Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution

Maybe you know about usenet. Of course, usenet is dead. However, one of the last groups to die was comp.lang.lisp, which is an instructive example in this context.

I submit that what, or rather who, kept comp.lang.lisp alive for so long beyond most of the rest of usenet was a guy named Eric Naggum. He may not have identified the sociopath aspect, but did have the entitled MOPs in his crosshairs and kept them out with (sometimes utterly brilliant, btw) flamage.

Sadly, comp.lang.lisp also points to something not mentioned in the linked post: Entitled MOPs and sociopaths will not just silently accept their exclusion.

When excluded, they attack, possibly indirectly through other venues. To this day, in an astonishing number of online discussions of Lisp culture, you're apt to find attacks on comp.lang.lisp in general, or Erik Naggum in particular, for the high crime of having once excluded (for example) an entitled MOP who wanted his homework done by comp.lang.lisp.

> The time tested old school way to avoid this problem is to limit openness and impose internal structure. The long lasting subcultures of old, namely the ancient mystery schools and the fraternal orders that flourished from the Renaissance until roughly the post-WWII era, were initiatory orders with oaths, degrees, and governing bodies.

A thoughtful and interesting observation. I wonder how much truth there is to it. It also makes me wonder if "flat structure" companies face any kind of similar problems.

My advice is to moderate the people, not the content. Take a long view of users and see what they are saying / doing. Some may be perfect angels, others may have good days and bad, and still others will be toxic. Ditch the toxic ones and increase the attention on the inbetweeners.

Also, making things cultural versus rules is more effective, as the collective will help enforce a given way of things, to some extent.

Also, money. People who pay money are more invested and less likely to dick around. They paid money to be there, and will be more obedient of the rules and will enforce the same on others. But money is tricky of course, and can blow up in your face.

I have a few problems with this essay. The fundamental one is that it is purely an invention. The author regards specific social/cultural clustering patterns for a specific historical period as "subcultures"; this is part of a grand chart of world-historic social and cultural change.

Nothing that comes before that or after that is properly examined in terms of whether it might be a 'neotribal system of meaning' (from author's 2nd ibid link: the crux of his definition of a subculture is neotribalism and rejection of universalist [sic] systems of meaning).

No substantiation seems to be given for his assertion that subcultures "reached the limit of fragmentation and died" beyond the observation that the subcultures with which he was familiar from the preceding decades seem to have died about then.

It's curious, because in North America, rock music ceased to be subcultural at some time in the 1980s -- if it even had a clear subculture --- but metal continues to have strong subcultural connotations. Death Metal has not ceased to be a active genre of music, as far as I know.

So I am not sure what he means by subcultures "dying" even for those specific subcultures. He has a pseudo-physical model that suggest that this would basically be the point where the subculture ceased to generate a quantifiable essence called "cool" and became "uncool." But this is purely a metaphor.

Combined with his implicitly denigrating use of language -- "muggles," "mops" --- to describe those who aren't really part of the real "scene," what this suggests to me is that his analysis is entirely based on his own value judgements and tastes, and that what he is really bemoaning is the death of the scenes in which he felt included, energized, and involved.

This isn't an author who has done any research or rigorous work whatsoever. His portrayal of the social dynamics of music/coolness subcultures participated in by people in their 20s is interesting, and would certainly ring true to anyone who has ever tried to put on a show or keep a scene alive. But the end of those music scenes with which he was familiar was not a world-historic death of subcultures.

There have been massive changes in technology over the past century, and especially the past twenty years, that have greatly impacted the production of music. There was a time before the 4-track recorder. There was a time before the audio card. There was a time before the internet. All of these things have had a massive impact on not only the production of music, but also on our awareness of music. Information now comes in a glut, and perhaps this has somehow ended the era of the local youth music scene, and the youth music subculture. It would be worth discussing with some youths.

But subcultures still exist. Subcultures are not merely neo-tribal identity/socialization networks for young adults.

The truth is that subcultures are inward-looking, and they are not going to come find him and tell him they exist. They're not going to come ask him if they're cool enough for him to be interested.

Trends bore me.