As usual, hunger for delectable Mac&Cheese led me back from the Mission district to Downtown San Francisco. After a day of picking through the selection of stained sweaters and novelty t-shirts, it was time to rest my feet and indulge my taste buds. As I fought my way through a sea of slow-moving, starry-eyed tourists meandering around Powell Street, I noticed that Urban Outfitters was having a 50% off sale. Sure, why not take a look at clothes that are outrageously overpriced and that I could potentially find at my local thrift store?

My exploration into the origins of the “hipster” style of Urban Outfitters carried on through my entire shopping experience. Comparing my thrift store purchases to the clothes hung neatly on racks and displayed on the walls, I realized a lot of what I had purchased was strikingly similar. I had walked away from Thrift Town with a few different styles of velvet pants, a paisley shirt, and a perfect flannel; all for under twenty dollars, and all of which I saw reflected on the mannequins strategically placed around the store. It made me ponder the origins of this style, the cultural obsession with “thrift store chic” and of throwbacks to styles from decades past. When was the thrift store culture incorporated into mass culture and what were the implications?

This trend, like all other trends, reflects the sentiments of a culture at a given time. Those who first began to scour thrift stores for finds that made a statement were those who wished to skirt the consumerist culture, those who wanted to stand apart from the “mainstream,” while also making a statement about their individuality. This sentiment took off with the youth culture; everyone started to piece through mom jeans and pant suits to pick out the perfect outfit that reflected their mythological or ideal “self”. Thus, thrifting became synonymous with carving out your own image, with an attitude of ditching the system and of becoming a “true” individual. It only makes sense that this borderline rebellious facade would catch on with the youth culture. A pseudo-rebellion predicated by an aesthetic proves appealing to the youth, no matter what the era.

Every decade has an aesthetic that the youth ascribes to, as well as an associated attitude or ideal: the Flappers in the 20’s, the hippies in the 60’s, the list is endless. But with every style in every decade, we see the attitude and clothing style diminish. The ideals and dress fade into the background, only to resurface as a mockery in Halloween costume stores or decade-related theme parties. I’ll go out on a limb and argue that this is because the mass media incorporated aspects of fledgling youth culture movements in order to commodify and re-sell the attitude and ideals of the movement to a broader audience. And, as a result, these movements were delegitimized to those who subscribed to it in the beginning.

The main goal of the vulture of mass media or culture is to adopt what is popular at the time, and to sell it back to those who made it popular in the first place (note that there is a difference between mass media and popular media; in this context, popular media is the process by which we as a culture make use of commodities). Mass media and mass culture constantly scan the popular scene for prey. In our current society, mass culture found a threat in the burgeoning thrift store scene. No money was being filtered into the mainstream economy and the youth was carving out a style of their own: an ironic use of discarded clothing and an attitude of flippant individuality. This style was that of a new decade, and in historic fashion, the mass media had to commodify it and sell it back to us. And this is how youth culture got to where it is today…

This system is so paradoxical in my mind. An idea, an aesthetic, a “look,” or an attitude adopted by the youth culture will almost always be bought and sold by those in power to do so. We create a new aesthetic movement, only to have it stolen away and sold back to us. Ideological revolutions will therefore never be successful; the image of the Flappers in the 20’s was instantly adopted by advertisers and used to market the idea of liberation through self-indulgence. That movement, which could have changed society’s outlook on women, was tainted when it was incorporated into the mainstream via consumer culture. In our contemporary example, our ideal of shopping at thrift stores in order to undermine the capitalist flow of commodities while creating a look of our own has been taken up by big name stores and robbed of its meaning. This is paradoxical because these stores that buy up the ideal and take away the grounds for the “movement” are still attempting to sell the same ideal of individualism and edgy counter-culture.

Obviously, this model works. Those in power will remain in power by incorporating youth culture into mass media. It is a self-perpetuating game of cat and mouse. The youth will try to make a style of their own, only to have it delegitimized and sold back to them. This is what moves our social scene, and ultimately the youth-driven market. It is simply inescapable in our Capitalist society.

In no way am I claiming to subscribe to the current “counter-culture” movement that has been bastardized by mass media. In no way am I calling for an all-out revolution to take down the system that is in place. I am simply a passive observer who likes what I like, who shops where I want to shop, and who is blinded by the ideology that is sold to me in the form of message-laden clothing. We are all a part of this consumer culture, it is such an ingrained part of our society that it is near impossible to set yourself apart from it unless you build yourself a nice little cabin in the woods and live there with your dog. But I feel that it is useful for us consumers to be aware that what we consume is more than just clothing; it is an image, an ideal, and overall a subscription to a movement that most likely started as a youthful form of aesthetic or ideological rebellion.

Trending Articles: