“Has anyone already developed a theory about the obvious link between the ancient hipsterism and the new rojipardismo? (That is: why so much exhipster digivolves in reddish brown) I’m all ears”. The question is launched on Twitter by the journalist Raquel Peláez and opens a thread that is pure gold due to its social and political relevance.
To follow this thread, it is convenient to clarify what is understood on Twitter by “red-and-brown”, a term that brings together an important conversation on networks, although it does not end up having visibility outside the Internet. The rojipardos are subjects who claim to be from the left, but share political assumptions with the more conservative right. That is to say, they are those thirty-somethings (and forty-somethings) who assure that their parents lived better than them. And that in that “better” they merge the material conditions they envy (higher salaries and home ownership) with moral values they crave (the return of the conventional family, the demand for Spanish nationalism and a centralized State or the desire to live with fewer immigrants around). That is, voters with one foot on the left (wealth redistribution) and the other on the right (reactionary values).
Has anyone already developed a theory about the obvious link between the old hipsterism and the new rojipardismo? (I mean: why do so many ex-hipsters digivolve into reddish brown) I’m all ears
— Raquel Peláez (@RaquelPelaezG) March 20, 2023
And the writer Lucía Lijtmaer enters the thread: “Because if your aesthetics and speech are based on the fact that everything in the past was betterIt is a very logical achievement, I imagine”. “Absolutely. Nostalgia as the guiding thread”, endorses Peláez. Just before he jumps on the rebound juicy analysis of Sergio C. Fanjul. “I believe that hipsterism was the first ‘youth subculture’, so to speak, that did not respond to the system, but rather allowed itself to be loved by it. More integrated than apocalyptic. Evolution is logical.” Although Peláez demands Fanjul one more step. “Why is evolution logical?” And Fanjul gets wet: “I think there is a pendular movement in hegemony due to growing inequality, the continuous crises and the disappearance of the idea of the future.” The dialogue continues and ideas shine in real time, giving rise to a very fine and choral analysis —where dozens of voices and themes are woven, such as religion, the gender gap or the drift of 15-M— that shows how traditional ideologies They have been emptied of meaning and dressed in rags and poses for a large part of the electorate. As if the relationship between ethics and aesthetics had been blown up and modernity or youth were capable of turning reactionary theses into left-wing ideas.
It was expected. Especially if we remember that after the 2008 crisis, nothing was legislated or done to change things. The Occupy Wall Street movement, led by Micah M. White, dissolved innocuously and slowly the whole world assumed that nobody liked liberalism, but that we have all accepted it. In other words, after the defeat of ethics, one could only hope for the victory of an aesthetic that does not require coherence or rigor: anyone can defend whatever they want and name it whatever they want. Thus, at the gates of some generals, in Spain redjipardos abound, but also verdipardos, femipardas and former little oranges in search of a party that ignites their hearts. And what is left to the left? Read the thread by Raquel Peláez and underline. And then, remember that when the horizon disappears, there are only two options: go back or create a new one. Of course, with or without horn-rimmed glasses, the future will belong to whoever imagines it.
