Gaga did what? Maybe it’s time for us to move on.

Earlier this semester, we discussed the process of mainstream culture appropriating aspects of counterculture and what this means in terms of the relationship between the two. One of the books I’m reading for my research paper, Counterculture through the Ages by Ken Goffman (aka R. U. Sirius), eloquently describes this phenomenon and its ramifications:

“…. It’s not surprising, then, that countercultures are usually subjected to some level of persecution. When a counterculture is born, a society finds foreigners in its midst. Breaking taboos, violating norms, challenging sacrosanct ideas: the anti-authoritarian spirit inherent in counterculture potentially threatens any established order. Suppression frequently follows…. When persecution fails to stamp out an active counterculture, the dominant culture tends to assimilate it, subtly weaking, distorting, or sometimes inverting its memes, robbing them of their subversive power. Establishment forces integrate countercultural phraseology into their own propaganda, while economic powers reduce countercultural art and aesthetics to a mass-marketed commodity. Theodore Roszak writes in The Making of a Counter Culture, “it is the cultural experimentation of the young that often runs the worst risks of commercial verminization—and so of having the force of its dissent dissipated.” ….Dropping out is one frequent countercultural response to these difficulties …. countercultures often seek greater freedom to explore and live according to their values by separating themselves from the mainstream” (35-36).

As Goffman comments, since countercultures threaten mainstream society, mainstream society’s first reaction towards countercultures is outright persecution. If this isn’t enough, mainstream society often takes control of memes associated with counterculture in order to weaken and rid them of their original intention. In reaction to this, countercultures often just separate themselves even further from mainstream culture.

What I find really thought-provoking about Goffman’s analysis is the idea that if outright persecution of counterculture fails, mainstream culture attempts to subvert counterculture by appropriating and distorting its memes. And even more interesting is the idea that instead of battling for the right over certain memes, countercultures often just end up reinventing and creating new memes. As Goffman comments, oftentimes, instead of ensuing in a head-to-head battle, countercultural movements move themselves even further away from mainstream society. (He does mention that sometimes countercultures are confrontational, but this usually occurs only in moments). These movements almost seem to be disinterested in confrontation. The battle to control something that has been normalized is almost useless from a countercultural viewpoint as its purpose isn’t to create a new norm; rather, it’s to just not be part of a norm. So, when mainstream society attempts to break and subvert the “otherness” of counterculture, counterculture just moves forward.

A contemporary example of this kind of appropriation is Lady Gaga’s Telephone, which we discussed in class. As we discussed, her video is full of appropriation of countercultural memes (including, but not limited to, her studded leather jacket which showcases the logos of anarchist punk bands).  I wonder how the movements this video steals from should react to her appropriation of their memes. I really think the refusal to engage in confrontation is a profound and elegantly backhanded way of refusing subversion. That is, if it is mainstream culture’s desire to absorb what is foreign to it in order to reassert its own power, there’s nothing better for a counterculture to do than to reject or change the aspect of its own culture that is being absorbed.

Even though “dropping out” and moving on seems to be an excellent way to withdraw even further from the mainstream, this process ends up disregarding complete histories of struggle.  On the other hand, although appropriation can be extremely frustrating and upsetting, is it eventually more beneficial to just move on? That is, is the best rejection of the appropriation losing interest in the appropriated memes? Also, I wonder when, if ever, it is worthwhile to battle for a re-appropriation of those memes?

The Queer Umbrella

As most of you probably know, April is an awareness month for Queer, Middle Eastern, Asian/Asian- American, and Pacific Islander communities. Wesleyan has an awesome tradition of celebrating identity in spectacular ways, so it makes sense that a calendar was put together to organize the events pertaining to this month. Unfortunately, without our consent, several of the Muslim Student Association’s events made it on to the April calendar—probably because we had requested rooms for events with “Muslim-sounding” event titles. Naturally, we (the executive board) were pretty upset about this. A “Muslim Youth Leadership Conference” hardly has anything to do with Queer, Middle Eastern, Asian/Asian- American, or Pacific Islander communities. We work very hard to differentiate the MSA from ethnic identity groups—to put it simply, we are NOT a SOC group. Conflating Middle Eastern communities with a Muslim Organization is sooooo problematic (since when are all Middle Easterners Muslim or all Muslims Middle Eastern?!). The most unfortunate part of this is that a concert organized by Turath House (which actually IS a Middle Eastern identity program house) was left off of the calendar. The concert was actually organized for the very purpose of celebrating Middle Eastern music and was scheduled months prior to the creation of the calendar. Thankfully, we were able to make the most of this super-problematic calendar by tweaking one of our events to fit into the Queer aspect of April Awareness Month.

Last Thursday, in conjunction with Turath House, La Casa, and Ajua Campos, the Muslim Students Association screened New Muslim Cool (click here for a trailer of the movie), a documentary about the spiritual journey of a Puerto Rican-American Muslim. This event was one of several that made it onto to the calendar. We decided to align ourselves with the Queer aspect of April Awareness Month in order to simultaneously ally with the Queer Community and fight the stereotype that Muslim = Middle Eastern (we even served a “boriqua halal” dinner—great work, Gabz!). In my opinion, being a Puerto-Rican American Muslim can easily be seen as queer, as it’s obviously not normative. Unfortunately, not everyone in our (the Wesleyan Muslim) community agreed. One of the Muslim brothers sent a few of the executive board members an e-mail about the MSA celebrating Queer Awareness Month. He wondered why we would do such a thing if the term is usually connoted with LGBT communities. At a Muslim gathering outside of Wes, I decided to share the MSA’s recent experience with the screening. At first, the people I shared it with were shocked, but when I explained how the documentary was queer, they replied, “Well, if you define it THAT way, sure. But no one’s really going to see it like that, you know.” (They were also shocked that I’d rather be identified as queer (which I am, as a hijabi on a college campus) than Middle Eastern (which I’m not at all)!)

I personally believe the fluidity and adaptability of the term queer is one of its greatest strengths.  Not having to box the term means being able to continuously draw in new non-normative communities for support, transformation, and reorientation. However, since I was faced with some shock and hostility from within the Muslim community (keep in mind a very select portion of the community reacted this way), I began to wonder if members of the communities historically associated with the word (in this case, I guess members of the LGBT community who chose to re-appropriate the term) would feel discomfort in aligning with other arguably “queer” communities. Should we let the term queer be appropriated by any movement/individual who feels they are queer? What should and shouldn’t be allowed under the queer umbrella? (thought: wouldn’t building a rigid definition of the term be creating a normative definition for the term, thus supporting a system the word is trying to separate itself from?)