Caught in a (handmade) Rat Trap: On Cynicism and Incorporation

Read Frank’s “Why Johnny Can’t Dissent” and it becomes abundantly clear he subscribes to, like Hebdige, Gramsci’s notion of Hegemony and co-optation. However, Frank explains, “What’s happened is not co-optation or appropriation, but a simple and direct confluence of interests.” He argues that modern day dissent is ineffective preciously because its tradition, dating back to the Beats, has long ago been assimilated into corporate culture. It seems, Frank might argue, the only thing separating the hippy on Wisconsin Avenue holding a sign for Revolution and the hippy in a boardroom, singing the same mantra to his colleagues, is not a desire for change or rebellion, but their venue. With that in mind, and considering Walker’s “Handmade 2.0” article, it seems indie crafters aren’t opposed to the fetishism of brands, styles, and unique products, they’re just opposed to that fetishism if it’s for corporate products. In other words, are these Indiepreneurs just future corporate moguls who have not yet risen to power? Is there a difference between Nike and aNYthing? Are hip, rebellion, and counterculture, as Frank suggests, really things that can be co-opted? And if so, what separates the motive of A-Ron from the motive of MTV?

Side Question: In this way, Frank comes off as cynical and uncritical of the motives the capitalist might have in comparison to the grassroots organizer. If Frank is right to call for a change in the culture of dissent, what might it look like? Is the rebellious culture propagated in office complexes really analogous to the counterculture of the 60s, which, unlike profit-motivated corporations, sought egalitarian principals?


Frank attacks the recent trends of cultural studies when he proclaims all the contextual readings of Madonna – as a woman who bends notions of sexuality, gender, and race - as nothing more than the academizing of public relations. He more than suggests that cultural theorists, as well as anybody who has an affinity for Madonna, are simply dupes playing into the corporate game of modifying, packaging, and selling notions of rebellion or alternativeness to the masses. Of course, what gives his musings an element of humor is how accurate he is in some of his barbed observations. However, the alternative he does offer to what he calls “popular culture” is shrouded in its own smoke of elitism and mystery. What is this “well-screamed no” he describes? A subculture so underground that it’s beyond aesthetics, beyond labels, beyond any tangible or ethereal element that could otherwise be adopted by corporate interests? Can DIY culture fit into this conception, or does the simple act of making something physical, and thus identifiable and marketable, contradict the ethereal resistance Frank speaks of? Are these the ramblings of a disaffected, alienated, nihilistic, bitter subculturist, or can these ideas be grasped and grounded to become something other than the lofty threats of a precocious underground man?

Finally, what subcultural attributes can we attach to the term Indiepreneurs? Hebdige argues one main quality of subcultures is their youth. However, Walker mentions that the average age of many DIY crafters is 34. What about the quality of resisting the parent culture? The mainstream? In this case, can these things be likened to Corporate Culture? Finally, if the aesthetics of this DIY culture have already been or will soon be incorporated into future corporate product lines, what distinguishes these products as subcultural? Is it the handmade process of production? Is it the economic restrictions on the creators? Are the politics, which are “against the dehumanizing global supply chain” important? In other words, are these Indiepreneurs, or just garden-variety DIY entrepreneurs?