No Weird Kids
When I was growing up, my family had a family motto which my Dad established and reinforced through the years. Our family motto was: “no weird kids”.
As far as family motto’s go, it isn’t a classic. It isn’t something that will carry through into our adult years or give direction or meaning to our lives. But that wasn’t the point. My Dad’s purpose in setting this as our family motto was to keep his kids from getting too caught up in being different, distinctive or “cool”.
Can I dye my hair? No weird kids. Can I get a piercing of some kind? No weird kids. Can I get involved in this alternative sport or fringe activity? No weird kids. In a way, this family motto could have also been re-stated as “no cool kids”. In a world that is swimming with targeted advertising, “lifestyle choices” and alternative identities, our family sought to remain somewhat skeptically apart. No weird kids.
I had this in mind as I was reading The Rebel Sell: How The Counterculture Became Consumer Culture by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter. This is an entertaining and challenging book to read. It is full of social commentary and critique, especially around the core idea that the “counterculture” or ability to be different, unique, or cool, is really just part of a larger consumer culture. The book reaches out broadly to explore the ways that what we might think of as cool or distinctive is actually just an expression of the same thing.
The authors spend a lot of time lampooning ideas like an annual “Buy Nothing Day” as a way to reduce consumerism. They teasingly suggest instead an annual “Earn Nothing Day”.[1] They point out that the critique of consumer goods about things that people really don’t need is really a “list of consumer goods that middle-aged intellectuals don’t need.”[2] The book even begins with an exploration of the Black Spot Sneaker, a “signature brand of ‘subversive’ running shoes”[3] that was put out by Adbusters magazine. The point the authors make is that these “subversive” (or rebel) sneakers, which one might buy as an expression of not being a consumer, are in fact, a clear example that countercultural projects like this one are, and always have been, captured by consumerism itself. They are not distinctive or different from it, but merely a more cleverly disguised and “cool” version.
As the reviewer in the Guardian puts it, “the point of this book is not to be comprehensive or mildly reasonable. It is to provoke and get you thinking. In that it succeeds; the certainties of modern anti-capitalism will not feel as watertight again.”[4]
Part of what makes this book rollicking fun to read, is that Heath and Potter are taking aim at those who would “take aim”. They are subverting or questioning, “a warmed-over version of the countercultural thinking that has dominated leftist politics since the 1960’s.”[5] The Guardian review describes it well, saying, “In the rare moments when Heath and Potter are not in attack mode, they describe their own political beliefs in orthodox left-leaning terms. They favour the welfare state and aiding the poor. They dislike unfettered business. But the relish with which the authors go about their debunking carries The Rebel Sell into more ambiguous ideological territory.”[6]
In other words, the authors are not reactionary scholars, opposed to things like ethical shopping choices or progressive change, per se. They are largely sympathetic to the aims and ideals of those who seek an “alternative” way to live, shop and express themselves. But because of the looping, playful style of the book, it is possible to be reading along, and following the argument, and then, all of a sudden, there is a twist, where they completely upend and subvert the very idea they seemed to be favorably describing.
This is the point that the authors want to make: there’s an easy agreement about what is “cool” or what is “virtuous” or what is “countercultural”, and yet, they want to push back and complicate our thinking. The unintended result is, that it is often unclear what the authors are actually arguing for.
One reviewer cites a specific example, where the discussion of the Black liberation struggle and the situation of African Americans in the United States comes across as if it were a kind of conservative critique of Black people. The reviewer writes, “in a remarkable passage, the authors contribute inner city poverty in Detroit to the behavior of its victims.”[7]
It is only in the Afterword where Heath and Potter seek to address some of these concerns. After receiving reader feedback, they realize that people have mis-understood their position. Many who read this book believe the authors to be anti-organic vegetables, or against ethical consumption, or that the personal buying habits of regular people don’t matter or make a difference. The authors belatedly try to make clear that this wasn’t their objective with the book.
For me, I appreciated this book because it re-frames the debate in our contemporary culture about what is “countercultural”, what is truly rebellious, of different or unique. My parents’ concern for their kids from long ago, is the same one that I have now for my own children. That they would not be totally caught up in trying to keep up with what is “cool”, or to follow trends, or to have all the right styles or products. Instead, I want to shape their characters, hearts and minds so they can move with confidence into the wider world.
“No weird kids” is a weird family motto. But it’s the one that we continue to use, even as a curmudgeonly counter-point to almost everything else our kids will hear.
[1] Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, The Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture (West Sussex: Capstone Publishing Limited, 2005), 114.
[2] Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, The Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture (West Sussex: Capstone Publishing Limited, 2005), 108.
[3] Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, The Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture (West Sussex: Capstone Publishing Limited, 2005), 3.
[4] Andy Beckett, review of The Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture, by Joseph Heath & Andrew Potter, The Guardian, June 3, 2005, Books, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/jun/04/highereducation.news1 (accessed February 22, 2018).
[5] Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, The Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture (West Sussex: Capstone Publishing Limited, 2005), 3.
[6] Andy Beckett, review of The Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture, by Joseph Heath & Andrew Potter, The Guardian, June 3, 2005, Books, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/jun/04/highereducation.news1 (accessed February 22, 2018).
[7] Derrick O’Keefe, review of The Rebel Sell: Hw the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture, by Joseph Heath & Andrew Potter, Dissident Voice, June 23, 2005, Books, http://dissidentvoice.org/June05/OKeefe0623.htm(accessed February 22, 2018).
About the Author
Dave Watermulder
15 responses to “No Weird Kids”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dave,
“No weird kids” is a great story and it looks like it worked! Good job dad! You have the second post that comments, the goal of the book it to get you to think. I ask, about what? Increasingly I see devilish schemes implanted almost everywhere, even in our theological studies, that challenge us to “just think”. It is just the kind of tactic he used with Eve when he asked her, “did God say?”
I sense you figured out this book, the authors, and you are still solid in your Christian ethos and values instilled by your family upbringing. It is too bad that so many families fail in the family business. A lot of authors write much about our failures as a society of consumers, but there is plenty of dirty laundry in our 21st Century family matrix.
Have you made a bumper sticker “No Weird Kids” yet?
Stand firm,
M. Webb
Thanks, Mike! Yea, I do think that the purpose of “just thinking” is a preliminary step. It’s a starting point. Ultimately, we need to figure out how we want to live and move in the world around us. But sometimes, there’s an inertia at work, so this kind of book is helpful to get us moving in our thinking once again.
Thanks for sharing you motto. It’s funny, in seeking the same ends, we had an opposite approach. When our kids wanted to do those coutercultural things in order to fit in and look like the cool kids, we asked, “Why be normal?” If all their friends were seeing the new Batman movie, but we didn’t think it was healthy for our boys, we’d encourage them to be the “weird kids,” not in the individualistic/rebel way, but in the way that says, “You don’t have to look like everyone else to fit in.” In the way that acknowledges that the way of Christ DOES appear weird to the world, but it is the way our family chooses to go.
Hey Jenn,
Thanks for this note. Yes, I should have included that my Dad’s other favorite thing to ask was, “what is normal?” I think this gets to your approach as well– it pushes back on the idea of “normal” or what is expected or accepted. My Dad’s idea with no weird kids was meant to make us skeptical of going along with the flow– and to be “different” was good, just not in the mass-produced “different” way that everybody else was going for.
Great post dave. I thought your motto “no weird kids” meant that “no kids are weird”. That is not quite what your dad was going for though. He was more so saying “no weird kids in this house” correct?
You’re right that the authors were struggling to find a concise point. THey certainly had fun tearing everything down. It does reframe our thinking though. Your guardian quote is One I found too that I felt summed up the book fairly well.
Rest question for our church. What does it truly mean to be counter-cultural?
Thanks, Kyle. One of the things that I talk about with our new members, is that just coming to be part of a church, to make a commitment, to “join” in some way, is pretty counter-cultural at this point. There’s no implicit benefit involved, there’s very little social pressure to go (in fact, probably more in the other direction). So, I think being part of a covenantal community and having a faith commitment itself is counter-cultural at this point. What do you think?
Hey Dave, thanks for your post. I liked the story of growing up “no weird kids.” I can see both the good and the potential short-fall in that motto. The good as you mentioned, but the challenge being, “Who gets to define what is ‘weird’?” I resonated both with the favor you gave to the book )especially the sort of graciousness of the authors), but also the critiques you reflected on. I did not read the race-related critique you mentioned but I’m inclined to now, because I felt in my reading what you expressed as a critique from someone else. I likely join those who misunderstood the authors. Did you finish the book with a clear sense of what they are suggesting, concretely, for moving forward?
Thanks, Chris. As for the “no weird kids” motto, I should have included in my post, that my Dad’s other favorite question was “what is normal?” and he always pushed back at us from accepting things as the norm, and wanted us to be our own selves over against that. I think his main concern was to have us grow up not feeling the pull of the crowd or the popularity, etc. It worked, as I remained very un-cool through most of high school!
Great post weird kid! 🙂 Not sure how your dad allowed you out of the house, hahaha! What a funny post, it had me (and my wife) laughing out loud. That family motto sounded so similar to my family although I don’t remember us having an official motto, but I do remember my parents cautioning me often to not get sucked into the lure of being one of the “cool” kids. I would always be reminded that as Christians we are to be in the world but not of the world. Also glad to hear you are keeping the family motto going!
Thanks, Jake. Yea, I think this is exactly the way that my Dad meant it– don’t get swayed or caught up in what the cool kids are doing. He was very suspicious of anything that was popular or even “normal” in the sense of being what “everybody” was doing. I appreciate that skepticism that he instilled in us and can also see how he tends to be pretty out of the loop, so we try no to tease him TOO much 🙂
Hi Chris,
Well posted! I especially liked the point you made–It is hard to figure out what the authors are actually arguing for. Spot on! The same thought crossed my mind several times, but I wasn’t smart enough to write about it, like you…
To be honest, I cannot figure out the point of the book. Have you?
Dave,
As far as family mottos go, you could do worse. I think it gets at the main sentiment behind the text for this week and establishes a mini-counter trend that may have merit. In seeking to help you and now your own children buck the ‘trends’ of the moment you potentially help them step back and make decisions regarding dress, material goods and other lifestyle choices from at least a better perspective than ‘everyone else is doing it.’ Potentially you give them an opportunity to consider the role their faith might play in coming to terms with the culture. That would put them streets ahead of the vast majority of their peers.
Thanks, Dan– I think you are right on about this. There are definitely better mottos we could come up with, but the idea behind it is a good one: to question the pursuit of “cool” or the popular or whatever the mass-appeal would be. This “no weird kids” idea showed up for us in faith formation as well, basically asking us to think for ourselves, and to see how being different from the crowd (especially in how we lived our faith) would be a good thing.
Dave our current family motto is “ it’s not strange, it’s different” we have applied that to places , food and people :-). I was with Kyle and thought at first your motto meant there are no weird kids.
You wrote“…often unclear what the authors are actually arguing for.” I walked aware with the same perspective. I felt like I was either supposed to just give up trying to change anything or join the rebellion and sell out.
How we shape those we love and still remain connected to this world is a challenge every parent ( and possibly all in leadership) struggle to navigate.
Thanks, Greg. Yea, I think a lot of us had that sense. The authors are clearly being playful, and challenging “for the sake of making us think”, and even arguing almost in a circle at times. It think it’s just a big “think piece”, since as we discover, they really are a kind of “new leftists”, they just see themselves as more truly rebellious than the “old left” that they are critiquing. Anyway…