WeissNydorf 1

Alana Brooke Weiss Nydorf Theory of the Interior—Prof. Noah Chasin May 16, 2016

American Mythos and Performative Authenticity—

The Contemporary Speakeasy and the Role of Hipster Ethos in Revising and

Aestheticizing a Moment in United States History

From 1919 to 1932, America subjected its citizens to the “noble

experiment”—thirteen years of attempted alcohol prohibition. While Prohibition

was unanimously regarded as a failed attempt at alcohol reform, the majority of

Americans publically supported the “dry” agenda. The “wet” minority was

characterized as immoral and un-American by their wholesome dry constituents.1

However, despite thirteen years of dry opposition, the wet counterculture

movement succeeded in their quest for repeal of the 18th Amendment. A

counterculture invents means of differentiation to challenge values or norms of

the common culture.2 Arguably, the most significant differentiation between a

wet American and a dry American was participation in illegal alcohol

consumption within the realm of the speakeasy. The speakeasy served as a setting

for acts of opposition to the 18th Amendment for wet America’s counterculture

movement against Prohibition. Despite Prohibition’s repeal over eighty years ago,

1 John J. Rumbarger. Profits, Power, and Prohibition: Alcohol Reform and the Industrializing of America, 1800-1930. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. 2 Lauren M. Alfrey. The Search for Authenticity How Hipsters Transformed from a Local Subculture to a Global Consumption Collective. Master's thesis, 2010. Washington, DC. 3.

WeissNydorf 2

“speakeasies” continue to exist in New York City, and continue to exist within the

realm of counterculture. However, there is an enormous disparity between the

original speakeasy and the contemporary incarnation. The contemporary

speakeasy appropriates core elements from its predecessor to capitalize on its

status as a site of opposition to societal norms, and offer a vicarious (not to

mention risk-free) experience of rebellion to those who identify with a reductive

amalgamation of modern counterculture movements—the hipster.3

Today’s counterculture movements, as well as their consumption habits,

are shaped by acts of divergence from a perceived dominant class. The mutant

unification of global and historical countercultures into an identifiable consumer

group is evident in the creation of the modern hipster. The defining characteristic

of the hipster consumer group is “the claim to authenticity, uniqueness, and

individuality.”4 However, their consumption practices focus primarily on

derivatives of past symbols of counterculture throughout history, focusing on an

aestheticized interpretation of the past and unable to create new meaning from

this simulacrum. This appropriation-based redefinition of symbols associated

with historical opposition to the mainstream, ironically, not a unique feature of

today’s hipster.

3Douglas Haddow. "Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization." Adbusters #79. July 29, 2008. http://www.adbusters.org/article/hipster-the-dead-end-of-western-civilization/. 4IcoMaly, and Piia Varis. "The 21st-century Hipster: On Micro-populations in times of Superdiversity." European Journal of Cultural Studies, 2015, 1-17. Accessed May 10, 2016. 8.

WeissNydorf 3

Nixon’s V, as in “victory,” signs.5

5Andy Rosen and Jeremiah Manion. "Political Use of Hands: An Illustrated Guide." Boston Globe. October 19, 2014.

WeissNydorf 4

Historically, those who exist at the margins of society are later considered

to be forerunners of social, cultural, and even political change. These outsider

groups are often reviled by their contemporaries and later celebrated by their

successors.6 The subsequent appreciation for counterculture movements within

mainstream discourses is the driving point at the core of the hipster ethos—“I

liked it before it was cool.”7 By identifying oneself as an original supporter, being

an ardent fan years prior to the subject’s mainstream popularity, the hipster

distinguishes himself from the common man under the spell of the inauthentic

consumerist-driven dominant culture. The hipster differentiates himself from

the mainstreamer by consumption of symbolic opposition.

The hipster, however, exists within a globalized, consumer society. While

hipster consumption habits have roots in the appropriation and fetishization of

oppositional cultural zeitgeists of the past, they still exist under the umbrella of

capitalism and neoliberal economic ideals. Within this regard, the consumption

habits and the core values of hipsters become muddled. While striving to

consume products that identify one’s authenticity and individuality in relation to

the dominant culture, the hipster embraces the most mainstream expression of

identification possible—active and passionate participation within the dominant

capitalist, consumer-driven society they aim to oppose.

Hipsters, a generalized transgressive-identity consumer group, are

contextually detached from the symbols they consumer. This leads to either a

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/18/political-use-hands-illustrated-guide/rBAjklG7jH9mixg9yWsOpM/story.html. 6Alfrey,16.7MalyandVaris,9.

WeissNydorf 5

disinterest in, or a lack of regard for the historical subjectivities of these

counterculture reductions. Additionally, the hypocrisy of hipster consumption

and the fetishization of authenticity can only be illuminated in relation to the

inherent inauthenticity of these consumer productions. Aristotle wrote, “things

are called relative, which, being either said to be of something else or related to

something else, are explained by reference to that other thing.”8 Essentially, the

authentic production is deemed authentic due to the existence of an inauthentic

option. With regards to bars in New York City, the inauthentic option is anything

conspicuously popular, where the true roots of the space is lost. An authentic bar

emphasizes “the quality of the ingredients, the expertise of the bartender as a

mixologist and as a provider of personalized service, the intimate experience of

drinking and talking without the bullshit that you see at other bars, like

sickeningly sweet cocktails that cover the taste of cheap liquor, and loud groups

of drunk tourists stumbling and spilling their drinks.”9 In essence, the authentic

bar experience gets back to the basics and avoids all elements that might

associate it with “the sports bar, the nightclub, or the bars people just go to so

they can get laid…all these bars that allow things to [obscure their primary

purpose] of serving cocktails and existing as a space for socialization.”10

The conceptual authenticity of the contemporary speakeasy speaks

strongly to these return-to-roots hipster ideals. The Blind Barber (339 E. 10th

Street, between Avenues A and B) identifies itself as a speakeasy. The front of the

space is a fully functioning barbershop, with an unmarked door on the back wall

8Alfrey,10.9Bartender,TheBlindBarber.May13,2016.10Bartender,TheBlindBarber.May13,2016.

WeissNydorf 6

which slides open to reveal a hidden room. The hidden room is about twelve

times the size of its barbershop façade, and includes an expansive bar with

seating, tables, booths, and even a “back room” (complete with couches,

comfortable seats, coffee tables, numerous framed antique photographs, and two

floor to ceiling bookshelves full of real books) which patrons may reserve for

private events. The Blind Barber also emphasizes its commitment to hipster-

influenced authenticity through a statement on its homepage,

“The barbershop used to be more than just a place to get a haircut or

shave; it was a hub of the community where people came together to

bond, to socialize and to exchange ideas. With the goal of bringing

this camaraderie back in style, Blind Barber, a barber shop and

parlor with locations in New York, NY, Los Angeles, CA and

Brooklyn, NY, has created a concept that goes well beyond cuts and

shaves. By cultivating a men’s grooming line, an influential voice, and

multiple destinations, Blind Barber has expanded into all realms of

the modern man: grooming, cocktails, fashion, and lifestyle.”11

The Blind Barber capitalizes on the desires of the hipster consumer

group, not only through offering classically inspired cocktails with artisanal

ingredients, but also through offering the authentic art of the hand shave.

The bar/ barbershop/ grooming product company/ fashion influencer is a

modern combination—catering to the contemporary consumer as a pseudo-

modern Diderot unity of hipster lifestyle needs. However, before asserting

The Blind Barber’s (in)authenticity as a speakeasy (or even, perhaps, as a

11 Meet Blind Barber. Accessed May 14, 2016. https://www.blindbarber.com.

WeissNydorf 7

barbershop), its emphasis on what once was in defining its present incarnation

must be thoroughly analyzed within a historical context. Additionally, on the

night of Friday, May 13th the bartender [who shall remain unnamed, at his

request] at The Blind Barber, explained that “the website emphasizes the old-

school community value of the barbershop as a hub of social life or whatever to

sell our hair pomade and combs…[however] the emphasis on that throwback

community feel is really equally [applicable to us at] the bar in the back.”

Contemporary speakeasies, like The Blind Barber, have an insidious

existence because their present representation of inconspicuous exclusivity

depends on the erasure of the historical reasons for that sense of secrecy.

Speakeasies, a colossal pillar of Prohibition-era Greenwich Village nightlife,

utilized fake storefronts and hidden bars as well as back room to avoid discovery

and arrest by Prohibition agents. Prohibition enforcement inordinately targeted

the immigrant population, and legal prosecution mainly affected those living in

ethnically dense neighborhoods like the Lower East Side, Harlem, and Astoria.12

However, within the realm of the contemporary speakeasy, the class-based

enforcement of the Volstead Act is invisible. Dry Americans, publically dry

(privately wet) Americans, and the wealthy (and, often, wet), did not need to visit

speakeasies in order to get drunk because they were not targets of Prohibition

(and many had their own alcohol delivered straight to their door).13

12Michael Aloysius Lerner. Dry Manhattan: Class, Culture, and Politics in Prohibition-era New York City, 1919-1933. New York: New York University, 1999.13Ellen NicKenzie Lawson. Smugglers, Bootleggers, and Scofflaws: Prohibition and New York City. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2013.

WeissNydorf 8

To the drys, the absolute absence of alcohol in New York City represented

Prohibition’s success. However, Prohibition was a city and statewide failure.

Many New York politicians, including Fiorello LaGuardia, famously opposed the

18th Amendment for being “impossible to enforce” and “targeting the foreign

element” of urban areas, written by Middle Americans who were detached from

the urban setting.14 LaGuardia was not wrong. The enforcement of Prohibition

law within immigrant and minority populations had devastating effects on

communities. The proliferation of organized crime within various ethnic groups

was another effect of the 18th Amendment on minority communities, as was the

destabilization of community support networks created through years of

tradition. Prohibition’s role in the erasure of the ethnic saloon destroyed a pillar

of tradition and community support within immigrant communities.15

In contrast to the social domination imposed by Prohibition’s

enforcement, Prohibition’s speakeasies democratized drinking by ushering in an

era of unprecedented interracial and co-educational socialization through the

common interest of consuming illegal alcohol.16 Social norms at the turn of the

century dictated women’s primary existence be within the private sphere, limiting

female representation in the public arena to immoral women, or notable

exceptions. Prior to the ratification of the 18th Amendment, women’s presence

was prohibited in saloons (of course, with exceptions made for prostitutes), and

drinking was seen as unladylike. Additionally, the role of female activism within

the Temperance Movement was invaluable for the ratification of both the 18th and

14Lerner,365. 15Lerner,216.16Lerner,347.

WeissNydorf 9

19th Amendments. However, as the “noble experiment” proved to be a failure all

genders in New York City, the norms that had previously dictated heavy drinking

as a white male activity were pushed aside. George Schuyler asserted that

Prohibition in Harlem created a social environment that opened up ore

opportunities for interracial socialization than ever before—possibly more than

have existed since.17 In theory, the speakeasy set a precedent for our

contemporary urban socialization settings. However, the temporally and

geographically specific characteristics of these speakeasies defined their

progressive social function and radical nonconformity.

The vein of speakeasy that inspired The Blind Barber’s (and Please Don’t

Tell, Angel Share, etc.) modern appropriation only existed for a specific

population for whom the law was enforced most strictly—the working-class

immigrant poor. Today, the speakeasy revises United States history by

aestheticizing the backdrop of early twentieth century ethnic rebellion against

discriminatory alcohol reform laws (disguised as desperate laws to help a morally

bankrupt society), which served to destabilize immigrant communities.18 The

contemporary speakeasy does not address the class-based prejudice that led to

the creation of its predecessors, but rather presents Prohibition as an era of

underground clubs for Gatsby-esque frivolity and camaraderie. The xenophobia

that fueled Temperance movements is all but lost in our contemporary public

17Lerner,347.18John J. Rumbarger. Profits, Power, and Prohibition: Alcohol Reform and the Industrializing of America, 1800-1930. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. 187.

WeissNydorf 10

memory of the era—a collective recollection that is reinforced by the absence of

ethnic struggle in contemporary speakeasy representation.

Generation loss refers to the reduction in quality of a copy or reproduction

of something. One can regard the disparity between the speakeasy and its

contemporary imitations/ incarnations as a product of generation loss. The

contemporary speakeasy simulacrum subjects itself to a qualitative reduction in

ideological representation.19 Contemporary speakeasies, unlike the authentic

Prohibition-era speakeasy, operate within legal parameters with regards to

selling alcoholic beverages. The socio-temporal defining characteristic of these

spaces cannot exist within a contemporary setting. In a sense, the contemporary

speakeasy is an aesthetic reduction of its original representation. Just as

Prohibition-era speakeasies were characterized by loss—loss of the ethnic saloon

as a pillar of stability and community, loss of individual freedom, loss of tradition

within Jewish, Catholic, and immigrant communities—the contemporary

speakeasy is also wrought with absence (though mainly thematic and legal).

Collective memory plays a significant role in the constitution of individual

and group identities, and to the cohesion of nations, religious, and ethnic groups.

Its widespread reach and commodification raises important questions about the

cultural politics of memory.20 National memory is materially manifest in the

streets of the city. Whereas cultural institutions like museums, archives, heritage

19Chris Brown. Scenes, Semiotics and the New Real: Exploring the Value of Originality and Difference. New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2016. 20Chris Weedon. "Place, Space, and the Politics of Memory." In Culture, Space, and Power: Blurred Lines, edited by David Walton and Juan A. Suárez, 1-18. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2016. 2.

WeissNydorf 11

sites, etc. serve cultural political purposes regarding identities, social values,

norms, and practices on a somewhat conspicuous level, non-institutional spaces

function along the same lines, though arguably less transparently. Derivatives of

our collective memory have materialized throughout the city as consumer spaces

like “classic” barbershops, “throwback” delis and diners, and contemporary

“speakeasies.” The bastardization and subsequent commodification of the past

has been a significant theme in material culture throughout history—even

Napoleon’s throne room was aesthetically derivative of Roman emperors’

neoclassical originals. In an age of unprecedented globalization, memory has

played a part in the increased awareness of historical appropriations,

implications, and origins of what constitutes our modern lives. This

contemporary emphasis on historical transparency (via alternate histories and

counter memories that challenge hegemonic narratives) coincides with the

emergence of a consumer group whose primary values include authenticity and

opposition to mainstream narratives—the hipster.

Because the speakeasy, at its core, represents a moment of civil

disobedience and opposition to an oppressive mainstream cultural movement, it

has been repackaged for an alternative consumer base. Much like punk's torn

clothing, safety pins, and leather jackets, or, drag queen's creation of contouring

with makeup, the speakeasy has been forcibly revised as a consumer product

through nullifying the roots of its transgressive nature. Through exploiting our

modern thirst for authenticity and departure from what is commonly referred to

as "mainstream", the contemporary speakeasy is reduced to an alternative

aesthetic. The consumerist speakeasy is counterculture in origin but devoid of the

WeissNydorf 12

threat of rebellion. It allows its contemporary patrons a vicarious experience of

civil opposition and indignation, without the dangers historically associated with

reactionary movements, or the struggles experienced by those for whom these

movements existed. The contemporary speakeasy presents itself as an

embodiment of rebellion without demanding its patrons commitment to the

cause, or even alluding to the cause at all. Empty rebellion is produced, and then

consumed by a modern audience—detached from the original context. This

contextual distance allows for the redefinition of past reactionary movements as

"cool" and commodification of the temporally and culturally specific anger as

generalized opposition to the mainstream.

The contemporary speakeasy is a boiled down simulacrum of its original

ancestor, exploiting its specific role as a site of secrecy and collective protest

against the 18th Amendment’s infringement upon individual freedoms, and

repackaging it for consumption as a symbol of “authenticity” and opposition to

the dominant social norms. Ironically, this incarnation of the speakeasy promotes

an inauthentic, revisionary narrative. The performative authenticity of the

contemporary speakeasy presents a fragmented, ahistorical collective memory of

Prohibition, exploiting the #alt desires of the consumer for capital gain.

WeissNydorf 13

Bibliography

1. Lerner, Michael Aloysius. Dry Manhattan: Class, Culture, and Politics in Prohibition-era New York City, 1919-1933. New York: New York University, 1999.

2. Reed, Christopher. "Taking Amusement Seriously: Modern Design in the Twenties." In Designing the Modern Interior: From the Victorians to Today, edited by Penny Sparke, 65-94. Oxford, United Kingdom: Berg, 2009.

3. Pivaro, Alicia, and Jane Rendell. Strangely Familiar: Narratives of Architecture in the City. By Iain Borden. Edited by Jon Kerr. London: Routledge, 1996.

4. Venturi, Robert. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. Vol. 1. The Museum of Modern Art Papers on Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1966.

5. Bloomer, Kent C., Charles Willard Moore, and Robert J. Yadell. Body, Memory and Architecture. New Haven: Yale University, 1975.

6. Middleton, Robin. The Idea of the City: Architectural Associations. London: Architectural Association, 1996.

7. Eliade, Mircea. Myth and Reality. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.

8. Thomson, Oliver. A History of Sin. Edinburgh: Canongate Press, 1993.

9. Arendt, Hannah. Between past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Penguin Books, 2006.

10. Boyer, M. Christine. The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.

11. Brown, Chris. Scenes, Semiotics and the New Real: Exploring the Value of Originality and Difference. Palgrave Pivot, 2016.

12. Potter, Andrew. The Authenticity Hoax: How We Get Lost Finding Ourselves. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2010.

13. Magill, R. Jay. Sincerity: How a Moral Ideal Born Five Hundred Years Ago Inspired Religious Wars, Modern Art, Hipster Chic, and the Curious Notion That We All Have Something to Say (no Matter How Dull). New York: Norton, 2012.

14. Gair, Christopher. The American Counterculture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007.

15. Fogle, Nikolaus. The Spatial Logic of Social Struggle: A Bourdieuian Topology. Lanham, MD.: Lexington Books, 2011.

16. Magill, R. Jay. Sincerity: How a Moral Ideal Born Five Hundred Years Ago Inspired Religious Wars, Modern Art, Hipster Chic, and the Curious

WeissNydorf 14

Notion That We All Have Something to Say (no Matter How Dull). New York: Norton, 2012.

17. Brown, Chris. Scenes, Semiotics and the New Real: Exploring the Value of Originality and Difference. New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2016.

18. Weedon, Chris. "Place, Space, and the Politics of Memory." In Culture, Space, and Power: Blurred Lines, edited by David Walton and Juan A. Suárez, 1-18. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2016.

19. Hebridge, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge, 1987.

20. Lawson, Ellen NicKenzie. Smugglers, Bootleggers, and Scofflaws: Prohibition and New York City. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2013.

21. Alfrey, Lauren M. The Search for Authenticity How Hipsters Transformed from a Local Subculture to a Global Consumption Collective. Master's thesis, 2010. Washington, DC.

22. Meet Blind Barber. Accessed May 14, 2016. https://www.blindbarber.com.

23. Rosen, Andy, and Jeremiah Manion. "Political Use of Hands: An Illustrated Guide." Boston Globe. October 19, 2014. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/18/political-use-hands-illustrated-guide/rBAjklG7jH9mixg9yWsOpM/story.html.

24. Haddow, Douglas. "Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization." Adbusters #79. July 29, 2008. http://www.adbusters.org/article/hipster-the-dead-end-of-western-civilization/.

25. Maly, Ico, and Piia Varis. "The 21st-century Hipster: On Micro-populations in times of Superdiversity." European Journal of Cultural Studies, 2015, 1-17. Accessed May 10, 2016. doi:10.1177/1367549415597920.

26. Brooker, Graeme, and Sally Stone. What Is Interior Design? Mies, Switzerland: RotoVision, 2010.

27. Augustin, Sally, PhD. Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior Architecture. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.

28. Yelavich, Susan. The Edge of the Millennium: An International Critique of Architecture, Urban Planning, Product and Communication Design. New York: Whitney Library of Design, 1993.

29. Stewart-Pollack, Julie, and Rosemary Menconi. Designing for Privacy and Related Needs. New York: Fairchild Publications, 2005.

30. Schultze, Leonard, S. Fullerton Weaver, Marianne Lamonaca, and Jonathan Mogul. Grand Hotels of the Jazz Age: The Architecture of Schultze & Weaver. Miami Beach: Wolfsonian-Florida International University, 2005.

WeissNydorf 15

31. Rumbarger, John J. Profits, Power, and Prohibition: Alcohol Reform and the Industrializing of America, 1800-1930. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.

32. Turok, Ben. Revolutionary Thought in the 20th Century. London: Zed Press, 1980.

33. Schafer, Mirko Tobias. Bastard Culture!: How User Participation Transforms Cultural Production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2011.

34. Kiesler, Sara B., and Charles A. Kiesler. Conformity. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969.

35. Lofland, John. Deviance and Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969.