What do you think?
Rate this book
Shooting Hipsters
In an age of PR, public protest and other forms of dissent have lost their meaning and impact. The intense media interest in rioting and political violence, as well as an existing obsession with youth culture, have led to an over-saturation and misrepresentation of what these movements are about. Political protest has become a pantomime where activists are always villains, and therefore the politics of these groups are routinely ignored. By identifying the ways in which publicity has helped and hindered a wide range of movements, Shooting Hipsters will find out the ways in which dissenting groups can thrive and survive in a media-saturated age, as well as describing the common ways that they can be undermined.
152 pages, Paperback
Published April 21, 2016
3 people are currently reading
213 people want to read
About the author
Christiana Spens
10 books16 followersDr Christiana Spens was educated at the University of Cambridge (Philosophy) and the University of St. Andrews (International Relations and Visual Studies). She is the author of several books, most recently "Shooting Hipsters: Rethinking Dissent in the Age of PR" (Repeater Books, 2016) and "The Portrayal and Punishment of Terrorists in Western Media: Playing the Villain" (Palgrave, 2019). She lives in London.
Photo: Sophie Davidson
Photo: Sophie Davidson
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 7, 2016
For many of us involved in leftist dissident politics the notion that we’d have a PR strategy seems an anathema: after all, that’s for the scumbags in the corporate world. But of course we do, we may not call it a PR strategy but at the heart of any activist politics is a need to get the message out, to win the debate, to convince ‘the people’ that our side is the right side. In doing so we’re in direct conflict with Power, that social force designed to maintain the status quo.
Decades of involvement in and around lefty dissident groups has taught me that all have a PR strategy somewhere on a continuum between rigorous rationality and romanticism: this is probably a characteristic of all political debate. The UK’s 2016 EU referendum is a fine example of this: on the one hand we had a leave campaign playing an unfettered ‘romantic’ card, claiming that a vote to leave was a vote to take back control over your life/country (of course, this has only a vague alignment with the truth) whereas the stay campaign mounted a rigorously rationalist ‘this-is-what-will-happen-if-we-leave’ argument, high on expertise and complexity and almost totally devoid of any emotional hooks – romantic this was not; aligned with the ‘truth’ – not really but more so than the leave gang. Of course, leave won, in part because of voter alienation but also because of the power of the romantic message of taking back control.
This distinction in the ‘Brexit’ moment was summoned up for me when, very close to the end, Spens asks:
All this comes a few pages after coming out as a Romantic.
This is the continuum Spens works with in this essay (she calls it a series of contemplations), on how profile projection works for dissident groups in the contemporary PR driven world. This is not a guide, and manual or a how-to book, but is an exploration of what works and what doesn’t in the context of some fairly reformist assumptions about what dissident groups are and what they aim for. Her approach is not to explore various groups one by one, but to sort them by ‘PR strategy’, so we have a discussion of the various styles of the Tea Party and Occupy alongside each other, the killing of Lee Rigby and the Boston Bombers considered together, and I am sure unsettlingly for some the suggestion that many dissident groups could learn a lot from the coherence and consistency but not the content of the ISIS approach, but also, that ISIS should teach us that tight focus on violence (or I’d argue any single message form) will weaken the power of the message by alienating sympathetic potential supporters.
The range of examples, from the left and right, from the clandestine (Anonymous) to the mass is impressive as is Spens’ ability to use well-crafted comparisons to highlight distinctions in mainstream media coverage, drawing for instance on London’s 2010 student protests to highlight the vilification of Charlie Gilmour for swinging on the cenotaph and ignoring of the police violence against Alfie Meadows, the subsequent brain damage and emergency surgery. Crucially, she avoids simple analysis and simple solutions – in this sense she is discussing fairly convention principles of PR, but in a way that demands of readers (this is aimed at activists) that we consider how activist groups can adopt a more nuanced approach. Perhaps her most significant example pointing to this nuance and the ability to change the narrative is an historic case, the Irish Republican hunger strikes of 1981/2, and especially the death of Bobby Sands as a moment of martyrdom that changed perceptions of the republican movement.
Throughout the book there is a strong rejection of simple binaries, and especially the simplistic images of the terrorist and the martyr in favour of a case that highlights the Romantic image of the dissident as offering “battle cries, aesthetic violence and heroic failure” as well as “peaceful civil resistance, integrity, open-mindedness, persistence and humility” (p 143). In the midst of this she is making a clear and for many cases compelling case that violence may help raise a profile but it seldom provides long term image benefits, while non-violence is more likely to achieve campaign specific objectives. She’s also quite clear that the Internet is only one tool and that there are many others – investigative journalism as well as art and other cultural practices are also vital. Her key message though, and this is where Bobby Sands is an important image, is to make sure that dissident groups are, as much as possible, watching, managing and changing the narrative to their ends.
This is an early publication from the new Repeater books: the binding could have been better as could the proofing. As to content, there’s some good analysis here, an openness of questions and conclusions, and good current examples that means this should help dissident and activist groups think more effectively about how we manage or ‘PR’ and resent ourselves to our publics.
Decades of involvement in and around lefty dissident groups has taught me that all have a PR strategy somewhere on a continuum between rigorous rationality and romanticism: this is probably a characteristic of all political debate. The UK’s 2016 EU referendum is a fine example of this: on the one hand we had a leave campaign playing an unfettered ‘romantic’ card, claiming that a vote to leave was a vote to take back control over your life/country (of course, this has only a vague alignment with the truth) whereas the stay campaign mounted a rigorously rationalist ‘this-is-what-will-happen-if-we-leave’ argument, high on expertise and complexity and almost totally devoid of any emotional hooks – romantic this was not; aligned with the ‘truth’ – not really but more so than the leave gang. Of course, leave won, in part because of voter alienation but also because of the power of the romantic message of taking back control.
This distinction in the ‘Brexit’ moment was summoned up for me when, very close to the end, Spens asks:
Must we accept a world where people seem to respond to this political circus, rather than reason alone? In a world where people are taken in by stories of villains and heroes, rather than facts and good arguments – should dissenting groups communicate their political points accordingly? (p137)
All this comes a few pages after coming out as a Romantic.
This is the continuum Spens works with in this essay (she calls it a series of contemplations), on how profile projection works for dissident groups in the contemporary PR driven world. This is not a guide, and manual or a how-to book, but is an exploration of what works and what doesn’t in the context of some fairly reformist assumptions about what dissident groups are and what they aim for. Her approach is not to explore various groups one by one, but to sort them by ‘PR strategy’, so we have a discussion of the various styles of the Tea Party and Occupy alongside each other, the killing of Lee Rigby and the Boston Bombers considered together, and I am sure unsettlingly for some the suggestion that many dissident groups could learn a lot from the coherence and consistency but not the content of the ISIS approach, but also, that ISIS should teach us that tight focus on violence (or I’d argue any single message form) will weaken the power of the message by alienating sympathetic potential supporters.
The range of examples, from the left and right, from the clandestine (Anonymous) to the mass is impressive as is Spens’ ability to use well-crafted comparisons to highlight distinctions in mainstream media coverage, drawing for instance on London’s 2010 student protests to highlight the vilification of Charlie Gilmour for swinging on the cenotaph and ignoring of the police violence against Alfie Meadows, the subsequent brain damage and emergency surgery. Crucially, she avoids simple analysis and simple solutions – in this sense she is discussing fairly convention principles of PR, but in a way that demands of readers (this is aimed at activists) that we consider how activist groups can adopt a more nuanced approach. Perhaps her most significant example pointing to this nuance and the ability to change the narrative is an historic case, the Irish Republican hunger strikes of 1981/2, and especially the death of Bobby Sands as a moment of martyrdom that changed perceptions of the republican movement.
Throughout the book there is a strong rejection of simple binaries, and especially the simplistic images of the terrorist and the martyr in favour of a case that highlights the Romantic image of the dissident as offering “battle cries, aesthetic violence and heroic failure” as well as “peaceful civil resistance, integrity, open-mindedness, persistence and humility” (p 143). In the midst of this she is making a clear and for many cases compelling case that violence may help raise a profile but it seldom provides long term image benefits, while non-violence is more likely to achieve campaign specific objectives. She’s also quite clear that the Internet is only one tool and that there are many others – investigative journalism as well as art and other cultural practices are also vital. Her key message though, and this is where Bobby Sands is an important image, is to make sure that dissident groups are, as much as possible, watching, managing and changing the narrative to their ends.
This is an early publication from the new Repeater books: the binding could have been better as could the proofing. As to content, there’s some good analysis here, an openness of questions and conclusions, and good current examples that means this should help dissident and activist groups think more effectively about how we manage or ‘PR’ and resent ourselves to our publics.
September 2, 2016
Disclaimer: I received this book in a Goodreads giveaway.
On the very last page of this book is the publisher's mission statement, which begins with "Repeater Books is dedicated to the creation of a new reality." Had this statement appeared at the beginning of the book, it would have saved me quite a bit of confusion and frustration.
Barely earning "book" status, this loosely related collection of rather poorly written essays claims to "rethink dissent in the Age of PR." In reality, it does no such thing, but rather seeks to act as an apologia for the failure of Occupy Wall Street (and similar movements) to affect meaningful change. The author's bias leans heavily toward outright prejudice, especially as she discusses the Tea Party. To summarize the author's arguments: Occupy & Arab Spring = Good; IRA = Chaotic Neutral; Tea Party & ISIS = Evil. Spens has written a Millennial Manifesto of sorts, and it falls short of any meaningful contribution.
Perhaps the poor writing also explains the poor editing; I almost feel the editor couldn't reject this work and just let it slide as presented.
An utter waste of time, this is one of the few I'd be just fine with burning for fuel during the Zombie Apocalypse.
On the very last page of this book is the publisher's mission statement, which begins with "Repeater Books is dedicated to the creation of a new reality." Had this statement appeared at the beginning of the book, it would have saved me quite a bit of confusion and frustration.
Barely earning "book" status, this loosely related collection of rather poorly written essays claims to "rethink dissent in the Age of PR." In reality, it does no such thing, but rather seeks to act as an apologia for the failure of Occupy Wall Street (and similar movements) to affect meaningful change. The author's bias leans heavily toward outright prejudice, especially as she discusses the Tea Party. To summarize the author's arguments: Occupy & Arab Spring = Good; IRA = Chaotic Neutral; Tea Party & ISIS = Evil. Spens has written a Millennial Manifesto of sorts, and it falls short of any meaningful contribution.
Perhaps the poor writing also explains the poor editing; I almost feel the editor couldn't reject this work and just let it slide as presented.
An utter waste of time, this is one of the few I'd be just fine with burning for fuel during the Zombie Apocalypse.
October 22, 2018
Interesting, readable and reasonably nuanced, if not terribly insightful or thorough.
September 7, 2016
I received this book as a Goodreads Giveaway.
I should have known when I found my first typo on 11 . This book is no good. While ignoring the anti-democratic tendencies of "protest" groups (which include Occupy and ISIS) Ms. Spens spends a lot of ink on worrying whether calling something "evil" is really a good idea. Bombings can have negative consequences. When Occupiers snarl up street traffic in New York people get mad at them.
Spens to be overly concerned at the "image" in the media of Occupiers as dirty, nasty hippies, which is remarkable as they were dirty nasty hippies. Worse, they were dirty nasty hippies who were ignoring laws and making it difficult for people to use or visit parks or whatever other area they decided to camp on. Ultimately, the Occupiers didn't know what they wanted but they knew they wanted it NOW.
When Spens discusses the Tea Party she neglects to even mention what TEA stands for ("Taxed Enough Already"). The portrayal in this book is not valid in any case as the Tea Party is an influence group, a grassroots movement to hold politicians to the conservative ideas they avow during elections but forget in Washington. Occupy was just a bunch of whiners with their hands out.
And to even compare these two groups to ISIS or the IRA is absurd.
What does ISIS, the IRA, Occupy and Trump protestors all have in common? Democracy doesn't work that well for them. Democracies are expected to abandon the principle that the majority should rule through their unintimidated vote.
Oh, and one more correction, this time to page 141: The Sun Also Rises took place after the First World War, not the second. Did the author even read this or did she just look at the Cliff Notes? Fortunately, no one will bother with Cliff Notes on THIS book. Includes amateurish cut-and-past illustrations reminiscent of the Red Army Faction demand note.
I should have known when I found my first typo on 11 . This book is no good. While ignoring the anti-democratic tendencies of "protest" groups (which include Occupy and ISIS) Ms. Spens spends a lot of ink on worrying whether calling something "evil" is really a good idea. Bombings can have negative consequences. When Occupiers snarl up street traffic in New York people get mad at them.
Spens to be overly concerned at the "image" in the media of Occupiers as dirty, nasty hippies, which is remarkable as they were dirty nasty hippies. Worse, they were dirty nasty hippies who were ignoring laws and making it difficult for people to use or visit parks or whatever other area they decided to camp on. Ultimately, the Occupiers didn't know what they wanted but they knew they wanted it NOW.
When Spens discusses the Tea Party she neglects to even mention what TEA stands for ("Taxed Enough Already"). The portrayal in this book is not valid in any case as the Tea Party is an influence group, a grassroots movement to hold politicians to the conservative ideas they avow during elections but forget in Washington. Occupy was just a bunch of whiners with their hands out.
And to even compare these two groups to ISIS or the IRA is absurd.
What does ISIS, the IRA, Occupy and Trump protestors all have in common? Democracy doesn't work that well for them. Democracies are expected to abandon the principle that the majority should rule through their unintimidated vote.
Oh, and one more correction, this time to page 141: The Sun Also Rises took place after the First World War, not the second. Did the author even read this or did she just look at the Cliff Notes? Fortunately, no one will bother with Cliff Notes on THIS book. Includes amateurish cut-and-past illustrations reminiscent of the Red Army Faction demand note.
goodreads-win
March 23, 2016Goodreads win
goodreads-win
August 16, 2016Goodreads win
August 26, 2016
In chapter 10 the author botches badly the American civil rights story about the tragic death of Emmett Till. Sloppy research.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews