By Gabriel Kuhn
July 20th, 2010
Znet
You are the editor of Sober Living for the Revolution: Hardcore Punk, Straight Edge, and Radical Politics. What is it about?
Basically,
it’s about tracing the history of relations between straight edge and
radical politics – by this I mean progressive, anti-authoritarian,
egalitarian politics. Straight edge has often been associated with
dogmatism, moralism, self-righteousness, and puritanism. Unfortunately,
some self-identified straight edge folks have given reason to this,
although the extent to which these attitudes have been characteristic
for the straight edge scene has been grossly exaggerated. At the same
time, it is true that there have been largely “apolitical” sections in
the movement that have shown little resistance to these tendencies,
which allowed them to flourish and to attract an unfortunate amount of
attention. However, there have also always been individuals, bands, and
entire scenes – like in Israel, Portugal, or Sweden – for which the
union between straight edge and radical politics seemed very natural;
and this is the history I’ve been trying to document in this volume by
collecting interviews and essays from different radical straight edge
artists and activists.
How did you come to this topic? Are you straight edge yourself?
Yes, I’ve been straight edge for over twenty years. Straight edge has meant a lot to me. I grew up in a small town in western Austria, in an environment where youths, especially boys, were expected to start drinking when they were like thirteen or fourteen. I was the only one in my town who rejected this, except for kids from really conservative Christian homes who I didn’t hang out with either. So there was a sense of isolation and I constantly had to defend my choice of not drinking and, later, of not doing other drugs.
Finding out about straight edge was one of the most exciting discoveries of my life: not only did it mean that there were other kids like me out there – kids into underground music and culture yet with no interest in drugs – but it also meant that there was an entire movement that stood for my choices and ideas; in other words, there was a collective I could identify with!
The problem was that when I finally came in closer contact with straight edge scenes – in 1994, when I moved to the US – I was terribly disappointed, because some of the politics seemed so screwed. You must remember that this was a time when the hardline movement was really strong, and when you still had a very pronounced male dominance in the scene. Out of this came a highly ambiguous relationship with straight edge: it still meant a lot to me and I wanted to be part of it – yet I did not feel connected to many factions of the movement. I think it was this ambiguity that gave me the idea for the book: I wanted to document the parts of straight edge history that I could identify with; the parts that, to me personally, made straight edge the most inspiring and beautiful.
How do you see the evolution of the straight edge movement?
I
think that straight edge has developed in many different ways, which is
good – although I could do without the conservative elements.
In
particular the last ten years have brought real diversity, also on a
musical level. Straight edge is no longer tied to the youth crew style
of the 1980s or the metalcore of the 1990s – today you have straight
edge acoustic acts, straight edge power violence bands and everything
in-between. There are also different definitions of straight edge – the
most contentious issues are veganism, sexuality, and the exact
understanding of drugs/intoxicants – and there are different political
adaptations, reaching from anarchist to neo-fascist straight edge
groups. As I said, the conservative elements I could do without, but in
general diversity is good – it enriches and stimulates.
We
think that straight edge is a form of désengagement, of refusal of the
hegemonic values. So, it is connected to social commitment, against any
oppression, and so to veganism also. How do you see it and how do you
think straight edge people see it?
I like the notion of
désengagement, I think it describes one of the political dimensions of
straight edge very well. As you say, there is a rejection of hegemonic
values and norms. So if you are opposed to the political and economic
system that produces these values and norms, being straight edge marks
an opposition to it. However, the political direction that this takes is
not necessarily clear at first. Fascists reject the current system too,
so a mere gesture of opposition is not enough to claim straight edge
for left or radical politics. I don’t think there is an automatic
connection between désengagement and social commitment or the fight
against oppression. Something has to be added to allow straight edge to
head that way: social and political awareness, a commitment to a just
and egalitarian world, empathy and affection. To some, veganism will be
an obvious choice to make; others might make other choices with respect
to their diets. I don’t think that this in itself is decisive. What’s
decisive is that you fight for a better world for all and that you
engage in respectful and comradely dialogue with others who want to do
the same. No single individual has the answers as to which exact forms
of behavior or conduct will get us there – but a common effort will
guide us in the right way. And what applies to veganism applies to
straight edge too: to some it will be an important part of this journey,
to others it won’t. Some people might prioritize other forms of
désengagement. After all, complete désengagement is hardly possible in a
world dominated by nation states and capital. In the end, it is the
solidarity and the mutual support that counts. For us straight edge
folks this means to prove our ability to contribute to this struggle in
positive and constructive ways. So this is how I see it. How do other
straight edge people see it? I’m not sure. I suppose that some see it
similarly, but there are many different understandings of straight edge,
including those that reject any connection to politics. As I said
before, there is a lot of diversity.
In the last years, some
far right movements, especially in Russia and Germany, try to integrate
the straight edge culture in their ideological models. In France these
last months, some people try to follow this pattern. What can you tell
us about this tendency making straight edge a social Darwinism?
Straight
edge in its very basic definition has no clear political content – it
merely indicates a refusal of drugs/intoxicants. The political
connotations of straight edge come from the context it appears in and
from the ideas and notions it is linked to. It is easy for the right
wing to claim straight edge: all you have to do is turn it into an
ideology (rather than understanding it as a personal choice). Then you
can claim that you are a “better”, “more advanced”, or “superior” person
than others. That’s the first step to fascism. Possibly, the second one
is to tie these sentiments to a notion of “health”. While straight edge
can certainly contribute to personal health, a political notion of
“health” is very dangerous and has been used by all fascist movements –
you just have to study their language, fascists always speak of
“disease”, “plague”, or “decay” when they refer to the people and
communities they see as inferior. The third step – and this is where we
come to today’s explicitly fascist and neo-Nazi straight edge
adaptations – is when you tie the notion of health to a “race” or a
“nation” that you need to “defend” or “preserve” or whatever. Maybe we
can speak of a three-step right-wing danger here: 1. self-righteousness
(“I am better than you”); 2. social Darwinism (“I am healthier than you
and will outlive you”); 3. outright nationalism/racism (“we are better
than you and we must maintain our ‘purity'”). I think what we have seen
in recent years in Russia and Germany – and now apparently also in
France, although I don’t know much about this – is the third step being
more and more clearly articulated. The first two, to be honest, have
been haunting straight edge for a long time.
How can we resist these developments?
I
think there is little point in arguing about what straight edge
“really” means or in denouncing the right-wing adaptations as
“distortions” of straight edge. Right-wing straight edge folks obviously
have their own definitions and there is no higher authority to decide
who is right and wrong. In the end, we would just exhaust ourselves by
throwing definitions back and forth. I think what’s more important is to
make our ideas as present in the scene as possible and to make them
compelling to the people who move in the scene. We will win kids by
being welcoming, compassionate, and caring. These are strong values –
all the other side got is hate.
Yes, but hate is also
something very important. We hate oppression and exploitation. And,
concerning the three points you talked about, we disagree with the first
point. Because, yes, we do consider the vegan straight edge lifestyle
as superior to other lifestyles. Would you agree to say that, in your
will not to make accurate definitions and in your promotion of
spontaneity, you’re in favor of an anarchist vision? And that for you,
veganism and straight edge don’t go necessarily together?
Of
course it is important to have strong feelings about the terrible
consequences of oppression and exploitation. If you want to call that
“hate”, that’s fine. But what you hate in this case is a system, and you
hate it because you want people – all people, I suppose – to be happy.
People on the extreme right, on the other hand, hate people and that is
at the center of their ideology. To me that’s a crucial difference, and
that’s what I meant.
As far as the superiority of vegan straight
edge is concerned, I guess it depends on what you mean by that. If you
think that it is the best way to contribute to as little cruelty as
possible in your personal lives, I see no particular reason to argue
with that – although I’d like to point out that being vegan straight
edge in itself doesn’t mean that you can’t be an asshole. As I said
before, if you want to set a really convincing example for a
“cruelty-free” or a “compassionate” lifestyle, your vegan straight edge
ethics have to be tied to broad political consciousness.
Related
to this, the claim that vegan straight edge constitutes a superior
lifestyle can become troubling if you really want to make this a
universal norm. I mean, if we go to a fishing village in Senegal and
tell people that their lifestyle is inferior to ours, our vegan straight
edge ethics can easily become cynical and offensive. That’s why I don’t
like to speak of vegan straight edge as anything “superior.” I think
that vegan straight edge as a political practice makes a lot of sense in
certain contexts and under certain circumstances – but we must never
forget that billions of people don’t share our contexts and
circumstances, and hence other things will make more sense to them. Life
is diverse, complex, and complicated, and not only is it important to
be aware of that, it also makes life exciting. And it is certainly one
of the reasons why I don’t like to argue about definitions. Definitions
help us to negotiate the complexity of life – they are tools, but they
hold no truth. That’s why I think it’s usually pointless to argue about
them. You don’t win over people’s hearts by defining things – you win
them over by setting examples of a more joyful life. Does this belief
make me an anarchist? Maybe – if it fits your definition of anarchism…
Regarding
the relation of veganism and straight edge, maybe this helps to
illustrate my point about definitions being tools: to me, the two are
not necessarily connected, because I define straight edge as abstinence
from drugs/intoxicants, and people can abstain from drugs/intoxicants
without being vegans. Hence, according to the definition of straight
edge I use, there is no necessary connection. If you have a different
definition, your conclusion might be a different one too. It can be a
lot of fun to discuss these things, but we’ll never get to the point
where one of us is proven right or wrong – and I don’t think that
matters either.
How do you see the future of the straight edge movement?
To begin with, I am convinced that it will live on. It has survived thirty years, which means that it has stood the test of time. Most straight edge kids today weren’t even born when Ian MacKaye wrote the song “Straight Edge” in 1980. Movements that make it this long are usually here to stay.
What will the future bring? Even more diversity, I suppose – and hopefully more radical expressions. I am optimistic. I think that there exists both an increasing interest in sobriety in radical circles and an ongoing interest for radical ideas among many straight edge kids. This is promising.
What is the best way to buy the book? Can you tell us about the publisher?
The best way to buy the book is to get it either directly from the PM Press website or from an independent bookstore or distributor. That way, the money stays within our community and will go into important political projects.
PM Press was founded a couple of years ago and has brought out an impressive list of books, DVDs, and CDs during the short time it has been around. There are a few people involved who have very strong roots in the hardcore punk community, which certainly helped to gather support for this project. If you want to get a better idea of the titles they are putting out, it’d be best to just browse their website.
