car wreck would speed up … If I went to the drowning man
the drowning man would pull me under. I couldn’t be his
life raft (Flynn 2004 : 10–11).
I begin this
chapter with this quote because it captures the fluidity between
marginality and centrality in an activist’s biography and how
social movement subcultures serve as a space for liminal adolescence.
Flynn, a renowned American poet, first met his father while working at a
homeless shelter. The memoir features two parallel
Ethnicity and popular music in British cultural studies
specifically on its treatment of second-generation Irish rock musicians.3
To this end, the chapter re-examines Dick Hebdige’s Subculture
(1979), a formative endeavour in the field’s engagement with questions of
race, ethnicity and popular music, before going on to consider the more
recent response of cultural studies’ practitioners to ‘Britpop’. This discussion draws attention to the narrow parameters of the ‘ethnicity’ framework
underpinning this body of work. For if the field’s reception of secondand third-generation African-Caribbean and South Asian
This book is an ethnographic study of the internal dynamics of a subcultural community that defines itself as a social movement. While the majority of scholarly studies on this movement focus on its official face, on its front stage, this book concerns itself with the ideological and practical paradoxes at work within the micro-social dynamics of the backstage, an area that has so far been neglected in social movement studies. The central question is how hierarchy and authority function in a social movement subculture that disavows such concepts. The squatters’ movement, which defines itself primarily as anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian, is profoundly structured by the unresolved and perpetual contradiction between both public disavowal and simultaneous maintenance of hierarchy and authority within the movement. This study analyzes how this contradiction is then reproduced in different micro-social interactions, examining the methods by which people negotiate minute details of their daily lives as squatter activists in the face of a funhouse mirror of ideological expectations reflecting values from within the squatter community, that, in turn, often refract mainstream, middle class norms.
In May 1958, and four years into the Algerian War of Independence, a revolt again appropriated the revolutionary and republican symbolism of the French Revolution by seizing power through a Committee of Public Safety. This book explores why a repressive colonial system that had for over a century maintained the material and intellectual backwardness of Algerian women now turned to an extensive programme of 'emancipation'. After a brief background sketch of the situation of Algerian women during the post-war decade, it discusses the various factors contributed to the emergence of the first significant women's organisations in the main urban centres. It was only after the outbreak of the rebellion in 1954 and the arrival of many hundreds of wives of army officers that the model of female interventionism became dramatically activated. The French military intervention in Algeria during 1954-1962 derived its force from the Orientalist current in European colonialism and also seemed to foreshadow the revival of global Islamophobia after 1979 and the eventual moves to 'liberate' Muslim societies by US-led neo-imperialism in Afghanistan and Iraq. For the women of Bordj Okhriss, as throughout Algeria, the French army represented a dangerous and powerful force associated with mass destruction, brutality and rape. The central contradiction facing the mobile socio-medical teams teams was how to gain the trust of Algerian women and to bring them social progress and emancipation when they themselves were part of an army that had destroyed their villages and driven them into refugee camps.
the conversation there.
From across the small room, Lucy, a British
squatter, drunk and laughing, yelled: Don’t pretend you
don’t know what it means. You’re not fooling
anyone. It means she likes it fast, hard, and up the ass.
We all laughed.
In the squatters’
subcultures, only “real” or authentic squatters can
inhabit positions of authority. Since being an authentic squatter is
already fraught with unstated behavioral and stylistic expectations, I
authority function in a social movement
subculture that disavows such concepts. The squatters movement, which
defines itself primarily as anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian, is
profoundly structured by the unresolved and perpetual contradiction
between both public disavowal and simultaneous maintenance of hierarchy
and authority within the movement.
This study analyzes how this contradiction is then
reproduced in different micro-social interactions, examining the methods
by which people negotiate minute
and within the movement as evictions and riots.
Rather than focusing on whether the squatters movement will
persevere, it’s more relevant to ask, who squats publicly and
have they continued squatting? Without legal permission, has this
“autonomous” selfextolled in the movement subculture
persisted? To answer this question, it’s helpful to consider the
general profiles of who comprises this movement, as I have already
contended in this book.
The contemporary squatters movement consists of people who
despite the squatters
movement’s disavowal of property, because Darius had organized
the action and had successfully squatted the house, the house became his
property in the social dynamics of the movement. Mario’s remark
also demonstrates how quickly participants in this subculture learn its
In an anti-authoritarian and anti-hierarchical subcultural
milieu, this hierarchical dynamic is rarely discussed openly. Instead,
it’s referred to obliquely by housemates with less status who
‘Dutch Archive of the Conservative Revolution’, a revisionist book shop with a related study centre.
In 1958 the Boerenpartij (Farmers Party, BP) was founded as the party
political representative of a sub-culture of dissatisfied so-called Vrije Boeren
(Free Farmers), which had developed in protest against the forced introduction of a corporatist structure in Dutch agriculture in 1950 (see Nooij 1969;
Van Donselaar 1991: 121–33). The movement as well as the later party were
led by Hendrik Koekoek, who became (in)famous as Boer (Farmer)
Koekoek, and who had also been
helped to fashion wider economic and social relationships.
More importantly, it helps to move forward our understanding of the ways
in which social class, gender, culture and leisure related to each other during this
period. McKibbin argues that interwar Britain was characterised by a major
divide between manual and non-manual workers, and that leisure, lifestyle and
employment created subcultures which he calls ‘working-class culture’ and
‘middle-class culture’. Yet at the same time he accepts that ‘England had no
common culture, rather a set of