In my midterm essay on Martin Amis' novel Success I had one particular paragraph that I thought would serve as an interesting addition to our discussion on what it is to be a "Yob". I find it particularly interesting for a few reasons. One, Amis is a Brit writing about Britain. Two, it highlights the omnipresence of Yobbery throughout British society (at least from the book's point of view) and it was written in 1978(!) which I think adds another interesting point to our ngoing discussion on the origins and growth of "the yob problem". Anyway here it is:
The collapse into the unity of the middle class void and into unimpeded animal brutality is made evident in the transcendence of yobbism. The term Yob's meaning, as described by Gregory in reference to Terrence, is a person “both gutless and aggressive, as craven and sentimental as he is sour and crude, lacking any genetic tradition, any pact with good behaviour, Terrence is simply the representative of the values that got to him first” (184). Yobbism, which at first (in the novel and often in societal schemas) seemed to be confined to a description of lower class individuals like Terrence, over the course of the novel ends up breaking through all previous boundaries. Not only are lower class people like Terrence yobs but Gregory’s friends Skimmer and Kane are described as “upper-class yobs” (169). Gregory describes his other perennial associates as Torka “and his yobs” (215). Not only are yobs beginning to appear in the upper class but the already acknowledged yobs of the lower class are also extending their field of operation, insinuating themselves into new areas such as in the “traditional, familial, up-market Italian place… full of men with puffed, unintelligent faces and muscular pot-bellies” (184) who are accompanied by their equally yobbish wives. Everyone is middle class and everyone is a yob and in this yob- ruled world there are no goals or mobility, nowhere to go to escape yobbism. “The yobs are winning” (184) and in their world the only stability is the instability of perpetual flux and transit. There is no good or evil, no moral judgements on the various reprehensible acts people commit, there is only success and failure and the battle of each against all.
16.3.08
5.3.08
Deviance!
To put a slightly different spin on the topic of where thugs come from, I venture to pose the question of the actual presence of thug-ism today as a rising force within our Westernized society. Or, more precisely, is our Westernized society an environment where thug-ism can thrive?
According to the posting "Droog-ism: 'Happy Slapping'", on the course blog ("Among the Thugs"), "violence is on a totally different level than it used to be..." and "[t]he danger is that in the next 30-40 years there will be a huge crowd of uneducated young men with nothing to do except become more and more violent and anti-social". I seriously question if violent acts committed by young men have increased these last few decades here within our society, or if violent acts are more visible due to the increase in communications and media.
According to the text, Society: the Basics (Macionis et al), thug-ism arises from the following conditions:
[C]riminality is most common among lower-class youths because they have the least opportunity to achieve conventional success. Neglected by society, they seek self-respect by creating a delinquent subculture that ‘defines as meritorious the characteristics [these youths] do possess, the kinds of conduct of which they are capable’. Being feared on the street may win few points with society as a whole, but it may satisfy a youth’s desire to ‘be somebody’ in a local neighbourhood.
Walter Miller (1970) adds that deviant subcultures are characterized by (1) trouble, arising from the frequent conflict with teachers and police; (2) toughness, the value placed on physical size, strength, and agility, especially among males; (3) smartness, the ability to succeed on the streets, to outsmart or ‘con’ others; (4) a need for excitement, the search for thrills, risk, or danger; (5) a belief in fate, a sense that people lack control over their own lives; and (6) a desire fro freedom, often expressed as hostility towards all authority figures. (133-134)
At least in Canada and Great Britain, according to statistics (2002), yob-ism is nowhere near that of Russia or even the United States (Macionis et al. 144, 145). In fact, crime rates in both Great Britain and Canada are much lower. It would be interesting to see studies done within Russia and the US regarding the motives and types of crimes compared to those committed within Great Britain and Canada. I’m not arguing that thug-ism does not exist here, but is it really on a rise as the article “Droog-ism…” says? I doubt it.
3.3.08
Careful Where You Point that Thing - Thoughts on the Thug Dialectic
The term “droog” was discussed in class as a synonym for, or at least a term related to, gangster or ‘gangsta’. The functions of both a gang and its members were discussed, and the fictional and real life versions were compared. The violence and rebellion aside, what struck me most was how gangs replace family and authoritative structures which are not available or which are not fit to serve. In essence, new relationships are invented to fill these voids.
Terms like droog, yob, hooligan – they denote not just characteristics, but are relationship designations. This dialectic of terms is absent here because what most media outlets and the institutions in reciprocal relationship with them – governments, corporations and the like – would use these words as designations of type. They preach reform and failure of the school system, they blame television etc. and ad nauseum, but in the end these designations of type and dialects of essential character enforce class and type boundaries – the us and them boundaries.
To see these terms as designations of relationships intimately implicates those institutions in that definition. “They” (a useful term in this case, arousing all our demons) would acknowledge this relationship only in terms of the “bad apple” scenario: for example, once the “bad apples” in the education system or the police system are plucked, then the system can flourish. By wholeheartedly accepting these terms as designations of reciprocal relationships, we are indicting the whole damnable tree: we are claiming systemic breakdown.
Now, this is not to usurp the place of personal responsibility. Nor is it to say that in perfect, or even good, systems there would be no dissent or even intense masculine performance – no force could stop these, nor should they. But, it is to say that when we discuss these terms we cannot simply discuss what they define in and of the individual, but what they signify in terms of their relationships with power structures within which they are active. These entities - thug, hooligan, droog etc. - these relationships with the state and its institutions, are not just defined by these authorities, but may indeed demand them.
Terms like droog, yob, hooligan – they denote not just characteristics, but are relationship designations. This dialectic of terms is absent here because what most media outlets and the institutions in reciprocal relationship with them – governments, corporations and the like – would use these words as designations of type. They preach reform and failure of the school system, they blame television etc. and ad nauseum, but in the end these designations of type and dialects of essential character enforce class and type boundaries – the us and them boundaries.
To see these terms as designations of relationships intimately implicates those institutions in that definition. “They” (a useful term in this case, arousing all our demons) would acknowledge this relationship only in terms of the “bad apple” scenario: for example, once the “bad apples” in the education system or the police system are plucked, then the system can flourish. By wholeheartedly accepting these terms as designations of reciprocal relationships, we are indicting the whole damnable tree: we are claiming systemic breakdown.
Now, this is not to usurp the place of personal responsibility. Nor is it to say that in perfect, or even good, systems there would be no dissent or even intense masculine performance – no force could stop these, nor should they. But, it is to say that when we discuss these terms we cannot simply discuss what they define in and of the individual, but what they signify in terms of their relationships with power structures within which they are active. These entities - thug, hooligan, droog etc. - these relationships with the state and its institutions, are not just defined by these authorities, but may indeed demand them.
Indie Pop Hooligans
As Ben so poignantly stated, thug-ism perhaps finds its roots in rebellion and socio-political discontent. While the semantics differ (after all, what is the real difference between a thug, yob, and a hooligan? Dare I say that an International Committee of Angry Young Men needs to be established? I digress.), hooligan-ism is, generally, a form of destructive behaviour in the spectator sport arena (or, perhaps, the pub down the street). In this post, I will take a quick look at the Canadian indie pop band, Stars, and how a track from their most recent album, “Barricade,” relates to the Stalky model.
While using a Montréal-based quintet as a source of knowledge on hooligan-ism is certainly questionable, the band presents an interesting view of ‘love’ in the hearts of hooligans. In the song, the narrator expresses his love for a person, and how this attraction grows whenever the person engages in acts of hooligan-ism (“in Harmony Street, we’d beat a man just for standing there”). It is interesting to note, though, that the gender of the object of the narrator’s affection is never explicitly stated. The ambiguity of gender presents it as merely platonic affection for someone due to their masculine efforts while being “trapped on the terraces.”
Stars are careful to dress up the song’s lyrics with careful imagery and sound clips. Both characters appear to be Millwall F.C. fans who dress in a yobbish style (“in Bermondsey in Burberry”; Bermondsey being the home of Millwall F.C., and Burberry being a clothing brand largely associated with English hooligans). The emphasis of barricades, also, is notable for accentuating the fact that these are not mere football fans, but they are part of the destructive hooligan sub-culture which prompted club owners to put fences around their most dangerous supporters.
So what? If, as Ben stated, thug-ism was incited by rebelliousness, is it really such a stretch to believe that acts of hooligan-ism are ‘attractive’ to other hooligans? Why?
The point here, I believe, is that the song fits in with the Stalky model. The love never appears to be depicted as romantic affection, but, rather, is wholly platonic. This acts as a method of validation for the ‘performance’ (beating the man in Harmony Street, fending off the police and their tear gas, shattering shop windows, &c.). Stoicism is also quite prevalent, especially for the narrator. The object of the narrator’s affection, however, clearly rejects his/her stoic roots (“you look like you’d been softened / like you never really loved the pain”), proving incapable of the self-discipline required by the stoic-Christian ethic.
To wrap things up, I pose a handful of completely rhetorical questions to promote some discussion.
Do Stars offer a plausible representation of contemporary hooligan-ism? Is it Stalky-esque? If we compare this representation of hooligan-ism (i.e. One in which the acts of a hooligan are inspired merely by the desire for validation) with Nas’ representation of thug-ism (i.e. Motivation comes from socio-political discontent, and the desire to discuss it with figures of power), which one is more inherently ‘masculine’?
While using a Montréal-based quintet as a source of knowledge on hooligan-ism is certainly questionable, the band presents an interesting view of ‘love’ in the hearts of hooligans. In the song, the narrator expresses his love for a person, and how this attraction grows whenever the person engages in acts of hooligan-ism (“in Harmony Street, we’d beat a man just for standing there”). It is interesting to note, though, that the gender of the object of the narrator’s affection is never explicitly stated. The ambiguity of gender presents it as merely platonic affection for someone due to their masculine efforts while being “trapped on the terraces.”
Stars are careful to dress up the song’s lyrics with careful imagery and sound clips. Both characters appear to be Millwall F.C. fans who dress in a yobbish style (“in Bermondsey in Burberry”; Bermondsey being the home of Millwall F.C., and Burberry being a clothing brand largely associated with English hooligans). The emphasis of barricades, also, is notable for accentuating the fact that these are not mere football fans, but they are part of the destructive hooligan sub-culture which prompted club owners to put fences around their most dangerous supporters.
So what? If, as Ben stated, thug-ism was incited by rebelliousness, is it really such a stretch to believe that acts of hooligan-ism are ‘attractive’ to other hooligans? Why?
The point here, I believe, is that the song fits in with the Stalky model. The love never appears to be depicted as romantic affection, but, rather, is wholly platonic. This acts as a method of validation for the ‘performance’ (beating the man in Harmony Street, fending off the police and their tear gas, shattering shop windows, &c.). Stoicism is also quite prevalent, especially for the narrator. The object of the narrator’s affection, however, clearly rejects his/her stoic roots (“you look like you’d been softened / like you never really loved the pain”), proving incapable of the self-discipline required by the stoic-Christian ethic.
To wrap things up, I pose a handful of completely rhetorical questions to promote some discussion.
Do Stars offer a plausible representation of contemporary hooligan-ism? Is it Stalky-esque? If we compare this representation of hooligan-ism (i.e. One in which the acts of a hooligan are inspired merely by the desire for validation) with Nas’ representation of thug-ism (i.e. Motivation comes from socio-political discontent, and the desire to discuss it with figures of power), which one is more inherently ‘masculine’?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)