Halnon does a thorough job of providing an overview of the carnival and the grotesque. She starts with good ol’ Debord’s description of the “the society of the Spectacle,” claiming that we live in a world of nothingness. The Spectacle has limited the ability of consumers to think critically, and even dissatisfaction and dissent are commodities to be sold. (744) Halnon moves to an understanding of Bakhtin’s “carnival-grotesque”(747), which in its simplest form is understood as an “exaggeration of the improper.” Through disgusting or obscene acts, Bakhtin argued, the grotesque becomes a confusing place where traditional understandings about the world are challenged.
Halnon then provides many, many examples of rhetorical acts deemed “grotesque,” acts which originate from band members and from fans. She seems to take special delight in describing the (staged) decapitations of GWAR (771), the self-mutilation of Marilyn Manson (762), the violence of mosh pits (775), or the never-ending spray of spit, sweat, blood, and urine concert participants are subjected to (762-765). In sum, these transgressions of polite protocol celebrate “otherness” and serve as challenges to traditional American social structures.
They also represent a sort of grotesque realism. Everybody emits bodily fluids, everybody has violent fantasies. By emphasizing those primitive acts everyone has in common, shock carnival bands allow their fans a change to escape social hierarchies. They suggests a sort of authenticity not found and daily life, and offer spectators a place in their world. For a group of youth often characterized as black sheep or outsiders, this effect can be particularly therapeutic.
Looking at how carnival bands reject the signs of mainstream culture does help explain the appeal of shock-value bands. When situated within the context of counter cultures, the growing numbers of fans seems to make sense. Halnon has a firm grasp of a socio-cultural lens which gives value to a movement many others have dismissed.
However, the article can read like a work in progress, exhibiting issues of scope. Several times Halnon indirectly mentions her intention to write a book, and her two primary and interconnected arguments here – that bands have dis-alienating effects, and carnival bands serve as sites of cultural resistance – are large enough to each serve as an individual chapter. (Indeed, they are marked off as separate headings.) Toward the end of her argument, Holnan reaches outside the body of her evidence to discuss how the movie “Fight Club” contributes to her claims about the therapeutic effects of rage (776). Again, this inclusion is better suited as a separate book chapter, rather than firm support for her current debate.
Additionally, though she makes all-encompassing statements about sites of cultural resistance, it’s worth noting that metal fans are characteristically white, and they’re usually male. Halnon inserts an “intermission” into her text to briefly discuss the role of women in shock music carnival (772), but this serves more as a stylistic narrative than any attempt to consider the homogeneity of shock carnival music fans. The perspective changes as Halnon describes a first-hand experience observing a woman baring her chest to surrounding fans, and it appears Holnan is more interested in a personal aside than her argument at hand. It would have been more beneficial to flesh out how “commodification of dissent” (751) contributes to Ritzer’s notion of an “island of consumption”(745). Or how the grotesque acts in a space between conventional and chaotic worlds (she uses the phrase “liminal” a total of fourteen times). Halnon frames her article as a dialogue between the domination of the Spectacle and the resistant nature of the Spectacle, a sort of “contested terrain.” She provides much support for the later but only glosses over the former.
No comments:
Post a Comment