I dunno, a lot of this does match up with most of it.

There are some bigger pieces where it doesn't match up though, and there are aspects of the piece in general that reflect more upon the author's opinions than anything else.
Interestingly it *does* seem to be an exact correlation when you apply it to FA, with the creators, "fanatics"(staff), "mops" (generalized watchers) and socipopaths (IMVU) from the standpoint of IMVU being an "outsider" with nothing invested in the "subculture" of FA, trying to monetize it, and causing serious issues in the subculture as a result.

I wouldn't call "furries" a subculture. It's so diverse it has it's own subcultures. It means so many different things to so many different people, it's kinda hard to label really...

Well, technically furry fandom is/was a subculture, initially of science-fiction/literary fandom; the whole general formation was mainly focused when when the SIG (Special Interest Group) became large enough that it became unwieldy as a subset of local sci-fi conventions. Room parties and panels became big enough that we started to realize that we weren't just single tiny localized groups, but a much larger widespread group as a whole.

Well, it's an interesting opinion piece, in any case. I hardly agree, based on my experience within a variety of subcultures. You cannot stop change, and change isn't always good. And all things end in time.

I would posit instead that subcultures are more likely to spawn other subcultures, ie, My Little Pony spawning the Brony culture. Demoscene inspiring the Chip Scene. Science Fiction, Furry. Furry has its own subcultures as well, as I'm sure you are familiar.

I think the furry fandom has gone way past geeky subjects though. Sure, you have Sonic, Pokémon, Star Fox, other cartoons, and so on, but none of those are themselves the basis for the fandom. You like characters that are a mishmash of human and animal? Welcome to the fandom. There is no base level of skill even required to be a creator in the fandom. Creators get upset and leave? There are others to take their place. There is always drama. This may have come out of the fragmented world it started in before large central art sites existed.

Well, like a lot of the other terminology in the piece, "geek" is really nebulous, it has multiple meanings and some of them are massively subjective. By loose definition, some of the interests in the fandom are very esoteric and specific and thus could be seen to be rather "geeky".
Your point is one I brought up in discussion with JakeRabbit, actually; as fandoms go, Furry is a bit unusual in some ways, and brings up the question as to whether (and when/how) a subculture can progress to a full-fledged culture (but at 2AM after a bunch of alcohol, discussions get *really* wandering, esoteric and silly).

The sociopaths descended long ago, the geeks just withdraw and do their things with the other geeks leaving the mainstream for the mops and sociopaths, occasionally extracting content from those that feed the mops... at least the smart ones do.

The 'furry' culture is more widespread than we might think...it's just not necessarily called 'furry' elsewhere. It should have died a long time ago according to edia or some haters, yet the internet proved that it's not only being still alive, it's rather growing even more with the years!

I just hate the term 'furry', it mostly imply negative stuff. Sometime the comparison is valid, but most of the time it's not.

Well, what we refer to as "furry" is something that's been around forever, man has always been fascinated with anthropomorphism (look at cave paintings, for example), the fandom simply "organizes" (using that word very loosely there!) as a recognized subject of interest. The "growing" that you're seeing is the mainstream acceptance that it's always been there as a subject of interest, and that the "fandom" is merely an expression of that interest.
The negative connotation of "furry" is unfortunately a construct of media (both general and social) focusing on negative aspects, because they're more sensational, and thus more apt to draw the attention those outlets are seeking. There's no denying that there *are* negative aspects to the fandom, but that's true of anything. It's just that the perception is skewed because the focus of attention is so narrow.

I've...got nothing to add to that, we're both perfectly on the same wavelength on that subject!

Seems rather cynical and elitist take on subcultures, if you ask me. And of course, the sociopaths are there from the start.

I think what you're looking for is "hipsterish", and yes, I have to agree, the POV of the article is rather elitist. However it doesn't entirely negate the observations made, when applying it to different concepts of "subculture", especially when looking at other subcultures and groups in retrospect. I can see how some of that they're describing came into play in sci-fi fandom, is happening here on FA. But the thesis definitely has some holes in it, particularly when it comes to the "death" of the subculture, which is where I think a lot of the hipster/elitist comes into play (the point at which something isn't "cool" anymore and thus "dead to them").

"Hipsterish" is exactly the right word, thank you.

You're right that he's got some good points, like the importance of both core fans/content creators and "casual" fans/content consumers for any thriving subculture. I'm just looking at this from the perspective of tabletop RPGs, where complaining about the newbies / mundanes / fake gamer girls is depressingly common and has IMO held the gaming scene back in many places.

It seems to me that subcultures as defined here are made predominantly to be closed ecosystems with little coming in or out, when in fact the mainstreaming part that many people so dread (see for instance video gaming) is in many cases part of an inevitable treadmilling effect. Mainstreaming itself for furry (aside from many of the more bizarre or fetishy works) has to my understanding been underway for some time even prior to IMVU and though it may or may not hail the end of the exclusivity the fandom once enjoyed, it isn't an end to the larger culture or the fandom itself.

Yeah, like I mentioned to Wakboth above, the summation of the thesis is pretty hipster and elitist (ie, as soon as it's not exclusive, it's no longer cool, and thus dead), what really interested me was application of the described flow of cultural interaction, cause and effects.
"Mainstreaming" as you put it, is the inevitable result of a successful subculture; as it becomes more widespread, it either becomes a culture unto itself (and thus its own mainstream) or it's subsumed into another culture as "normal". Science-fiction is probably the best example of this. Sci-fi has become relatively mainstream at this point, to the point where we're seeing a decline in generalized sci-fi conventions; you don't need to go to a convention to get your fan-fix, you can watch it on prime-time TV, in the theater, on the web. You can buy DVDs and books on Amazon, chat with other fans on the web, and the guy sitting next to you in the office is as likely to like *something* sci-fi, as not.

We're already involved in a few studies as it pertains to subcultures. AC each year there are individuals handing out surveys.

I only see the subculture growing as it is, with the internet offering a hard communication line for the community, and our content is generated by the fandom. This is the biggest thing that I think sets us apart in that we're not relying on an outside business for our content. Artists, writers and creators within our community fuel the community, so unless we lose all the talented folk who draw, write, RP, sew, sculpt or otherwise dream and do, I don't think we'd face a dying out and the more exposure we get (hopefully positive!) the more individuals learn, become curious and potentially join in at some point.

Tangent question. Some people cite Disney's Robin Hood for their initial interest in the general anthro idea back in their childhood. What will another similar movie do for the community years from now? I realize this kind of trods on my previous statement about inside content, this is just an amusing thought.

That was actually my main point of discussion with JakeRabbit, in that "furry fandom" as a subculture essentially does not exactly fit the pattern as described. (and your comment once again, like others here, reminds me of an anecdote I think I may make a journal on over lunch today).

I think part of what made "Robinhood" such a transitional and influential film for many "protofurries" is because it was the first major release animated film that took cartoon animals from being purely cartoon to something much more realistic. The characters were pretty/handsome in a much more anthropomorphic fashion than previously: Robin and Marion are much more "foxes" that cartoonish representations of foxes, etc. This sort of mirrors the slightly later schism in comic-books that arguably "started" furry fandom, where a subset of artist/writers who wanted to deal with current, modern and adult situations in a more realistic style, split away from the older traditional cartoony humor-oriented style.

Will there ever be another films that's "Robin Hood"-level influential on the fandom? "Robin Hood" made a lot of folks realize they were "furries", a concept for them that hadn't existed before that, wasn't even named or vaguely formulated at the time, it would be difficult to pull that off again. However, "Zootopia" looks like it *might* be poised to have a similar influence in that it could potentially cause people to *accept* that they're "furries", at least in the sense of finding adult-themed anthropomorphic animals entertaining on a more widely acceptable and normal level.

The influence "Zootopia" might have will largly depend on what it is...cause if it's a goofy, slapstick kinda thing, then it probably won't do much. I think "Robin Hood" worked the way it did because it's a hero story (and we all wanna be the 'hero' in our fantasies), there was a level of romance mixed with a degree of sexuality (the movie was geared more towards young teens then little kids) and it dealt with some serious topics (even though Disney lightened them up some). Robin Hood hit on things that could tip an "on the fence furry" into accepting their interest, but I'm not yet sure Zootopia has enough to do that...it'll be about the level of adultness to the movie.

Okay... voice of Doctoral Authority:

Disagree with the article. We're a subculture. I'm speaking as an anthropologist. I don't think the author of that is an anthropologist and might not be a sociologists.

Second, I'm part of a group of psychologists (PhD furries) and sociologists (more PhD furries) studying our culture (I'm the lone anthropologist.) We're actually a pretty interesting group, and the dynamics are changing thanks to media.

*laughs*

Now Mel, you know darn tootin' you can't just say "I'm a Doctor, it's wrong.".

Not that I'm disagreeing with you; I disagree with major points of his analysis myself (I just find some of the cultural interactions and social structure he posits to be intriguing), but you gotta throw me a bone here Mama; what's he doing wrong? I'm just an old wolf with a lot of observation on my side, I ain't got all the wisdom, smarts and book-learnin' you do!!

Well, to go all Wiki-pedia-y on you, we do meet the definition of a subculture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcu.....ng_subcultures

We have our own language terms (yiff, fursuit, headless lounge, meep, etc, etc) but beyond fursuits we belong to a larger subculture "fandoms of a certain type" (you can walk into any hotel where there's a con and without badges can tell with 90% accuracy who's in the group).

We even show up in Wikipedia's List Of Subcultures (though the papers attached to it are Just Plain Creepy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_....._subcultures#F

We're hardly dead, though one aspect of media focusing on us is that media is defining "furry" as "all wear fursuits or partial fursuits." Whether this becomes the norm is interesting to consider (I have a pair of coyote ears that I may wear if I remember to, but I don't see myself ever fursuiting) but at the moment what's bringing folks into the fandom is the fursuits. It's impacting the culture, but then few cultures are ever static.

An I'm a doctor an he's wrong! (pout)

I think as long as there's cold soda in ice-filled bathtubs at science-fiction conventions room parties, there will always be Furry Fandom. That's my Berk Opinion! (Non-doctorate.) ^_^

-2Paw.

'The Sociopath Invasion' section feels unpleasantly familiar, and I can't help feeling like someone at IMVU read it and thought, "Gee, this is a great idea!"

I've watched a few subcultures burn more or less as described here, some via exploitation and some under the sheer weight of a mop onslaught. Sometimes there's also been an element of "Yup, we've pretty much killed this subject."

You remind me of an observation I made at one time that certain governments and agencies seem to have misapprehended Orwell's "1984" as an instruction manual, instead of a cautionary tale.

I think that everyone above a certain level of literacy has thought much the same in recent times. Which brings up an interesting point; I wonder to what degree this theory about subcultures can be accurately applied or adapted to Western civilization? Or any civilization, really.

That is an interesting point. Logically speaking you'd think that anything that was applicable to a subculture would be nominally applicable to the culture that it spawned from, subculture being a subset of culture. But cultures are people and logic doesn't always apply.

Still, I can think of situations where it seems to have applied, particularly obvious when applied to countries/cultures that have experienced recent civil-war, revolution or some other form of socio-political turmoil; assuming the same three classes ("makers", "organizers", "masses") you do seem to invariably see an influx of "sociopath" individuals and/or groups with no interest in the "culture" attempting to make a profit off of it of some sort, usually in a fashion that's ultimately detrimental to the culture.

Or it can be observed in situations where there's a large migration of one culture into the sphere of another culture.

Ehhh, sounds like thoughtful reading judging by the other comments but at the same time anyone that uses a word from Harry Potter in an intellectual paper is immediately suspect in my mind.

I didn't really think of that! Oddly enough, "muggle" now appears in the Oxford dictionary, defined as "A person who is not conversant with a particular activity or skill" (it's still attributed to Rowling, but apparently it's been adopted as an actual word in English).

*nods* I know, I looked it up at Merriam-Webster to see if the word existed before Harry Potter... apparently began with Rowling but has since entered the general lexicon. Happy for her but at the same time...

"(A)s soon as subcultures start getting really interesting, they get invaded by muggles, who ruin them. Subcultures have a predictable lifecycle, in which popularity causes death. "

*Twitch* And here's where I quit reading this stupid article. This sort of elitist and entitled gatekeeper mentality is perhaps the thing I hate the most about Geek Culture. New people aren't allowed to enjoy the things we enjoy, because they can't possibly appreciate them on the proper level. (Also, it makes me feel less special about the things I enjoy, but I'm not going to mention that.)

Yeah, it's been generally agreed that the overall tone of the article is very "hipsterish", the whole "as soon as it's popular it's no longer cool and therefore dead to me" mentality.
What intrigued me was actually the posited social structure and interactions, breaking down the social structure into "creators", "organizers" and "general fans" essentially, and the addition of the "sociopaths", the individuals who get involved in a fandom mostly because they see it as an income resource, something that they can monetize. There's been at least one individual like that in the past, and I can't help but observe that IMVU fits that role on FA. Similarly I have seen entire conventions in other genres that are *entirely* commercial ventures, which I cannot help but think are detrimental to the overall "friendliness" of a fandom.

You've read a lot of attitude into that statement. If you'd kept reading you'd have found some fair substantiation for the claim. The truth isn't always a nice guy.

That blog post kind of reminded me of the pitch for a pickup artist site.

Tired of your subculture always ending up with an alpha male? Use my patented system to up your game and you'll get all the mops you want!

If I might extrapolate further on this?

It is conclusive that all the cons have gone to shit. I think it is due to a paradigm shift in the fandom- it's not about being friendly, inclusive, silly, or entertaining. It's not even really about the fandom anymore. Be it anime, video games, furries, or even My Little Pony, It has become a profit venture, an exclusivity club, and a power trip. Those who attend have likened themselves to social climbers attending grand galas and formal luncheons while the staff see themselves as exclusive rulers that have chosen to, in their great kindness, allow the rabble to mingle in their presence.

That, along with the more subtle, slower degredation of the fandoms as a whole, has made me very sad. They used to be friendly, creative, unique communities, even as far back as the 90's, with some fandoms. Now it's just a collection of unrelated people who can't agree on a single commonality.

But hey, you could always reserve an extra 10 minutes in the ball pit.

Mel White's actually a member of the group, I'd completely forgotten about it until you and she mentioned it!

I'll read up on more layer...if I don't take a nap on lunch lol

For the most part from what I read and how I understood it
The furry community dose fit in with this...it's more tossed back and forth seems like...to me anyways...
Since the Brony Community is the newest gathering that I know of it also fits in with this also...
Like I said I'll have to do more reading

Personally I call the "Fandom" a "Community"
Guess I don't like the way the furry fandom sounds :/
Every now and then I'll call it a sub culture community around humans if leading subjets are leading or heading close to a similar topic...
"I'm part of a sub culture community..."
And I'll leave it at that