CULTURE CONTACT

Anthropology is Everywhere

Helidth Ravenholm Consultations

Goth in the jungle – subculture and variety

We’ve survived the extensively Halloween themed week, so now, we’ll be moving on with a variety of anthropological themes.

Today, we’ll be looking at subculture and variety, and we’ll use the Goth subculture around the globe as our case study.

I’m going to start by challenging the perspective of subculture and mainstream culture. You see, the USUAL perspective is of a rigid (! You see that?) divide between the mainstream, so the socio-normative, acceptable, set down – the rigidity of course varies, but to this date, most anthropology classes still teach this divide this way (I say most because I’m not omnipresent and I allow for the fact that others may have gotten to the same conclusions as myself without my knowledge, and that they have in some way written, reported or taught upon the topic; however much you read, you will never be able to know everything, that’s a simple fact of life, nor will you ever know all there is to know about a single subject – also a fact of life 🙂 ) – and the marginalised, the acceptability of which also strongly varies according to the magnanimity and rigidity of the mainstream culture in question.

This, however, can only really work to a certain extent in extremely rigid cultures. Where every aspect of life is so utterly controlled that freedom of movement, expression, speech, appearance and even thought are controlled, the mainstream will really be the only culture present – effectively obliterating the subculture. Even where there is an underground culture present (for years, my partner followed an Iranian page that spoke a lot about the underground public life of especially the younger generation, where music, speech and behaviours that would otherwise be forbidden are practiced, much like in the speakeasies of the US Prohibition era, or the LGBT community bars in the early to mid twentieth century), this culture cannot be truly considered a subculture, as its marginalisation may indeed be present, but the sheer number of people it involves (as in percentage of the populace) makes it something else than a simple separated part of a larger group. As changes happen, this group’s influence, also, has the capability of becoming the more or even most influential mode of thinking and behaviour, subsequently moving the overall society towards the resulting lessening of rigidity and the fluidity that follows; moreover, it is the tendency towards fluidity that causes this behaviour and the changes in the society itself come as a result of it, including by the feeling of lesser isolation that happens from underground socio-cultural movements of this type.

 

In reality, the culture cannot be ever really split into mainstream and subculture, as the tendency towards fluidity means varied tastes. For instance. If Jane is a cheerleader who listens to pop, she would be considered a mainstream person by most people. But very few people have absolutely streamlined taste, so if Jane occasionally listens to other music, watches films that are not considered mainstream or has a few cute goth clothes, she falls into that category most of us do – in between groups.

The perceived mainstream and subcultural divide also do not consider the variety within themselves. What is truly “in” at any point for any culture, main or sub, is very dependant on the current influences (such as DJs or cinematography or fashion, all of which can vary hugely or not much at all), as well as personal perspectives on what is what of the person in question and the persons within the group specific to the interest sphere. In other words, some goths may feel a song or singer may not be truly representative of their group; pop singers may venture into Rap or R&B or even do duets with metal singers and thus completely throw off the mantle of expected. A film that would normally be ascribed to the marginalised groups (such as the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies) may have a huge success with all audiences, subsequently shifting the perspective on mainstream and marginal for everyone.

The truth is that the only people who actively seek the rigid divide even when it’s otherwise very little or not at all present are people whose personality (due to their specific circumstances and therefore the behaviours that develop from them) desires a system of thinking where some people are in and others are excluded. If, in a form of self-realisation, a person wishes to distance from what they perceive as a marginal or mainstream culture, or an aspect within either that, to their perspective, makes, breaks or even ruins the experience of that culture, they will try to set harsh standards for what is or isn’t “it”, so to speak. In other words, an aspect of mainstream or subculture, which others are perfectly happy to accept as a part of it, may be perceived as “not it” by this person (or others like them, forming, shall we say, a group within a group) and will shun and even actively persecute those who feel that that’s not the case. One could call this dogmatic or orthodox belonging – a belonging that is set within a set of rigid rules and perspectives, and a resultant clear divide between the “us” and “them”… The perceived “real” parts of the culture/group/society and those who do not belong by being effectively outsiders either by incident (such as people who really do not belong or see themselves as belonging to the group) or people who do see themselves as belonging but do not adhere to the rigidity, and therefore cannot belong to it by the belief of this group.

In the same way, a person anxious to distance from what they may feel is not a part of, say mainstream culture, may rigidly decline all association with even popular thematic if it is considered, by some, “too geeky”…this is very well visible in the LOTR trilogy fans, where, however mainstream had accepted it, some self-defining mainstreamers consider it to be a geek thing, and there is a term “LOTR or Tolkien geek” used by those people.

 

This is the same behaviour that cults and religions use, and it is very well illustrated by feminism and BDSM groups. In feminism, majority of people simply stand for equality; it is, perhaps, a questionable standing from the perspective of history, as feminism per se has had a standing of women over men in many aspects of its ideology – however, if we accept that all and everything we do is about self- descriptors, then we must accept that the vast majority of feminists today (men included) are actually simply egalitarians who call themselves by a different name. At the same time, there is a very strong, dogmatic, rigid core of radical feminism that is simply representative of another bully in place of the perceived old, with the same or even more control over women’s rights as that expected of men – many radical feminists oppose the woman’s right of choice of partner, claiming that it is unnatural for a woman to be with a man, or that women even need to be guided and educated (ie convinced) of that fact; the right to enjoy penetrative sex by choice; the right to consent… Those are all rights that are typically perceived as violated by men, and yet the radical feminists do the same, if not worse, because their perception of men being a wholly rotten deal (thus effectively using a blanket perception regardless of actual deeds, positive or negative, by specific men or the studies of behaviours of majority, which they both oppose and at the same time replace with their own) covers more ground within feminism than the general minority of bad men do damage to women. In other words, the radicalism in feminism does significant damage to the movement while at the same time discriminating against men as a whole, as well as towards women who do not even necessarily oppose them ideologically, but seem to oppose them by their lifestyle. That is probably why the movement of egalitarianism is becoming a lot more involved in not only the Western life but in the cultures outside the West… because the point of egalitarianism is rights for everyone, regardless or sex, gender, sexual orientation and preferences, race, religion and so on. I consider myself egalitarian rather than feminist precisely because of the radicalisation associated with the movement.

 

The BDSM community has shown itself to be equally constructed, with an outlying periphery of the group relatively fluid and the harsher core of people who live by the dogmatic belonging approach. When 50 Shades came out, one of the grievances that the BDSM community had was that the sex represented was “too vanilla”, and therefore not representative of the BDM community.

The interesting things to consider here are – what it representative?

And how many is a community?

Majority of couples or people in general engage in some form of BDSM sex. BDSM related items are found both in ordinary sex shops and stores that have an adult section and in specialising stores catering to the BDSM community proper. As things shift, a lot less is becoming purely BDSM territory – where once, feather ticklers, handcuffs and silk ribbons for bondage were the majority of the wares offered to the perceived mainstream or mild or shall we say BDSM curious category, the offers on sites like Lovehoney or even by Ann Summers have shifted to include leather, floggers and canes, wartenberg pinwheels, sex swings, medical fetish toys and electrocution toys. Going through specifically hardcore BDSM sites like Extreme restraints (or toys offered by the Zado brand) will actually yield very similar results, with perhaps a slightly wider selection of certain types of restraints… at the moment. As more people become involved into what used to be marginalised and even somewhat shunned and demonised community, the rules of what is mainstream are going to change and shift, and so will the perception of what is “truly BDSM”, because while the mainstreamers will occasionally buy from the more BDSM orientated shops, the mainstream shops will soon figure out the next needed niche in the supplies they offer, and will move accordingly, while retaining the look more suited to the tastes of the non-hardcore BDSM customers, the look that may be off-putting and even repulsive to the mainstream shopper (whose kicks don’t depend on the visual stimulation by extreme subjugation) on the purely hardcore BDSM sites.

This, of course, will push the borders of “true BDSM” even further, which can be worrying. As BDSM community often still undergoes a rather judgemental approach from the rest of the world, there is preciously little in place to actively set down boundaries of what goes and what does not. There is no real protection in place for the vulnerable members; there is too much of either prejudice (so “you’re all crazy pervs” or “this is consensual… because I said so”) to protect a person from being manipulated or abused by a clever dom (or sub!) for either the mental health or judicial help to be readily available. Especially the aspects of extreme torture, complete control and humiliation are all very dubious, dark parts of human nature that should, under normal circumstances, have at least a fall-back to a friendly psychologist or psychiatrist, in case the person(s) involved in the matter wish to think things over. As these are generally result of abuse, a form of coping mechanism, we must consider that among the BDSMers we will find manipulators and abusers as well, and that there is little difference between someone holding a partner hostage via threats and manipulation and someone doing so with the pretext of BDSM subculture as their excuse. With the borders of “real” BDSM on the move into even further extreme to retain the self-identification, we may be looking at a necessity for fair and impartial laws and medical assessment being necessary in the near future to if not regulate, then protect those who feel they are being exploited.

At the same time, the views of socio-normality of BDSM are likely to expand, as the mainstreamers nick ideas from the BDSM community, which might be helpful in creating the protection necessary for any who may need it. As with everything, human rights are essential even in BDSM, and however accepting we can be of majority of it, we must always remember that one cannot enter into any deal where their life and safety are going to be threatened (cf. human rights here).

This is where acceptance ends, and while I myself do enjoy occasional BDSM, and while my tastes are wide and varied, I cannot possibly stand for deliberate abuse, even as a part of a consensual play, if I stand for human rights. Everything has a limit.

 

So by now, we’ve learned one important thing – that everything has a rigid and a fluid potential.

This is indeed true of every aspect of human cultures and society – if there is one thing you can definitely be sure of, this is it.

The fluidity also represents variety beautifully. It means a wide range of experiences and an equally wide range of aspects of self-representation. You can be a fitness enthusiast who has goth clothing items who likes sushi who listens to Celine Dion (um… guilty of all these, I’m afraid, and way more 🙂 ). And this is just an example – the truth is far more vibrant and varied and beautiful.

Fluidity and the variety it creates are life. They are the freedoms of expression, the change around the corner. They are learning about ourselves and about others, and about the empathy that all this awakens. Which all brings us to our case study of the day – the Goths.

There are many types of Goth; I do believe there was, years ago, a nice DeviantArt piece that represented Goths as they were perceived then and by the artist; I would wager an educated guess that there are probably even more, especially because self-perception and self-descriptors walk hand in hand.

Gothic community has its root in the 19th century’s literary and artistic perspective of Gothic art (so predominantly the art of 13th and 14th century) – the dark, the mysterious, the supernatural. From that influence, the early Goth music (Siouxie and the Banshees, Bauhaus, Joy Division, etc.) and most likely some Heavy Metal music have developed their themes and apparel; this is what influences the Romantic and Victorian Goth and the Steampunk (so modernist Victorian Goth with heavily steam-powered society instead of electricity being present) in their look.

This is whence the interest in vampires and the Vampire Goth.

In short, Goth is about the 19th century in many ways… Even though other tangents, such as the Hippie Goth (joining the aspects of both communities) and Anime Goth (same here) represent slightly different looks and slightly different interests.

Hodkinson’s book on Goth culture is one work that you must read if you are interested not only in Goths but in the general existence of the mainstream/subculture divide. One of the perhaps best aspects of it is that the author very clearly illustrates the rigidity of the divide in the earlier decades of 20th century Goth society, including the potential perils of the Goth clothing, especially in women, who were often targets (or feared of becoming targets) of mainstream or different social communities’ men on the same pretext that goes for every rigid culture – in rigid societies, hierarchy divides people in “us and them”, making the “them” group the enemy as well as target, including for sexual, physical and emotional abuse. This is true of the caste system in India on a social, cultural, religious and national level; it is true of the subtle perceived differences in the post-revolutionary Egypt, where youth and teen gangs assault women who are considered “easy” because of how the gangs perceive their veil is adjusted across their face; it is true of the shorter skirts in the context of African Salaula and it has been true of women wearing trousers, tight jeans and shorter skirts in the context of the West in the past. In other words, Hodkinson illustrates the only possible divide – so the only way mainstream and subculture can exist as such; one where rigidity influences and threatens the freedom of expression and divides very harshly, thus forcing a more dogmatic belonging even on the members of the subculture, so marginalised groups, thus both forcing the mainstream at least to some extent on them as well as potentially enforcing the stubborn dogmatism in the subculture, where it might live on even after the mainstream culture has mellowed out into a fluid one. Memory of abuse can be a long lasting one, and can and does influence everything.

Curiously enough, the Goth community exists around the globe, as far as into the jungles of Brazil and the cold of Russia. Intriguingly, the material I came across seems to suggest that certain types of Goth may be prevalent in some places, but that is merely a first impression; whether or not that is fact needs to be confirmed by research (mine or someone else’s 🙂 ). Still, Goths exist regardless of the rigidity of their culture, paving the way into fluidity even in Iran, India and Kenya. It’s particularly interesting to see how adjustments are made to keep at peace with the perceptions of aura of factuality and the resulting necessities in personal presentation; the young woman from Iran, for instance, is fully accoutred and attired as a Goth, but wears the hijab; the Indian Goths retain a certain amount of the Hindi look, even though they too have gone for the overall Goth look.

 

 

On the other hand, the Italian Goth is shown in this picture sporting a very classical Goth look, same as the Goth in France.

When I initially came across this information, it really surprised me to see how much diversity has paved its way into even cultures and societies where it would have seem impossible (or would have actually been impossible a few years or a decade ago) to see a radical difference from the proscribed look and self-presentation on the streets and even in private. This goes to show that rigidity cannot last; it is a state that we may endure for a while, even for generations, but fluidity, the natural state of things, the behaviour that would help us survive our environment in the mists of time, when it was actually vitally important to be definite about dangers, where decisions had to be taken in a split second, always finds a way back in. Perhaps it is the fluidity, ironically, that had caused the epidemic of the rigid behaviour in the first place; when stress caused violent, possibly irreversible changes in members of human communities, appeasement and the ease of the fluidity of behaviour would have been the logical thing to fall back to, possibly paving the way for the maladaptive, anxious behaviours resulting from the unresolved tensions and bullying of those suffering from broken mental health to become a form of folie en familie, and from there on a tribal, then eventually global problem. One thing is for certain though – whether we look at the case studies of Goths coexisting with sometimes very oppressive mainstream cultures in rigid environments or just the versatility and variety within fluid social environments, it is very clear that this variety fuels our humanity, builds us up where rigidity tears us down. It is a state of mental and physical wellbeing that we naturally tend towards.

 

Initial image source – Pixabay 
All other images source – http://www.rebelcircus.com/blog/what-goth-culture-looks-like-around-the-world/