On the Chipster Question

Why Chipsters? Why Now?

A recent Telemundo segment posted on YouTube covering “Los Chipsters” was recently reblogged by Pocho.com along with eight satirical indicators that ostensibly help readers discover if they may be Chipsters themselves. The repost on the blog brought new—however limited— life to the term. In addition, the latest Urban Outfitters scandal involving the (mis)appropriation of the UFW logo  kicked up discussions that again referenced and used the Chipster term. It got me wondering what are we saying when we call someone a Chipster? What (if any) political projects does the term Chipster imply? Or better yet, what or who is invested in this identity?

While some argue that Chipster and hipster are synonymous and occupy the same location within the Los Angeles urban political landscape, I argue that such comparison neutralizes  and conceals the racial and economic history (and current reality) of both Chican@s and hipsters. In other words, more than just “a Chican@ hipster”, Chipster reveals the tensions between the racist-white norms of corporate marketing and increased purchasing power of LA Chican@s and Latinos nationwide.

According to the aforementioned television segment, the definition of Chipster is located between an existence that vacillates between US and Mexican culture. Upon such revelation, one immediately wonders what, then, is the definition of Chican@? Chican@ isn’t the only term to describe the hybridity of US and Mexican culture– one can point to pocho and, the obvious term, Mexican-American. Nevertheless, rather than a benevolent attempt to create a trendy (?) identity, my point is to argue that Chipster rests on an assimilationist paradigm that seeks to reconstruct what is known as Chican@ identity– political struggle, intellectual consciousness, activism, social change,  and movement-building — into a consumer-centric identity aspiring towards whiteness and upward class mobility. The recent appropriation of the UFW logo by Urban Outfitters is a great example of Chican@s who, towards Chipster-hood, are depoliticized and rendered a culture to be mined for potential fashion trends for white and Chipster consumers alike.

Ultimately, what results is a kind of rebranding of the Chican@ identity.


To understand the implications of Chipster its useful to begin at hipster. The currency that the term hipster contains largely derives from its function as a proxy to whiteness. Whiteness, in turn, points to a constellation of tastes, values, morals, and aspirations. Keeping with this logic, discourse about hipsters is directly or indirectly about white people. This shouldn’t be surprising since race has historically been a primary organizing principle for US society. Hipster for the most part refers to whiteness.

Historically, scholars of color have documented the role of whiteness in “mainstream” culture and the associated value, norms, privileges, and costs. A cursory reading of works by W.E.B. DuBois, Cheryl Harris, and George Lipsitz (Souls of White Folks (1920) , Whiteness as Property (1993), The Possessive Investment in Whiteness (1998), respectively) provides solid introduction that reveals the legacy of whiteness as its universality in US culture. It follows that this legacy of value of whiteness (economic or psychological) has been accrued throughout generations and remains relevant today. Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro’s (1995) documents this through the persistent wealth gap between people of color and whites ( though recent research continues to have similar findings). Whiteness itself has value and society, in turn, places value on whiteness. Given the presupposed whiteness in hipster the logic follows that society places a social, economic, and political value on hipster.

In addition to being radicalized as white, “hipster” operates in two simultaneous class positions by simultaneously encompassing the pioneer and yuppie. This broad class situation permits “hipster” to be utilized in multiple, if contradictory, ways within a larger neoliberal context. I contend it is this reason why the term is simultaneously considered a compliment, a trend, and an insult simultaneously.

From one end, hipster is commonly used as a proxy for the pioneer. In an urban setting that faces, is experiencing, or has undergone gentrification. In gentrification literature, pioneers are largely considered low-income artists who move into low-income areas (disproportionately populated by people of color) for the promise of cheap rent that might facilitate an increase in art production. Pioneers are largely associated with the first wave of gentrification— those who venture into the “wilderness” so as to “tame” it and achieve some sense of economic productivity (as any good neoliberal subject must). Here the pioneer is represented by an artist who invests in a home or small business in a largely “undesirable” or “blighted” area. It’s not difficult to see how and why gentrification scholar Neil Smith was keen on highlighting the parallels between settler colonialism and gentrification.

On the other end, where some gentrification theorists would argue that artists begin gentrification by making a neighborhood attractive block-by-block others argue that the city plays a large role in gentrification by actively attracting businesses and residents who are more solidly middle to upper-class—here resides the yuppie. Unlike the avant-garde pioneers yuppies are more closely related to mainstream culture, their purchasing power, and a more advanced stage of gentrification.

While this may be considered a oversimplification of the relevant terms, for purposes here my point is to highlight the class dimension—the (starving artist) pioneer and (suburb-fleeing) yuppie— simultaneously conveyed under the “hipster.”


Los Angeles’ political economy continues its restricting set to transform the inner city— and the urban suburbs for that matter— into sites of consumption, communities of color identified as ripe for development (particularly as tourist destinations). These developments direct hipsters to places such as Echo Park and Los Feliz until they overwhelmingly transform it to a “multi-cultural” (read: white) neighborhood. However, the wave of white folks into communities of color is not without contention. Recent discussion surrounding an impending gang injunction around echo park lake serves as a pertinent example here.

The term hipster and its location at both ends of the white gentrifier spectrum guarantees their presence in all aspects of urban “development.” The legacy of racial segregation and its persisting influence in mainstream urban planning renders places occupied by bodies of color as “blighted” and, as a result, in need of investment from entrepreneurs—whom, again, are disproportionately white. By directing all “development” projects towards consumption by the white, middle-class bodies of color are deemed threats to that exclusive relationship and subjected to hyper-surveillance, criminalization, and expulsion from those spaces.

Indeed, the  monetary value of whiteness is revealed through wealth accumulated by whites through generations. Through perpetual aspirations for an higher tax base, cities invariably recruit whites as residents—as demonstrated by property values disaggregated by race.


Being aware of how whiteness and hipster are co-constitutive allows one to understand how Chipster is a misnomer. Attempting a value-neutral coupling of Chican@s and hipster isn’t possible. The history of whiteness and the exclusive benefits in the form of wage labor and generational wealth accumulation where and are not extended to people of color. While Chican@s have made notable progress in Los Angeles, they continue to make gains—however marginal—an increasingly precarious local and global economy. Indeed, Chican@s, along with African Americans, have been the hardest hit and slowest to recover from the latest global recession. Before the recession, social scientists have carefully documented the persistent wealth gap between white and people of color and, recently, noted its widening after the 2008 recession.

Due to the whiteness inherent in the notion of hipster, and the particularity of whiteness, that complicates the idea of Chican@s– or people of color in generally—being considered such. While a small number of Chican@s might have comparable incomes, a smaller number have comparable wealth. Chican@s–as assimilated as can be or unauthorized as can be—can’t be truly compared to hipsters.

While the national economy continues to acknowledge its Latino population—or Chican@ population in Los Angeles– this recognition is exclusively predicated on it’s purchasing power (Arlene Davila’s Latino Spin documents this thoroughly).

Nevertheless, I argue that attempts to collapse Chican@s and whiteness under Chipster fails to account for economic-oriented premise of this term. Chipster, then, assures and secures the neoliberal project by ensuring the foregrounding of a consumer identity and assuming a safe racial identity –white identity— vis-a-vis the aforementioned consumer identity. Chipster renders Chican@s suitable for existence solely based on consumer power/potential. Indeed, the Telemundo segment argues that tastes in fashion, movies, and music— or consumption— are primary indicators of your qualification as a Chipster.

Folks may still argue that Chipsters (or Xipsters if you’d like) connotes a critical and intellectually conscious Chican@, one wonders why their disassociation from Chican@ in the first place? Why not identify as Chican@ or Xican@ and leave it at that? It may speak to other issues regarding the term Chican@, however it’s still worth noting that, as of yet, Chipster is predicated on a primarily consumer identity and a (real or perceived) upwardly mobile aspiration.

While there is much more to be said on the Chipster question I hope to have provided some material for future critical engagement. IMHO, a healthy dose of critical thinking around this term is definitely in order as the economic restructuring of Los Angeles continues and communities of color fight to weather each wave of  gentrification.


10 thoughts on “On the Chipster Question

  1. Although I see the brothers point, I think he’s limiting xipster (i don’t work the chipster, am Guatemalan) to a politics of aesthetics of consumerism. I think the aesthetics of the xipster@ functions from a political site of resistance. Clothing and the decoration of the body is used a site to negatively racialize brown bodies. Laura Perez writes in Chicana Art about how clothing has functioned as a site to negatively racialize communities of color while simultaneously functioning as a site of resistance for Latin@s in the US. Think punk kids, think ghetto ska kids, think hip-hop kids. Especially when most of the xipster@s I know are coming from these super radical ass points of view that intend to make interventions in their worlds and that of their communities. Any thoughts? I think a reconsideration of the xipster@ as being an inherently political act that has tied to a radical politica is necessary. xipster@s, to me, have a clear commitment to their communities and to a historical struggle to defend them and uphold our histories. With that, it is also the right of every generation to expand or limit the definition of what their identity means or denotes to them.
    You doin the most with the whole whiteness tip tho, homie. I ain’t about that life.

    1. Thanks for the dope comment Carolyn. Interesting rational for utilizing “Xipster.” As a quick aside– and at the risk of violating some kind of (oldschool) Chican@ dictum– I don’t agree that Chican@ as a political identity isn’t applicable for sisters and brothers from other countries. But I can dig your position.

      I see your point on the use of clothing as a tool for resistance and I think that strategy has been around for people of color other marginalized groups for a while. Needless to say, I don’t think that this point is in opposition to the post. I think the post aimed to contextualize these trends or acts of resistance within a historical, political, and geographical context. I think you’re right on point that the existence of such resistance is crucial and should be noted as such. This doesn’t mean, however, that we should risk overlooking the economic, political, etc. investment in defining (FOR the very groups you mention) what the dimensions of Chipster entail. Due to the very fact that neoliberalism renders all subcultures vulnerable to commodification it is incumbent for people of color to maintain a critical critique of different ways that it manifests in these communities under various guises.

      Though you suggest that “xipster@s…have a clear commitment to their communities and to a historical struggle to defend them and uphold our histories” I’m concerned by the very embracing of hipster and submerging Xican@. I am aware and understand that measuring a person’s commitment to their community should be done so through their work. I’m just pointing out that Chipster leaves a lot of room to perpetuate a kind of values system that displaces the most vulnerable residents in a community. This isn’t to say that Chican@ or Xican@ identity is all good all the way at all times, however, given it’s radical origins (though Chicanas might say not radical enough–but radical nonetheless) it tends to be the better option compared to Chipster IMHO. Especially at a time when hipster is being heralded as the salvation to “dead” cities.

      I’m not sure if there was some confusion about the whiteness aspect of the post. Again, I argue that any serious concern about the challenges that communities of color face in this era or “post-racialism” or “multi-culturalism” necessitates a fundamental understanding of whiteness, its legacy, and its transformation throughout time. Saludos!

    1. I believe since the 1940’s the word hipster was a term used to describe forward thinking anti-main stream thinkers , today the meaning of the word has been changed. AThe definition you use is referring to some type of middle class “whiteness”. If we just accept that hipster = whiteness then we erase all the things that hipsters did in history. From my understanding, hipsters of the 40s and 50’s were black musician, jazz club patrons and were some of the first subcultures to begin racial integration in the US. Real hipsters in the 60’s and 70’s they were anti establishment, anti war, and pro-people. Forward thinkers who had meaningful social impacts.

      Its has only been since our current generation, since the 90’s that we have been watering down this word. It has become a trendy fashion style . If we continue to dilute the word and state that hipster is a symbol for whiteness and whiteness is a symbol for oppression then we lose the history and meaning of the word. Forgive me if I’m wrong but I feel like your posting is trying to address the similar misuse of the CH/X of Chican@/Xican@, so that the word doesn’t take on a new diluted meaning. But here we are misusing the word hipster totally ignoring its original definition and forgetting any meaningful contributions the subculture has had on our society.

      Today I don’t see many actual hipsters. What most people refer to as hipsters, I believe is a just a fashion trend, and you hit the nail on the head when referring to yuppies. Yuppies posing is “hipster”, consuming fashion, moving to trendy neighborhoods, not because of diversity or any meaningful social reason but because it’s the latest/coolest/upandcoming place to be.

      I don’t have any problem with Chican@s/Xican@s refering to themselves as Xipsters as long as it stands for something meaningful like the word hipsters once did. Hopefully they’re not using the word to describe their $200 skinny jeans and $7 cups of coffee.

      1. Thank you for the great comment elbatmanuel. I dig the way you put an additional historical perspective to the term hipster. I definitely can’t cover all my bases in this forum– I figured the post was too long already. Also, I intentionally left that discussion out of this post in light of what I consider to be the current manifestation of the term, so while it’s in some ways myopic–it’s intentional to highlight the conjuncture of whiteness, Chican@ identity, and neoliberalism. Indeed, the “watering down” of this identity is also what makes it dangerous when merged with Chican@ in Chipster. I feel you on your last point!

  2. Hipsters = Neocolonialists
    Chipsters = Brown Neocolonialists
    Xipsters = Faux Radicalized Brown Neocolonialists with no clue what the “X” represents

    It’s that simple

    Adopting these negative labels is ultimately a need to be validated by whiteness. I have personally lived the incoming flow of “hipsters” (a term they coined themselves) into the various punk, hip hop, graffiti art scenes here in LA, since the late 90’s. Not to mention the damage done to the neighborhoods they move into…

  3. Interesting read, Glove. I enjoyed the commentary as well. I personally don’t identify with any of the terms used in this post,but that’s neither here nor there. I think discussion about the ramifications of gentrification are important as is any discussion about whiteness and/or white privilege. Keep up the good work! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s