The article “Hipster in the Mirror” written by Mark Greif of the New York Times, brings a psychology approach to the recent rise in Hipster Culture in the past few years. The article mentions the book, “Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste,” by Pierre Bourdieu. The author then devotes a significant portion of the article describing Bourdieu’s background, childhood and philosophies. I believe the author had the idea of giving us background before laying out the building blocks for his argument, but he forced it too much. I believe that less time devoted to Bourdieu would have benefited the article and allowed for a better read. However, the main philosophy of Bourdieu that the author applied to Hipsters does in fact make for an interesting deduction. Bourdieu believed that culture derived from taste were rigid and arbitrary conformities.
Greif’s language throughout the article is mixed between academic and cultured. He uses studies, philosophers, vague french influences and class dynamics to shed light on the Hipster movement. His article combines logos and ethos to build upon the knowledge and credibility of Bourdieu to shape his argument. He depends too much on the work of Bourdieu, however Bourdieu does have excellent ideas and its a shame that he died before the Hipster movement.
The tone of the article is never demeaning, but it teeters on the edge of being too debatable. He believes that culture and taste are merely acts of one-up-man-ship. He writes as if he understands society completely and that class is about calling each others bluffs. His conclusion from this article however needed more evidence. He concluded that each group or class in society believed themselves to be essentially different. They believed that other classes/groups couldn’t handle their lives, atmospheres and livelihoods. Society uses tastes and culture to separate themselves from the rest and as a means of proving that they are different and by default better. Greif and Bourdieu however believe these societal assumptions are false and that these ideas that structure our world are mere trivialities.
I believe Mark Greif has a stronger understanding than most and many of his arguments are valid. This is probably due to the fact that Greif is considered a highly respectable critic with publishing in N+1. His method of referencing a french philosopher only known to highly educated individuals prevents most viewers from completely connecting with his work. It would be much more respectable if Greif relied more on his own thoughts and philosophies than those of others.