As you may notice (or soon will), a number of the selected readings for this course are narratives that critique what could be called the culture of subculture. In an attempt not to ruin the theatrics of the future readings for the rest of the class, I’ll say only that a recurring theme amongst several of the readings is the indirect pervasiveness of intended counterculture movements. In more than one case throughout the selected readings, a counterculture movement is established with certain goals and edicts in mind, yet is somehow hijacked or co-opted along the way to become something other than what is originally intended.
Pynchon, in The Crying of Lot 49, critiques the culture of subculture to comment existentially on both the emergence and flimsiness of the ready-made subculture. Pynchon constructs his narrative in a way that never explicitly outs the Trystero mail subculture as accidental, but he allows for the idea that it could be, which opens up avenues of discourse on the topic. One could be subcultures’ tendencies towards various types of subdivision. For instance, as Oedipa encounters the various factions of the Trystero subculture, it’s interesting to note how Pynchon seems to be using Trystero as a framework to point out how subcultures inevitably give way to further subcultures, such as the inamoratos or that of Maxwell’s Demon (which subdivides even further to “sensitives”). By compounding what is already a convoluted subculture into further (and seemingly unrelated) subcultures, what is Pynchon saying about the nature of counter-movements? Is showning their serial lower factioning a way to comment on subcultures as mere outlets for demagogues, or as small staples of a necessary opposition to traditional thought?
One instance where subculturism has followed similar paths to Trystero would be that of the the modern polyamorist. In an essay for the online magazine Nerve entitled “Husbands and Wives,” writer Meghan Daum profiled the Ravenheart family, who consist of “three men, all heterosexual, and three women, all bisexual.” They no doubt belong to the polyamorist subculture, but ascribe to the subdivision that belongs to the Church of All Worlds, which uses as a near-bible ritualistic behaviors from Robert Heinlein’s 1961 novel Stranger in a Strange Land to govern their sect of polyamory. Daum’s profile of the Ravenhearts certainly highlights the argument of demagogue versus bona fide movement, as well as questions the Ravenhearts’ interpretation of the original intent of polyamory. I’m interested to see what the rest of you think about these aspects of counterculturalism as they relate to postmodernist thought.
Note: “Husbands & Wives” by Meghan Daum was revised and retitled as “According to the Women I’m Fairly Pretty” for her essay collection, My Misspent Youth.