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’?
4 comments:
Nice use of self avowed "melodramatic pop music" in a post adam.
Nice indeed. To anwer the question "Is it Stalky-esque" I would remind everyone that the SM takes into consideration a benevolent, if still hard, authority and the relationship traditional British masculinity has with it (as well as making it possible). I would warn people to remember that in our discussions thuggery/hooliganism has been contrasted with the SM. We can argue for a parallel or even synonymous relationship - but I wouldn't. What I would think would be a better argument is how does thuggery represent a new form of masculinity as a reciprical relationship with a new type of authoritative structure - is the validity of one determined by the other?
Good point on the Hooliganism - Stalky connection Mags. However, couldn't one say that, though their actions often show a level of sophistication, the Stalky & co. lads often do act like thugs or hooligans. I think a major difference is in the direction of their acts and the motivations that lie behind. It can sort of be related back to the old "ends justify the means argument" in that as the books we read steadily devolve from the Stalky model the ends become less and less important than just the pure physical means i.e. acts of hooliganism and thuggery. Where in the past young men's thuggish acts may have acted towards something or under the banner of some sort of higher guiding principle thuggery in the present becomes more egregious because it has lost this sense of purposefulness; it is now just the means with no end in mind.
No Daves. No you can't.
Seriously though, I really see motivation as one main component of thuggish-ness, another being the type of action, another being the extremity.
Stalky and Co. were not about wantoness - wanton violence, crudeness or trouble - but rather were about distinct and pointed mischeviousness. Being a "thug" or "hooligan" carries a very definite connotation, much different than "prankster", or dare I say "rapscallion". Football hooligans, for example, may have some vestige of reasoning but it's really just mob violence.
One could argue that Stalky and CO. have no lofty goal either, but the results (in terms of damage or injury) and extremeity (in terms of sheer pettiness or mindlessness) are not there, so even if one could make that point about goals, then I still would not classify them as thugs. This point becomes more murky with people like Jhonny Rotten, but his thuggishness was quite deliberate and image oriented so we might very well make the a similar argument as above.
Post a Comment