I am back from something of a sabbatical from blog writing and it is little
wonder that it’s a punk album that has given me the impetus to write again. This
post started life as a piece of writing for my music blog (This Metal Road) but as I listened to Soul Glo’s latest LP, Diaspora Problems (2022) while also reading an interview with Soul Glo’s vocalist, Pierce Jordan, my mind kept
drifting back to the issues of punk, politics and music. Given the topics I am covering, I thought it would be
more relevant and appropriate to write about this topic here rather than the
music blog.
Looking back on my music listening history it was the duality of
punk and metal that drew me away from the pop sensibilities of my tween years
and into the world of extreme music. Hardcore, punk and extreme metal with their
accompanying subcultural semiotics were the tonics I needed for an angst ridden
youth. In more recent times, reconnecting to extreme music as a fully fledged and increasingly settled
adult has been quite the experience, part nostalgia and part release for a feral
and riotous self that has never been completely quelled. My nerves and brain
fizzle and pop as a wild, fractious energy pours through my system. This is what
hardcore, punk and extreme metal still does to me. A usually dormant aggression
surges when I listen to these genres of music and in those moments, I want to
tear everything down and burn it all. From the safety of living in a quiet,
stable and relatively prosperous Western, liberal democracy I curl my small hand into
a tight fist and enjoy the rancour punk, hardcore and extreme metal offer me.
But in recent years, as history seems to have sped up with humanity and western societies becoming increasingly wedged between shifting world geopolitics, late neo-liberal capitalism and significant environmental degradation, Gaza happened and it all changed for me. The last vestiges of my belief in liberalism was torn away as I witnessed live on television, an attempted genocide occur and the West not only stepped away but aided and abetted it. Moreover, it is still on-going. Many of us continue to watch helplessly from the sidelines because powers that are greater than our anger, our horror and our sense of injustice have allied with a nation that seeks to eliminate another. Historically, I can not dispel the belief that Gaza and what is happening there will be both a milestone and a reckoning for the West. By allowing what is happening in Gaza to continue, I believe we are collectively losing something in the West, that intangible element that gives our system and our institutions a sense of legitimacy and hope for our future. In a similar vein to Vietnam, perhaps Gaza will be this generation’s awakening. It certainly was my awakening.
In light of this, I have, whether I want it or not,
been given a new perspective. Being a student of the social sciences, I have
often analysed my world through the prism of structuralism. Wikipedia gives a
nice, succinct summation of structuralism:
Structuralism is an intellectual current and methodological approach,
primarily in the social sciences, that interprets elements of human culture by
way of their relationship to a broader system. It works to uncover the
structural patterns that underlie all the things that humans do, think,
perceive, and feel
(“Structuralism,” 2022).
However much a structuralist approach to analysis has
been something I am inclined towards, I must admit that I have been rather reticent in applying it to liberalism. As a moderate I critiqued neo-liberal capitalism,
frequently through the prism of structuralism but still held firmly onto the liberal
tenets bestowed onto me by a liberal arts education. Gaza ripped that to shreds. If aiding and abetting an attempted genocide
and suppressing civilian and citizen opposition to this genocide through the use of censorship, heavy
handed policing and McCarthyism style threats to livelihood and employment, is
something that liberals and liberalism can bend towards then I am off the bandwagon. Decency demands as much. Idealism can only stretch so far before the
veil is pulled away.
But what has this to do with punk? Nothing directly but the recent galvanising of my willingness to look critically at things in my society has made me renew my analysis of punk and place it within a structuralist interpretation. From a pop cultural perspective, punk has often been thought of as being subversive. Its main draw was and
remains its seemingly contrarian nature. It’s also been regarded as being an expression of youth rebellion, of a loud and angry resistance to mainstream culture and
values and rightly or wrongly, it has often been perceived as having a noticeable political edge to it. But what is largely not dwelled upon is that punk emerged from within
liberal, capitalist, democratic states and some of its early cultural manifestation was nursed by
materialism and fashion, so much so that it heavily informed both street and couture fashion thanks largely to the likes of Vivienne Westwood, Malcolm McLaren and the bands McLaren promoted, such as the Sex Pistols. Punk strutted its stuff on high street, main
street and the underground.
Many would associate the origins of punk with the United Kingdom. At a time when Keynesianism seemed to be faltering, punk emerged in an age of unrest and uncertainty. In a chaotic period that would eventually usher in Thatcherism and neoliberalism, punk was about nihilistic rage and yet even in its early days, its strong DIY ethic, anti-establishment and anti-materialism stance gave it an aura of politicking and pointed rebellion. With blood and spit it seemed to scream NO to the system. But if punk was something that was meant to be understood as being underground, subversive and possibly political, why was its fashion in boutiques and its musicians signed by major labels? Taken from this perspective, it could be said that punk was perhaps less about revolution and agitating for substantive, systemic change and more of a pressure release valve for cultural angst for those who felt disaffected. It took the questioning and challenging of norms and funnelled it into something that was satisfying to express but largely empty of real political action and/or intent. In some ways, it could be argued that punk took the politics out of a subculture that was potentially ripe with political intent. Punk allowed you to express cultural angst without significant political impact.
As a musical form,
punk is highly expressive and emotional. This is why Soul Glo’s latest LP
Diaspora Problems (2022) is so satisfying to listen to. It punches and growls in
all the right places and hums with a wildness that is thrilling. A highly
collaborative offering, Diaspora Problems is as Andrew Sacher from Brooklyn
Vegan notes, the band’s most "accessible" album to date (Sacher, 2022) and like
all good punk it shimmers with a sense of politics and contains degrees of social
commentary. Indeed, politics and a political statement about the lack of
cultural recognition of African American contribution to popular music through
the ages sits at the heart of some of the sensibilities informing the album. Soul Glo’s Pierce Jordan says:
"Black people are inextricably linked to all forms of Western music. Like,
that’s just the way that it is … Black people are the true culture and content
curators of the entire world, but specifically Black people in America. And
what I would really like is just more knowledge and respect of that fact to
come as a result of having existed.”
(Sacher, 2022).
If you read the referenced article from where this quote was
taken (which you can find linked in the references section below) you will see
that while Jordan mentions the “entire world” he appears to be largely talking
about the West and about jazz, blues, pop music and rock n roll. Taken in this
way, Jordan isn’t wrong about the claims that these forms of music owe much to
African American musicians and the musical communities from which they came from
and that there is a distinct lack of recognition in regards to this
contribution. He is also correct about the unrecognised cultural influence and significance of
African Americans on global pop culture due to America’s highly effective and
immense though now arguably waning soft power reach.
But contained within Jordan’s
statements are sentiments that perhaps pinpoint part of punk’s problem. By
seeking legitimisation and recognition from a system that systematically
de-legitimises you, you remove your revolutionary aspect and contain your
protest to that of reform and not revolution. But maybe this is what punk has
always been about? This has been its cultural function. Punk offers an effective venting experience for those dissatisfied, disillusioned or disengaged with the current hegemon but without substantially challenging it in any significant way. This somewhat explains why punk has at times awkwardly stratified both main street and the underground and why it sits so comfortably within haute couture. Sacher argues that Soul
Glo, though being touted as a political band, could more accurately be described
as an “emotional punk band” (Sacher, 2022). But aren't almost all punk bands emotional? Is not the unbridled rage, fury and anger what makes punk so captivating? Though punk is a broad church,
especially if you take into consideration the different melds it has undertaken
over the years, it could still be said that some of what we understand and
classify as punk has been less about politics and more about extreme emotional expression
underscored with some political commentary. Emotion sits at the heart of punk and I would argue this is exactly what its cultural function has been and still is.
Generally, I have found through my years of jumping in and
out of punk and hardcore, that there seems to be something missing or lacking
within punk and hardcore. Punk felt political and subversive but then again, it didn't quite feel that way either. Punk and hardcore seemed like they were making highly important statements about society and politics but what these exactly were felt slippery, vague and almost deliberately out of focus. I'm curious if this
is something other listeners of punk can relate to? As I have already noted, punk is a broad umbrella that doesn’t
only just house those on the left or those with political intent. But undeniably
punk has had a traditional linkage to the idea of protest, subversion and
politics and I would argue as someone who has casually listened to and studied
punk, that it's a strong enough link that many would recognise these
elements as being part of punk’s subcultural and musical characteristics. They act as part of punk’s subcultural markers in regards to how the musical form and subculture perceives itself and projects itself outward onto others.
However much politics might appear to form a part of punk's subcultural make up, quite often its political aspect seems to get swallowed by the nihilistic, raw and untethered emotion of punk and perhaps this is not just incidental. Does punk really want to tear down the system? I’m not sure, I do question if that is what punk actually seeks? Punk emerged from societies deeply informed by market economics and liberalism and just like limited parliamentary democracy which was designed to express but ultimately contain and stifle effective political opposition to the dominant hegemon, perhaps punk was never meant to be more than a limited expression of opposition to the norm. I think that punk was and is too embedded within the liberal and market system to truly seek a break with what nurtured it in the first place. In light of this, it could be time to set aside the notion that punk is genuinely politically and culturally subversive or that it harbours within its lacerating expression a deeper political intent than what it actually has despite its rancorous energy and some of its own politics.
Am I picking on punk? Maybe. But it could also be argued that punk exposes itself to this type of critique given it has harboured at times a distinct political aspect and it trades to some degree on having an edged, political undertone to it. I
have been a fan of punk on and off through the years and spent some time reading up a bit about its subculture, even going so far as identifying with it in my
youth. I am sure that shaving my head in my thirties was certainly informed
by punk, having finally worked up the courage to challenge social norms in
regards to the ideals surrounding femininity. In my teen years I yearned for a
mohawk but lacked the social courage to do it. In my thirties I finally had had
enough of mainstream values and culture to undertake a physical and symbolic
representation denoting my internal break with mainstream values. It was punk that gave me the pop cultural framework to have the courage to do this. When I shaved my head it was the lessons in semiotics that punk gave me which allowed me to understand how to express my opposition to the cultural norm through a symbolic and representational act.
Punk, like metal, has
had a lot of personal meaning for me over the years. However, while I was drawn to
punk’s outlier persona and its undertone of political subversion, I tended to feel its political dimension often sat glimmering at only a surface level. Why did punk and hardcore often feel like they were part of the system they were criticising? Then again, I
also thought that possibly I just didn’t get punk enough and that I was missing out on
perceiving its true subversive nature. But now, having unleashed a structuralist perspective on this issue, it appears feasible to posit that punk isn't as necessarily as straight forward or romantic as it seems. It can be argued that punk has a cultural function and value as a pressure release valve for society’s discontents and by having this role, it effectively reveals that punk's intent is perhaps more politically and socially benign than what it might first appear. Moreover, it can also be said that punk's effectiveness as a vehicle for venting and its allowance for the expression of
societal aggression contains and channels what might sometimes manifest as political protest and engagement, especially from its more
youthful, motivated and idealist listeners. It therefore, in some situations, could be perceived as harnessing this youthful political protest
and societal questioning into something that can be absorbed and managed by the
prevailing hegemonic structure. Thus, seen from this perspective, it could indeed be argued that punk stands inside rather than outside of the status quo.
Although this may
quell the romanticism of punk it by no means takes away from it as a subcultural entity. Punk is
meaningful and motivating for many both as artists and listeners. Its DIY ethos lowers the bar of entry into music and fashion and allows those who feel
disaffected to be part of a subcultural community and/or movement. It can be the
anchor some people need in turbulent or personally challenging times, as Pierce
Jordan can most likely attest to. It also safely vents social disaffection. This could be either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective. For me on a personal level, does the sheen come off punk in light of what I have written about in this post? Perhaps a little but I feel like I understand punk more because of the contextualisation structuralism has allowed. By being willing to examine punk from a structuralist perspective, it perhaps allows for a greater honesty in regards to assessing punk’s role and function within Western, modern, industrial societies. It places punk within the context of both capitalism and liberalism which together form the dominant hegemony that structures society economically, politically and culturally. Liberal, capitalist societies are extremely adaptable and almost always allow for points of societal pressure release. It should surprise none that music and some of its subcultures have a role to play in this.
Gaza has forced me to take a harsher look at my own society and question at a deeper level my own beliefs and how I interpret and frame my world. Everything is on the table now and I believe that I only stand to dupe myself if I continue to attempt to dally in a romanticised view of the things that I used to believe or want to believe in. That society has pressure release valves through things like sport, entertainment and subcultures isn't necessarily a bad thing, it isn't a conspiracy, just only bread and circuses or a duping off people by cynical elites. Human society and the structures that hold our societies together are far too complex for simplistic answers or ideas like this. However, having an awareness of how society's structures may be managing our economic, cultural, political and societal angst to possibly offer an outlet that is de-politicised or empty of genuine political impact and why this might be happening is good knowledge to have, especially in light of events like Gaza. It never hurts to ask ourselves, if our attention and energy is being directed here, where is it being directed from? If we are encouraged to vent here, in what places are we being discouraged from venting in? In comparing George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World series, Neil Postman writes:
Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance ... As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us ("Brave New World", 2022).
There is nothing inherently wrong about having distractions in our lives but they can't be our whole world, not now, not anymore. In our current turbulent times, being engaged, aware and critical may help us hang onto what is worthy and good within our modern, democratic societies as we collectively face the enormous challenges of our undetermined and as yet undecided futures.
References
Brave New World (1 May, 2024). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World
Sacher, A. (March 22, 2022). Soul Glo are paving the path to punk's
future. Brooklyn Vegan. https://www.brooklynvegan.com/soul-glo-are-paving-the-path-to-punks-future-interview/
Structuralism. (27 April, 2024). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism
