The Hippie Debate
My friend Israel and I have been having the same argument for almost the entirety of our relationship. Every time I think it has died, it somehow raises its ugly head again. It's been so drawn out that I can't remember exactly the whole matter began, but it must have been with something along the lines of the following phrases:
"I saw this old hippie guy walking down the street..."
"Open Harvest is this great local co-op, kind of like a hippie grocery store..."
"That one barista at the Mill, you know, the one who wears the hippie clothes..."
Regardless of what exactly I said, the point is that I used the word "hippie" as an adjective within Israel's earshot. (Israel, from what I gather, has a strong distaste for labels.) He maintains, firmly, loudly, and passionately, that "hippie" should not under any circumstances be used as an adjective. He similarly eschews the words "hipster" and "indie."
A hippie, he correctly informs, is a member of the hippie youth-movement subculture of the 1960s. (The word "hippie" is derived from "hipster," and hipsters lived in the 1940s.) Naturally, most everyone can conjure an image of a weed-smoking, long-hair-and-beads-wearing, peace-loving, tie-dyeing hippie from the '60s, and perhaps your stereotypical mental picture is dead-on for the average hippie. The point is that hippies, by definition, were young and lived in the 60s, among other things. Therefore, they no longer exist--those who are young no longer live in the 60s, and those who lived in the 60s are no longer in their youth.
And yet I use the word hippie as an adjective. I wouldn't say that I use it regularly--people who want to be known as hippies probably don't fit the description, and those I'd use it for probably don't like the label. I'll occasionally use it to describe the co-op I belong to, though, as a "hippie grocery store." I think this is an accurate description. The health food trend was highly influenced by 60s hippie culture, but that's not the only reason I think Open Harvest is on the hippie side. Red Clover, for instance, is another health food grocery store in town, and I would not call it hippie. The typical OH employee seems to be young, peace-loving, and a shopper at Family Thrift who religiously goes without deodorant. The typical RC employee seems to be a wife with health insurance, a home-owner, and wearing floral musk perfume. Neither of these descriptions is positive or negative, but they're certainly different.
My mom and I have more than once discussed my use of the word "sucks." To her, using that word is terribly vulgar. To my generation, it's just a run-of-the-mill negative adjective. In no way am I thinking about a sexual act when I say something sucks. The sexual connotation of "sucks" has largely disappeared, much in the same way it did for "jerk" during my parents' youth.
Words and their definitions evolve over time, and I maintain that "hippie" has evolved to describe someone or something that is reminiscent of the hippie subculture of the 1960s. I'll try not to use it around Israel because I'm tired of arguing about it, and I think using it as a noun ("She is such a hippie!") is probably less than useful. But I find it useful for describing the long-haired, bearded, bandanna-wearing guy who runs the Nebraskans for Peace movement, as well as McFoster's Natural Kind Cafe in Omaha.
What do you think? (Israel, feel free to add your two cents!)
4 comments:
I think you've used at least the adjective hippie referring to me before. I used to say I wanted to be a hippie, and I used to sincerely think that I was on my way. I had glorified images of that lifestyle in my head.
But I've since come to shun any label, and fiercely. It's hard to remember not to apply labels to others, but I suppose thats a humankind wide problem...
I think that drugs are the largest part of what makes a true hippie just that. At least, in the purer sense of the label...I know you're not using it like that when describing the Open Harvest. I don't have personal experience and that whole thing, but I've gotten very close to a few people who do...
Unrelated: you should change my blog link to my new one... lemmingtree.blogspot.com
Also, if you haven't already, check out http://www.couchsurfing.com/
Katie, as individual people are, and as dangerous stereotyping is, it is still necessary to have labels. Labels are simply names for groups of individuals (or objects/art) which have something in common. To take away labels would be to take away names for our genders, races, colours and whatever else creates variety. The important thing in labels is to do so appropriately and in a manner that creates clarity, not confusion. When a label makes situations more confusing than previously, then it is probably better just not to use it at all.
You know full well what a hippie is (or was). Therefore if you were to describe a particular individual, store, or item of clothing as "hippie," that's okay as long as people know what you mean by that. By saying "hippie guy" I assume that the man in question acts in a manner that is similar to the labels' namesakes from the '60s. This may include style of clothing, depth of facial hair, attitude towards life, or perhaps even profligate sex and drug use. Maybe you mean something different altogether.
The trouble with labels is that people see what they perceive, not what is really there. To one person a hippie might be a friendly man who shared bread when hungry. Another person may have been raped by a hippie. You can see how these people would work their own stories into the adjective, even though you didn't mean for them to be there. Don Miller talks about this in Blue Like Jazz, how he can't defend the label of Christianity because it means something different to so many different people.
When with me, you would be as free to describe something as "hippie" as to use "yuppie" and "flapper" as adjectives. It's really hard to describe people and things in a way that really fits and makes sense to everyone around, but it beats just having no labels at all. Just be sure to be specific. Make sure that people understand what you mean.
And now, after that speech (silly pedro), I shut my jaw. *snap*
Maybe Israel would be satisfied with "hippie-ISH" so as to make the distinction between the actual and the referential?
Even if you don't use labels, you still organize things and people in your world by categories. You can't escape it. To refuse to use labels seems silly to me - like Pedro said, it's necessary in order to make important distinctions and reduce confusion in our communication.
If your use of labels is adding to the confusion then there's obviously a problem with them. But to refuse to use labels simply because they are misused at times is ridiculous.
peter, you need to become a sociologist...lol :)
i find this blog so funny because i know i use the term hippie pretty frequently, and pretty much in the same context that you do. i think as long as you don't accept a label just because that is what people call you, then you are still acting as an individual. however, when you do one deviant act (aka something hippie-ish), people start calling you a hippie, and in response to both you continue doing hippie-ish things, then you are just acting for the sake of society. (ignore my huge run-on sentence there)
oh, and in response to dan's post about couch surfing, two of my best friends were in guatemala this winter and actually met two guys who were couch surfers. the guys are now in columbia i think, although they were originally from england :)
Post a Comment