If I had this post to do over again, I’d definitely add a more performance-centric approach. I think the problem with this is that I wrote it too quickly, and left out the nuance that comes with sitting on something for a day or two. Damn you, Internet.

I think protest music is most often a performative display of resistance, and what I think M.I.A.’s doing here is, more or less, calling on that tradition for purely aesthetic and selfish reasons. Which I love. I mean, she’s fully aware of the inherent contradictions in her sloganeering, but she’s not trying to change the world, either. In performative parlance, I’d guess she’s “doing being a protester.” But man, I wish I would have gone into more detail about my use of the word “protest.” Also: that line about “dropping out of the system of exchange.” Thanks, Donald!

a) You’re absolutely right on Hebdige… I reacted on the first post and was totally unclear when I read it back. As it happens with so many theoretical strains, I suppose I’m more interested in subcultural theory post-Hebdige, especially what those like Hesmondhalgh have done with it in doing precisely what you say – i.e. recognize the mainstream as heterogenous (if not heteronymous as well, which is a whole other ball of wax, but pretty important). I threw out Gramsci to make the point that I’m not totally in line with Hebdige (his read of hegemony and resistance is a particular apprehension of Gramsci – and quite possibly a misapprehension in many ways), but think that subcultural critique is useful – and I don’t see it falling apart in the ways that Mattb pointed out if we’re conscious of the “mainstream” as being dynamic, in ways that Hesmondhalgh, for instance, is.

b) I initially posted because of the way that performance theory seemed to be sliding in the back door… and it’s cool to see you being deliberate in the responses about the way you’re using it. I do agree that there’s a performative resistance here, but I was unclear on how you were using protest, like you said. Either way, I’ve just took on a project discussing the performance of resistance in particular indie scenes and I’d be interested in your responses to it. If you want, I’ll get in touch privately about it.

c) I have huge problems with the unclear designations of “academy” and “music nerds” in the designation of world music. The phrase is entirely contested in academic spheres, and can’t be reduced to “the kind that blends traditional and modern styles.” If so, how do we explain the centrality of Riverdance and Buena Vista Social Clubs to world music markets? This is a bigger discussion to be had (not on this blog) that’s way more nuanced that the dismissals here. That’s a hobbyhorse for another day, though.

first, I never called Kala “world music,” nor do I receive it that way. She certainly pitches he product that way, but with obviously ironic distance (“world town). I mean, your take on what the academy has dubbed “world music” is fine, but I think you’re straw-manning me into that argument without much background from my original post.

Second, you’re right that my phrase “dropping completely out of the established system of exchange” is wrong; what I meant to say is that she’s creating her own performative system of exchange. I agree with you (and it’s more or less in the post) that this sort of thing is already going on everywhere. What I don’t agree with is the fact that it’s “far more prevalent than American consumerism.” I think you underestimate the pervasiveness of American consumerism; partially because a lot of the subaltern forms exist purely in a dialectic relationship to it! I mean, it’s stupid to argue that “markets” don’t predate globalized American consumerism, but I think it’s glossing over a lot to pretend that they’ve not been forced to change a lot of how they operate as a result.

And we seem to be on the same page re: the way 3rd worlders can incorporate Western messages and commercialism into their own ways of being, but maybe I wasn’t clear about my use of the word “protest.” I’m not meaning it in the way that the Clash meant it, nor do I think that’s how M.I.A. means it. I don’t think she’s trying to spur any sort of fundamental change in how things operate (nor do I care to hear that in pop music, but that’s another story altogether).

I think she’s playing with the idea of “protest music” in really stunning and novel ways, first and foremost by foregrounding the fact that she’s not representing any one particular place, but a big chunk of the African/SE Asian “third world” as it exists now, which is largely conceived as a network of financial/technological organizations (see: Appadurai). That’s what I love about this album: she’s cocky and over-simple with her slogans and professions of “representing,” to the point that they sort of lose all meaning. Which is great, because, y’know, slogans.

What I do mean to say is probably best expressed in that quote at the top of the page, which I sort of see you agreeing with in your last graf: citizenship in colonized countries is more and more turning into a representation of consumerism (see: Bordieu), which is replacing those outdated, more abstracted notions of “democracy,” etc., which the US has of course done its part in diluting to the point of meaninglessness.

As always, thanks for the comment!

Also, I’m all Dan Rather up in there, aren’t I?