This post is quite old, I'm not sure that I agree with everything I've written or have ever been in a position to write it. I also think it is VERY PRETENTIOUS. Nevertheless, my basic point stands. One from the vaults:


I say this all with the greatest fondness and affection, but Steampunk is going nowhere as a movement. And it's not going to until it works out What Its Aims Are. All well known subcultures combine an aesthetic with some guts. Even if the guts often get lost - Clare's Accessories sell goth and punk gear for 10-year-olds - at least it's there. As the concept gets increasingly commercialised and mainstreamed, I'm curious to see whether there any guts at all. As far as I'm concerned - right now, pre-research - at it's height it does nothing "science fiction" hasn't done before and better, and of course at it's worst it's glorified windowdressing.

Oooooooh shiney!
Steampunk attracts people who like beautiful clockwork, cravats, mechanics, steam engines - whether it's a guilt-free Victoriana fix, or a love for machinery. There is nothing wrong with pure aesthetics! And I've never wanted anything more than that. The problem is the significance of it assigned by

DIY
A frequent appendix to definitions of steampunk includes a hands on approach to modding household items. In other words, not pretending to be a mad engineer, but going out and doing it. There are some fabulous, fabulous things you can find online. The problem with enshrining DIY at the heart of a movement is it's a skill. I will never be able to create the Steampunk ideas in my mind; does that mean I can't join in? A lot of people have compared it to the Open Source revolution, in which people release freeware rivalling the competancy of established company products.

http://www.mischiefmydear.com/2007/10/steampunk-part-1-history-and-manifesto.html

Creators
A wider version of the above: it's very inspiring to writers, artists, fashion designers/wearers, filmmakers. I mean, you do need to do something to be a part of the movement. But again, how often is it windowdressing? Most of the time. Is there a central theme which everyone taps into, like noir is about the Inevitable Failure Of The Hero Vs Society, and westerns about A Man Alone Against Nature? I can't identify one.

That's still all visual. Lets think about the ideological:

But what about the punk...?
Punk = antiestablishment = skypirates. And it's easy to see the rise of a subculture dominated by rebellious skalliwags as linked to the general adoption of "piracy" as a positive label by our generation. But how radical is steampunk?

Modern world! Retreat!
i.e. Aristasians. But in general, old-fashioned folks like Aristasians and the Ladies Against Feminism, who believe in a genuine return to Victorian morals, or even NeoVictorians are not who we mean when we refer to steampunk folk. Our ideals may overlap, but fundamentally not the same thing. It's about infusing the past with a modern sensibility.

Past politics
A potentially interesting one, and one which does interest me a lot. All the truly cool things about the Victorian period- or at least, worthy of study and fictional exploration - are rooted in prejudice of one sort or another: forced marriages, workhouses, colonies, Oscar Wilde. Much steampunk is so fictionalised that any genuine history-of-women angle is ridden straight over - you can't have lady skypirates if you don't first have a sort of female equality going on.

And I am in two minds about this on a personal level. I am not a political author at all, and when I use those aspects, it's always as background detail not lot material. Google Silver Goggles if you're interested in race, steampunk and "Victorientalism"

It's About Technology
An obvious one for a genre based in "What If The Victorians Had Real Machines And Stuff?", but as far as I'm concerned this is not unique to steampunk: it's the basis of modern science fiction.

Apolitical...?
Does it even need a manifesto? Is it just a thing? Am I overthinking it? I mean, I'd really like it to have one - so I could ignore it. Does that make sense? As far as I'm concerned, aesthetics is enough. But I can't believe that everyone "in the movement" shares my art-centric worldview. But then why are we doing it? Can you build a subculture purely on visuals, when sneering at people who just have "the look" is what subcultures do best?

Here's one, very good "it doesn't really mean anything" discussion:
http://theclockworkcentury.com/?p=302

I'm also entranced by the different sorts of punk now evolved, very loosely, from the idea including:

Cyberpunk