(You are here*)

What if not conforming were the ultimate cliché?

2809913429_343bd48ff4_m

A couple of weeks ago, I spent about half an hour at the newsagent’s, flipping my way through the glossy pages of the higher end fashion mags.

They all have something in common: they pride themselves on their unique outlook, their unique style, their unique models, etc. So be it: twins are unique, in their own similar sort of way after all.

For the past three years, the unique look (for girls in western metropolitan areas) has been a bohemian- 60s baby doll- rock- 80s trash mash up. The shorts paired up with stockings are slowly being phased out by stilettos. Podiatrists and chiropractors world-wide breathe a sigh of relief as the recession drifts away with the incoming tide of twisted ankles and spinal injuries.

Also, if you happen to not have trouble with your eye-sight, I recommend you give your retina a swift poke with an ice-pick: retro- frames are all the rage, don’t you know?

Then there’s the more urban (or suburban depending where you live) look: designer track suit and limited edition runners, or something of that nature. I’m not sure, I think bling may have come and gone, or may even have migrated to boho-trash quarters.

These looks, along with the timeless rasta/ bongo look, V-neck and blazer look, ‘Euro-trash’ fur coat look, are not so much ‘unique’, or new as they are means for individuals of acknowledging the codes of a social group.

This is where I get patronising: by following these codes, individuals are demonstrating their adherence to the common beliefs and values of this group and showing their desire to be seen as a part of it. They are conforming to established norms.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Not that I am in any position to judge even if there was something wrong with this. I wear jeans and bathe. I’m sure this has met the general requirements of a social group out there, and that its universal chairperson has chalkedup one more for its global membership figures.

This diatribe was brought on by a comment made on a Bruce Springsteen performance, saying that the ‘The Boss » had a lame and conformist stage presence. Someone else pointed out that Lady Gaga (ugh) is better. I set out to prove that Springsteen was conforming neither at the time, nor would he be considered particularly conformist by today’s standards.

But is it worth it? Need I point out that he just seems to be doing his own thing? Need I ask since when doing your own thing and not adopting a clearly identifiable un-cliché (and therefore Uber cliché) attitude is proof of a conformist attitude?

I shan’t. I will simply politely agree to disagree. And find out if membership to that social jean & soap -loving group entitles me to any benefits.

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée.

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur comment les données de vos commentaires sont utilisées.