Acceptance, Defiance and Difference

Is mainstream acceptance a blessing, or does it mean that we can no longer engage in sartorial protest against the failings of the mainstream?

This post was inspired by my musings after watching the section on not wanting to be acceptable in ::this:: video by Jwlhyfer de Winter.

Personally, most of the long-term Goths I've met have been more about keeping true to their selves, their unusual fascination with the dark, the macabre, the sinister, in the face of opposition of a society that feared and loathed those things than engaging in an active rebellion; wanting to shock and 'be a rebel' always seemed the realm of teenagers for whom Goth was a means to express teenage angst and rail against the world as it is revealed to be deeply unfair, rather than a core motivation of the subculture. I've often argued that no, we're not in it to shock, we're not in it for the attention, we're just here to enjoy our own thing, that it is purely motivated by a desire to express ourselves, our interests and passions and our creativity. 

But Goth evolved from Punk, and Punk involved fashion as a political statement, and Goth as well - it was a deliberate embracing of imagery and symbolism that was provocative; it was making a statement, yet I was not even born yet when people declared "punk is dead", and while the subculture and values will probably never die, I think Punk's viability as a counterculture rather than subculture has wained.  

Partly, times have simply moved on, and actions and fashions that were once capable of being a viable statement of more than just one's sartorial proclivities are now seen as simply being shocking for attention, and possibly ticket and music sales - a publicity stunt, either personal or as an entertainer. Marilyn Manson's criticisms of the church and society are largely ignored as his shock rock is seen as a way to titillate, provoke and make him an awful lot of money. That sort of thing is nothing new! I think it was Paganini who helped propagate rumours that he had sold his soul to the devil for his talents, because it boosted concert attendance - people wanted to hear the devil play - and Marilyn Manson, the "antichrist superstar" can be seen as not that different. This is not to say I don't like Marilyn Manson (or Paganini), but that their very attempts to shock us with a message can get cynically dismissed, and the message becomes lost.

Fashion as a means to shock is loosing it's power too - even Lady GaGa's most ridiculous outfits, while they initially were discussed by the media as so daring, or making a mockery, or even disgusting (the infamous "meat dress"), discussion of her clothes has been relegated to the gossip papers, and she no longer shocks, if she ever really did. Discussions as to whether her whole stage persona was an elaborately self-parodying send-up of the pop-industry became discussion of her as just another pop-star. She's probably one of the few pop musicians whose output I like (at least her earlier tracks) and I appreciated the dark aesthetic of many of her videos, but the question of whether she was really creating a tapestry of thickly woven satire, parody and irony behind her 'poker face' or whether she was simply another person looking for fame and stardom by being as dramatic and weird and shocking as possible is as yet to be resolved - personally, I think the lyric content of her songs points that she is in fact creating her own artistic of protest of the very establishment of popular entertainment that sustains her. 

Neither of the two artists above are Goth, though, and although I think that they have definitely been influenced by the Gothic aesthetic, if not the subculture, and have then themselves, in their prominence in the parent cultural mainstream, fed back into the subculture. This is mostly because the bands and musicians who became famous enough to make a visible musical and political statement and who fit as Punks or Goths (or whom were labeled as such) did so either before I was born, or before I was old enough to understand what was going on, and that contemporary bands are working within an established genre and subculture rather than breaking new ground in terms of their ethos - even if people are certainly continuing to be original musically. 

It does not seem to me that shock tactics are really going to work in a world that has had decades to get used to Punks and Goths, and the only people who will be shocked are those who are comparatively conservative by the standards of the mainstream, and more is being done to change them by time and progress and by their ideology being challenged than by us dressing in the most morbid black and proclaiming our love for what they will find outrageous - that tends to get us vilified more than achieve actual change.

As a teen, I adopted Goth as a means to annoy those around me who tried to force me to conform to a set of values that did not suit me - those who were homophobic, religiously intolerant, those who tried to stifle my creativity, deny my differences, and force me to be something they would accept but was alien to my self. My sartorial defiance of the rules  as a teenager, brought upon me a whole heap of erroneous assumptions, and my power to shock was far outweighed by the power of others to make my life miserable - it only made my immediate situation worse. I might have been defiant and I will still never change who I am to suit others - but I also did not change those around me; I simply outlasted them and moved away and moved on. It taught me a lesson in resilience, but it did nothing to alter those who already disliked me, rather it provoked some into actually despising me and it was confrontational enough to simply further entrench them. All I can be is living proof that the were wrong. 

With the shock value taken away, it means that instead of reacting to something provocative, those who come across us have the emotional distance to listen more carefully to the statements we want to make; I think we can deliver a sartorial message that is more subtle, but no less potent. Our clothes speak of embracing our own mortality, looking unflinchingly at that which can terrify us, of embodying our demons to overcome them, of drawing power from the symbolism of witches, vampires and zombies and using those symbols and concepts as lenses and metaphors for the world around us, we can walk around as dark reversal of the bright colours of the old aristocracy; we can be the portraits of Dorian Grey, and as we are not trying to shout in the face of the world, we can do all this and be listened to - Jillian Venters is onto something with her "subversion through politeness". 

I prefer our being accepted, or at least tolerated by the mainstream, because it's frankly a lot better than the constant harassment and threats of violence (often escalating to actual violence ) that I, and other Goths used to face (and depending on location, still face), and how I got treated as if I was genuinely an evil degenerate, the revulsion, the way people looked down on me. I don't want others to be bullied, harassed or attacked - I don't want them to suffer the same ire and disrespect as I did, that's part of why I write this blog; to educate people and promote a more tolerant atmosphere.

In my consideration, the burgeoning acceptance of Goths also signifies how Gothic values, especially those from the pre-subculture, literary/art movement meaning of the word - the Gothic in terms of the sublime, the dark, the morbid, etc. are being embraced by more people. I think we've had a positive affect in getting people to appreciate the dark! It is becoming mainstream, it is being embraced by the establishment - something of a double-edged sword! What I  really don't like is when the Gothic becomes another trend to latch onto in the eyes of the corporate, consumerist machine - when it becomes just another "fashion" detached from its symbolism, from its roots, from the subculture that spawned it, and its longer past (which the British Library and the BBC have done a valiant and educational effort to avoid in a recent exhibition and documentary - the documentary I will review soon, and the exhibition as soon as I go to England and visit it!).

Let it be clear that I am not advocating our changing to become more acceptable; we are doing nothing wrong, nothing that needs to change - it is those that come at us with hatred, with insults, with judgements and debasement. We do not need to become acceptable; the world needs to become accepting, and at least in my experience over the last 10+ years I've been Goth, the world slowly is, and my thanks goes towards groups like the ::Sophie Lancaster Foundation:: for helping to make it so.  

The Original 'Goth' Bands Are Not Goth

I am going to say something vaguely controversial here: Siouxsie And The Banshees, Sisters of Mercy, Joy Division and suchlike are not 'Goth Bands'.

They are, though, the people who produced the music about which the nebulous thing we now call Goth crystallised. The term 'Goth' was one applied to these bands by the music press, but it was more applied to their fans. Goth came from the fans of musicians, not from the bands themselves. Many of these bands produced music in styles outside of what is considered Goth, some of them starting as punk bands that evolved through Post-Punk into producing things in the style that became the 'Goth' style, some of them taking their music in directions outside of that style later in their careers.

Siouxsie Sioux is a musician whose career illustrates both of these aspects of these changes in musical direction. She started out as Sex Pistols fan who decided to have a go with a few friends, and whose first public performance involved her reciting the Lord's Prayer over an improvised instrumental, and her musical career evolved through punk beginnings to Siouxsie and The Banshees' Post-Punk work a was actually quite experimental and influenced by quite a variety of things (David Quantick called 'Peek-a-Boo' an "oriental marching band hip hop with farting horns and catchy accordion" in his review in the NME, published 23 July 1988, and that I think illustrates this eclecticism.). 

After the Banshees were reduced to Siouxsie and Budgie being 'The Creatures' their music took another turn in direction, partly because Budgie being a drummer and Siouxsie being a singer meant that outside of the studio their music was quite pared down to percussion and vocals, and this had its practical limitations, but partly because their creativity drove them to try new things - "Manchild" for example, is a story in song set in Ancient Meso-America about human sacrifice - a dark theme - but musically its inspirations clearly come from various periods and places. 

Siouxsie's distinctive sense of fashion, the often dark subject matter of the music she performed, the timing of her work coinciding with the nascent Goth subculture, and her links to Post-Punk made her an early Goth icon, despite the fact that stylistically she and the Banshees were highly varied and not always within the stylistic bounds of what is now described as Goth.;This is partly because in the early 1980s Goth was a lot less concrete.Siouxsi and The Banshees were not the only band to have a stylistically varied career and yet somehow become part of the (oft debated) 'canon' of Goth music. The Cure, for example, went decidedly pop for a while, before returning to darker rock, although their later work was certainly not as Goth as their earlier work such as 'A Forest'.

It takes a substantial body of work for a genre to become established, and it takes innovators being followed by the people they inspire, and that takes time. The later imitators are probably actually more Goth because they tended to stick quite closely to their inspirations, and therefore had an output that was more stylistically consistent and within the bounds of what is now termed 'Goth', though this does not mean they were necessarily as good because in being derivative some were not necessarily fulfilling their potential and may have done better allowing themselves more creative scope rather than trying to stay within a style.

Quite a few of the first wave bands - most notably The Sisters of Mercy (though they were late in that wave) - reject the Goth label, and I actually support this. Goth is not a term to label the bands themselves, more a description of individual pieces of music that they produced. The people themselves do not identify with the subculture. Some find the label to be constrictive, with both commercial concerns and creative concerns about such a label possibly resulting in aiming music at a target audience and therefore loosing some creative freedom. Some simply do not fit that label consistently enough to think it applies to them.

The original Goths are not the members of these bands - they are the fans who took inspiration in terms of fashion and music from these people and expanded it into something much bigger, pulling in influences from sources as diverse as centuries-old architecture, Victorian literature, early 20thC horror movies and futuristic science-fiction costumery. While we can thank people like Siouxsie Sioux, Dave Vanian, Patricia Morrison and Robert Smith for inspiring us, we should thank ourselves for the community we have built, for the vast amount of expansion and creativity that has come after that initial musical spark, and for basically building the subculture. Goth exists because of Goths, especially promoters, designers, organisers, musicians, artists and crafters.

❇✤❇~☥~❇✤❇

(I had an interesting debate in the comments of one of my posts about whether the Cure were Goth once - I LIKE these debates - feel free to debate this or any other post with me in the comments. I find reasoned arguments for and against my position, positive reactions where people expand on what they like and  most of all constructive criticism to be the most helpful and interesting comments! It is actually reading and responding to the comments that is the most enjoyable part of blogging. I'm in this subculture and have ties to others for the love of their various  facets and discussing them is fun!)

Traditional Goth, Modern Goth and Scene Snobbery

Goth was a very different thing in the '80s. I wasn't a goth back then, and I wasn't even born yet for a lot of the '80s. What I can remember is vague - some things are clear, like footage on television of the Berlin Wall coming down and this being somehow Very Important even if I didn't understand why at the time - but most of what memories I do have are very vague.  I have been interested in the early days of the subculture for a long while, and from what I've learnt, it was a very different beast. Two things stand out: it was called Goth by outsiders, the media, etc. not necessarily by the people within, and it was primarily about the music. 

The fashion was rather different too, partly because Goth-specific off-the-rack clothes didn't exist and partly because a lot of inspiration came from what the bands wore, and what the bands wore was sometimes stuff that wouldn't be called 'Goth' at all today (and if it was worn today would seem decidedly and deliberately retro '80s and might get the person accusations of "hipster"!). Patterned shirts were more common, and there was a lot of adaptation of mainstream clothes. There was less inspiration from Medieval or other anachronistic styles, and it was often more a layering of black street-wear customised with studs or band logos in the manner of punk. Despite Goth being associated with all black now, where it crossed over with Punk colours were certainly involved. Trousers were tight and preferably leather, boots were pointy. 

The hair was different; the sleeked back look had not really come in, nor red curls, and certainly not things like cyber dreads and the predominant style was to either bleach or dye black, then crimp and back-comb. Some rather creative styles were done via backcombing, including death-hawks (fluffy mohawks), Jareth-esque styles (see 'Labyrinth' staring David Bowie to see what I mean) and big fluffy Siouxsie Sioux styles or more deliberately unkempt Robert Smith styles. The makeup for women was heavily influenced by the likes of Siouxsie, with an ancient Egyptian element and straight eyebrows and lots of heavy black, sometimes accented with colours.  

Me with a Romantic Goth skirt and black foofy hair.

I identify as a Romantic Goth. I know and acknowledge the '80s Goth and it is my musical preference (and does impact on my fashion as I have foofy hair on some occasions, and Siouxsie make-up on regular occasions) but that is not personally how I like to dress. I prefer the lace and funereal elegance, the anachronism and the decadence of the Romantic Goth style. However much I adore female Goth icons like Siouxsie Sioux or Patricia Morrison, I would rather dress in a way that pleases me than emulate their style. That said, I adore pointy boots and want some rather nice ones from Pennangalan that come with very pointy toes and pentacle buckles. Pointy boots have a definite place in Romantic Goth fashion. 

Goth now is a much broader thing, part art movement, part subculture. I don't like those who try and put "rules" on Goth, trying to keep it like the Goth of the teenagers and young adults of the early '80s experienced it at that time.  Goth has always been a place for individualists, after all, and self-expression has always been one of the few tenets that binds this amorphic group of black-clad people. That said, there is still certainly a place for the fashion of the '80s goths, and '80s Goth music is certainly not dead (maybe it is undead?) and I hear at least some Sisters of Mercy, Bauhaus, Joy Division and (yes, I'm mentioning her again...) Siouxsie at every Goth night I go to, even if there's EBM & Industrial or even Marilyn Manson being played too. 

The new influences do not dilute the subculture, they prevent ideological inbreeding - imagine Goth like a group of wild animal; if it stayed within its own gene-pool it would become inbred and sickly rather than reinforced, but if it mingles and breeds with compatible groups, it grows stronger. It is like that with the creative influences of Goth - Goth is not a purebred show-dog which inherits genetic weaknesses along with its genetic 'purity', it is a mongrel from the city, bred to survive and feed off the dark parts of the world. Members of the Goth subculture overlap with other subcultures, especially other ones with a musical core, as few people like only one single genre of music, for example, my love of Celtic and folk music does not cancel out my adoration of Andrew Eldritch's dark crooning and or the bilingual madness of Asylum Party. 

Goth has also grown out from its musical roots, but those roots run deep and keep the many more modern branches aloft (more nature metaphors...) Even manifestations such as Cyber, that cross with Industrial and seem to hold little relation to the original Goth subculture of the '80s do look back to their roots - for example French Synthpop/EBM/Bodypop band Celluloide did a cover of the Dead Can Dance song "In The Power We Trust The Love Advocated" and it was actually quite danceable. The new variations do not exist at the exclusion of the older ones, and it is possible for them to peaceably co-exist. 

I really do not like the inter-scene snobbery - people looking down on Metal, Lolita, Industrial, etc. on the grounds that it is not Goth - they're separate subcultures, even if they have strong links with the Goth subculture now, so what is there to be snobby about? It is just a difference, it is not an inferiority, and just because one person does not like it does not mean that there is nothing inherently worthwhile about it for the people who do like it. I also do not like the snobbery towards people who have a strong interest in two or more subcultures or are from a hybrid subculture - for example Cybergoths, the subcultural inspiration for whom is part Goth, part fetish, part Cyber and part Rave - or for people who predominantly have an interest in one particular subculture, but also a partial interest in another - for example someone who is mostly interested in Goth but also likes Metal on occasions. 

While it is perfectly acceptable to be of the opinion that not all changes in the Goth subculture are to your taste, and to believe that it has changed nearly beyond recognition (it has certainly changed a lot over the decades) it is not acceptable to ridicule others, in person or on the internet, for not seeing Goth the same way you do. Goth has no doctrine, no rules and no ideology. While there are those who appear to be fruits that fell far from the tree and do all sorts of things with little relation to original subculture and call it Goth, and those who simply misapply the term in ignorance (especially in terms of music genre), and these people can be annoying, treating others with cruelty and mockery does nothing to remedy the problem. Living your own Goth life to the fullest and living as an example of what you think Goth should be at least may have a positive influence, and if you feel compelled to "correct" or "educate" people, at least do so in a polite, positive and encouraging manner - those lessons are more likely to stay learnt, anyway. 

It is cliched advice, but be the change you want to see in the world. If you think there needs to be more Batcave-era music at your local Goth club, request songs you like instead of bitching about the fact that the things you like are never played, but be aware that other patrons will have other tastes, and that the music is ultimately up to the DJ. If you think too few people go out with backcombed hair, wear yours up backcombed at the weekend with pride or post about how to back-comb on your blog so that newbies can be educated. It is important the roots of the subculture are not forgotten, but is also important to allow others to make their own corner within - and outside - the subculture without mockery and snobbery.