A sociologial response from our reader Pieter Vandenberghe
This is not a personal attack, but a sociological observation.
Dear Dries,
Last week, I read your piece calling for an end to the ‘hippiefication’ of sound system culture. It sure got me thinking, and I’d like to offer a well-reasoned response.
I’d first like to emphasize that I don’t find your criticism in the article unreasonable in itself. I think it is valuable to reflect on the history of (sound system) culture, its origins, and the way in which cultural elements are adopted and transformed in a European context. I also find the idea that we should be aware of cultural appropriation and of the historical power relations that may accompany it highly defensible.
Yet I would like to look at your argument from a somewhat more nuanced sociological perspective.
My criticism lies less in the fact that you criticize these developments; than in the way in which, from your own position, you seem to determine what an informed, authentic and correct way of engaging with this culture is.
When you say that people should know the history of a culture, there is already a certain expectation embedded in that. But when does that expectation become a norm? Does everyone who goes to a dub dance need to know the history of Jamaican sound system culture? Does everyone who plays reggae or dub need to study Rastafari, sound clashes and the social context in which this music emerged? I think that this can become somewhat instructive or patronising. The message can easily become: “I/we have gained the insight, and you still need to understand it.” That does not mean that historical knowledge is unimportant. Quite the opposite. But I find it problematic when that knowledge is used as a measure to determine who is engaging with a culture correctly and who is not.
What I find interesting in this regard is your own personal development. Reflecting on your own position can indeed lead to new insights. But I wonder whether a changed position therefore automatically becomes a more objective, authentic or correct position. Your current interpretation is still shaped by your own experiences, knowledge and… social position. You write from a particular standpoint. That standpoint may be well-founded and based on years of experience, but it remains a standpoint. That is precisely why I find it striking that your personal development in the article almost seems to function as a kind of evidence that you are now better able to see what is wrong with others.
Who actually determines what the ‘real’ (sound system) culture is? Who determines when someone’s cultural involvement is ‘real’ enough? This creates a kind of endless authenticity competition, in which people can continually judge one another on the basis of who experiences the culture in the most authentic, historically correct or conscious way. But who ultimately determines when someone truly ‘understands’ the culture? And why should there be only one correct relationship to that culture?
Culture is constantly in motion
In this case, I find it interesting to use a sociological perspective on cultural identity.
Stuart Hall, an influential Jamaican-British cultural theorist, describes cultural identity not as something that you simply have and that possesses an unchanging authentic core, but as something that is constantly being formed and reshaped. Cultural identities have a history and an origin, but that does not make them static: they are constantly ‘becoming’.
That raises precisely the question I feel is missing from your article: who determines when cultural change is still legitimate development and when it becomes ‘decline’ or ‘hippiefication’? Your current identity and position in relation to sound system culture are themselves also the result of this ongoing process. You do not stand outside the culture in order to subsequently discover its authentic form; you are yourself part of the process through which its meaning is interpreted and reshaped.
At this point, Pierre Bourdieu (a prominent French sociologist) offers an interesting addition to Hall. Where Hall helps us understand that culture is constantly changing, Bourdieu shows how distinctions emerge within such a cultural space around taste, legitimacy and power. Certain music can be considered authentic, certain clothing superficial, certain ways of dancing ‘hippie’, certain knowledge insufficient, and certain participants more legitimate or ‘real’ insiders. It is not merely about different tastes, but also about who has the cultural legitimacy to determine which taste and behaviour are recognised as ‘correct’.
Cultural capital plays a role here. Your knowledge of music history, Rastafari and sound system culture, combined with your experience as a sound owner, selector, MC, label owner and photographer, gives you a certain degree of cultural legitimacy within the sound system field. That knowledge and experience are valuable, but at the same time they give you a position from which you can determine what you consider to be an authentic or superficial interpretation of the culture. When you draw that boundary, it is therefore not merely a neutral judgement: there is also cultural power involved.
This does not mean that cultural appropriation does not exist or that historical power relations are irrelevant. Quite the opposite. It is precisely important to look at who adopts cultural elements, from which position of power,in what context, and who subsequently gains economic or social benefits from this. But when is cultural appropriation simply cultural transfer and change, and when do we call it cultural appropriation? Should participation in a culture be measured against a single normative standard derived from its history?
As a participant in this scene, when I adopt and disseminate music from a particular cultural tradition, I am also part of the process through which that culture is interpreted and changed. I too can make commercial gains from it. That makes the question of power precisely interesting, but it also means that I cannot simply position myself outside this cultural change and accuse others of changing the culture. The same applies to you. As a sound owner, selector, MC, label owner, journalist and photographer, you have contributed for years to the European dissemination and development of this culture. You too have interpreted it, selected from it, disseminated it and helped shape it. This is not a personal attack, but a sociological observation: no one who participates in a culture stands completely outside the process through which that culture changes.
The paradox of your position
In your article, your former identity seems to have given way to a position in which you present yourself as someone who understands the culture better. You first formed part of a particular European interpretation of sound system culture, then distanced yourself from it, reflected on it and developed a new vision. That can absolutely be a form of personal growth.
But precisely from a Bourdieusian perspective, it is interesting that your own development has also given you a different position within the cultural field. You did not simply distance yourself from one interpretation and subsequently discovered the ‘true’ interpretation; you evolved from one cultural position into another. That new position also gives you greater legitimacy to distinguish between what you consider authentic and what you consider superficial.
Cultural meaning changes over time and through the people who participate in it. You yourself are an example of such change. The difference seems to be that your change is described as insight and development, while the changes among others are described as hippiefication or dilution. I can find someone else’s way of participating in sound system culture superficial. I can think that someone has insufficient knowledge of its history. I can even argue that certain forms of cultural appropriation are problematic. But as soon as I use my own interpretation as the measure by which I determine which interpretations of others are legitimate, authentic or responsible, I believe a form of gatekeeping emerges.
Subculture, identity formation and polarisation
I am particularly wary of polarisation. I mainly hope that we continue to recognise that people seek identity and connection in different ways, or sometimes simply want to have fun. You describe this superficial consumption, but I wonder: is that not also a form of identity-seeking? With the knowledge I have today, this was certainly also a form of identity creation for me when I was younger, and I am actually very grateful that this culture helped shape me into who I am today.
This also makes me think about how we can look at subcultures and countercultures. They often emerge from a rejection of dominant cultural norms, while at the same time offering people a way to create identity and belonging. But when such a culture grows, elements of it can be adopted by a broader group and eventually become part of the broader culture. What was once countercultural can thus itself become culture. From that perspective, I wonder whether the growth of sound system culture is simply part of such a cultural process. What may look like superficial consumption to one person can be a first encounter with a culture that later acquires much greater meaning for someone else. Cultural involvement does not always begin with knowledge of history, but sometimes simply with music, atmosphere, clothing, dance or the feeling of belonging somewhere. That makes the boundary between ‘genuine involvement’ and ‘superficial consumption’ more complex, in my view.
I think this process is still very much present among people today. Perhaps the growth and increasing appeal of the scene simply makes it more widespread and therefore more visible, making it harder to see the individual search behind it? Perhaps that evolution in itself is an interesting and broader social phenomenon?
Historical analysis ≠ normative judgement
I am therefore not criticizing your historical analysis, nor the importance of knowledge about the origins and context of sound system culture. My criticism is mainly directed at the leap from historical analysis to normative cultural judgement: the moment when knowledge of history is used to determine which contemporary forms of participation are authentic, legitimate or responsible — and which are not. It then becomes possible to point to someone else again and again and say: ‘You still don’t quite understand it.’ That is precisely where I believe your criticism, despite a number of valid observations, should also be critically examined.
Because perhaps, alongside the question of what is lost through cultural change, we should also look at what emerges. New participants are not necessarily merely consumers of a culture; they can also find identity, connection and meaning in it. A subculture that grows and changes may lose something of its original form, but at the same time acquire new meanings. Cultural change can contain problematic power relations, but it cannot be understood exclusively as the decline of an authentic original culture. Something new also emerges. This does not make cultural change unproblematic, but it does make it more complex than a simple opposition between authenticity and dilution. The ability to allow different meanings to coexist is what keeps culture alive.
Unite.