Comment by jey | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jey | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

We should expect that a piece like this will draw conclusions that are "simplistic" over-generalizations; she is going for mass generalizations that do have a point, but some significant data will be smoothed over in the process. She is describing high-level patterns, not specifically addressing each subgroup. Note that she does address the distinctions between the subgroups within "subaltern", e.g.:

"I should note here that aesthetics do divide MySpace users. The look and feel that is acceptable amongst average Latino users is quite different from what you see the subculturally-identified outcasts using. Amongst the emo teens, there's a push for simple black/white/grey backgrounds and simplistic layouts. While I'm using the term "subaltern teens" to lump together non-hegemonic teens, the lifestyle divisions amongst the subalterns are quite visible on MySpace through the aesthetic choices of the backgrounds."

Also, you asked "when did you last meet a working class art fag?". I'll bet most "art fags" are not getting rich off of it.

I understand your point, but mine was that she fluidly goes back and forth between various definitions. I do think that she realizes this, and it is probably inevitable, but it makes it hard for me to wrap my head around exactly what she is trying to say. Danah writes: "I will attempt to delineate what we see on social network sites in stereotypical, descriptive terms meant to evoke an image." I think I understand why she wants to take that approach (it's easier), but the problem with it is that it makes it very hard for her readers to disengage from their own stereotypes and prejudices and evaluate her ideas on the merits. Basically, it works just as long as she's preaching to the choir.

As for the working class art fags (I dislike the term, by the way, but that's another can o' worms altogether): I'm not saying art is the way to riches, but rather just applying the cultural, rather than income-based, idea of class that is, it would seem to me, implicit in the words "all of my anti-capitalist college friends who work in cafes and read Engels are not working class just because they make $14K a year and have no benefits."

I'm not certain your definition of "art fag" and her definition match. I don't think she includes the Engels-reading baristas in that category - that's why she listed them explicitly as "not working class". Rather, I think she's referring to artists who basically give themselves up for art, delving into really esoteric tastes and edgy artwork.

To use a couple pop-culture examples that you may or may not be familiar with: none of the characters in Rent are art fags. Isaac Mendez from Heroes may be, but we don't know much of his history before he became a junkie or what he does besides paint the future. The characters from Scott Westerfield's novel "The End Days" are, as are the somewhat-caricatured characters in Terry Pratchett's "Soul Music".

She doesn't have the research to support the precision of her terminology. Or if she does, she's not sharing it in which case it doesn't help us. If she wants to make broad assertions, she should make broad assertions. Not specific assertions that sound carefully thought-out but in fact are not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com