Retro-extremists? What are we called?

[Senator Jack]

.




Well, if post #191 is anything to go by, Jack is still sticking by Lizzie's term. And the winner (with a laudably modest lowercase "a") continues to be ... "atavist."


Now, if only we can make it into a verb. Such an American thing to do ...



.

As I wrote way back in post #3, I, and I believe a few others, had also been using that term for lack of another. Clinically, I'm sure it's the closest, but it's certainly not entirely accurate nor descriptive enough. Perhaps the services of a cultural psychologist are, indeed, needed.

Thanks for referencing 'Metathesiophobia', Mark. I'm sure somewhere in the deep, dark places of my psyche, this fear is at play. It might have been mentioned before on the lounge (I know I read it in the NY Times some 20 to 30 years ago) that people love nostalgia crazes (such as the 'Happy Days' craze in the 70s) because they know the outcome of the events. Everyone who was killed in WWII has already been killed. All the casualties have already been counted. We did not lose to the bad guys, and so it is a safe war and era to retreat to and many do because the one thing we do not know is what's going to happen tomorrow. Certainly, that frightens us.

And now to address this post from Reetpleet, who has given us another nut to crack.

Ironically though, living the atavist lifestyle in most cases, requires a fair amount of money spent on artifacts and acoutrement, increasingly expensive at that. So, it can be said that an ativist is partly defined by the acquisition of these artifacts. How much of an ativist is an ativist who just wishes to possess these things and live this way? Consumption of them is implicit too, as, while my suits now sit in the closet and see little use, the daily drivers, wearers, users, will surely consume and wear out these artifacts, well made though they are.

I think is very true now that the price of vintage anything has gone up, but you and Mark and everyone else who's been doing this from the time before the Internet know of the treasure troves to be found at the Goodwill for a dollar. Never did I imagine 'old suits' would be come 'collectible' else I would have hoarded them back then. Same goes for furniture, and here's something we have to look at. Unless I come into some dough and get to move into a bigger place, I'm pretty much topped off with period furniture. Ikea, in its wisdom, makes furniture that is supposed to last all of five years because that's when most people get sick of their surroundings and want to redecorate. It's falling apart? Well, I was getting tired of looking at it anyway. Personally, as long as the furniture I have now lasts, I can't see any reason to change it. Same goes for the car.

And here I think we need to separate the 'whatever the word is' from the collector. I know a lot of vintage enthusiasts who are collectors of vintage jewelry, cars, clothes, etc., but probably wouldn't consider themselves to be 'whatever the word is's.

I have to think now.

Regards,

Jack

 

[Tango Yankee]

I'm beginning to regret having started this thread, for it seems despite Lizzie's and my own assurances that we're not doing this to be vintage elitist, there's a large factor here that have got the proverbial panties in a knot.

Jack,

I hope I'm not the one that came off as having my panties in a twist--I didn't mean it as such. I'm simply trying to gain an understanding of where/how one moves from one "type" as another. As with any human behavior trying to nail down a definition will be difficult.

I think that my perfect world would have a combination of old and new in both physical items and cultural mindset, preferably keeping the good from both and disposing of the bad. Never going to happen, I know. So I chose the things I can afford (hats, fountain pens, shaving cremes, brushes and double-edge razors) and try to mix in some of the civility of the past. I think good manners are timeless--or at least, ought to be.

I decry most of what passes for progress in our popular culture--the language that's now acceptable in songs, on TV, and in movies as well as in daily life. The pressure to be "always on" work-wise. The loss of childhood innocence. But I've never thought of myself as any different from anyone else who looked around and said "When I was your age..."

I do feel culturally displaced most of the time, but right now that has more to do with the fact I'm now living in southern Ohio than anything else! lol

And yes, I'm cutting this short. I've got to get to work.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[JimWagner]

And here I think we need to separate the 'whatever the word is' from the collector. I know a lot of vintage enthusiasts who are collectors of vintage jewelry, cars, clothes, etc., but probably wouldn't consider themselves to be 'whatever the word is's.

Is "whatever the word is" a subculture of this site or the dominant (majority) one? Sometimes a question is just a question.

 

[Senator Jack]

Is "whatever the word is" a subculture of this site or the dominant (majority) one?

Good question, so let me clarify.

Though there are other forums for other eras (such as Lotta Living and the wonderfully cheeky and satiric Club Cad) I posted the question to the FL because with some 11,000 members, it has the widest range of enthusiasts, re-enactors, living historians, et al. who celebrate the great expanse of the 20th Century. Therefore, I'm not looking to identify or label only the FLers (who, for all intents and purposes can be can be called FLers or Loungers), but, again, the subculture that is outside the FL, which also happens to include a subset of the FL.

That this is a subculture, whether we like to be identified as one or not, cannot be denied. In the same manner as beats, hippies, modern primitives, punks, bikers, goths, we're rejecting what's been given to us by the mass culture. Yes, we are accepting the mass culture of another era (my apartment, with its mid-century furnishings and tchotchkes would look like millions of other homes if it were still the Atomic era) but because those past eras, and the mass culture of those eras, have been rejected by the majority of today's population, simply due to progress, it doesn't mean we've created this mass culture acceptance-rejection paradox. Someone threw out a urinal; Duchamp turned it into art. Similarly, we've done that with the 20th Century.

Regards,

Jack

 

[LizzieMaine]

Is "whatever the word is" a subculture of this site or the dominant (majority) one? Sometimes a question is just a question.

A subculture of a subculture, pretty much. As I said earlier, there used to be quite a few more atavist types around the Lounge than there are at this particular moment, and I get the sense that there are more here lurking than regularly post. Some have made occasional posts, but were made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome by the responses, and moved on.

In any case, I don't think any attempt's being made to come up with a general term for all vintagedom. The ways in which so many different people approach the whole business make it rather difficult to even think of a possibility that would be acceptable to or even fairly descriptive of everyone.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think is very true now that the price of vintage anything has gone up, but you and Mark and everyone else who's been doing this from the time before the Internet know of the treasure troves to be found at the Goodwill for a dollar. Never did I imagine 'old suits' would be come 'collectible' else I would have hoarded them back then. Same goes for furniture, and here's something we have to look at. Unless I come into some dough and get to move into a bigger place, I'm pretty much topped off with period furniture. Ikea, in its wisdom, makes furniture that is supposed to last all of five years because that's when most people get sick of their surroundings and want to redecorate. It's falling apart? Well, I was getting tired of looking at it anyway. Personally, as long as the furniture I have now lasts, I can't see any reason to change it. Same goes for the car.

Well said. The current situation, where people get into furious eBay bidding wars for items that used to cost a buck or two at your local Second Hand Pete's moth mart, is an aberration, and the Atavist generally avoids the big ticket stuff for just that reason -- we aren't interested in pricey "collectibles" to lock up in a display case, we want stuff we can actually use.

I make most of my own clothes, and most of my household stuff was scrounged. A very important aspect of the culture I grew up in was "Use It Up, Wear It Out, Make It Do, or Do Without," and one of my most prized childhood memories is the tradition of weekly dump-picking trips with my grandfather. I still do it to this day. Of my furniture, the only items I actually paid more than token money for are my kitchen table and my coffee table, and my appliances were either scrounged or purchased for pennies on the dollar when it was still possible to do that. Many of these items, I've had for twenty or thirty years, and have no intention of replacing them -- when something goes wrong, I fix them. Frankly, I think that's an eminently sensible, reasonable, practical way to live -- a lot more so than the throw-it-away-every-five-years culture that dominates today.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

That this is a subculture, whether we like to be identified as one or not, cannot be denied. In the same manner as beats, hippies, modern primitives, punks, bikers, goths, we're rejecting what's been given to us by the mass culture.

Jack you are narrowing the the scope of your search which I support. If you want to broaden your search to include all people who live in certain periods and attach one descriptive word that is fine.

However, more direction from you is needed.

Are you talking about this..the placing of any person, thing, custom, clothing etc out of it's time such as in today's world?

 

[JimWagner]

Thanks for the clarifications, Jack and Lizzy.

Being a "Lounger" and not a "whatever the word is" myself I now see that I was confused and erroneously took the original question in a much broader context than it was intended. As perhaps a number of people did.

 

[MisterCairo]

"Lounger" seems an apt name for regulars, that is, a term specific to posters here.

As for those who have a golden era "ethos" about them generally (whatever combination of attitude, clothing, hair, furnishings, cars, hats, etc., that floats one's boat), I think anything that smacks of re-enactors or poseurism is derogatory. Personally I don't find "retro" a term that is derogatory, just not, on its own, specific enough to the era(s) we enjoy.

We could use something simple. Goldenaire perhaps (too old fashioned sounding?). Just a thought!

 

[Senator Jack]

Are you talking about this..the placing of any person, thing, custom, clothing etc out of it's time such as in today's world?

Yeah, I guess that just about sums it up, Carlisle.

It should be said that if were a disinterested psychologist studying this phenomenon, which is exactly how I'm approaching this, I wouldn't care if a person were living a 1920s, 40s, 60s, or 80s lifestyle. To me, they would be classified in the same subculture. my thinking them all equally odd for insisting on living some forgotten lifestyle. Again, I just happened to address the FL because of the membership. I could, and should, post this question to other web sites/forums and see what response I get.

Regards,

Jack

 

[JimWagner]

Well, maybe the word you are looking for may be "reliver". You all aren't reenacting, you're reliving a past time.

 

[Feraud]

Well, maybe the word you are looking for may be "reliver". You all aren't reenacting, you're reliving a past time.

"Reliver" sounds like a medical operation.

The people in question are technically not re-living a past time ( which supposes the members in question believe in reincarnation and a life they lived before) but living it.

 

[dhermann1]

Well, I must say, I never metathesiophobe I didn't like. lol
But seriously folks . . . (If you don't understand the above reference, you may not belong here! Or maybe you're just a younger member. ONLY KIDDING about not belonging here.)
Anyway, my eyes are beginning to glaze over as I read these posts. I'd have to say that whenever I try to explain the phenomenon, I just talk about "people who live a vintage lifestyle" and leave it at that. It's a clunky phrase, but it's all encompassing enough to avoid having to make fine distinctions.
But I do think "atavist" has a definite cache to it. A certain musty aroma, as it were.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Originally Posted by Carlisle Blues
Are you talking about this..the placing of any person, thing, custom, clothing etc out of it's time such as in today's world?

Yeah, I guess that just about sums it up, Carlisle.

It should be said that if were a disinterested psychologist studying this phenomenon, which is exactly how I'm approaching this, I wouldn't care if a person were living a 1920s, 40s, 60s, or 80s lifestyle. To me, they would be classified in the same subculture. my thinking them all equally odd for insisting on living some forgotten lifestyle. Again, I just happened to address the FL because of the membership. I could, and should, post this question to other web sites/forums and see what response I get.

Regards,

Jack

Jack that is the definition of anachronism. While I am coining the phrase "Anachronist" I am stating that it describes the person who lives the anachronism.

Merriam Webster


Main Entry: anach·ro·nism
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈna-krə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: probably from Middle Greek anachronismos, from anachronizesthai to be an anachronism, from Late Greek anachronizein to be late, from Greek ana- + chronos time
Date: 1617

1 : an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other
2 : a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place; especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present
3 : the state or condition of being chronologically out of place

<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anachronism">anachronism</a>

 

[Senator Jack]

Yes, but then it goes back to that Anachronist Society clash again, and that gets confusing. 'Bicyclists' and 'bikers' are two different groups, but if someone simply said 'he's a biker', without actually pointing one out, I wouldn't know if that meant an avid bicyclist or motorcyclist. I think the term would be right, if it weren't already used, but as Lizzie pointed out, you can't brand a Ford by using the word 'Chevrolet'. This is just about the same reason for not backing 'Atavist' one hundred per cent.

Anyway, perhaps the name doesn't matter much at this point, as I'm really interested in the psychology behind all this. When does a subculture gain sociological acceptance, no longer being thought of as freaks and weirdies, but as part of group who chooses to adopt an alternative lifestyle? I recall having first heard of primitive piercing (you know, the private sort ) in the mid-80s. Wow, I thought that was bizarre. Now you can go to Woolworth's and get the Li'l Monsters Home Piercing Set. (All right, maybe not. But you get the drift.)

Regards,

Jack

 

[Feraud]

Anyway, my eyes are beginning to glaze over as I read these posts. I'd have to say that whenever I try to explain the phenomenon, I just talk about "people who live a vintage lifestyle" and leave it at that. It's a clunky phrase, but it's all encompassing enough to avoid having to make fine distinctions.
But I do think "atavist" has a definite cache to it. A certain musty aroma, as it were.

That is why I see no need to define, categorize, or explain myself to anyone.


Start calling yourselvs atavists and you can expect a confused reaction from people...

Something we are overlooking is our Love/Hate relationship with public acknowledgement. Going through past Lounge thread conversations you will notice most members hate how society picks up on the vintage thing. It's either the designers don't do it right, the celebrities are vapid and not acceptable representive symbols, etc. etc.

The only way this works is if we lump ourselves into a narrow stereotype represented by a celebrity or defined as are Hippies, Bikers, Tattooed folk, Liberals, etc.
Does anyone really want to hear, "Oh yes Vintage, like Charlie Sheen and his shirts..". and all that comes with the association?

"be careful what you wish for, lest it come true"

 

[LizzieMaine]

The only way this works is if we lump ourselves into a narrow stereotype represented by a celebrity or defined as are Hippies, Bikers, Tattooed folk, Liberals, etc.
Does anyone really want to hear, "Oh yes Vintage, like Charlie Sheen and his shirts..". and all that comes with the association?

"be careful what you wish for, lest it come true"

Well, ask any gal in the Powder Room how many times someone has said, "Oh, you look like Dita." Or in my own case, "Oh, you look like Dita's mother." I think the value in self-definition is that we can at least say, "No, I'm actually --- whatever."

Occasionally I'll say to folks who ask why I look like I do "Well, I follow the traditional ways of my people." They tend to nod sagely and walk away contemplating.

 

[Fletch]

I really don't believe we've even scratched the psychological surface here, Reetpleat, so, yes, there are still a great many elements missing from this discussion.

Certainly, you're correct in the presumption of my being a 70s punker, and for years I played in rather noisy pop bands. There were a few punk camps, of course, the mohawked, dayglo followers of GBH, the Exploited and what not, and on the other side you had the mod sounds and style of The Jam, The Buzzcocks, et al. Being that I was already obsessed with 60s culture as a kid, naturally, I gravitated toward the latter.

An interesting note to all this is (and I recall we had a thread on it a few years back) is the high proportion of adults who had been in that, and later, the hardcore scene. That in itself warrants study and questionnaires and perhaps a few years on the psychiatrist couch.



As noted in one of my previous posts, it should be all encompassing. Just because we may not have an affinity for a certain era, doesn't mean they're not part of the psychological subculture.

Regards,

Jack

I have always suspected that ex-punkers possess a certain quiet privilege in the post-generationalist discourse - second only to "lifestyle vintage" individuals like Lizzie and Joeri. (Why the latter are almost invariably female is also worth exploring.)

The ex-punks were "into it" sooner than most of us; they got into it deeper and more seriously; and they passed it on in an authentically social (quasi-tribal) fashion, without information technology. Most importantly, as urban nihilists, they were far enough outside society's values that their motives were less suspect. As did Black jazz musicians with vintage pop song, or gay males with camp and deco, they could meaningfully reinterpret and repurpose the past.

Doing that is a privilege in a progress-oriented, throwaway culture like ours, one that I suspect must be earned through outsider status - ideally, outsider group status. Without the group, one has no more agency than any other alienated individual, and must continually face the possibilities either that one's passions spring from private pathologies, or that one is merely a different flavor of deluded consumer, whose taste runs to goods not easily available.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Yes, but then it goes back to that Anachronist Society clash again

Regards,

Jack

You have the black letter definition. Create a word that or phrase that fits using "anachronos" as in "The Anachronos Society".

In my experience using a word of phrase that most accurately describes what a person means is always better than using a word or phrase that somewhat describes what they mean.

For example using a word that can describe a term in biological evolution to describe a sociological phenomena is very misleading and causes a great deal of confusion; except to the one using the word or phrase.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

I don't think that makes it any better. There is no cure for stereotyped thinking. Like the job interview situation wouldn't go:

" I noticed you prefer your hair in a rather unsual style"
"Yeah man! I am a ROCKABILLY!"
"Ok, that explains all. You get the job"

???

" I noticed you fancy a detective outfit or something like that?"
"No I am an ATAVIST"
"Ok. You get the job."