How to (Not) Be a Poser, by Braeden Pelko

There is an unwritten rule among fanbases: you need to be familiar with the material you represent. In other words, if you like something to the point where you claim to be a fan of that thing, it is assumed that you have some knowledge of said thing. In theory, this seems like a logical assumption. However, recent discourse among music fanbases suggests that if somebody is dressed or acts in a certain way where they seem to be a fan of a given thing, they have the potential to not be that. Essentially, these people claim to be something that they are not. Colloquially, these people are considered to be “posers.”

A “poser” is a term used to describe anyone who acts in an insincere or eccentric way for the attention of other people, by way of impressing them with niche music taste or what have you. The term “poser” has been a thing since the late ‘70s. It arose from ‘70s punk and skateboarding culture. Being called a poser in those times was exclusively an insult, meant to ostracize and denote someone as inauthentic. In modern times, this is still what a poser is, although it seems to be applied to almost anything. But what qualifies as a poser?

For the ‘70s punk scene, it describes a person who has not been truly involved with specific ideas or practices that make them “punk.” The punk subculture arose out of a general discontent with the status quo. A sort of rebellion against traditional norms and values in favor of embracing individuality and a rejection of anything mainstream. This meant a stance against the commercialization of rock music, specifically music made for monetary gain and not for enjoyment. To an extent, simply following these ideas or practices makes you punk, without having to listen to punk rock music. However, it is generally accepted that if you follow the conventional punk train of thought along with listening to the music, you are not a poser.

The biggest problem with posers in a music scene often has the most to do with fashion and listening habits. Fashion is often a primary identifier of somebody’s affiliation with a certain subculture. If you looked punk, it was generally accepted that you were. However, people who dress as punk aren’t necessarily punk in context to the bigger picture. To put it simply, you can dress in a leather jacket, ripped jeans, and put your hair in a tall mohawk, but if you're listening to Taylor Swift and hold conservative values, you’re not punk.

This contradiction has plagued many subcultures and scenes for years now, but has seemed to pick up steam with recent trends.

There seems to be a higher concentration of people who look and identify with subcultures — whether it be goth, alternative, or the K-pop fandom. Social media has undoubtedly made it easier for people to showcase their styles as well as opinions to more and more people. With this sharing, many people are quick to point out flaws in one’s affiliation with a subculture on the basis of how they interact with the subculture's thoughts and practices.

There seems to be a split online between people who remain pure to a subculture’s foundation on what makes somebody truly a member, and people who think these arbitrary rules lack a proper basis to outright exclude somebody.

For example, let's take the gothic subculture. Arising in England in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, the embrace of non-traditional values and dark themes created a music genre that adopted the moniker of goth music. Bands such as The Cure, Bauhaus, Joy Division, and Siouxsie and the Banshees created a unique sound that centered around introspection, storytelling, and a generally gloomy or dark atmosphere combined with a certain up-tempo groove. These bands would often demonstrate themes of individuality, a fight for change, and anti-authoritarian views that attracted a fan base who shared these sentiments.

To accompany the sound, the artists and fans alike adopted a prominent fashion style: dark clothes, pale skin, eccentric eye liner, and often lots of jewelry and piercings (although styles differ, these are general characteristics that make a gothic look identifiable). First and foremost, goth was a music based subgenre; however, fashion came second according to many people who identify as such. Therefore, there is that notion that you can look goth, but it all depends on listening habits and beliefs.

The discourse online seems to be that many people share that they are goth based on looks exclusively, but in a practical sense, they are not because they potentially don’t listen to goth music or believe in certain ideas. Many people share online how they identify as goth based on looks exclusively, but they do acknowledge that their identification with goth is purely aesthetic and does not extend to their music taste nor beliefs.

Additionally, if you listen to goth music and believe in goth principles, you can identify as goth. I use the word “can” because as of recently, people have started to not self-identify themselves as goth due to online presences judging the validity of their identification.

A level of toxicity has been created in many online subcultures (as with any large enough subculture has). At the end of the day, people should be able to dress however they want and listen to whatever without the threat of being called a poser for “rules” of a particular scene. However, it should be made aware to these people what they are actually representing when they choose to have these identifying characteristics that could make somebody assume they are a part of a given subculture. Maybe they are accidentally representing something they don’t want to represent, or they can potentially give those passionate and involved members a way to feel bad about their beliefs and ideas. The general consensus is that putting yourself into a subculture you know little to nothing about generates this level of toxicity.

Along with established subcultures having a poser problem, I can’t finish up without talking about a new wave of posers hitting the masses as of late. I’m of course talking about a certain group of men: “performative males”.

A performative male is a new classification, of sorts, of man that is exclusively meant to pander towards women. This is done by embracing less masculine traits and hobbies to hopefully attract the female gaze. The general look of a performative male is a man with baggy jeans, a loose tank top, sunglasses, usually a mustache, carrying matcha, and listening to music through wired headphones, often characterized as listening to artists such as Clairo, Laufey, Lana Del Rey, or other musicians who have a primarily female target demographic. A performative male will then do activities that are seen as something only to impress a passerby to appear likeable, or “not like other guys.” This can include painting nails, reading feminist literature, or playing guitar for somebody.

Everything done by an assumed performative male is now always seen as a joke. The feminist literature or matcha or wired headphones are not seen as genuine expressions of beliefs or preferences. There have been many contests held at universities, typically, that look to crown the ultimate performative male. The contestants of these competitions are almost never there because they are truly identifying with this style, but they are there to mock anyone that does just to point out how absurd it is.

Of course there’s nothing inherently wrong with trying any of the performative male activities if you genuinely want to. The problem is that performing those activities now has a negative connotation that puts you into the category of a poser on the basis that you don’t actually care about what you are doing. It is always good to do what you want and learn about other people’s beliefs, and you should totally do that if you are interested in it.

First and foremost, the performative male persona fits a trend in subcultures we’re seeing; that being the following of trends. A brand new form of inauthenticity is created when people only seem to dress, act, or behave in a certain way for a short period of time only because it is what’s popular. The big issue arising is how subcultures are meant, in many capacities, to be a form of authentic self-expression, and how following a trend shows people becoming impostors in a subculture. These trends eventually fade out of popularity and the people who (for lack of a better explanation) have nothing better to do, move on to a new fad.

This being said, there are always a group of people that find their footing in trends and fully embrace them to integrate themselves into a given subculture that trend arose from. Following a trend is not inherently a bad thing. However, playing into a trend in an imitative rather than appreciative manner is a bad thing. At the end of the day, if you find something of value in a subculture, you should embrace it.