Toby Miller asserts that "[t]he model liberal citizen is a clear-headed, cool subject who knows when to set aside individual and sectarian preferences in search of the greater good." An interesting counter-example of this model citizen was a small group of folks in the early Norwegian Black Metal scene. Their aesthetics are based on brutality and repugnance. As Euronymous (member of Mayhem until his murder in 1993) puts it, "It's very important that the music is filled with dark moods and that the music smells of destruction ... [Black Metal is] something raw and evil ..."The scene is infamous for its extra-musical activities of church-burning and intra-group murder along with their over-the-top garb of spikes, inverted cross necklaces, and make-up, topped with a menacing scowl (a veritable wealth of signification). These musicians can easily be read as typifying the antithesis of the citizen (the citizen being "self-limiting, self-controlling").
As Miller goes on to claim "that consumption and citizenship have become mutually constitutive," it is also interesting to hear Euronymous's comments on the commercialization of the Black Metal genre: "I think that the main problem is that Death Metal* is now commonly available and accepted, the underground is dead. In the ancient days, it was extremely unpopular and extreme to play in a band like Mayhem, most people hated us ... Now Death Metal is commercial, and bands like Cadaver have even played gigs for their parents. This is not good. This does not help the underground, it's killing it. Real Death Metal should be something normal people are afraid of, not something mothers can listen to." Consumptability leads to de-authentication. Or, perhaps, consumptability leads to citizenship, the very thing that the scene may be read as eschewing.
*At the time of this interview (1991), genre terminology was not codified. Here we may read "Death" as "Black" though they are no longer considered synonymous. Mayhem is now considered Black Metal, though Euronymous earlier in the interview says, "I play in a Death Metal band, or maybe you should call it Black Metal." The animosity Euronymous expresses may foretell this genre bifurcation.
I understand the frustration created as a result of the commodification of the underground scene of Black or Death Metal and believe that it is with good reason that those who appreciate it, see the art and life of it being sucked out. It was supposed to be an outlet for the underground, something relative to those usually un-relatable, however, it became commercialized and attached itself to a form of political visibility as described in the Joseph article. Joseph describes it as "Political visibility makes it possible to stake claims for cultural legitimacy because it operates on a sense of belonging within in the state." Although this is the case that is paralleled with the current metal scene, that doesn't make it okay or even placed in a state of neutrality.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why metal with through the transition of the "citizen" version of acceptance, however because it did and was now acceptable to parents, etc. only provided more of a reason to question the "ambiguity and disaffiliation" of all things both private and public. I mean what can people do but wonder how things got this way and try to prevent it with the next ground-breaking and shocking new genre of anything.
Art must be protected and not commodified or allowed to become citizen due to monetary gain or political and social acceptance.
The following line from the Miller reading caught my eye: “[t]he freedom to participate in culture is contingent on both freedom from prohibition and freedom to act via political, economic, and media capacities” (73). However, I wonder isn’t participation in culture contingent on mere existence? Place in society (marginalized, etc) comes at a deeper level. In terms of the Black Metal genre, even if the musicians are “typifying the antithesis of the citizen,” they are still participating in culture. Underground cultures can be seen as “authentic” because they are somewhat isolated from the homogenizing, hybridizing mixer that is the real world. Once discovered and paid attention to, however, these cultures become vulnerable to de-authentication because the culture becomes accessible to “outsiders.” Reggaeton has a similar story, starting as an underground culture. The statement that the underground is “dead” because Death Metal is “now commonly available and accepted” is interesting, implying that the music was intended to be anti-norm. If this is the case, it deems plausible that the genre had a message to be perceived and received to inject into the norm. However, the point of conflict is when the sub/underground culture meets the (main) culture, because that is when it becomes vulnerable to de-authentication and merging into popular culture. That said, is it “better” for such underground/outsider/authentic cultures to remain “marginalized” (or “prohibited” or “voiceless” in a sense)?
ReplyDeleteI personally am not familiar with this particular subject or familiar with the underground. But I did think this was a very interesting post because yes, although not completely knowledgeable in the undergound I do know its importance and the importance that many people have about it and how it can somewhat be an honor to be called an underground artist.
ReplyDeleteWhat caught my attention from your blog was the last sentance...
What I was wondering, which is something I might want to explore because I am not familiar with what it means to be an undergound artist is...do these underground artist want to leave the underground scene at one point? Is being apart of the underground scene the first step to making it big? and even though consumptability leads to de-authentication, isnt this something that most commercialized artist want? Underground is Dead....is this something that the mass of people are doing or is it something the underground band or underground artisit is doing?
Okay first off I had no idea we were going to be using black metal and Mayhem as a case study here. I'm thoroughly stoked on this concept.
ReplyDeleteI'm hazy to a certain extent on what a citizen is and what a consumer is in their respective realms. I understand that they do have overlap in this age of globalizing social-economic politics, however, especially when it comes to sovereignty and power between and within states.
The Aristotle definition, quoted by Miller, "a political animal who gathers with others to form a state for their mutual benefit" seems to make sense with the whole idea of people being a part of the Norwegian black metal scene. This can take place from people promoting, to setting up shows, to making music, to supporting bands all for the sake of keeping the scene alive and personal.
I think what Euronymous was getting at perhaps was a more romantic envisioning of this labor that is against a more neoclassical idea of having a "good and efficient" music scene, with that meaning level of accessibility and whatever comes with that such as being able to point at it and go "oh, THATS black metal." This is fascinating because while he is able to claim it because he is inside the scene, he is challenging the power of those outside of it, however that may be determined, to define the scene.
Now what I also find interesting here is the idea of "consuming" this scene versus contributing or collaborating within the black metal scene, and this again probably links to the power issue of "who defines what" and "who gets to establish culture." How does one gauge dedication to this specific sub-culture of metal?
These power dynamics remind me of the romanticized look at the American Hardcore Punk movement from the late 70's onto, arguably, the early 90's. Much of the histories I have read have all talked about the end being this weird thing where now that everyone knew what "hardcore punk" sounded like, looked like and smelled like, it wasn't dangerous and lost it's original intent of rebellion.
In any sense, music subcultures seem quite difficult to nail down to a certain extent, at least with reading Miller's piece, he tries to make sense between of being a citizen of a culture AND a consumer of a culture by stating that "the freedom to participate in culture is contingent on both freedom from prohibition and freedom to act via political, economic, and media capacities."
Many of the commenters of this post have brought up the issue of de-authenticification of a genre like black metal, and as mentioned by one post reggaeton. Do these genres ultimately lose authenticity by entering the mainstream? Must they remain underground to be considered "true"?
ReplyDeleteAnother way to look at this would be through Miller's concept of consumer activism. Consumer's use their agency in order to assert a political message - to reject the mainstream. Yet, they are still operating as consumers - without direct political action. So when, a genre enters the mainstream the original consumers no longer have political control. Their consumption means less, politically. For, a neoliberal consumer is divorced from his or her politics, culture and beliefs - and this is what underground culture seeks to turn on its head.
After reading the posting and the comments, I got the impression that people usually think that once a subculture, which was not very known or visible, is commodified or commercialized, it loses its authenticity under the influence of hegemonic, homogenous mass culture. It urges me to think: who has the right to claim the authenticity of a cultural form? Does authenticity really exist? Does authenticity always need to do with/within the context? For instance, does the authenticity of Death Metal need to be linked to the antisocial, rebellious, evil behaviors? When people think it is now de-authenticated, do they only mean the higher accessibility in the commercial market? Why there seems to exist a contradiction between commodification/commercialization and cultural authenticity? Does commodification/commercialization always lead to a limited, hegemonic reading of a cultural form? Or a wider possibility of interpretations by a greater variety of consumers? Or both?
ReplyDeleteIf we think about performance in a Goffman sence, performance of self in everyday life. Performance of culutre etc. perhaps there is no such thing as an authentic self. Perhaps as he might say we are all just wearing different costumes in any given situation. How then can one claim an authentic self or an authentic culture. By authentic, do we then get into issues of oppression where as some may not fit that definition? For example what does it mean to be authentically black? There is often this notion of 'keeping it real' for some within the culture that often lifts up things like not snitching to police, living in poor neighbor hoods, speaking about struggle etc. However this is not nessecarily the black experiance and by and large leaves out the black middle class not withstanding lower income groups that do not share these philosophies. Is this a case of when keeping it real goes wrong? In this case, keeping it oppressive? How then can we judge cultural appropriation for example. Many viewed eminem as an intruder to black culture where as many would reguard him as a 'cultural citizen' and thus he has the right to speak on certain topics.
ReplyDeleteI am additionally toiling with the notion of consumer vs citizen. Very often consumers are framed as ignorant non thinking dupes ---i.e. Kant's 'i need not think so long as I can pay' quote from our reading. Is it really the case that consumers are de-activated citizens through their consumption? How do we examine a case like the bus boycotts of the civil rights era where consumers used their consumption to express and demand their citizenship. In this case they force others to think because they can pay. Additionally, the commodification of blacks was often ushered in by activists who wanted more respect for their community. Their way of demanding this respect was often through the commodification of their own--i.e. Moss Kendrix who promoted the buying power of the black consumer. In this way he was able to demand favorable treatment of minorities, positive representation in advertising and the selling of goods that were previously only in white environments to black consumers. Does this not flip this hegemony? Some might say that it is a counter productive strategy and that capitalism and commodification was the worst thing that could have happened to us. That contrary to marx's view that race is epiphenominal to class --that in fact because of the devaluation of human beings through racism or sexism etc--capitalism is born and thus people are able to be commodified. This is a shit from the Afrocentric communal model of politics and into the hierarchical capitalistic mode. Is all capitalism then hegemonic in some way? In many ways from a political economic view perhaps citizenship and consumption have been fused. Where as revolution and progress can not happen unless you can demonstrate a sazable audience/buying power.
I agree that Death Metal is becoming more and more accepted in the mainstream and may be losing the underground appeal.However I do not believe it is taking away it authenticity.If we really think about it no genre is its un-edited version so nothing is authentic but we still listen to it we still buy it. So why is wrong for Death Metal to go mainstream? Although it represents evil and some may argue it causes people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do, but what form music doesn't rather it be Rap, R&B, Rock& Roll or Country they all have messages; but as consumers we don't regulate whats put out there but we do support we will still support rather its underground or mainstream.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting blog post and it reminds me of my time spent studying abroad in Prague. My roommate was the drummer in the "3rd most popular czech punk rock band" (I'm not sure if there were 5 that it was out of or many more but I'm still pretty impressed...)
ReplyDeleteMyself and a few of my fellow American study abroad friends went to one of his shows at a (literally and figuratively) underground club. The scene there was very similar to the one that you described in Norway. The music was less 'traditional punk' and more hardcore and kind of scary. I'm not sure if this is because Czech itself is a bit harsher than English but it was fascinating to witness such a raw, non-commercialized presentation. When I was younger I attended local 'punk' shows and they were vastly different than this basically untouched representation.
What do you think this cross-cultural representation says and means about a genre/art form that's lost it's appeal in particular regions but moved on to other cultures?
In response to Samantha’s questions, I do believe that in order of these genres to maintain their authenticity they have to remain underground to maintain. When something is brought into the mainstream is has to become commercialized. As Miller points out, the model liberal citizen has to maintain a particular image and in order for it to be maintained, the genre has to become “water-down” to be more acceptable. The product has to appeal to the consumer in order for them to consume it and the music to be deemed a commodity.
ReplyDeleteI will keep it brief, because it is touchy subject and I do not wish to offend anyone. Citizenship is simply a piece paper that gives a person the right to be here and share a common patriotic view if they choose to. However it does not mean that a person should give up their culture and ethnicity to fit in with the norm. If person chooses to do so that is on them. Especially speaking in regards to U.S Citizenship because the U.S is made up of all different types of people which makes America what it is. Because without this great blend people and cultures America would not be what it is. So I say Citizenship is important because it gives a person certain privileges but its not worth disowning who you are.
ReplyDeleteI like the part in Miller's article, he said "adopting the tenets of the citizen,the consumer becomes a self-limiting, self controlling,subject who still conforms to general patterns of purchasing behavior (p 30). " It seems like citizenship have to be adopting to the superior groups actions. It can have a person to limit their identity to express someone else culture. People tries to purchase the behavior of others which cause them to lose identity that they once had before to come closer to becoming a citizen.Moreover, being a citizen is still being questioned.
ReplyDeleteThis was an amazing blog. I liked how you use the Miller reading to set up your argument. I am not familiar with underground metal and its history. But I do want to say that as i read the comments and their take on the blog I am supplied with enough information to comment.
ReplyDeleteI too would like use the idea of the Miller reading that the transition in to the model citizen comes with some repercussions that are hard to handle. It is a problem that an art that I assume was created of personal exploration and expression, has been commodified into the society. It is as if all the intimacy, passion, and creativity had been betrayed and drained out of culture that many cherish and relate to on a different levels. Its said to see the value of art to be commodified in our society.
I found a Death-Metal artist saying something really boring.
ReplyDelete"Real Death Metal should be something normal people are afraid of, not something mothers can listen to."
Here is an interesting challenge to the commodification of difference. It seems that "real death metal" is defining itself as its own inability to be commodified. (based, by the way, on standards that hardly challenge any social norms. If "normal" people don't like it, then Death Metal is simply calling itself abnormal. And to limit the "mother" into one sort of personality capacity is not innovative and shocking, but VERY typical, traditional, and of course, boring.)
I agree with Bola when she says that the popularization of this music "is not taking away its authenticity." But for a different reason. I think that the really authentic stuff will find a dynamic way to make itself completely unappealing again. One cannot base one's idea of authenticity on a static idea of society, but on a dynamic one! And if the premise of your authenticity is your shock-factor, then your perceived loss of authenticity (you not shocking anyone anymore) is actually you making shitty Death-Metal.
This lends some interesting debate to citizenship. Miller tells us that the state because as Miller tells us about the state "promises us a normal standard of living". It is defined by the opposite qualities of Death Metal, which HATES "regular people"--it is supposed to be composed of regular citizens, law-abiding people and absolutely, definitely MOTHERS. citizenship LOVES mothers. They are the bodies of citizen production. Inclusive as it may seem, the controversies around citizenship is that they are TOO inclusive, that one should EARN one's citizenship by being normative and regular.
Oh wait, maybe death metal and citizenship really aren't all that different.
I think that the commercial success of Black/Death metal is a bit ironic, but at the same time inevitable. This genre of music is an extreme example of counter-culture, or at least it used to be. As more people in Scandinavia caught on to the genre, it gained popularity, and it was impossible to keep it at its underground roots. Though the band member of Black Metal groups are behaving rebelliously to the expected norms, they are actually enforcing their roles as members of the society by creating this music. In "What is Cultural Citizenship" Toby Miller focuses heavily on the economic aspect of being a citizen. To a large extent, this depends on contributing to and benefitting from the economic market of the country. By creating this music and profiting from it, these band members are doing just that. It seems that the roots of many of these acts have been lost, and their economic importance, thus their legitimacy as citizens, are being enhanced.
ReplyDeleteI got the same impression as Priscilla did. Most people draw the line between the mainstream culture and subculture by judging their popularity. As a consequence, when those art forms with low visibility become commercialized or marketable, people will think that these art forms are losing their authenticity. Take independent film as an example, in order to survive in the entertainment industry, like Hollywood filmmakers, independent filmmakers also have to think about where they can get their business done. Does it mean that promoting an independent film will make it too commercialized and lose its authenticity? Does it mean that only the minority groups or the subcultures have the authenticity but the mainstream mass/pop culture does not? I mean, every mainstream culture form was considered as something authentic and original before it turned into its current form. Once an underground art form get consumed or appreciated by more people, it will become a mainstream and pop culture form. If it refuses to be accepted by a larger market only because it wants to stay authentic, then I guess it will finally become distorted.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you all in your reasoning. I agree with Bola, Kortney, and Olivia particularly because they all state different areas of citizenship and difference. It is in this day and age in which difference is becoming a commodity. If we would draw from one of our contemporary pieces by Lee Daniels "Precious" we could see that what is considered a normative culture of thin, white females has now seemingly become flushed with this new wave of "the other" finally getting a voice. It seems to me that citizenship now can soley be defined as giving a person that is born in America the ability to express themselves regardless of what society or the dominant folks in society might think. If one would see that the star of Precious is a plus-sized, dark-skinned individual who is neither considered attractive and lacks the sexuality that is so regulated throughout the mainstream. However, it is up to one's perception in which Miller's argument of being water-down in order to reach mainstream is established. If we are consumers of this product, we are agreeing that this should be widely submitted and accepted. Therefore, I do not believe that those within the area of black metal are truly becoming water-downed while in the mainstream. They are actually redefining and reconstructing the idea of citizenship to mean something that is more unique to the average American citizen that adapts and lives in a society in which norms are situated and expressed by those who participate in this consumer market. This, however, involves all of us.
ReplyDelete