Arghhhhhhh. I've just done my nut in arguing with stupid steampunk enthusiasts on the internet.
It was over this article here, by some chap called Austin Sirkin:
http://austinsirkin.tumblr.com/post/20317870381/what-is-steampunk-its-come-to-my-attentionA lot of it is reasonable and well argued, but it makes a few claims I didn't recognize, including several aesthetic considerations which seem to me to be overstated in their conservatism. To wit:
People dislike the trend of casualness in all aspects of modern culture, and want more formal and rigid rules that dictate social interaction.
This worries me, and I don't know where it comes from. Certainly, late modernity has, according to postmodernists and many other observers, been characterized by de-diferrentiation of categories and a loss of social hierarchical deference. But why should anyone want to see that reversed? Are steampunkers feeling status frustration because they feel they are owed more respect for their station in life, or is it the reverse, and they long to be put in their place by figures of authority? Is it true what they say, that in times of economic uncertainty people long for the hand of firm leadership and maybe even the stamp of the jackbooted heel?
It’s sad to see people walking around at the mall wearing practically their pajamas and looking like they just rolled out of bed, and people want other people to at least try to look nice.
Do people really dress up in imaginary Victorian costume because they feel superior to people who go shopping in their pyjamas or turn up as guests on the Jeremy Kyle Show? I really thought it had more to do with a collective feeling of disenchantment with how the future looks from the perspective of the times we live in, from which a fantasy version of the past looks much more appealing than either Mad Max II or Logan's Run.
Some people think it’s inappropriate to wear so few clothes out in public, and think that people should wear more modest styles.
This explanation of steampunk seems to stand in isolation from any evidence whastsoever. The author appears not to have considered that the same woman who goes out to a club wearing a corset and a crinoline dress one weekend might go out in a bikini or hotpants at the same club the next weekend. I have never heard prudery offered as an explanation for period costume before. So, apparently, steampunk women cover up for the same reasons Saudi women don't go shopping in mini-skirts or hotpants. Who'd have thought it?
These three (out of eight) explanations for the popularity of steampunk seem to me inherently conservative: social deference, class-based social superiority, and obligatory modesty (note the moral imperative, '
should'). I wouldn't have paid any of this much mind if it was just the writing of one commentator, which could easily be dismissed; however, it was endorsed by numerous followers of the discussion and I got the distinct impression that discussion wasn't welcomed. Steampunk is just a bit of fun and thinking about it to any great extent is antisocial.
What this suggests to me is that if you find elements within steampunk to be conservative, socially divisive and not conducive to the common good then you should keep quiet about it. Enthusiasts seem to want to be told by knowledgeable insiders; they don't seem to want to acknowledge that two knowledgeable points of view can exist or that claims are contestable.
On the one hand there is a lot of talk about a steampunk 'community.' On the other hand there is a reluctance to talk about or examine that community's values.
Am I right? Do Mr Sirkin's explanations for the popularity of steampunk stand up to scrutiny? Do they seem conservative to anyone else but me? Does it and should it matter?
Show Posts
