Cultural Appropriation and Subcultural Expression:
The
Dialectics of Cooptation and Resistance
A paper for presentation to the Northwestern University Center for the
Humanities, Monday Nov. 14, 1994, 4-5:30 pm, Ver Steeg Faculty Lounge,
University Library
version 2.3
[For a decade or so it has been commonplace in academic presentations of film
and video analysis to show clips (just as art historians show slides). It is now possible to
store and retrieve articles with clips on the Internet and the World Wide
Web. In a few years much scholarship of this kind will be electronically
published, and student film and tv analysis "papers" will routinely include
clips. ]
- Chuck
Kleinhans
A lot of the people in cultural studies these days kind of remind
me of the FBI in the fifties: They find subversion everywhere. --Greil Marcus.
The questions I want to examine are: how do subcultures appropriate from the
dominant culture, particularly its mass culture, and how does that dominant mass
culture in turn appropriate from subcultures?[1]
Does such dual appropriation promote or undermine assimilation and/or identity?
And, given that there are distinct power differentials between the consciousness
industry and cultural expressions by subordinate groups, what kind of resistance
is possible and effective? While a short essay cannot do justice to the
complexity of all the issues involved, I can advance an argument for
constructing further studies which can give the social and historical context
for the processes. I should also note that inevitably this discussion connects
with some issues well known in other frameworks such as the nature of the
culture industry, issues of postmodernism, the relations of gender, race, and
class in cultural analysis, identity politics, and activist media making.[2]
I've been involved with this matter of subcultures and appropriation for some
time, starting in the 1960's while working in the underground press and the
counterculture and seeing the subsequent changes in youth culture and the
commercial music industry. So my experience is partly practical and historical,
but it has also been critical and theoretical. In fact, for the most part,
initially the critical questions were raised in the context of practical
matters. Working on an underground newspaper and sympathetic to both sides, I
had to balance the desires of the "politicos" for more news of protests and
analysis of events against the expectations of the "freaks" and "hippies" for
coverage of sex, drugs, and rock `n' roll. Long meetings argued out decisions
such as printing the John Lennon and Yoko Ono "Two Virgins" album photo and
probably being banned from university distribution or even arrested for
publishing full frontal nudity. Or, on another occasion the question was, does a
rock dance to benefit an anti-Vietnam war project somehow become "really
political" when the accompanying light show includes slides of last week's
demonstration on campus and last spring's March on Washington? The "politics of
representation" had a decidedly pragmatic edge, and the results of decision
could be immediately apparent.
To examine mass culture and the possibilities of creating oppositional
cultural work, I've chosen two examples, one from the 19th century, and one from
today, which dramatize this question in terms of issues of class, gender, and
race. So this topic fits within the larger current terms of multiculturalism and
"identity politics." As such this issue is rather hotly contested in cultural
studies. What is the relation of subcultures to the dominant culture,
particularly those subcultures which exist in a subordinate relation to the norm
and which contain artists, intellectuals, and cultural workers of one kind or
another who see themselves as working within a subculture and yet also trying to
transform the boundary of that subculture and the values, framework, and active
ideology of the dominant culture? Many of the issues that have been taken up in
art of the past decade operate in such a framework: AIDS, censorship, women's
rights, homelessness, racism, imperial war, gender identity, and sexuality, to
name a few.
The currently contested question: is the special subculture response or
reading, subversive of the existing order? In books such as Television
Culture, Reading the Popular, and Power Plays/Power Works and
in various articles, John Fiske stands at the front of those making the argument
for subversive readings of mass culture, for the idea that consumers of mass
culture have an active facility for resistance in reading mass culture texts.
Fiske argues against traditional Marxist aesthetics, which simply endorsed high
culture and regretted the workers didn't have access to it under capitalism, as
well as against the Frankfurt School, especially Theodor W. Adorno as
exemplified by the essay "The Culture Industry," which assumed that mass culture
totally controlled the minds of the masses. By granting the audience almost
complete autonomy to construct meaning, Fiske pushes an impulse to democratizing
media reception about as far as it can go without becoming purely relativistic.
From within cultural studies, the argument that the audience determines the
meaning has been criticized. For example Meaghan Morris observes,
...the thesis of cultural studies as Fiske and [Ian] Chambers
present it runs periously close to this kind of formulation: people in modern
mediatized societies are complex and contradictory, mass cultural texts are
complex and contradictory, therefore people using them produce complex and
contradictory culture. To add that this popular culture has critical and
resistant elements is tautological--unless one (or a predicated someone, that
Other who needs to be told) has a concept of culture so rudimentary that it
excludes criticsm and resistance from the practice of everyday life.
(24-25)
Morris is on target within the field of U.S. cultural studies.[3]
But she does not take into account the rather entrenched status of the "audience
as dupes" model dominant in the work of (I assume liberal) Neil Postman and Mark
Crispin Miller on television, or late Frankfurt School empiricism of George
Gerbner, or the openly left models of Dallas Smythe and Herbert Schiller.
Very hostile criticism of Fiske's type of analysis also arises outside of
cultural studies. A good example comes from media sociologist Todd Gitlin in a
highly partisan essay:
Twenty years on, avant-garde shock has become routine, and
avant-gardistes have to go farther and farther out to prove they haven't been
taken in. Meanwhile, some of yesterday's outriders of youth culture have
become theorists scavenging the clubs, back alleys, and video channels for a
"resistance" they are convinced, a priori, must exist. Failing to find radical
potential in the politics of parties or mass movements, they exalt
"resistance" in subcultures, or, one step on, in popular styles, or even, to
take it one step further--in the observation that viewers watch TV with any
attitude other than devoted rapture. "Resistance"--meaning all sorts of
grumbling, multiple interpretation, semiological inversion, pleasure, rage,
friction,numbness, what have you--is accorded dignity, even glory, by stamping
these not-so-great refusals with a vocabulary derived from life-threatening
political work against fascism--as if the same concept should serve for the
Chinese student uprising and cable TV grazing. Some have found the new
theoretical grail in sitcoms, some in slash and cult movies, some in the pace
of MTV, some in the long tracking shot, some in punk, some in pornography--and
the list grows with the ingenuity. Hegelian to the core, this line of thought
agrees that somewhere in the culture "the resistance" must exist. (Gitlin,
191)
[4]
In a much more detailed and considered article, Michael Budd, Robert Entman,
and Clay Steinman have critiqued what they call the "affirmative character" of
cultural studies which ends up celebrating the status quo:
First, it overestimates the freedom of audiences in reception.
Second, it minimizes the commodification of audiences as analyzed by a
political-economic approach. Third, it fails to differentiate between mass
advertising and specialized media. Fourth, it confuses active reception with
political activity. Finally, it takes the exceptional situation of progressive
readings promoted within oppositional subcultures as the norm.
(169)
In this debate, I find some agreement with both sides. Certainly Fiske in
particular is prone to overgeneralization from scanty data, seems unable to
learn even from his friendly critics, and in his investigations of phenomenae
such as the Madonna fans and African American cultural practices has a tendency
to become the Expert Explainer of Others.[5]
At the same time, his work is motivated by a strong democratic impulse to
account for otherwise unacknowledged, unstudied, or marginalized parts of the
population, precisely those people overlooked by the grand overgeneralizations
of both the empirical and critical traditions in mass communications research.
And in part Gitlin is right: one doesn't have to attend too many conference
panels or read too many articles submitted for publication to find extreme
claims about cultural subversion made with little effort to back up the critical
insight with historical research, serious ethnographic analysis, confirmation
from readily available empirical data, or sometimes even a review of the
pertinent literature. But it is not fair to judge the validity of an
intellectual area by its worst examples. I wonder if Gitlin has really read the
best. For example, he mentions celebration of slasher films, but the best study,
Carol Clover's Men, Women, and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film
is a reasoned attempt to explain why it is possible for some people,
including women and feminists, to find pleasure in some of these films.
Similarly, most of the feminists writing cultural analyses of pornography such
as Linda Williams and Laura Kipnis are not celebrating it or claiming it is
liberating. Rather they are trying to understand the complexisites of the texts
and the audience's responses. Gitlin and Budd, Entman, and Steinman carefully
mention feminism in their essays, but seem unfamiliar with the major work in
feminist cultural studies and oblivious to gay/lesbian/queer gender analysis and
critics dealing with racial representation. I want to argue that both extremes
of this debate fail to take into account the specifically dual nature of
subcultural reading, that it exists as a dialectical process, and remains in
many ways in tension rather than resolved in its very interpretation.
The Cakewalk
(Section omitted)
Voguing
(Section omitted)
BIBLIOGRAPHY (omitted)