Another Boring Day in Paradise- Rock and Roll and the Empowerment of Everyday Life Author(s)- Lawrence Grossberg

7/16/2019 Another Boring Day in Paradise- Rock and Roll and the Empowerment of Everyday Life Author(s)- Lawrence Gross…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/another-boring-day-in-paradise-rock-and-roll-and-the-empowerment-of-everyday 1/35

Another Boring Day in Paradise: Rock and Roll and the Empowerment of Everyday LifeAuthor(s): Lawrence GrossbergSource: Popular Music, Vol. 4, Performers and Audiences (1984), pp. 225-258Published by: Cambridge University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/853365 .

Accessed: 17/04/2013 05:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Popular

Music.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 196.11.235.232 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:29:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/853365?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/853365?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup



Another oringdayinparadise:rock nd rolland theempowermentfeverydayife*

by LAWRENCE GROSSBERG

About ive ears go, began oteach ourses nthe ultural istoryfrock nd roll.Myapproachwas simple: wouldtry o describe hetexts,nterpretinghe ignificanceroduced ytheuniquesynthesisof musical texture nd lyricalcontent.Then I would suggest

correspondencesothe ituationf ts udienceswhichweremediated

throughhe nstitutionalractices fproductionnd consumption.The musicobliquely epresentednd responded o the structurefexperiencef t east ertainortionsf tsyouthudience.As soughtmoreadequatereadings, hecorrespondencesecame ncreasinglyrefracted;he musichad tobe located nan overdeterminedontext:class, race, subcultures, ender, s well as age, exertedunequalpressuresnandwererepresentednrock nd roll.Nevertheless, ystudents- as well as the rock and roll fan in me - were noticeably

dissatisfied. hile hey ften ssented omy eadings,twasclear hatmyreadings ailed ocaptureomethingmportant,omething hichwas intimatelyonnected o rock nd roll'spoweras wellas to itscultural olitics.

As I tried orespond otheir iscomfort,foundmyselfonfrontingtwofeaturesfrock ndroll: tsheterogeneitynd ts ffectivity.ockandroll s not nly haracterisedymusical ndstylisticeterogeneity;its fansdifferadically mongthemselveslthoughheymay istento the samemusic. Differentans seem to use the music forverydifferenturposesand in verydifferentays; theyhave differentboundaries efiningotonlywhat heyisten o butwhat sincludedwithinhe ategoryfrock nd roll.Thus, hey bjectedomy ttemptto defineone experience r use ofrock nd roll as theonlyone.Sometimes,for example, the meaningof particular yricswassignificant;ther imes nd morecommonly,heexperiencewas apurely ffectivene.* Parts f his ssayhave ppeared,nslightlyevised orm,nGrossberg983A. or

further laboration f thesearguments,

ee alsoGrossberg

983B;Grossbergforthcoming.wish to thank hefollowingeoplefor heir elp:VanCagle, ain

Chambers, onCrane, imon rith, onGinoli, allyGreen, ickHebdige,CharlesLaufersweiler,aveMarsh, aryNelson ndLarryhore. leasenote hat usethetermrockndroll' o nclude ost-war,echnologicallyependent outhmusic. heattemptodistinguishrockndroll',rockn' roll' nd rock'would nly onfuse heargumentamtryingo make.

225








226 Lawrencerossberg

Thus, if wantedtounderstand he cultural ignificancefrock ndroll assumingthat thas someunitydespite tsheterogeneity),hat s,if I wanted to examine the

specificocial effects f

post-waryouthmusic, had torecognisethat he affectiveowerof rock nd rollgoesbeyondthatof eisure tself.Ofcourse,theobservation hatmusichas

powerful motionaleffectss hardly ontroversial. n thecontrary,tis the assumption thatmusical texts,even with lyrics,functionbyrepresenting omething meanings, deas or cultural xperience thatisproblematic.Whenapplied to rock nd roll, he ssumptiondoes notseem false,merely ncomplete: particular nstancesofrock and roll

may representdifferenthingsfordifferentudiences and indifferent

contexts.Much of the recentwritingson rock and roll is similarlyincomplete.For example, Frith rgues (1981) thatrock and rollis aformof leisure activitywhichrepresentsvariousfantasies bout the

possibilities fa life onstituted ntirelys leisure.The matrix fthesefantasiesis the dialectic of working-class-urban-streetulture andmiddle-class-suburban-creativeulture.Hebdige, comingout of thetraditionof British ubculturalstudies, locates (1979) rock and rollwithinthelarger ategory fsubcultural tyleswhichrepresents nd

provides an imaginary olution to the experiencedcontradictions fBritishworking-classife.BothFrith nd Hebdige treat ock nd roll sa 'representation'ocatedwithin context fclass relationships.Andwhile theyeach capture mportant spects of theplace and effects frock nd roll ncontemporaryulture,neither ne is ableto accountforthereality nd thegenerality f the affective owerof themusic: Themost disturbingthing ... is how littlethe establishment s such

acknowledgeswhat is a kindof continuousguerillawarfare. . Rock... is theonlymediumthatmakesanysense of ife aesthetically r

politically at all' (Frith, itedin Marcus 1981B,p. 124).Each of thesewriters roposes, adjacentto hisinterpretationfrockand roll, n alternativetrategy. rith roposesthatwe study hewaysin which the audiences use themusic,while Hebdige suggeststhatthe effects frockand rolldepend upon its existence as a range of

signifyingractices.Still, hough,neither pproachis able torespondtotwosignificantuestionsthat wishto raise: How does one describethespecific ffectsand popularity) fparticular orms frock nd roll?How does one describe heconsistencywhich constitutes ock nd roll

as a determinate ultural orm?Nevertheless,myown approachtakessomething rom ach of these writers. ikeFrith, proposeto examinerockand rollfunctionally. ut rather han assumingits audience inadvance and asking how individuals,eitherconsciouslyor uncon-

sciously,use themusic, willfocuson thewaysinwhich rock nd roll

producesthe material ontextwithinwhich ts fansfind hemselves,








Rockndroll nd the mpowermentf verydayife 227

context defined by affective nvestments rather than by semantic

representations. hus,therock nd rollfan sa partoftheeffectsfthe

functioningfrock

and roll tself.My

concernswith

thepossibilitiesopened up between,by and for, hemusic and itsaudiences, withinthe everyday ife ofpost-warAmerica.

LikeHebdige, I proposeto treat ock nd roll s a set ofpractices, ut

practicesofstrategic mpowermentrather hanofsignification. ockand roll structures he space withinwhich desire is invested and

pleasures produced. It is thus immediately mplicated n relationsof

power and a politicsof pleasure. I am concerned with the ways inwhich rock and rollprovidesstrategies f survival nd pleasurefor ts

fans, with the ways in which rock and roll is empowered by andempowers particular udiences in particular ontexts.Rock and rollbecomes visible only when it is placed within the context of the

productionof a networkofempowerment.Such a networkmay bedescribedas an affectivelliance':an organisation fconcretematerial

practices nd events,culturalforms nd socialexperiencewhichboth

opens up and structureshe space ofour affectivenvestmentsn theworld. My aim then is to describethe parametersofrockand roll's

empoweringeffectsn termsoftheproductionofaffective lliances.(For the basis ofthisposition,see Grossberg1982.)

I will propose fivegeneral hypotheses to describerock and roll,framedwithin heproblematic fpower as theorganisation f desire.The firstuggeststhat hedominant ffective ontext frock nd roll sa temporalrather han a sociologicalone. While class, race, gender,nationality, ubcultureand even age may be partlydeterminate f

specificeffects, he emergenceof rock and roll s enabled withinthecontext fgrowingup (in theUnited States formypurposes) after he

Second World War. Thiscontextdefines hepractice frockand roll'scontinued self-production.The second hypothesisargues that thepower ofrockand roll cannot be sufficientlyescribed n ideologicalterms:either s theconstitution fan identity r theproductionof acritical topia. Rather,rockand roll nscribes nd cathects boundarywithin ocialrealitymarkedonlyby tsotherness, tsexistence utsideof the affective ossibilitiesof therulingculture thehegemony).* nmore traditional erms,rock and roll nscribestheparticularmarkofpost-war alienation upon the surface of other social structures f

difference. he thirdhypothesisdescribes thestrategic unctioningfrock and roll: it bringstogetherdisparatefragments f the material

* 'Cathexis's a psychoanalyticalerm, asedonaneconomicmetaphor,hat eferso'thefact hat certainmount fpsychicnergysattached o n deaorto group fideas,toa part fthebody, o an object, tc.'(. LaplanchendJ.B. Pontalis, heLanguagefPsycho-Analysis,rans. . NicholsonmithNewYork, .d.) p. 62).









context ftheeverydayife f ts udienceswithin ifferentock ndrollapparatuses. t is the rock nd rollapparatuswhichmapsout

particularinesof affectivenvestmentnd

organisation.ttherefore

both ocates ndproduces he ites t which leasurespossible ndimportantortsaudiences; tprovides he trategieshrough hichthe udience sempowered yandempowershemusical pparatus.Thefourthypothesisescribes hediverse ossibilitiesfrock ndrollby usingtheconcepts f encapsulation'nd affectivelliances'presentednthepreviouswo ections. hefinal ypothesisiscussesthenotion f cooptation's a significanttrategyywhich ock ndrollproduces tsownhistoryndreproducests ffectiveower.My

conclusion ill rgue hat ockndrollsanhistoricallyocatable ventand that hangesnthe ontemporaryontextf verydayife aise hequestion f the mpendingdisappearance' frock ndroll.

Hypothesis . Rock androll n thepost-warontext

Any reading frock nd rollmustbeginby dentifyinghecontextwithinwhich t s tobe located nd tsrelationsdentified.espite heincreasinglyrevalent esture oward verdetermination,he domi-

nant features re almost lways dentifieds sociological ariables,i.e., the sociological haracteristicsf themusic'sproducers ndconsumers.Such variables,while often ocallysignificant, ustconstantlyonfrontheirwnexceptions.heresponse hat his snolonger ock ndroll rthatthas ost tsreal ulturalignificanceandpolitics) eemsmerelyoevade the ssue.Further,uchsociologicaldescriptionsonotprovide onvincingccountsf he mergencendcontinued owerof rock nd roll. s there, hen, ome feature hat

remains ommon oallcontextsfrock ndroll? fwe startwith hesimple ssumptionhat ock ndroll s relatednsomewaytoyouth'sexperiencesf lienation,owerlessnessndboredom,an we locatethe contextwithinwhich heseexperiences merge nd functionsspecific esponses f a 'youth ulture'?

The dolescence f he ocknd roll udience, speciallynthe iftiesbutcontinuinghroughoday,sobviouslynimportanteterminantof the music tselfs well as of tscultural olitics. hefrustrations,desires, earsnd resentmentsfpuberty rovidemuch f he nergy

and manyof the concerns f rock and roll.However,even thisapparently impledeterminations mediatedby otheremotions,experiencesnd events.While he irstudience f ock ndrollwas nfact eenagers,he tatementertainlyo onger olds.Andsimilarly,whiletheclassexperienceepresentednrock ndrollmayfunctionsignificantlyn one context, tmaynotfunction imilarlyn different








Rock ndroll nd the mpowermentf verydayife 229

contexts, nd in some, it maybe generallybsent.AttemptsogeneraliseHebdige's reading fpunkas working-class usicmustconfrontot

onlyFrith's

rgumenthat t

emergedutof

largelyrt

school nd bohemian' ontext,ut lso those ituationsnwhich unkfunctionsna largelymiddle-classontext ithoutnyromanticisationof heworkinglass.Thefact hat articularormsfrockndroll, ndevenperhaps ock nd roll ngeneral, ave pecificlassroots oes notnecessarilyay anythingbout its reception nd social effectsnparticularontexts.hisof ourse oes notdeny hat hefact f class)originmayhave specificmediated ffects,articularlyhroughocaliconographies.

Consider ycontrastheobvious acthat ock nd roll mergednaparticularemporalontext,ariouslyharacteriseds late apitalism,post-modernity,tc.Thedominantmoments f his ost-warontexthavebeenwidely escribed:he ffectsf hewar ndtheholocaustnthegenerationsfparents; conomic rosperitynd optimism;hethreatf nstantndtotal nnihilationthe tomic omb); he oldwarandMcCarthyismith heresulting oliticalpathy ndrepression;theriseofsuburbiawith ts nherentalorisation frepetition;hedevelopmentof late capitalism consumption ociety)with its

increasinglyophisticated echnology orthe rationalisationndcontrol of everyday ife; the proliferationf mass media andadvertisingechniquesnd theemergencefan aestheticf mages;theattemptnd ultimatenabilityo deal with hefact fthebabyboom;thecontinuationf n ideology f ndividuality,rogressndcommunicationthe AmericanDream); and, to echo Sontag,anincreasingly eceding hreshold fthe shocking. he resultwas agenerationfchildren hatwas notonly ored theAmerican ream

turned ut to beboring)ndafraid, ut onelynd solated romachotherand the adult world as well. The more the adultworldemphasised heirhildren'sniqueness ndpromisedhem aradise,theangrier,morefrustratedndmore nsecure heygrew.

These cultural ffectswere themselvesocatedwithin n evenbroader pparatuswhosesignificances onlynowbeingrecognised:theyoperated n a worldcharacterisedya steadily ising ate ofchange.What sunique,howeversince hisprocesshad beengoingon for ometime), s that hange ncreasinglyppearstobe all that

there s; it does not allow anyappeal to a stableand predictableteleology. here s in factno sense ofprogresswhichcan providemeaning rdepth nd a senseof nheritance.oth hefuturend thepast appear increasinglyrrelevant;istory as collapsed ntothepresent.The ramificationsfthisfact reonlynowbecomingvisible swe confront generation hatno longerbelieves that heir iveswillbe








230 Lawrence rossberg

better han thatoftheir arents, venthoughthe rhetoric fprogress'is stillpresent.Suddenly, we are obligedto remakefrom cratch hefoundation four

taste,as of our

politicsnd our

veryives. Old

waysof judging linger onlyas] unexaminedhabits,comforting efenses

against herecognitionfourcommon ostness' Schjeldjahl 981,p. 67).As historyoses itssense, itcanno longerbe a source for hevalues bywhich one chooses and validatesone's actions. As JohnBergerwrites,

Todaywhat urroundshe ndividualife anchangemore uicklyhan hebriefequence fthatife tself. he timeless as been abolished ndhistoryhas become phemerality.istoryo onger ays tsrespecto thedead:thedeadaresimplywhathaspassed through.. Thismeans hat he ommon

experiencefmoments hichdefy imes apparentlyeniedby everythingwhich urroundshem. uchmoments ave ceasedtobe windows ookingacrosshistoryoward he imeless. he xperiencehichnstigateshephraseforver as nowtobe assumed lone ndprivately.nd o its ole schanged:instead ftranscending,t solates.

(Berger 980, . 89)

As historybecomes mere change - discontinuous,directionless nd

meaningless it sreplacedbya sense offragmentationndrupture, f

oppressivemateriality,fpowerlessness

and relativism.This new socio-historicalontext urther einforced outh'sconvic-

tion of its own uniqueness; indeed it determinedtheirdominant

generational needs and perceptions in the fifties nd since. Ifadolescence is a timewhen one seeks not only pleasure but also aviable adultidentity,henthecollapse ofthedeep structurefhistoryundermined the traditionalmodels. The significanceof HoldenCaulfield,JamesDean, MarlonBrandoand theBeatsas culturalheroeslies in their truggle oachieve some identityonsistentwiththisnew

setofexperiences, nd the Beats' turn o the modeloftheblackhipsterpointed theway forthe rockand roll/youthulture.

Rockand rollemergesfrom nd functionswithin he ives ofthose

generations that have grown up in this post-war, post-moderncontext. t does notsimply epresent ndrespondto theexperiences f

teenagers,nor tothoseof particularlass. It s notmerelymusicofthe

generationgap. It draws a line through hat contextbymarking ne

particular istorical ppearance ofthegenerationgap as a permanentone. Similarly, lass divisions rereinscribednd realigned s they re

traversedbytheboundaryofpost-modernity,f the desiresofthosegenerationswho have known no other historicalmoment. Post-

modernityis, I shall suggest, not merely an experience nor a

representationfexperience; t s above all a form fpractice ywhich

affectivelliances are produced,bywhichotherpractices nd eventsare investedwithaffect.








Rock nd roll nd the mpowermentf verydayife 231

Whilemany ommentatorsavedescribedock nd roll s watereddownrhythmnd blues ormore ccurately,synthesisfblues ndwhite

illbilly usic),would

rguehat hefact f ts

productionnd

reception ywhiteyouthnvolved real ransformationf tsmusicalroots.t ocated hemwithindifferent,mergentistoricalormation,whose contours have described nterms learlymeant oechotheaestheticfpost-modernractice:denial f otalitynda subsequentemphasison discontinuity,ragmentationnd rupture; denialofdepthand a subsequent mphasison thematerialityfsurfaces;denialofany teleologynd a subsequent mphasis n change ndchance o that istoryecomes oth rrelevantndtheveryubstance

ofourexistence; denialoffreedomndinnocentelf-consciousnessand a subsequent emphasison context, eterminationnd theintertextualityfdiscursiveodes.

Thequestionswhether hepost-modernistejectionfmeaningnfavour f heproductionffragmentssmerelyhe ogical onclusionof he apitalistommodityetish.nwhat ense s thepost-modernistfragment,venwhen taccepts he nevitabilityf tsexistences acommodity,omethingther han commodity?hecommoditynlate apitalismxists t the ite f he ontradictionetweenmodernistandpost-modernistultural ractices. hecommoditys such s stilldeterminedya representationf otality;t ignifiesfragmentationonly n thecontextfa totalisingmpulsewhichgivesmeaning, otonly otheparticularbjecte.g.,as status, ashion rexchange alue)but also to the generalprocessof commodification.ost-modernpractice eniesanysuchtotalisingmpulse.We might aythat heobject n late capitalism unctionsn thecontext fan ideologicalaesthetic n theone hand and thatof a structuralesthetic n the

other.The former escribesthe way the objectis represented;post-modern ragmentsre appropriatedntothe context f thecommodity y defining hem in purelyeconomicor aesthetic(avant-garde) erms.This is made easier by post-modernism'spropensity o use capitalist ommoditieswithin ts discourse.Astructuralesthetic escribes ost-modernractices a demystifica-tionof the commodity,ts aesthetic eductiono a fragmentanscontext r ignificance,signifierithout signified.ost-modernismis theaesthetic racticefdeconstruction.

The objectwithin atecapitalismhenexists n thespace ofthecontradictionetween hese wopractices:n deologicalmystificationwhich urnst nto commoditynda structuralemystificationhichreturnstto thematerialontext. ytheir erynature, ost-modernobjectscannotbemerely onsumedunlesstheyhave beenrecuperatedby being re-presented as commodities. Thus, the post-modern









aestheticfrock ndroll oesnotdeterminehemusic's xistences acommodityut athers a constanttruggleetweenommodificationand

fragmentation.I cannowtryospecifyheparticularorm fpost-modernracticethatcharacterisesockand rollas an appropriationfhegemonicpracticesnto tsowndiscourses.ftheresponse fthehegemonyoresistances through racticesf ncorporationsee Williams 981),then hepowerofrock nd roll ies n tspracticef excorporation',operatingtandreproducinghe oundaryetween outhulturendthedominantulture. ock ndroll everseshehegemonicracticesof ncorporationbywhich racticeslaimingcertainxternalityre

relocatedwithin he context fhegemonic elations. ockand rollremoves igns,objects, ounds,styles, tc. from heir pparentlymeaningfulxistence ithin hedominantulturendrelocateshemwithin n affectivelliance of differentiationnd resistance. heresultanthock- of bothrecognitionnd of an underminingfmeaning produces temporarilympassable oundarywithin hedominantulture,nencapsulationf he ffectiveossibilitiesf herock nd roll ulture. ock nd roll s a particularormfbricolage,

uniquely apitalistndpost-modernractice.tfunctionsna constant

play of incorporationnd excorporationbothalways occurringsimultaneously),contradictoryultural ractice. hemost bviousresult f this s theparticularorm f ronyn rock nd roll whichconnects t with the traditionf symbolism-dada-surrealism).sPiccarella asnoted,Whathasalways eparatedock nd roll romtsroots nbluesandcountrymusic, heessenceof tsyouthfulness,sironic istance romirect ersonalxpression.n ts utlandishtylesand exaggeratedmannerisms,ock howmanshipendstoward he

defensiveelf-alienationf dolescence'Piccarella982, . 83).Rockandrollpracticesa formfresistanceor enerationsith ofaithnrevolution. ock nd roll's esistance itspolitics isneither directrejectionfthedominantulture or utopiannegationfantasy)fthe structuresf power. It playswith theverypractice hatthedominant ultureuses to resist ts resistance:ncorporationnd

excorporationn a continuous ialectic hatreproduces he veryboundaryof existence.Because its resistance emains,however,within hepoliticalnd economicpaceofthedominantulture,ts

revolutions onlya 'simulacrum'.ts politics merge nlyat thatmoment henpoliticalonsciousnesssno onger ossible.tspracticeis surrealismwithoutthe dream/nightmare,ada withoutthe

representationfa political ption.Unableto reject, ontrol r evenconceptualisehispost-modern

reality,t becomesboth the sourceofoppression nd theobject/








Rockndroll ndthe mpowermentf verydayife 233

contextfcelebrationndfun.Repelled ndangered ytheboredom(repetitiveness), eaningless-nessnd dehumanisationfthecon-

temporaryorld,youthelebrateshese

veryonditionsn ts

eisure(technology,oise,commodityetish,epetition,ragmentationndsuperficiality).espondencyndpleasure ecomemutuallyonstitu-tive. Rock and roll seeks its place within nd againstthe verypost-modernityhat s its condition f possibility. f course,atmoments,ock nd roll assoughtswell oflee hatmpossibleenialof representation.or example,while the subculturef acid-rockplayedwith igns nd objects s iftheyweremerelyhepieces nabricoleur'same,that ulturelso denied tspost-modernracticey

appealing o a myth f natural eality. lthoughts textswerenottransparent,heywere locatedwithin larger ontext n whichresistance as harnessednthe nterestsfa utopian etreatnto he'natural' ife.

Hypothesis . The powerofrock ndroll:affectivedifference

Wemight egin ounderstandowrock ndrollworksyaffirmingthatt s,aboveall,fun theproductionfpleasuree.g., nthe heer

energy fthemusic, hedanceable eat,thesexualechoes, tc.). nfact,hemost evastatingejectionf particularockndroll exts tosay that tis 'boring'.Thus,rock nd rollcannever ake tself ooseriously. o beeffective,tmust onstantlyeny ts wnsignificance;itmust ocus he ttentionf ts udiences n ts urfaces.tspoweriesnot nwhat tsaysormeansbut nwhat tdoes inthetexturesndcontextsf tsuses. For nfact, ifferentudiencesnterprethe ame

textsdifferently,nd there eems to be little orrelationetweensemantic eadings nd uses/pleasures. do notmeanto suggestdisjunctionf yricsnd sounds whichmayoperate n a varietyfrelations o each other)but rather hatrockand roll cannotbeapproachedbysometextual nalysis f tsmessage.Rock nd roll,whetheriveorrecorded,s a performancehose significance'annotbe readoff he text'. t snot hat ock ndrolldoesnotproduce ndmanipulatemeaning utratherhatmeaningtselfunctionsnrockand rollaffectively,hat s, to produceand organisedesiresand

pleasures.WhenDavidSusskind skedrecord roducer hilSpectorwhat the meaningof the song 'Do Doo Ron Ron' was, Spectorresponded hatIt'snotwhat say tmeans. t'swhat tmakesyoufeel!Can'tyouhear he oundof hat ecord,an'tyouhear hat?'Marcus1969,pp. 11-12).WhatbothSpector ndhisfansknewwas that heanswer to his questionwas no.









But ofcourse,on theotherhand,rock nd rolldoes take tselfseriously. otonly s itextremelyelf-conscious,ut tcontinuouslyreconstitutesnd

re-encapsulatestself

e.g.,in ts

ntertextuality,ts

self-references,ts ecreationf tshistoryhroughhencorporationf'covers', tc). nfact,t sanessentialign f hepopularityf ockndroll hattconstantly arks tsdifferenceromthermusical ultures,whetheropular rnot.Rock ndroll s,fromts wn ide,notmerelya subset fpop',and theremust lways e musicwhichs not ock ndroll.Such other'music s coopted',soldout', bubblegum',familyentertainment',tc.

Ifthepowerofrock nd roll, hen,dependsnotupon meaning

butuponaffectivenvestments,t s related ot o much owhatonefeelsas to theboundary rawnby thevery xistence fdifferentorganisationsfdesire ndpleasure.tsoppositional ower s not heresultof its offering particularesirethatthe dominant ulturecannot ccept,nor of theparticulartructurefpleasure,nor of tscalling or heunlimitedealisationfdesire.Rock nd rollneednotalways ffernideological ritiquef hedominantulture,lthoughatsomemomentstcertainlyas,aimed tparticularepressionsswellas thevery resence frepressiontself. owever, ock nd roll

doesnotprojectnantinomyffreedomndconstraint,ince ockndrollalwaysproduces tsown constraintsn itself nd its fans. tshistorysrather hedeconstructionf hat ntinomy;tplayswith herelation f desire nd itsregimentationy always ircumscribingtsown possibilities orthe production f pleasure.Rock and roll'srelationo desire ndpleasure erves omark difference,o nscribeonthe urfacef ocialrealityboundaryetweenthem' nd us'; it

constantlyearticulatesnd recathects permanentupturet the

pointofthe ntersectionfpost-modernity,outh nd pleasure. tmakes particularistorical oment andthegenerationsmergingwithint- intoan apparentlyermanentupture. hisruptures

accomplishedhroughheproductionf affectivelliances'which

disrupthehegemonicontrolfdesire ndpleasure;nthe deologicalregister,hese ffectsremost isiblewithinhe o-calledemotionallife'of tsfans.

Thismark fdifferencesnot,however, simple oundaryetweeninside ndoutside, egemonynd revolution.ock nd roll ocatests

fans as differentvenwhilethey xistwithin hehegemony. heboundarys nscribed ithin hedominantulture. ock ndroll saninsider's rtwhichfunctionso positionts fansas outsiders. his

'encapsulation'may sometimes e producedthroughdeologicalrepresentationshich itherxplicitlyttackhehegemonyrdefinean alternativedentity or hose ivingwithin ts affectivelliances.But








Rocknd roll nd the mpowermentf verydayife 235

these ocal considerationsoo often loudthegeneral tratificationfsocialspace that ock nd rollproduces: tdefines n exteriorityor

itself nside thedominant ulture

hrough articularracticeshat

constituteffectivelliances. ouse a psycho-analyticetaphor,ockand roll 'incorporates'tself nto the 'bellyof the beast'. It is'internalisedutunintegrated',ncludedwithinhedominantulturebut alien o t, naccessible; .. enclosed, ntombed,ncystednside'(Nelson1978,pp. 57-8).

Finally,we must ask in whatsense thisboundary onstitutespoliticalrelationship etween the rock and roll culture nd thehegemony. hemost ommon escriptionsfrock nd roll's ower f

affirmationocate twithinheattemptoreconstituteommunitynthe faceof ndustrialmasssociety. hus, frock ndroll pparentlybeginswithprivate esires, t creates ommon xperiencesut ofthem. orexample, ock nd roll n thefiftiesroduced communitybaseduponthe hared xperiencesf eenagers. ut t sarguablehattheproductionf his dentityone which lways eassertstselfndrebels againstolder generations f rock and roll fans- is thedismantlingatherhan he ource frock ndroll's oliticalunction.The

politicsfrock nd roll s not heproductionf n

identityut he

constanttrugglegainstuch dentitieswhich ouldbeincorporatedbythedominantulture)ven as itcreates ndpoliticiseshem.Thesourceof this tensioncan be located n the confrontationithpost-modernity.ock ndroll ransformshedespair f ts ontextntoan embracingf tspossibilitiess pleasure.But tcannot ismiss hedespair. orwhat ock nd roll s nescapablyrawn ntos the ttemptto findmeaning nd valuein the historicalmoment nd in itsownexistence. heattempts,ofcourse, herefusal fpost-modernity,f

its ownpost-war ontext. nd so rock nd roll eeks new forms fidentity,ew values ndmeaning; et tmust lways lacethese ackinto hecontextf worldwhich nderminesllmeaningndvalue.Forexample,t s notsimply hatyouth's enseof oneliness s metwith romanticmyths flove obviously ondemned o failure;t isratherhat ock nd roll eeks uchpaths utofpost-modernity.ndtherealityf their mmanentailure,hefrustrationfknowinghattheywillfail espite urdesires,spartly esponsibleor hereal enseofdesperationehind he oncernorove npop e.g.,theBeatles; he

teenagedeath ongs)andteenage e.g.,Meatloaf) ock nd roll.Thepoliticsfrock nd rollmust e understood ithinhis ension,caught etween hedesire ocelebratehenew ndthedesire o scapeit,betweendespair ndpleasure.Thepolitics frock ndroll risesfromts articulationfaffectivelliances s modesof urvival ithinthe post-modernworld. It does not bemoan the death of older









structuresut seeks to findorganisationsf desire thatdo notcontradictherealitynwhichtfinds tself. ock ndroll, t tsbest,

transformslddreams nto

new realities.trejects hatwhich soutside f ts elf-encapsulationotonpolitical rounds utbecause

theirorganisations f affect re no longerappropriaten thepost-modernorld. tcelebrateshe ife f herefugee,he mmigrantwithno roots xcept hosethey anconstructor hemselvest themoment,onstructionshichwill nevitablyollapse round hem.Rock and roll celebratesplay - even despairingplay - as the onlypossibilityor urvivale.g., Elvis'pinkcadillac, he Beatles' ntics,punk's hock acticsndpost-punk'sissonance).tdoes notoppose

itsown deologicalepresentationsothose f hedominantulture:tlocates tself ithin hegapsandcracksf hehegemony,hepoints twhichmeaningtselfollapses ntodesire ndaffect.

Hypothesis . Theworkofrock nd roll:affectivelliances

The questionremains,however,of why rockand roll fans soconfidentlyssumedthat usskind ouldnot hear' themusic.Norhave we

acknowledgedheexistencef boundariesnd differences

within ock ndroll, nd itscultures: hatone audience akes oberock ndroll, nothermaydismiss s coopted. want o uggesthatparticular usic xists s rock nd roll' ornaudience nlywhen t slocated n a larger ssemblagewhich willcall the rock nd rollapparatus'.Withinucha context,hemusic sinflectednwaysthat

empowerts pecificunctioning.herock ndroll pparatusncludesnot nlymusical extsndpracticesut lso economiceterminations,technologicalossibilities,mages ofperformersnd fans), ocial

relations,estheticonventions,tyles f anguage,movement,p-pearance nd dance,mediapractices,deological ommitmentsndmediarepresentationsf he pparatustself.heapparatus escribes'cartographiesf aste'which reboth ynchronicnddiachronicndwhich ncompass othmusicalnd non-musicalegistersf verydaylife.Forexample, otonlydo particularpparatuses efine ifferingboundaries f acceptablemusic', heyplacedifferentorms frockand roll in differentffectiveositions; hey empowerthem ndifferentays. At anymoment, ock nd roll s constitutedy a

numberfdifferentormsnd while ertainormsrconventions ayremainommon,heir ffectshangentermsf heirynchronicnddiachronicelationss definedwithin heapparatus. urthermore,thesepositionsrealways hangings newformsppear nddisruptthe musical conomy.

To treatrock and rollas a set of musicaltextswhose effects an be









readoffheir urfacerbe ocatedwithinhe solated elationetweenmusic ndfan salreadyoassume n nterpretationf tsplacewithinaparticular

ock nd rollpparatus.nstead,

hemusic's

ffectsndidentityanonlybe describedwithinheapparatuswhich onnectsparticularragmentsftheheterogeneousomains f ocial, ulturaland material ractices.t is, then, he rock nd roll pparatus hatencapsulatestself,hat nscribeshedifferenceetweenthem' nd'us'. And it s theapparatuswhich xists s a bricolagehroughhe'excorporation'fhegemonicigns nd events.Bytreatinghem sfragments,t reinvests hemwithin differenttopographyfde-sire'.

It would be mistaken owever o see theapparatus s a passivecollection fdiscretematerialvents;t sthe pparatustself hich sconstantlyroducing ver-changingtructuresfdesire, nd thusreproducingtself. The rock and roll apparatusorganisestheseemingly andomcollection f cathected vents and codes thatinterpenetrateherock nd roll ulture.t s anarrayf trategiesithwhichyouth rganisestsaffectivexistence. uch topographiesfdesire'might henbe described s 'affectiveormations'norder oaffirmoth heir elationnd rreducibilityo deological,

oliticalnd

economic ormations.Thepowerof herock nd roll pparatus,herefore,iesnotmainly

in tstheft' fpartial bjects romhe arious omains f ocial ife, oreven nthe merefact hat tdraws inesconnectinghem.Rathertspower ies n tsforegroundingndproductionfparticularrganisa-tionswithinndbetween hese ragments.he pparatuss amachinewhich,nconstantlyeproducingtself,eshapes uraffectiveife ymapping hevectors f tsowneconomyfdesire ponourmaterial

life.Myclaim s that hecontinuityfrock nd roll s constitutedythe continuednscriptionfa three-dimensionalopography hichdescribes ts 'affectiveormation'. y operating t this level ofabstraction,am gnoringuestionsbout he pecificragmentsponwhich theapparatusworks t a particularmoment,s well as theparticularnflectionshich hese xesof he pparatusmay egiven tsuchmoments.Rather han ooking t particularpparatuses ndformations,wanttobeginbydescribingheboundaries ftherockand roll pparatus: hemomentf ts mergence,hepossibilityf ts

cessation, herange f tsvariability,tc.The rock and roll apparatus ffectivelyrganises verydayife

accordingothreentersectingxes: 1)youth s difference:he ocialdifferencefgenerationss nscribedponthephenomenologicalieldof ocialrelations;2)pleasure f hebody: he elebrationfpleasureis inscribedupon the site of the body; and (3) post-modernity:he









structurefuncertaintythefragment)s inscribedponthe ircuitfhistoryndmeaning. willcommentrieflyn eachofthese.

Mostobviously,

herock ndrollpparatus

s constructedroundthecategoryfyouth; nd while t s certainlyrue hatyouth'hasanumber f differentdeologicalnflections,outh s also a materialbodythat an be located ocially ndhistoricallya bodywhich straversednd inscribedoth ffectivelynd deologically.nfact,herock nd roll pparatushas produced 'generationalolitics'whichcan be describedtructurallys a politicsfdifferencendexclusion,and substantivelys a politics fboredom.As I haveargued, atherthandefining ny necessary dentityor tsfans, he rock nd roll

apparatus unctionss a boundarywhich ncapsulatests fans ndexcludes heothers.t s thisdifferencehich ffectivelynvests hecategoryfyouthwithin heapparatustself nd defines he siteofyouth ulture. he other'which s excluded romhe pparatussnothowever efined hronologicallyut ratherya phenomenologyfboredom.The rockand rollapparatus nstitutionalisespoliticsdefinedonlyby its opposition o boredom s the experience fhegemoniceality.hepoliticsfyouthelebrateshange: hework fthe pparatusransformsheverytructuresf oredomnto leasure.

Thesecond ffectivexisoftherock nd roll pparatusnvolves tscelebrationf hebody s the ite fpleasure in ts ransformationfidentitynto tyle,nthecentralityfrhythmnddance,and initscourtingf exualitynd sexualpractices.hemusical racticetselfsinsertednto he pparatustthe ite f hebody:t s amusic fbodilydesire.There s an immediatematerialelationothe music nd itsmovements.This relation,while true of music in general, sforegroundedn rock nd roll.At ts implestevel, hebodyvibrates

with he soundsand rhythms,ndthatvibrationan be articulatedwith otherpractices nd eventsto producecomplex ffects. hematerialityfmusic ives t ts ffectiveower otranslatendividuals(an ideological onstruct)ntobodies.Thismaterialelations there,within he pparatus,vailable o tsfans. hebody ecomes he ite twhichpleasuresrestructurednddesire otentiallyedirected.nemight xamine, or xample, hecomplex nd often ontradictoryrelations etween ock nd roll nd blackmusic n theUnited tates(thefact hat t is both so compatiblend so distanced t various

moments) n termsof the changing nvestments f this axis.Furthermore,t shere hat nemightryo articulatehepossibilitiesofan oppositionalexualpoliticswithin herock nd roll pparatus.

Ofcourse, hese uggestionsrenotmeant oocclude herelationsbetween heaffectiveormationfthe rock ndroll pparatus, ndits position within the ideologically (as well as economicallyand









politically)roduced tructuresfracismnd sexismwithin mericansociety.Clearly,manyoftheinstitutionalractices fproduction,

marketingnd

distribution,s well s

patternsfgendered

ndracialconsumption, einforce nd reproducehegemonic tructuresfdifferencendoppression. or xample,many f he eministritiquesof ock ndroll requite egitimate. usical exts ndculturesreoftenquiterepressive. ften,uch nflectionsroduce heir wn pleasureof the emotions'which,mostcommonly,nvolveexperiences fromance nd self-pity. ere thebodyis reinscribeds the siteofself-hood.On the otherhand, suchcritiques annot ustify lobalcondemnationsf he ffectiveolitical ossibilitiesf he ockndroll

apparatus. heconcretepoliticsfpleasure' anonly e dentifiedndevaluated ontextually.urther,t the evel f he ffectiveormation,desire sat east onceptuallyndependentf deologyinthis ase,ofgender);t s at eastdifficultomaintainhat hedesires ndrhythmsof rock and rollare intrinsicallyendercoded (see the exchangebetweenCatharineA. MacKinnon nd Ellen Willis n Nelson andGrossbergorthcoming).

The third xis of the rockand rollapparatusforegroundshepost-modern ontextwithinwhich it

emerged.Whether t be

understood s theabsenceof a futureywhichwe canorganise urlives 'The futures a hoaxcreated yhighschoolcounsellorsndinsurancealesmen';Life s hard ndthenyoudie.') or ofmeaning('Even f herewere meaningo ife, probably ouldn't greewithit', s one ofmy tudentsaid), he ock ndroll pparatussmateriallystructuredythis bsenceofstructure.herock ndroll pparatusfunctions o provide trategiesorescaping,denying, elebrating,findingpleasure in - in other words, for survivingwithin - a

post-modern orld.This third xis reflexivelyositions herockand rollapparatuswithin ts post-modernontext nd constitutes ock and roll'sambiguityowards ts wn mportancendpower.Unlike ther ormsof popular culture, he 'post-modern olitics'of rockand rollunderminests laim oproduce stable ffectiveormation.ather,tparticipatesntheproductionf emporaryaffectivelliances'whichcelebrateheir wn nstabilityndsuperficiality.hile uch lliancesmayapparentlymakeclaims ototality ithinheir wnmomentf

empowerment,heyare decisivelymarkedby theirfluidityndself-deprecation'Nothingmatters,ndwhat f tdid?':John ougar),andbythe ase withwhich herock ndroll pparatuslides romnealliance ntoanother. n otherwords,therock nd rollapparatusincorporatesnd evencelebrateshe disposibility'fanyaffectivealliance withoutthereby acrificingts own claimto existence.









The existencef herock nd roll pparatuss,then, reciselyn tsproductionf tself s an affectivelliancewhich ocates hesitesof

empowermentetweenhemusic nditsfans.That

s,therock nd

rollapparatus ffectivelyrganises heeverydayifeof ts fansbydifferentiallyathectinghevarious ragmentst excorporates'longthese three axes. The result s that t locates,for ts fans,thepossibilitiesf nterventionndpleasure.t nvolveshe nvestmentfdesire nthematerial orld ccordingovectorswhich re removedfromhehegemonicffectiveormation.*t snotthat hedesires rpleasuresthemselvesre oppositional ut ratherhat he affectiveinvestmentsf therock nd roll pparatus mpowersts audiences

with trategieshich, aken opographically,efine level fpotentialoppositionnd,often,urvival.

Hypothesis . The diversityf rock ndroll

Themost ommonlybserved ivisionwithin ock ndroll anditsfans) is between thepunk- violent,sexual and emotional and the

poet- critical,ensuousand intellectual.hesecorrespond oughlywith he mages fworking-nd middle-classife.nthepopular ock

press,one findsdescriptionsnd categorisationsf the differentmusical tylesn rock nd roll e.g., pop,rhythmndblues, rt, olk,country,eavymetal, tc.).The concerns often ithmusical ines finfluence. owever, t is difficulto see howrock nd roll can becircumscribedy anymusical haracteristics.nd thefragmentationof themusichas to be complementedy an appreciationf theheterogeneityf isteningractices:tyles,ontextsnd functions.or

example, hesamemusic anbe usedbydifferentroupse.g.,new

wave);differenttyles an be usedfor imilar unctionse.g.,dance

music; rugmusic); nd differentroupswithin commontylemayyethave differentudiences e.g., Beatles,Ramones,REO Speed-wagonand dB'sall usepopconventions; eart, tyxndAC/DCareall heavymetal'bands).There s not onlyonewaytorock'.

We can, alternatively,escribethe diversitywithinand thedifferencef rock nd rollon the basisofthe considerationsfthe

power and the workof rock and roll advancedabove: first, yspecifyingheways nwhich he ockndroll pparatus ascathected

a boundaryetween hem nd Usthroughtshistory;ndsecond, yidentifyinghevectorswhich reforegroundednparticularffectivealliances. n bothcases, I shallhave to abstract rom heconcretehistoryftheproductionf ocalaffectivelliances. do notwishtoclaim,for eitherof these typologies,thatthey belong exclusively o*

By vector' mean quantityaving othmagnitudend direction.








Rocknd roll ndthe mpowermentf verydayife 241

rock nd roll, rthat hey imit tsfuture ossibilitiesnpredictableways.

The nscriptionfdifferenceI propose oconstructtwodimensionalchema: hehorizontalxisspecifieshevarious tructuresywhich ock nd roll ifferentiatestsculture rom he ther;heverticalxisdescribes hedifferentffectivestatuses hatrockand roll has assignedto or invested n its ownexistence.

Rock nd rollhasproducedhree orms fboundaries:ppositional,

alternativendindependent. noppositionaloundarynscribeshefact fdifferencexplicitly;othus andthem reaffectivelyharged.Itseffectivenessependsuponthepresence f he ther s anenemy.Thusoppositionalock ndrollpresentstselfs a directhallengerthreatothedominantulture,erhaps ven onfrontinghepower fthedominantulture ithtsownpower. tmighteexpressednthephrase we wantthe world and we wantit now'. An alternativeboundarys inscribed hentheother s only mplicitlyresent. he

enemysnegativelyharged nly

s thatgainst

which herock ndrollculture ifferentiatestself.Alternativeock nd rollmounts nimplicitttack n thedominantulture;he act f ts xistencempliesa potentialubstitutionor hehegemonicrganisationfdesire:wewant the world but on our terms'.An independent oundarysinscribed hentheother seffectivenly y ts bsence. ndependentrock nd rolldoesnotpresenttself s a challenge,itherxplicitlyrimplicitly,o thedominantulturelthoughtmay unctions such. tapparentlyxists utside f tsrelationothedominantulture;tdoes

notwant heworld. tseeks oescape, odefine spacewhich eitherimpinges ponnor s mpinged ponbythehegemony:wewant urworld'.Wecanrepresenthese hreetructuresfdifference,ntermsofUs and Them U andT), as follows: /T,U/(T),U/( ). Withoutrecognisinghesedifferenttructuresfdifference,hatever ffirma-tionsrock nd rollmayproduce re ikely obe describedndepen-dentlyf heparticularistoricalontext.Whilet spossible hatomemusicmay consistently roducethe same positive ffectscrossdifferentontexts,heeffectsfthe ffirmationsreboundtochangeas their articularelationothe dominantulture redifferentiallycathected.

What hen s thenature fthe affirmativeffectfrock ndroll?have argued gainst eeing tas therepresentationf dentities;hesubject-positions rticulatedby rockand rollare oftenmultipleandcontradictory. ather, tdefinesparticularffectivetatusesfortsown









culture. ydescribingtselfs a particulartructurationf ffect,ockand roll ocates ocial ubjectsn a nonrepresentationalpace.One can

identifyhree uch

self-cathexes:isionary,xperientialnd critical.Theseare,essentially,elf-attributions;hey escribe ifferentormsof affectivelliances,modes ofaffectivelyelatingo and survivingwithin he world.Again, it is not the content f the particularaffirmationhat s effectivealthoughdeological epresentationayplay nimportantole)but he tatus hatt ssigns othe xistence fitsowndesires.

Visionaryockndroll rojectstselfs a utopian ractice.tspowerderives romtsclaim o be a stable tructurefdesire.Theparticular

rock and roll culture lives out - in its music - the possibilityof amomentf tabilityntheface f hange ndregimentation.hetherthereal udience ucceedsnactualisingtsutopian ossibilityndtheparticularontent fthevision reonly econdary. heaffectivendpolitical owerof the musicdependsuponitsconstitutingtself ssomethingmorethan ust a mode of survival, s a vision of apotentiallyermanentffectivelliance.Experientialock ndroll smoremodest;tprojectstself ot s a necessarymodeof urvival ut

onlys a viable

possibilitynthepresentontext.tvalorisestsown

affirmationf hange nd movement. heallianceswhichtorganisesareatbest emporaryespites.tcelebrateshebehavioursnd magesof ts ownyouth ulturese.g.,driving, ancing, exuality,hythm)whichdenybothregimentationnd thepossibilityfstability.tsaffirmations only n theverypleasureofthemusic, n engulfingoneself ithinhemusical ontext,nparticipatingithinhepracticesofyouth ulture.uchan affirmationends obe neithers optimisticand pretentious s the visionary,not as pessimistic nd self-

destructives the ritical. criticalffirmationefuses venthe laimthatt anproduce emporarypaceswithin hich he udiencemightcontrol nd makesense of its life.By rejectingny possibilityfstabilitynd value - includinghat mpliedby thevalorisation fchange tself it underminests own status s a viablemode ofsurvival.t affirmsnd valorises nly tsownnegativity.ts status spleasurable ependsupon ts tatus s the nly esponse otherealityofpost-modernity.ll that an be affirmeds thepracticefcritique,thedeconstructionf llaffectivelliances,ncludinghat roduced yits own inscriptionf the differenceetweenthem and us. Theaffirmationf critical ock nd roll s a self-reflexiveffirmationfdifference,decathexisfanyaffirmation.

Thematrixf stances' hat hese wodimensionsenerateseeFig.1)describeshepossibilitiesf naffectiveoliticsfferedyrock ndroll. t snot a description fmusicalstylesnor ofa group's ntentions.









NEGATION

Oppositional Alternative Independent

JimiHendrix GratefulDead David Bowie(late sixties) (late sixties) (earlyseventies)

ElectricLightOrch.B Tom Robinson Band U2 (late seventies) DiscoD

(late seventies) (mid-seventies)

z.

Doors Chuck Berry Beatles(late sixties) (mid-fifties) (earlysixties)

Blondie

Bruce Springsteen Ramones REO Speedwagon(mid-seventies) (late seventies) (late seventies)

U

U

Clash Sex Pistols JoyDivisionTonio K (mid-seventies) (late seventies)(late seventies) Gang of Four Culture Club

(late seventies) Orange JuiceNew Order (eighties)Aztec Camera

(eighties)

Figure1

Further, o groupor style an be stablyocatedwithin category;groups anplaywith number fstances imultaneouslye.g., theClash). The affectivetance of particularmusic is, as I haveemphasised, ocallyproduced. tmay dependon a wide rangeof

determinantsncludinghe mage f hebandand differentegrees fknowledge f he yricsrockndroll ans ftenfloat'nandoutof helyrics). ans ofdifferent usics e.g. punkand heavymetal)oftenplacea greatweight n what ppear s minutemusical ifferencesooutsiders. heways nwhich ne istensomusic, s well s themusiconelistens o, s a product f lready ifferingnd oftenntagonisticaffectivelliances.Thus,whiletheemergencef folk-rocke.g., theBeatles' Rubber oul) redefined he listeninghabits of particularaudiencefractionsonehad to listen o the yricsn newways), t s

doubtfulhat ounger ids isteningothemusic n AMradio ound tmaking he same demandson them.

Two consequencesof thisapproachto rockand rollare worthnoting. irst,tpoints othe xistence f real mbiguityithinmanycritical valuations between udgementsof musicalqualityandaffectiveolitics. hishasalways een a dilemma or herock ndroll









culturetself,or hetwo reoftennconflict.hemusic ftheBeachBoys, herecent eriesof revivalse.g., ska,rockabilly,litter,opand

psychedelicock)re

potentiallyoodmusicwith

uestionablepoliticalffects. n the other and,punkwas aboutthepossibility,indeed henecessity,fpoliticallygood'rock ndrollwhosemusicalqualitywas, by any traditionaltandards,dubious. Finally, heneo-fascistendencies f somenew wave music e.g., oi) pose thequestion fthecontent-freeature fthese ffectivetances ndthepossibilityhatrock nd rollmaysucceed n inscribing powerfulaffectiveoundary yrepresenting regimentationfdesireevenmoreoppressive han hat fthehegemony.

Second,this pproach pensthepossibilityfusing reading frock nd roll s a wayofunderstandingnd interpretinghe moregeneral ocial ontextt a particular oment.What hismatrix akesobvious s that, t differentimes, ifferenttances reavailable sresourcesnd that omeof hemmaydominate rdefine he trugglesbothwithinthe music and between the youthculture nd thehegemony. hepower f his pproach, owever,must bviouslyejudged on the basis of what t allowsone to say aboutparticularexamples.nFigure , have ncludedwithinachcategoryxamplesof groupswhose musicmightbe generally ssociatedwith thatparticularffectiveunction.havefurtherpecifiedtime ramend,were tobe more recise,wouldhaveto nclude omedefinitionfparticularractionf theyouth ulture.

The tructuresfaffectivelliances

There reatleasttwoproblems, owever,with his chema.First,t

leavesunaddressed hedifferenceshichmay xist etweenmusicslocatedwithinhesameposition. orexample,while heSex PistolsandtheGangofFourmayboth e located s critical-alternative',hissays nothing bout the differences etweenthe rock and rollapparatuseswithinwhichthey re effective.econd,rock nd rollfans, s wellas many ritics,ctas ifthesame musichas the samefunctionor ts entireudience.Weforgethat here sno stable ndhomogeneousrockand rollaudienceexceptas it is constructedthroughhemarketingractices fthe dominant conomic nstitu-

tions.Our analysismust llowthat he same musiccanbe locatedwithindifferentpparatuses, nd that differentpparatusesmaycoexistwithin he ameposition fdifferenceas givennFig.1).Theparticularpoliticsof pleasure' and structuresf empowermenteffectedyparticular usicwill, herefore,ependupontherange f

apparatuses withinwhich the music exists.









Consequently,he music tself annot e assigned socialpowerapart from the differentffectivelliances withinwhich it is

implicated. ut suchapparatuses/alliancesreonlypartly escribedbytheir tructuralosition isAvis thehegemony.We havealreadyalluded to the termswith whichparticularpparatusescan beidentified,utI wantto proposea strategy hichwillallowus toschematisehepositive ifferencesetweenmajor orms.ftherockand roll apparatus s definedby the particularrrangementndinflectionsf the threeaxes (youth;the body; post-modernity),differentpparatuses an be described s foregroundingarticularones. Thatis, I proposeto locate a significantositivedifference

among ffectivelliances ccordingothe elativenvestment hich smade neach of he hree xes. t stempting,ndperhaps istoricallyaccurate,o dentifyhe hree xes with he hreeffirmativeffectivepositions youth, hebody ndpost-modernityith heutopian, heexperientialnd the riticalespectively).owever,he quationsnota necessaryone and would have the effect f occludingnewpossibilitiese.g.,a post-moderntopianism).t eems est, herefore,to treat hetwoschemas s conceptuallyndependentndconcretelyinteractive.

The mostcommoncathexiswithin he rock and rollapparatusforegroundsoth heaxis ofyouthdifference)nd that fthebody(pleasure):ChuckBerry,lvisPresley,tc.A secondpossibilitys thatone of these two becomes, to various degrees,relativelyessimportant.Whilesoulmusicforegroundsheaxis ofthebodyandpleasure, tclearly eed notdirecttsaudience o nvest tsdesire rlocate tspleasure n its youth'.On theother and,as many riticshavenoted, heres a relative ecathexis fthebody nmuchofthe

music directed o and effectiveor generalteenage'audience.would alsosuggest hatmuch f he acid-rock'f he ounterculture,and the inger-songwriterradition hich ollowedt,weredefinednpartby a continuing ecathexis f the pleasureof thebody (bydeflectingt toward n ideologicallyefined oncept f love' and'relationship').t is notsurprising,hen, hatbothglitterock ndheavymetal,whichemerged s rejectionsf thecounter-culture'saffectivelliances, ecathectheaxis ofthebody and, nfact, efinethe axis ofyouth nd differenceyreferenceo t).

Finally, heapparatuses onstructedroundpunkandpost-punkmusics pparentlyoregroundhe xisofpost-modernity.would iketodevelop his articularxample, eginning ith unk.Hebdigehasargued 1979,pp. 62-70)thatpunkemerged romheworking-classexperiencesfhistoricallyhanging acial elationsnd ofeconomicpessimism (no work,no future,no meaning) in England. Frithhas








246 LawrenceGrossberg

rejected this view of its origins: 'The pioneering punk-rockersthemselveswerea self-conscious,rtfulot with good understandingofboth rock raditionnd

populistcliche; heirmusicno morereflected

directlyback on conditions in the dole queue than it emergedspontaneouslyfromthem' (Frith1981, p. 158). He could also have

pointed to the emergence of American punk bands in the mid-seventies Television,Patti mith,Ramones, Residents, tc.)as furtherevidence for his view of the origins.Frithproposes to read punkinstead in the contextof its representation f a 'new sort of streetculture ... punk's culturalsignificancewas derived not from tsarticulationfunemployment utfromtsexploration ftheaesthetics

ofproletarian lay' (ibid. p. 267). However,Frith oes beyondthistolocate punk withinthehistory f rock and rollconventions:

Theoriginal unktextshad a shock ffect.heychallenged op and rockconventionsf omance,eauty,nd ease. Punks ocusedheiryricsn socialandpoliticalubjects,mocked onventionalockn' roll eclarationsfyoungvirilityndpower,disruptedheirwn flow fwordswith heirmages ndsounds. t oonbecame pparenthough,s the hockwore ff,hat unkwasconstrictedy tsrealistlaims, y tsuse ofmelodictructuresnd a rhythmicbasethatwere aken o tell-it-like-it-wasustbecausehey ollowed ockn' roll

rules the4:4beat, houted ocals,rough uitar/bass/drumsineup.(Ibid.p. 160)

GreilMarcus has similarly rgued thatthe Sex Pistols used rock androllas a weapon against tself' Marcus 1980A,p. 452; see also Marcus1980B,1981A).Punk recathected heboundarybetweenrock and rolland theoutsideworldprecisely yrejecting, otmerelywhat rock ndrollhad becomeeconomically nd aesthetically,utaffectivelys well.Itrejected heaffectiveossibilitieswhichhaddefined nd constrained

rock and roll, structureswhich I have described as 'utopian' and'experiential'. t affirmednly tsown negativity,onstituting setof'critical' apparatuses while leaving open the possibilities of itsstructural elationto thehegemony.It did this n part, n much thesame way as disco operated,by an explosionof its own practiceof

'excorporation'; nything ould be incorporatedntopunk (or disco)culture.But, unlike disco, punk made the excorporative racticeofrock nd rolltheonlypossibleresponseto the context feverydayife.As Hebdige has argued,punk deconstructed' ll signs,all value and

significance. unk acted out itsnegativedeconstructionf the worldand of rock nd roll tself.Byforegroundingheartificialityfalltaste,the riskofall affectivenvestments,tattempted o decathect nythingbelow itsown surfaces,ncluding ock nd roll tself. here s a sensein

which,after unk,one can no longerreasonablybelievein the magicthat can set you free'.









Regardlessf tsoriginintherealityfworking-classxperiencerthe mage fproletarianlay), hepunk pparatuswas constitutedy

itsforegroundingfthe xisofpost-modernity:tmaderock nd rollinto tsownpost-modernractice.urther,unk unlike isco)oftendecathectedheaxisofthebody s the iteofpleasure, ejectingotonly ove butsexuality themusical rescendoorgasm?)sreplacedby pulse,drones nd continuous oise. On theother and, hepunkapparatus ften ontinued o invest tspower n theaxis ofyouthand made thebody tselfnto he itefor he nscriptionfdifference(throughlothing,tyle, tc.).Butthecathexis fdifferenceorcedtback nto he ontext f nimplicitaithnyouthndconsequently,n

rock nd roll tself.As Marcushas observed,Perhaps heonly rueironynthewhole torywasthat,nthe nd, t llcamedownto rockandroll nothingess,butnothingmore' Marcus1980A, . 455).

Butpunkwaspart f largeretofpossibilitiesmergingnthe ockandroll ulture,ndit often unctioned ithinhem.* hus, tcouldhave ts mpactn theUnited tates espite hefacthattwasneitherparticularlyisiblenorpopular.

Punk called ntoquestion he affectiveowerofrock nd roll; t

attemptedo

ncorporatetsown

possibilityf

ncorporation,ndits

only strategy orsurvivalwas constantlyo proliferatets ownexcorporativeractice.t tried o celebrate ock nd rollevenas itacknowledgedts onceit. heeffectf hepunk pparatuswithinherock nd rollculture as enableda number fdifferentlliances oemerge. irst,pparatusesonstructedround othoi'and hardcore'continue heshock echniques'fpunk nd oftenecathecthe xesofyouthand thebody,whileapparently ecathectinghat of post-modernity.econd,what will all new wave'apparentlyccepts he

inevitabilityf incorporationnd attemptso reclaim heaffectivepower f ock nd roll yrevivinglder ock ndroll pparatusese.g.,rockabilly,cid,garage-bands,opandsoul).Third,post-punk'sespunk'stechnique fdeconstructingock ndroll norder oexcavateand extend he imits frock nd roll. tsdeconstructions alwaysfollowedby at least a partialreconstructionf rock and rollconventions. ndfinally,new music'refuseshe imitationsfrockconventionsntirelyndseeks ntentionallyoalienatetself,otonlyfromhose utside f herock nd roll ulture,utfromhat ulture s

well.t* There was a particularmomentwhenthisforegroundingfthepost-modern tructure

of youth's experience was widely visible, in the mid-seventies. Consider theenormouspopularity fPinkFloyd's TheWall, s well as songssuchas 'Love Stinks',by theJ.Geils Band.

t It would perhaps be helpful if I gave at least musical examples of these fourapparatuses: hardcore (Dead Kennedys, Circle Jerks,Black Flag), oi (Exploited,









A numberof relations exist between these differentpparatuses.Boththecontinuations fpunkand new wave often ecathect he axis

ofyouth.New wave and post-punk ften ecathect hebodyas the siteofpleasure (albeitaccordingtoverydifferentnflections f that xis),and bothpost-punk nd new musicforeground,bove all, theaxis of

post-modernity. n theotherhand, new wave always balances thisinvestment by recathectingat least one of the others, whilehardcore/oi appears to invest itself in decathectingthe axis of

post-modernity.Thatpost-modernityas been describedbyJohn iccarella:A vision

underliestheeleganceand outrageousness theartistsrehorrifiedy

the seductionofthe flesh urned oimageand identity etermined yfetish ven as they elebrate t' Picarella1980,p. 70).Whatunitesnewwave and post-punk s thatboth continue to go back to theirowntraditions as rock and roll. But such traditionsbecome hollow

fragmentswhose repetition eproducesthemas both the same anddifferent. uch apparatuses are constructedupon the post-modernrealisationthat context s determining,nd therefore,hatreproduc-tion in a new contextmustproduce new effects.n new wave, theresulthas been a

proliferationfrevivals,

genrexercises nd

attemptsto revitalise hestylisticonventions frock and roll.But t s markedby a reflexivitywhich acknowledges its own superficiality ndcommodification.As Tom Carson has suggested,

When nyhybridanbecome n instantorm,llcategoriesook uspicious;instead fpanickingecause hemusic'sntransition,usiciansre akinghefact f ransitionstheirtartingointndbuildingnedisposablemonumentto mbivalencefternother. fcourse,t sn'tustmusic his shappeningo:it'speople's ives.Forall themilitantnti-emotionalismfthesmart OR

[dance-orientedock, .g., B-52's]fodder ow in

vogue,at itsheart s a

bewildermenthat's all the more obvious because even the occasionalauthentic motion as tobe hedged nto pose. It's bad enough o ivebysurfaces,ut t'sworsewhenyoufind utthedamned hingsreevery it sslippery,mbiguous nd intractables depths.Everythingmanners, rt,identityisupfor rabs; oudon'thave ocommitourselfo ny f t, nd fyoudo,youstillwonder.

(Carson1980, . 59)

While this statements also trueofpost-punk and perhapsevennew

music), these latter wo apparatusesattempt oexplode rock and rollhistoryby deconstructing ts limits and conventions. Post-punkexplicitly ecodes and disrupts he surface f rockand rollbutitalso

CockneyRejects);new wave (Human League, Echo and theBunnymen, trayCats,Elvis Costello,JoeJackson);post-punk Gang ofFour,TalkingHeads, JoyDivision,Public Image Ltd.); new music GlennBranca,BrianEno, LaurieAnderson,LoungeLizards).









recodes t,unlikenewmusic.Theresult s a self-consciouseripher-alisation f hemusic. uchpost-modern usic enies nythingpartfrom heconcrete

ealityfeveryday

ife nd its ownsurfaces,

ndrecogniseshat venpleasuresa strugglend anacquired ossibility.Itsemphasis n thematerialityfsurfaces,nfragmentationnd onreflexivityas produceda musicwhichconstantly roliferatestsinvestments:formally inimalist usicwhoseapparent ontentsan almost andom ollectionfdiscrete acts. atherhan eing rypticand intellectual,t is explicitlyurreal nd materialist. ather hancommunicatingn emotionalresponse to outer phenomena, tdescribesthe phenomenaand leaves the interpretationnsaid,

because nterpretationtself annot e trusted. heresult s a musicthat soddlydetached ndyet uriouslynergeticndaffective. hilepost-punkndnewmusic eny rdistrustmotion,heir ery ttempttoproduce n apparatuswhich oesnotdependuponsuchaffectivecodeshas powerfulffectiveonsequencese.g., TalkingHeads,JoyDivision, Glenn Branca, etc.). There are, however,significantdifferencesetween hese wopost-modern usics ndtheirppar-atuses:while ost-punks often haracterisedy particularnflectionof the axis of

post-modernityhich

foregroundsts own sense of

despair, utility,nger ndparanoiantheface freality,ewmusicapparentlyses ts athexisf hepostmodernxis oobliterateealityin favourof its own surfaces. econd,new music s content odeconstructock ndroll, solatingndnegatingtsvarious onven-tions and clichesand producing tself s confrontational,fteninaccessibleespeciallyothe ocknd roll udience),ndalienating.tincludestwomajorstrategies:1) to appropriate on-rock nd rollconventionse.g., avant-gardelassical nd azz practices,lectronic

and performance usic); nd (2) toproduce ntentionallyissonantand arhythmicounds e.g., DNA, PereUbu). On the otherhand,post-punkeconstructstsplacewithin ock ndrollbyreintegratingvarious onventionalodes (andrecathectingxesofyouth nd thebody),creating musicwhich s alienated, utmore onsonant ndaccessible ndless confrontationale.g.,Talking eads,Joy ivision,GangofFour,XTC).Wemightummarisehisbysaying hat unkresponds opost-modernityith nger, ost-punk ith aranoia nd,alongwithnewwave,with celebrationfsuperficiality,hilenew

music retreatsntopost-modernity.e can, further,ocatethesevarious pparatuseswithinhedifferentossibilitiesfrelatingo thehegemonywithin 'critical'tance.Althought s an oversimplifica-tion,we might ay thatoi and hardcore unkmove between noppositionaland an independentposition;new wave functions s anindependent (and sometimes an alternative:e.g. Elvis Costello)









apparatus; ost-punkxistsargelys an alternativeossibility;ndnew musicpositionstself s a radicallyndependentpparatus.

Ofcourse,

hesedescriptions

reat hesedifferentusical ppar-atuses as iftheywere distinct hen, n actualpractice, heyhave

interacted ith ach otherna varietyfwaystoproduce range fconcreteffectivelliances. urther,want oemphasisehat lthoughtheres a relationetween hemusics ommonlyeferredobythesetermsndthe pparatuseshavedescribed,he elationsbyno meansnecessary. he particularnflectionsfa musical extwilldependpreciselyn therange fapparatuseswithinwhich t s located.

I willoffern additional,lbeit riefer,xample fthepossibilities

for nalysismade available y mydescriptionsf thedimensions fdiversity ithin ock nd roll: he mportancefBruce pringsteennAmericanrock and roll culture.My arguments, simply, hatSpringsteen'smusichas evolved n sucha wayas to makethe tworegistersf rock ndroll'sdiversityitsnegative ifferencerom hehegemony nd its positivecathexisof specific xes withintheapparatus) arallel.Andfor particularudience, hishas made hismusic a powerfulffectiveentre f their ock nd rollapparatus.

Springsteenas had, since theearly eventies,

steadily rowingaudience of fanatical ans.Apparently,hat udience was largelymiddle-class outhncollege fterhecounterculture.n hisearliestrecordsGreetingsrom sburyark1973) nd TheWild, hennocent,and he Streethuffle1974)), pringsteenot nlyocates ouths thedominant ite for he nvestmentfpleasure, utdetails n almostutopianexistence rounda particularmageofyouth ulture. hemusicwas, then,argelyoth topianndoppositional.t sonlynthemid-seventiesowever, ith he elease fBorn oRun ndDarknessn

theEdgeofTown, hat hepowerof his position ecomesexplicitlyvisible.And concomitantly,think, hemusic s locatedwithindifferentpparatus,perhapsone morewidely ccessible r morepowerfullyresent. ather hanyouthnddifference,t s ncreasing-lythe xisof hebody, exualitynd movementhats nvestedn.Heno longerpaintspictures futopian ultures utrather, alorisessense of movementnd energy mbodiednotonly n his images(especially o do withdriving) ut also in thesound, which, ftencarried ythesaxophone, rives ne forwards if n flight. hus,

Springsteen'sathexisf he xisof he odys matchedy move ntoan experiential and stilloppositional- position.

The most nteresting omentn Springsteen'sareer,however,camewiththereleaseofTheRiver.With his lbum,his audienceexpandedrapidly; e achieved hestatus f a superstar: is albumtopped he harts, e hadhisfirstit ingle,tc.Therewas,atthe ame









time, ome ntagonismetweenhe ractionsfhis udience.Both hesuddenpopularitynd therelations etweenhis audiencescanbeunderstoodf one sees

that,t that

moment,ismusic

functionedwithin wo radically ifferentpparatuses nd producedradicallydifferentffectivelliances. he album an beheard,nfact,nmanyways,as transitional. anycritics ave observed hat healbum squite schizophrenic. n the one hand, t was incorporatedntoanexperientialnd independentpparatus.Themusicwas taken, ri-marily ynew andyounger ans, s anaffirmationffun ndexcess,as a form fescape.Themusic tself rovided spacewithinwhichthey reapparentlyntemporaryontrol ftheirives.On theother

hand,for thers, healbum ontinuedobe located s oppositional,but it appearedincreasinglyessimisticnd critical.t seemedtocelebrate nly ts ownrecognitionf ourcommon opelessness.

With herelease fNebraska,pringsteenasnotonly einforcedispositionwithin critical-oppositionalpparatus, ehas increasinglyforegroundedhe xisofpost-modernitys the nlymeans f urvival.Thealbumwas self-producedthome,with omparativelyrimitivetechnology.t s a solo,acoustic, lmostfolk' lbum, self-consciousattempt o remove himselffrom

preciselyhose rock and roll

conventionswhich gained him his 'superstardom'.n fact,theproductionuality nd thesoundembody kindofretreatnto nalmost onfessional,ovelisticexturemuch ikehisearlierlbums).Nebraskaeems,above all, to problematiseheRiver's lacewithinSpringsteen'sareer nd its ambiguity.magesof love and hope,which appeared in The River n the contradictoryontexts ffun/innocence nd sadness/anger, ave disappeared.Extremesdominate he iconography:magesof criminalsnd cops, acts of

despair ndactsofrigid ocialnorms ffers noalternative,owayout and no end to the ourney.A rather ncomfortableeligiousimageryvokesnotsalvation, utthe mpossibilityfhope,ofeverwashing hebloodfromurhands.Whethertbethehero fAtlanticCity', hruggingff he ikelihoodhat ehaschosenhisowndeath yintoning,maybe verythinghatdies someday omesback',or thenarratorfthe losing ong, nvokingcenarios hat oint o theonlyreality,Atthe ndof very ard arned ay,peoplefindomereasontobelieve',we are leftwith he nescapable ealityf Nebraska': I

guessthere'susta meanness nthisworld.'No wayoutexcept helonely ry,Hey somebody utthere,isten omy astprayer/Hiosilver-o eliverme fromnowhere.'And yet,two songslater, heprayersreaddressed; o ongermploringnanonymousther,t s to'Mr.Deejay'andto rockn' roll' hatNebraskaurns. husthe lbumtriestoreconcile hecontradictory omentsofTheRiver yalienating









itself from the latter's valorisation of youth and the body and

foregroundingnstead its own 'post-modern'perception.

Springsteenhas,as a result, hartednhis music theevolution fthe

rockand rollapparatus for t least a partofthe largerrock and rollaudience. He has remainedat thecentreoftheapparatus,and at thecentre of rockand rollitselfforhis audience, onlyby mapping theaffective istory fthat audience.

Hypothesis . Thehistoryf rock nd roll:cooptationDiscussions of cooptation'usuallyfocus on thetechniquesbywhich

rockand roll,youthculture nd themoregeneralcontext fpost-warexperiencehave been exploited and transformed y the economic

system nd the various ideological stateapparatuses', especiallythemass media. Bytheend ofthefifties,heyouthmarketwas recognisedas an enormous source of consumer expenditure,one considered

easily manipulatable.Further, he sheer numbers of thebaby boom

generationmade them potential conomicand political hreatwhichhad to be incorporatedinto the dominant culture. Clearly, this

exploitation and incorporationhave often been quite successfulthrough a wide varietyof strategiesthat have remained largelyunexamined.According omosthistories frock nd roll, hisprocesshas been goingon since the atefifties,nd at each stage,rock nd rollloses its power and becomes a commoditywhichcan be produced,marketed nd consumed.But t s also apparently rue hat achtime thas happened, rockand rollbreaks out of thatcoopted stance andreaffirmsts affective ower, creatingnew sounds and new politicalstances.The result s that hehistory frock nd roll s read as a cycleof

cooptationand renaissance n whichrockand rollconstantly rotestsagainst its own cooptation.

This readingis reinforced y the view that the cooptationofnewsounds, styles nd stancesseems to takeplace atan increasingly apidrate. We seem today to be caught in a situation n which the vast

majorityof the rock and roll audience is incapable of making thedistinction etween coopted and non-cooptedanymore:

Sittingroundwith riendsnenight,rememberayinghat nstead fbeing

the riumphf ur ives, ock nd rollmighte thegreatragedy.thadgivenus a senseofpossibilityo rich ndradical hatnothingould everfeel sintense and thentheworldwentbackto business s usual,leavingusstranded .. As mass-media olk ulture, ockand rollwas alwaysananomaly. ince hedirectionfmassculturestowardmore ontrolndlessspontaneity,herecordndustryasworked easelesslyo suborn ock ackinto he tatus uo of ntertainment,nd succeeded.Nearly very andthat








Rock ndroll ndthe mpowermentf verydayife 253

still hinks ock nd rollwas meant ochangeyour ife ow abors nder hecontradictionf reating opular ulturehat sn'tpopular nymore. ettheycan'tgiveup thedream fmakings biga differences ElvisortheBeatles,because theirmusicdoesn't make sense any otherway. If such grandambitionsrenowmeaninglesso themassaudience, he ttemptstragicorthem;nso far s we givecredence otheirmbitions,t'stragic or s.

(Carson1981,p. 49)

Evenworse,one must face theargument hat hisprocess s inevitablesince cooptation s simultaneous withcommercial uccess.

This ratherpessimistic reading of the historyof rock and rollassumes that t s a form f mass art.Othersarguethatrock nd roll s

eitherfolk rtortheproductof ndividualcreativity,utthesedo notescape thecycleofcooptation nd theultimately essimistic eadingofrockand roll'shistory. n orderto challengesuch views, we need torecognisethatthereare twomeaningsof rockand rollas product orcommodity):music and records.Although good rockand roll s oftenproduced locally,even out ofa local communitywitha set of sharedexperiences,and is as well often heproductof ndividualtalent,*tsaudience is always more inclusive: some subset ofyouthwho havegrown up in an increasinglyurbanised, electronic-technologicalsociety and the musicuses thesounds, rhythmsnd textures f thatcommon environment.The notionofcommunityand hence of folkart') is problematicwhen applied to youthculture,forthe so-calledcommunity frockand rollcannotbe definedgeographically.But thenotion ofcommunitys a spatialone: everyday ace-to-facenteractionhas been assumed to be the dominant determinantof sharedexperience and the criterion orcommunity.But iftemporality asreplaced spatiality n definingthe rock and roll audience, then themusic

requires widespreaddissemination to be shared

among themembersof its appropriateaudience. The musical productmust bereproducedas an object e.g., a record)preciselyf t sto be availabletothose whom itaddresses, tothoseexistingwithin tsboundaries.Themusic must voluntarilyenter into various systems of economicpractices, nd hence accept its existenceas apparentlymass art.

This suggests a verydifferentunderstandingof cooptationand adifferenteadingofthehistory frock nd roll.Theproblemwithboththe 'folk' and the 'mass' artviews of cooptation and this is true of

Frith'sapproach as well) is thattheydefine it in purelyeconomicterms, s if twere simply heresultofstrategiesmposed on rock ndrollfromwithout.Theyassume thatrock nd roll s cooptedwhen thedemands of theeconomicsystemsofproduction nd distribution reallowed todefinetheproductionof themusic as well as of theobject.* Fora critique fboththe folk ulture' nd 'art'views of rock nd roll, ee Frith 981.









Thus, he ttempts tomake ock nd roll nto commodity,omake tsaleable o an audiencewithoutny cknowledgementfdifferenceswithin he

youthulture.While uchviews re

partiallyorrect,heyignore number f haracteristicsfcooptation'nrock ndroll. irst,theygnore he ensionwithinock ndroll formassdistributions arealpart f tsfunctioning.he ppropriateudience ornyparticularmusic cannot lwaysbe defined head of time consider he newlistening lliancemade up of highschoolkids,housewives ndassorted dult-contemporaryypes':Considine 981,p. 51). Second,they gnore he fact hatthequestionofcooptations raised andanswered t specificmomentswithinherock ndroll ulture.

Infact,henotion f ooptationllowsus to eeclearlyhe xistenceofrock ndroll t the ntersectionfyouthulturendthehegemony.Ratherhan ssuming homogeneityf ither xternaltrategiesrofinternalormations,study f ooptation ouldhave obeginwith nanalysis ftheconcrete ormsthas taken tvariouspoints n thehistoryfrock nd roll.*

Thus cooptationno longerappears onlyas an external ctionperpetratedponrock ndroll a hegemonictrategyhich s atbestreflectedn the udgementsf rock nd rollfans.To see it n these

termss to setrock ndroll gainst he apitalist odeofproduction,distributionndconsumption.utnfact,s Frithrgues, ockndrollisalways form f apitalistommodity.o describe ertainock ndroll s coopted s toacknowledgendcontributeo tsnormalisation.Cooptationsa decathexis f heboundary, de-encapsulationf hemusic nd its ulturend anincorporationf ts ffectivelliance ntothe hegemonicorganisationsf desire. Cooptation ndicates naffectivee-alliance f the music rather han an alteration f the

aestheticr deologicalonstitutionf he ext. ooptations the esultof a recontextualizationf affect, restructuringf the affectivealliances enetratingndsurroundinghemusic.Whatmay erve nonecontextsa powerfulathexisfdifferenceay, nder varietyfcircumstances,ose or be deprived fthat ffectiveunction.

Cooptations one form frock nd roll'sproductionf tsownhistory. ock ndroll onstantly arks ifferencesithintselfust sitmarkshedifferencef ts udience.Coopted ock nd roll s musicwhichnolonger otentlynscribestsdifferencend thedifferencef

* Forexample,as soon as therewas an age splitwithin he rock nd roll udience, theolder fans oftendescribed teenage rock' as coopted, despite the fact hattheyhad

grown up on similar ffectivelliances. In theseventies,bothheavymetaland discowererejectedby significantortions ftherock nd roll udienceas 'coopted',despitethe fact hatmanyof thosewho dismissed suchmusiceither istened tocomparablemusic at an earlierpoint n their ives,orwerenow listening o what was essentiallythe same music.








Rockndroll ndthe mpowermentf verydayife 255

itsfans.Andthis smeasured rom ithin he ulture frock ndroll.Cooptations themodebywhich ock ndrollproducestselfnew,

rejectingmoments f itspastand presentn order o all themorepotentlynscribe ts own boundary. Cooptation' s a particularaffectivehargemade from ne stancewithin ock nd rolluponothers; t producesnew affectivellianceswithin he corpusandcultures frock nd roll.This entails verydifferenteading f thehistoryfrock nd roll.Rather han cycle f uthenticndcooptedmusic, ock nd roll xists s a fracturednity ithin hich ifferencesof authenticitynd cooptation re defined n the constructionfaffectivelliancesand networks f affiliation.hese alliancesare

always multiple nd contradictory.hus, the 'cooptedness'of aparticularorm frock nd roll s anhistoricallynstableudgement;tmay hangenresponse odevelopments ithinhe hangingmusicalandpolitical ossibilitiesfrock ndroll. tcertainlyhanges s onemovesbetweenparticularractionsf therock ndroll udience.

Conclusion. Rock andRoll is Dead and WeDon't Care'(The Rubinoos)

TheNewYork imes agazine,fewyears go, published cover toryclaiminghat ock nd roll sallthat emains f hegenerationapandisslowly osingts ppealtoAmerica's outhZion1981). raRobbins,editor fTrouserress,has mourned he deathof rock ritic esterBangs: Therewon'tbe anymore ikeyou,butthenmaybeyour radiedbefore oudid' Robbins 982, . 46).Bangs,perhapsmore hananyotherritic,elebratedhe ffectiveoliticsf ock ndroll, ndhisdeathoccurredta moment hen hevery ossibilityfrock nd roll

hasbeencalled nto uestion.nthe ame ssue ofTrouserress,MickFarrenwrote that Rock music faces its biggestthreat .. We are

witnessinghe rrivalf generation honeitheresire, orrequirerockmusic.The obvious uestionswhat sgoing ohappen orock?'(Farren 982, . 52).Therhetoricf hepossible eath frock ndrollhas become increasinglyommon,entering he pages of suchprestigiousockournals s NewYork ockernd NewMusical xpress;thas become commonopic f onversationmong ock ndroll ansas well.

This is not the first ime hat uchrhetoricas appeared. twascommonn the arly ixties,nly obeput sidewith he rrivalf heBeatles, nd nthemid-seventies,gain obeput sidewith he rrivalofpunk.Yet heressomethingnique bout hepresentmomentndthechallengetposestothe ffectiveowerofrock ndroll. t s notmerelyan economic crisis that reflects he effects f a recession on









leisure xpenditures.he potential ejectionf rock nd rollarisessimultaneouslyrom wo nterpenetratingectors:he rrivalf new

generationfyouth,raditionally

source f evitalisationor ockndroll, nd thedilemmaswhich unkbroughto the urfaceftherockand roll ulture.

I haveargued hat he ffectiveoliticsf ockndroll ependuponitsparticularemporalontext. ock nd roll escribeshowa lifeivedin continualmotionmightdeally oundto someonehalf n ovewithand halfoppressedbythis tateof affairs'Hunter 981,p. 71). Itappears hat he ontext ithin hich ock nd rollworks or henewgenerationsfyouthschanging:hepromise f boomingconomy

has been replacedby the threatof continuousrecession;thedominance fthebabyboom's mages fyouthndchangehasbeenreplacedby images of the baby boom's attempt o deal withresponsibilitynd middle ge'; rock ndroll s a symbol frebellionhas beenreplacedwithts tatus snostalgia. outh oday onfrontsgenerationfparentswhowere hemselves eaned n rock ndroll;tis no onger stigma, point f ntagonism.Nice'kids anmake ockandroll nd their arentswillcometo see them, vensupport heirefforts.urther,hecentralityf music ntheaffectiveife fyouthseems to be givingway to new media and new sounds: video-computerechnologies. hile heyontinueo istenorock ndroll,thasrecedednto hebackgroundftheirmotionalives ndleisure.

There retwo ccountshat anbegiven f his evelopment.irst,rockand roll s no longer ble to constitute powerful ffectiveboundaryetweentsfans nd thosewhoremainutside f ts ulture.While t s still igorouslyttackedn somequarters,thasbecome naccepted nd even appreciated eature fthe modernworld. t is

interestingo note the vehemencewith whichvideo-games, orexample, rebeingattacked nd the rhetoricalimilaritiesetweenthese attacks nd those whichgreeted ockand roll. The secondaccount sthat outh o onger esires stronglyathectedoundary,being atisfiednsteadwith return oa more emporarynd fluidexperiencef hegenerationap. Perhaps istoryastaughthem hatonecannotive ncelebrationfpost-modernity;hey eek nstead ocelebratemoments fpossible tability.urvival or hisnewyouthseems o demand daptationo andescapefrom hehegemonyather

thana responseto the historical ontextwithinwhichtheyfindthemselves.The question,however,mustremain nanswered or t raises a

muchmore roblematicssue: he tatus fyouthnpost-modernailylife.That s,theveryhistoricalmergence nd transformationfyouthis part of a larger apparatus ofpower which takes the body of the








Rock ndroll nd the mpowermentfeverydayife 257

populationas itsobjectofcontrol.While t s true none sense that he

categoryof youth' emergesafter hewar, it is equally true that rockand roll exists at a

particular uspbetween the rise of

youthand its

problematisation/disappearancesee Hebdige 1982).There is also a vectorofthecontemporaryrisiswhich s internal o

rockand roll,a vectorwhichcan be tracedback to theemergenceof

punkand which have discussed above. Rock and roll n theeighties snot merelyfragmented; t is constitutedby threevectorsfightingagainsteach other.First, ommercialMOR) musicmerely eproducesthe surface tructures fexisting tylesdespitethe fact hattheyhavelost theiraffective ower. Second, new wave rock seeks to reaffirm

pleasure as resistancebut cannotescape its own desirefor ommercialand popular success, and thus, ts own complicitywith thedominantculture.Third,post-punk nd new music seekto articulate pleasureand cathect boundarythatno longercoincides withthe rock nd rollculture.While MOR seeks stability ehind its surface nd new waveseeks the stability f rockand roll,post-punk nd new musicappearincreasingly o reject nythingnot consistentwith theirpost-modernpractice.These threedirectionsnrock nd rollhavecreated situationin which the affective lliances surroundingeach, and thus theiraudiences, have little n common. There is no centrearound whichtheycan exist as fringes r at whichtheycan intersect.They are on

opposing trajectories,movingat increasingvelocities,despite com-mercial ttempts t ncorporationnd the fact hat ome musicremainsshared within all three contexts.

The result of these developmentsbothwithin and outside ofthemusicis that, pparently, ockand roll no longergenerally erves theaffective unctions have described. For theyounger generations, s

well as formanyofthebabyboomers, thasbecomebackgroundmusicwhich, even as leisure, can provide no challenge to the dominant

organisationsof desire. For those who seek to reaffirmts affective

power, the boundary has been relocated. The result is that newalliances are beingformed nd the cultural nd politicalramificationsofthis moment n thehistory f rockand rollmaybe as powerful nd

interestings those whichemergedwiththe birth' frock and roll nthe fifties.Whether t s the death' ofrock nd rollremainstobe seen.

ReferencesBerger, . 980.Inoppositionohistory,ndefiancef ime', illage oice,-14

October, p. 89-90Carson,T. 1980. Marthand theMuffinsetdisengaged', illage oice,3-19

August, . 591981. The DavidJohansentory', illage oice, -15July, . 49








258 Lawrence rossberg

Considine,J.D. 1981. REO + MOR = heavymetalpop', VillageVoice, -15

July, . 57Farren,M. 1982. Surfacenoise', Trouser ress,August, p. 52

Frith,. 1981. ound ffects:outh,eisurend he oliticsfRockn' Roll NewYork)

Grossberg,L. 1982. 'Experience, significationnd reality: heboundaries ofcultural emiotics', Semiotica, 1, pp. 73-106

1983A. The politicsofyouthculture: ome observations n rock nd roll nAmericanculture',SocialText,8, Winter1983/4, p. 104-26

1983B. If rockand rollcommunicates,whyis it s noisy?Pleasure and the

popular', paper delivered to the international onference of IASPM,Reggio Emilia, taly,September

Forthcoming,Teachingthepopular', in Criticism,heoryndInterpretationin theClassroom,d. C. Nelson (Urbana)

Hebdige, D. 1979. Subculture:heMeaning fStyle London)1982. 'Posing . . . threats,striking . . poses: youth, surveillance and

display', SubStance, 7/38,pp. 68-88

Hunter,J.1981. Thinkto thebeat', VillageVoice, 1-7 OctoberMarcus,G. 1969. Whoputthebompin thebomp-de-bomp e-bomp?', nRock

andRoll WillStand,ed. G. Marcus (Boston),pp. 6-271980A.Anarchyn theUK', n TheRollingtonellustratedistoryfRocknd

Roll,ed. J.Miller,2nd edn. (New York),pp. 451-63

1980B. Wake-up', Rolling tone,4June,pp.

40-441981A. The shock of theold', NewWest,March,p. 113

1981B. Etched in tone', NewWest, eptember,p. 124Nelson, C. 1978. 'The psychologyof criticism, r what can be said?', in

Psychoanalysisnd he uestionf he ext,d. G. H. HartmenBaltimore),pp. 45-61

Nelson,C. andGrossberg, . (eds). Forthcoming.Marxism ndthenterpretationofCultureUrbana)

Piccarella,J. 1980. 'Fashion's futurefusion conventions',VillageVoice,14

January, . 70

1982. Flipper's triumph fthetherapeutic',VillageVoice,15June,p. 83Robbins, I. 1982. Lip service',Trouser ress,August, p. 46

Schjeldjahl,P. 1981. Appraisingpassions', VillageVoice, -13January, . 67Williams,R. 1981. CultureLondon)Zion, S. 1981. Outlastingrock',New YorkTimesMagazine,21 June,p. 16

Documents

Another Boring Day in Paradise- Rock and Roll and the Empowerment of Everyday Life Author(s)- Lawrence Grossberg