Like Yglesias, I think this is stupid; there is nothing less punk than a public library.
A public library is a place where everyone has to walk slowly and speak quietly, where everything depends on stuff being filed in exactly the right place. Does that sound punk?
I suppose the people selling these shirts imagine that public libraries are punk in that they are anti-capitalist (because they are publicly owned, and allow people to read books while contributing only minimally to the wealth of publishers) and enable people to do research outside the bounds of what is taught in school or sold at your local mainstream bookstore.
But that's silly. The world is not simply divided into socialist vs. capitalist. It is also divided in a bunch of other ways, including order vs. disorder. And on that axis, the public library is at the farthest extreme of order, while punk stands for raucous disorder.
I have an acquaintance who was into the DC punk scene in the 1990s, and she is now an anti-vax Trump supporter.
My wife and I vote pretty much exclusively Democrat. We believe in gay rights, redistributive taxation, national health insurance, and building up the public sector. We are suspicious of foreign wars and support medical aid to Africa. We suspect the police could do their jobs with a lot less violence.
But in many ways we are very conservative. We live a highly-ordered, family-focused suburban existence, with a mowed lawn, a flower garden, and a white picket fence (really). We have a cat and a Labrador retriever. We work professional jobs for big bureaucratic corporations and have done well in that life because we are both very reliable. We do not yell, scream, throw things, damage property, drive recklessly, wear outlandish clothes, or otherwise draw attention to ourselves.
We are the epitome of anti-punk.
To the extent that punk has any real political content, that would be anarchism. As my readers know, I read a fair amount about anarchism and am well aware of the price we pay in freedom for our wealthy, well-ordered existence. But anarchism has nothing to do with the kind of American left that supports public libraries.
As Yglesias notes, in the early 1900s the US had significant movements of both anarchists and socialists. But while the anarchists were trying to assassinate presidents, the socialists focused on stuff like creating publicly owned water systems, and agitating for the 40-hour work week. Not very punk.
Public libraries come from the "build public water systems" side of the left, not the do drugs, dance all night, and fight the man side.
7 comments:
Like Yglesias, I think this is stupid; there is nothing less punk than a public library.
Every single punk I know would tell you - you and Matt are just flat wrong.
Or at the very least, they'd tell you that punks are deeply pro-public library; and even the ones who might agree that libraries aren't technically "punk" due their orderly natures will tell you that they are "punk adjacent", or otherwise label libraries and those who support them as natural allies.
Literally every punk I've ever talked to has been someone who champions the idea of books and knowledge being made available for anyone who wants to read and learn. And while some of them might prefer libraries be directly in the hands of people and communities, rather than at a slight remove in the form of city or town governments, none of them would view public libraries as a BAD THING that they would ever oppose.
I dunno, maybe there's a generational aspect to it? All the punks I know are Gen X or younger. I could see the oldest echelons of punks being more concerned with being rebellious than about the more modern punk desire to improve the world.
Also, while I'd concede to Yglesias' points that libraries are "staid" and "pro-social"... in what conceivable way could they be said to be "pro-establishment"?
Public libraries exist IN SPITE OF the establishment. Yes, they're funded by the government, but only grudgingly, and they are run in direct defiance of establishment values.
Establishment figures are always looking for ways to trim services down, cut costs, and eliminate potential controversies. They really don't like public libraries - they view them as a waste of taxpayer money, and dislike that they routinely offend the sensibilities of large number of bigots and religious fundamentalists, who then very noisily and publicly raise a stink. It's a pain in the ass for a local government - ie, "The Establishment" - to operate a library, and they'd honestly rather not do it if they could get away with that.
What keeps public libraries open is overwhelming public opinion and direct support, in spite of the establishment position AGAINST libraries. Actual people and communities ADORE public libraries, and fight very hard to create and preserve them in the fact of establishment resistance.
I think John and Matt are both operating from positions of ignorance which rely on shallow stereotypes and pop culture understandings. And I think they both need to go talk to A) some actual punks and B) some actual librarians and community volunteers, and learn a few things.
We are the epitome of anti-punk.
Really, you're not.
Punks (or at least modern punks) don't want everyone to look and dress like them. They want everyone to have the OPTION to look and dress like them and not be marginalized or harmed for it. Ditto for living or not living in the suburbs; mowing or not mowing the lawn; having or not having a white picket fence; working or not working certain jobs; drawing or not drawing attention to themselves; and all the rest.
Punks (or at least modern punks) just want the world to stop being so damn exclusionary and unjust, and they care very deeply about that. Punks don't hate "The Establishment" simply BECAUSE it's "The Establishment" - they hate it because it is deeply tied up in bigotry, and intolerance, and cruelty, and control. Punks aren't against government - they're against unjust government. Punks aren't against tradition - they're against enforced tradition.
Punks aren't against white picket fences - they're against the exclusionary "Americana" mindset that they symbolically represent. Punks aren't against people living quiet family lives in the suburbs - they're against an intolerant societal system that promises that to a privileged middle class as a reward for obedience. They're against denying the same promise to the poor and minorities, who must necessarily be excluded and exploited in order to achieve the prosperity of the middle class. And they're against the fact that even within the privilege of the idealized middle class, there is no room for dissent or a failure to conform. The against the idea that a middle class individual should be mistreated by society for not WANTING to live a quiet life in the suburbs, as is expected and demanded of them.
To the extent that punk has any real political content, that would be anarchism.
Again, it's really not.
Punks run the whole gamut of political views. There are anarchist punks. There are socialist punks. There are communist punks. There are centrist punks. There are right wing punks. There are apolitical punks whose primary stance is grassroots government deep devolution of powers, and radical decentralization regardless of political views. Et cetera.
There are, as wild as it may sound, capitalist punks whose main complaints are against corporatism and consolidation, who believe we need a highly competitive economy comprised of only local small businesses, with lots of turnover and new enterprises constantly being started.
Punk isn't inherently anarchic. It's just fundamentally concerned with authenticity, individual and community agency, a rejection of enforced conformity, and a constant questioning of the status quo. Yes, that absolutely leads some punks to embrace anarchism - but only as a means to an end; not an end unto itself. And it also many other punks to embrace entirely different philosophies of governance - again, as a means of obtaining their desired ends, not as ends unto themselves.
"Punk" like "fascism" has come to mean whatever the user of the term wants it to be.
Fascism and punk are both very well defined, it's just media illiteracy that muddies things. Be punk, go read a book.
Fascism and punk are both very well defined,
In the dictionary, perhaps. In the real world, Fascism = "things I don't like" and "punk" = "good". Be punk, and always recycle...to the EXTREME!
Post a Comment