'Goth' and 'Gothic; A Disambiguation

Most of my readers probably already know the difference, but I commonly see the two words used interchangeably, so I feel like a disambiguation could be useful. I guess part of the reason is that the Goth subculture is built upon the Gothic, but Goth is a more complex layering.

The term Gothic comes from the name of the architectural style, which itself was a misnomer. The pointed-arch style which is called Gothic was named so after Neo-Classical styles became fashionable, where the pointed arch style was misattributed to the historical Germanic tribes, whereas it mostly originated in France. The application of the term to things that were a specific kind of 'spooky' came a bit later, with late Romanticism bringing about a certain sort of horror novel, where an atmospheric setting was an essential component as much as supernatural elements, and the setting was often something like an old castle or abbey or such building, and often those buildings were Gothic - because by the 18thC those buildings were already centuries old and a good few had plenty of myths and legends already attached to them. That genre of horror, at that time primarily literary, but with a few illustrations and artworks beginning to emerge, which became the 'Gothic novel'.

As time progressed, the elements of the Gothic novel - the conflict between good and evil, the idea of there being a secret or mystery to uncover, the supernatural entities such as ghosts, vampires and werewolves (or the 'explained supernatural' of the likes of the works of Ann Radcliffe), and the atmospheric setting - got applied to more works in other mediums, such as paintings, poems, plays, music and into the 20thC cinema.

It is this Gothic genre which underpins a lot of the Goth subculture - it has given us a fashion aesthetic, an attitude of dark Romanticism, and plenty of subject matter for songs - however, it has also influenced aspects of metal, and there's plenty of people who enjoy aspects of the Gothic without being members of any subculture too, they just read a lot of Gothic novels and watch vampire movies. Those elements have permeated pop-culture, as well as subcultures, and are very prevalent. Often, when something is misidentified as 'Goth', what has been identified has been an element of the Gothic.

So, what makes Goth different to the Gothic?
I would say - in general terms, with exceptions - that all Goths are Gothic, not all Gothic things (or people) are Goth. The Gothic is the fertile ground from which Goth grew, but Goth is more than just an appreciation for the Gothic, and it has a very specific manifestation.

While Goth is a manifestation of the Gothic, Goth has more elements to it than just the Gothic, and it is something more specific. Most obviously, it has the Goth genre (and it's subgenres/similar enough genres) of music; the stuff that evolved out of '80s post-punk. You can see the influences of the Gothic in the lyric content and imagery of that '80s post-punk ("Bela Lugosi's Dead, Undead..." playing vampires in Gothic horror movies), but there are other visual, philosophical, and musical influences in that genre. Goth as a subculture is an eclectic amalgam of other aspects of primarily Western culture - it's taken from fetish culture, it's got fuzzy borders with the realms of metal (Fields of the Nephilim... ), it's taken horror tropes from outside the Gothic genre of horror (a I know a lot of Goths that are interested in the murderous psychopath sort of horror stories, for example), and it balances nihilism and Romanticism. Goth came about in the '80s, so there's stuff in the Goth fashion/style that's just a darker adaptation of what was popular in the '80s, such as angular makeup and back-combed hair. Goth also grew from punk, so there's aspects of punk thinking, although somewhat less political, in Goth, too, obvious in Goth's emphasis on the resistance of individuality despite external pressures to conform.

For example, while I'm a Goth because I like Goth music, try and make it to gigs when I can, participate in the club scene (as dwindling as it is where I live), have an attitude with roots in those movements outside of the Gothic that influenced Goth, and I take aesthetic cues from Goth fashion as well as Romantic fashion, I'm fundamentally also Gothic because that is the underpinning mind set - which, in me personally manifests itself in a love for the Gothic as originated in Gothic novels; the ruined architecture, the spooky castles, the ghosts and vampires, the cemeteries, the ancient curses and that dramatic, Byronic sort of decadence... 'Gothic' is the broader umbrella under which Goth shelters. It's also probably the term which should replace 'Goth' in terms like 'Pastel-Goth' or 'Cholo-Goth' which seem to have very little to do with the Goth subculture, but do have a connection to the darker things in life and, at least with Pastel Goth, I've seen Gothic elements like vampires, ghosts, bats and zombies as motifs.

I've seen terms like 'Darksider' and 'Schwarz Szene' to describe the broader miasma of dark subcultures (I'd say 'cloud' but we're being spooky here!) including Industrial, Cyber-Goth, and some parts of Metal, and I don't think Gothic can really replace that, because certainly some of the darkness embraced  in these subcultures is from quite a different angle than that within the Gothic genre - lots of dystopian, science-fiction inspiration exists in Industrial and Cyber-Goth especially, and again, the sort of horror that explores themes of madness, psychopathy, and a generally more 'clinical' (for lack of a better word) look into why people do terrible things, rather than a philosophical or supernatural/religious angle. There are still elements of the Gothic, however - songs about demons, devils, vampires and ghosts, supernatural motifs and a sort of Gothic-meets-science-fiction reminiscent of things like the 'Doom' gaming franchise, it just seems to be less of a thematic core, and certainly less of a strong underlying principle or aesthetic.

[An aside on Pastel-Goth: I've seen the term 'Creepy-Cute' used for what is known as 'Pastel-Goth'and I know that this is probably related to the play on words  in Japanese between 'kawaii' (cute) and 'kowoi' (scary), so maybe that is a better term altogether? I also don't know what this aesthetic is called in Japan, which appears to be where it originated.]

I think the word "Gothic" as a term to describe a person whose personality includes that sort of mind-set, those interests, that sort of aesthetic, is under-utilised, and is the answer for a lot of people who aren't Goth specifically, but want an umbrella to identify with - 'Gothic' is probably the better term. Certainly, it's an adjective rather than a noun, and lot of us are used to rolling our eyes (perhaps discreetly) when asked "so, are you a 'goffik'?" but I think it's the perfect term for people who love spooky things, but aren't so keen on the sound of the genres considered 'Goth' and would rather listen to say, metal or darker classical works, or maybe darker folk or similar, and just can't get into fishnet and backcombed hair, and hate clubbing, and as all Goths are inherently a bit Gothic anyway, we're all under the same spooky umbrella, so it's not excluding anyone by saying they're not a Goth, rather including a wider range of people by saying 'we're all Gothic', and most of the arguments over the term Goth don't really stem form what Goth is or isn't, but whether someone is included or excluded from the category. 

My Reflection On The Oxford University Study Into Depression and Goth

A lot of newspapers yesterday were publishing articles based on ::this:: recent study in the Lancet by Dr Lucy Bowes at the Department of Experimental Psychology of the Oxford University, and her team, that saw correlation between teen depression, self-harm and Goth. The study was statistically modified to account for other upbringing/personal background data on the participants that may contribute to an increased risk of depression. 

First of all, I have a two things that, as a member of the subculture at the time these inquiries were made (and in Bristol in 2005 and 2006) and only a few years older than those being asked (so still a teen at that point, and interacting with other subcultural teens, possibly including a few of the cohort asked, with which I wish to mention about this study itself. Psychology and anthropology are not my areas of expertise, but I feel that I have well over a decade of experience of the Goth subculture and have tried my best to fully educate myself on the subculture I belong to (it is part of my obsessive tendencies to thoroughly read anything I can on whatever subject I fall in love with, whether it is cathedral architecture or the Gothic subculture). 

The big thing I was surprised at was that "Emo" and "Metal" never came up as identity categories/subcultures. Emo was much more of a big thing than it is now; it's a subculture that seems on the wane these days, but it was certainly very popular in the mid-to-late '00s, and there is also no category for "Mosher" or "Metalhead", which means that anyone identifying as those things would probably have chosen the closest category, "Goth", especially for young Emos, as there has often been confusion amongst babybats as to what is Goth, what is Emo, and to a lesser degree in terms of broader subculture, but greater degree in terms of music, what is Metalhead, because those three subcultures have a lot of overlapping features, and figuring out which subculture you identify with the most, or which combination, can be a bit complicated to begin with. Heck, when I was a babybat, I was probably closer to a metalhead/scene-kid, but mostly because I didn't really understand what Goth was, and was ignorant to its subcultural history and the broader range of things it encompasses. The age group - teens - also means that this confusion is far more likely to arise than if they asked adults (who also can be Goth, but that is another paragraph) and as such it is likely that this should be "young members of darker alternative subcultures" because I would imagine there are a quite a few in that group who might have been identifying as Goths for the purpose of the survey because they could not identify as Emo or Metal, in order to express subculture despite not having the correct named subculture. The way that the survey was conducted, in terms of being able to identify from 'strongly identify' to 'not at all' would counter that to some degree, but I do think that it would have been clearer to have these separate categories. As categories were not exclusive, those who felt they were part of more than one subculture could have identified as Goth as well as Emo, for example, so it would not have forced those who are still exploring their identity to chose. 

I have also noted a distinct difference in attitude towards negative emotions between Goth and Emo subcultures. I am no expert on Emo, nor one myself, and do not wish to tarnish them by misinterpreting what I have experienced, but what I personally have seen amongst the Emo/Scene people I have interacted with is that there seemed to be a greater tendency to glorify depression and mental ill-health, including self-harm, and a linked tendency to overly identify with the idea that a troubled soul a poet (or other creative type; I'm not being literal) makes. It is not that personal troubles do not make good fuel for the creative forge sometimes, but that I noticed this taken to extremes within Emo sometimes. Emo, by its definition, focuses on music that is Emotional Hardcore (derivative of Metal and hardcore Punk) and one that focuses on one's personal emotional turbulences, from depression and anorexia and other mental illness at one end, to the turbulences of life such as isolation from ones peers and heartbreak, and Goth is a much broader subculture, and while it does embrace the darkness in these manifestations, it also embraces the darkness in a lot of other manifestations. Emo seems to be more about a creative release for one's personal troubles, and Goth seems to be more about appreciating the darkness in the world around you. As such, the effect that joining the two different subcultures, or a combination of them, may have, when it comes to depression, may well be quite different. 

The second thing that I am surprised at is that they chose to look at specifically teens, and seem to be writing as if Goth is a youth subculture, something only partaken of as a teen and young person. Goth may be a phase for some, but it is a lifelong commitment to a beautiful artistic world of dark beauty for some of us. One thing I would be intrigued to know is the breakdown of how many of those that identified as Goths as teens would do so now, and how many of those who didn't might do now. Perhaps it would be interesting to see if there is any relation to those for whom Goth was a phase and higher or lower rates of depression; Goth and other dark subcultures can seem like a place of asylum in the original sense of the word - a haven - somewhere where they can safely express themselves with less judgement than from their conventional peers, and where the content of the culture can be cathartic, or a means to express painful emotions, and maybe if the connection is based more on having a safe group within which to express and be open about troubling emotions, as they fluctuate, or as other coping mechanisms and support networks form, and as adults can be less openly judgemental than teens and more mature in their understanding of mental health, some of those teens may have moved away from Goth. Some of them, like me, may have fallen in love with dark side, and stayed for good! Anyway, to better understand the relation of Goth and depression, it would probably be interesting to see whether those who identified as Goth as teens still did as adults, and how rates of depression continued, including in relation to whether or not they later left the subculture. 

The third thing is that more detailed inquiry into the personal relationship for those who identified as Goth and were showing high indications of depression, was not further explored. I think this was a large enough statistical study as it was, and it would have been hard to transfer personal experience into statistical data when a lot of those relationships are probably not easily quantifiable. Personal testimony and explanation would need to be examined, and that is not a research task I'd have any clue as a person outside of the field, on how to conduct, but I imagine those who are researchers in psychology and anthropology would probably have suggestions (and I image that there are probably a few amongst my readers). One thing postulated at the end of the article in the lancet was whether Goth music would aggravate depression in Goths, but personally, I don't think that "Listening to repeated music from the goth genre might lower mood and exacerbate symptoms of depression" as the paper suggest rings true for Goths; it might work if that music is played to people who don't have a predisposition to liking it, but for most Goths I have met, listening to our music makes us happy; that's why we listen to it! Some find it a release, some find it a comfort in knowing they are not alone, some find it cathartic, but I have never come across a Goth who finds that it makes them feel worse.

I think it is an interesting study to have been done, and I am very happy with the fact that the researchers were clear to state that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUATE TO CAUSATION. Sadly, some of the newspapers and other media have ignored this fundamental point of logic, and some articles have been less than favourable. I am not going to link to those articles, because every page view is revenue for them. I will, however, link to this ::article:: in the Guardian written by Simon Price, who was Goth back in the '80s in London, and I think has had subcultural leanings ever since by what he said in the article. I would also like to commend the BBC on their coverage. They even interviewed one of my friends - Holly Weeping Willow; a Gothic model and someone who is professionally a Goth in other ways - for the radio, although I haven't got a link to that audio yet. Their articles on the subject have been more balanced and the main one can be read ::here::, with a more detailed personal account ::here::. While personal anecdotes can be the "enemy of good science" as Simon Price said in his article, I think it needs to be noticed that similar themes come up in nearly all of them, including my own, and it would indicate to me that perhaps "good science" ought to come in and explore those connections better with proper research. The Independent seems to have a reasonable and balanced article, but with a clickbait headline and that is ::here::.

My main concern is that people will use these findings to target Goths as potentially mentally ill, that it will fuel stigmas that we are all 'crazy' or depressed. That is not the fault of the researchers, who seem keen to avoid this, but of the way some people will use this data for their own agenda. I can't say that I don't have my own protective bias towards the Goth community, because I certainly do (the community has protected me, and I feel duty bound to reciprocate), but I am at least aware of that, and open about it, which is more than I can say for those with a bias against Goth who report in a sensationalist manner about it. 

Is Gothic Lolita a type of Goth?

This is a question I saw posted in the Lolita Fashion Mentoring group on FaceBook.  Here's my take on it as a Goth. 

Short answer: no.  Long answer: sort of...

Gothic Lolita is one of the older subsets of Lolita and is a fashion that applies the Gothic aesthetic to the Lolita template. 

As a fashion, it is certainly Gothic, as the name states, and takes its inspiration from a lot of the same sources as the subset of Goth fashion that is Romantic Goth. Inspiration has gone both ways between Gothic Lolita and Romantic Goth, especially in recent years, and aesthetically they are very closely linked. Both include ruffles, lace, a lot of black and a taste for anachronism, a tendency towards more modest fashion, full skirts, and details from traditional Gothic imagery. 

An aside: I would say that Romantic Goth has suffered in the past from a lot of poor-quality clothes involving cheap, scratchy lace, bad quality velvet and satin, and designs that err towards Hallowe'en vampire and witch costumes, but it seems that in the last 5 years or so, the quality has improved, and the standard has raised, probably partly through social media making it easier for models, photographers and designers to showcase what truly stunning Romantic Goth fashion can look like, thus inspiring the rest of us. Quality is something that is stressed in all forms of Lolita, and I am glad to see this attitude being taken up amongst Goths too. 

In talking about Gothic Lolita's connection to Goth, an easy place to look at is the fashion designer at Gothic Lolita brand Moi-même-Moitié and musician, having played with Malice Mizer and Moi-dix-Moits  Mana. Malice Mizer, original band of Mana, started off with a sound that included a distinct edge of the '80s Goth sound. The style of his rather influential brand - which he named Elegant Gothic Lolita and Elegant Gothic Aristocrat - has certainly taken a lot from the Goth aesthetic. A lot of the early images from the brand, modelled by a cross-dressing Mana, include having teased hair, very large platform shoes, ghostly makeup and dramatic eye-liner, elements which are very distinctly Goth, and have since fallen out of the Gothic Lolita aesthetic, but are still common in the Goth aesthetic.  

Gothic Lolita, however, is much broader than the brand Moi-même-Moitié, as there have been Gothic pieces brought out by plenty of other brands, and the now-infamous black and white colour scheme having had an enduring popularity. Lolita also pre-exists Gothic Lolita, and its earlier incarnations had very little of anything Gothic about them at all. 

Gothic Lolita is also primarily a fashion choice and Lolita a fashion-based subculture, and in that diverges significantly from the Goth subculture, as the Goth subculture is more than just its fashion aspect and places a huge importance on its musical roots and wider creative and cultural aspects.   Gothic Lolita is certainly not tied to the same bands and music as Goth, is not even as closely tied, at least in its incarnations outside of Japan, to Mana and Visual Kei music. 

Aesthetically, the two fashions are related and compatible, and inter-compatible if you want to mix things up (even though at this point it won't be considered Lolita as Lolita means adhering to the template of 'the rules') but they are not the same subculture. They are not mutually exclusive subcultures. It is utterly possible to dress in Gothic Lolita, go to Lolita meet-ups and tea-parties and be active in that subculture and also be active as a Goth; in fact, that's what I'm trying to do, although I don't intend to dress exclusively in Lolita. 

In short, Goth is a subculture that is quite broadly a subculture with a lot more to it than just fashion, and Lolita is a subculture that is primarily about fashion. Gothic Lolita is applying the aesthetic of Goth to the fashion template of Lolita, and as such bridges the gap to a degree. Dressing in Gothic Lolita does not inherently make one Goth, as one would need to participate in the broader Goth subculture, and being Goth does not exclude one from dressing in Gothic Lolita. 

Goth Is Not A 'Hipster' Subculture

I guess this was inevitable with how 'hipster' has become the quirky edge of the mainstream, and how elements of the Goth and Punk aesthetics have been taken up again as visual short-hand for "rebellious" or "edgy", but there are now people who seem to be treating Goth itself as if it is some form of hipsterism. I guess it is because those who appropriate Goth aesthetics and those who are actually Goth are not very visually distinct, combined with how there's an overlap between teenagers using Goth as a means to rebel and be "different" and unique and slightly older hipsters using all sorts of other things for the same ends. 

Aside: I'm not going to say that "Nu-Goth" or "Pastel Goth" are inherently 'hipster', because those things are aesthetics, and many of the people participating in those aesthetics do have a solid grasp on the actual Goth subculture, and are hybridising it rather than just co-opting Goth for a trend. 

Hipsters are apparently people who skim elements from other cultures, who as it was eloquently said on the PBS Ideas Chanel video on Youtube about hipsters, "hipsters enjoy things ironically, and not effusively" that they,"adopt the styles and affects of many cultures, cultures that aren't "theirs", that they don't actually belong to".  Hipsters are inherently appropriative; they seek the cultural capital of other groups, the "authenticity" as a means to make themselves seem more unique, quirky, individual, etc. Hipsters seem to try to buy individuality.

I think this is one of the reasons there has been such a huge outcry over cultural appropriation recently - it is even more infuriating to have people using the trappings of your culture for such purposes if you are part of a minority living in America, Australia, parts of Europe, etc. and have been on the receiving end of discrimination and prejudice because of that culture (or subculture), some of that institutionalised, and now that sort of appropriative outlook has become much more mainstream, whereas 5 to 10 years ago, trends (from what I saw, at least) were a lot more of what Hipsters would call mainstream, and using elements from 'Ethnic' things was seen as a bit "hippie" and weird. 

The Goth aesthetic might have its roots in plenty of pre-existing things (like all art movements) but instead of divorcing meaning, it is primarily built around meaning; ripped fishnets may look nice, but they also connect back to the Punk scene and the early days of Goth and Deathrock, pentagrams are often worn by either practising Pagans or at least people who know of both what they represent in terms of modern-day Neo-Pagan and occult circles and their historical significance, and a lot of avid corset-wearers can tell you more than you thought there was to know about corset history, tight-lacing, boning types, and for the uninitiated, the difference between an under-bust and a waspie... 

Each facet of the Goth aesthetic has behind it a string of connections and interconnections that we, for the most part, understand and care about. It is what ties our aesthetic to the air of morbid curiosity and appreciation for the darker things in life. We don't just look a bit like vampires, a lot of us are very well versed on vampire lore and fiction (for the most part though, WE DON'T THINK WE'RE REALLY VAMPIRES) and there's a reason why raven and bat skulls are more popular than other animal skulls, etc. There's a strong connection to the context, symbolism, inspiration and, for lack of a better term "art history" of our cultural capital. Part of what makes our subculture the way it is that most of us have an interest in that subcultural "art history"; most of us are actively interested in learning about what is behind what we wear, the music, the books, etc. 

I'm not going to say that Goth is not pretentious, as Goth, especially Romantic Goth is inherently a bit pretentious - we KNOW there is a discord between dressing like a vampiric European noble, acting anachronistically and living in the modern world. Some of that is escapism, some of that is a gilded view of the past based in a yearning for a world where doing the old-fashioned things we like in our context is a bit more acceptable, but a lot of that is genuine appreciation and enjoyment of the things we do. It might be pretentious, but at least it is an honest representation of ourselves and our passions; we're aware of those pretensions and take them with humour. 

Romantic Goth and Gothic Lolita: Where I Stand

Recently, I've been getting quite into putting together a Gothic Lolita wardrobe, as an addition to my usual Romantic Goth (or should that be Gothic Romantic in my case?) wardrobe. Thankfully, while the styles are different, there's enough overlap for me not to have to do too much shopping - already have black ruffled blouses, a coffin handbag, a black cat handbag, lots of lacy accessories, fancy tights and ruffled socks,  a selection wigs, a few skirts with enough space for the pouf of petticoats, etc.  This expansion of my style is exactly that - an expansion. I am not "quitting" being a Goth, I'm just adding more variety of black outfits to my selection of black outfits! I don't plan on venturing into Sweet Lolita or Country Lolita or whatnot, just sometimes wearing outfits that adhere to the stylistic 'rules' of Lolita but are very much rooted in my being a Goth. 

Very much still a Romantic Goth
Webcam selfie

Why have I got into the Lolita subculture, then? The emphasis on outfits being well put together, on being co-ordinated is something that appeals to me.  It is a view of fashion where looking good is a skill. The anachronistic stylistic influences are something I was bound to adore - I've always been one to scavenge from various centuries and mix it all together like some kind of vampire that has been adding and altering clothes for hundreds of years with little regard to what is in fashion at any one time, or some kind of time-traveller that has hopped between times and places so often that their wardrobe doesn't really belong to any of them. Lolita provides a framework for these mixed influences, and makes it possible to combine them in a way that is aesthetically pleasing rather than incongruous. 

Finally, a sense of community - there IS definitely a Goth and Alternative community locally, even if it is a small one and even if the Metal community is certainly the predominant local one, and while I certainly do have a circle of friends that share some of my interests, I'm far more likely to have friends who want to go clubbing or to the pub than a tea party or picnic, and I am more inclined to the quieter, more sedate activities of the latter. Don't get me wrong, I do clubbing, but I see that more as an opportunity for some good music and plenty of dancing than socialising, especially as I can hardly hear myself talk, let alone anybody else. Lolitas tend to gather to chat over tea and cake, or perhaps go ice-skating or to the botanical gardens - these are the sorts of group activities that I feel far more comfortable taking part in- even if I might want to go for a stroll around the graveyard or go visiting old buildings too. 

None of this means that I am abandoning my Goth side - this is all in addition to the Goth things I continue to do. I am still going to float around in floor-length skirts and wear fingerless gloves and an over-sized ankh pendant. I'm still going to go visiting graveyards and old buildings and take photographs of ruined castles. I will still be me, and still be Goth, just with a few new dresses. 

Subcultural Appropriation

When Goth Gets Appropriated

Cultural appropriation is usually talked about in the context of mainstream Western culture appropriating elements of other cultures, and using them as shallow exoticism or as a commercialised trend with no reverence or respect to their original context, and I wrote about it here. Goth, while it certainly isn't liked by the mainstream, and does receive a lot of mistreatment, spanning things like the murder of Sophie Lancaster and the attribution of school shootings to a Goth influence, to the regular street harassment of those who dress differently in public and bullying of children and some employers not wanting to hire Goths, this is not on the same scale as racism nor homophobia (although I do think murdering someone on the basis of what subculture they belong to is equally evil to murdering someone on the basis of what culture they belong to). 

Goth is a subculture, and the prejudice against it is more similar to religious intolerance in so much that belonging to a subculture or a religion is choice, whereas what race or sexual orientation you are is an inherent trait. Goth, to many of us (but not all), is quite a central aspect of our life, and perhaps defines as much of our lives as our national culture might, or more, in the same way religion can. I certainly see parallels between how my religion and my subculture impact my life. 

Also, whereas cultural appropriation is linked to the colonial past of Western countries, and therefore to the atrocities committed, while most Goths will account to having been harassed, faced prejudice and possibly faced beatings and violence for their differences, most of us, as Goths (not as other facets of our identities, such as Goths of colour, or transgender Goths) are not, have not, and will not be the target of institutionalised attempts at eradication or enslavement (except perhaps in Russia, where the government HAS put in place sanctions against what has been perceived as dangerous youth movements). 

Anyway, every time Goth-influenced fashion becomes popular in the mainstream, there are cries of "hey, but that's OURS" and contradictory mixture of offence at the commercialisation and glee at the availability of Goth-suitable fashion. I felt like dissecting that a bit.

⚜ Four Reasons Goth-Influenced Style Becoming Trendy Bothers Me

Firstly when Goth influenced fashion becomes trendy, it can make it difficult to visually tell a Goth from someone trying to follow a tend. Of course, this can be clarified by talking to them. Goths  in areas where there are not many other Goths can feel a bit disappointed when in their search for kindred spirits with similar interests they encounter what looks like promising signs of a like-minded individual, only to find that this person has temporarily and shallowly co-opted the Goth aesthetic as part of an 'edgy' trend. It also  becomes annoying if the Goth-as-a-trend-types then behave in a way that isn't appropriate in public (as unfortunately some do) and then it reflects badly on the Goth community because it's not just Goths who can't tell them apart, but outsiders.

Secondly it is infuriating to see the very same people who have insulted you in public for your fashion choices suddenly appropriate your style choices, and they themselves receive little negative attention for it because they are not really associated with the Gothic subculture (and all the negative stereotypes associated with it), they are just following a trend, it's just fashion, nothing deeper. Now, I don't want to tar all hipsters and trendy people as mockers of Goths, because that just isn't the case (some of my friends are hipsters!); being mainstream, trendy or even a hipster does not make one automatically hate Goths or be rude to them, but I have seen literally the same people who once mocked me now wearing studded leather jackets, faux-Doc Marten's and unnatural hair-colours and leggings with inverted crosses on them because this is all trendy now. 

Thirdly people are wearing things that were dear to us without the same appreciation we hold for them. I have met teenagers wearing Bauhaus t-shirts who are barely aware that the band exists, but have never listened to the music (and probably have no idea that it is also an architectural style...) and probably never will (even though I did say they were good and that they should have a listen as they might like them; maybe I am being cynical and they went home and looked them up on iTunes or something.) - if I see someone wearing a band t-shirt, I'd like to think that they like the band, and aren't just wearing the t-shirt because it was black and they thought the design looked cool. 

Fourthly, the Goth aesthetic is often used as visual code for 'edgy' and 'transgressive' - we are certainly different, but I think this plays on some of the negative stereotypes of Goth - if Goths were seen as just other people with different tastes instead of rebellious, scary, potentially violent, obsessed with death, depressed, etc, would using the Goth aesthetic as a visual code for 'edgy' still work? Probably not. 

⚜ Four Good Things About Goth-Influenced Style Being Popular

Firstly, the availability of Goth-friendly items in mainstream stores suddenly sky-rockets. Yes, there will be a lot of cheap fake leather and poorly-attached studs in the shops at the moment, but the better shops will sell medium quality items at prices still less than those of big Goth brands like Raven, and while upmarket shops like Marks & Spencer will carry items that are at their usual upmarket price ranges, they are also likely to be rather nice. A good section of my wardrobe has come from Marks & Spencer via charity shops and eBay, from collections when black velvet, lace and Victoriana have all been fashionable. Everything that is in fashion right now will go out of fashion again soon, and will turn up in charity shops as their current owners change to the latest trend. 

Secondly, it allows those who want to experiment with the aesthetic, but are not ready to commit, to wear clothes they like with less likelihood of being taunted for it. Nobody need suspect that they are not just following the trends if they don't tell anyone and don't take it to the point where it is obvious that they are committed to the subculture. There will also be those who do take it up as part of the trend, but decide that when the trends change again that they will in fact stick with this one, and stumble across something they like via the trend. There will be those who actually look into what the real Goth subculture and aesthetic is about, and perhaps discover something they come to love. 

Thirdly, people may be less likely to judge someone based on their aesthetic choices, both in terms of fashion, and in terms of the music and the rest of the subculture, if they have dabbled on the fringes themselves and found that it did not drag them to Hell or turn them into psychopathic murderers, or make them all depressed - it may, for a few, grant them just enough insight to become more accepting people. Perhaps someone will mistake them for a Goth, and call them an insult in the street, and they will realise how much that insult hurt and never do that to someone themselves. Perhaps it may not change the minds of many, but even if a handful of people come to have a better opinion of Goth, then that is a good thing. 

Fourthly, every now and again mainstream fashion will come out with a Goth-inspired idea that is actually quite good and has not been done much within the subculture, or which has been done, but was not very popular, and which suddenly gets much more exposure. I have seen a lot of all-lace shirts within Goth, but shirts with lace backs and opaque fronts seem to have become quite popular with the Nu-Goth and Goth-inspired hipsters, and I had not seen many of them before, the same with collar-pins - I had seen them within Visual Kei and Rockabilly fashion, but not much amongst Goth, and now I see studs and spikes for collars with chains between them for sale in mainstream accessory shops. Another trend is detachable collars - originally in more 'hipster' styles such as beading, pastel sequins and suchlike, and are now available with things like faux-fur and studs. 

✥⚜✥

Obviously, not everyone who wears trendy clothes does so ONLY to be trendy, and it is unfair to judge someone on sight, and to infer from what they wear that they are wearing them for the wrong reasons. There will be quite a few people who are actually wearing trendy items because they actually genuinely like the item - they may be aesthetic butterflies who do not want to commit to one aesthetic, but they may still genuinely wearing a studded leather jacket because they like leather and studs, and think it looks good, and not to appear 'edgy' or shallowly follow a trend, and they may have never mocked a Goth person in their life and have an accepting and live-and-let-live attitude. Goth itself is about doing things because you genuinely like them, so there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with mainstream people wearing Goth-inspired or Goth items without fully committing to the subculture if they are wearing them out of an appreciation of the item. 

Also, in the end, it is but fashion, clothes, and yes, while our subculture means a lot to us, and the hypocrisy of those who would mock us with one hand and then take their styling tips from us with the other is galling, it does not do any material harm - it is not the same as say, throwing stones at someone or denying someone a job because of their subcultural affiliation. There needs to be some level of perspective. The mainstream fashion industry commercialising our fashion and aesthetic does not stop us from enjoying our own subculture, it does in no way prevent us from still seeing a Bauhaus t-shirt as a way to appreciate the band or from studding our leather jackets ourselves, it just blurs the significance of things to those on the outside. 

I would not judge someone else on what they are wearing, nor presume them to have any of the above motivations on the sole basis of their clothes. That is just as silly as assuming that all Goths look the way we do to actively rebel. I would also not tell anyone what they can and cannot wear. If you live in a country where there are no laws restricting your fashion choices, then you are free to wear what you like, and the same freedom that allows Goths to wear Goth clothes extends to non-Goths wearing Goth clothes. 

As always, I recommend never approaching others with pre-concieved notions of what they might be like before knowing them, and being polite even with those whom you disagree with, and that extends to people who are wearing your favourite band t-shirt but don't know who, say, Siouxsie and the Banshees, actually are.

⚜ Goth Hallowe'en 'Costumes'

We are a subculture, not a costume. It is not acceptable to dress up as a terrorist Muslim, it is not acceptable to dress up as a 'Squaw' (that word, by the way, is an insult to Native North American women) and it is not acceptable to dress up as a Chinese person with taped eyes and a coolie hat because these are all reducing groups of people to flat and sexualised or negative stereotypes and perpetuating those stereotypes. 'Goth' costumes often present a sexualised (sexy-fied) stereotype of Goth, and one that errs on the 'Goths are people who think they are vampires' and 'Goths are slutty and into kinky sex' stereotypes a bit too much for comfort. There are also those who, like those who wear the racial stereotype costumes, wear them to mock those stereotypes, people who wear Goth costumes in a way that deliberately mock what they think Goths are. THAT really annoys me. 

I live the Goth subculture 24 hours a day; even my dreams run to the same aesthetic as everything else I do, even my work clothes err on the Gothic. I have Joy Division and Dead Can Dance on my headphones when I sit on the bus. I have spider-web loo-roll and black plates. To say I am passionate about my subculture is a bit of an understatement, and to know people use Hallowe'en as an excuse to mock us is... well irritating to say the least. Especially when Hallowe'en is often quite dear to Goths. 

Now, wearing a Goth outfit at Halloween isn't inherently inappropriate. I've actually helped a friend put together a proper Goth outfit at Halloween, but it consisted of clothes that would actually be considered Goth (from her wardrobe and mine) rather than a tacky and cheaply-made, store-bought costume, and she wore Goth makeup rather than white and black face-paint. Her intention was not to mock Goths, her outfit was based on what is authentically Goth in consultation with a Goth, and she wore her outfit as an opportunity to explore a different way of looking for a night. Yes, the idea that it can still be considered a 'costume' could still be grating to some, as to her it was something different to wear for a night and not a form of expressing her permanent inner self and subcultural affiliation, but I don't think that this was not done in any  malevolence and what she wore was actually Goth and not a tawdry parody of Goth.

✥⚜✥

At some point I will write some musings about Goth and teenage rebellion, and where the lines between exploring identity and using Goth as a tool for shock value get blurred. 

Goth, Definitions and Inclusivity vs. Elitism

Today I ended up in a rather involved and passionate debate over what it takes to be a Goth.

The term Goth, or any other label, exists to summarise interests in terms of describing an aesthetic, a musical genre, and participation of a subculture.  In terms of the word 'Goth' describing a level of participation in the subculture, to me  there is a sort of Goth 'triumvirate' of aspects (I know that the word triumvirate refers usually to three leading people) - a Goth is someone that is interested in Goth music, admires the Goth aesthetic (including fashion) and has the broader mindset and lifestyle. A Goth is someone who is involved in all three aspects. Some believe that the term Goth can apply to someone who is involved in only two of  the three. I know that what does and does not constitute the music, lifestyle or aesthetic is up for enough debate, let alone the level of involvement it takes to call oneself a Goth, and that each Goth probably has their own standards, but that is the definition I use. 

What I actually want to talk about is not so much where to draw the line, but how that line is used in the subculture.

It seems that in attempts to be very inclusive of people with a variety of interests, all sorts of things that are not actually Goth, and sometimes not even alternative or dark, get lumped under the term, as do other subcultures such as Steampunk and Lolita. I have no problem with being accepting of people with interests in Goth and other subcultures, people who have hybrid subcultural affiliation, and other forms of subcultural and cultural cross-polination, but for the term Goth to remain a useful description, it needs to have some sort of definition. One does not need to say, for example "oh, Gothic Lolita is Goth" or some such in order to socially accept Gothic Lolitas. All that does is muddy the waters and make it more difficult for people to communicate their actual interest - the proliferation of terms has coincided with the proliferation of hybrid subcultures, new subcultures and    , with the rise of the internet, a globally connected alternative scene where people want to communicate with and connect to people with similar interests. If the term 'Goth' becomes too broad, it stops signifying a reasonable amount of potential interests and becomes vague. 

The biggest issue, though, is the imaginary correlation between Goth-ness and acceptance, and a concept that how Goth someone is equates to how cool, or how pretty, or how interesting, or how nice they are as a person or a whole load of other equally unrelated assumptions and non-existent relationships between terms.  If you accept or reject people purely on how close they stick to a label, then you are probably a very shallow person indeed - people are a lot more than the sum of their music collection,  clothes and interests. There is nothing wrong with being a metalhead that likes Goth fashion, or a Gothic Lolita that likes Goth music, and just using terms like those to describe it should not mean a lack of acceptance by the groups involved, but sadly it seems that some people feel that unless they are 'true Goths' they can't have acceptance, and equally, there are people who would have Goth as an isolated subculture exclusively for participation in by those who are, to them, 'true Goths'. Surely we should be open-minded and accepting enough for it not to matter how Goth someone is? 

There seems to be a confusion between the exclusivity inherent in a term that describe something - as for a term to be a valid description a word does have to exclude certain things,  for example the word purple does not mean pink, red or blue, it only means purple; pink and, red and blue not being purple doesn't make those other colours any less colourful, it just makes them not purple - and a sense of exclusivity in terms of a closed club for only certain people. People should be able to freely participate in the subculture at any level they choose, from an interest in only certain aspects of it, to living as a Goth for all 24 hours of every day, all seven days of every week and all 365 (or 366) days of every year, and do so without judgement. It is far more important for people to be true to themselves than it is for them to adhere to a label. Goth is not an exclusive club or a clique; it is a descriptive term; there is no value judgement to it. It is open to participation by anybody interested, and people can participate at a variety of different levels and contribute in a variety of ways. 

Acceptance of non-Goths with an interest in the subculture should not be a case of "You're not goth enough, but I still like you" as if whether or not liking someone has ANY RELEVANCE to how much they participate in the subculture, on what level, and in what manner. Those things ARE NOT RELATED, or at least should not be. It is creating some kind of relationship between acceptance and aesthetic/musical preference/lifestyle that I see as the problem. You can like someone who does not have all the exact same interests as you do, and you can despise someone who does - there are certainly people who share a huge amount of common interests with, but whom I cannot stand (and sometimes wish I could hit over the head with a sturdy cane...).

If it was not for the term 'Goth' being used for the purposes of creating social boundaries, we'd be discussing what musical techniques define the sound in musical terms, or what artistic movements have contributed and how the visual aesthetic can be described, or some such instead of discussing elitism and exclusivity. To me, Goth is something akin to Romanticism; a creative movement, something defined by a musical and visual aesthetic and way of looking at the world, and therefore, ultimately something like Romanticism or Impressionism. Nobody argues over whether the definitions of either are elitist (or at least not anywhere I come across) because as historical movements of times past, the terms mean little in terms of social inclusion or acceptance in the present day (says someone who calls herself a latter-day Romantic) and thus people feel much freer to define them by specific aesthetic, musical, literary and philosophical styles and differences. 

It is time that elitism within Goth dissipates, and that people feel free to clear about their interests, and to admit their extra-subcultural interests, or a desire not partake in certain aspects, without people judging them as somehow lesser for not being Goth enough. Such shallowness breeds a feeling that it is somehow  not right to explore or other paths, or to admit that for example, one likes the fashion but not the music. There is nothing inherently wrong in liking Goth fashion but preferring say, folk music. It might not be Goth music, but if the person is happy listening to it, then there is no issue. There is far more of an issue when people force themselves to adhere to a certain subculture against their own preferences in order to feel accepted. 

Goth, Hate and Ignorance

☠ WARNING: RANT AHEAD ☠

I am in foul mood, and a rant is ahead - you have been warned. 

Amongst the slurs aimed at Goths, I have noticed a trend - I think a lot of the people who hate us have only met those amongst Babybats who are perhaps the least representative of the subculture, not even representative of Babybats, and are more in it for the shock factor and to seek attention than Goth being a true representation of themselves.

The Negative Stereotype

Goths are sullen, moody teenagers. We're white, from a middle-class background, and complain without reason in the face of a privileged life, or are always depressed. We dress the way we do to "rebel", we think we are special snowflakes, unique and individual and soooo non-conformist. We listen to Marilyn Manson, Evanescence and My Chemical Romance. We self-harm, and self-harm for attention. We wear white-face makeup and lots of chains. All male goths are gay, or transvestites, and all female goths are lesbians. Goth girls are promiscuous and all goths are into fetishes. We live with our parents, will either grow into sad, unemployed adults or give up looking weird at college. We're rude, anti-social and cliquish, and we think we're a cut above the rest. Goths are either anorexic or morbidly obese. They're ugly, using their freakish style to try and hide behind, etc. Goths are Nazis, or shoot up schools. Etc. etc. 

This is the view I see come across in various goth-bashing post on the internet; on YouTube, on forums, in the comment sections of various pages. I'm pretty sure if you've seen a Goth video on YouTube you'll have come across some of this sort of nonsense in the comments section. It's also surfaced in real life situations where people have expressed their intolerance towards Goths. You might have noticed the latent homophobia and sexism, and also the fact that it is self-contradictory. The self-contradictory nature is probably because it is coalesced from a variety of hatred spewed forth on the internet and real life (although there are quite probably people who hold these self-contradictory views too). Anyone who has spent any time in the subculture or is friendly with actual Goths will see this as nonsense far removed from the actual nature of the subculture, but this is the stereotype that remains.

Mostly, it is ignorance, closed-mindedness and an intolerance for people who are different, but somewhere in there I think there's people who have had bad experiences with those they think are Goths. Now, I don't doubt that there are few adult Goths who are neither young nor Babybats who give the subculture a bad name and act deplorably - especially as I have met a few - but the majority of these stereotypes reflect the behaviour of the more obnoxious younger pseudo-Goths; not a reflection of Babybats as younger members of the subculture or as those just starting out in the subculture, or even as those meandering through subcultural identities in search of their own, but a reflection of those people who use the subculture as a means to play the rebel or seek attention or who seem so caught up in the false stereotypes of the subculture that they become living embodiments of them. 

Goths are not all depressed, but this is a common stereotype. There is this concept that we are indulging in melodramatic angst when there is nothing really wrong with our lives. Most Goths I know are actually relatively happy people, they have their ups and downs, and I think are more likely to be open about when they are down than those in the mainstream, but are not, on the whole, particularly miserable people. Maybe it exists because Goth music has been dark and a bit depressing since the days of Joy Division, and this has probably been around for as long as the subculture. In recent years this has been worsened by the conflation of Goth with Emo, and the negative portrayal of Emo being all about depression, or worse, affected depression for attention.

Goths and Emos are often conflated in hate comments, and there seems to be a genuine lack of distinction made between the two, although one would think that on looking at a Goth and an Emo that they even look vastly different. This conflation is really annoying me, especially when perpetuated by the media., and so do people conflating Goth and Punk. It's like not being able to tell the difference between deer, sheep and goats. Lots of people have already written about the differences between Goth and Emo and between Goth and Punk and suchlike, so there is no need for me to go into it here.

The stereotype of the sullen teenager writing angsty poetry, acting in a melodramatic manner exists for a reason. Teenage years are complicated, confusing times which make a lot of young people unhappy, especially in a modern world where so much pressure is put on young people to have flourishing social lives, be sexually active, and keep up to date with trends as well as deal with the sorts of issues that come with puberty and with secondary education and whatever may be happening in their family lives. A lot of teenagers seek release in various subcultures, and sometimes do so in less than advisable manners, but that is no fault of the subculture, and while the teenagers who do this do need to be held responsible, there should be full acknowledgement of how even with all modern technology and trained adults, that the teenage years will always include mistakes, mistakes we should learn from to become better adults. That is what being a teenager is about.

The part that does, however, get to me, is the part where people do things for attention. Self-harm is a serious issue, real mental illness is very serious too, but there are people who fein mental illness for attention, and will even go as far as to self-harm for attention, or to emotionally manipulate people, and this causes a lot of problems for people who do have self-harm problems and mental health issues. I had mental health issues as a teenager, and self-harmed, but it was often pushed aside with me merely being an 'attention-seeker' in the eyes of those I was trying to seek help from and my subcultural interests I think did not do anything to sway their opinions in my favour. This sort of behaviour causes real harm to people.

There are also those who use  Goth, among other subcultures as a method of getting attention - these are the people who wear all the "gothiest" things at once regardless of whether or not they clash, that claim that they really are vampires to everyone in their school, threaten to curse people, or even threaten to shoot their fellow pupils, say rude things about "preps" or "chavs", claim to be Satanists while ignorant of actual Satanism, graffiti things with scrawled pentagrams, think Marilyn Manson is shocking, and generally try and act like they are spookiest, most evil thing to ever go to secondary school/high school/college/etc. They want to shock, they want to get attention, and they don't necessarily realise that they are embarrassing themselves and making the subculture look bad, and if they receive negativity for their behaviour, claim it is discrimination on account of their subculture. Attention seekers often think of themselves as special snowflakes, too, and are people who try and gather to themselves labels that set them apart from the majority, to make themselves ever more esoteric, and Goth can be a convenient label.

If someone is seeking attention then they are making a determined effort to be noticed, and it is these attention seekers that are therefore more likely to stick in people's minds. Those who are particularly negative in one way or another are also more likely to be remembered than those who behave politely and decently.

I have explained before how Goth is not an act of rebellion, simply a set of differing tastes, a subculture rather than a counter-culture. We are not trying to be "nonconformist". 

The mental image that many have of a Goth, as someone with white-face makeup, badly done or over-done eye-makeup, lots of chains and the sorts of clothes and accessories that were available in Hot Topic in the early '90s or in Claire's Accessories now (although I admit I have bought gloves, socks and  earrings from Claire's, as there are some nice things in amongst the tat, but my experience has usually been of things of low quality and over-priced), trying very hard to act the spooky part, perhaps being sarcastic and cliquish, or acting with pretension and superiority (such as referring to non-Goths as "mundane mortals" in seriousness) is not a representative of Goths, it is representative of Babybats and Mallgoths, who either are just learning in their subcultural beginnings or are going through a phase. Most people do not think of the many talented artists and musicians in the scene, or the elaborate outfits of Whitby Gothic Weekend or Wave Gotik Treffen, or of anything representative of just how amazing, well-done and classy Goth can be.

The homophobia, sexism, heteronormative bias, and suchlike inherent in the sort of hatred that says "Goth guys are gay because they wear makeup" or "all goth girls are dykes because they wear combats and have piercings and listen to angry music" and similar is a representation of just how inculcated into mainstream Western culture these attitudes have become. I am not here to write about gender and sexuality and society; there are reams of articles already in existence on these topics, and I am not going to paraphrase people who are far more studied and eloquent on the topics than I am. 

A lot of people who have, for one reason or another, felt uncomfortable looking "normal" have found Goth and other alternative-looking subcultures helpful to them. There are certainly Goths with eating disorders of various sorts. There are also Goths who are not traditionally "pretty" or "handsome" and suchlike. Some people find being able to create their own appearance through creativity and artifice a whole new way to be beautiful when not happy with the way they naturally look, and that is a) not necessarily a bad thing and b) not unique to Goth. There are Goths of all shapes, sizes and Goths of all colours, from paler than pale to goths of colour who are more than just black in terms of their clothes. Goths are vastly variant in appearance and body-type. 

A lot of Goths remain so long into their adult years and have successful careers, often in careers that require a significant amount of education and are certainly respectable, and often well-paying. Just look at blogs such ::Siouxsie Law:: or ::Sophistique Noir:: or ::The Dancing Maenad::  (previously ran Le Professeur Gothique) for proof of well-educated and successful adult Goths (as well as really interesting blogs). 

The last three paragraphs are things that members of the subculture already know, but yet somehow elude those outside of it, as do many of the ways in which the stereotype differ wildly from the actuality of the Goth subculture. As to the BDSM community confusion, ::this article:: at The Everyday Goth should be helpful, and as to the "goths are Nazis that shoot up schools", most of the blame can be put on the shoulders of the media coverage of the Columbine massacre. 

I am not blaming Babybats or even Mallgoths for the discrimination Goths face - only the people who discriminate against us are to blame for their actions. Babybats are not bad people, they are not deliberately giving Goth a bad name, and a lot of them are simply new to the subculture and people judging Goth by the efforts of Babybats are as misguided as people judging the whole of archery by the people who do it for an afternoon on an adventure holiday. Even attention seeking pseudo-Goths are not to blame, however annoying they may be, for the actions of others. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions. 

The Babybats a person meets at secondary school, or the Mallgoths lurking in the local shopping-centre may be the only Goths and Goth-like people that a lot of people outside the subculture interact with, partly because they are the most numerous as those for whom Goth is a phase will often have it as a teenage phase, and partly because a lot of older Goths tend to keep their subcultural affiliation fairly quiet. 

I do think, though, that more needs to be done to show the positive side of Goth, to show what the subculture is really about. The resources are there, but somehow both the mainstream and younger Babybats are not getting them, because the stereotypes remain, and even people who are interested in Goth seem to be getting stuck at the level of these stereotypes. I think the answer is for ordinary Goths to stick their heads above the parapet a bit more, for all the beautiful, creative, and wonderful sides of the subculture to be allowed to outshine all of the flawed characters and fringe members and things that just go a bit wrong that come with it being a subculture made of real human people with all of their human strengths and weaknesses, and for the subculture to encourage the best in its members and make it clear what Goth is really about, so that however much the term is abused by people twisting it for their own ends, that such abuses are infinitely outweighed. 

Goth, Subcultures and Middle-Class Rebellion

It seems that there is this belief, mostly amongst non-Goths, that Goth is seen as an identity people take on in order to be visibly rebellious against a middle-class upbringing, and that for Goths past university age that it is a variation on being a "trustafarian". This, I think, misinterprets the motivations of those who become Goth - it is not done as an active rejection or rebellion of anything, simply as the enjoyment of music, fashion and art outside the mainstream. It has become a subculture, but it is not a counterculture in the way of Punk or Hippie - Goth is more concerned with arts than politics, especially music. 

In seeking artistic fulfilment, whether musical, fashion-related, visual, or otherwise, in taboo areas such as lyric content about death, dark romance and the occult or in macabre art or in clothes, accessories and a personal appearance that are easily identifiable as different from the mainstream, the mainstream then perceives Goths engaged in an active rebellion against them, rather than simply preferring something else. As a large proportion of contemporary Goths come from a middle-class background, Goth has become viewed as something done by disaffected middle-class youths trying to assert independence and difference from their middle-class upbringings. Goth, though, is not a middle-class phenomena, it is a cross-class phenomena, and one that grew out of Punk, a subculture once seen as working-class. 

I think part of the reason that Goths tend to be seen as middle-class pseudo-rebels is the fact that unlike other subcultures, Goth is not a counterculture, and therefore not incompatible with dominant western culture (not having talked to any goths in the Middle East, Africa or the Far East, or been there myself I cannot comment on their experiences) because while it does tend to be more tolerant towards things such as having a radically different appearance, being interested in non-mainstream and occult spirituality, and not adhering to gender norms, and in looking for beauty in places otherwise considered taboo, it does not have a political or cultural group of accepted beliefs. Whether a person holds beliefs counter to those upheld by the mainstream, or more radical than those of the mainstream or even in accordance is up to the individual, and not related to subcultural affiliation. 

One of the ways that Goth is different to the mainstream in terms of values is the importance of self-made cultural signifiers over bought cultural signifiers - Goths tend to value someone sewing their own bustle-skirts and fancy jackets over them being bought, and while judgement may be passed on the quality of the final product by some, the desire to create for oneself will be lauded, not just for the skill required, but because creating emancipates one from having to buy into mass-produced concepts and allows for originality and a heightened level of freedom of expression bound only by courage and skill. Making one's own clothes has often been mocked as either being a forced condition of poverty (strange in a country where it is cheaper to get clothes from a discount retailer such as Primark or from a charity shop than it is to buy materials to make clothes, although this does not necessarily stand for alternative clothes - it is cheaper to buy a t-shirt than to make one, it is cheaper to make a bustle gown than to buy one) or an attempt to be deliberately countercultural - i.e simply doing so because the mainstream isn't - rather than simply as a way to have clothes that fit correctly and look exactly the way the wearer intends, or at least hopefully rather close to that vision. 

Goths may also have a tendency to end up socio-economically as middle class, regardless of their backgrounds, because there is tendency for us to be more intellectually or academically inclined. I was certainly a bookish, academic sort at school, the sort that was skipped a year and went to literature and chess clubs as well as pursuing various musical interests, despite having survived childhood abuse and coming from a low-income single-parent household, and many of my Goth friends are either in academia as a career or have gone through higher education in the more intellectually challenging fields, and some of those despite coming from backgrounds that could be considered "challenging" or "disadvantaged" and others from a rather varied selection of backgrounds, but my personal experiences do not speak for all. While the economy is struggling in my country at least, it still stands that having a degree or two in a subject that is applicable to specialist industries is certainly useful in terms of career prospects and thus socio-economic status. Goths also tend to have a certain level of self-determination which gives them the courage to defy convention enough to wear alternative clothes or listen to non-mainstream music, but also gives them a level of ambition and direction. 

Also, some of the more visible Goths, and thus the ones that are noticed by non-Goths and the mainstream, are going to be the ones with the more elaborate or polished appearances, and terms of items such as jewellery, boots and unusual clothing, if bought these can be rather expensive, unaffordable to the poor or working class without very careful saving. Also, to the outside, those who have self-made outfits that are highly elaborate and have considerable skill in their creation maybe assumed to have bought them simply because it is perceived that ordinary people simply don't have the skill to make clothes and accessories like that any more, and that these are antiquated crafts lost to history. When non-Goths ask me about items I have made myself, or even modified, there is a continual reaction of shock that I really did make something myself, that it wasn't produced in a factory or produced in a factory the way it now is. Goths tend to place higher value on something being aesthetically pleasing than expensive, and, as mentioned before, on crafting and creating for oneself, so outfits that look expensive may be, but at the same time, they may be made from recycled charity shop clothes on a budget sewing machine (at least mine are). 

Some Goths do hold an antagonism towards the mainstream, at least partly because Goths do come on the receiving end of unpleasantness from non-Goths, and this is then perceived as representative of the mainstream attitude towards Goths, although that attitude actually varies widely dependent on location and current trends, and of course, is incredibly diverse on an individual level. There are those amongst the Goth subculture that do hold views not really in accordance with the mainstream (or the local mainstream) and who do have views critical of modern western society (I certainly do) and who use the subculture as a vessel for their countercultural beliefs. There are also those who do see Goth as a vehicle for youthful rebellion, or a way to assert their identity as separate from that of those around them, or simply to antagonise their parents and things they see as "the establishment". None of these facets, though, is representative of the subculture as a whole, and can even be seen as an appropriation of the subculture for a personal agenda (and in the case of those appropriating the subculture for antagonistic shock value, or for garnering attention, doing so in a damaging and negative way). 

I think there is also an assumption that in order to have the time to actually ponder concerns like the one I am writing about, or to "indulge" in the arts or music, that one must be at least middle class-because it is assumed that otherwise I would be too busy trying to make a living. At one point I was at college, working in a supermarket, and going to evening classes - I wrote observational poetry in the quiet moments in the supermarket, on the back of discarded receipts. While an active pursuit of the arts, like learning a musical instrument from a teacher, or going to concerts and the sorts of exhibitions where you have to pay, does require financial resources, it is possible to be personally involved and interested in the arts with little in the way of resources. I taught myself to play piano, partly because I could not afford a tutor, and yes, it took a long time, and yes, my technique is highly unorthodox (and probably self-defeating on occasion) but I can now play things with relative competency and musicality, I draw on cheap office paper with the biros that are given away free in banks or with catalogues, I make and modify my fashion out of things I bought in charity shops. A passion for creativity may be bracketed in terms of its final form by resources and circumstance and opportunity, but not in its existence. Goth, as a subculture focused on artistic expression, especially music, is therefore bracketed only in form by resources, not in vision, passion or inclusion. Passion and determination can to a certain degree prevail over circumstance and lack of opportunity.  

Gothic & Lolita, Globalisation of Culture, and Femininity

I've just read a really interesting article/essay on Gothic & Lolita internationally. It is part of a peer-reviewed journal published by the Japan Foundation, and as such is a bit academic, but it points out a lot of interesting things that people in the Lolita subculture probably already know, but those who are interested in it but have an external point of view may find interesting. It is ::here::  It's mostly from a perspective about the flow of culture globally, and how the view of 'Amercian-based culture taking over everything' is not always true, but it makes interesting points about how Lolita fits a niche in the West, and it is a subculture where femininity is not taken from the patriarchal perspective - cuteness and demureness aren't a symbol of weakness and inferiority and as the mainstream see cuteness as reserved for children, whereas in Japan the concept of kawaii is apparently more of an all-ages thing, although I'm not sure Japan is the idyl of tolerance a lot of Western Lolitas dream it is, although personally I think this is because it is still ridiculed and marginalised by the mainstream, and believing that 'somewhere it's better than it is here' gives a glimmer of hope. Anyway, if you have time to read it, I think it is interesting. 

Goth, Subcultures and Conformity

I originally published this on Dec 18th, 2008, on a previous blog, but over 3 years on I still find it applicable, especially as I still get the accusation that I'm failing to be nonconformist by conforming to a subculture, as if I actually adhere to the conformist/nonconformist duality nonsense.

I read a blog entry that now seems to have moved, or ceased to exist, originally at Subculture.Blat. I can no longer remember reading it, and appeared to be mostly in agreement at least at the time, although my opinions may have since changed and I can't remember what it was I previously agreed with, but there is one point I objected to. It is not paradoxical that we Goths look for acceptance in a Gothic community while distancing ourselves from the mainstream.

Most of the Goths I know are neither trying to deliberately distance themselves or deliberately join a group. Most Goths are Goths because they like the fashion, music and lifestyle.

Some Goths do make a point of rejecting the mainstream, of putting distance between themselves and wider society. I do. I have found popular culture vacuous at best, and dangerous at worst, and would like to have nothing to do with it. That is not to say that all people in mainstream society are bad people, they are not, it is just that mainstream society is centred around ideals that are often the polar opposites of my own, such as materialism, celebrity worship, consumerism, selfishness and instant gratification.

This rejection of these conventional ideals is not a purely Gothic phenomenon. It has been passed down through all the various subcultures from the Romantics onwards. It is why subcultures exist. Yes, some subcultures have replaced these 'mainstream' faults, and I do think they are faults, with faults of their own, but the thread of realisation that living a self-serving life of materialism, greed and instant gratification is a path to ruin has been kept. Some of these subcultures have changed the world. Modern society, modern conventional society as well as modern subcultural society, has been forever changed by the hippies of the 1960s, for better and for worse.

But rejection of the mainstream does not mean rejection of any form of society. We may have been outcasted by ordinary society, and we may have deliberately distanced ourselves from ordinary society, but this does not mean we do not want to be in a community, and do mot value altruism, friendship and participation in the wider world. No, all it means is we do not want to be a part of a culture whose values we reject, and are quite happy to form subcultures, and interact between various subcultures, in groups that are almost contemporary tribes formed by common ideals, fashions and mini cultures rather than by nationality or heritage.

It is not that we reject being accepted, it is that we reject being part of the majority, or at least this is true for me. It is not that I think myself "better off alone", just better off away from the annoying banality of the ordinary, away from an empty popular culture and a society that is consuming itself. Rejection of one group does not mean a rejection of the idea of groups. It also does not mean we want the mainstream to hate us. Actually, I, at least, would like to see popular society accept Goths as part of the world, and take on positive values from all the subcultural and counter-cultural communities.

Goths who are desperately trying to be as alternate as possible, with the sole intention of being as different as possible from everyone else are not the majority of Goths, and it is not a case of just trying to avoid conforming to anything. Most Goths realise that they are conforming to what is expected of Goth, and most of them aren't doing it to fit in, they're doing it because they genuinely like it. I still wear colours occasionally, and I listen to folk and classical music, and I don't think it makes me any less Goth, I think it just makes me more me...

I don't like people who deliberately try to be as different from everybody else as possible, trying to distance themselves and reject everyone, usually because they have been rejected by everyone, dressing "to shock others... ...forcing the world to recognise them, but refusing to be a part of it", simultaneously crying for attention and pushing the world away. It does not seem to me a mature way to deal with the situation. I acted like that when I was about 13 or 14, and it does no good. Thankfully most of those people, like me, grow out of it. Thankfully most of them grow to have enough true self-esteem to not require such social coping strategies.

I may be openly walking a different path to the mainstream, but I do not do so out of bitterness and a desire for attention. I do so because that is the road I wish to walk. I accept that I am human, completely human, and I do not think holding something in common with other human beings a fault. I realise that I have my faults. I suspect my road probably has faults I cannot see from where I stand. I do not see difference as a virtue, nor as a vice, just as something that is.

I may reject mainstream society, but I do not reject humanity, and I think a lot of people are good people, and a lot of people are moving away from the faults of modern society as those faults become ever more apparent. I have also noticed that what was the mainstream is slowly holding less sway. Progress seems to be being attained by inches, but there is progress.