In today's society, a hipster is someone who likes to believe they are "breaking away" from the common culture. They aren't a part of any clique or organization--they are, quite simply put, themselves.
But, with this concept of rebelling from modern day society, there is one prevalent idea that arises:
If someone claims themselves as a hipster, are they placing themselves into a group, thus making them no longer a hipster?
After all, if someone is a hipster, they don't belong to a group of people. But, there are many like-minded people that separate from society who claim to be hipsters. Once again, if they are like-minded people with the same intentions, they are in a group, which makes them no longer hipsters.
Society has now started to associate the overarching group name of people who try to rebel against conforming to society as the hipster group. If an external viewer, such as society, classifies these people to be hipsters, it is no longer an issue. Those who are not hipsters can place these said people into groups, because it does not affect them. It is apparent that that group has similar intentions, which makes it easy to classify them as a group.
So, from one standpoint, a hipster isn't a hipster because they call themselves a hipster. But, from the other standpoint, multiple hipsters can be grouped by society to form a group known as "hipsters," by the idea that people with similar beliefs should be placed into groups.
Which is the right answer?
Do hipsters truly exist or are they an impossible concept?
No comments:
Post a Comment