I was really excited to read "Know What I Mean" by Dyson because I'm a big Dyson fan. Sometimes he leaves important parts of history, doesn't critically analyze as much as I would like to see, or neglects other views on societal norms. But, in spite of my disagreements with Dyson at times, it was a pleasure to read.
There were so many places in his book that I liked because he really offered a wide range of views and ideas about hip hop, focusing a lot on gender politics, generational gaps, and conscious vs. commercial. But I want to focus on one specific section from Dyson about maneuvering within the capitalist, white supremacist music/media industry.
"You can spit venom at white supremacy, social injustice, the personal limitations imposed by a dominant culture, and still use... the master's tools to dismantle the master's house or at least break in and enjoy some of the bounty" (Dyson, 56).
So on one hand, I like what Dyson has to say. I agree that it is absolutely a legitimate tactic to attempt to undermine a system of oppression by co-opting their methods of distribution, appropriating the oppressor's imagery and language, and ultimately hustling elites out of resources. In fact, this philosophy is a common argument in determining whether it is acceptable to work within the system of oppression in order to change it.
But at the same time, I don't know if Dyson's doctrine here is contributing to creating a "hip hop politic" that transforms society for the better. In some way, working within the system can give the system more legitimacy. Ultimately, unless people who are trying to make hip hop more socially and politically conscious (SPC) own the distribution and marketing entities involved, there will be powerful (white) interests profiting that do not have any interest in televising the revolution. Also, when working within major labels, I wonder if saying that you want to "change the game" eventually becomes just another gimmick. If it's not a gimmick, then do people become changed by the system they are working within and pursue profitability and marketability over their original intentions? Finally, Dyson ends with the idea that at least getting in on the "bounty" is good enough. This may be true for the elite individuals the profit from being the managers, lawyers, or producers in the hip hop industry. But this does not seem to help benefit anyone outside of the system. And if the industry keeps producing albums that are 90% "bling"-guns-booty and 10% "message", doesn't that keep highlighting the social problems that hip hop hopes to address in the community? How does this uplift or shift society?
Ultimately, it is difficult line to walk: how can you uplift in the system and how can you get heard at all outside of the system? I think Dyson makes strong points that commercial viability and SPC are not mutually exclusive. But I also think it is even more complicated than Dyson presents it.
Salinas v. Texas
10 years ago
Matt-
ReplyDeleteI think you make a really interesting point that artists who give in to the hip-hop production system are helping to legitimize that system. I think this is certainly a troubling aspect of the hip-hop world, and I am surprised more attention isn't given to it in lyrics--and when it is, I agree that it's often "gimmicky." However, I think emerging artists are often so desperate to be heard and to become successful that they are willing to do almost anything to rise to the top, including legitimizing a system that only harms them in the end. I agree with you that the issue is more complicated than Dyson's representation of it, and I hope we can discuss this in class.
Katie