For most people hipsters are just the people in "the scene", but Oakes take a rather particular view, separating the hipster from other members of the scene, like artists, writers, and related professionals and businesspeople who contribute some form of work to make the scene what it is. It is the actions of these others that allow for the development of the neighbourhoods and venues. The hipster, on the the other hand, merely consumes these products. Oakes points out that this had led some to argue that the hipster is a blight or leach on the counterculture.
I personally find this an interesting idea, though it has led me to a rather opposite form of conclusion. First of all, much of the counterculture is predicated on some form of active living. Whether we call this D.I.Y. or something else, the focus of the Beats, hippies, and punks, was on cultivating experiences, rather than merely consuming the symbols of these experiences (ie. travelling to a place like France or Hawaii, rather than buying faux-French decor or Hawaiian shirts). The hipster is often looked at derisively even though the hipster is the target audience for most of the manufactured (hand-crafted or otherwise) works of the counterculture. But rather than being viewed as somekind of drain, I think the hipster provides a more important (if understated role):
The hipster provides ballast.
Sure, strains of anti-capitalism run through many aspects of the counterculture, but the hipster adds weight to the crowds at the shows and demonstrations. The presence of the hipster is what allows us to speak of an actual counter "culture" and not just an elitist aesthetic coterie. The hipster also acts as a bridge to the mainstream, providing the vehicle by which countercultural elements "crossover". Hipsters might not adopt the full countercultural programme, but the aspects that they do they carry with them to other parts of society. Theirs is a distributive function.
