How Can One Define Culture?
Dissecting Culture and the Linguistic
and NonLinguistic Codes of
Communication Relating To It: Using Hip
Hop Culture As A Case Study
Khari Jack
Summary
A philosophical analysis of the term ‘culture’: what it entails, how we as social agents perceive it, how it affects our ways of living and how we interact with one another according to the set codes and conditions within our varying cultures. Within this essay I discuss a supposed ‘hierarchy’ of cultures while focusing on hegemony, assimilation and recognition. and if this hierarchy can in fact be changed and, if not changed, amended to include foreign cultures into society. Furthermore, I use Hip Hop culture as a case study in order to give examples to the theories discussed throughout.
Contents
P.3 Introduction P.6 Chapter 1 1.1 Defining the Groups 1.2 ‘Them’ vs ‘Us’ 1.3 Hegemony 1.4 Hegemony Leading To cultural Appropriation P.27 Chapter 2 2.1 Recognition 2.2 La Negritude (A Historical Example of Cultural Resistance) P.41 Chapter 3 3.1 Moving Forward, Hip Hop As A Cultural Phenomena: From The Streets To The Corporate Building 3.2 A Brief History 3.3 To Whom Does Hip Hop Belong? The Spreading Of The Code 3.4 The Hip Hop Industry: What Does This Mean For The Culture P.56 Conclusion P.59 Bibliography
Introduction
Cultural practices, the acceptance of foreign practices (in the sense that they differ from one’s own personal practices) and the way we as a society interact with one another is an extremely interesting and sometimes hazardous discussion to have. Hazardous in the sense that, on the most part, when speaking on other’s way of living, we do not wish to offend by saying or sounding ignorant to something that we do not ourselves participate in. Following this, we do not wish to take away from the accomplishments or practices of another culture. However, if we are intrigued by a certain practice, one may wish to participate and learn more about the culture which has sparked our interest. The line between being respectful toward a people and their established ways of life, while still trying to participate and incorporate said practices into our own lives without trying to offend the argued ‘originators’ is an extremely turbulent tightrope. Often, it is an unavoidable situation to be in, especially within western society where there is pride in the plurality and acceptance of many different types of people and their practices. Within this melting pot of cultures, it is unavoidable that someone from a specific background will not find intrigue in participating in another’s way of living and communicating. This acceptance brings many interesting questions. Within the first chapter, I will try and answer the following: What exactly is culture? How can it be defined? With so many variations in ways of living, practices, celebratory acts, right down to the way we express ourselves and what we hold important, is there a set definition for the umbrella term that is ‘culture’? Is there a way of, for example, observing Chinese culture with that of the indigenous people of Papua New Guinea and deriving a definition of culture from there? This seems like an amazing and overzealous feat, however, it is important to attempt in order to understand the way people from different backgrounds interact on a basic level. Furthermore, with this definition, it is then made easier to observe the different strategies used by different cultures when interacting with one another. Within the second chapter I will discuss with detail these interaction strategies that are employed. With this invitation to live in a society that accepts all, is there a set of norms that are/ should be established so that there is one set of rules that we all must follow? It is clear that a normative is established within every society. A set of codes/rules in which we all follow. It is understood that we must have a standard way of living in order to cooperate effectively and settle disputes where they may arise. However, how accepting to new cultures are those who follow the normative culture? These questions may seem like one set of people are invading the space of another. This is far from the truth. Within this essay, I will assume that all people are welcomed within society but this does not necessarily mean that all practices are welcome. I wish to examine how the decision of acceptance is made and by whom. Furthermore, if the practices are not accepted, what strategies are employed to either halt these new practices or establish these new practices?Finally, if one wished to participate within a culture, who is responsible for allowing new actants to participate? Is it possible to stop someone from participating? Is it possible to go too far with one’s interest in new cultures? This all relates to an individual culture rather than their relationship within society. Within the third chapter, I will focus on a direct example in order to clarify and provide justification for my previous observations. I will be using Hip Hop culture in order to do this. Though it is fairly young, Hip Hop as a culture has experienced many ups and downs within itself and with it’s interaction within society. Everything that I wish to discuss in the following chapters can be given context through examples within Hip Hop or with Hip Hop’s role within society or the perception different groups have with the culture.Overall, I wish to discuss culture in order to try and dissect it from not just a conceptual level, but from an applied level that gives evidence to the theories posed. I do not wish for the ideas within this essay to be that of the intangible or the hard to imagine but historically back and proven to be accurate. This can be done with relative ease through the culture that is Hip Hop. To conclude, I will summarise my findings and identify the key points throughout. Through this, I will provide my own conception of culture, how I perceive cultures to interact with one another and how culture is spread.
Chapter 1
Though there are many categories in which to define and describe the changes within culture, for this essay, I will mainly refer to three: 1. Mass Culture, 2. Popular (Pop) Culture 3. Subculture These categories are used to describe the position that a culture holds within society, subculture being the smallest of the three. To give a tentative definition: those who participate in subcultural practices are few within society (subculture can also be referred to as the colloquial term ‘underground’), and their practice is more or less in direct conflict with the dominant forms of culture. Mass culture (or the culture industry) is one in which cultures are consumed by great numbers of more or less fragmented and atomised masses of individual consumers and, more often than not, manufactured for capitalist intentions. Popular culture is understood in two ways: qualitatively, by the general level of popularity (a product is desired or upheld by the masses because it is of a high standard or quality) and quantitatively (a product is popular because it is consumed in abundance) whereby the relevant practices are understood and exercised by the people. One must not confuse ‘the masses’ of popular culture with ‘mass culture’. The masses of the popular culture means the people, the populus or the general public. The ‘mass’ in mass culture is used to describe abundance or excess. This is the expanse in which products are manufactured within the mass culture industry. It is necessary to define the three categories in detail for their frequent use: ● in the analysis of culture in general terms and of important cultural movements by notable philosophers such as Theodor. W. Adorno and collectives such as the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies ● their frequent usages within this paper, it is necessary to define the three categories in detail. Firstly, the broader conception of culture must be affirmed and described: 1.1 DEFINING THE GROUPS CULTURE When thinking of culture, one's mind tends to equate the Arts with culture. We are able to track empires, dynasties, particular movements and episodes with the use of historical objects which we perceive to have a highly aesthetic nature. Indeed, art is an extremely important part of culture and multiple examples of art will be utilised throughout this essay, but it must bestressed that art is a part of an area known as “‘cultural symbolism’ or style’” (Clarke and Jefferson, 1973, P.4) . These cultural symbols are attempts by participants in cultural groups “to make meaningful, at a cultural level, their social reality.”(P.4) By producing art and developing a certain sense of dress for example, it is an attempt by different cultures to cultivate a space in which they create the rules and its aesthetics. Style is an extremely important part of the evolution of different cultures. It is not the only part of cultural evolution. Within this paper, I wish to present a broader conception of culture in which Art is only one variable among a wide range of cultural forms.
In his essay ‘Framing the Arts: The Role of Cultural Institutions’, John Clarke offers this definition of culture: “...as the patterned set of symbols, both linguistic and nonlinguistic, used by a social group for purposes of communication with one another. Culture forms… may be thought to be as recurrent and organised sets of relations within these symbols are encoded as a unit of communication.”(P.1) Clarke defines culture as communication through both language and nonlinguistic forms of communication. Those who understand these techniques and employ them in order to connect with others who share the same values are said to share the same “social group” at the core of the culture. The “recurrent and organised” nature of the techniques used means that, firstly, there is a set of rules one must follow in order to be understood within a culture and secondly, outsiders to the social group (or at least those who don't understand the codes at first) would find it hard to incorporate themselves within or arguably, be accepted by already existing members, without initially learning the specific codes embedded in said culture. Members of said social group must learn to both manipulate and decipher codes in order to effectively communicate with their colleagues, or risk being ignorant to group change or not be considered a part of that group at all. Therefore, rather than referring to distinct activities and practices, (which leads to the assumption that action must also effectively take place), I will refer to them as ‘codes of communication’. Within this essay, I will refrain from using the term ‘groups’ to describe an overall culture. The term ‘group’ implies, firstly, that there is a selection process by the existing ‘members’. That a new inductee must meet the criteria presented by the older members in order to be accepted. The term group can be applied to parents, teachers, law enforcement etc, because a distinct precedent must be met in order to claim the title. With this being said however, cultural codes can be shared by a specific group. This group is open. There is no emitting process. This means that group membership as not implied by a specific process but the understanding of these communicative codes. You are not a member of a culture because you are considered apart of that culture alone. You are a member because you understand and are able to use the
specific communicative codes associated with that that culture. This distinction of group membership and the understanding of culture is a key concept within this essay. These communicative codes are easily transferred, migrate and open to change. This means that those who originally transformed the codes and ‘created’ (I use this term loosely because it is impossible to give a specific temporal position of the creation of a culture) the culture and its practices have no control of the flow or passing on of the information. It means that someone from Japan, incapable of speaking American English, might be able to communicate through the culture of Hip Hop with someone from East Bronx, by using the communicative codes. These codes allow individuals to express themselves and communicate via a process different than that of linguistics. Secondly, the term ‘group’ when describing a culture overall, has implications that the individual identifies themselves as a ‘group member’ and therefore delivers a very finite and restrictive description of an individual. This is a very strict categorisation that is both hard to explain and hard to establish. A categorisation which I wish to avoid. To illustrate, a professor at a university can see himself as both an academic and as a part of the culture of academia but may also enjoy listening to and seeing punk rock bands perform on the weekend, therefore, also identifying with and understanding the codes of the culture of punk rock. If we were to say the subject were a part of a ‘group’ in this case, which one would he be a ‘member’ of? The understanding of cultural codes of communication is not limited. One may be a member of many social groups and therefore consider themselves a part of many cultures because they are able to use many sets codes interchangeably. When speaking about cultural theoretical practices, we can speak of the spreading of codes. These codes are not fixed. They can change and evolve over time, used differently by other cultures, accepted or rejected as the norm or simply recognised as a form of communication. Indeed, as Dick Hebdige writes in his book, Subculture, “Any elision,truncation or convergence of prevailing linguistic and ideological categories can have profoundly disorienting effects. These deviations briefly expose the arbitrary nature of the codes which underlie and shape all forms of discourse.” (Hebdige, 2002, p.93) Art, dress, dialect, slang, the way one walks and carried themselves, the places different cultures choose to inhabit etc are all codes of communication that one must decipher, learn and apply in order to be embedded within any culture. These codes have evolved over time due to change in participants, adaptation to society and outsider influences but they are, nevertheless, extremely personal to that specific culture. The same goes for John Clarke and Tony Jefferson’s emphasis, for youth culture: “...it is important not “to see adolescent culture as all of a piece, a single invariant entity”. (Clarke and Jefferson, 1973, P.1)
This quote taken from John Clarke and Tony Jefferson’s essay, ‘The Politics of Popular Culture: Cultures and SubCultures’, which itself quotes a passage from James Coleman’s ‘The
Adolescent Society’, both highlights the need to describe the three categories of culture and draws to one's attention to another mistake made when considering the idea of culture (in this case “adolescent culture”). That of differentiation, more specifically the lack of, between different genres of participation. Universal rhetoric has become less common due to the expansion of social media, allowing both the ability to participate in and advertise to a preferred social group. This, in turn, making the identification of these separate groups far easier. Though the point may be extremely basic, it should still be noted that culture does not consist of one set of fixed actions as a single monolithic entity but multiple that have their own ways of communication distinct from the next. This creates subcultures within the three distinct categories for example; within Hip Hop music, one can be a fan of what is known as Trap music but hate listening to 1
Backpack rap or Chopped and Screwed tracks. 2 3
The fluidity of preference and understanding of these communicative codings should not be tied down to distinct categories. Indeed, this is the exact phenomena I wish to detail within these pages. This fluidity that exists within culture that allows the participants and the codes/ practices to flow from one area to another, the mixing of cultures and practices, seemingly at will. What forces prompt these transitions and spreading of code? How does it affect those who consider themselves the originators of the culture (arguably, these are members of subcultures)? These are questions I wish to answer within the later chapters of this essay. They cannot be explained quantitatively. they can, however be explained with specific social theories such as hegemony, the seeking of recognition, appropriation and assimilation, all theories and cultural practices that I will cover in the latter stages of this essay. In order to clarify them, I will provide contemporary examples that are both relevant and informative. Before I proceed, a relationship needs to be introduced and established. That being between “dominant culture”, a term used by Hall to describe the culture that has established cultural norms within society and the culture that demands that everyone follows these norms and the dominant culture. Anyone who deviates from said norms set by the dominant are seen as outsiders/purveyors of resistance. The dominant culture will be discussed throughout this essay, however, it should not be viewed negatively. Though the term dominant will be used frequently , it is also very unspecific. Other terms may be substituted in the position of ‘dominant’, for
1 Trap music is a music genre that originated in the early 1990s in the Southern United States. It is typified
by its aggressive lyrical content and sound, where the instrumentals are propelled by 808 kick drums or heavy extended subbass lines, doubletime, tripletime and other faster time division hihats,layered synthesizers, and "cinematic" strings.
2 Backpack rappers are underground nonmainstream hiphop artists. The backpack came from the fact that
they used to carry backpacks to hold their rhymes and anything else that they chose to carry
3 Chopped and Screwed refers to a technique of remixing Hip Hop music which developed in the Houston
Hip Hop scene in the 1990s. This is accomplished by slowing the tempo down to between 60 and 70
quarternote beats per minute and applying techniques such as skipping beats, record scratching, stoptime, and affecting portions of the music to make a "choppedup" version of the original.
example ‘parent’ to describe a generational conflict but an example or a clarification will always be provided to detail what I mean by ‘dominant’ in that instance. The term ‘parent culture’ gives a sense of “the opposition between young and old, child and parent, citing the rites of passage which, even in the most primitive societies, are used to mark the transition from childhood to maturity.” (Hebdige, 2002, p.73). This distinction of childhood rebellion resulting in the amalgamation of a cultural form (parent vs ‘child’ culture) and that of a culture that imposes its codes upon society to be perceived as the norm is very important. To put it another way, these terms cannot be used as synonyms but speak of specific ways in which subcultures are formed and are viewed by the rest of society. Furthermore, codes can be shared and prized between youth and their adult contemporaries. This must be acknowledged while speaking of different cultural actions within society. MASS CULTURE/ THE CULTURE INDUSTRY “It is solely the power which stands behind this everyday poetry today and impresses us with its colourfast and lavish presentation that can still deceive adult human beings about the extended childhood that is only prepared for them so that they might function in all the more ‘adult’ a fashion...The poetic mystery of the product, in which it is more than itself, consists in the fact that it participates in the infinite nature of production and the reverential awe inspired by objectivity fits in smoothly with the scheme of advertising….Imagination is replaced by a mechanically relentless control mechanism which determines whether the latest image to be distributed really represents an exact, accurate and reliable reflection of the relevant item of reality.” (Adorno, 2001, p.63/64)
This quote taken from Adorno’s Essay ‘The Schema of Mass Culture’. Adorno describes products created within the realm of mass culture as something that does not reflect the life praxis but in fact sells the reader an unrealistic commodity. These objects are not
manifestations within themselves but are formed through the codes of communication from various sub and popular cultures. Specifically, it tells the reader the way the object ought to act rather than depict the actual nature of the subject. In this way, the product becomes “more than itself” or a product that does not function a specific communicative codes but a product that can be marketed for monetary value. Within mass culture it seems, there is no imagination but a strictly calculated idealised concept in which the object must reflect. Adorno presents mass culture in a negative light and argues that mass cultural productions do not reflect or teach the values consumers and participants within the original culture (the one that mass culture took from) were taught from an early age, that being: “...the pupil is given to understand that what is most important is understanding the demands of ‘real life’ and fitting oneself properly for the competitive realm, and that the ideals themselves were either to be taken as a confirmation of this life or were to be immediately placed in its service.” (p.62)
Meaning that pupils should see all productions as a true reflection of life or as tools in order to decipher the reflection of real life, for example, a fable. Products made within mass culture do not reflect this purpose. Instead, imagination and common sense are rendered obsolete by objects which are produced to mimic life (or at least what it’s producer think life is actually like). This brings a strict formulaic nature to the making of products within this sphere. Adorno describes the actions of mass culture as the “intentional play off image and reality against one another” (p.64) for the sake of advertising and, as discussed above, the forcing of an image onto its audience. Mass culture then is sphere where everything produced is prescribed monetary value and is created for gain. Mass culture has blurred the lines between empirical reality and that of culture due to its capitalist nature. It has set a standard of predictable actions and products which has made consumers expect the same from reality. Personally, I do not see or wish to present mass culture in such a negative light. Though I agree that the codes created within this sphere are taken from sub and popular cultures and interpreted and presented to the people in order for monetary gain, I do not see this as a wholly bad thing. Within the previous paragraphs, I am merely describing the way in which Adorno views this sphere. Adorno views the masses as atomised. Within the sphere of mass culture, the masses are in a state of desubjugation meaning that products are not created with them in mind and what they might be attracted to but products are produced and the masses are secondary; they are expected to like it without question. Though, I feel there is a formulaic nature within mass culture/the cultural industry (this is not hard to see from recent productions within the Hip Hop industry in particular), I would argue that due to the internet, the masses have more say and input in terms of what is produced. The masses now have a direct line to artists and the artists must listen in order to please the people and sell their productions. I believe that this apparent definite separation of the culture industry from other forms of culture is nonexistent. Due to the capitalist society in which we inhabit, everything can be turned into a business venture for monetary gain. Even if something is produced for cultural purposes, arguably, there is monetary intent behind the creation also because these are normative practices in which we live though. Indeed, a newly formed ‘HipHop Industry’ is often referred to in order to describe the artists who capitalise of the products placed under the umbrella of Hip Hop. With this being said, one must acknowledge there is a culture created for solely the mass production of cultural codes of communication to be sold to the public with no intention of spreading any cultural knowledge or new social practices. What should be taken from Adorno’s essay is firstly, the blurring between empirical reality and culture (it could be argued that when Adorno referred to “culture” he meant the opposite of reality). Throughout his many essays, when referring to examples to elaborate on his thoughts of culture, Adorno uses examples relating to the higher arts such as opera and classic fictional books. Adorno makes a personal conceptual decision to equate culture to art solely. For Adorno, the higher arts represented a culture that was resistant to the instrumental and
could be manifested. Mass culture blurs this separation, forcing art to take on this rigid and predictable status. A different interpretation of mass culture can be taken from Adorno’s work: that of ‘the culture industry’. This concept was developed by Adorno and Max Horkheimer in order to both replace the term mass culture (to give the metaphorical capitalist machine a name if you will) and to detail the effect outsider capitalist influences have upon culture (artistic works). This was done “in order to exclude from the outset the interpretation agreeable to its advocates: that it is a matter of something like a culture that arises spontaneously from the masses themselves, the contemporary form of popular art.” (P.98) The culture industry is not organic. It is a fabricated product of capitalist intentions. It does not evolve through bottom up methods i.e. the masses create and make popular cultural practices. It is in fact the refabrication of old practices into a “new quality” (p.98). Audiences are the creators of these products. The products are the subject of this sphere due to their monetary gain meaning that “the masses are not primary, but secondary, they are an object of calculation; an appendage of the machinery.” (p.100) Products within the cultural industry are “generated attempts by commercial institutions to coopt the less radical ‘stylistic’ consumer elements of the original culture producing, in the classic phrase, “plastic hippies”” (Clarke and Jefferson, 1973, P.7). This definition of the production of goods within the culture industry can be related to the idea of cultural appropriation, one that I will be exploring within later pages of this essay. I wish to examine not just how appropriation of select sub cultures takes place (and how the members of these sub cultures are affected/react) by the culture industry, but also why it happens. It could be argued that Adorno and Horkheimer's understanding of mass culture is the description of the structural constraint within this new sphere, those being proprietors of capitalism and big business. I do not wish to paint mass culture and the culture industry as evil. The structure of this culture is that of blueprints that are guaranteed to sell. This is a culture motivated by monetary value. The products may not reflect the authentic nature of those produced within the other spheres but do seem to be more rigid versions of the communicative codes established in other spheres. Arguably, the specific codes and actions relevant to the culture that is being commercialised are transformed in order for those within this industry to be able to make profit. POPULAR CULTURE The sphere of popular culture is one that is extremely hard to define. It is a sphere that exists on a fine line between that of sub culture and mass culture. Within contemporary contexts, the word “popular” (or its shorthand “pop”), when attached to music, fashion, art etc, often connects it to the highest selling entity within that area, thus, in merely quantitative terms. For example, pop music is dominated by artists who are marketed and described to appeal to everyone. In
actual fact, they are the one's who sell the most (whether it be music or merchandise) and therefore have the most economic value. In other words, the contemporary use of popular is that equivalent to success stories of the culture industry. In his paper, ‘Notes on Deconstructing the Popular’, Stuart Hall describes the contemporary use of the word popular as: “...the most common sense meaning: the things which are said to be ‘popular’ because masses of people… consume them, and seem to enjoy them to the full. This is the ‘market’ or commercial definition of the term: the one that brings socialists out in spots. It is quite rightly associated with the manipulation and debasement of the culture of people.” (Hall, 2006, p.446) Much like mass culture, this definition sheds a negative light on popular culture. It also leaves us with a very real problem: if the majority of society knowingly consume and enjoy the products which we know, according to the above definition, manipulate and debase us, then surely, by nature, we are manipulative and debasing or, at the very least, living a false consciousness? We are (or at least the majority are) what Hall dubs the consumers within this definition ‘cultural dopes’. This is, however, not the conception of the popular that will be referred to within this essay. Like Hall, I believe we are not simply cultural dopes. We are well aware that the popular forms we consume are in many ways “reconstructed and reshaped by the ways in which they are represented (i.e. rerepresented)...” (p.447) We are aware that what we see is a caricature of the real happenings in working class culture (it is working class culture that Hall sees as the stem for popular culture) and the cultural industries do this in order to “fit more easily the description or preferred cultures” (p.447). Hall believes that this reshaping of culture primarily by the dominant culture is one of necessity, though he also recognises it as “uneven and unequal” because popular classes have no say in how they will be portrayed and cannot be summarised in the same way by the subjected classes. Hall believes that the reshaping is necessary because firstly, it “enclose[s] and confines] its definitions and forms within a more inclusive range of dominant forms”(p.448). In other words, what is accepted as popular culture and by the dominant class is given direction. A category (or categories) are created and the popular classes are allowed to create and produce within these categories. With this, we must remember that cultural forms are not a whole or coherent: either wholly corrupt or wholly authentic. There are many contradictions and popular culture often plays upon these contradictions. Within Hip Hop, stories are often used to deliver the producers message. These stories are often dramatised and the characters and actions depicted seem bigger than life but these stories often contain an element of truth . 4 4 For example Nas Rewind in which Nas describes a day in the life of a gangsta but the starts at the last events and ends when the protagonist wakes up.
Secondly, the action of reshaping encompases what culture is for Hall: that of “points of resistance [by the dominated classes]; there are moments of suppression [by the dominated classes].”(p.448) The definition of popular culture I wish to present is the one that Hall subscribes to: “Popular culture is all those things ‘the people’ do or have done:... the culture, mores, customs and folkways of ‘the people’. What defines their distinctive way of life...what is essential to the definition of popular culture is the relations which define ‘popular culture’ in a continuing tension (relationship, influence and antagonism) to the dominant culture. It is a conception that is polarised around its cultural dialect… It has at its centre the changing and uneven relations of force which define the field of culture that is, the question of cultural struggle and its many forms. Its main focus of attention is the relation between culture and questions of hegemony.” (p.448) This opens up a qualitative meaning of the popular. In other words, popular culture is the accumulation of cultural codes that ‘the people’ or the masses accept as the norm. It does not matter how often these codes are used as long as they are codes in which everyone practices or at the very least, attributes value to. If this essay were a venn diagram, subculture would be one circle representing a cultural sphere and mass culture would be the other. Popular culture would be the space where the overlapping occurs. It is the area that the struggle between the suppressed culture and the dominant culture battle for recognition and dominance where hegemony is the weapon of choice. Though sub and mass culture will be referred to throughout this essay, it should be noted that the grounds in which I mostly refer to are that of popular culture because it is in within this sphere the cultural classes meet and where the actions and outcomes which I wish to analyse materialise.
SUBCULTURE In order to understand subculture, one must first define the different parts to the concept: ‘culture’ which has already been expanded upon above and ‘sub’. Sub: “a prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, freely attached to elements of any origin and used with the meaning “under,” “below,””A subculture is one that is metaphorically below of the main or dominant culture within a society in terms of size of those who understand the codes of communication and in some cases, in age. Those who participate within this sphere are of the minority. Arguably, subcultures arise due to responses to the main culture within a society. They are created by participants who wish to create their own communicative methods and styles. Subcultural practices are “... a subterranean value of the dominant society which is held in abeyance until it can be expressed in an accepted and acceptable way…[their] cultural styles are to be seen as responses to structurally generated problems” (Clarke and Jefferson, 1973, P.5). Responses by subcultures to these problems can be seen as highly political because they recreate and reestablish their relationship to the structure of society . Responses by subcultural groups is “...not political in a narrow sense, but involves extensive cultural preparation that starts from a detailed understanding of the production process itself.” (Lumley,1997, P.16). It should be noted that the nature of these actions are aimed at undermining dominant norms. For example punk culture’s aim is to undermine bourgeois/ monarchy culture and Hip Hop to undermine the dominant culture made up of the upper classes and white supremacist. This term ‘political’ must be defined. In later stages of this essay, I will make reference to how a certain action or set of actions are ‘political’ and, though I will go into detail and provide examples in order to support my claims, a general conception is necessary. By ‘political’, I mean the negotiation of one's own interests and forms of expression are negotiated in a collective space (not just as a form of selfencounter) by opening up a space of conflict (as below: Them and Us). We must assume that with society, there are an established set of rules and actions that are seen as leading within society. This is different from that of the normative because they 5 are not agreed upon by everyone within society but are seen as the foremost. A political cultural movement is made when one culture's codes differs from or is in conflict with that of the norm, forcing society to view the uses of the codes as different to the masses and establish their new position. It must be stressed that political action is a public negotiation in a conflictual manner that introduces difference. When a subculture looks to introduce their communicative codes within society, these actions will produce conflict and hence are political by nature. 5 By the ‘normative’, I mean something everyone has agreed upon, shared convictions, that which the law is founded when we criticise the law of which we agreed.
Previously, John Clarke and Tony Jefferson’s essay, ‘The Politics of Popular Culture: Cultures and SubCultures’ was used within the definitions of culture as an overall concept and subculture. Within the essay, the two focus specifically on youth subculture. Clarke and Jefferson devised 3 questions pertaining further to youth subculture in order to gain insight into the factors shaping adolescent society. They were as follows: 1) “Who are the principal ‘bearers and supports’ in class terms? 2) What is their structural situation which sets limits their possible courses of action i.e. what is their historical situation in relation to the basic structure of society (i.e. income, education, housing, employment, race)? 3) How do these structural constraints operate to modify the range of possible cultural responses or options?” (Clarke and Jefferson, 1973, P.4) These questions highlight the inherent conflict in subcultures because Clarke and Jefferson highlight that a subculture can only exist when there are two opposing groups (‘bears and supports’) and there must be ‘limits’ and ‘structural constraints’ for the newly formed subcultural group to oppose through their codes of communication. I feel that they are important because they hint at a repressive dominant (in the case of Clarke and Jefferson, parent) culture and a suppressed minority who wish “to define and express [their] own situation and break with
dominant culture” (P.10). However, I do feel that this idea of “...break[ing] with dominant culture” needs clarification or rather, the idea of the dominant culture needs clarification. Michael Walzer clarifies this idea of inherent conflict in the following quote: “It is a matter of principle that communities may always be at risk. And the great paradox of the liberal society is that one cannot set oneself against this principle without also setting oneself against the traditional practices and shared understanding of the society.”(Walzer, 1990, P.20) I would like to make clear my use of the term ‘class’ within this essay. Throughout my readings concerning Hip Hop culture, many forms of cultural conflict arise: generational, race and gender related, geographical, class conflict etc. The latter, class conflict, is given a central place throughout the writings of Gramsci, Clarke and Jefferson, Stuart Hall, those within the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies and many other academics who I will mention further within this essay. Though some of the authors (Gramsci for example) use class conflict to mean that between working class and upper class cultures (i.e. conflict between those of a different position to the means of production). Their findings can be used as a metaphor or parallel when describing other forms of conflict. In some cases, for example within Hip Hop, the conflict of class and race merge to a large extent as lines of class distinctions are very much characterised by racial identities. Therefore, though I will elaborate when describing a certain conflict, one
must remember that the struggle that I am portraying can ultimately be applied to any cultural conflict. All the points raised are indeed relevant to any conflict described within this essay, especially pertaining to Hip Hop culture. One must note that the dominant does not mean society as a whole. Though the majority of society are said to be a part of the dominant culture (or at least the popular culture of the time), dominant does not equal society. The dominant culture means the verbal and nonverbal communicative practices that society deems to be the norm, determined by the dominant groups and alliances within the cultural fields and industries. They have established the ruling set of codes as explained above. These practices and codes, much like any culture, can change over time. They can change through both strategic and normative strategies. For example, a strategic practice would be one of adoption of subcultures verbal and nonverbal codes of communication, transforming the sub into one of popular or through strategies wishing to combat a actions deemed unfit for society. Subcultures wish to “...break with dominant culture” but be recognised by society as a legitimate culture in its own form, appealing to the liberal egalitarian view of pluralism. The questions posed by Clarke and Jefferson show that subcultural groups are established within an atmosphere of direct conflict with the dominant culture. That the limits placed on their members within their structural situation have direct and key impact on the practices of said groups. Clarke and Jerffeson see the actions of youth subculture as a resistance against what the participants of the youth culture deem to be a system that represses their very nature. This is very important because it shows that with its very nature, the conception of a subculture is dependant on the struggle. The struggle for a valid place within society (in other words, recognition) is there from a group’s conception.
Within ‘The Politics of Popular Culture’ and indeed many other writings on subcultures, a picture of two opposing factions are created: that of the dominant culture and the newly formed subculture. I wish to explore this difference further. Within the realm of Hip Hop, it is blatantly apparent that there is a disdain held by those within the culture for the authority, most commonly, the police and justice system and somewhat, those who exist outside of Hip Hop. Evidence of this can be found with relative ease. For example, Los Angeles raised collective N.W.A. with their iconic 1988 hit ‘Fuck Tha Police’ (the obvious venom toward the justice system can be derived by merely examining the title of this track), to The Mitchell Brothers, Routine Check as they describe implied racism by police in London as they randomly stop and search the black artists but let the other featuring artist The Streets, a white man, walk freely. Openly stated antagonism to the institutional order is a major parts of Hip Hop because of the initial conflict that the culture arose from; one of institutional class repression. Though both examples highlight race relations between those within Hip Hop and the police, it should be emphasised that, much like the conception between art and culture, in some cases, race is wrongly equated to that of culture. Though one can trace a culture’s origins to that of a
specific region, contemporary western culture and more predominantly, popular and mass culture have transcended the boundaries of race. Cultures involve many ethnicities. This is the same within contemporary Hip Hop. Those as far afield as Japan for example, are part of the culture. With this being said, I wish to explore both the racial politics and struggle for recognition in black culture because it is here, arguably, that Hip Hop first came to fruition. Subcultures are often overlooked, ignored or rejected by dominant cultures at first until they gain popularity among the masses. This is because the public (those who participate in both the dominant culture of the time and subcultural practices) are extremely susceptible to stereotyping about things outside of their immediate social sphere. This susceptible nature is derived from their dependence on the media, which, in turn, is run by the dominant culture. Subcultures are unable to defend themselves or their activities because they are “relatively unorganised… and have little access to major channels of communication to oppose public definitions attributed to them by the media… This stereotyping… provides the opportunity for symbolic affirmation of the validity of the estimated social and moral order against those who fornt its code of conduct.” (Clarke and Jefferson, 1973, P.6) (those who oppose the established code of conduct are pained as hazardous to society and therefore strengthens the current popular regime). 1.2 ‘THEM’ vs ‘US’ “Power to the people. Middle finger to the Po Po” (Mick Jenkins, 2015, P&Q’s) Due to the alienation of subcultural groups by the dominant culture and the divergence in communicative codes by the subculture, a divide is created between the two (though the violent nature of the fight between that of Hip Hop and the authority i.e. the judicial system controlled by the dominant culture, is not always present). This alienation is due to the divergence of the subcultural codes from the dominant culture itself. There is an idea of social order bound up in the sanctity of language and expression (this social order set up by the dominant culture), with the limits of expression prescribed by a number of apparent universal taboos. Violations to these established rules of expression have considerable power to provoke and disturb. Subcultures represent a symbolic challenge to a symbolic order. Hebdige also notes that: “...spectacular subcultures express forbidden contents (consciousness of class, consciousness of difference) in forbidden forms (transgressions of sartorial and behavioural codes, law breaking, etc.). They are profane articulations, and they are often and significantly defined as ‘unnatural’.” (Hebdige, 2002, p.9394)
Within his book ‘The Uses of Literacy’, Richard Hoggart dedicated a chapter, aptly named named ‘’Them and ‘Us’’ in which this divide is described between the lower classes of 1950’s Britain and the bourgeois dominant/ruling class. ‘Them’ being “...policeman and those civil servants or local authority employees whom the workingclasses [but in this case, youth subcultures] meet teachers, the school attendance man, ‘the Corporation’, the local bench.” (Hoggart, 1957, p.73)
Hoggart notes that subcultures see the world outside of their group as: “...strange and often unhelpful, that [the outside world] has most of the counters stacked on its side, that to meet it on its own terms is difficult...a feeling among [subcultures] that they are often at a disadvantage, that the law is in some things readier against them than against others, and that petty laws weigh more heavily against them than against some other groups.” (p.73) This attitude varies from generation to generation and, arguably, culture to culture. For example, Hoggart notes that among the older generation of 1950’s lower classes (those in their 30’s and older), there is a disregard for ‘them’ due to memories of high unemployment rates of the
thirties. By contract, the younger generation are “less actively hostile” (p.76) because “they have come to terms with the great outside in a way their parents have not…” (p.76). Subcultures seem to reject the communicative codes of the dominant. Or, at least, they diverge from the established communicative norms. They see the norm’s as belonging to others, belonging to ‘them’. They view their own codes as separate from the norms, codes which those outside of the culture can't understand. This makes the newly formed codes very personal i.e. the codes are ‘ours’. An association of ‘us’ (those who understand and can use the subcultural codes) is established. This divide is created and widened by not only those within subcultures through the referencing of the dominant culture as ‘them’ (people outside/not the same) but also mainstream media (controlled by the dominant culture) who alienate subcultures because they oppose the views of the dominant. These can be seen as very particular strategies from both parties. It turns the opposing culture into the antagonist or the enemy, forcing those within or those who listen to the ‘protagonist’ culture to view the subject culture as the one who is being negatively affected. This divide is a politics of difference. Both parties are trying to institute their codes of communication within society. This creates cultural conflict. One must note that this conflict, this ‘them vs us’ viewing of society can manifest from many social groups: on an ethnic level, class level, gender level etc. Most of the time, it is not just one of these forms of conflict but an amalgamation of many. Arguably, the separation has not only become a consistent feature within Hip Hop but has in fact, blossomed and become synonymous with the culture. The music element within Hip Hop has become an escape from the turmoil of the constant battle with law enforcement and society as a whole. The products reflect this. This call for authenticity is because “ït is important to have that sense of independence which arises from respect for oneself, because that is what no one can physically take away.” (Hoggart, 1957, P.79).
This idea of keeping it real could be equated to what Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci considered to be “Philosophy of Praxis” where one is asked to “make critical an already existing idea” (Lumley, 1997, p.31) or “developing a historical class consciousness” (p.31).
Much like Hoggart, the ‘class’ struggle which Gramsci detailed was one of monetary income. Specifically, the two opposing cultures were the bourgeoisie upper class who were the dominant culture and the lower working classes within 1850’s Italy. Gramsci’s aim within his writings was to understand how the dominant classes stayed dominant and produce a theory in which to counteract these dominant processes. The outcome of this social revolt: Gramsci envisaged a communist society in which the working classes were the dominant, able to live and produce in any way they wished. Though Gramsci wrote on class conflict in this manner, his theory of hegemony can be used to describe and explain strategic practices employed by dominant cultures within any conflict. Furthermore, hegemony can be extended to subcultural practices that are used to to gain recognition for the subculture within society. These ideas I will explore further in later stages of this essay. for now, we must proceed with identifying and analysing the apparent divide between subcultures and the dominant. Thus far, I have spoken extensively on the subculture’s viewing of the dominant culture, those who follow the dominant culture and the bodies perceived to be authority figures within society: ‘them’. I can conclude that these regards shadows the state in the light off disdain and untrustworthiness. These views are highly political: “...they [the subculture] tend to regard the policeman primarily as someone who is watching them, who represents the authority which has its eye on them, rather than as a member of the public services whose job it is to help and protect them.” (Hoggart, 1952, P.73)
In other words, the idea of ‘them’ has been detailed. A conception of how participants within subcultures view each other must be established. The idea of ‘us’ will now be discussed.
Much like Hoggart in his description, I wish to avoid the use of the term ‘community’ because “...it’s overtones seem too simply favourable; they may lead to an underestimation of the harsher tensions and sanctions of [ethnic] groups.”(p.80) The Hip Hop community is by no means unified. Subcultures (‘subsubcultures’ if you will) within the culture exist (for example, Trap, backpack rap, neo soul etc), all who hold their own identities and philosophies. To put it another way, sub groups are distinguished vertically and well as horizontally across society. This is not a new phenomenon but it does need to be made clear. These subcultures within subcultures can be affected by region, creativity, actions etc. The term ‘community’ could hold that all these sub groups are unified. I wouldn’t say they are opposed to the idea of unity because indeed, they all consider themselves very much apart of Hip Hop culture, but it could be said that no thought has been given to the coming together of all these collectives. Hip Hop is an umbrella term for this.
The ideology of a subculture is political through the fact that it is “doubly determined” (Nice, 1977 P.4). The specific characteristics must not represent the classes or class fractions in which they express (the “sociodicy function”(p.4)) “ ….the specific logic of the field of production [i.e. society of the time]”(p.4). The ideology of subcultures must express the ideas of the participants and of the creators but also be able to live in the realm of the society that the members of the subculture choose to inhabit. Though subcultures may choose to see those outside of their culture (those who do not understand the codes) as ‘them’, they still wish to be recognised by society as a people who’s codes are of significance. This means producing actions that reflect what the subculture stand for. This can be very difficult because as explained prior, codes of communication can be interpreted, transformed and replaced very easily. One action produced by one person may not be held in high regard by another who participates within the same culture. Accordingly, the newly created code may be misinterpreted or made obsolete by the rest of society. The political struggle is that of negotiation by both the subculture and the dominant culture in order to determine which of the new codes can be accepted into the specific logic of the field of production in which the subculture wished to inhabit. One must not look at a subcultural movement as a complete separation of the few from the majority. Though this notion of separation is understandable by use of grouping language i.e. ‘them’ and ‘us’, one must remember that these groups are looking for acceptance within an already established cultural regime. One must recognise the interaction between subcultures and the dominant culture as two sides of the same coin. Subcultural codes deviate from the norm, can be alienated and seen as a threat if these new codes are too far removed from the norm, a norm established by the dominant culture of the chosen society. If the new actions presented by the subculture are deemed unworthy of society of the dominant culture, the dominant must construct counter measures. But how does the dominant culture remain dominant? What strategies do they employ in order to make sure their codes are the norm within society? How do they counteract the new codes entering society by way of subcultures? 1.3 HEGEMONY The evolution of a culture is an extremely interesting and unpredictable course. Many varying factors, both outside and amongst the participants of a culture, can influence and change the codes of communication and therefore, prompting the change of the overall culture, whether forcibly or with consent. This change can be one that leaves the culture in its current social standing or can propel it into another one of the spheres described above. More than likely, this propulsion will be a subculture gaining popularity or public interest and being viewed as a culture that exists in a popular realm or, depending on the momentum the culture gains, straight to the mass culture industry. The journey Hip Hop culture has taken over the past 50 years, I
wish to explore deeply within chapter three by using the terminology established in both chapter one and this. Within the previous section, I established that culture is bigger than that of art. It is a specific set of codes of communication, both verbally and nonverbally. The culture that one holds means that one understands and can manipulate these codes in order to communicate with one’s counterparts within the culture. It is a construct that at the early stages, one shares with their selected and specific peers. It goes without saying then, that when one feels that they are no longer in control of these codes, or that these codes do not reflect what they were originally intended, they will develope feelings of resentment to those who they feel are changing their culture. I would like to analyse and try to understand the struggle between subcultures retaining and establishing their codes within society on the one hand and the preservation of their dominance by the dominant culture (ote that the dominant culture do not wish to retain their established codes in their original form. this will be explained with the introduction of hegemony). This analysis will be done by focusing on the strategies employed by both the dominant culture and subcultures.This analysis of the general struggle will help us to understand the journey that Hip Hop has undergone in more detail, with the use of a philosophical framework within chapter three of this essay. To establish this framework, I will firstly define the concepts of hegemony. Within the next chapter, I will analyse the pursuit of recognition by subcultures. These concepts I will put in parallel. This is an important step in understanding why and how subcultures resist the cultural pressures of the masses and the dominant culture. Hegemony is a set of practices employed by the dominant culture in order to retain their dominance. They are strategic in nature because the codes and practices must evolve and change as the dominated classes evolve and change. Subcultures pursue recognition. In chapter two, I will present an example of a subculture overcoming a hegemonic, assimilative culture by using tactics of hegemony and recognition to cement themselves within society (in this case, French society) in the form of the La Negritude movement. Hegemony is theory that tries to explain the connection between political control and cultural dominance. More specifically, the strategies employed by cultures in order to incorporate their practices as the norm within society. As has already been established above, subcultural practices are indeed highly political. Arguably, this is a strategy employed by those within the dominant culture to counteract the ‘defiant’, newly created actions of the subculture. In order to be able to counteract the opposing actions of those with subcultures, those within the dominant must understand, or at least must be able to appease those within the subculture, thereby giving them access to the subculture and giving them the ability to promote it and change it as they will.
