After having time over the weekend to re-read Rice's introduction and first two chapters, I thought that it would be a good idea to revisit the idea of cool and what cool writing it. First off, I think it is important to show the dichotomy between the two types of cool that he is discussing. Secondly, I want to write on what he really is saying. Did he ever give us a clear definition of what writing about cool is? And do I agree with it?
What was very noticeable throughout the reading was that Rice was trying to define this idea of cool, realizing that the word "cool" itself has since (from its initial use) changed in meaning. For example, Rice was stating that back in the day, or at least the '60s, cool was a term used to rebel against authority, to question it. It was associated with people of that time who did do things different, like James Dean he stated. It was a way to act out and get attention but the things that were associated with "cool" were just those things that went against the times--they weren't too provocative.
But then somewhere along the line, as Rice admits, this definition or idea of what cool is changed. Cool became associated not with defying authority or thinking for oneself, going against the masses, but rather it turned into something rather negative. Cool became a word captured by writers and advertisers and used in very specific ways to get children, young adults and the like to do what they wanted. Cool became a word that could change a person's mind, made a person buy something, do something, change something about themselves, etc. This is why we see "cool sites" popping up and the word cool in advertisements and on posters. There is something about the word cool that makes us stop and think, because cool has changed to mean what's "in" or "hip."
So how is Rice using the word cool though?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I really like your post because it explores the different uses of cool which is something I had trouble with when I read Rice's book for the first time. However, I'm curious if you think that the word "cool" did in fact take on a negative meaning and that's what drew people in to, for example, college ads and such?
To an extent, I do believe that cool somewhere along the line did take on a negative meaning-or lost what it originally meant (such as defying authority/rebelling). But then again, I was thinking as I was reading the passage about the ads that how big of a role does the word cool actually play? Just because something is labeled cool, at least at our age, we don't automatically just jump at it. It would be interesting though to actually figure out such impact.
I think you're right to see a shift in the way Rice conceives cool (in fact, the book itself never really settles on a single definition, but rather aims to introduce multiple ways of imagining cool in contemporary culture). That said, the movement from "rebellious" cool to "negative" or "corporate" cool doesn't signify a break as much as it does a process of appropriation, where institutions (the community college) and corporations (ad agencies, MTV, etc.) adopt the language of cool in order sell a product. We'll look at examples of appropriation later in the semester, but the short of it is (at least according to Rice and many others) concepts like "cool" aren't immune to the vampiric reach of the markets. In Thomas Frank's language, the market will eventually "commodify your dissent" in order to sell it back to consumers.
Post a Comment