IV. Ideological Similarities

"People who wear Halloween costumes are sometimes mistaken for monsters"[15].

On the surface, there is little in common between computer hackers and graffiti artists. Look at their tools: one group uses computers and modems, bits and bauds; the other uses spray cans and notebooks, felt and paper. Look at their profiles: one group is made up of technically educated (albeit self educated), middle class suburbanites who work from their bedrooms; the other comprises of urban youth who roam the streets in search of good walls to paint and tag. Look at their methods of congregation: one meets in the indefinitive world of 10mm wires which provide boundless regions of cyberspace; the other group lives in vast city landscapes where there is always a shortage of good space to draw. However, it is important to note that these are only peripheral, almost inconsequential differences. In substance and essence, there are more similarities between Hackers and Graffitniks than one might expect. How is this possible? Let's scratch the surface, and forage a little deeper:

* Both subcultures are, in essence, fighting for the right of freedom of self expression. They are seeking a utopia in their work, and stubbornly resist any attempt which can infringe upon this sacred right. While dissidence and deviance are always defined by the society and culture in power, the definitions of propriety, morality and action vary between these groups and the mainstream. What may seem inappropriate to others, is the only natural way members of either subculture can act to insure truthful, and justified, support for their cause and belief.
* Both Hackers and Graffiti artists are anti-establishment. They feel that quiet subjugation to the authority in power is stifling for creativity, and unfair to the future development of thought and ideology. It is also a sign of weakness that one must follow and not lead, and this is a position neither group wants to endorse or be in.
* Both groups are consistently misunderstood. They are continually attacked because of the actions of a few irresponsible members who do not fairly represent the group, but nevertheless do for the rest of the mainstream. This misinformation has marginalized them (Hackers and Graffitniks) into subcultures with decidedly negative overtones, with many exaggerated, often incorrect, stereotypes. This is foolish. It is the weakness of a society which discourages individual critique and evaluation.
* Neither group is organized, per se, with leadership or authority. Although respected figures in either genre do carry clout, they do not control entry, exit and censure of members. Everybody who decides to join the subculture implicitly follows the (few) rules which have developed within the group. By and large, Hackers and Graffiti artists foster environments of minimal control and supervision, and expect this to be conducive for enhancing healthy creativity and originality amongst members.
* In a Catch-22 type situation, both groups simultaneously want a fairer and more open society, but resist incorporation into it. They know that incorporation is one of the few methods by which their freedom and originality can be co-opted in the name of uniformity and stability. Any action which could undermine the unbridled nature of their lifestyle is not an option for the Graffitnik or Hacker.
* Both groups are continuously evolving from the point of view of membership and output. Members and would-be-members always come and go, and this flux encourages changes in what can be hacked, how something can be hacked, new styles of tagging, and new surfaces for tagging.
* Hackers and Graffiti artists are both inherently individualistic in terms of how one expresses him/her-self, but nevertheless, small groups of clans and crews are created to reinforce, teach, and guide new members in direction and content, and to give older members a sense of pride in their work.