Okay, you can pretty much peruse the entire second edition if you follow this link, cut and paste or however it works:
http://www.nolayout.com/lou-joseph/contemporary-dude-theory/
I can't recommend enough the palpable feel of paper, however - the intimate texture of flipping pages in bed - or on the toilet - all which can be had for $8, well worth it. dudetheory@gmail.com might get you somewhere.
Look for new developments in 2012, when we absorb the feedback from our symposium, add more (always more) knowledge, and include reader-submitted papers in a third edition, powered quite hopefully by kickstarter. Dude-based products to accompany.
Thanks for finding us.
Mary
Friday, November 18, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Announcing the Dude Theory Symposium
The First Dude Theory Symposium is scheduled to occur !
Where: Rochester, New York at the Flying Squirrel Community Space
When: Sunday, June 5, 2011
The Symposium will feature a presentation of papers written by serious and amateur Dude Theorists - perhaps YOU? Our knowledge will not be complete without additional data and perspectives provided by a range of persons. Please consider addressing the gaps in our Dude Knowledge. See CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS below
For full description of event, go to:
http://flyingsquirrel.rocus.org/node/488
Call For Submission
Published below, for your perusal, is the bulk of the Second Edition of Contemporary Dude Theory.
***********************************************************
***** CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS *****
************************************************************
In conjunction with the First Dude Theory Symposium, CDT is accepting submissions from serious and amateur Dude Theorists.
Selected papers will be presented at Dude Theory Symposium and printed in future Editions.
DEADLINE FOR PAPER SUBMISSIONS: MAY 7
Send all queries & submissions to Marylew
dudetheory@gmail.com
***** CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS *****
************************************************************
In conjunction with the First Dude Theory Symposium, CDT is accepting submissions from serious and amateur Dude Theorists.
Selected papers will be presented at Dude Theory Symposium and printed in future Editions.
DEADLINE FOR PAPER SUBMISSIONS: MAY 7
Send all queries & submissions to Marylew
dudetheory@gmail.com
Table of Contents
CONTEMPORARY DUDE THEORY
Observational hypotheses re: dudes and dude interaction
Don’t Hate Dudes: An Introduction
Who Is A Dude?, or, The 21st Century Dude
Class Structure
Dudes, Folks, Dicks, Monsters
- Dudes and Folk , Faux-Folkism (Convention Hall Socialite, NP-Army)
- Dude/Folk Hybrid (Dude of the Future, Handydude, &c)
- Dick Resistance Front (Conspira-seer, Proto-Hippie, Next Waver, Trash Royalty, Farmsters/Foodsters)
- Weak Dude/Dick Hybrids (Rock Star, Sports Dudes, Douchebag)
- Strong Dude/Dick Hybrids or Tube Dudes (Emporer, Employer, Motivated Hipster, Monger)
- Monster Types
Dude Types: Vibrational Studies Department
(Creep, Jerk, Charmer, Unlucky Dude, Spook, Autistic)
Dude Types: Dude’s Dudes
(Dabbling Dudes, Fixies, Tour Hag, Queen Bee, Holier-Than-Thou, Rattler, Dancing Grandma, Galapagan, Vocal Opinionist, Contrarian, Old Dude, Party Terrorist, Sad Bomb,
Handyman, Academic, Curator, Skeptic)
The Dude Network
- Dude Correspondence
- Dudes in Space (Interior & Exterior Dudes, Transient Dude, Geographic Representative, Localists)
- Dude Training
- The Dude and The Internet
- Dude Relationships (Folk Templates, Partnered Dudes, Old Dudes, Friends, Dude Groupings, Dude Opera, A Dude’s Death)
- Network Communication Hubs (Man/Lady About Town, Jolly Hater, Secretary, Sexual Dynamo)
Dude Values
- Dudes and Normals
- Issues of Production
- The Productive Dude vs. The Non-Productive Dude
- Endless teeth-gnashing about employment OR Dude Occupations
- Motivated Group Efforts
- Why you so busy? (The Knitter, Craft Circles, Lone Wolf, Busy Married Dudes)
- Authenticity (Hipsters, Hate)
- Marriage
- Dudes and Genitals (plus, Menstrual Mention)
- The T-Shirt, or, the Dude Uniform & Other Dude Fashion
- Dudes Like Pizza Dude Fluids?
- Dude Attitudes: Awkwardness, The Church of Awesomeness
The Godfather of Dudes
Don't Hate Dudes: An Introduction
This is a great moment in history. We are now embarking on an important step in the progression of human knowledge: the establishment of a rigorous and precise Dude Theory.
Dude Theory can be practiced by anyone with the proper background and training in Dude Science, whatever their personal attitudes towards dudes may be. Scientifically speaking, Dude Theory is inherently value-neutral, and should be objective and therefore without bias or predisposition either in favor of, or opposed to, dudes.
At the same time, we assert that humor must be an important part of any fully rigorous science. And fun may be made of dudes. It is even potentially possible that a Critical Dude Theory could be undertaken, whose purpose was to identify the underlying structures of dude societies for the purposes of undermining and ultimately destroying them.
But, as founders of this branch of human learning, let us make our personal feelings be known: we do not hate dudes. We like dudes. Of all of the four established classes of humans that have been herein identified, dudes are probably our favorites (though we have great respect for, and love of, folks, as well). Our painstaking research in the development of the process of cataloging dude types, values and networks, far from belittling dudes, only demonstrates our commitment to, and appreciation of, dude-hood.
Moreover, we consider ourselves to be dudes. Perhaps it is this fact that so distinguishes Dude Theory from the outmoded sciences that Dude Theory has replaced, such as anthropology and sociology. These old-fashioned theories tended to impose an artificial set of preconceptions, distinctions, and contrived categorical separations between the subjects and objects of their study, with anthropology presenting itself as a group of cultured, civilized, developed, intellectual, scientific minds studying the “primitives,” and sociology presenting itself as the cool, critical, perceptive way of magically stepping outside of culture in order to objectively identify its power structures. We make no such claims. We are no different from, and certainly no better than, the dudes whom we discuss. We are the dudes we’re talking about. (This being said, we’re not into that whole po-mo self-referential navel-gazing thing, either. This isn’t just about us.) Dude Theory makes no claim to redeem its participants from being dudes, through the magic of intellection.
Dude Theory is not just a new theory – it is a revolution in theory itself. Just as mind must now be understood as profoundly embodied, so must theory come to recognize its complete Dudosity.
That having been said, although the founders of Dude Theory are themselves dudes, we would welcome, as a great and important supplement to our research, Dude Theory from a non-dude perspective. We are keenly interested in folk perspectives on dudes, and although we dread the input of dicks, we recognize that it is necessary for the development of our science. (Nonetheless, we must ask: by participating in dude theorizing, are such humans not becoming somewhat dudish?)
So let us state for the record our great and heartfelt love of dudes. “Dude” is an honorific in our vocabulary. It is a sign of respect and admiration when we refer to a person as “a real dude,” not unlike the term “a real Mensch.” We aspire to be real dudes, and for us, Dude Theory is part of becoming a real dude. Dude theory teaches us new techniques to maximize dudehood. For, in our opinion, folks, dicks, and monsters, whatever their relative worth, all necessarily run counter to the spirit of democracy. It is only through the establishment of very strong and supportive Dude Structures that fully-fledged democracy is possible, not to mention such far-flung hopes such as anarchy, socialism, or total dudetopia.
Dude Theory can be practiced by anyone with the proper background and training in Dude Science, whatever their personal attitudes towards dudes may be. Scientifically speaking, Dude Theory is inherently value-neutral, and should be objective and therefore without bias or predisposition either in favor of, or opposed to, dudes.
At the same time, we assert that humor must be an important part of any fully rigorous science. And fun may be made of dudes. It is even potentially possible that a Critical Dude Theory could be undertaken, whose purpose was to identify the underlying structures of dude societies for the purposes of undermining and ultimately destroying them.
But, as founders of this branch of human learning, let us make our personal feelings be known: we do not hate dudes. We like dudes. Of all of the four established classes of humans that have been herein identified, dudes are probably our favorites (though we have great respect for, and love of, folks, as well). Our painstaking research in the development of the process of cataloging dude types, values and networks, far from belittling dudes, only demonstrates our commitment to, and appreciation of, dude-hood.
Moreover, we consider ourselves to be dudes. Perhaps it is this fact that so distinguishes Dude Theory from the outmoded sciences that Dude Theory has replaced, such as anthropology and sociology. These old-fashioned theories tended to impose an artificial set of preconceptions, distinctions, and contrived categorical separations between the subjects and objects of their study, with anthropology presenting itself as a group of cultured, civilized, developed, intellectual, scientific minds studying the “primitives,” and sociology presenting itself as the cool, critical, perceptive way of magically stepping outside of culture in order to objectively identify its power structures. We make no such claims. We are no different from, and certainly no better than, the dudes whom we discuss. We are the dudes we’re talking about. (This being said, we’re not into that whole po-mo self-referential navel-gazing thing, either. This isn’t just about us.) Dude Theory makes no claim to redeem its participants from being dudes, through the magic of intellection.
Dude Theory is not just a new theory – it is a revolution in theory itself. Just as mind must now be understood as profoundly embodied, so must theory come to recognize its complete Dudosity.
That having been said, although the founders of Dude Theory are themselves dudes, we would welcome, as a great and important supplement to our research, Dude Theory from a non-dude perspective. We are keenly interested in folk perspectives on dudes, and although we dread the input of dicks, we recognize that it is necessary for the development of our science. (Nonetheless, we must ask: by participating in dude theorizing, are such humans not becoming somewhat dudish?)
So let us state for the record our great and heartfelt love of dudes. “Dude” is an honorific in our vocabulary. It is a sign of respect and admiration when we refer to a person as “a real dude,” not unlike the term “a real Mensch.” We aspire to be real dudes, and for us, Dude Theory is part of becoming a real dude. Dude theory teaches us new techniques to maximize dudehood. For, in our opinion, folks, dicks, and monsters, whatever their relative worth, all necessarily run counter to the spirit of democracy. It is only through the establishment of very strong and supportive Dude Structures that fully-fledged democracy is possible, not to mention such far-flung hopes such as anarchy, socialism, or total dudetopia.
Who Is A Dude? or The 21st Century Dude
You have an idea about what a Dude is, but probably your archetype is what we term the 20th Century Dude - somewhere in between the purity of Jeff Lebowski and the corrupt “bro”1. Perhaps the nature of the Dude changes anew with every Century - a dandified gentleman in the 18th becomes an inexperienced cowboy in the 19th. But the times are changing, and we are here to present and explore the 21st Century Dude.2
Looking at the internet’s democratically arranged wiktionary in January 20113, we note that the primary definition of Dude is “a man” - but clicking over to the definition of its plural, we see “any group of people, regardless of gender.” Without putting too much stock in wiktionary (after all, they also define dude as “a stranger”, whereas we say “a familiar or known person”), the drop of gender is interesting to note, as it nods to our assertion that Dude is a gender-free identifier.
We understand this is a controversial stance, and more will be said about dudes and gender, at length. We are specifically working to disabuse terminology of outdated segregations, and acknowledge an essential characteristic of the Dude to be a person compelled by individual nature. Though the shape of inborn genitalia was once assumed to suggest a template for one’s personality, we are now in an era of cultural override, which celebrates the capacity for infinite variation. At any rate, it would do us good to revisit those historic definitions of Dudes, and note that they refer to men-who-are-not-quite-men. How did this become translated into the 20th Century sense of a hyper-masculine Dude (bro)?
Though there have always been Dudes, there is currently a glut of them. A majority of college students will dabble in some form of dude lifestyle (some colleges seem to promote this; see Dude Training), and widespread internet use among children provides the fertile ground from whence dudes spring. These examples align Dudes with youth and verily, a dude of any age is likely to have some youthful aspect. But lifetime Dudes exist, and with greater cultural prominence and relevance than ever before.4
Looking at the internet’s democratically arranged wiktionary in January 20113, we note that the primary definition of Dude is “a man” - but clicking over to the definition of its plural, we see “any group of people, regardless of gender.” Without putting too much stock in wiktionary (after all, they also define dude as “a stranger”, whereas we say “a familiar or known person”), the drop of gender is interesting to note, as it nods to our assertion that Dude is a gender-free identifier.
We understand this is a controversial stance, and more will be said about dudes and gender, at length. We are specifically working to disabuse terminology of outdated segregations, and acknowledge an essential characteristic of the Dude to be a person compelled by individual nature. Though the shape of inborn genitalia was once assumed to suggest a template for one’s personality, we are now in an era of cultural override, which celebrates the capacity for infinite variation. At any rate, it would do us good to revisit those historic definitions of Dudes, and note that they refer to men-who-are-not-quite-men. How did this become translated into the 20th Century sense of a hyper-masculine Dude (bro)?
Though there have always been Dudes, there is currently a glut of them. A majority of college students will dabble in some form of dude lifestyle (some colleges seem to promote this; see Dude Training), and widespread internet use among children provides the fertile ground from whence dudes spring. These examples align Dudes with youth and verily, a dude of any age is likely to have some youthful aspect. But lifetime Dudes exist, and with greater cultural prominence and relevance than ever before.4
Class Structure
Whether you like it or not, Dudes are emerging as the new, self-determined Class in 21st C. America. Following are definitions of four major class strata, based less on the traditional economic standard and more on lifestyle/value systems.5 In no order:
FOLKS – Primary self-awareness is as members of a Group; a Folk sees itself as a piece within a whole. The Group is religious, ethnic, or regional, into which the Folk has been born. The Group offers a pre-determined set of values that a Folk has more or less accepted as a lifestyle template.
DICKS – This is the active scaler of corporate, political, or social ladders, for the express goal of dominance. The values and goals of this person are socially imposed (e.g. more is better), yet glorify the imperial individual. This is the common but essentially conflicted life template of the Dick.
The group is named after the common slang for male genitalia, implicating the overwhelmingly masculine content and character of almost all power structures of recorded civilization.
DUDES – Place greatest importance on individuals. Prefer to develop Individual Characteristics (either imposed/manufactured or discovered/inherent), through creative involvement with Culture, as information/object/commodity and/or social community. This has its positive aspects, such as creativity and innovation, and its negative aspects, such as social alienation, empty novelty, universal irony, cynicism, and dead-end nihilism.
These three classes form a kind of “trinity.” The Dude emerges from a national cultural struggle between the dominant Folk and Dick class identities, which are naturally polarized, much as the traditional masculine father and feminine mother. The identity qualities of Dick and Folk are so predominant in our historical social landscape that we suggest all dudes lean one way or the other, and evidently tend to congregate with the like subsets. There are also:
MONSTERS – Monsters don’t fit into any of the three above categories. There are many types of Monsters, but all have a personal fixation that tends to incessantly draw the majority of a human’s energy and focus. Monsterism is generally identified as an extreme version of a personality type - a personal quirk blown up into untenable proportions. [see below: Monster Types]
An individual is never 100% Dude or Folk or Dick or Monster, but possesses and demonstrates qualities of each as he moves within different aspects of his life: self-development/cultural involvement (dude), inherited social relationships (folk), arenas of wage-earning (dick), and obsessions (monster). However, every person will display a primary alignment with one of these classes, basically to whichever one it gives the most energy and effort. This is referred to as a “strong” association. A person may change their class alignment within their lifetime.
FOLKS – Primary self-awareness is as members of a Group; a Folk sees itself as a piece within a whole. The Group is religious, ethnic, or regional, into which the Folk has been born. The Group offers a pre-determined set of values that a Folk has more or less accepted as a lifestyle template.
DICKS – This is the active scaler of corporate, political, or social ladders, for the express goal of dominance. The values and goals of this person are socially imposed (e.g. more is better), yet glorify the imperial individual. This is the common but essentially conflicted life template of the Dick.
The group is named after the common slang for male genitalia, implicating the overwhelmingly masculine content and character of almost all power structures of recorded civilization.
DUDES – Place greatest importance on individuals. Prefer to develop Individual Characteristics (either imposed/manufactured or discovered/inherent), through creative involvement with Culture, as information/object/commodity and/or social community. This has its positive aspects, such as creativity and innovation, and its negative aspects, such as social alienation, empty novelty, universal irony, cynicism, and dead-end nihilism.
These three classes form a kind of “trinity.” The Dude emerges from a national cultural struggle between the dominant Folk and Dick class identities, which are naturally polarized, much as the traditional masculine father and feminine mother. The identity qualities of Dick and Folk are so predominant in our historical social landscape that we suggest all dudes lean one way or the other, and evidently tend to congregate with the like subsets. There are also:
MONSTERS – Monsters don’t fit into any of the three above categories. There are many types of Monsters, but all have a personal fixation that tends to incessantly draw the majority of a human’s energy and focus. Monsterism is generally identified as an extreme version of a personality type - a personal quirk blown up into untenable proportions. [see below: Monster Types]
---
An individual is never 100% Dude or Folk or Dick or Monster, but possesses and demonstrates qualities of each as he moves within different aspects of his life: self-development/cultural involvement (dude), inherited social relationships (folk), arenas of wage-earning (dick), and obsessions (monster). However, every person will display a primary alignment with one of these classes, basically to whichever one it gives the most energy and effort. This is referred to as a “strong” association. A person may change their class alignment within their lifetime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)