Hipster Capitalism

Written: June 2019

“The hipster is a capitalist” proclaimed the newly elected culture and digital minister Matthew Hancock in a speech in 2016. William Deresiewicz described millennials as “Generation Sell” in his 2011 New York Times essay. Jean-Laurent Cassely has argued that “Brooklyism” (being a hipster) is the late stage of capitalism. Is this true? Are hipsters and millennials really just hardened capitalists hiding behind vegan shoes, beard oil and matcha coffee? Hipster capitalism can be defined by private individuals making profit through the use of artistic, craft or artisan skill sets. On the surface the trend of businesses like artisan bakeries, craft breweries  and “hand poked tattoo” shops seem to fit with this idea of hipster capitalism.  However it also seems like a contradictory statement: the hipster lifestyle is largely a counterculture trend against the mainstream and a break away from the mass production of cheaply produced goods to return to handmade made and locally sourced products. 

Hipster capitalism becomes a controversial issue in the debate over who is responsible for the gentrification of traditionally working class and immigrant neighbourhoods. Kelham Island for example changed it’s economic make-up dramatically in the last two decades, from a manufacturing district occupied by the working class, to the hippest place for millenials and hipsters to live. Kelham Island has its roots in the twelfth century when a handful of workshops and cottage industries set up on the land to use the River Don to power water wheels. Until the 1850s it was continually populated by small workshops, then came the creation of blast furnaces which generated a move towards mass production of steel. Throughout the 1900s steel production was nationalised by Labour and then privatised by the Conservatives, both attempts to secure the future of British steel production. The biggest change came in 1967 when steel was renationalised and 90% of UK production was bought together as the British Steel Corporation. This changed again with Thatcher's government in the 1980s when steel was privatised again to give the declining industry a boost.  It failed to do much good and the contraction of the industry throughout the 1980s and 1990s meant that Kelham Islands workshops and factories suffered. Many companies left their premises and buildings began to decay. Then the tide began to turn. Property in the area became cheap and new developments such as the Green Lane works housing development became attractive to young “hipster” people. This might have been because they were attracted to living in an environment which fitted their aesthetic or rent was cheap. Around this time new businesses (many considered catering to the hipster population) also moved in to spaces converted from their original use of factories. Discussions around the gentrification of Kelham Island soon followed. 

Was the intent of  those who moved in to create a “top ten coolest place to live” in Kelham Island? Hipsters are synonymous with millenials, born between the 1980s and 2000. Areas which are in the early throes of redevelopment tend to be cheaper, an attractive offer to young people struggling to move out of their parents homes/  Living and working in areas like Kelham Island becomes an uneasy balance between doing enough to ensure local businesses stay in profit and the community can thrive, but not too much that property capitalists can swoop in and cause dramatic change to the dynamics of the local community. Many hipsters have sought to combat this by creating businesses which value community, education and sustainability, all of which have the potential to support and grow local communities. By placing the blame on hipster capitalism for gentrification, we tactfully ignore the larger processes which have enabled gentrification to come about. Policy changes surrounding social housing, tourism, infrastructure, education and culture create a city which is ripe for gentrification. These policy decisions create a demonization of working classes, making it clear they have less value to the future of the city than citizens with more money and cultural sway. While hipster capitalism often benefits from these policy decisions, we mustn’t create scapegoats out of hipsters. Gentrification is a top down process. 

The rise of hipster trends means that as Michael Scott argues culture and design have been commodified in fresh and resourceful ways. Hipsters have attempted to forge their identity through a connection to the past: creating products which can be made by hand, wearing pre-loved clothing and enjoying traditional hobbies like baking and gardening. Their businesses push the local, artisan and handmade, and bring profit back to the individual and the small business, and away from the all-encompassing faceless corporate entities. By blaming hipster capitalism, we willfully turn our heads away from the bigger and nastier causes of gentrification and waste our energies in making real progress in preserving our cities traditional neighbourhoods.