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 Synthetic Aesthetic & Hypocrisy

Recently, Amy of ::Stripy Tights and Dark Delights:: wrote ::this:: post on Goths that denigrate people of a certain popular aesthetic (Essex Girl in the UK, Jersey Shore to an American, I would guess that a lot of places have their equivalent) for being "fake" because of the fake tan, fake eyelashes, bleached hair, fake nails, hair extensions, heavy makeup, bust augmentations, etc. etc. I am probably repeating what she said here, but it is an important message, so I feel like reiterating it in my own words on this blog 

A lot of Goths and other Alternative types are just as "fake". I certainly go around with a corseted waist, a wig, fake eyelashes, heavy makeup, a pallor that is partly nature and partly makeup (more to even it out than make me paler), high heels, piercings etc. My waist is not naturally that thin, my hair is is not actually red (not even by dye), my eyelashes are pretty long, but they don't come with feathers, and I got all those jewellery-attachment-points through having someone poke holes through me! I go to great lengths to achieve a particular aesthetic, and that is all that these 'Essex Girls' are doing. There are people who have had far more extensive body mods than me; more piercings, elaborate tattoos, and even fangs, pointed ears and horns, all in search of a particular aesthetic. This is certainly a synthetic aesthetic, one that is created through artistry overlaid on nature. 

Usually someone comes in with the justification of something akin to 'oh, but they are following a trend, to them it's about fitting in and appealing to men and getting attention, they must be really insecure! We do it in the pursuit of our own personal aesthetic!' 

Who are we to judge? 

Unless you know someone well enough to have good estimation of their real motivations, you have no business judging someone. It is the same sort of prejudicial assumption as when mainstream people assume that we dress and look the way we do for attention or to rebel against our parents or to opt out of decent society. Considering the time and money and effort spent on a lot of these women's looks, I would say that there has to be a significant proportion who really are chasing their dream aesthetic. Yes, there certainly are those who follow that aesthetic to be trendy, to get attention, to impress men, because they are insecure with who they are under the fakery, etc. but there are also people who co-opt the Goth aesthetic in order to get attention, to impress men, to be rebellious, to try and shock people, because they are insecure with who they are under the fakery, etc. It is unfair to judge a group by the action of individuals who are not necessarily representative. It is easier to distinguish a Goth from someone co-opting the aesthetic, because there is some broader definition of Goth, but the 'Essex Girl' aesthetic is just an aesthetic (the party animal lifestyle, drinking, etc. are not inherent; plenty of people who don't follow this look behave like that, and not all who follow this look behave like that); there is no co-opting it away from a broader subculture. 

Basically, this is an encouragement not to judge; instead take people on their individual merit, on their own actions and behaviour. How somebody looks is not necessarily and indicator of what they are like, as we should all well know. A dose of humility and an open mind are good things to have. 

Symbolism, Fashion Statements, Pentacles & Pentagrams

This is a short post about my personal attitude towards wearing religious, political and philosophical symbols. 

I won't wear any symbol where I do not personally agree with or support what it symbolises. I won't wear rosaries as a fashion statement, nor Soviet gear, nor anything else that isn't something I personally believe in. I see a lot of Goths wearing various religious and political symbols, and sometimes I wonder if some of them might be doing it for what I would see as not the best reasons.

I do this for two main reasons.

The first is that in wearing a symbol you are communicating your support for what it means, that is why the symbols exist in the first place, to represent something and communicate association with what it represents to those who see it. People tend to see someone wearing a symbol and assume it is representative of the wearer's beliefs - it is often assumed that someone wearing a cross, for example, is Christian, or that someone wearing a headscarf is Muslim and not just keeping the wind out of their hair (or part of other religious groups who practice head-covering). I do not want to communicate to others inaccurate or mixed messages. I am Pagan, previously of Wiccan denomination, and do not want people to believe I'm Christian because, simply, it would be an inaccurate assumption. 

Secondly, I do not want to accidentally use somebody's symbol in a way that would cause offence, especially by inadvertently committing blasphemy, or by using a symbol in a context that would be offensive within its originating cultural context. Some things that we in ignorance perceive as mere decorative motifs can be religious or cultural symbols of great significance in their originating context. There are people (mostly Catholic) for whom a rosary is religiously important object, and who find wearing one as a fashion statement to be offensive and trivialising and commercialising the symbols of the faith that is very important to them. 

I also think it is wrong to use symbols in order to look 'cool', 'edgy' or 'shocking'. Doing so hijacks potent symbols, strips them of their intended meaning in the new context, and replaces that meaning with a statement of "look how daring I am!" on behalf of the wearer. Personally, I disagree with using shock value to make statements anyway, but that is not the point here. If you wear Communist symbols or Swastikas, people will  often assume that it is in support of those ideals, and not for shock value anyway, so firstly expect to get some strong negative reactions if you do wear such things, and also realise that in using the symbols of the darkest parts of history in order to appear shocking or make a statement, you are using that symbol outside of its historical context, appealing to its historical context on a superficial level of "evil bad guys" and thus reducing that symbol to a very black and white and simplistic pastiche of a history that ought to be remembered and understood in greater detail with an understanding that history and culture are full of nuances and complications. Yes, the Nazis, Fascist Japan, Communist Russia and Communist China all committed horrific atrocities, but that is not the full summation of 20thC world history or even the summation of those particular periods and regimes. 

☽○☾

A Tangent On Use Of Pagan Symbols

(I hope the Triple Goddess works on your browser)

Another pair of symbols used for shock value are the pentacle or pentagram, as a lot of misguided people believe those symbols to be representative of Satanism, regardless of orientation, or context and regardless of the fact that they are primarily used today by the Wiccan and Pagan community (and that they have a long history with other groups, going back to at least pre-cuniform Mesopotamian pictograms, and are used by other religious groups).  As a Pagan I am opposed to people appropriating the symbols of my religion for shock value, and I would imagine that there are Satanists who also disapprove of people using ignorant portrayals of their religion for shock value, too. 

These symbols have different names and variations in meaning.

As a Pagan, I feel very upset when I see people who mis-use pentagrams and pentacles, and tie them to things such as animal sacrifice, sexual depravity, and other things very alien from actual Paganism. I also feel very upset when I see people wear them to try and be 'spooky' and 'edgy'. I also dislike it when clueless people wear them and claim to be Pagan, yet spout cliches based on negative stereotypes of our religion. Paganism and Witchcraft are not well-accepted religions/spiritualities, and we face real discrimination, mostly from people who really believe we are fringe-crazies who worship evil, sacrifice things, are sexually depraved and altogether immoral - think of the Satanic Panic of the 1980s. People have lost their jobs, their children, even their lives because of a misunderstanding of, and prejudice against, our faith, and misappropriating our symbols and using them in ways that reinforce the misunderstanding are thus harmful. So it is appropriative, and it is harmful to use our symbol in this manner. 

Also, and this is a minor aside compared to the point in the previous paragraph, Pagans are a religious minority, there aren't that many of us around, although the concentration in various alternative groups is higher than on average, but even so, many of us wear our Pagan symbols visibly as a sign of solidarity - so that we may identify each other as people of similar faith and feel a little less alone. Some of us get a little bit excited (even if secretly) on spotting someone else wearing a pentacle or Goddess symbol; we think we've found another of our kind, and there's a little bit of frustration and disappointment that can occur when we find out that the person wearing it has no idea what it means. 

☽○☾

I cannot stop people from wearing symbols, and in the end, it is mere clothes, mere fashion, but I think it is important to remember that fashion can convey meaning, and that there repercussions to the display of symbols. I feel that it is important to be understanding - to understand the meaning of the symbols, and to understand how people my perceive them, and to how the people connected to the original context may react. Also remember that one symbol can have more than one meaning, depending on context and culture.