This question is a very good way to start thinking about social media, identity, and social movements. As much as I try to make this blog informative and helpful to you, I want to begin at the beginning.
I’m not talking about the “social media” part, but the “social movement” part. Most people who identify themselves as part of a subculture are going to identify with a dominant culture that they identify with. This is because, while often times we don’t like someone’s ideas, there are certain values and beliefs that are just as important to people in a dominant culture as they are to people in a subculture.
I think this is important to understand and understand. You don’t have to be an activist to identify in a subculture. In fact, there are plenty of people who identify as anarchists, feminists, etc. without being activists. If you’re not, you probably don’t understand enough to understand the importance of the subculture.
I think it goes back to a point I made in the introduction (which is also why I thought it was important to note that I am not an anarchist). The most successful subcultures are often the most powerful, and they often do this by creating the dominant culture they need. The subculture that is dominant is often defined by the very values and beliefs or actions that are important to that subculture.
For example, in the film industry the most recognized subculture is the Hollywood subculture. The subculture that is most important to the filmmakers is the very values and beliefs that are important to the filmmakers.
While the dominant culture is defined by values, the subculture defines the subculture. It is this relationship that defines the dominant culture. When an ideology or culture is defined by the very beliefs and actions that are important to it, then the beliefs and actions of this ideology and culture are defined by the values and beliefs of the dominant culture. The subculture and dominant culture are mutually exclusive.
It sounds like the filmmakers are trying to say that the dominant culture (the film) is defined by the subculture (Hollywood), when they are trying to say that the subculture (Hollywood) is defined by the dominant culture. You could also look at it another way. The film industry is defined by the subculture, which is defined by the dominant culture. If you don’t believe that, then you have no reason to respect the film industry, and vice versa.
This is a bit of a cliche, but it’s also a reminder that what you think of an entire industry based on what you think you know is often not what you know. It’s easy to think that the subculture the movie industry is defined by is the dominant culture, but if you don’t recognize how dominant it is, then you might as well not be a part of it.
The problem with this statement is that it completely ignores the fact that there have been over a hundred years of major change in the film industry. The film industry is not a bunch of people who live in their parents basements. It is a huge, complex industry that has evolved into a very complex social phenomenon. It doesn’t have a single dominant culture. There are dominant cultural trends that form the framework of the industry, but they are not really the entire culture.
This is a little like saying that the way in which a group of people behave is something that is only part of a culture. This isn’t entirely true, but the point is that there are dominant cultural trends that form the context for a society, but they are not the whole of the culture. For example, many people, including myself, would agree that the way a culture treats people is something that is important, but we are not a culture. We are a social phenomenon.