I've been thinking about cool, where did it come from? The concept is such a ubiquitous one in the world today, it's difficult to imagine society without it. I know it's a somewhat overused and vague term, my definition is the desire to dress and behave in a way that inspires admiration and emulation in others, a certain grace, ease and poise that find their opposite in those ill dressed, awkward, clumsy and extremely self conscious. Of course cool does require an element of being self conscious but in an unselfconscious way. The aim is to give oneself an unconcerned air so that whatever one does appears effortless and natural. Cool itself really couldn't exist without its antithetical polar opposite uncool, which I define as already mentioned. If everyday people fall over, drop things, wear badly fitting, clashing clothes then those few that are cool do not, or at least so it appears.
It is obvious that this idea complex has made heavy inroads into modern society and underpins many cultural enclaves. For instance what would the music business be without the musicians who seem to embody cool and thus provide icons and role models for the rest of us whilst ensuring there will always be a supply of new blood as people constantly try to enter that world and try their luck? So much so that many people don't even bother with the musical side of things, preferring to live the rock and roll lifestyle rather than concentrating on the original heart of it all, creating good, heartfelt music that speaks to people on a basal level. Or how about the film industry with the glamour of global fame, once again subject to the issue of style over substance? Witness the number of films made with enormous budgets that simply reuse old ideas without any attempt to contribute anything artistically new. In fact there appears to be a tacit agreement between cinema goers and the big studios, one keeps on churning out unoriginal films and the other continues to watch them. But people continue to travel to Hollywood looking to get involved in the whole lifestyle, hoping they will be spotted or discovered. Getting away from myself a bit here, the point is that when we look at many pockets of culture we find this concept of cool as a central element.
This aspirational aspect, a striving to become more like the chosen role model of cool, is key and has been greatly aided in its ascendance by the proliferation and cross contamination of mass media during the 20th and 21st centuries. In the 1800s actors, such as Dame Ellen Terry, became held in high esteem by a large section of the public due to media that could inform a greater number of people about their activities. This emergent characteristic continued into the 20th century and as cinema became a global phenomenon silent movie idols such as Clara Bow, Rudolph Valentino and Charlie Chaplin appeared in concert with magazines such as 'Photoplay' and 'Motion Picture' to cater for the public's desire to know more about them. Without wanting to go into too much detail it is an easy matter to trace the increasing pervasiveness of celebrity culture through the 20th and into the 21st centuries. Of course this deviates somewhat from the idea of untouchable and ineffable cool as comparing those early star magazines to today's celebrity gossip sheets we can see a much more intrusive attitude to cool watching. This is partly due to attempts to up the ante from the point of view of maintaining readerships and/or viewing figures but is also a natural by product of such intense curiosity or perhaps we should realistically say obsession with cool watching. After all if the normal members of society aspire to cool then they would naturally want as many pointers to how to behave as possible, thus leading to a demand for insights into all aspects of these celebrities lives. This of course becomes a system web whose each move influences the other, that of the media, the public and the admired stars.
However to come back to more mundane issues at an everyday level, most people have likely felt embarrassed at tripping over in public view, coming out of the bathroom with toilet paper stuck to their shoe or countless other faux pas. It is partly the wish to be above such things, which of course is impossible and is really just a function of believing in an airbrushed version of reality that doesn't exist, that leads to idolising the purveyors of cool. By now this process has come full circle as the media intrudes so much into the lives of the cool that we see them showing their embarrassing sides on a regular basis. But this has now become aspirational in itself so giving these formerly embarrassing activities an air of legitimacy. My initial thought was not though to analyse the cult of celebrity but more about from where the spark for the cool/uncool polarity comes.
It seems to me that a fairly good explanation comes by looking at the behaviours of the other members of the animal kingdom. As with so many human activities an examination of animal behavioural strategies provides a starting point from which to extrapolate the tangents consequently pursued in human social activities. In this case the necessity of some kind of signaling behaviour facilitating the maintenance of hierarchical group structure. Put simply the male or female in charge needs a way of indicating this to his or her subordinates. Such displays are usually eminently distinguishable often at a distance. So visual or aural displays are the most common. These include brightly coloured, prominently displayed feather or scale patterns in birds and reptiles, coloured or striped flesh patches that can be displayed when needed to assert dominance in mammals, or the more permanent signs of potency such as the silver haired backs of dominant male gorillas. All these and more have been seen numerous times in wildlife documentaries and even visits to the zoo. In human society these assertions of dominance have been subject to a certain amount of disassociation from their original purpose, this abstraction is an inevitable consequence of the amount of variation in human social relations. However we can still make comparisons of the elements involved.
In terms of appearance the forms adopted seem to be opposites, either overstated and flamboyant or aggressively understated. However they both reflect a significant deviation from the normal by either standing out or blending in. In a similar way dominant animals will adopt an apparently unconcerned demeanour, after all they are supposed to be above the petty power play of animals at the lower echelons of the hierarchy, until the need to defend their position arises in which case they must quickly and effectively show their muscle and prove they are in control. This generally unconcerned, relaxed and assured nature is most important as it shows the animal to be at ease, though of course that environment in humans is less one of physical competition, at least in the areas which I am concerned with, and more one of showing dominance by firm body language.
