Terranova
I’m not sure if I’m the only one that had difficulty with this reading, but I am going to take a stab at what I believe is the point that Terranova is trying to make. She basically believes that subcultural movements have helped capitalism become what it is. My understanding of subcultures is that it is a type of movement that aims to fight against exploitation that results from capitalism. I think Terranova is trying to explain subcultures as being “sellouts” because instead of acting in the interest of the community, they inevitably succumb to capitalism. Terranova believes that capitalism is so entrenched in our society that it is almost impossible to have subculture and capitalism act independently. In order for these subcultures to thrive, they must give up some of their principals and do things that benefit the capitalist, which in turn benefits the subculture.
The example Terranova uses in her argument is small designer shops in fashion, which she says have been “voluntarily channeled and controversially structured within capitalist business practices.” From the reading, the example I thought of was the controversy that has surrounded African American hair for decades. Madam CJ Walker became a self-made millionaire by developing and marketing hair products for black women. Her success was in the “hot comb” which gave African Americans straight, soft hair which was more culturally acceptable at the time. Currently, there is a “natural hair movement” among the black community that encourages women to embrace their natural hair. As a result there has been a rise in hair shampoos, conditioners, etc. designed for “natural hair”. It seems that despite the subcultural movement, capitalism will always press forward and find a way to exploit these movements, and they succeed because the subcultures fight hard for their cause, and so they are unable to see how their cause still serves the capitalist.
