Observations on the cultural differences between Europe and the U.S.

I've been trying to understand why it is that things that are considered "cool" are often very different in the US compared to Europe.

That's not to say that they are always different, but it strikes me that "cool" things in the US often tend to be more gruff, gritty and masculine; the term "rock'n roll" is used earnestly, as an endorsement; people wear much more casual clothes; outdoorsy things are relished; cars are massive and off-roadsy; textures are scruffy and grungey, colors and shapes are bold; stylistic statements are often somewhat heavy-handed; men cultivate stubble or full-on beards and sort of seem to wear their grit with pride.

While you sometimes see this in Europe as well, it happens more often that what is considered "cool" also inhabits more delicate, elegant sensibilities; spit-and-polish seems more valued somehow. You could go out on the town sporting an elegant suit and still be "cool", whereas in the US, you'd most likely be seen as either a boring corporate stooge, or a pretentious snob.

Americans often say "That's so European" about certain things, and by that they typically mean that what they're commenting on is small, effeminate, impractical, slightly anal and sometimes even a bit silly. Case in point: the Smart car. In the US, it's considered quaint but stupid, and, by virtue of it's diminutive size alone, unsafe. In Europe, its small size is a necessity, its safety features are recognized and its practical design is lauded.

While some of these differences may be historical and cultural, given how this country evolved, but I actually also think that some of the explanation for this perceived cultural difference actually lies in architecture and city planning, since the majority of modern lives are spent in urban, or at least suburban, environments.

American cities are, for the most part, concrete/steel/glass behemoths with comparatively little cultivated architectural beauty like, for instance, a European metropolis, where buildings are preserved and renovated, and not just torn down and rebuilt to suit the tastes of modern people, as dictated by the commercial conditions on a free market.

The scale is smaller in Europe compared to the US; cars are smaller, buildings are smaller, streets are smaller. People embrace the qualities evident in the little, fragmented things, whereas in the US, people tend to get lost in the scale and relative massiveness of things; they are at odds with their environments to a greater extent. Streets are laid out on conformist grids that make the scale seem even more massive; the same street continues on for miles and does not offer up very much in terms of spatial identity to its inhabitants. If a European says (s)he lives on a certain street, someone might ask "Oh, you live by the park?", whereas in the US, you wouldn't even know if it was the south side or north side of town, which makes you feel much more anonymous.

This means - to me - that there is less personalized, natural beauty present in people's everyday lives, on their level and in their spaces, to inform their aesthetic senses and allow them the luxury of self-expression; to define "coolness". Meaning, people either embrace and draw from a relative environmental crudeness, and have to enhance it for it to be noticed against the general cultural backdrop, or distance themselves entirely from city living with outdoorsy attributes, whenever they wish to embellish or express preferences in style or looks. By default, the tools of self-expression available to an American seem more coarse and grainy and somewhat less fine-tuned, perhaps simply because they have to be.

None of these differences are necessarily preferrable to their opposites, they're just... different. For me, personally, I would choose worn and cultivated small-scale urban beauty over the massive scale and convenience of new construction, or outright wildlife escapism. But perhaps that's just me.