership, network, and cohesiveness.
A tighter ship then makes it possible for Cunliffe to launch coherent policies to potentially undermine Key’s popularity. Once Don Brash ascended the National Party leadership in 2003, despite initial guffaws from the left he and his staffers proved adept at fashioning an alternative narrative around Maori and affirmative action, the economy, and welfare to almost win the election in 2005. Brash never obtained the personal popularity levels of Clark, the policy and narrative were politically appealing. This was similar to Margaret Thatcher in the UK general election in 1979, who won despite being 19 points behind Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan in the final preferred PM opinion poll. Though the heralded State of the Nation speech’s Best Start policy of $60 per week for parents of newborns wasn’t a game changer, Labour still has the chance to announce more substantive left-leaning policies, especially on employment, regional development, housing, education, and child poverty that will make a noticeable difference in peoples’ lives. Could be announcing the creation of specialist colleges and polytechs in regional cities, could be Medicare funding for health like in Australia. If it can run a convincing campaign on policy alone, it could provide the challenge to National that is not that far ahead in the polls and previously trailing earlier under Cunliffe’s leadership.
As a politics graduate, I generally don’t make long-term predictions. I’m reluctant to make short term ones. Getting drunk on 2005 election night at the Otago Uni Clubs and Socs building and conceding loudly and despondently at 9:30pm taught me that. The media has nothing seriously invested in these narratives and can change course in order to justify events within a new narrative. Same with pundits. Politicians have everything to lose through overconfidence. If these dynamics change, the election becomes competitive again. It was always going to be competitive, that’s why it’s called an election.
The previous post explored the relationship between economics, politics, and public culture as influential on generational thinking from the Great Depression to the free market democracy of today. This post will specifically address media and public criticism of Generation Y within the context of these structures.
If Generation Y is in any way different, it is that it we were not raised with memories of the welfare state which – for all the faults one could claim – embedded a sense of shared sacrifice and collective support for others in economics, politics, and society. We were instead raised with free market values that emphasised individual freedom, especially moral, ethical, and political decisions reduced to something akin to an individual consumer purchase only to be made individually within the marketplace. Certainly, my generation is more socially tolerant as a result of socially liberal identity activism as result historical progression. Without the economic security that welfare provided, certain myths arose to defend the free market: chief among them that ultimately merit and hard work would allow you to succeed and those who didn’t succeed aren’t trying hard enough.
The two prominent critiques of Generation Y from Part I argue within these myths of meritocracy and blaming others for failures. One was last year’s Huffington Post blog meme about Lucy the hapless Millennial, which touches on some truths about the negative side of positive reinforcement and unrealistic expectations, but reduces the roots of the generational unhappiness solely to overinflated ego and comparing yourself to others – ie individuals in isolation. The other critique was Adbusters Article ‘Hipster: The End of Western Civilisation’ argues that Generation Y cares for little but status through consumerism. “Hipsterdom is the first “counterculture” to be born under the advertising industry’s microscope, leaving it open to constant manipulation but also forcing its participants to continually shift their interests and affiliations. Less a subculture, the hipster is a consumer group – using their capital to purchase empty authenticity and rebellion.”
Adbusters singles out youth culture as defined by music tastes, fashion, political beliefs, and consumer choices, but rather strangely for a counter-culture magazine ignores that consumption and identity is embedded in every facet of economics, politics, and society. The article highlights punk fashion as a romantic ideal of previous generational DIY culture, but far more can be gained from exploring the evolution of this second hand fashion to the concept of vintage clothing stores. Op shopping was considered a 70’s punk statement against the traditional labels such as jock, skater, surfer, corporate, high fashion, or any other subcultural labels. As punk culture became romanticised as idealistic and political – by people like Adbusters – entrepeneurs likely of the Generation X age group used retro revival to transform anti-consumer culture into a marketable consumer label. This is no different to the Forrest Gump soundtrack or Time Life Best of the 60’s compilation infomercials as filling a gap with the growing romanticisation of the hippie movement. Similarly, the Huffington Post blog suggests that Lucy shouldn’t compare ourselves to others, yet this is what modern politics and economic structures incentivise us to do. Aspirationalism that means simply consumer and income gain in comparison to others, entrepeneurship that means to do whatever it takes in competition with other companies to succeed, and that your brand image matters to your success whether it reflects reality or not. The rise of Facebook and Instagram is not evidence of our generation’s selfishness but akin to brand management that likely arose from corporate or political party advertising as a response to increased consumer power. All try to convince everyone else that they’re edgy yet acceptable. The Obama-Cameron-Thorning-Schmidt Instagram selfie and John Key in his son’s Facebook planking photo were the ultimate convergence symbolic of societal values, not generational ones.
Unlike previous generations, Generation Y has far less security, more fixed term contracts, and more competition in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis probably hasn’t helped. Especially, the convergence of creativity and the free market through the “creative” industries such as advertising and writing have created both an ideal dream creative job that many in my generation idealise but also with limited places and lax labour laws can potentially encourage exploitation of that dream. Notably in advertising, writing, and politics, numerous people can attest to low to no pay and unpaid internships . Her need for introspection aside, Lucy’s probably working quite hard in an unpaid internship somewhere as a means to getting her foot through the door.
Claims of exceptionalism of our supposed selfishness, laziness, excesses, sexual morals, naivety, and apoliticalism is just an endless cycle repeated every 20 years or so. The names change: swing kids, greasers, hippies, punks, new romantics, ravers, and now hipsters. Even our dancing is no less scandalous; twerking is today’s jitterbug adjusted for inflation. Lucy’s sense of self-importance and shallow consumerism are issues of adolescence might be addressed by her own introspection sure, but that’s called growing older and is only half the job. Her alleged faults are equally reflected in every aspect of economics, politics, and culture. Generation snark and romanticising some past where people worked harder or were more aware or original just avoids important questions.