I'm always reluctant to embrace something that is basically bemoaning "cultural malaise", especially with a rather obvious left-wing bent, BUT, it's very well written and offers several good points.
In particular, this bit:
"That their accent, speech patterns and knowledge of institutions, by their very deployment in the job market, perpetuate norms that exclude those who were born outside of the cultural elite."
It's a very valid point that culture drives so much of hiring and economic reality. That it creates economic barriers everywhere.
There's also a valid complaint against the meaninglessness of the office job. But to say "Hipsters :("... I'm not sure that really means all that much on its own.
I don't think it's a case of seeking meaning in a pointless non-struggle by emulating the struggling classes.
It's the same as it always was - the middle classes trying to differentiate themselves by social signaling - doing things others can't. Classic yuppies just bought expensive toys. The newer generation spends on other things. For instance, by dressing like a hipster, you can signal that you are not chained to the traditional office. You can buy $8 drinks at bars on weeknights. You can spend a year or two abroad.
We aren't quite like Effie, but only because the peacocking evolved in a different direction.
But let's not forget that Hunger Games is some ways an allusion to the Roman Empire - and that the fundamental problem is not a new one.
I dunno, personally I thought it was dreadful even by the standards of left-wing articles bemoaning cultural malaise, some of which at least manage consistency.
Hipsters are attacked both for being "unable to do anything useful, alienated from physical labor" and because "never will they face the grinding monotony of mindless work", for taking unpaid internships and for having mortgages. They apparently go to food markets out of vicarious faux-working class escapism, and not because freshly-cooked spicy food is worth paying a bit more for than Pret. Middle class people that don't embrace the working class aesthetic are even worse.
The author doesn't seem to realise the average hipster has disposable income to buy £6 jerk sandwiches and £8 cocktails because £21k goes further when you have no dependents and rent by the room rather than because they're nascent millionaires tasked with finding new ways to cut working class incomes.
Hipsters are nowhere near as bad as keyboard class warriors whose pretentious prose belies the inauthenticity of their attempts to speak for the working class as surely as the braying accents they whinge about.
Complaining that both hipster AND low class work are meaningless is a bit contradictory, definitely. And I have to give you props for pointing out that not every person with a decent office job is a millionaire. Anyway.
What is the author's point, exactly?
For the vast majority of the article, the point is "the life of the middle class is pointless; they try to find some meaning in it through trivialized edgy experiences - which fail to provide much relief to the ennui since they are too sanitized."
Okay, so I buy that. It's less about "poverty tourism" than it is just the classic social signaling game, made more complex by anti-consumerism.
Maybe you take a month off of work to work on your burning man mutant vehicle rather than spending a month's salary on a flashy Mercedes, but you're signaling the same thing.
Be that as it may, it takes until the last few paragraphs to really derail into "oh, but the poor poor people!". In a paragraph it tries to explain how rising rents are tough; how the privilege afforded to some young people magnifies itself later in life, etc, is harsh.
Very little of which is an indictment of faux working-class escapism. That escapism in itself only seems to be indicted by the way that it raises rents, a very tired argument.
But in what way do the "£6 jerk sandwiches and £8 cocktails" hurt the lower classes? The article never makes the point, exactly.
Basically... I read this article as "Chasing faux-working-class hipster stuff is completely pointless, but people feel compelled to do it anyway since they have nothing better to do." I agree with that. Examining the way young urban professionals evolved in an anti-consumerist era is worthwhile.
The little "Oh, btw, die yuppie... er, hipster scum" paragraph I am forgiving. The point is just too weak, and it's better read the other way.
the life of the middle class is pointless; they try to find some meaning in it through trivialized edgy experiences
It's clear that the author has an extremely limited view of the middle class. It's an incredibly broad demographic; they aren't all twentysomething hipsters downing microbrews in converted warehouses.
This may sound somewhat intolerant, but I knew I would not be able to withstand reading an article that starts with a quote of Zizek. He is IMO a very prolific source of BS, and this I say as someone who has a decent amount of respect for the works of Marx. Actually from personal experience, I am very inclined to think that the author fits the stereotype of a hipster, as do some of my friends, for whom I've endured the pain of learning about Lacan. Hipsters fit a very broad classification, but they do seem to have a common sense of discomfort at the thought of being imitated by the wrong crowd.
In particular, this bit:
"That their accent, speech patterns and knowledge of institutions, by their very deployment in the job market, perpetuate norms that exclude those who were born outside of the cultural elite."
It's a very valid point that culture drives so much of hiring and economic reality. That it creates economic barriers everywhere.
There's also a valid complaint against the meaninglessness of the office job. But to say "Hipsters :("... I'm not sure that really means all that much on its own.
I don't think it's a case of seeking meaning in a pointless non-struggle by emulating the struggling classes.
It's the same as it always was - the middle classes trying to differentiate themselves by social signaling - doing things others can't. Classic yuppies just bought expensive toys. The newer generation spends on other things. For instance, by dressing like a hipster, you can signal that you are not chained to the traditional office. You can buy $8 drinks at bars on weeknights. You can spend a year or two abroad.
We aren't quite like Effie, but only because the peacocking evolved in a different direction.
But let's not forget that Hunger Games is some ways an allusion to the Roman Empire - and that the fundamental problem is not a new one.