Off topic, but I find it puzzling that there's basically a handbook for a subculture trying to be different. It seems like a logical impossibility for a subculture to actually be unique and different, when there's essentially a dress code (short hair, levis, dr martens). I'm not trying to make any value judgements on the subculture, just trying to understand.
Maybe the point is that the subculture / group itself is unique, and I'm mistaking that for individual uniqueness / individuality?
When I was young, I was a very shy kid with a stutter. Needless to say, school wasn't always the most pleasant place. By the time I hit high school, I was straight up angry. I was so sick of being beat up and called 'fag' that I resolved to be different.
So, I became a punk and started going to as many punk shows as possible.
All of a sudden, I certainly was not one of the cool kids, but I was part of a group that was disgusted by the cool kids. Thing is, our group had its own handbook. My friends were hardcore straight edge punks - we eschewed drugs and alcohol. We took much of our fashion sense from goth and grunge (really big pants, big boots, and lots of black). And, our particular group believed that we needed to be taken seriously, so we avoided mohawks and really bizarre piercings. We even had our own rituals - by Friday, we were so sick of everything that we needed to find a punk show so we could get into a pit and take some aggression out.
At the time, I thought I was a free thinker who became friends with a group of other free thinkers. But, to become that non-conformist, I had to conform to certain norms. In my example, your statement is correct - the subculture itself was unique, but we had very strict rules, a strict uniform, and rituals.
I understand, and this helps me resolve a contradiction of understanding I've had for a while. I always thought of the sardonic saying "I want to be different, just like everyone else." I get it though - the idea is to still identify with a group, just not the mainstream (default?) group. But the group still has common values by which it can be identified.
As another commenter pointed out - I also hadn't realized that unique can also mean "not typical." I've always interpreted it as one of a kind, and it makes a lot more sense recognizing this definition.
I haven't fully formed this thought (I apologize), but you made a great comment and I wanted to reply! (Thanks by the way, for your comment)
I'm going to go out on a limb and argue that, in high school, my group of non-conformists likely conformed more than the group of conformists we ranted against so much. Examples may help:
- I got into Joy Division in Grade 9. Suddenly, all my friends listened to Joy Division (and we even gave up on mohawks because Ian Curtis inspired us so much).
- Or, the beginning of grade 9, we were all obsessed with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. But then, my friend Drew bought Shadowrun books. All of a sudden, we were all obsessed with Shadowrun (and cyberpunk in general). We were so obsessed that AD&D immediately went from the ranks of 'amazing system' to 'a stupid game for kids'.
- Bad Religion was playing in Edmonton. Suddenly, Bad Religion was our collective favourite band and we planned a crazy road trip to go see them play.
I don't totally understand the mechanism at play, but your comment brought all of this to mind. I suspect that since we were so socially outcast (because we all tried so hard not to conform), we felt that we couldn't lose what friends we had. Consequently, nobody rocked the boat about anything until University.
Oddly, we all drifted apart while we were in University. In retrospect, it looks like we only stayed together because we conformed so perfectly...
Thanks again for your comment - I love that I had these thoughts and I owe you for them!
Skinhead culture is about embracing things you do like, not rejecting the things you don't. They're not trying to be different. They just like the music and the clothes and the attitude, as well as the extended family nature of the people who identify as they do. I'm pretty sure everyone who associates themselves with any label is doing the same thing.
I wanted to thank you for your comments in defense of skinheads yesterday, but time got away from me (and I have a touch of ADHD). Thanks for jumping up in defense of a group I have a whole lot of respect for!
The way I always take it when I hear someone say they're their own person and they reject society is that they're merely choosing another culture to fit into. Counter-culture is not the lack of a culture, but rather the rejection of mainstream culture and instead choosing to fit in with a different group.
Emo/scene, goth, skinhead, hipster, whatever group they're a part of, it's true that they are being an individual and being counter-culture if you take the language liberally to mean they're simply making a choice to associate with another culture. Even if it's just a phase or a fad, but those people are not similar to the rest of society. Every society has a dress code; by not being a part of the majority, they are in fact "unique" in the meaning of "not typical; unusual". Language is fun!
Some subcultures are non-conformist, and are very positive toward other subcultures. This is not one of those. The dress code is something skinheads judge each other on. It also advertises to others that you are a tough, aggressive person and that you are aligned with whites, or the working class, or whatever.
If you just went around in flip-flops and cargo shorts there is no way anybody would know that you identify as a skinhead, or know they should fear you.
Maybe the point is that the subculture / group itself is unique, and I'm mistaking that for individual uniqueness / individuality?