One day while bored, I browsed through a lengthy discussion on Brass Goggles about the definition of steampunk as a subculture. As usual, there was no unifying definition. What I did find curious was a peculiar insistence of some to refer to steampunk as a “culture” in itself, as opposed to the term “subculture.”
The argument goes, “if we are a subculture, then what are we a part of?”
One would have thought that this would be obvious. The North American steampunk subculture is very much a subset of North American culture. Just as the British steampunk subculture would be a subset of British society. In spaces where steampunk is large enough to warrant the term “community,” it is still part of the larger space it is performed in.
#1 Nothing grows in a cultural vacuum. As mentioned before, steampunk draws from several elements, most of which are products of a definitely Eurocentric society. These elements may be found in other non-European countries as well, but when one considers that steampunk is, usually, Victorian-inspired, it’s pretty safe to say steampunk has been shaped by the biases and influenced by Victorianism. Combine this with negative attitudes of today and you have a potent mix where you can’t tell where the Victorianism ends and today takes root. Some of us steampunks like to roleplay being a racist, sexist twerp. I’m not sure what the point of this is, seeing as we’re supposed to work our way beyond that in steampunk, but I’m not going to tell another person what to do with their steampunking.
#2 Its participants belong to larger cultures. This is more closely related to #1, but focused on the people. Participants of steampunks usually do, also, belong to a larger culture from whence they are first shaped. North American steampunks bring in their culture’s sensibilities and contexts, for example. So it is for other participants of any steampunk community elsewhere. And as with #1, participants bring in the baggage from the larger culture. Even if we tried to remove ourselves, geographically and psychologically, from the cultural contexts from whence we came, we still would carry over elements of the culture that shaped us.
#3 It is not wholly divorced from society in general. This is a result of both #1 and #2, and I don’t see any proof that steampunk in itself is so separate from the larger societies within which it is performed that it warrants the term “culture” unto itself. I’ve seen arguments comparing steampunk separating itself from mainstream like America from Britain. This makes sense… if it referred to steampunk separating from cyberpunk or goth. Unless we somehow got separated by physical geography, I highly doubt the simile works.
If one figures that it’s large enough to be a community (back home in Malaysia, some folks were shocked that for some people, steampunk is more than just a hobby), it’s still a community that belongs within a larger cultural context.
So, for those who’re asking, “what’s steampunk a subculture of?” there’s your answer. I somehow detect a certain reluctance towards the term “subculture” (because of the -punk business, no doubt), and if you don’t want to call it a subculture, that’s perfectly fine too. I’m just sayin’, if you ever find yourself asking that question, that’s one possible answer for you.
Jha did an undergraduate honours degree in English under the mistaken impression that learning how to read all sorts of literature would make her a better writer.
I’ve always found it fairly evident that steampunk as a literary genre is a subgenre of alt history. If we were to draw parallels, then those dressing in a steampunk fashion would be in the same class as some ren-faire or SCA types, civil war re-enactors, etc.
ChuckEye: You’d think so, but there are always some ornery types who insist on thinking otherwise, that Steampunk has grown out to become its own genre. Not sure why.
Cos’ it’s basically cosplay.
Steampunk is its own genre. But the dressing up aspect is just one minor facet of an otherwise wide ranging aesthetic.
Arthu: Not for some, no. For some, it’s basically a lifestyle. For others, it’s basically a literary genre.
VernianProcess: I can see the argument for that, although to me, steampunk as a literary genre is but a facet as well. I was addressing the social aspect of steampunk participation, though.
I don’t know–I feel that bringing the whole culture/subculture distinction into it carries way too much hierarchal baggage. Who gets to decide what’s culture and what’s subculture? All those definitions you offer above could apply equally to, say, Native American tribes in the modern US (they don’t exist in a cultural vaccuum, they are part of a larger culture, and they are not wholly divorced from society in general,) and obviously calling them “subcultures” is enormously problematic. Similarly, American culture could be called a subculture of British culture, since it emerged from and arguably exists within the context of larger Anglophonic culture.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that culture–and more crucially, cultural identification–is a much more gradiated and non-hierarchal space than the one you’re constructing. Each individual is going to identify with various cultures with different levels of fervency and primacy, and attempting to rank them on some objective scale seems foolhardy.
heresiarch: Certainly the hierarchial distinction is uncomfortable. And I agree with you – taking into account individual identification, the hierarchy gets murky, and there is no objective way to rank them. I’m not trying to rank them though, merely place them within context of the question. There are many many more aspects of steampunk!
But I must point out, Native American tribes were their own culture(s), until colonization. After centuries of having their rights stripped and their power to move/behave/act as they please limited for so long, I can see how you could make the argument that they are now a subculture. I personally would make the argument that they are a counter-culture, though. Google Books has a scan of “Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation”. On page 6 is a very nice diagram that illustrates quite well what makes a counter-culture or a subculture.
Now, North American culure as a subculture of British culture? Was, but not now (well, you guys can’t take the tea thing back, sorriez) – take into account history (who were the first groups leaving Britain for the American colonies?), political standing and physical geography, and you have a potent recipe for a cultural schism whereby North America, being huge and all too, can call itself a culture on its own.
@heresiarch: I don’t think Jha implied that a hierarchical relationship existed when speaking about the culture & subculture, but that a subculture’s development and evolution is in active reaction to the dominant culture in a specific cultural space.
Perhaps that can clarify why the examples you cited aren’t considered subcultures. Native American culture was never created in reaction to modern US culture because it existed independently beforehand, and modern US culture isn’t a subculture of British culture–though it has Anglophonic roots–because it had already established an independent cultural space.
I do agree with you, however, that the dynamic between dominant culture and subcultural identities is a fluid one that involves participants holding multiple cultural identities at once. I think most participants in steampunk subculture would not define themselves solely as steampunks.