You know the skit:
Rock'n'Roll,
The Hippies,
The Punks,
Acid House.
All those dance crazes!
So where's the latest?
(checking watch)
(tapping watch to see if it's still working)
It's not fair I want a revolution!
(or do I?)
Was musing recently (in my utterly inconsequential and uninformed way) that what characterises all these "events" is that they amount to a radicalisation of the middle-classes.
Ragga,
Grime,
Bhangra,
Hip-Hop.
Their paradigm shifts don't seem to inflame the tabloids.
They're no less significant but they exist independently of mainstream culture.
Do these "revolutions" only:
1) Come into definition teleologically when they wash up in Woolworths?
2) Acquire an inception date at the hands of lazy popcult commentators?
I don't think so.
I think they really happen.
So what's with the middle-classes?
I reckon they're cowering.
I reckon they think if they behave "well" and responsibly they can expect a comfortable existence.
So current Middle-class culture, Retro Rock and 5th Generation Dance Music, promises the same pleasures as last years model with diminishing returns. I mean do YOU believe in what Jess Harvell called "Middlebrow" culture these days?
Young people (people younger than me) still have faith in the system/sausage factory:
Education>Job>Mortgage.
If the economy goes under any further in the UK then things might change.
Its OK at the moment, but:
a) Interest rates have slipped a bit (mortgages a bit more expensive)
b) and while the housing market is still steady, some people are suggesting a collapse may be round the corner.
c) Employment, well it ain't too hot from where I'm looking!
I hope it doesn't happen.
Because:
A collapse in expectations leads to:
Misery which sometimes leads to:
Depression which can lead to:
Insanity.
And it's insanity that is the forum for a cultural upheaval (along the lines discussed...)
All dem poor Middle-class people with absolutely no chance of "self-realisation" (makes you wanna sob dunnit...)
They just cut loose. Go mental.
Slash the seats.
Drop out.
Pierce their nose.
Take MDMA.
(twiddles thumbs)
Posted by Woebot at November 23, 2003 09:53 PMso what you saying maff? elaborate a bit, i'm not sure what you mean...
Posted by: luke at November 24, 2003 01:43 PMer ok...
simply put...
the perennial cultural revolutions that people focus on are in fact ONLY middle-class revolts.
(take it or leave it. good being the fact that any kind of revolt is probably good. bad in that it's only the poxy middleclasses and who cares?)
if you follow that its an indication of the radicalisation of the middle-classes then your provoking stimuli are socio-cultural events and situtations which threaten middle-class stability. like a bad economic climate (this a recurring one) or, say, introduction of a NEW DRUG.
thats all really.
its not that i dont think there are massively more significant cultural currents. in some part its a down-grading of the significance attached to these "uprisings"
ya get me?
Posted by: Matt at November 24, 2003 02:40 PMyeah, i was wondering more about the ambiguity there, cos your tongue is in cheek as usual and it's hard to guess what you think. i mean, me reading that i'm thinking well what is he saying? is he saying hippies and rock and roll and whatever are basically inconsequential cos its only the middleclass? is he saying middle class revolt is stupid cos its better to do the morgage career thing? how seriously does he take concepts like self-realisation? insanity-is it good or bad? i get the bit about these paradigm shifts are about the radicalisation of the middleclasses, what i'm wondering is where you stand on the radicalisation of the middle classes. is it inherently ridiculous? if it is does that mean it's undesireable?...
Posted by: luke at November 24, 2003 03:43 PMi think middle class revolt is a good thing, but it's not as crucial to society as a whole as it thinks it is. it's certainly the way through the current cultural impasse though how important it is that we negotiaite that is another matter (as you've said elsewhere, and I agree) ridiculousness is very desirable. it's tantamount to uncoolness isnt it.
it seems that this kind of rebellion is usually a product of civilisations where there is more money than sense. though you get these flowering of middle-class madness in third world (the kalakuta republic, tropicalia) it's more typical in the first world. its a luxury to some degree isn't it. there's always the safety net of welfare.
"self-realisation", that's a luxury too. it's not as important to most people as feeding themselves. housing themselves. belonging.
i'd be well up for a revolution. maybe downgrading the importance of it is the key to starting it.
Posted by: Matt at November 24, 2003 04:02 PMok, thats good. i'm clear now.
Posted by: luke at November 24, 2003 04:10 PMWasn't it Tony 'wanker' Wilson who first suggested that revolutions only occur in years with the same digits, ie '55, '66, '77, '88. Therefore we should've had a truly mind-blowing double-whammy in '99 and '00. Nothing happened. We blew it. Wotta buncha c**ts. Here's to 2011....
Posted by: nick at November 24, 2003 06:24 PMmmmm,
as we were discussing at the feast of st francis on sat...
i was saying these revolutions are a retrospective phenomenon... they involve the middle classes only in that are when the mc finally get around to acknowledging their existence they are suddenly recognised as revolutionary,
but i've been thinking about it & i'm not sure..
i certainly remember feeling the house revolution watching you dancing on the speaker off me middle class tits at tribble dance '91
Posted by: e at November 24, 2003 07:20 PMit's skipped a generation - i've got a 20 year old brother and him and his mates and kids 16-21 are having it right now in a way we did - they're just coming up and doing some fresh things with the new software they've got on their computers etc
everyone just below our age in their mid 20's has bought into something just a bit too comfortable and "wallpaper magazine" with what they have.
the new drug might be this new one which casually combines the feeling of acid and e called 2c-I
it's one of alexander shuglin's and i've heard a few people say it's ace. but quite hardcore
cool...watch that space....
also those anecdotes which horrified alex petrydish in the guardian, was it kids getting on coaches to blackpool to hear 80s stadium pop inflected dance music on the pier sounded well interesting.
maybe thats it...not expecting too much...
Posted by: matt at November 26, 2003 07:31 AMit is all about the welfare safety net innit.
totally good point from Marcus about mid20s kids being boring and younger kids out getting mashed up - i am one of those boring types...
not necessarily a bad thing i just don't like the way the tabloids are trying to engineer a completely BAD middle class revolution at the moment, that'd be regressive bollocks.
Posted by: scott at November 26, 2003 02:26 PMwot "BAD middle class revolution" is that scott?
got any links to stories?
matt
Posted by: Matt at November 26, 2003 03:53 PMwell post-rave they had trip hop which was in lots of ways bleached out smokers music with none of the politics of rave and early 90's hip hop .
People a year or a bit younger than me seem to be into comfier kinds of things, my brothers genration seem to be a bit more independent.
i think it's really exciting - fruity loops as the new 303 sort of thing - as deuce mag described it the other day..
the rock ballads dance music thing in't terribly new - when i used to work in a pub in 1995 i heard numerous versions of songs like this - one was bruce hornsby and the range - that's just the way it is done trancey - hilarious -!
Posted by: marcus at November 26, 2003 05:07 PM