So enjoy, or don't, but please read carefully before you respond. I willingly take constructive criticism, but not from someone who has not taken the time to understand and digest what I'm saying. Get ready to be offended.
I want to talk about the recent debate/phenomenon that I’ve noticed populating the letters/ columns pages of MRR. I am talking about the question of whether or not punk is still a threat, or ever was. Somewhere, somehow, someone assumed, very fallaciously and perniciously, that punk was going to kick the status quo’s ass so hard that Wall Street would tremble with fear.
I have some serious gripes with this. To me, punk was never a threat. Punk is a way of life (how cliché sounding, but true) that is conceptualized in terms of pre-figurative politics and lifestyle choices. The first and second, and maybe even third waves (Casualties becoming a household name? Maybe that’s important) definitely made waves in musical history, but punk was never going to change the world other than through some kind of butterfly effect. Plain and simple, punk is an escape, a subculture (when looked at objectively) and a place to create, alter and maintain identity and community.
So you think you will change the world? How naïve. You think that your 1% (I would say FAR less of a percentile) subculture that holds absolutely no clout in the world of active denial and autotmatonity- the ‘real’ world- is going to up and become a threat to the status quo? Especially when a large percentile of this already small sample is made up of lazy, uninspired drunks? Does this sound harsh to you? When is the last time more than a handful of people in your scene ever got together to collaborate on a project that didn’t end up half done, half assed and left to wallow in limbo due to nothing short of sheer laziness? The action side of punk is mired in bad passive aggressive noncooperation, lack of organization, lack of focus and childish social politics.
There are usually only a few people in every scene who have any desire or drive to do anything, and a good portion of the time these people like to keep it that way through marginalizing into bitterness anyone who tries to become a new player in the active part of the scene. We hierarchize too, so very much like any other sphere of human collective action. This small portion of those who are active not only pander to the standard human trait of power clutching elites, but this small sphere of action is normally limited to action based on music Politics is, to be fair, a by-product of punk. Music is the basis and the glue of punk. When politics do come into play, the same problems of collective action that plague music based projects also plague collective political types of endeavors.
This all begs the question: Do most punks really want anything more than a loosely associated group of people to jam and drink with, and occasionally start a band? I also want to state that I am not at all trying to downplay the efforts of those who do make things happen, my gratitude and respect to you all. Nor am I questioning the sense of community that a lot of people, even someone as anti-social as myself, feel punk offers them. I am, however, attempting to take a step back and somewhat “objectively” critique something I’m involved in. We do not live in a vacuum either. More general problems are also endemic in political action, adding another element of futility.
Human beings have never, ever ever ever ever (to the power of 10 million) created a fair and equitable society. We also have never been able to get past our propensity to entrust the resources and responsibility of governance to the least qualified and most self-interested, and seemingly never will. Let’s face it, the greediest and least worthy of life have always been our benefactors. To be able to say that we are smarter than the rest of the world would be to admit that some sort of utopian vision that attempts to prescribe a denial of this historical precedence, although completely reasonable in most instances, is so very, very unrealistic and unattainable. Anarchism, for example, is reasonable. But it is a theory and praxis issue just like any other prescription. By that I mean in order to take it off paper, you need to get humans involved. Just as we hierarchize our own subculture in a similar way to the ‘real’ world, so are we pawns of our species pubescent non-rationalities when it comes to political action as well.
Next point: I didn’t get in to punk to change the world. I got into punk because after years of soul searching, all the while knowing I fit in somewhere but just not with the normies, I finally found somewhere I felt I belonged; friend wise, music wise, and yes, aesthetically. If I want to change things I will continue pursuing my career as an academic and MAYBE make an ever so minute change with my research. To use a social movement theory term, I am attracted to the pre-figurative. This doesn’t mean I’m going to stop bathing, build a yurt and become some sort of militant vegan crimethinc asshole. I didn’t get into punk to be a threat. The most I’ve done so far is threaten other people’s ignorance by making them uncomfortable in public, and that is mostly because I have spikes all over my jacket.
Am I political? Yes. I have some strong convictions. I suppose I would fit into the critical social libertarian camp if I had to be somewhat specific. I’m no activist in the traditional sense, I eat meat and I definitely like my technology, I have a job, I got to university, I like to get drunk and be rowdy and I spend a lot of money on records and video games. But I’m a punk, I contribute to the canon of music, I write for zines, I attempt to put out stuff on my “label”, and I am attempting to build a career as an “activist academic” to study and advocate violent anti-racism. Why am I telling you this? Because I need an example. This example is my pre-figurative personal statement. This is somewhat similar to what a lot of people around me can say as their statement as well, should they choose to. I am by no means a threat to anyone, aside from my offensive and opinionated nature. I love punk because it offers me a lifestyle as far outside of mainstream culture as I can reasonably get. The last thing I’m going to do is flatter the vegan gender benders by saying they’ve managed to find a utopia where they no longer need the grid. They do, and I don’t have the space here to elaborate, but I think most of you have some sort of opinion on this.
My point is that as much as I have distanced myself from mainstream society, its only so much. The pre-figurative element of my punk existence is one that alleviates the horrors of the culture I live in, but it doesn’t destroy it, make it go away or threaten it. Punk has never threatened the status quo in any serious way. Punk is an escape, punk is a place to find solace, but punk is not going to change the world in any significant way shape or form.
If you need to be involved in something that is going to tangibly change the word I would suggest getting independently wealthy and becoming a lobbyist. I seriously doubt punk is the place for that. Punk is a place to find camaraderie, community, a space for creative expression, an aesthetic to bind you to others in your subculture and a space where you can make alterations to your lifestyle with varying degrees of support from others.
-Matty
