In the (quite fantastic) Christmas edition of The Orbital, Rhea Aldrich wrote an interesting article about how many “hipsters” she’s met and how ‘university life automatically transforms you into a twat’. I found the article simulatenously amusing and rude, and thought Miss Aldrich somewhat missed the point when denouncing the pretentious masses. I shall now (in super ironic ‘HIPSTER’ fashion) quote indie-king Bob Dylan: ‘All I can do is be me, whoever that is.’ I think we could all learn a lesson from Bob: rather than ostracize people because you think they’re pretentious or stupid, choose the people you associate yourself with more carefully. I, for instance, would much rather have listened to the chap you described ‘talking about a stage production he’d just finished directing’, than discuss the intricacies of The X-Factor or I’m A Celeb. Not to say those aren’t valid topics, they just don’t interest me. I would probably fall into the definition of ‘hipster’ but not by choice.
I just believe in being whoever you are, be it a chino-wearing, rabbit-walking, pipe-smoking eccentric or a jeans and t-shirt-wearing X-factor enthusiast. We seem to live in a culture of exclusion where we label people like we label music; how about forgetting that and just being a human being? What’s wrong with people wearing clothes that they think other people will appreciate to feel better about socialising? Is it any different from women that feel more comfortable socialising when wearing make-up? If people want to
have the image of ‘being a kooky academic’, let them, if people want to wear ‘way too tight skinny jeans’ or items ‘bought off a stall in Camden’, what the hell is wrong with that? You ask ‘Why don’t you get on with having fun?’ but if sitting in Crosslands or Stumble Inn chatting with my mates about theatre or ‘the meaning of life in relation to quantum physics’ isn’t your idea of fun, it doesn’t mean I should listen to your imperative notion of ‘real things’. I’ve always found the people I get on with the best are so varied in their interests and passions because they’re their own people. They might fall into the generic genres that young people like to use, but not out of intention. Even if they did, as long as they’re happy, I don’t see a problem.
Everyone changes when they get to university, you learn more about yourself as you grow up, you discover academic interests that, at school, you’d have thought were insanely geeky to like. There is a certain naivety to think that you won’t find eccentric academics at a university, especially one as fantastic as ours. If you really can’t bear those people, don’t talk to them, you’re wasting your own time, not theirs. If you think people can put that much effort into pretending to be kooky, you need to address your level of social paranoia (or you don’t if you enjoy being that way). Rather than ask people to stop ‘wasting your time trying to ram [their] actually somewhat average intelligence down people’s throats’ why don’t you follow that principle with a more mature view and accept that everyone is free to be what you’d call a ‘hipster’ just as you’re free to chill out and talk about the X-factor. In fact, I might go to Founders this second and walk my rabbit, listen to JLS on my iPod while smoking a herbal cigarette and reading Hello! magazine…
Samuel, just admit that it was a funny article, you hipster!
Samuel, I think you totally missed the point of Rhea’s article. Perhaps if you weren’t so quick to jump to defend a group of people who quite clearly aren’t “being themselves” (unless by some magical coincidence they all look entirely the same), then you would have been able to see the point behind the article – that is, in fact, “be yourself”, as opposed to following the ironically-titled “unique” brand and look down on those that don’t. However, having seen the vicious and pointless attacks on Rhea in varying places over Facebook (extremely brave), I did expect some shallow response to her article. And here it is.