"...Way down down down in this subbacultcha...
drug running on this Panamanian schooner
and we listen to the sea
and look at the sky in a poetic kind of way"-Pixies
(not related at all but the song Subbacultcha came into my head as soon as I read the title...music a.d.d, I know.)
"We like noise, it's our choice
It's what we wanna do
We don't care about long hairs
I don't wear flares"-Sex Pistols
In Chapter 6, "The Unnatural Break," of Hebdige's work "Subculture," he writes about noise "as opposed to sound" and how as it represents events in life through different medias. He describes noise as anarchic and disorderly, and undefinable in a way. He relates sound in subculture to an underlying nature which shapes social classes and order in the world. The title of the chapter relates to the 'unnatural' way certain subcultures in society shun consciousness of class and difference and law breaking. Hebdige uses the British punk band the Sex Pistols as an example of a subculture involved in Anarchy including cursing on tv and in their songs and throwing up/spitting, which are known as taboos in society. During the rise in their popularity most of the media was definetly in a frenzy over their crazy antics and rebellion from society at the time, so the press was in hysteria. This hysteria 'fluctuates between dread and fascination, outrage and amusment.' The Sex Pistols definetly shook up society by cutting themselves on stage and creating headlines such as "Rotten Razored" and creating many wannabe's and copycat bands in the process of their own subculture. This anarchy subculture was defined by 'anti-social acts' which caused the police to react negatively (and of course, when the police get involved the 'fuck the police' motifs become a greater part in that certain subculture.)
Visually and verbally, subculture becomes marketable in many ways through the media; Hebdige refers to an early newspaper article describing the Sex Pistols' punk clothing style, which basically prompted millions to go out and try to dress and act the same, because, as mentioned before, the tabboos of society were fascinating and being anti-social and becoming a part of that subculture was a trend. The Sex Pistols' fashion became a definite symbol of the punk subculture and an easily recognizable way of coding/labelling someone into that genre of society. Both punk and mod fashions at some point changed from a way of life in a subculture into high fashion in society and even mainstream, as the designer Vivienne Westwood most famously did. The marketable success from a culture seems odd from what started as a little-known scene taking place in small record shops and quickly expanding (with the help of the media exploitations) into a greater known fashion statement and fad. Once the clothes of this subculture became available to the general population, they had a different meaning because they were now being made on a larger scale, as opposed to the original D.I.Y. style of the original punks. In the same way that many trends today are 'faux vintage' and wearing what appears to be hand-me-downs but is actually an expensive shirt, fashion destroys the true meaning of subcultures. Hebdige defines the processes of the subuculture formation as the ideological form, which is more of classifying and identifying the people in a certain subculture.
Hebdige also describes the subculture's demonstrated codes such as ripped T-shirts...I'm confused by how he defines the word codes in this sense, but I'm assuming he uses the word to describe the thought out (or not thought out?) sense of being in these subcultures. It's interesting that Hebdige says any one of Duchamps ready-mades can be a part of punk's (un)fashion including a razor blade or tampon. It's odd to me he focusses so much on material objects and fashion (such as the fabrics, designs, and colors) and forms of dancing as a means of defining a subculture when it meant so much more than that.
In relation to Hall, Hebdige also studies the signs and elements in behavior of cultures, along with communication, language, gesture, and clothing. Hebdige, like Hall, attempts to "decode" society by ways of the media. Hebdige's Subculture also relates to Adorno's essay on patterns in mass culture because he said it is "impossible to dodge" popular culture, and it affects everyone. The punk subculture affected everyone, whether they liked it or not. It was loud, in your face, and demanded attention, which it got plenty of, by the media. The media, which was, most of the time, (much like Hebdige), too distracted by material objects of the punks (which by many people,is a lot to handle visually) to report/analyze/understand their political and anarchy views on society. It's sad that something that started out with strong ideas and beliefs became a trend focused on money and buying things to look a certain way. I respect the punk subculture and its music, despite the fact that I don't walk around with pins or bright colored hair. As Adorno explained, art in any form no longer had its original meaning after it was taken over and reproduced by mass media culture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
“Subculture: The Unnatural Break” by Dick Hebdige was very interesting because it discusses how subcultures are formed, the reasons why it is formed and how media exposure of the subcultures can take away its uniqueness. This occurs when people naturalize it into their life and allowing it to become part of the norm. Once this subculture is in the media, its mystery and authority is taken away. This has a negative or positive effect on the subculture because of the way that other people will interpret their role in society.
I like that throughout the essay he gives many examples of subcultures (ex. punks, skinheads, fashion) and what defines them, because it made it much easier for me to understand the point that he is trying to convey. I agree with what you stated in your blog on how Hebdige defined the processes of subculture formation, because in my opinion subculture allows one to develop an identity. People want to be unique, have their own norms or change what the norm within their culture. Yet, subculture is still a representation of the dominant culture. What forms or shapes a subculture is its ideas, taste, beliefs, style, and consumption patterns that a group of people identifies with and adapt to.
I agree with cjaquez. I find it interesting to see how cyclish our culture really is. A sub culture is born, and it's followers are part of a family almost. They have ways of relating to each other, and the first ones, are almost always the most genuine. But what happens when more and more people latch on to that same idea? What was sub-culture becomes culture. The original followers will often leave the follwing because of selling out or whatever their reasons are. Because now that everyone has it, you're again on the outside. But some people will ride it to the top. "I liked ___ before it was cool" is an all too common phrase. But what is best is the downfall of these subcultures, because of the constant movement of whats on and off the radio, whats being used in ads, and what we see on TV, 15 minutes of fame has become 5 minute videos on MTV, and kiosks in Union Square. We cycle our way through a trend like it's nothing. My word for it is, American Deficit Disorder.
By the way. This is Conor Wenk
"Certainly, the offical reaction to the punk subculture, particularly to the Sex Pistols' use of 'foul language' on television and record, and to the vomiting and splitting incidents at Heathrow Airport would seem to indicate that these basic taboos are no less deeply sedimented in contemporary British society."
For me, Hebdige's article deals with the mainstream permeation of subcultures. In Britain, these DIY fashion trends became something of a phenomenon and then, something of a typical punk portrait. It seems that when a society is faced with outrage and vulgarity, it subsumes it in some way. As you've quoted, Hebdige states, "The emergence of a spectacular subculture is invariably accompanied by a wave of hysteria in the press. This hysteria is typically ambivalent: it fluctuates between dread and fascination, outrage and amusement." Either the provocation of these subcultures affect the way in which the media reacts or the media provokes the way the subcultures react, but regardless of if a affects b like b affects a, the society is made aware of these new trends, subtrends, and ideologies.
This is such a great counterpart to Hall's essay on Encoding/Decoding because it shows the exact affect of subcultures and the media of those subcultures on the public. The public, in turn to watching these cultural waves, adapts their own interpretation of phenomenon, whether that means through fashion, ideology, or action. It is a contrary piece to Adorno's because rather than assume brainwashing or a complete diminishment of art, it shows the general public branching out and following their own volition. It's particularly pleasing to read about how the Sex Pistols changed the face of music and actvism in an academic essay.
-swan_turtle
Post a Comment