I’ve been fortunate to have participated in two media revolutions, punk and the social Web. Nonetheless, I think comparing the two makes a false historical analogy. Essentially I believe punk was the last rebellion of the Industrial Age. I don’t mean the “last rebellion,” but it was one in which reality was substantially differentiated. Punk was at the transition from the fixed one-to-many media system to one that is networked (many-to-many). Punk was necessary and possible because it worked outside a hierarchical media system (that eventually changed once it became commodified to the point that Cher could sport fire engine red hair or a guy with a mohawk and skateboard advertised online stock trading). It built alternative cultures because no one else gave a shit (except the police, which seemed to overreact to the punk movement’s expression). It is no longer possible to distinguish yourself as an outsider according to clothes or hair style. This is why it’s now possible that high school kids in the ROTC can dress like punks. Back in the day a punk entering into a military officer training program would be impossible to conceive. Punks were about threat: looking scary, acting scary and mirroring the violence of society as a kind of mockery. It was about being a tribe clearly distinct from the bullshit hypocrisy that surrounded us (Reagan had just been elected when I got into the punk scene). People often ask me trivia questions about the ’80s, but I can never answer them because I refused to participate in the pop culture or the system of that era. I was in an alternative reality. Punks were refuseniks.
I don’t think social media can make these kinds of claims. However, don’t let me give you the impression that I think we were better. It was just a different reality with different tools– it was organic in the sense that it existed as a result of physical encounters between people (mainly at shows), that rallied around music, fashion and art. It was a gathering of the “freakatoni.” Social media certainly replaces the networking tool that we used– telephones, zines, mail art, touring– and does a better job of the kind of self-publishing we were into (especially in terms of distribution of music, words and ideas). Still, one thing I miss is the visual fingerprints you saw on everything. There was a lot of craft involved, whereas a lot of new media is far too slick and impersonal for my taste. I do like the equalizing effect of new media– but remember that it goes both ways. We have more transparency, but that makes marketing to us more accessible to corporations. It’s easier for them to target and identify us, and to design niche targeting. For instance, any “garage” band can have a MySpace page, but guess what, you voluntarily gave the richest, most powerful transnational media corporation in the world access to all your demographics and fans.
I don’t mean to be skeptical or unexcited about the potential of social media to promote protest movements– I think it’s more true in “non-Western” countries who are less bludgeoned by consumer capitalism. But I remain skeptical that what we are witnessing now is like punk.
What do you think?
