Destroying the System

Prelude

This exploration has been challenging at times. Not being from the punk community myself, it is important to keep in mind that this is merely an outsider’s attempt to understand how the punk community’s gears work. If I have learnt anything from this investigation it is this: if you disagree with me that is more than OK.

Intro

Zines are used as tools for obtaining knowledge in the punk community. This network of ‘punk knowledge’ is dependent on practices of learning and teaching and communication, which is promoted in the zine’s format. The zines produce a space where diverse people can share diverse ideologies. This informal way of learning, which deviates from the formal education seen in today’s society, requires dedication from the people within the punk community. The authors, editors, and contributors to HeartattaCk mediate, contribute to, and explore their thoughts and ideas in a way that records punk knowledge and invites readers to develop their own minds and understanding of a whole host of issues, some of which are related to the subculture and some of which matter much more widely. I am interested, then, to examine issue #11 of HeartattaCk as a particular instance of instruction, recognizing that instruction in this case is a dynamic process involved in creating debate and thinking for oneself in an informed manner.

Verse: Safe Space

The way in which punks produce punk knowledge is immensely reliant on the creation of a safe space. In their article, “Safe Space: The Riot Grrrl Collection,” Keenan and Darms argue that a safe space is a crucial part of the punk community and their rhetoric of equality. However, it must be mentioned that the safe space that zines create is a space for dialogue and debate. It is not a space that is safe because it veers away from offensive matters. Instead, these matters are allowed to be openly discussed as seen in HeartattaCk #11. This issue encourages open communication where diverse people are able to express different opinions and stories without condemnation.

This simultaneously promotes an open-minded exploration of opinions put forth by peers within the community, allowing for the production of punk knowledge through discourse in a safe space. This space is where people of a community can produce and form their culture; it is established, transformed, and managed by the people within the culture. It is by the people and for the people.

HeartattaCk #11 dives straight into an instance of community conflict by addressing allegations of rape brought forward by Dana towards Christopher B., a member of the band Product. Kent, who is a part of the HeartattaCk crew, justifies the publication of the topic by stating: “And like everyone, I’m just trying to make sense out of the world” (8). This is exactly what the punk safe space attempts to do—make sense out of the world by gathering knowledge about it. Rather than censoring the letters sent in that directly oppose his opinion on Dana and Chris’ situation, Kent publishes them which allows the reader to become more informed. Kent acknowledges the importance of maintaining this safe space and states: “I am trying to take all of these views into consideration without just falling back on that defensive nature” (17).

Kent recognizes that he does not have all the answers, but by allowing for opposing views to be published and considered the readers are able to become an informed and engaged community. Additionally, this space allows for people to feel comfortable and safe in telling their stories. In issue #11, Dana feels that she can share her emotions and story of what happened to her with the rest of her community. The people who write the letters published in this issue see Dana’s ability to share her story as a success of the safe space:

“I think that it is both powerful and important that people feel really safe “coming out” about abuse that they have survived” (14).

“More women need to feel that it is safe and OK to tell their stories” (15).

“We clearly have a long way to go in building this safe place, but with the courage of the wymyn who have spoken out already, we have already laid down a brave foundation” (15).

Pre-Chorus: Space of Equality

HeartattaCk allows for this space to perpetuate a narrative of gender equality. In issue #11 the letters published in the fanzine are a combination of female and male writers, which is remarkably appropriate since the topic up for discussion is concerned with a male and female who are both stating their opinions. However, this appropriate equality has been a struggle in the past—the diversity in letters published allows for diverse opinions. There are women and men who whole-heartedly stand behind Dana, women and men who question her authenticity, women and men who condemn Chris, and women and men who support him.

“This treatment of women as liars makes the battle through survival twice as hard.” – Dominique D.

“Dana may very well be an insecure person, just like I was.” – Rachael E.

“Fuck Chris. I believe Dana.” – Benjamin L.

“There is a good chance that her only motives were to try and make people aware, thus keeping anything further from happening. If this is the case, though, why would she want his band to be boycotted” – Chris S.

Publishing a near-equal combination of men and women’s opinions in this zine reinforces the punk anti-sexist rhetoric and contributes to an open, non-discriminatory communication. This non-discriminatory communication leads to more diversity and more knowledge, which, I will argue later on, leads to increased freedom through choice. It is not only in issue #11 of HeartattaCk that this anti-sexist rhetoric is fortified. HeartattaCk would go on to dedicate entire issues to women in punk – for example, issues #22 and #23 – allowing a space for women to voice their opinions that are not necessarily accepted or acknowledged in society. This acknowledgement allows women in the punk community to talk about their shared oppression and allows some insight for men who listen. Unlike Riot Grrrl, a movement specifically and solely for women and girls to share their experiences amongst themselves derived from punk subculture, issue #11 of HeartattaCk creates a safe space for men and women to communicate with each other and allows for a platform where both genders can educate one-another.

Bridge

I was born in a small town in British Columbia into a rather conservative Seventh-Day-Adventist (SDA) Christian family. I attended the same SDA school for the entirety of my primary and secondary school experience—kindergarten through high school. Like any normal kid, in grade one I learnt how to count and how to spell simple words, in grade four I learnt how to multiply, and in grade six I learnt the parts of the body. In the earlier grades, the information that I was being taught was not notable. It was basic knowledge that every kid my age was learning. After entering high school the tables shifted from learning ‘basic’ knowledge to learning how to critically think. I was given poems to read and essays to interpret; my opinions seemed to have significance and be valued. One day, during a lecture, my high school teacher started talking about the references to homosexuality in the bible. He would say things like: “It’s clear, it’s not right,” attempting to hammer some kind of knowledge into my brain. Pieces of paper circulated the class, his argument and his argument alone was spread all across them. When I questioned his interpretation and argument he stated, “that’s a gray area.” My questions were not answered, my opinions were discredited, and my critical analysis of the situation was invalidated. Because the knowledge I was attempting to produce did not fit with the authoritative opinion in the classroom, I was no longer empowered to use my critical thinking. This thoroughly confused me. What is the point of learning how to think if it is discredited as soon as I disagree with an authority figure? Why would someone whose entire job is to ensure I graduate with as much knowledge as possible stunt my learning process? I felt I was being trained rather than taught.

Chorus: Informal Education

This creation of a safe space through zines in the punk community allows learning and teaching through conflict, while simultaneously allowing for a place for the oppressed to speak out and educate others. This way of learning and teaching is different to many of the formal ways we learn. That is not to say that punks do not borrow ideas from formal education; even the idea of dialogue and debate has a long tradition within formal schooling. However, the punk community does cast a critical eye on formal education and the ways in which it supports a type of hierarchal learning—allowing the ability for one person or a few people to censor what is being taught and how. Consider the example I just shared from my childhood: why was I being taught that homosexuality is ‘wrong’? It is simple; the school I attended had decided that this opinion was the one that I needed to believe in, accept, and spread. I did not have a choice in what I was being taught. I was not offered any other opinion that would allow me to make an educated, informed decision on my belief. My learning was censored. This is what the punk community is avoiding in this debate and discussion in HeartattaCk.

Verse: Censorship

It is important to acknowledge that the fight against censorship has been an ongoing process for many years. Punks are not the first to advocate for liberty of knowledge and rebel against those in power oppressing and censoring the knowledge available. In 1644, John Milton published his book, Areopagitica. In the face of tyrannical political authority, which was censoring what was or was not published, Milton argued and fought for the importance of the production of conflicting opinions and beliefs. By censoring what is being said or published, is to present one representation of the truth, one form of knowledge. Without controversy and diverse opinions, the knowledge acquired reflects only the ideas of those in a position of power. Fast-forward three hundred and seventy-four years, Milton’s anti-censorship rhetoric is still significant in today’s society. Punks did not produce a new stance on censorship, however, they have taken Milton’s rhetoric, built onto it, and continued his attack on the freedom of thought. Strange as it might be to say, issue #11 represents exactly this legacy of anti-censorship, free thought, and the attainment of knowledge through debate rather than decree.\

Bridge

In issue #11, punks advocate for uncensored learning. They call for open communication, hoping to educate each other. They speaking out and refuse to let their opinions be silent and urge others to do the same. There is an understanding that communication is a real and necessary part of this subculture and that each opinion should be met with criticism and support. In order to be as radical, tolerant, and progressive as punks aim to be, there must be an understanding and acceptance of uncensored learning:

“If we don’t communicate then we are left in silence.” (3)

“We have to talk, to communicate, to listen to each other.” (8)

“We can spend a lot of energy yelling at each other, but if we’re going to learn and grow as a community then we need to get past that.” (8)

The central importance of communication is reinforced by Kent when he notes:

Ideally I would like HaC to be a forum for discussion. I want it to be a place where people can express their views without feeling like they’ll be excommunicated from the hardcore scene…Our opinions are not cut in stone and ultimately not one of us holds some monopoly on truth… Sometimes we say that we believe this or that, and then after hearing other people respond we realize that what we really believe is something completely different. And sometimes we realize we were wrong…Being wrong is part of learning. (9)

By creating a safe space, allowing learning through conflict, and avoiding censorship of knowledge, punks have more knowledge at their disposal, allowing them more freedom to choose what they believe or disbelieve. HeartattaCk does not rely on one source to produce valid knowledge. Instead, the zines publish a variety of judgements and perspectives. HeartattaCk gives its readers the tools, or uncensored knowledge, and tells its readers to “Decide for yourselves” (3). This way of teaching and learning promotes a reflexive learning process and uses education as liberation.

Pre-Chorus: Why?

After reading through the zine and researching how punks learn and teach, I was left with asking, why? What is it that pushes punks to pursue this way of education, especially for a subculture has sometimes be epitomized by expressions of rage and indifference? My answer is directly in relation to the safe space I talked about above. The punks in HeartattaCk could not be less nihilistic. They feel a responsibility to the scene and community because it has given them a place where they can express and share ideologies. This responsibility results in them attempting to enhance the subculture. The dedication punks exhibit is evident in the do-it-yourself (D.I.Y.) ethic of the subculture. From creating their own concert posters to recording and producing their own music to constructing their own album covers, the punk subculture values intent over mindless production. They want to produce something meaningful by themselves, for themselves, which says something about themselves—no matter the difficulty or lack of financial payback. Zines were a product of this D.I.Y. ethic. The punks that create these zines, the producers, writers, readers, and columnists, have something to say, something to question, something they are interested in. If something is wrong, they feel that they owe it to the community to convey their opinion in these zines in order to enhance their subculture.

Chorus

Although in this paper I have focused predominantly on the discussion of Chris and Dana’s relationship, it is important to note that the zine’s emphasis on discussion as a principle allows for a focus but does not negate a focus on other matters. Moving past the letters regarding Chris and Dana in issue #11, the columns give more insight into the dedication of punks. Adam talks about taking part in the Earth First! campaign. He describes attempting to defend the Redwood forest. While taking part in this campaign, he is chased by cops, threatened, and has rocks thrown at his head. Another columnist, Aragon, talks about the importance of meaning what you say and living what you preach. He describes that at the time this zine was written, there was an increased interest in being ‘different’ and that difference had become a commodity. Aragon states, “difference is on sale” (22). He decided that in order to put into practice his understanding of the world he must become homeless. Becoming homeless, Aragon argues, gives him a freedom that is impossible while dealing with the “real world practicalities” of homeownership (22). So, instead he lives in his van. He believes that becoming homeless allows him to “live in a more deliberate way”—a way he was proud of. If these columns do not prove the dedication of punks then I don’t what could.

Coda: Knowledge

The ways that issue #11 of HeartattaCk produces allows for a discursive production of punk knowledge is reminiscent of the French philosopher, Michel Foucault. It was Foucault who argued that knowledge is produced and constructed. He believed that discourse, a representation of knowledge that consists of a multiplicity of statements, meanings, and sources, is a way in which knowledge is produced through language. This discourse allows for a subject to be talked about, reasoned with, and contended. Issue #11, I argue, is able to produce an intensified discourse because of the space created for punks to come together and create knowledge for themselves and others. This knowledge is diversely produced, reformed, and shared through the assistance of uncensored ideologies that are present within the community.

Outro

Although the punk rhetoric is viewed as a rather rebellious one, I think to state that punks do everything in opposition to the rest of society is simply incorrect. Although I have contended that their production of punk knowledge through zines is unique, I do not think it would be possible without the guidance of others who have come before them and fought beside them—punks or not. If punks’ goals were to just be in opposition with the rest of society, they would be censoring themselves—discrediting perspectives and opinions that could lead them to a purer, informed form of knowledge. By taking in and learning from the arguments and rhetoric that came before them and not instantly opposing them, they are using the system. Casting a critical eye on society is not the same thing as instantly discrediting the ideologies it puts forward in order to avoid correction. As Kent states: “Being wrong is a part of learning” (9). To fear being wrong makes us defensive and ignorant to other possibilities of truth. There should not be a fear of being wrong; rather, like the punks in issue #11, criticism and opposition should be invited and explored because we all are jus trying to make sense of the world.

If you are going to take anything from this paper and the way punks produce, spread, and obtain knowledge, take this: You can learn, you can teach, and you can argue—these aspects of knowledge are not dichotomous, they are synonymous. Be adamant, be opinionated, but be reflexive. I truly believe that if everyone learnt and taught the way punks do the world would be a more educated, tolerant, and accepting place. We should all have a little more punk in us.

By Carlee Mills