Avril Lavigne and the Mainstreaming of Subcultures

For me, Silverman's article is the best jumping off point to explore this week's loosely defined theme of "subcultures." Silverman's historical examination of the the gendered role of fashion in relation to power structures contextualized and defined what is "mainstream." The readings this week primarily defined (or assumed) "subcultures" to be located outside mainstream society. She says “masculine clothing ceased to proclaim hierarchical distinction and became a harmonizing and homogenizing uniform” (141) thus placing all marks of class on the fashion of the woman. Male fashion remains relatively constant, linking male sexuality to stability, whereas the changing locations of “erotic gravity” on the female body over time and the rapid turnaround of women’s fashion serves to destabilize and undermine potential power derived from her clothing/body. Siverman’s definition of mainstream since the 18th century locates sexual difference as the “primary marker of power, privilege and authority, closing the specular gap between men of different classes, placing men and women on opposite sides of the great visual divide” (147). She subsequently defines subcultures through “imaginative dress” that challenge “not only dominant values, but traditional class and gender demarcations” (148). Then she goes on to say, contrary to my expectations, that there is power in having deviant dress be absorbed by the mainstream. “If a given “look” is appropriated by the fashion industry from a subculture or subordinate class, that is because its ideological force and formal bravura can no longer be ignored” (149).

In reading this I was forced to re-examine my feelings on the new Avril Lavigne designed clothing line, Abbey Dawn, now available at Kohl’s. Avril Lavigne’s style has always been punk inspired, but her mainstream music and now fashion line has always been a point of contention for the the true punk rockers out there who find their power in their position outside the mainstream. This is true in general for the readings this week, subcultures can only be defined as oppositional or outside mainstream, but what happens, in the case of Avril and her clothes, when the subculture is now available for mass retail? This has been a reoccurring theme for our class this semester in terms of agency. Can one have power while operating within the established repressive order? Silverman seems to think yes. And although I was mighty tempted to buy myself an Avril Lavigne designed sweatshirt the last time I was shopping at Kohl’s with my mom, if only because her subculture style definitely fits my idea of my own relation to fashion much more than Kohl’s traditional mainstream fair, I just couldn’t do it in the end. A mass produced Avril Lavigne sweatshirt just misses the heart of the punk rock credo.

McRobbie’s article, while interesting in its exploration of race, class, style, youth and gender as organizing principles for subcultures was tremendously confusing to me having not read the 2 texts she continually references. She assumes a definition of mainstream that is unspoken and can only be understood as whatever she doesn’t define as a subculture. Example: “It has always been on the street that most subcultural activity takes place” (29). And so the leap is that mainstream does not take place on the streets. But if it doesn’t rely on the streets for visibility, than where does mainstream visibility lie? Malls, media? I was having continual problems locating what she considers mainstream in relation to her extremely varied examples of subcultures which seemed to be loosely defined as anything “other.” Maybe I just missed something?

I don’t really have anything concrete to say on the Fergosa article other than that I found her anecdotal method of address to be refreshing and easy to follow. Ditto for the Acker interview. The “On Thrifting” article did not work for me. Its mix of academic and colloquial language and reliance on personal experience was frustrating for me. The exploration of value coding was insightful and useful, but the tips and the totalizing generalizations of thrift shoppers as a whole distracted me from the value of the authors’ other arguments. I thought this article would be my favorite to read since it is in “Hop on Pop” edited by Jenkins and Tara, but man I had to put it down and come back to it several times. Am I crazy for responding in this way?