Radical?

I've just finished reading The World Turned Upsidedown by Christopher Hill, a study of radicalism in the mid 17th century and I've just started reading Customs in Common, a study of 18th century plebian culture. The former includes such radical groups as the Quakers, Ranters and Levellers many of whom had constructed radical and revolutionary oppositional ideologies to those provided by state and church, the latter, so far anyway, are no less passive when it comes to the wrongs of society but are certainly less ideologically driven and therefore have less scope to their activity. While the 17th century radicals were pro-active, the tendency for the 18th century plebs appears to have been generally responsive.

Amongst the former, for example, Gerrard Winstanley, developed communist ideas that Karl Marx would have been proud of (even though he claimed they were divinely inspired, which I imagine Marx would have been less impressed with). Amongst the more mature views expressed were those that called for universal suffrage and equality between the sexes. If we take the 18th century plebs, even though their culture developed its own forms of resistance, it never assumed a conscious ideological form, even if wife-swapping and rough music managed to piss off the gentry.

Why? Well, I hypothesize that our 17th century radicals were the outcome of over a century of major social upheaval, Martin Luther and Protestantism, the Reformation and finally the English Civil War and effective anti-monarchical sentiment. Change was the name of the era and as such it seemed genuinely possible that the existing social order would be turned on its head. The possibility of extreme social revolution seems to have bred increasingly active radical activity. Our 18th century plebians however were born into an era of relative stability, a restored monarchy and a balanced political climate. It wasn't as though there weren't abuses in the 18th century, far from it, but until the late 18th early 19th century a general equilibrium seems to have been established, in Britain anyway.

Does this latter scenario sound familiar? Maybe we've just been born in the wrong era (see what I mean) and our alternative culture simply devises it's own versions of wife swapping and rough music (like er.... rough music). So we've been left with what cultural studies types would call 'resistance' (I think that was Foucault's chestnut). A term I personally hate, because the word resistance should mean so much more. Its suggestion that any activity contrary to the norm deserves elevation to an act of political relevance is as ridiculous as it is desperate. While I'd be the first person to say that in stable social climates the locus of political activity often takes place in the minutiae of life, it doesn't mean all this activity is worthy of navel gazing self righteousness.

Maybe that's why we get up to stuff like this... artists....

DIY Culture done right

I just have to say, that having caught the midnight showing of Revenge of the Sith last night/this morning, George Lucas is easily the best DIYer. This guy has made a fortune out of doing things his own way which is what DIY culture should be about - "Making money is not wrong though y'know - DIY organisations should make money. They deserve it, if what they are doing is good. Making money doesn't make it any less valid or DIY"

DIY Culture book launch: "Rubbish"

I will read the book and give it a chance to prove me wrong, but I’ll be honest, I didn’t really like the term DIY Culture to begin with. It sounds like one of those paper thin terms that predominate in cultural studies camps, like Visual Culture and Virtuality, that try to draw together so many heterogeneous ideas and activities that placed under any scrutiny they crumble into meaninglessness . Plus ‘lo-fi’ culture sounded rather invalid, especially now that the technology available for DIY culture manipulation is pretty hi-tech, at least to my eyes . But my main issue was; when does DIY culture cease to be DIY culture? Can a magazine like Plan B be strictly considered DIY seeing as it has an organisational structure and a brand identity. It may be that I’ve got DIY culture wrong and that entrepreneurship could sit just as comfortably under that definition, but, at least from the publisher’s blurb, the contents of the book seems to focus solely on reactions against the mainstream. Obviously I do need to read the book.

So, the launch party: given that the book itself seems to be a celebration of alternative movements that could at least be considered radical in theory if not in action, I expected something that might try to mirror these perspectives. But just to prove all my expectations right, the atmosphere was subdued, the speakers slightly apologetic, repeatedly self-deprecating, almost embarrassed. The film that was being projected when we first got there actually looked interesting, I recognised GWAR, who I always thought were funny, and Lydia Lunch but there was no sound because the dj was playing some whingey, miserable emo type stuff, followed by some twee, cutesy, folkways style roots music, probably because the emo was too loud and aggressive for some of the frail, malnourished souls in there. The cookies were quite nice though.

This kind of alternative is just kind’ve content ‘to be’, although content is probably to strong a word for it. It ‘knows its place’ in the hierarchy and as such is left to its own rather predictable devices, so long as it can do its thing its happy, although probably not ecstatic. As the blurb proclaims ‘if you can’t find the cultural experience you’re looking for simply create your own’ – I read ‘opt out’, basically a call to apathy. Don’t challenge anything just get on with your own little thing - quietly - so nobody notices you.

I’m reading a book called ‘The World Turned Upside Down’ at the moment, it’s a study of radical ideas in the 17th century, particularly those that took place during the Civil War and I suppose it’s quite inspiring to see how advanced some of the (more reasonable) ideas actually were. But I’ve written way too much, so I’ll write more about this one on next time. It’s relevant, honest.

http://www.marionboyars.co.uk/Amy%20individual%20book%20info/DIY.html

I just read a review of the book here http://www.marionboyars.co.uk/Amy%20Pages/AC%20Press%20&%20Reviews.html and apparently most lo-fi stuff is "rubbish". I'll read the extract too.

What is the point?

That there are alternative cultures and/or 'subcultures' is something we take for granted, we don't question their existence, and in fact to anyone who gives it some thought it makes perfect sense that there should be alternatives to mainstream, orthodox values, viewpoints and activities. History attests that few stable societies don't have subcultures or groups that advocate alternative views. Modernity may have given these alternative perspectives a safer and therefore more legitimate opportunity to thrive, but the heresies of the Middle Ages and persecutions of the Roman Empire illustrate that alternatives have always been sought.

My issue is with the word 'alternative' as it is used today, at least in my encounters with it. Despite our culture's misgivings about our political system, most alternative culture appears to be largely apolitical and primarily aesthetic. Alternative has no agenda it is simply a different set of rules and references propagated by various social circles who are associated with or orbit relatively influential establishments. But there is clearly a market for it, people want to be a part of it, or at least experience it. Do they feel more individual for doing so? Is that even their motivation? Or maybe it's just all about acceptance amongst like-minded outcasts.

Perhaps what is most depressing/interesting is that teenage rebellion, so often dismissed as overabundant hormonal activity, is in reality often fuelled by far more conviction and passion than its mature counterparts. After university age 'alternative' seems to become little more than a set of lifestyle accoutrements; condescending attitude towards chart music and blockbuster films, second hand clothes, grotty clubs and bars, a penchant for performance art, acme scowl etc, but little awareness of what this could or should translate into on a more significant scale.

I'm interested in this because I'm part of this alternative perspective and have been since I was a teen, but I'm losing faith in it's motives. Maybe I'm just growing up, but I don't really want to accept that thought. I have no intention of conforming or at least of conforming as little as I can so I want to see if alternative culture is capable of changing too.

Next entry will be my thoughts on the book launch party for DIY: The Rise of Lo Fi Culture at the Horse Hospital, near Russel Square and 17th Century Radicalism. Pretentious, isn't it.