rowan, rory - so now, on normcore

8/10/2019 Rowan, Rory - So Now, On Normcore

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rowan-rory-so-now-on-normcore 1/16

Rory Rowan

SO NOW!: OnNormcore

One of my concerns over the last few yearsis what I see as a certain fear within somedomains of left thought Ð the fear that,because we have repudiated any normativegrounds for adjudicating betweenarrangements of existence, we must beblind to how our actions extinguish (kill)another way of life É the question must be

what arrangements of existence do wewant to try to pull into place or remain inplace rather than disaggregating goodessences from bad essences. In otherwords, the goal for me is not simply to statewhat I do not want Ð or how I am or am notmore anti-normative than thou Ð but whatforms of existence do I seek to put myshoulder into making normative inCanguilhemÕs sense: normativity is thepower to establish norms. But arenÕt Iparalyzed by the fact that I have no

transcendental grounds or regulatorynorms justifying why I shove here ratherthan there? And when I put my shoulderhere rather than there, am I not shovingagainst not merely a different position buttrying to shove outwards into a newarrangement of existence that will, ifsuccessful, extinguish what existed before?So am I not extinguishing others withoutreason? The answer is pretty much yes. Andso I must take responsibility for this, thispotentiating and extinguishing, withouteither shunting responsibility onto atranscendental truth or regulation, or ontoa denigrated and demonized other. Thecurrent emphasis on anti-normativity is, attimes, a refusal to accept thisresponsibility.Ð Elizabeth Povinelli, 2014

Perhaps beyond normcore is anothernormal altogether, an aberration devotedlyto be wished.Ð Benedict Seymour, 2014

Over It: Post-CriticalThe project of critique, at least as represented bycritical theory, is in trouble. Indeed, the grandeesof an older generation of critics are warning ofthe dangers of a Òpost-criticalÓ condition, wherepresumably power does not only go uncheckedbut doesnÕt even have to suffer the indignity ofcritique.1 Yet many leading voices incontemporary philosophy and social thoughtargue that critical theory has brought this crisis

upon itself, and they are joining in the critique-of-critique chorus. Whether we look to Bruno

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 5 8

Ñ o c t o b e r 2 0 1 4 Ñ " q u a s i - e v e n t s " R o r y

R o w a n

S O N O W ! : O n N o r m

c o r e

0 1 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



Characters from Friends and TheShining share a doorway in this

meme.

Latour, whose influential critique of theepistemological foundations of critical theoryhas chimed in with recent attempts to escape itsanthropocentric limits; Jacques Ranci•re, whohas advanced an epistemological and politicalequality in place of the hierarchies of knowledge-power built into the demystification at the heartof critical theory; Alain Badiou, with his forcefulreturn to the universal terms of capital-P

Philosophy after the wordplay of theory; RezaNegarestani, with his recent attacks on theantihumanism of Òkitsch MarxismÓ in thesepages; or Elizabeth PovinelliÕs push back againstthe constraints of anti-normativity on the radicalLeft, the familiar tropes of the critical projecthave been declared conceptually moribund andpolitically exhausted, and this by thinkers of theLeft.2 Yet, the idea that critical theory is in crisismay come as a surprise to anyone who hasrecently passed through a graduate program inthe arts or humanities, where it remains

dominant. Yet this is perhaps paradoxically partof the problem, critique having lost its sting as itbecame institutionalized, not only as amethodology but increasingly as a set of knee-

jerk reactions and rote exclamations; ageneration or two of those speaking truth topower assumed that power themselves, often

resisting rather than producing change in theirown institutional fiefdoms. Largely cut off fromsocial processes and political impact in itsacademic enclaves, critical theory poses littlethreat to the powers that be, who are more orless happy to let it persist, defanged, in thesemelancholic holdouts where it waits for thegenerational dialectic to gather momentum. In the midst of this slow crisis of critical

theory, the contours of new models of thinking,new questions, and new concepts can be seensquirming, only partially formed, and they arealready shaping the terms of social thought. Thisis perhaps most evident of course in the newforms of philosophical realism, materialism, andrationalism that have emerged over recent years,and the new attitudes to art, politics, technology,and the environment that have developed in anawkward tandem with them. However, despite allthe distracting fanfare that has accompanied themishmash of discussions about posthumanism,

accelerationism, object-oriented ontologies, theAnthropocene, mass extinction, neorationalism,and so on, a more latent and still somewhatobscure transformation has been underway inhow the relationship between difference andnormativity is understood. This shift both testssome of the key conceptual pillars of critical

0 2 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



Mel Brooks, Blazing Saddles, 1974. Film still

0 3 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



theory, and bears directly on some of the moreprosaic political concerns that have taken abackseat as abstract metaphysical andepistemological concerns have been dominatingthe social media spotlight and lapping theconference circuit. Difference has long been thelens through which radical social thought hasapproached all questions, setting itself the taskof exposing the inside/outside exclusions or

above/below hierarchies through which socialpower operates in every instance, andundermining all foundational claims withreference to some deeper contingency, wheredestabilizing reserves of difference can alwaysbe found. By contrast, normativity has oftenbeen considered a central aspect of theproblems that critical theory ranged itselfagainst. Normativity, seen from this perspective,was seen to provide the legitimating basis for theexclusions and hierarchies by which social powersupports itself, and became a byword for

authority, domination, and inequality. Yet todaythe dominance of this anti-normativity isbeginning to loosen as various strands of radicalsocial thought, weary of the claims made fordifference failing to translate into tangiblepolitical gains or prevent the grip of capitaltightening on ever more spheres of life, arereturning to questions of normativity in the hopeof gaining the type of traction on social realitythat appears so far beyond the reach of criticaltheory 1.0.

Here Come the Normies: Youth Mode

It is in the context of this Òpost-criticalÓ momentand the tentative return to normativity in radicalsocial theory that I want to examine thephenomenon of normcore. What normcore is andis not has been the subject of some debate andthe source of some confusion: Is it a fashiontrend, a sociocultural concept, or some sort ofdowntown in-joke that has become a populartalking point for the press?3 What now goes bythe name ÒnormcoreÓ is probably a slippery mixof all three. The concept originated in Youth

Mode: A Report on Freedom, a 2013 text by K-

Hole, a New YorkÐbased Òtrend forecastinggroup,Ó where it was not specifically understoodin relation to fashion.4 The text was firstpresented as part of the Serpentine GalleryÕsÒ89plus MarathonÓ in October 2013 and wassubsequently published online.5 After a much-discussed and disputed piece in New York

Magazine, solely referring to normcore as aspecific set of normie styles adopted by fashion-conscious kids, the concept went viral; it waspicked up by the fashion and news media at thebeginning of 2014, with Elle, Vogue, the New York

Times, the Guardian, Huffington Post, Salon, andDazed & Confused, amongst others, running

articles on the subject and thereby puttingnormcore on the mainstream map. In trying to grasp the nature of normcore,these publications have variously described it as:a style based on Òthe desire to fit in rather thanstand outÓ6; Òembracing sameness deliberatelyas a new way of being coolÓ; Òfashion for thosewho realize theyÕre one in seven billionÓ7; Òonefacet of a growing anti-fashion sentimentÓ8; Òa

trend amongst the privileged towards anti-fashion clothes of the kind available at Wal-MartÓ9; and in one particularly off-the-mark, butperhaps telling, account, Òa knowing piss-takeon the heterosexual maleÕs desperate desire tobe sartorially unremarkable.Ó10 Despite the flurryof attention normcore received, some were leftnone the wiser, with Vanity Fair Ð arriving a littlelate to the party Ð still asking at the end ofMarch, ÒIs Normcore Really a Thing?Ó However,by this point the question of whether normcorewas ÒrealÓ or not was of little importance, as the

media reports took on the force of a self-fulfillingprophecy and the fashion press did its best tocapture a variety of existing tendencies underthis label. The concept of normcore that emergedfrom this media frenzy was of a fashion trendbased around the idea that dressing normal wasthe latest form of cool, with frequent referencebeing made to Jerry Seinfeld, Steve Jobs, theinconspicuous chi of Õ90s Gap campaigns, andthe unremarkable sartorial styles of Òmiddle-aged, middle-American touristsÓ (at least as theyappear in the imagination of fashion

journalists).11

However, it is not the idea of normcore as itappears in the fashion press that interests me,but rather the concept as originally presented inK-HoleÕs Youth Mode. This is not because Iassume K-Hole to be the architect of a ÒtrueÓnormcore trend that has been overlooked orsullied by the media and the fashion industry. Ifanything, rather than creating a trend,Youth

Mode was in part responding to certain stylisticpredispositions already present in a loose,largely downtown scene (even if thoseinclinations always appeared to be more about

sportswear than Jerry Seinfeld, more Nike-socks-in-heels than mom-jeans-for-men).12

Rather, it is because in Youth Mode, K-Holeattempts to analyze the changing relationshipsbetween individuals and community, differenceand normality (or ÒsamenessÓ), and map the wayin which pop-culture strategies, including butnot limited to fashion, have developed in linewith these changes. In Youth Mode, normcore isnot a term used to describe an existing orimagined trend, but a strategy of embracingsameness in order to address the demands of

difference and the stresses it produces for theÒyouth of today.Ó13 It is in light of this that K-

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 5 8


R o w a n


c o r e

0 4 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



HoleÕs articulation of normcore has some bearingon the Òpost-criticalÓ moment and the nascentreturn to norms, reflecting a broader shift awayfrom difference towards normativity, albeit in thesphere of pop culture as opposed to criticaltheory. The questions it tries to address certainlyappear to have purchase on wider concerns,something arguably demonstrated by theparticularly acute way in which it has captured

the imagination of many. Nonetheless, what Benedict Seymour wroteof the trend in Mute might also apply to Youth

Mode: ÒNormcore just is so now, so absolutelythe state of things É Normcore is what the agedemanded.Ó14 Perhaps that which gives the textits fascinating allure Ð its sheer sense ofzeitgeisty nowness Ð also betrays it limits: ablinding complicity with the times, the textÕs veryof-the-momentness making it more of asymptom of the age rather than an effectiveanalysis of its character and ills. It is also clear

that Youth Mode is not a work of critical theory orpolitical thought, and K-Hole admits that theyare Òa little naive about politics in general,Ó astheir friend Christopher Glazek noted in a post onthe groupÕs Facebook page.15 However, they domake some claim to produce works of socialthought; Dena Yago, one member of the group,recently noted that their practice is Òalong thelines of sociological or anthropologicalthinking.Ó16 It is largely in this vein that I considertheir work. Although the majority of articles onnormcore begin by attributing the concept to K-Hole Ð some even referring to Youth Mode as theÒoriginal Normcore manifestoÓ17 Ð they then goon to misrepresent what they mean by the term.Indeed, as K-Hole and their defenders have beenquick to point out, many articles confuse theirconcept of normcore with ÒActing Basic,Ó anotheridea that appears in Youth Mode.18 This hasunfortunately meant that the concept ofnormcore most frequently attributed to K-Hole isnot the one they themselves proposed, butrather Acting Basic, a concept to which theycritically contrasted their idea of normcore.19 In

order to understand K-HoleÕs conception ofnormcore it is thus important to first grasp whatthey mean by Acting Basic, so that the two termscan be distinguished, clearing up any potentialconfusion with the more common use of theterm. The difference is of some consequencewithin K-HoleÕs thought, as the two terms implydistinct responses to the changing relationshipbetween differentiation and normativity,individuality and community. By contextualizingthese terms in relation to the broader argumentof Youth Mode, I hope to clarify their meaning

and give a critical account of their implicationsfor how the relationship between difference and

normativity might be conceived today.

The Narcissism of Same Differences: MassIndie

At the core of Youth Mode is a genealogy of post-oppositional pop-cultural formations that beginswith a loaded reference to Kurt CobainÕs suicide.It is in the wake of this event, they argue, that thecurrent pop-cultural era emerges, which they

refer to as ÒMass Indie.Ó ÒWe live,Ó they state, ÒinMass Indie times.Ó

ItÕs like someone yelled ÒFire!Ó in a crowdedmovie theater the day Kurt Cobain died andeveryone tried to find a different exit. MassIndie is what happens 45 minutes later.Tired of fighting to squeeze out of thedoors, everyone decides to stay in thetheater. Panic subsides into ambivalence ÉMass Indie ditched the Alternativepreoccupation with evading sameness and

focused instead on celebrating differenceinstead.20

CobainÕs death not only neatly dates the periodthey have in mind but seems to provide asymbolic finale to the Alternative movement,itself the last stand of the varied pop partisanswho had an antagonistic attitude to mainstreamculture, before what used to be calledÒrecuperationÓ reached saturation point.21 Eventhe notion of Òselling outÓ finally lost currencywith the rise of Nirvana to awkward MTV stardomÐ screams of discontent traded in for a whimperof self-loathing. In fact, looking back, the briefdominance of MTV in the 1990s might be seen asa sort of pop rendition of the then (and still now)triumphant Òno alternativeÓ economics ofneoliberalism, all outsides being subsumed intothe Òflat worldÓ logic of market globalization,whether they were geopolitical, economic, or popcultural. K-Hole has little more to say about thisAlternative past, and in fact, as so-calledmillennials, they have had little or no livedexperience of a time when major pop-culturemovements did not simply exist within an

increasingly fragmented mainstream, howeverambivalently, but actively defined themselvesagainst dominant culture values as embodied ina recognizable mainstream. They have grown upin, as many more have grown used to, Mass Indietimes. The most useful definition of Mass Indieappears on a chart at the end of Youth Mode,where its key terms are explained in relation tothe poles of ÒsamenessÓ and Òdifference,Ócrisscrossed with those of ÒcelebrationÓ andÒevasion.Ó Each of the four possible

combinations represents an axis with a distinctcharacter. Whilst Alternative is defined by the

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 5 8


R o w a n


c o r e

0 5 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



Steve Jobs poses in front of an apple poster in this cropped image.

0 6 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



evasion of sameness, or what K-Hole refers to asthe Òaxes of rebellion,Ó Mass Indie ischaracterized by the celebration of difference,the Òaxes of tolerance.Ó In its celebration ofdifference, Mass Indie is the pop-cultural form ofa new sense of pluralism, a new form ofdifference marked by tolerance rather thanantagonism. In Mass Indie times, difference is amatter of addition rather than opposition. K-Hole

suggests that with the emergence of such acultural space, all sorts of new combinationsbecame possible: ÒMass Indie has an additiveconception of how culture works. IdentitiesarenÕt mutually exclusive. TheyÕre always ripe fornew combinations É Mass Indie culture mixesweirdness with normalness until it levels out.Ó In this culture of tolerance and difference,the space for individuation seemed boundless.Yet, as K-Hole points out, the paradox of thispluralism lay in the fact that the more differencethere was, the harder it became for individuals to

stand out. Being different no longer had to findan outlet in rebellion but could be welcomed intothe mainstream. Being Òspecial,Ó however Ðbeing different in a different way Ð remained achallenge. Hence, even as difference becameubiquitous, individuality remained exceptional(you no longer needed to be white to have whitepeopleÕs problems, although it still probablyhelped): ÒBut just because Mass Indie is pro-diversity, doesnÕt mean that itÕs post-scarcity.ThereÕs a limited amount of difference in theworld, and the mainstreaming of its pursuit hasonly made difference all the scarcer.Ó22

The Mass Indie celebration of differenceincreased the competition for individuality, andas Peak Difference impended, the market forsocial capital grew ever fiercer.23 As a result, themining of difference became ever more intenseand specific, making it harder to spot a realdifference, to maintain durable devotions, toconsolidate your own shtick or give a shit aboutothersÕ. Hence, for K-Hole, the path toindividuality lay across a terrain ofdifferentiation fraught with dangers: Òseeminglike a cloneÓ Ð Òthe details that distinguish you

are so small that nobody can tell youÕre actuallydifferentÓ; ÒisolationÓ Ð ÒyouÕre so specialnobody knows what youÕre talking aboutÓ;Òmaxing outÓ Ð Òthe markers of individuality areso plentiful and regenerate so quickly that itÕsimpossible to keep up.Ó In a sense, Mass Indie had seen therelationship (so crucial to critical theory)between exclusionary norms and liberatorydifference switch roles. Difference itself hadbecome the norm, and what was excluded wasprecisely the normal: ÒThe rule is Think Different,

being seen as normal is the scariest thing. (Itmeans being returned to your boring suburban

roots, being turned back into a pumpkin,exposed as unexceptional.)Ó In the logic of Youth

Mode, differentiation, once the individualÕsescape route from normality, had itself become aprison. Mass Indie, a regime of compulsivedifferentiation Ð to echo a phrase from BenjaminH. D. Buchloh Ð had turned a machine ofindividual liberation into a technology ofnormalization, spawning a sort of inverted

cultural conservatism. This rule of difference Ðwhere difference demands conformity ratherthan promising freedom Ð is what the agelessyouth of Mass Indie are confronted with. ItÕs aMass Indie problem. But K-Hole suggests thatthe tide is perhaps turning as this jadedgeneration, drained by the relentless rigors ofdifferentiation, seeks to return to the same, toget back to normal. As Emily Segal recently saidin an interview with Vogue UK : ÒthereÕs anexhaustion with trying to seem different. Peopleare genuinely tired by the fact that to achieve

status you need to be different from everyoneelse around you.Ó24 And thus the cargo shorts.

Meh Universalism: Acting BasicK-Hole notes that more recently a new strategyhas begun to emerge to address these MassIndie problems. They call this strategy ÒActingBasic.Ó25 The very demand for differentiation thatdefines Mass Indie, the fear of being seen to benormal, Òparadoxically makes normalcy ripe forMass Indie Ÿberelites to adopt as their own,confirming their status by showing howdisposable the trappings of uniqueness are. Themost different thing to do is to reject beingdifferent altogether.Ó Hence, Acting Basicrepresents a strange dialectic inversion wherebeing normal becomes the new way to bedifferent: ÒWhen the fringes get more and morecrowded, Mass Indie turns toward the middle.Having mastered difference, the truly coolattempt to master sameness.Ó It is of course immediately obvious thatActing Basic does not in fact exit the logic ofdifferentiation that defines Mass Indie, butrather represents a paradoxical new twist within

it. As K-Hole notes, ÒActing Basic is not thesolution to Mass Indie problems because itÕs stillbased on difference.Ó Playing normal to bedifferent is not a strategy that breaks with thedemand for differentiation, but instead remainsdefined by it. ÒSameness is not mastered, onlyapproached,Ó but approached from within theMass Indie gold rush of differentiation Ð just onemore look to set the individual apart. Acting Basic Ð staking out oneÕs differenceby dressing normal Ð is recognizable as what isidentified as normcore in most press articles, yet

K-Hole's members themselves are critical of theidea. For them it is merely Òan aestheticized

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 5 8


R o w a n


c o r e

0 7 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



Channel4 news interviews President Alexander Lukashenko in this segment on the dictatorship in Belarus, titled Undercover in Europe's last dictatorship,2014. See http://www.channel4.com/news/undercover-in-europes-last-dictatorship-belarus

version of the mainstream,Ó inadequate foraddressing Mass Indie problems, i.e., thedemand for differentiation. ÒAt the end of theday,Ó they note, Òsuperficial simplicity is just thedenial of complexity, not its resolution.Ó Further,the very superficiality of the sameness thatActing Basic gestures towards makes itimmediately obvious to everyone: ÒAct Basic toolong and you become extra conspicuous É The

casual uniform begins to attract policeattention.Ó26 Although, of course, it would seemthat the very point of dressing normal to bedifferent is to be noticed rather than to actuallysink into the obscurity of broad daylight. ActingBasic is surely not so much the desire to benormal but to be conspicuously normal, to havetransformed what is artless into an art form forthe discerning eye of those who can appreciatethe effort in your nonchalance. At any rate, in K-HoleÕs terms, Acting Basic is bound to fail as asolution to compulsive differentiation, as it rests

on a fundamentally flawed relation to sameness:Ògoing back to basics doesnÕt work when thescripts that determine the basics are out ofwhack.Ó Before moving on to examine what K-Holeactually means by normcore, itÕs worth dwellingon some problematic implications of the conceptof Acting Basic given that it is what most think ofas normcore. First of all, as Thomas Frank and

Benedict Seymour, two of normcoreÕs morevociferous critics, have noted, normcore is inmany ways incredibly condescending to thosesections of the population (Middle American,tourist, etc.) whose Òback to basics,Ó fuss-freelack of sophistication is appropriated as amarker of social capital for a fashionable ÒsetÓ(regardless of how many have discovered thatsportswear is indeed comfortable for every

occasion, or who consider themselves to beengaging in nobles acts of sartorial solidaritywith the Òaverage AmericanÓ). As Thomas Franknotes, itÕs hard, Ògiven the economiccircumstances surrounding the normcore trend[i.e., Acting Basic] Ð the One Percent, theFinancial Crisis, the withering of the middleclass, and all that,Ó not to see it as the latestiteration of the long tradition of Òslumming,Ówhereby the privileged adopt the modes andmores of the lower orders to enhance their ownimage, or in the delusional belief that deep social

differences can be papered over in, orauthenticity found through, a superficialmimesis.27 Seen in this light, Acting Basic givesexpression to an inane form of class tourism inits appropriation of Middle American touriststyle. Perhaps more important from theperspective of the relationship betweenindividuality and community, difference and

0 8 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



sameness, which lies at the heart of Youth Mode,is the fact that Acting Basic assumes there to bea identifiable ÒnormalÓ that can be plunderedlike a dress-up box Ð a normal of course definedby the Middle American nobody/anybody. Hence,subtending the supposedly stultifyingÒdifference as normÓ that characterizes MassIndie is the bedrock of an even more basicnormal, a normal that is not different from itself

but everywhere the same Ð a persistentmainstream that runs deeper than theclaustrophobic pop-culture cornucopia of MassIndie, with its insistence on individualdifferentiation. In the end, Acting Basic, like thelong passŽ Alternative movement, assumes thereto be an actually existing normal from which onewants to differentiate oneself, even if now itinspires only indifference rather than a spirit ofrebellion. It is the new sociocultural strata ofdifferentiation that Acting Basic seeks to evademost of all, rather than the underlying normal,

which is just accepted. In fact, Acting Basicseems to operate on the principle that it ispossible to ironically return to oneÕsÒembarrassing suburban rootsÓ Ð that sprawlingempire of normal Ð in order to differentiateoneself from all the other Mass Indie paths todifferentiation. In order to be truly ÒspecialÓ onehas to go back to ÒnormalÓ Ð and this of courserelies on there being, somewhere, a normal to goback to.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and his wife visit the Western Wallin Jerusalem, Israel. Photo: Governor's Office/Tim Larsen.

Unspecial: NormcoreK-Hole contrasts Acting Basic to Normcore,which appears to be a more intriguing concepteven as it is slippery and ambiguous.28 ItÕs hardto shake the impression that itÕs difficult to graspsimply because it lacks clear definition, but K-

Hole welcomes this ambiguity, covering theirtracks by claiming that Normcore Òcapitalizes on

the possibility of misinterpretation as anopportunity for connection.Ó This conceptualopacity lies in part with the fact that with theshift from Acting Basic to Normcore, K-Holedeparts the domain of analysis and diagnosis forthe world of speculation and prognosis, movingfrom an examination of contemporarysociocultural conditions (Mass Indie) andexisting responses (Acting Basic) to the trickier

task of pitching new cultural strategies to facethem. At the crux of this change of perspectivebetween Acting Basic and Normcore is adifferent understanding of the relationshipbetween difference and sameness, and indeed adifferent conception of normal. As noted above,K-Hole considers Acting Basic to haveÒapproachedÓ but Ònot masteredÓ sameness,Normcore presumably being successful whereActing Basic fails. Yet, what conception ofsameness, what normal, does Normcoresuppose?

To be Òtruly Normcore,Ó K-Hole claims, Òyouneed to understand that thereÕs no such thing asnormal.Ó Hence, unlike Acting Basic, Normcoredoes not assume there to be an identifiablenormal that can be aestheticized. However, ifthere is no such thing as normal, what doesÒsamenessÓ mean and how might it bemastered? Here lies the core of Normcore: aparadoxically normless sameness. Sameness,for K-Hole, is not defined in relation to adominant mainstream, an identifiable normal,but is a plural, ÒsituationalÓ category. BeingNormcore means adapting to the specific normsof each context one encounters, rather thanassuming that one sameness fits all, or that allroads lead to Normal. Hence, K-Hole claims,ÒNormcore understands the process ofdifferentiation from a non-linear perspective.ÓRather, it assumes an adaptable attitude thatÒcops to the situation at hand.Ó As one of thegroupÕs members said when clarifying theconcept in an interview with the Huffington Post,ÒAt K-Hole we think itÕs all about beingsituationally appropriate.Ó29 It means acceptingothers for who they are and going with the flow,

getting into it: ÒYou might not understand therules of football, but you can still get a thrill fromthe roar of the crowd at the World Cup.Ó Being Òtruly NormcoreÓ requires one tocultivate a chameleon-like capacity to adapt toany situation and empathize with anyone, just asWoody AllenÕs Zelig takes on the character ofthose he encounters.30

In K-HoleÕs articulation of the concept,Normcore is thus Òabout adaptability, notexclusivity,Ó and marks a shift from Òa coolnessthat relies on difference to a post-authenticity

coolness that opts into sameness.Ó31 K-Holeinsists that this change of attitude opens up the

0 9 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



possibility for connection, for forms of belongingthat escape the trap of isolation laid by MassIndieÕs demand for differentiation. Mass Indie(and hence Acting Basic) creates

cliques of people in the know, whileNormcore knows the real feat is harnessingthe potential for connection to spring up ÉNormcore seeks the freedom that comes

with non-exclusivity. It finds liberation inbeing nothing special, and realizes thatadaptability leads to belonging.

Hence, for K-Hole, in emphasizing samenessover difference, Normcore values connectionover individuation and marks a break with theentire logic of Mass Indie and its demand fordifferentiation. ÒNormcore,Ó they write, ÒdoesnÕtwant the freedom to become someone.Normcore wants the freedom to be with anyone.ÓIt is grounded in an ethos of being with as

opposed to being special. This, they suggest, is amore effective response to Mass Indie thanmerely appropriating normality as the lastfrontier of differentiation, given thatcontemporary sociocultural conditions make acoherent, and supposed Òauthentic,Óindividuality harder and harder to maintain at ahigher and higher cost:

It used to be possible to be special Ð tosustain unique differences through time ÉBut the Internet and globalization fuckedthis up for everyone [É] Individuality wasonce the path to personal freedom Ð a wayto lead life on your own terms. But theterms keep getting more and more specific,making us more and more isolated.

In contrast to the isolating differentiation ofMass Indie and the pseudo-sameness of ActingBasic, in Normcore Òone does not pretend to beabove the indignity of belonging.Ó However, K-Hole insists that jettisoningoutmoded models of individual ÒauthenticityÓand embracing the opportunities for belonging

opened up by sameness doesnÕt mean that theself is eclipsed by the norm. As Emily Segal, oneof K-HoleÕs founders, noted in interview with New

York Magazine: ÒItÕs not about being simple orforfeiting individuality to become a bland,uniform mass [but about seeing sameness] as anopportunity for connection, instead of evidencethat your identity has dissolved.Ó32 For K-Hole,one does not lose connection to oneself insameness, but instead finds belonging withothers. Indeed, at the very heart of K-HoleÕsconception of Normcore is the idea that the

relationship between self and others hasundergone a fundamental transformation, of

which Acting Basic is a symptom, but to whichNormcore offers a solution: ÒOnce upon a timepeople were born into communities and had tofind their individuality. Today people are bornindividuals and have to find their communities.Ó Normcore is the name K-Hole gives to thisindividual labor of finding communities. Hence,although Normcore is a product of individualizingconditions, it sees in them not the confirmation

of inevitable alienation but an opportunity toforge new connections, nurture new feelings ofbelonging, and find new communities. Of course,the idea that there is no longer a single,monolithic sociocultural mainstream that givesexpression to a dominant set of cultural norms,but rather multiple sets of situationally specificnormals, reflects to some degree theincreasingly complex social realities that haveaccompanied globalization in all itspermutations. Needless to say, however, dealingwith the relationship between difference and

sameness, individuality and community,belonging and isolation in complex societies is alot more difficult than simply enjoying sportswhen you donÕt know the rules. And thus theproblems.

A Different Normal?: Yes PleaseAs interesting, and in some ways attractive, asthe analysis advanced in Youth Mode is, anumber of fundamental problems immediatelypresent themselves. Perhaps the most strikinglimitation is that whilst Youth Mode presents aconcise, PowerPoint-ready breakdown of variouspop-cultural formations Ð Alternative, MassIndie, Acting Basic, and Normcore Ð itapproaches pop culture as if it were anautonomous sphere, immune to broader social,economic, and political dynamics. Yes,globalization and the emergence of the internetare mentioned in the opening lines, and therecent financial crisis is hinted at via referencesto Boomerang kids and exasperated Subwayemployees with PhDs, but the key categories arelargely discussed as if they existed in a socialvacuum. A sociologically shallow account of pop

culture might not in itself be much of a problem,given the context in which the text appeared, andK-Hole of course does not present Youth Mode asan academic study with all the bells and whistlesof rigor, let alone as a work of political theory. Butthey do set out to engage major sociologicalquestions about the changing relationshipbetween difference and sameness, individualityand community. In light of the concerns they takeon, and indeed their own characterization oftheir practice as quasi-sociological oranthropological, their failure to engage with

social forces, even superficially, or to even showan awareness that they exist, is a

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 5 8


R o w a n


c o r e

1 0 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



Gisele BŸndchen shouts out to other models on the runway at a staged protest for the Chanel SS15 Collection. Signs read for instance ÒTweedis better than tweet,Ó and ÒBe your own stylistÓ as well as ÒHistory is her story.Ó Photo: DailyMail

disappointment. It takes much of the steam outof their often-alluring provocations. One of the most significant consequences isthat the image of society that emerges fromYouth Mode is almost totally emptied of power;the only hint that social power exists at allappears indirectly when mention is made ofcompetition to accrue social status. Needless tosay, an account of sociocultural differentiation Ð

and indeed its changing relationship toindividuality and sameness Ð that does notengage with the existence of social power andthe way in which it structures the conditions inand through which such differentiation takesshape, will have little purchase on its object.Youth Mode is particularly notable in its absenceof any discussion of differences that takeantagonistic form. Granted, K-Hole focuses onpop-cultural formations that have emerged inthe wake of Alternative Ð and hence majoroppositional pop-culture movements Ð but of

course the effects of social antagonism upon thedomain of pop culture are by no means limited tothe sepia-tinted dead horse of punk. Theycontinue to structure pop culture fundamentally,albeit in new ways. K-Hole presents an accountof society from which all antagonism seems tohave been ironed out, where all differences are

peaceful, bar the minor frictions involved in thecompetition for social status or the boundariesof cliques Ð and even these can be soothed byempathy, NormcoreÕs primary affect. Only byexcluding social power and antagonisticdifference from their account of the social fieldis it possible for K-Hole to assume thatindividuals can float freely from situation tosituation, adapting to the norms of each, without

encountering the rifts, fences, and stratificationsthat play such a fundamentally structuring rolein our societies. The limitations of this account of the socialfield of course impact K-HoleÕs analysis of thecontemporary problems with differentiation andthe solutions they present to them. The MassIndie problems that are central to Youth Mode Ðthat differentiation has become compulsory atthe same time as its capacity to generateindividuality/social status has declined, leavingpeople exhausted and isolated Ð are themselves

symptoms of wider social processes, but noengagement is made with the wider context, sothey appear to be the result of purely internalpop-culture dynamics. Yet, even if Mass Indieproblems are second-tier problems, this doesnÕtmean they are without sociocultural interest, orindeed that they are not real problems. The

1 1 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



argument that differentiation has becomecomplicit with the status quo, with forces ofdomination, is of course not new (despite thepersistence of the idea in so much Left theorythat institutional power and difference arenecessary enemies). Many analyses that focuson the changing forms of subjectification thathave accompanied the spread of neoliberaleconomies Ð notably in relation to the

increasingly important role played by precariousforms of affective and cognitive labor Ð havemade precisely this point in one way or another.Whether we look to Deleuze on control societies,Federici on social reproduction, Boltanski andChiapello on artistic labor and theentrepreneurial subjectivities, or Berardi andFischer on cognitive labor and mental health,there is a common thread: an engagement withthe ways in which capital operates through theproduction of subjectivities and thrives onextracting surplus value from the generation of

social difference and individualization, not tomention the important ideological role played byself-actualization over and against collectiveidentifications.33 However, insofar as they fail tocontextualize Mass Indie in relation to broadersocioeconomic or political forces, K-Hole missesan opportunity to examine the demand fordifferentiation in the domain of pop culture inrelation to wider patterns of neoliberalsubjectification, something that may haveprovided greater traction on the phenomenonand allowed for more persuasive responses toemerge. Indeed, by defining Normcore in relationto adaptability and empathy Ð both admirabletraits in and of themselves Ð K-Hole risksframing their solution to chronic differentiationin terms that replicate rather than challenge theideological Trojan horses of neoliberalsubjectification. It is, after all, the sameideological framework that insists on an adaptivelabor force and the economic importance ofaffects such as empathy, that channelssubjectification into the isolating vectors ofdifferentiation. Hence, even if Normcore were toprovide some respite from Mass Indie strain,

tweaking the meat grinder of subjectification forcomfort, it would remain subject to much thesame set of social forces that kneadcontemporary lumpenbourgeoisie. The image of the social chameleon findingboth individual liberty and group belonging indrifting between situations is surely anappealing one, but it betrays a conception ofdifference from which power has been purged.This Normcore nomadism seems to assume thatan individual will be welcomed into everysituation if they are willing to be adaptable and

empathetic. However, social differences andgroup identifications are hardly the product of

individual self-fashioning alone but are shapedby the power dynamics between groups. Noindividual is likely to find belonging in everysituation regardless of how adaptable andempathetic they are. Whilst a lot of this mightcome down to the individualÕs character, muchmight likewise depend on race, gender, sexuality,and other such factors around which powercongeals. Normcore seems to assume that such

factors will have no bearing on the ability ofindividuals to immerse themselves in amultiplicity of different normals. K-HoleÕsconception of Normcore assumes the valuableinsight that there are different versions ofsameness, but it doesnÕt address the fact thatnot all differences are the same. This is a pointperhaps less pressing for those who lessfrequently find themselves on the wrong side ofthe subjective tracks in the view of others.Normcore smuggles in the backdoor an implicitidea of what is normal (white, middle class) even

as it shuts the front door on the mainstream.34

These limitations and blind spots are hardlysurprising given that Youth ModeÕs account ofcontemporary society remains focused on theindividual. Community is virtually ignoreddespite its changing relationship to individualitysupposedly being a key. Although K-Hole claimsthat today, individuals must find theircommunities Ð and K-Hole associates Normcorewith this process Ð no details of the forms ofcommunity that might be found or producedthrough this individual search are offered. Theonly collective subjects that seem to beconsidered worthy of mention are exclusionaryMass Indie cliques. The last line of Youth Mode

perhaps sheds some light on this almostexclusive emphasis on the individual: ÒNormcoreis a path to a more peaceful life.Ó Normcore thusseems to be conceived above all as a self-helpstrategy for ensuring individual peace of mind.Hence, Normcore is best understood as a copingmechanism to help individuals deal with thestresses of differentiation, rather than a meansto address the wider social conditions thatdemand it. In such an individualist account of

social relations, there is not much need toaddress the contents of social norms. Thisperhaps explains the lack of discussion of thistopic. Yes, adaptability, empathy, and a lack ofconcern for authenticity may all be virtues, butthey hardly constitute a set of norms in and ofthemselves, no matter how useful they may be infacilitating a sense of belonging. In neitherchallenging existing norms nor positing others,K-Hole seems happy to accept existing socialnorms, or to assume that they donÕt exist. Thiscontributes little to addressing the very real

problems that shape the present, includingneoliberal subjectification in all its forms. Nor

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 5 8


R o w a n


c o r e

1 2 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



can it do much to guarantee a peaceful life. By ignoring questions of power and framingthe social field in individualist term, K-Hole endsup sharing considerable conceptual space withmainstream conservative opinion. This is nodoubt an accidental neoconservatism. Perhapsin a rush to flush out the calcified critical theorythey were exposed to in art school, K-Hole optedinto mainstream conservative provocations: too

much difference is the problem, individualresponsibility is the solution. Or perhaps itÕsfairer to say that Youth Mode settles onsomething closer to the sort of inclusiveliberalism envisaged by Richard Rorty, whereeveryone gets along because theyÕve swappedout authenticity for ironic detachment. There isof course something to be said for ironicdetachment as a strategy for individualsnavigating complex societies, where one mightpass through various different situations in thecourse of a day or even a few blocks. But this

likewise assumes that the social field is a neutralpublic meeting place equally open to all ratherthan an unstable terrain rent with power. Theworld envisaged in Normcore, where sameness iscelebrated, is ultimately a realm of consensus,where difficult difference is pushed to the sideeven if sameness is plural. ÒPerhaps,Ó as Benedict Seymour suggests,Òbeyond normcore is another normalaltogether.Ó35 Perhaps, too, other conceptions ofnormativity with a fuller grasp of social realityare emerging in these Òpost-criticalÓ times.Elizabeth PovinelliÕs recent work, and the quotewith which this essay began, offer one importantinstance worth noting by way of contrast.36

Povinelli forcefully rearticulates the need to gobeyond critiquing existing norms Ð the way

things are Ð and make commitments toalternative norms Ð the way things ought to be Ðif social thought is to have traction on socialreality. She rightly notes that this is somethingmuch critical theory has shrunk from, preferringinstead the security afforded by anti-normativity.Yet, to refuse to engage with questions ofnormativity is either to fail to engage the realities

of social power, or to vacate the terrain ofpolitical efficacy in favor of intellectual purity. Intoo often happily settling for the latter, criticaltheory has been complicit in ceding ever moreground to the forces of reaction. Intervening insocial power complexes affords few clean handsand no pure outside: one must always start in theshit, in the middle of a social field cut throughwith power and antagonism from which difficultdifference cannot be wished away. Making acommitment to one set of norms against anotherÐ whether defending existing Òarrangements of

existenceÓ or trying to pull new arrangementsinto being Ð involves engaging in struggle and, as

PovinelliÕs language makes clear, exercising oneÕsforce: ÒI shove here rather than there É I put myshoulder here rather than there.Ó37 Hence, forPovinelli, engaging in struggle means takingresponsibility for the fact that, if successful, thearrangement of existence we seek to makenormative may well Òextinguish what existedbefore.Ó Indeed, for her, the anti-normativity thatdefines so much radical social thought can be Ð

if perhaps not always Ð a Òrefusal to accept thisresponsibility.Ó38

PovinelliÕs articulation of normativity offersno exit from this conflicted terrain of struggle,but this is precisely its appeal. In contrast to theflat, neutral, depoliticized social world ofNormcore, PovinelliÕs conception of normativityconfronts social power and the realities ofantagonism. In PovinelliÕs analysis, social normsare bound to struggles between groups who havemade active commitments to contendingconceptions of how things ought to be. And no

matter how provisional, temporary, strategic, orconflicted those commitments might be, theymust be defended or forced. If radical socialthought is to help shape social realities, it needsto engage once again with questions ofnormativity. It mustn't be satisfied with simplywagging fingers at whatÕs wrong with the world,but must also generate visions of how it might beotherwise. Following Povinelli into the shit wouldbe a good start. You can wear sneakers if youlike. !

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 5 8


R o w a n


c o r e

1 3 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



Rory Rowan is a Postdoctoral Fellow in theDepartment of Geography at the University of Zurich.He is author with Claudio Minca of the forthcomingbook On Schmitt and Space. His writings onphilosophy, geography, art and politics have appearedin a number of print and online publications,including Mute, Society and Space, Political Geography

and Opening Times Digital Art Commission in additionto exhibitions in Europe, the United States, andBrazil. He sporadically blogsat gapingearth.wordpress.

1Hal Foster, ÒPost-Critical,Ó October 139 (Winter2012).

2Whilst once the critique ofcritical theory was the preserveof methodological and socialconservatives, its mostpersuasive proponents today arelocated firmly on the Left. TheRight, in the United States as inEurope, has instead now

discovered the virtues ofdiversity, subjective relativism,skepticism of truth claims Ð allkey aspects of what was onceknown as ÒtheoryÓ Ð throwingthemselves with gusto intodisputing climate science andplaying the role of embattledwhite male minorities facingunfair discrimination due to allthe immigrants, women, queers,and black presidents takingtheir jobs and tax dollars. For apungent example, one need onlylook at the flurry of commentarysparked recently by the bravePrinceton boy who, growing sickof being asked to Òcheck hisprivilegeÓ as a white male,

penned a letter to The PrincetonTory that was picked up bytheNew York Times, theWashington Post, Time, andother major bastions of theÒliberal mediaÓ to say their dirtywork for them.

3Alex Williams made this usefuldistinction in an article thatappeared in, of all places, theNew York Times. See hisÒNormcore: Fashion Movementor Massive In-Joke?,Ó New YorkTimes, April2,2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/fashion/normcore-fashion-movement-or-massiv

e-in-joke.html

4Availableat http://khole.net/issues/youth-mode/ . K-Hole wasfounded by Greg Fong, SeanMonahan, Emily Segal, ChrisSherron, and Dena Yago.

5The Ò89plus Marathon,Ó curatedby the loquacious ever-presenceof Hans Ulrich Obrist, broughttogether Òemerging practitionersborn in or after 1989Ó with theusual eclectic jumble of oldhands to discuss important

questions facing the present andfuture in an Òoptimistic andgenerative tone.Ó

6Aimee Farrell, ÒMeet NormaNormcore,Ó Vogue UK , March 21,2014 http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2014/03/21/normcore-fashion-vogue---definition . Asentiment echoed by LaurenCochrane of the Guardian, whodeclared that Òblending in is thenew standing out.Ó SeeCochraneÕs ÒNormcore: The NextBig FashionMovement?,ÓGuardian, Feb. 27,2014 http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/fashion-blog/201

4/feb/27/normcore-the-next-big-fashion-movement

7Fiona Duncan, ÒNormcore:Fashion for Those Who RealizeTheyÕre One in 7 Billion,Ó NewYork Magazine, February 26,2014 file:///C:/Users/Briad/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/K5O9DAK6/nymag.com/thecut/2014/02/normcore-fashion-trend.html

8

Jeremy Lewis, the founder andeditor of Garmento andfreelance stylist and fashionwriter, quoted in Duncan.

9Thomas Frank, ÒHipsters,TheyÕre Like Us! ÔNormcore,ÕSarah Palin, and the GOPÕs BigRed State Lie,Ó Salon, April 27,2014 http://www.salon.com/2014/04/27/hipsters_they%E2%80%99re_just_like_us_normcore_sarah_palin_and_the_gops_big_red_state_lie/

10Simon Doonan, ÒBeware ofNormcore: The Bogus-Sounding

New Fashion Trend is All TooReal,Ó Slate, April 7,2014 http://www.slate.com/articles/life/doonan/2014/04/normcore_the_new_fashion_trend_and_its_perils.html . Doonan,who holds the amazing title ofÒCreative Ambassador ofBarneyÕs New York,Ó has Òbeenmoving in fashion circles fordecades,Ó as the Los AngelesTimes reminds readers in its ownarticle on normcore (May 18,2014). http://www.latimes.com/style/la-ig-normcore-20140518-story.html

11Duncan, ÒNormcore: Fashion for

Those Who Realize TheyÕre Onein 7 Billion.Ó More recently, Gaphas run a campaign calledÒDress Normal,Ó with expensiveadverts directed by DavidFincher, attempting to capitalizeon the normcore trend torevitalize their brand.

12Nor is it because I assumefashion to be inherently stupid,frivolous, or unworthy of seriousattention, commonmisapprehensions about adomain that is not only a fineinstrument for reflecting broadersocial, economic, and cultural

changes, but one that canoccasionally put in a turn as arealm of aesthetic invention,creative experimentation, andsocial comment that faroutshines the visual arts.Indeed, the response tonormcore from the fashion presshas not been without interest,especially given that a trend forÒdressing normalÓ has thepotential to undermine theindustryÕs imperatives, if, say,too many people got swept up inthe trend and realized that theypreferred to Òdress normalÓ andstopped buying in to the ideathat new markers of differenceare needed on a ÒseasonalÓ

basis. A financial and aestheticshudder has been perceptible.

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 5 8


R o w a n


c o r e

1 4 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



Some tried to knock things onthe head before they got out ofhand, with Elle leading theindustry backlash with a pieceentitled ÒWhy the ÔNormcoreÕPhenomenon is a Fraud.Ó Othersattempted to accelerate thetrend and move on to somethingelse entirely. Just two weeksafter normcore ÒbrokeÓ in NewYork Magazine, Vogue asked,ÒWhat Comes After Normcore?,Óreferring to the still nascenttrend as a Òuseful palate

cleanser,Ó and identifying anÒexit strategy: keep the sneakersand your ability to walk, wearingthem with anything Ð evencouture dresses!Ó Those craftierset out to instantly gentrifynormcore, recuperating it for thetop end of the market. As AdamTschorn wrote in the Los AngelesTimes, Òa pair of off-brandheather grey sweatpants fromBig 5 Sporting Goods wonÕt cutit. The key is to wear a super-luxe high-end designer version Éthat only looks like youÕreslumming it,Ó and indeed Chanelhas had two seasons of couturesneakers (although you canÕtblame Karl Lagerfeld for wanting

some comfy shoes at his age).Thomas Frank and BenedictSeymour both picked up on thefashion-eats-itself potential ofnormcore, the former seeing in itthe possibility of a Òcultural-commercial Armageddon É acomplete collapse of theimperium of cool,Ó and the latter,a more melancholic Òend ofdressing up.Ó However, they bothdiscuss the fashion industry asif it were the preserve of ÒtheOne Percent,Ó led by a cabal ofelite tastemakers Ð Frank: theÒaristocracy of the tastefulÓ;Seymour: the Òoligarcho-aristo-creativeÓ class Ð whilst the restof us presumably walk around in

the nude except for our nowfaded blue collars. This vastlyunderestimates the scale anddiversity of the industry, andfails to acknowledge the way inwhich social media has allowedtrend formation to slip out ofwell-policed channels, even ifthe great brand leviathans arenow learning how to make anamplification chamber of it,slipping in collections (resort)and seasons (pre-fall) to fit thesocial-media-enhanced pace ofthe fashion cycle.

13K-Hole insists that youth is no

longer to be strictly identifiedwith the young, given thatbiological, economic, andcultural clocks having long fallenout of sync. Youth is thusÒageless.Ó In fact, the firstsection of Youth Mode, whichmost clearly satirized thelanguage of brand analysis andmarketing reports, is entitledÒThe Death of Age.Ó ÒYouth,Ó theydeclare, Òis a mode. ItÕs anattitude.Ó Being in ÒYouth ModeÓis Òabout being youthfullypresent at any given age. YouthisnÕt a process, aging is. In YouthMode you are infinite.Ó Yet, thisinfinite, ageless youth seems tobe the lifelong companion of an

indebted, jobless future: ÒwhenBoomerang kids return to their

parentsÕ Empty Nests andretirement fades into thehorizon, the bond betweensocial expectations and agebegins to dissolve.Ó

14Benedict Seymour, ÒNotes onNormcore,Ó Mute, May 29,2014 http://www.metamute.org/editorial/fifth-column/note s-normcore

15

Of GlazekÕs comments the groupsaid, he Ònails it.Ó

16See ÒCurating the Internet,Ómoderated by Karen Archey(Kaleidescope, Summer 2014).Of K-HoleÕs practice, Yago wrote,Òour platform looks to consumertrends, and attempts to identifythe larger motivating forcesbehind why and how decisionsare being made. This is why wefocused on anxiety andindividuality on our past twoposts.Ó

17Frank, ÒHipsters, TheyÕre Like

Us!Ó

18Members of K-Hole have tried toaddress this confusion ininterviews with HuffPost Liveand Dazed & Confused, and asreported in a number of otherarticles, the Los Angeles-basedwriter and friend ChristopherGlazek noted on K-HoleÕsFacebook page that FionaDuncanÕs initial piece in NewYork Magazine had conflated thetwo concepts and hencemisrepresented what K-Holehad meant by normcore Ðsomething for which Duncanapologized, complaining that

she had been forced to edit herarticle a number of times tomake it more about fashion(which in itself hardly explainswhy the ideas had beenconfused).

19It is not only in the fashion pressthat normcore and Acting Basichave been erroneouslyconflated. The two mostsubstantial critical reflectionson the phenomena, ThomasFrankÕs article in Salon and asubsequent piece in Mute byBenedict Seymour, both repeatthis mistake, despite otherwise

interesting interpretations. 20The cinema setting also seemsto evoke the mass shootingsthat have also been a fixture ofAmerican youth culture sincethe 1990s, although here too itseems that panic has subsidedinto ambivalence.

21Or what Benedict Seymourrefers to as the Òfinal dregs ofthe punk negativity/self-fabrication process.Ó

22A logic that might actually work

better for K-HoleÕs argumentwould be that because there

was so much difference, itsvalue was reduced, making itharder to achieve the type ofindividualism that tradedon unique difference, or the typeof difference that makes onereally special.

23K-Hole notes that in Mass Indietimes, Òmastering difference is away of neutralizing threats andaccruing social status within apeer groupÓ; the master of Mass

Indie was not the look-at-memall punk with the last of themohawks (although they werecool too), but the quiet compsconnoisseur who told you aboutAwesome Tapes from Africa.

24Farrell, ÒMeet Norma Normcore.Ó

25With Acting Basic, K-Hole ofcourse reference the idea ofbeing Òbasic,Ó most frequentlyheard in relation to beinga Òbasic bitch,Ó an idea thatemerged first in hip-hop (morespecifically a 2009 release by LilDuval) but has gone on to

achieve more mainstreampopularity, and somewhatshifted meaning, as a meme.Hence, ÒbasicÓ might beconsidered alongside otherterms like ÒtwerkÓ and ÒshadeÓthat mainstream culture haslikewise appropriated fromAfrican American subcultures,hip-hop and drag respectively, inrecent years. There is of coursean interesting discussion to behad about the fact that hip-hop,or a certain hip-hop, has in factlong been one of the dominantaspects of mainstream popculture. At any rate, as Glazeknoted, for K-Hole, beingnormcore means being

Òunbothered by the politics ofappropriationÓ (see Glazekabove).

26One of the most potentiallyinteresting lenses through whichto understand Acting Basic, orindeed the normcore trend infashion, is that of the broaderdesire for anonymity Ð howeverperversely attention-seeking itmight be Ð in a period of ever-more invasive and pervasivesurveillance, not only from thestate and other institutionalpowers (the NSA; CCTV cameras;police drones; Google street

view; marketing algorithms thattrack online behavior,consumption patterns, etc.) butalso from ourselves, our ownconstantly updated andgeolocated social media feedsand well-curated spreads ofpublicly accessible selfies. Ofcourse, wearing Birkenstocks isprobably likely to attract lessattention than a plastic V for Vendetta mask, but whilst itÕsrelatively clear who anarchistprotestors might want toconceal their identities/seekattention from, it remains to beseen what type of anonymityActing Basic might be seeking. Anumber of authors have likewise

referred to camouflage,understanding normcore (or

rather Acting Basic) as theÒlatest urban camouflageÓ(Duncan) or even a form ofÒwealth camouflageÓ (Seymour),although of course whilstcamouflage may always be usedto conceal, the reasons forwanting to be concealed aremany.

27This point was not lost on all thefashion press. In an interviewwith the Los Angeles Times,

Lizzie Garret Mettler, author ofthe 2012 book Tomboy Style,noted that ÒitÕs a bitcondescending to wear normalclothing as a joke, like itÕs acostume, but maybe thatÕs thenext natural iteration of thehipster.Ó See Adam Tschorn,ÒNormcore is (or is it?) a fashiontrend (or non-trend or anti-trend),Ó Los Angeles Times, May18,2014 http://www.latimes.com/style/la-ig-normcore-20140518-story.html

28In what follows I will capitalizeÒNormcoreÓ to indicate that it is

K-HoleÕs conception of the termrather than the widerunderstanding, which willremain as Ònormcore.Ó

29ÒThe ÔNormcoreÕ Fashion Trend,Óinterview with Sean Monahan,HuffPost Live, March 6,2014 http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/archive/segment/5318afacfe344420bc0009fb

30I owe thanks to Suhail Malick forthe comparison to Zelig.

31Adaptability and empathy are

key virtues for such an outlook,and these terms recurthroughout Youth Mode in avariety of forms, like brandedkeywords.

32Duncan, ÒNormcore: Fashion forThose Who Realize TheyÕre Onein 7 Billion.Ó

33In fact, even older models ofsocial thought, such as FreudÕsÒnarcissism of smalldifferences,Ó may offer someinsight on the bubble economydifferentiation that

characterizes Mass Indie.Indeed, even Thorstein Veblenhad long ago noted that ÒDavidRiesman and Vance Packard Éhave shown that even the vastAmerican middle class, which isas free from want and even moreuniform than the circlesdescribed by Proust, is alsodivided into abstractcompartments. It produces moreand more taboos andexcommunications amongabsolutely similar but opposedunits. Insignificant distinctionsappear immense and produceincalculable effects. Theindividual existence is stilldominated by the Other but this

Other is no longer a classoppressor as in Marxist

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 5 8


R o w a n


c o r e

1 5 / 1 6

10.02.14 / 18:16:12 EDT



alienation; he is the neighbor onthe other side of the fence, theschool friends, the professionalrival. The Other is more andmore fascinating the nearer he isto the Self.Ó Quoted in RosalindKrauss, The OpticalUnconscious, (Cambridge: MITPress, 1994). Thanks to EvaKenny for this point.

34This doesnÕt even factor in theother side: the fact that there

may be very many individuals,even adaptable and empatheticspecimens, that do not wish tofind belonging or embracesameness in every situation,whether because they just liketo keep to themselves orbecause some situations arebuilt around social norms thatthey cannot empathize with ordonÕt want to adapt to. You donÕthave to be a hater to not chillwith racists. Not everyone isalways happy to chant for theother team.

35Seymour, ÒNotes on Normcore.Ó

36Another powerful instance of thecontemporary return tonormativity is to be found in thework of the philosophers RayBrassier and Reza Negarestani.Brassier and Negarestani areboth engaged in an attempt todevelop a rationalist project ofuniversal emancipation basedaround a concept of collectivelygenerated and revisable normsthat govern behavior along thelines of commitments to rationalexperimentation, testing enroute the very limits of thehuman as such. As fascinatingand persuasive as their abstractaccounts of rational normativity

are I need to do further work tograsp their implications for theprocesses of politicalsubjectification, and vice versa,before I can discuss theirpolitical value with confidence.

37Needless to say, force hereshould not be solely or evenprincipally understood asphysical force, even if thislanguage evokes it. Rather, thisterminology is used to highlightthe fact that society is not aneutral sphere, and acting in itmeans engaging with a play ofother forces, some of which will

offer resistance, whethersymbolic, physical, ideological,legal, and so on.

38Povinelli talks of Òextinguishingothers,Ó indeed Òwithoutreason,Ó and even notes thatextinguishing forms of existencecan be equated with killingforms of existence. I wouldrather not affirm the language ofextinguishing other socialgroups, given the history of thisidea. I nonetheless takePovinelliÕs point that unless weaccept the power in our actionsand take responsibility forputting our shoulder into what

we think ought to be over andabove other forms of existence Ð

without any transcendental orultimate regulative ground Ð wewill be petrified in discourse,paralyzed in disdain for thosewho dare do (an all toorecognizable malaise today).

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 5 8


R o w a n


c o r e

1 6 / 1 6

rowan, rory - so now, on normcore

Documents