Do-It-Yourself Activism in Central Eastern Europe: The
Case of the Hardcore Scene in the Czech Republic
Ondrej Cisar and Martin Koubek
Faculty of Social Studies
Masaryk University
Jostova 10
602 00 Brno
Czech Republic
E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
Work in progress. First Draft. Please, do not quote or cite without the authors’
permission.
Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Session of Workshops, Nicosia, Cyprus, April 25-30, 2006.
Workshop 5: Studying Forms of Participation.
“What in reality is DIY? DIY = Do It Yourself. It is one of the basic values of hardcore/punk
music and it conveys that in hardcore/punk the boundary between an active agent and a passive
spectator, between a band and its audience, and between a creator and a consumer, is
disappearing. In hardcore/punk everyone is creator and consumer at the same time because it is
an open culture. Everyone can have his own band, organize shows, publish fanzine, distribute,
have a label or get involved in some other way… DIY culture is the culture that we create for
ourselves and whose structures have been built up by ourselves outside of official cultural
institutions – because hardcore emerged precisely in opposition to the boring mainstream”.
(Houdy 2005)
Introduction
According to available studies, the level of popular participation is relatively low in Central
Eastern Europe. Citizens in East European countries display a low level of organizational
membership in voluntary organizations such as churches, sports and recreational clubs,
educational and cultural organizations, labor unions, political parties and movements,
environmental organizations and charity organizations. Several explanations of this trend have
been offered: (1) legacy of mistrust of organized participation under communist regimes, (2)
persistence of friendship networks, and (3) disappointment with post-communist development.
The low level of organizational membership is taken to be an indication of the weakness of civil
societies in Central Eastern Europe. (Howard 2002, 2003)
The analysis of citizens’ participation in Central Eastern Europe, however, is primarily
focused on organized activities. Informal and more diffused ways of collective action presently
developing in the region fall out of the picture in the available research. In response to this, our
paper concentrates exactly on these loosely organized forms of participation that are commonly
associated with do-it-yourself (DIY) activism. More specifically, the paper focuses on some
manifestations of DIY in the hardcore scene in the Czech Republic.
The goal of the paper is twofold. For one, it aims at broadening the understanding of
citizens’ participation in Central Eastern Europe. Apart from that, it attempts to re-conceptualize
some notions commonly used in the analysis of subcultural phenomena such as hardcore. This
second goal is motivated by our empirical research, which suggests that the dynamics of DIY
activism cannot be understood with the help of traditionally understood categories such as
subculture. Indeed, there is no homogeneous and clearly delimited hardcore subculture in the
Czech Republic; there is, however, a highly structured discursive field defined by several
different interpretative frames (genres) that relate to the external environment in dissimilar ways.
1
The first part of the paper is devoted to developing suitable conceptual tools that would make it
possible to analyze such a relatively complicated social setting. For this purpose, the first four
sections of the paper critically discuss available contributions to social movements and
subcultural studies. The conceptual apparatus worked out in this part is subsequently employed in
the analysis of the Czech hardcore scene in the second part of the paper (sections V – VIII),
which presents the preliminary results of our empirical research.
DIY and Social Movements: ‘Alive in the Land of the Dead’
The problematic of DIY activism made its way to the center of attention of both subcultural and
social movement studies in the mid-1990s. While the concept itself was not at all new, it gained
new currency due to the rise of the radical environmental and direct action movements in Great
Britain (Wall 1999, McKay 1998) and due to the mobilization of the movement for global social
justice that opposed neoliberal globalization (Klein 2001, Hardt 2002, Ancelovici 2002, Graeber
2002, Hardt and Negri 2000, 2004, della Porta, Tarrow 2005). The origins of the concept can be
traced back at least as far as the 1960s, when it emerged in relation to the mobilization of extrainstitutional movements in the form of squatting and direct action politics (McKay 1998: 7).
According to McKay, there is a direct link between the direct action movement of the 1960s
(Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, protests against the Vietnam War, squatting campaign of
1968-69) and the subsequent development of DIY activism (Ibid: 7-8). This link is further
demonstrated in a study of the art and protest communities of the 1970s and 1980s (Epstein 1993)
and in many contributions to the theory of new social movements (NSM) (Melluci 1989, 1996,
Cohen and Arato 1992, Eder 1993).
The theory of NSM emphasizes the non-instrumental nature of mobilization and
contention and focuses on the role of collective identity in political mobilization (Laraña et al.
1994, Polleta and Jasper 2000), on new types of conflicts emerging “at the boundaries between
the system and lifeworld” (Habermas 1987: 357), and on new actors in radical politics who
abandon “revolutionary dreams in favor of radical reform that is not necessarily and primarily
oriented to the state” (Cohen and Arato 1992: 493). The strategies used by social movements to
re-appropriate autonomous cultural spaces for the articulation of their identities and for the
realization of their lifestyles are in the center of the analysis. New social movements are believed
not to engage in the politics of influence; they are rather seen as a locus of the politics of identity.
2
In order to describe the difference between various types of movements, the theory has
introduced a distinction between strategy-oriented and identity-oriented movements (Cohen
1985, Cohen and Arato 1992). While the first category describes ‘old’ instrumentally-oriented
movements, the second one applies to ‘new’ movements. This distinction has been further refined
by the introduction of an additional distinction within the ‘new movements’ group. Koopmans
and subsequently Duyvendak and Giugni have distinguished two types of identity-oriented
movements: subcultural and countercultural movements. While subcultural movements “are
primarily directed at collective identities that are constituted and reproduced in within-group
interaction”, countercultural movements “derive their collective identities from conflicting and
confrontational interaction with other groups” (Duyvendak and Giugni 1995: 84).
According to this perspective, movements can be classified along two dimensions. The
first dimension is the movement’s logic of action (i.e. identity/instrumental). The second
dimension is the movement’s general orientation (internal/external). Figure 1 depicts a typology
of social movements based on the two dimensions. Subcultural movements are internallyoriented and identity-based, instrumental movements are the exact opposite of their subcultural
counterparts and are external in their orientation, countercultural movements are in between the
previous two types – they mix an “identity basis with a strong external orientation.” (Ibid.) We
will utilize the typology later in the paper in relation to the concrete manifestations of DIY
activism in the Czech Republic.
Figure 1: The Three Types of Movements
General
orientation
Internal
External
Logic of action
Identity
Subcultural social
movements
Instrumental social
Countercultural social
movements
movements
Instrumental
-
Source: Duyvendak and Giugni 1995: 85
Although the early version of the theory clearly overstates the difference between ‘old’
and ‘new’ social movements (Tucker 1991), it also points at the often overlooked cultural
dimension of contention. Unlike some views on social movements (mostly coming from US
academia) that have tended to present these movements as exclusively instrumentally-oriented
3
organizations brought to life by professional political entrepreneurs, the theory of NSM focuses
on the cultural ‘embeddedness’ of every act of contention. Later studies of subcultural and
countercultural movements argued that ‘subcultural embeddedness’ is the source of activists’
‘toolkits’ (Swidler 1986, Melluci 1989). Moreover, according to this perspective, the cultural
practices of NSMs not only are instrumental for political action, but also are an alternative way of
political action. The very fact of doing things differently has an important political meaning
because it subverts the dominant action code of capitalist society. In this respect, the theory of
NSM comes close to the conceptualization of DIY:
“The idea of not relying on the prevailing outside forces in society to create for us to consume
is truly subversive development in our age of ever-increasing centralization, technocratic
rationalization, and behavioral manipulation. Even as you read this, thousands of frustrated,
creative individuals in all parts of the globe are communicating directly with one another via
channels they themselves have helped to set up. A tenacious and growing underground network
exists for dissemination of ideas, information, and self-produced materials, one which transcends
the artificial boundaries that unnecessarily divide independent minded people. Whether this
network eventually consumes itself in a frenzy of anti-authoritarian elements to challenge national
and international power elites or simply remains as it is, festering and, by its very existence,
cutting through the facade of ‘consensus’ that everywhere holds us in servitude, is anybody’s
guess. I prefer to leave predictions to the ‘experts’ who are trying to figure out what we’re all
about.” (Jeff Bale, Loud 3D, eds. Roberts, Kulakofsky, Arrendondo, IN3D Press, 1984: 83, quoted
in O‘Hara 1999: 166)
The fast social transformation in the last decades of the 20th century has made research on
DIY activism timely and important for two major reasons. The first is the general shift towards
postmaterialism in industrially developed societies (Inglehart 1991). As the theory of NSM has
already aptly pointed out, this shift has changed the agenda of major social conflicts in Western
countries, making it possible for social movements to focus on lifestyle choices rather than on
mobilization in pursuit of major political change. Subcultural participation has thus become an
alternative way of doing politics.
The second reason for the increased significance of research on DIY activism has been the
feeling, generally shared during the 1980s and the 1990s, that the old radical politics no longer
has the capacity to counter the forces of capitalist globalization (see also Cisar 2005). The
4
struggle for autonomy and authenticity characteristic of DIY ethics has provided one possible
response against the alienating forces of economic globalization and the global spread of
consumer culture (see also Hardt and Negri 2000, 2004). As a result, the theme of DIY protest
politics has been taken on by social, political, and cultural studies positioned at the intersection of
academic work and activism. More specifically, the DIY problematic has been addressed in
studies focused on rave clubcultures (Redhead 1998), punk subculture/counterculture (O’Connor
2003, 2004a, 2004b), straightedge hardcore (Wood 1999, 2003, Haenfler 2004), political
mobilization of radical environmental groups (McKay 1998), autonomous movement, and
anti/alter-globalization movements (Hardt and Negri 2004).
Although DIY activism has become an established issue in mainstream academic
discourse, its application faces several problems. The concept of DIY is too ambiguous to carry a
definite meaning. In different cases it can refer to different phenomena, including culture and the
politics of everyday life, anti-authoritarian struggles, anarchist elements in political mobilization,
resistance against consumerism and corporate culture, resistance against institutionalized politics,
collective identity building, subcultural lifestyles. The heterogeneity of the concept is further
demonstrated by the plurality of its manifestations, e.g. squats, alternative community centers,
street parties, demonstrations, direct actions, musical festivals, underground concerts, infoshops,
fair trade stores, provision of food for homeless people (O‘Doherty et al. 1997, McKay 1998). As
a result, it is virtually impossible to pinpoint the concept’s exact relation to notions such as social
movement, subculture, counterculture, and community. In this paper, therefore, we limit the
meaning of the concept to a particular ethics that informs the activities of movements striving for
autonomy and independence from the dominant consumer-oriented society.
Drawing on Marchart, we refer to such movements as ‘new protest formations’ that are at
the same time deeply “subculturally embedded” and political: “If we want to analyze these
subcultures we will therefore have to take them seriously as political formations or … ‘new
protest formations’” (Marchart 2004: 415). This enables us to locate “them within the larger
context within which these formations articulate themselves politically” (Ibid.). In other words,
we will map out the processes of political articulation of selected subcultural networks and
identify the conditions of their politicization. The concept of ‘new protest formations’ helps us to
avoid the too essentialist notion of subculture which wrongly implies that subcultural actors are
defined by a coherent collective identity and a clear social location. At the same time, it allows us
5
to grasp the cultural as well as the political dimensions of contemporary protest movements. The
concept of ‘new protest formations’ encompasses the subcultural and, at the same time, the
countercultural elements of contemporary movements (see figure 1).
In the following text we shall explain the conditions that enable the members of a
subculture to go political, i.e. to articulate themselves as part of a counterculture. At the same
time, we shall demonstrate the relation of sub/countercultural movements to instrumentallyoriented activism, which is represented in our study by the world of standard NGO-based
mobilization. Our case study will reveal the radically multivocal character of the autonomous
hardcore scene in the Czech Republic. This scene blends the cultural and political aspects of
activism in at least four different ways that determine the likelihood of ‘hardcore kids’ explicitly
engaging in political participation. Before we present this case study, we shortly review the
relevant contributions to both subcultural and social movement theory. This review provides us
with conceptual tools suitable for the analysis of our case.
From Subcultures to Political Articulation
Although research on subcultures has much longer history, it was only in the 1970s when the
concept of subculture assumed a political meaning. Subcultural research carried out by the
Birmingham Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) in the 1970s and 1980s
challenged the earlier interpretation of subcultures. The concept had originally been understood
as intimately linked to deviance and delinquency and subcultures had been considered to be the
outgrowth of the efforts of deprived groups of the population to “obtain material and cultural
rewards” (Bennett and Kahn-Harris 2004: 4). Contrary to this understanding, the CCCS
understood subcultures as part of the broader context of class relations and employed the
Gramscian notion of hegemony in order to explain their articulation practices. Subcultures came
to be seen as a “spectacular response” to the condition of class-based subordination of the British
working class. This response was not directly political; it was indirectly expressed in a particular
style (Hebdige 1987) and rituals (Clarke et al. 1997). The CCCS claimed that subcultural
resistance was able to secure for various youth subcultures autonomous spaces within the
oppressive structure of class-based society. On the other hand, due to its imaginary character,
subcultural resistance was unable to “alter the fundamentally class-based order of society” and
remained restricted in terms of its real-world benefits (Benett and Kahn-Harris 2004: 6).
6
The recent wave of subcultural research has developed its theoretical position with
reference to the so-called heroic CCCS model. This model has been criticized for offering an
overly reductive view of subcultural mobilization. In order to differentiate itself from its
predecessor, recent research defines its research agenda as a post-subcultural one. These recent
approaches first of all challenge the class-based logic of the CCCS model that follows from the
presumption that youth subcultures emerge as expressions of working-class resistance. According
to Murdock and McCron, the CCCS model “tends to draw too tight a relation between class
location and sub-cultural style and to underestimate the range of alternative responses” (quoted in
Benett and Kahn-Harris 2004: 8). The model is thus unable to explain why youngsters in the
same class position adopt divergent life strategies.
It is the Gramscian origin of the CCCS model that determines its fundamental standpoint.
As the first Marxist who abandoned the conception of ideology as merely ‘false consciousness’
obscuring the ‘real’ – i.e. the material – sources of oppression, and who began to see it as a
relatively independent source of oppression and, at the same time, as a potential instrument of the
struggle against oppression, Gramsci presented a suitable point of departure for subcultural
theory. On the other hand, however promising the Gramscian framework might have seemed, it
was nevertheless compromised by the ultimate ontological certainties of economic structure
which, in the last instance, shaped political conflict in class terms. As Laclau and Mouffe put it:
“[f]or Gramsci … there must always be a single unifying principle in every hegemonic
formulation, and this can only be a fundamental class” (Laclau and Mouffe 1985: 69). By
drawing on Gramsci, the CCCS model is unable to dispose of class dualism, which results in the
model resorting to a dichotomy between a dominant ‘parent culture’ and a ‘subculture’. Both
‘parent culture’ and ‘subculture’ are understood as relatively homogeneous groups clearly
separated from each other (see Weinzierl and Muggleton 2003: 7). Moreover, by virtue of their
class position, working class subcultures are thought to inevitably pose a threat to the dominant
order. Subcultural resistance has been equated with countercultural action (Marchart 2003: 89).
There is no need for an active agency that would have to articulate the explicitly political agenda
of a subculture if it is to ever become a counterculture.
The recent development of post-subcultural theory is marked by the attempt to dispose of
the CCCS model’s Manichean dichotomies such as subculture versus mainstream or alternative
labels versus major labels. It is also marked by the rejection of the CCCS model’s “‘heroic’ or
7
romantic idea according to which the subordinate cultural groups act subversively or counterhegemonically simply by virtue of their subordinate position. There is no intrinsic resistant or
subversive quality to subcultures” (Ibid: 85). While subculture can play a subversive role, it could
just as well provide marketing departments with a nicely defined target group. The standpoint of
a particular subculture is not given from the outside, but is constituted through ongoing dialogues
taking place within the subculture and between the subculture and its social environment.
Accordingly, one cannot simply presume the political character of a subculture; rather, one needs
to identify the concrete articulation practices that aim to establish this political character. We
cannot presuppose a direct and necessary link between culture and politics, between subculture
and counterculture. This link needs to be articulated by an agency from within the subculture that
interacts with the broader social context. In other words, the collective identity of a particular
‘new protest formation’ can never be taken for granted.
Troubles with Post-subcultural Theory
Studies in post-subcultural theory have explicitly accepted the heterogeneous, fluid, and complex
nature of recent subcultures whose identity could not be derived from a single class position. At
the same time, however, the post-subcultural theory has lost from sight the potentially political
character of new youth (sub)cultures and has equated them with consumer choices in the
postmodern ‘supermarket of styles’. According to Redhead, old “social formations dissolved in
the 1980s as the fixed identities and meanings of youth styles gave way to a supposed fluidity of
positions, poses and desires and a much hailed (in some postmodernist circles) transitory, fleeting
adherence to lifestyle…” (Steve Redhead, The End-of-the-century Party: Youth and Pop Towards
2000, Manchester University Press, 1990, 75, quoted in Martin 2002: 77). Various notions such
as “taste subcultures” (Lewis 1992: 141), “neo-tribes” (Maffesoli 1996), and “clubcultures”
(Redhead et al. 1998) have replaced the term subculture for the purpose of differentiating new
collectivities from their class-based predecessors. Clubcultures are “notorious for mixing all
kinds of styles on the same dance floor and attracting a range of previously opposed subcultures
from football hooligans to New Age hippies” (Redhead 1993: 3-4). Maffesoli goes even further
by stressing that neo-tribes are “without the rigidity of the forms of organization with which we
are familiar, it refers more to a certain ambience, a state of mind, and is preferably to be
expressed through lifestyles that favour appearance and form” (Maffesoli 1996: 98).
8
Just as the CCCS model has ‘overpoliticized’ working-class subcultures by considering
everyday activities to be political in nature, post-subcultural theory has ‘underpoliticized’ the new
subcultures of the early 1990s.1 Yet, for example, British clubcultures and the rave and house
scenes in the beginning of the 1990s have provided a platform for DIY activism in connection
with the organization of street parties, protests “Reclaim the Streets”, the Pollok Free State, No
11 Link Road campaign, and protests against Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (McKay
1998). A very similar network of DIY activists (often connected to the rave scene) developed
within the punk/hardcore subculture. In a nutshell, just as it has been an oversimplification to see
working class subcultures as inherently political, it has been equally wrong to see postsubcultures as inherently apolitical. As stated above, what matters is the concrete articulation.
There might be politicized segments embedded in a seemingly apolitical subculture.
All in all, by the end of the millennium subcultures lost the meaning of authentic,
homogenous, separate, and class-based collectivities co-opted by the cultural machinery of
consumer society. On the contrary, they came to be perceived as internally heterogeneous fields
with permeable boundaries that enable continuous communication between the subculture and its
environment. It is this openness and heterogeneity that destroys any attempt to associate a
subculture with a simplified label. Normally, there is no single way of defining one’s belonging
to a subculture. Although subculture possesses something akin to core values, this core is
interpreted differently by different segments of the subculture. Subcultures are no longer
understood as based on a single collective identity, but rather as grounded in the family
resemblances of its constituent segments (see also McDonald 2002).2 This is why in this paper
we prefer to use the term ‘scene’ which denotes a more complex and differentiated ‘subcultural
space’ that actualizes “a particular state of relations between various populations and social
1
Both approaches have thus essentialized the actors they have studied by failing to pay due attention to actors’
articulation practices.
2
Local and gender differences in the manifestations of particular ‘subcultures’ have also started to be appreciated by
more recent scholarship, as the CCCS model is deemed to have unduly universalized the particular experience of
white, working-class British youth males. The same applies to the role of the media which is no longer seen as a
means of co-opting originally authentic subcultures to the dominant discourse and has instead started to be perceived
as an active party in the process of subcultural identity building (Thornton 1997). Subcultural identity, according to
Thornton, is based on an internally structured discourse centered on the accumulation of subcultural capital that
preserves the distinction between subculture and the mainstream. The very distinction thus results from particular
articulation practices that constantly interact with the wider environment shaped by general social norms and media
production. Subcultural identity thus loses its predetermined character and is fully shaped by internal as well as
external communication discourses.
9
groups, as these coalesce around specific coalitions of musical style” (Straw 1997: 500, see also
Bennett and Kahn-Harris 2004: 13).
Contentious Conversation in Social Movement Theory3
It was the mobilization of ‘new social movements’ – peace, antinuclear, autonomous,
gay/lesbian, environmental, feminist – in the 1970s that prompted the theory of social movements
to abandon the class-based perspective (see also above). The theory claimed – much the same as
theorists of post-subcultures would claim later on – that the mobilization of new social
movements was driven by the desire to express new identities and lifestyles rather than to gain
political concessions (Polleta and Jasper 2001: 286). In this respect, the theory provided a
culturalist correction to the structuralist and rationalist approaches of resource mobilization
theory and opened up space for the conceptualization of the ‘framing processes’ by which
political actors articulate their identities and goals (Snow and Benford 1992).
Discursive frames are usually depicted as symbolic devices that underpin collective action
and help sustain it in time. Since frames are strategic devices employed by political actors in a
discursive struggle within a particular field of interaction, they are essentially contested.
However, although frame theorists stress the dynamic and contentious character of framing,
according to some critics they tend to conceptualize the processes of framing and counterframing as if they occurred “between relatively modular and synchronic packages” (Steinberg
1999: 739). They thus see contentious interaction as if it were taking place between ready-made
sets of meanings, between clearly delimited actors with predetermined identities and interests, as
if it were a clash of two enclosed positions in a billiard-ball manner. Such an understanding,
however, fails to do justice to the inherent “multivocality of collective action discourse” (Ibid.:
740) and underestimates the possibility of frames’ transformation and change.
Contrary to this understanding, M. Steinberg proposes a more dynamic – dialogic –
analysis of social movements’ discourse that emphasizes its multivocal character: “Discourse …
is best perceived as a multivocal practice; any communication likely has more than one meaning
for the participants” (Steinberg 2002: 211). When we take this perspective, movements emerge as
discursive fields that are internally highly structured and never hegemonized by a single set of
meanings. According to Steinberg (1998, 1999, 2002, 2004), there are different genres
3
The title paraphrases Tilly’s “Contentious Conversation” (Tilly 1998).
10
continuously developing in every collectivity and interacting with each other as well as with the
external environment. The meaning of a movement is always a temporary result of endless
conversations taking place within the collectivity and between its segments and other spheres of
society. There is no fixed identity of an actor; there is just complex interplay of interpretations
that help to construct a movement’s identity.
Steinberg arrives at a position largely similar to that characteristic of some contemporary
post-subcultural and post-structural theorists: “a dialogic analysis focuses on multiple and
temporal relationships in the construction of oppositional genres rather than the more bipolar and
dichotomous depictions offered by subcultural theory…” (Steinberg 2004: 11). These theorists,
too, depict the studied collectivities as complex social fields connected to other social spheres and
at the same time internally structured. In this respect, both perspectives manage to overcome the
dichotomized model of political interaction (subculture versus mainstream, authorities versus
challengers) that characterizes the CCCS model (subcultural theory) and the theory of social
movements (political process model, framing studies). In this paper we contend that one cannot
understand the dynamics of ‘new protest formations’ unless one takes notice of these theoretical
developments. There is no homogeneous and clearly delimited hardcore subculture (scene) in the
Czech Republic; there is, however, a highly structured discursive field defined by several
different genres that have important implications for the political mobilization potential of the
individual participants in the scene. The next sections of the paper further develop this basic
argument.
Methodology
Data for our research was collected (a.) during a long-term participant observation inside the
Czech hardcore scene, and (b.) during 15 semi-structured interviews (each approximately 90
minutes long). The group of respondents consisted of scene participants at the age between 20
and 32 years, 10 men and 5 women, involved in several types of activities (organizers of concerts
and protest activities, musicians, fans) and in different stages of involvement (newcomers,
insiders, dropouts). The names of respondents were altered due to fear of possible sanction. Each
interview was centered on the respondent’s attitude towards DIY, his/her definition of DIY and
the role DIY plays in his/her activities, the respondent’s attitude towards active protest
participation (or his/her conceptualization of active protest participation), and the possible
11
participant’s involvement in NGOs. The interviews were conducted in the Czech Republic,
mostly in the region of South Moravia between fall 2005 and spring 2006.
In order to make it possible to analyze the transformations of the scene during the period
of post-communism, we have researched relevant web servers (czechcore.cz, freemusic.cz,
diycore.net, diy.freetekno.cz) and printed zines that were published in the Czech Republic
between 1990 and 2005 (e.g. A-Kontra, Agaila, Call for Justice, Different Life, Dooms Day, Do
or Die, Fragile, Hluboká orba, Impregnate, Killed by Noise, Komunikace, Malárie, Minority,
Move Your Ass!, Oslí uši, Slzy na rtech/Private View of Slavery, XenslavementX). This research
has been supported by supplementary research of some Slovak (www.prasopal.sk, sxehc.sk) and
Polish (www.hard-core.pl) Internet sites. Similarly, we have included relevant articles from
Slovak (Biosphere, Ya Basta!, LimoKid), German (Abolishing the Borders from Below), British
(Reason to Believe) and US-based (Harbinger, Heartattack, Inside Front, Maximum Rock´n´Roll,
Profane Existence Short, Fast and Loud) zines.
The Hardcore Scene in the Czech Republic: A Conceptual Map
What is hardcore? The answer to this question would always betray the respondent’s involvement
not only in the scene, but also in political activism generally. According to one perspective: “The
basis of HC [hardcore] is the idea of D.I.Y (do-it-yourself) that is based on the maximal rejection
of the music business … HC is therefore one form of struggle, it is a lifestyle (do not confuse it
with the style of dressing), which is tightly connected with the animal rights movement, the
anarchist, environmental, and anti-fascist movements, squatting, etc.” (zine Different Life,
November-December 1995). Indeed, the interconnectedness among DIY, autonomous protest
movement, and the underground hardcore scene is very common in the Czech Republic (and not
only there). At the same time, we shall see that there is no singular way of defining the hardcore
scene. The ‘political’ reading represented by the above quote is just one of the possible ways in
which the scene can relate to the broader world of social and political mobilization.
We conceptualize the hardcore scene in the CR as a discursive field. The boundaries that
separate the scene “from the inauthentic and commercial are understood as porous and
permeable, requiring constant policing through the ongoing process of classifying and
reclassifying certain ‘tastes’ as legitimate” (Weinzierl and Muggleton 2003: 10). ‘Debates’ that
define the exact meaning of the hardcore scene to its members are continuously going on within
12
this field. These debates also determine the relationship of scene members to other social spheres,
including the sphere of politics. We propose to depict the major conflict lines of the debates
going on within the Czech hardcore scene as two continuums – the first one is formed by the axis
of commodification and the second one by the axis of politicization (see figure 2).
The Axis of Commodification
One of the major issues that constitute the first dividing line in the field is whether it is legitimate
to accept musical records that are in style similar to records produced in a DIY fashion but are
products of the so-called major labels (the so-called Big 5 music companies EMI, SONY,
WARNER, UNIVERSAL and BMG). Such records are produced by subdivisions of big
companies that used to be independent labels but have been co-opted by the major labels to scout
potentially interesting and successful groups for them. In the Czech Republic this debate started
off already in the beginning of the 1990s (see zines Malárie, Different Life, Euthanasie) and
mirrored similar debates abroad. The debate has been going on since then without declining in
intensity.
Those who argue in favor of accepting major labels claim that these labels provide music
groups with better conditions for creative work and better financial conditions. Major labels are
in addition appreciated for their ability to make the final product widely available on the
international market: “It is undisputable that in major labels the production determines the
impression the record leaves. In most cases, the records are perfectly produced, they have superb
sound and sophisticated booklet – they are perfect there where DIY labels cannot be because they
lack money” (Contribution to the Internet debate at czechcore.cz, Dec 12, 2004). Advocates of
major labels do not fear the commercialization of hardcore; on the contrary, they see it as a way
of improving the quality of production.
The process of commercialization of (part of) hardcore has been taking place since the
beginning of the 1990s, and has been related to the boom of alternative/grunge groups from
Seattle, USA. The big companies, however, have not incorporated these alternative groups to the
dominant cultural code, as the CCCS model would have it. On the contrary, the groups have been
encouraged to preserve their alternative character and have not been asked to change either music
or lyrics (the most well-known example is the American band Rage Against the Machine).
Together with their fan bases, these groups were then included into the big firms’ commercial
13
empires and have thus constituted new market segment, as well as a new segment in the dominant
cultural code. This development has presented the ‘hardcore kids’ with a dilemma. Had it been a
simple case of incorporation, the attitude would probably be clear: outright rejection. Yet, the
differentiated inclusion of hardcore bands in the show business has been a more complicated
issue and it has served to deepen the division between sympathizers and critics of marketization.
While sympathizers have renounced DIY principles (and, as a result, have disconnected the
cultural and the political dimensions of hardcore), critics have insisted on the indisputable
significance of DIY for the self-definition of hardcore culture.
Critics of major labels emphasize the process and the background of the production of a
record and their wider consequences: “So, what is the difference between “our” DIY scene – the
underground – and the mainstream? Is it not precisely philosophy and politics? If it is no longer
important whether there are contracts or not, whether there is someone making profit or not, on
which stage the show takes place, whether it is about music and not about philosophy/politics, so
what’s the meaning of the words’ underground’ and ‘independent’? In what respect is it still
‘hardcore’?” (Contribution to the Internet debate at czechcore.cz, Dec 13, 2004) “DIY is an
axiom of hardcore punk. It defines this subculture. Go on driveling about boundaries whatever
you wish. For me personally, the boundary lies before and behind ethics and behavior in
general.” (Contribution to the Internet debate at czechcore.cz, Feb 16, 2005).
To sum up, the first division line in the hardcore field can be understood as a continuum
where the two extremes are formed by divergent conceptions of the quality of a record – the
conception of quality as a product (the stress is put on sound and design) and the conception of
quality as a process of creation (the stress is primarily put on the underground dimension of
production and DIY ethics). The product – process axis of commercialization in figure 1 depicts
this division line.
The Axis of Politicization
Yet another fault line in the hardcore field brings about internal conflict. This fault line is a
continuum between, on the one side, an instrumental understanding of art production as a tool of
political activism and, on the other side, an emotional understanding centered on individual needs
and identity. This internal division in the field is depicted by the identity – politics line in figure
1. We see this line as an axis of politicization. The instrumental understanding is demonstrated
14
by one of our respondents, an active member of a hardcore band and an organizer of INPEG (the
organization that coordinated the protests against the joint meeting of the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank in Prague in 2000), who claims: “…I think that this group on a major
label that sings a song, the name of which I do not remember, about challenging gender roles,
might in a way be more political and can have a much bigger political impact than a DIY
hardcore group“ (Interview Vladimir, Brno, Feb 20, 2006). The identity-based understanding is
illustrated by an organizer of DIY concerts in Brno who describes his activities as follows: “…for
me it is important to do it myself without contracts, because it is based on trust between the group
and the organizer. The principle is important for me. It is equally important for me that there is
no money involved in it. It would not suit me to organize bigger concerts … However, I do not see
anything political in this“ (Interview Ivan, Brno, Dec 21, 2005).
The combination of the axis of commercialization and the axis of politicization gives us a
conceptual map of the discursive field of the Czech hardcore scene (see figure 2). The map is
formed by four quadrants that depict four different social clusters grouped behind different
discursive genres. As figure 2 demonstrates, there are four ways in which an individual can relate
to the broader discursive field of hardcore. Three of the four clusters broadly correspond to the
typology of social movements presented in figure 1. However, in our understanding, the ideal
types do not depict different types of movements; rather, they describe different modes of
participation in the broader social setting of the scene. Sector II is close to the logic of action of
subcultural movements, sector III to the logic of instrumentally-oriented movements, and sector
IV to the logic of action of countercultural movements. Sector I lacks a counterpart in social
movement theory because it depicts a highly commercialized subcultural segment of society that
does not provide any specific platform for political mobilization. In general, the individual’s way
of identification with the discursive field of hardcore has important repercussions for his/her
communication with mainstream society and especially with the political sphere.
15
Figure 2: Conceptual Map of the Hardcore Scene in the Czech Republic
individual identity
Sector I:
Sector II:
Hardcore as a Style,
Hardcore as a Subculture,
Music, Entertainment
Alternative Lifestyle
product
process/DIY
Sector III:
Sector IV:
Hardcore as a Recruitment
Hardcore as a Counterculture
Base for InstrumentallyOriented Activism
politics
Inter-sectoral relations
The map of the Czech hardcore scene is formed by four sectors. We shall offer detailed
descriptions of these sectors and analyze their relation to DIY activism. We start off, however, by
analyzing inter-sectoral relations. In general, there is an open communication between sectors
located next to each other but there is almost no communication between sectors that are located
diagonally. Communication between sectors I and II is based on the individualized way of
participation that both sectors share and on common elements in their general conceptualization
of hardcore as a music subculture rather than as a political enterprise. Sectors II and IV on their
part share a belief in the prominent importance of DIY. Although they define its role in somewhat
different terms, it provides them with a common framework of communication. The existing
communication channels between sectors III and IV are propped up by the sometimes
16
overlapping political agenda of the two sectors. Sectors I and III are connected by much less
developed channels. The described pattern of inter-sectoral relations demonstrates that there is no
single common collective identity shared across the Czech hardcore scene; the scene’s ‘identity’
is defined by several inter-sectoral overlaps that do not necessarily encompass all scene members.
In such a setting, the key role is played by those individuals that are embedded in more than one
sector because they create and support inter-sectoral communication channels.
As we have already argued, there is almost no communication between sectors that are
positioned diagonally. Sector I is the complete opposite of sector IV. While sector I can be
largely characterized as an apolitical commercial adolescent subculture, sector IV claims to
represent politicized alternative ethics that differ from both the commercial mainstream and
‘politics as usual’. For those located in sector IV, individuals in sector I are part of what they
wish to distance themselves from; in fact, they are even deemed more dangerous than the
‘normal’ mainstream because they attempt to present themselves as an alternative. For those in
sector IV, sector I is a sector of posers.
Similarly, there is no cooperation between sectors II and III. Individuals in sector II (often
belonging to the older generation) often express skepticism and aversion towards the political and
ideological agitation (with a radical left orientation) characteristic of sector III (see the definition
of sector III below). This differentiation is very strongly pronounced in the post-communist
context of the Czech Republic, as scene members from the older generation tend to associate
political agitation with the political agitation orchestrated by the old communist regime. Such a
tendency is in fact typical for the whole society and is not a unique characteristic of the hardcore
scene (see Howard 2002, 2003). The divergence between sectors II and III is thus the result of a
generational rift within the scene: “I remember one major ‘accident’ when XXX was not able to
digest certain politically-engaged lyrics; actually, it was a bit too much for me as well. It is
understandable when you have had that Bolshevik turning even toilet paper into political
agitation; it was difficult to listen how a band from the West explicitly expresses something that
by virtue of its rhetoric was similar to that Bolshevik crap. I think this was a major problem for
that older generation.” (zine Hluboka orba, no. 25/2005, 104)
To sum up, sectors that are positioned next to each other share certain common
frameworks of understanding that serve as a basis of a collective identity; sectors positioned
17
diagonally share nothing of this kind. In the next subsection we turn to the characteristics of the
four sectors and the sectors’ relationship to DIY.
Hardcore Scene Sectors and DIY
The following part of our case study argues that DIY activism plays a very different role in the
different clusters in the scene. More specifically, sectors II and IV tend to identify themselves
with DIY activism.
Sector I is formed by those individuals that emphasize product and identity, which means
that they identify themselves with the scene first of all through musical style and informal
networks formed around cultural activities such as concerts, journals, festivals or around
particular locations such as quarters and clubs. There is almost no room for politically motivated
messages. These individuals are not striving very eagerly to differentiate themselves from the
mainstream. For them, the division between underground and mainstream is a thing of the past:
“… all those people who are interested in punk and hardcore and who speculate on why it is so
that this band is on a major label and that one is not, and who are trying to define what DIY is
and what it is not – I would like to tell them that they are stuck in history...” (newsletter Move
Your Ass, 16. 6. 2005, 20). Their identity is based on a particular musical style and broader
friendship networks ‘attached’ to the scene. Their participation in hardcore is very individualized,
focused on personal fulfillment and self-realization. They do not share a strong collective identity
with the rest of the scene. The salience of this sector has increased as a result of the abovementioned commercialization of part of the hardcore scene in the 1990s.
Individuals in this sector do not base their activities (such as political participation) on
DIY principles. The quality of their participation is broadly similar to that which we observe in
sector II, the major difference being the lack of DIY ethics in sector I. Individuals located in this
sector are open to a dialogue with mainstream society and, as a result, their pattern of political
participation closely resembles that of the rest of society. Their identification with hardcore is
mediated through a particular musical taste that does not translate into political stances. For them,
culture and politics are two different and unrelated things.
Sector III is formed by individuals whose relationship to the hardcore scene is rather
instrumentally oriented. Their motivation for politically oriented activities and citizens’
participation comes primarily from areas that are not directly related to DIY and to the hardcore
18
community. The sector includes activists that organize political protests and demonstrations and
whose relationship to the hardcore scene and DIY is only latent. For them, the scene is just one
potential recruitment base for political activism. The activists’ ideological attitude correlates with
DIY in relation to anti-authoritarianism and radical democracy, but, at the same time, DIY is not
in the center of their activities. DIY principles are only secondary to the political impact of their
activities. In this respect, the activists that make up sector III are very loosely embedded in the
hardcore scene.
These scene members deem it acceptable for a band to go commercial in an attempt to
address wider audience and to thus enhance its political impact (e.g. The International Noise
Conspiracy, Chumbawamba, Rage Against the Machine). According to one respondent: “The
DIY principle is probably important, but it is not crucial for me… [T]hat group [The
International Noise Conspiracy] is thoroughly political, they are throwing in the word capitalism
in every second song. And I accept their argument that on a major label they would have the
chance to address more people. Bands that say that DIY is crucial for them and that they would
never go for a major label are “clean” in their message, but, at the same time, they enclose
themselves and forego additional opportunities [to disseminate their attitudes].” (Interview
Vladimir, Brno, Feb 20, 2006) All in all, the product (in this case – political mobilization,
demonstration, lobbying, etc.) is much more important than the way of ‘production’, be it DIY or
not. Citizens’ participation in this sector is not directly related to DIY.
DIY is a key element in citizens’ participation for the individuals belonging to sectors II
and IV. Both of these sectors are based on DIY principles as opposed to the product principles
typical of sector I (where the product is a record) and sector III (where the product is political
action). The main difference between sector II and sector IV, however, is to be found in their
conceptualization of DIY. In sector IV, the meaning of DIY is given by its concrete political
impact. DIY acquires a primarily political meaning; it is understood as part of political action and
is framed in an ideological language. DIY ethics is understood as a way of changing the broader
social structures. In contrast, in sector II DIY is rather part of participants’ lifestyle choices and
personal identity. In this sector, DIY ethics has no political meaning; it has impact only at a
personal and emotional level.
Our respondents’ involvement in protest activities illustrates well the difference between
the two sectors. Individuals located in sector II typically participate in protests and
19
demonstrations that are already planned and organized. They provide logistical support, i.e. they
support activities such as transportation or preparation and distribution of materials. One
respondent described his role in protest activities in the following way: “for example, I
participated in the production of banners for a demonstration… in general, I’ve been involved in
the technical support of such events” (Interview Ivan, Brno, Dec 21, 2005). Individuals in sector
II prefer such a repertoire of action that does not call for a long-term involvement in a concrete
organization or network of activists but that rather provides support for those in sector IV who
are actively engaged in organization and mobilization for concrete projects. Participation is thus
highly individualized and focused on the participant’s personal need to demonstrate a positive
attitude towards protest activities. Respondents in sector IV, in contrast, participate directly in
organizational work; they are fully involved in concrete political and social activities such as
organization of demonstrations and the building of community centers (e.g. the Liberté center in
Český Těšín was built with the help of people from the hardcore scene).
This section focused on internal divisions and discursive dynamics within the scene. In
the next section, we turn to the scene’s external relations to its broader social environment. More
specifically, we focus on the relationship of different segments of the scene to the sphere of
NGO-based political activism.
Participation in NGOs
The differences between the sectors are clearly identifiable when it comes to instrumentallyoriented participation in NGOs. The different sectors of the hardcore scene have different
relationship to NGO-based participation. Sector I is in a way apolitical and so there is no
analytically relevant relation between this sector and NGO activism. Sector III is primarily
formed by political activists and their mobilized followers, who take active part in NGO activism.
However, it is politicized in its own way without any explicit and relevant relation to hardcore or
DIY.
Let us now turn to sectors II and IV. Respondents in sector II express uneasiness with
organized membership in NGOs. The most important reasons for their non-involvement are the
hierarchical and excessively complex way of decision-making typical of NGOs and the ensuing
fear of losing their voice in such complicated structures. One of them (27 year-old, organizer of
hardcore shows in Brno) added: “I started attending the meetings [of one NGO] and saw that
20
they consisted of three-hour long quarrels over complete crap, and then I realized that it was
going nowhere and that my priorities were somewhere else, not in spending this way three hours
every day” (Interview Ivan, Brno, Dec 21, 2005). Other respondents expressed similar views: “I
did not participate in these organizations because I did not agree with some concrete individuals,
even though I was sympathetic to the overall conception of the particular NGO; also, I did not
like all that labeling and organizing. All this simply did not appeal to me, it was important for me
to work with people whom I knew and who were my friends” (Interview Boris, Brno, March 21,
2006). Our research revealed that individuals in this sector shared a rather negative view on
instrumental participation in NGOs. At most they have been willing to support NGO campaigns
and projects; they have never got involved as active organizational cadres.
Respondents located in sector IV take the opposite stance. In the Czech Republic there
have been several cases when the local hardcore scene in a particular city or a town has created a
local branch of an NGO. For example, the local chapters of the environmental organization
NESEHnuti (Independent Social Environmental Movement) in Boskovice and Napajedla were
densely linked with the local hardcore scenes. The activities of the activist group Cabaret Voltaire
in North Bohemia are likewise interlinked with the hardcore scene. On the other hand, the
abovementioned local branches of NESEHnuti did not last long. The involved individuals from
the hardcore scene gradually withdrew, causing the collapse of the local chapters or forcing big
changes in membership. These outcomes, however, were not caused by internal developments in
the respective local hardcore scenes. They were rather the effect of the organizational
development of NESEHnuti. The organization started out as a grassroots movement that lacked a
clear organizational structure and hierarchy. However, with the initial stage of development
completed, there was a need to develop a more sophisticated managerial structure that necessarily
meant bureaucratization and professionalization of the organization. The organization lost the
appeal of a decentralized and loosely organized activist network and ceased to be attractive to
activists who valued direct action and DIY and could thus not tolerate NESEHnuti’s decision to
follow in the steps of other bureaucratized NGOs. These examples demonstrate that there are
always potential tensions in the relationship between DIY and NGO-based political participation.
DIY activism is much more compatible with various forms of direct action movement that
are often directly linked with the countercultural sector of the scene. DIY is a crucial component
of this movement; in fact, the direct action movement is often regarded as the predecessor of DIY
21
activism (Munro 2005, McKay 1998). The repertoire of direct action debated and supported by
part of the hardcore scene includes activities such as Food Not Bombs (distribution of free food
to homeless people), consumers’ boycotts, squatting, street parties and radical environmental
protection. Further, the veganism and vegetarianism that characterize some components of the
hardcore scene (especially the straightedge movement) provide an ideological platform for
radical animal rights activists who occasionally attack vivisection laboratories and big farms.
Although there is only a handful of such activists in the Czech Republic and they operate in
complete secrecy, their activities are generally accepted in the hardcore scene. Subject to debate
are only the means of action they choose and, above all, the issue of the acceptability of violence
as a tool of political activism.
Individuals in sectors II, III, and IV display a tendency to take part in direct action. Their
motivation is, however, very different. Those in sector III are motivated instrumentally and
consider direct action as just one possible tactics in the broader repertoire available to political
activists. For them, direct action is complementary to NGO-based activism and they are willing
to take part in both. In contrast, sectors II and IV are skeptical of NGO-based activism.
Individuals in sector II participate in direct action on the basis of interpersonal friendship
networks and do not show any evidence of explicit ideological commitment. Individuals in sector
IV, on the other hand, get involved in direct action on the basis of ideological motivation.
For sector IV, direct action is not just one possible way of doing activist work; it is the only real
alternative to mainstream politics. It is the only segment of the hardcore scene that embraces
DIY as a political principle and recoils from NGO-based activism, which it deems inherently
ineffective, mired in endless discussion, and incapable of bringing about real changes in society.
This stance has been reinforced during the 1990s due to the professionalization of many
originally activist NGOs (as in the example of NESEHnuti above). As a result, for the last fifteen
years DIY activism has been alienated from the mainstream NGO-based activism that has been
gradually institutionalizing throughout this period and has largely become part of the standard
political business.
The Internet and the Development of the Hardcore Scene
In the beginning of the 1990s, the Czech hardcore scene was formed by a tight friendship
network. Today, as the conceptual map suggests, it contains highly differentiated social clusters
22
that do not share a single collective identity: “I think that [the period of the first half of the 1990s
and today] just cannot be compared. Nowadays it is completely different, there is a bunch of
variously connected people capable of arranging things, locations where you can make a show.
These opportunities did not exist before. It used to be impossible to organize events without the
help of acquaintances, and so if you did not know anybody, it was hard to do anything”
(Interview Kristina, Brno, April 1, 2006). The gradual expansion of the scene, however,
weakened the originally strong social ties that were constitutive of Czech hardcore in the first half
of the 1990s. This was related to two developments.
On the one hand, one part of the scene has been gradually commercialized and has opened
up to new external influences (see the subsection The Axis of Commodification above for a more
comprehensive information). On the other hand, the use of the Internet has changed the
communication infrastructure of the scene. We argue that to a large extent it has been the
development of the Internet that has made it possible for the scene to internally diversify.
According to one respondent, the Internet has clearly helped to broaden the group of active scene
members: “… it used to be just the selected few that were able to organize concerts because they
had contact with the band or had its phone number. Now you can find tour dates on the website
and it is possible to contact the group or the booking agency, etc.” (Interview Ivan, Brno, Dec
21, 2005). Online information and Internet-facilitated international contacts have reduced the
salience of interpersonal networks and has provided an impetus for internal differentiation within
the scene and for the formation of the four different sectors.
We do not argue that the Internet has mobilized uninvolved individuals to join the
hardcore scene or embrace DIY principles. The Internet is not deemed capable of initial
mobilization; it is rather seen as the means of further activization of those already mobilized
(Norris 2001, 2002, Agre 2002, Hand and Sandywell 2002). Our research has not identified a
single individual that would be initiated to the scene via the Internet. Most of the respondents
have been recruited through friendship networks; some of them have joined on their own on the
basis of either their political persuasion or music taste. However, the Internet has clearly
contributed to the crystallization of particular hardcore genres (the sectors in figure 2).
In general, the impact of the Internet has been more pronounced in cultural rather than
political terms. In terms of cultural impact, the development of the Internet has brought about a
radical decrease in the number of printed zines (see also Duncombe 2005). Although it is very
23
difficult to determine the exact number of zines due to their irregular publication and short
periods of existence, the general trend can be illustrated by some numbers. In 1999 there were 20
– 25 zines in the Czech Republic (e.g. Ace Ventura, Buryzone, Defender, Dooms Day, EYF,
Fragile, Hluboká Orba, Impregnate, Killed by Noise, Noise master, Rescator, XenslavementX);
today there are 5 – 10 zines (Hluboká Orba, Fragile) and newsletters (Killed By Noise or, to a
limited extent, Move Your Ass) with longer publication history.4 Contrary to printed media,
Internet servers focused on the hardcore/punk scene in the Czech Republic (e.g. czechcore.cz.,
freemusic.cz, ipunk.cz) have boomed and, in terms of the number of visits daily, some of them
are able to compete with servers focused on mainstream production.
In terms of political impact, the use of the Internet for political activism is rather limited
in the hardcore scene. The most important problem is the security of Internet-based
communication: “Internet is a very important communication medium… but there are many
apparent risks involved, for example, security… I think that in the case of INPEG [the
organization that coordinated the protests against the joint meeting of the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Prague in 2000] it was clear – our discussion group was
corrupted. We had a discussion and decided that when there were very important messages that,
[if leaked], could endanger our whole activity, we would be using face-to-face communication,
and the Internet would be used just for arranging meetings. But then we thought that we did not
have anything to hide and if ‘they’ wanted, they would get to known anyway… Definitely, there
were individuals and even groups that forwarded information further” (Interview George, Brno,
Jan 15, 2006). Another respondent added: “Presently, I cannot imagine the organization of some
big action without email and the Internet, but in the case of direct actions there is a rule that the
Internet is not used for concrete arrangements but only for arranging meetings where you learn
the rest. … I do not regard the Internet as safe communication” (Interview Vojtech, Brno, Jan
30, 2006). Direct actions are organized on the basis of personal communication within a given
affinity group rather than with the help of computer-mediated communication. The Internet only
supplements already existing traditional communication channels. In sum, the preceding analysis
suggests that the value and function of the Internet is ambiguous when it comes to organizational
4
Only zines that have had at least three issues are included in the evaluation.
24
work in local settings. However, the real potential of Internet-based communication is not
realized at the local or national levels, but at the transnational level.5
The concrete methods of Internet use differ across the sectors of the hardcore scene.
Sectors I and II utilize the Internet as a major source of information on hardcore music and bands,
for booking and communication with booking agencies, and for the organization of shows.
Similarly, sector IV has found the Internet instrumental in the creation of an alternative network
for the distribution of information on bands, shows, and festivals. This network serves as a
platform for the activities of a specific group of individuals who organize tours and provide
locations for shows (e.g. squats), and who are united on the basis of DIY ethics. Unlike the other
sectors, this sector uses the Internet for political communication, too, although it does so only to a
limited extent due to the security considerations discussed above. Sector III, on its part, has taken
advantage of the Internet as a new medium of communication and has been using it in agreement
with the instrumental goals of activists (e.g. communication, coordination, self-presentation) (see
Bach and Stark 2003).
The relationship between DIY activism and the new communication media can be
summed up in the following way. The cultural impact of new communication media is strongly
felt in the hardcore scene. The Internet has to a certain extent replaced traditional media such as
printed zines and snail mail. It has provided some individuals with additional organizational
resources and has thus enabled them to intensify their activities in the scene. Throughout the
1990s this development has stepped up the process of internal differentiation within the scene.
The increasing use and effectiveness of the Internet has made organizational work in terms of
cultural activities less dependent on interpersonal networks and social capital generated through
face-to-face communication. The impact of the Internet on direct action activities, however, has
been much more limited due to perceived security problems with computer-mediated
communication. At the same time, by virtue of its transnational character, the Internet has
strengthened cross-border communication channels and intensified communication among
existing alternative networks. Further, by virtue of its radically decentralized character, the
5
The use of the Internet for political activism has recently intensified in response to the mobilization of segments of
the anti/alter-globalization movement, which is to a certain extent rooted in DIY-based countercultural networks.
DIY activism preceded the currently developing Internet-based forms of individualized participation in the
movement for global justice. The current form of transnational activism, which does not rely on the organizational
work of NGOs but rather on “loosely linked distributed networks that are minimally dependent on central
coordination, leaders, or ideological commitment” (Bennett 2005: 205) resembles the constitutive principles of DIY
activism as it developed on the national level.
25
Internet has enabled highly individualized ways of participation in the hardcore scene typical of
sectors II and IV. All things considered, the development of the Internet has transformed the
hardcore scene and the relations among its various segments.
Conclusions
This paper has focused on the manifestations of DIY activism in the Czech hardcore scene. It is
impossible to understand this scene in terms of a subculture united by a single collective identity
and social location suggested by the classical views on subcultural mobilization. The scene
constitutes a highly structured social setting engaged in both intense internal debates and debates
with its external environment. It is therefore impossible to see the scene as a separate social
sphere clearly differentiated from the rest of the society. The paper argues that it is unjustifiable
to regard the Czech hardcore scene as a subculture isolated from mainstream society and
proposes instead to conceptualize it as an integral part of mainstream society. By demonstrating
the existing connections between the scene and various social spheres, the paper challenges the
very existence of a Manichean division between mainstream and ‘subcultures’.
Two dimensions characterize the inter-scene discourse of Czech hardcore. They refer to
the emphasis that scene members put on self-realization vs. political action and on product vs.
process of production. The different stances with regard to these two dimensions form four
distinctive discursive genres that represent four social clusters in the Czech hardcore scene. The
paper has proposed a conceptual map that informs the analysis of the internal dynamics of the
scene and that models the involvement of scene members in other social spheres. On the one
hand, there are scene members who are part of a standard consumer culture (sector I); on the
other hand there are scene members who fiercely resist such a culture (sector IV). On the one
hand, there are scene members who stress within-group interaction (sector II); on the other hand
there are scene members pursuing instrumental policy goals in the sphere of standard politics
(sector III).
Most importantly from the point of view of this paper, the sectors differ in the extent to
which they adhere to DIY principles in their activities. DIY defines only one half of the
discursive field of Czech hardcore (sectors II and IV) and is of no importance for the other half.
In addition, only in sector IV DIY activism translates into an explicitly political articulation of a
‘new protest formation’ or a direct action movement that is at the same time culturally embedded
26
and political in its orientation. The concept of ‘new protest formations’ thus appears to be fully
applicable to only one part of the Czech hardcore scene.
References:
Agre, Philip E. 2002. “Real-Time Politics: The Internet and the Political Process.” Information
Society 18, no. 5, 311–331.
Ancelovici, Marcos. 2002. “Organizing against Globalization: The Case of ATTAC in France”.
Politics & Society 30, no. 3, 427-63.
Bach, Jonathan and David Stark. 2003. “Technology and Transformation: Facilitating Knowledge
Networks in Eastern Europe.” Technology, Business and Society Programme Paper no. 10.
Available at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN018156.pdf.
Bennett, Andy and Keith Kahn-Harris. 2004. “Introduction.” In After Subculture: Critical Studies
in Contemporary Youth Culture. Eds. Andy Bennett and Keith Kahn-Harris. New York,
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-18.
Bennett, Lance. 2005. “Social Movements beyond Borders: Understanding Two Eras of
Transnational Activism.” In Transnational Protest and Global Activism. Eds. Donatella della
Porta and Sidney Tarrow. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers, 203–226.
Cisar, Ondrej. 2005. “The Left in the Beginning of the 21st Century.” In Trajectories of the Left.
Ed. Lubomir Kopecek. Brno: CDK, 11-26.
Clarke, John, Stuart Hall, Tony Jefferson and Brian Roberts. 1997. “Subcultures, Cultures and
Class.” In The Subcultures Reader. Eds. Ken Gelder and Sarah Thornton. London: Routledge,
100–111.
Cohen, Jean L. 1985. “Strategy or Identity: New Theoretical Paradigms and Contemporary Social
Movements.” Social Research 52, no. 4, 663-716.
Cohen, Jean L. a Andrew Arato. 1992. Political Theory and Civil Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Della Porta, Donatella and Sidney Tarrow. Eds. 2005. Transnational Protest and Global
Activism. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Duncombe, Stephen. 2005. “Zines” In Cultural Studies: From Theory to Action. Ed. Pepi
Leistyna. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Duyvendak, Jan Willem and Marco G. Giugni. 1995. “Social Movement Types and Policy
Domains.” In New Social Movements in Western Europe. A Comparative Analysis. Hanspeter
Kriesi, Ruud Koopmans, Jan Willem Duyvendak, and Marco G. Giugni. London: UCL Press, 82110.
Eder, Klaus. 1993. The New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in
Advanced Societies. London: SAGE Publications.
Epstein, Barbara. 1993. Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct Action in
the 1970s and 1980s. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
27
Graeber, David. 2002. “The New Anarchists.” New Left Review 13, 61-73.
Habermas, Jürgen 1987. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Haenfler, Ross. 2004. “Collective Identity in the Straight Edge: How Diffuse Movements Foster
Commitment, Encourage Individualized Participation, and Promote Cultural Change.”
Sociological Quarterly 45, no. 4, 785–805.
Hand, Martin and Barry Sandywell. 2002. “E-topia as Cosmopolis or Citadel.” Theory, Culture &
Society 19, no. 1/2, 197–225.
Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2004. Multitude. War and Democracy in the Age of Empire.
London: Penguin Books.
Hardt, Michael. 2002. “Today’s Bandung?”. New Left Review 14, 112-18.
Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge.
Howard, Marc Morje. 2002. “Postcommunist Civil Society in Comparative Perspective.”
Demokratizatsiya 10, no. 1, 285-305.
Howard, Marc Morje. 2003. The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Klein, Naomi. 2001. “Reclaiming the Commons”. New Left Review 9, 81-89.
Laclau, Ernesto a Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics. London, New York: Verso.
Laraña, Enrique, Hank Johnson and Joseph R. Gusfield. Eds. 1994. New Social Movements:
From Ideology to Identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lewis, George H. 1992. “Who Do You Love?: The Dimensions of Musical Taste.” In Popular
Music and Communication. Ed. James Lull. London: Sage.
Maffesoli, Michel. 1996. The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society.
London, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Marchart, Oliver. 2003. “Bridging the Micro-Macro Gap: Is There Such a Thing as a Postsubcultural Politics?” In The Post-Subcultures Reader. Eds. David Muggleton and Rupert
Weinzierl. New York: Berg, 83–97.
Marchart, Oliver. 2004. “New Protest Formations and Radical Democracy.” Peace Review 16,
no. 4, 415–420.
Martin, Greg. 2002. “Conceptualizing Cultural Politics in Subcultural and Social Movement
Studies.” Social Movement Studies, 1, no. 1, 73-88.
McDonald, Kevin. 2002. “From Solidarity to Fluidarity: Social Movements Beyond ‘Collective
Identity’ – The Case of Globalization Conflicts.” Social Movement Studies 1, no. 2, 109–128.
McKay, George. Ed. 1998. DiY Culture: Party & Protest in Nineties Britain. London: Verso.
28
Melucci, Alberto. 1989. Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in
Contemporary Society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Melucci, Alberto. 1996. Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Munro, Lyle. 2005. “Strategies, Action Repertoires and DIY Activism in the Animal Rights
Movement.” Social Movement Studies 4, no. 1, 75–94.
Norris, Pippa. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet
Worldwide. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Norris, Pippa. 2002. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
O’Connor, Alan. 2003. “Punk Subculture in Mexico and the Anti-globalization Movement: A
Report from the Front.” New Political Science 25, no. 1, 43–53.
O’Connor, Alan. 2004. “The Sociology of Youth Subcultures.” Peace Review 16, no. 4, 409-414.
O’Connor, Alan. 2004a. “Punk and Globalization. Spain and Mexico.” International Journal of
Cultural Studies 7, no. 2, 175–195.
O’Doherty, Richard, Derrick Purdue, J. Dürrschmidt and Peter Jowers. 1997. “DIY Culture and
Extended Miliuex: LETS, Veggie Boxes and Festivals.” Sociological Review 45, no. 4, 645– 667.
O’Hara, Craig. 1999. The Philosophy of Punk. More than Noise! London, Edinburgh, San
Francisco: AK Press.
Polleta, Francesca and James M. Jasper. 2001. “Collective Identity and Social Movements.”
Annual Review of Sociology 27, 283-305.
Redhead, Steve. Ed. 1993. The Passion and the Fashion: Football Fandom in the New Europe.
London: Ashgate.
Redhead, Steve, Derek Wynne and Justin O’Connor. Eds. 1998. The Clubcultures Reader:
Readings in Popular Cultural Studies. Oxford: Blackwell.
Snow, David and Robert Benford. 1992. “Master Frames and Cycles of Protest.” In Frontiers in
Social Movement Theory. Eds. Aldon Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 133-155.
Steinberg, Marc W. 1998. “Tilting the Frame: Considerations on Collective Action from a
Discursive Turn.” Theory and Society 27, 845–72.
Steinberg, Marc W. 1999. “The Talk and Back Talk of Collective Action: A Dialogic Analysis of
Repertoires of Discourse among Nineteenth-Century English Cotton Spinners.” American
Journal of Sociology 105, no. 3, 736–80.
Steinberg, Marc W. 2002. “Toward a More Dialogic Analysis of Social Movement Culture.” In
Social Movements: Identity, Culture and the State. Eds. David S. Meyer, Nancy Whittier and
Belinda Robnett. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 208–225.
Steinberg, Marc W. 2004. “When Politics Goes Pop: On the Intersections of Popular and Political
Culture and the Case of Serbian Student Protests.” Social Movement Studies 3, no. 1, 3-29.
29
Straw, Will. 1997. “Communities and Scenes in Popular Music.” In The Subcultures Reader. Eds.
Ken Gelder and Sarah Thornton. London: Routledge, 494–505.
Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies” American Sociological Review
51, no. 2, 273-286.
Thornton, Sarah. 1997. “The Social Logic of Subcultural Capital.” In The Subcultures Reader.
Eds. Ken Gelder and Sarah Thornton. London: Routledge, 200–209.
Tilly, Charles. 1998. “Contentious Conversation.” Social Research 65, no. 3, 491–510.
Tucker, Kenneth H. 1991. “How New Are the New Social Movements?” Theory, Culture and
Society 8, 75-97.
Weinzierl, Rupert and David Muggleton. 2003. “What Is ‘Post-subcultural Studies’ Anyway?” In
The Post-subcultures Reader. Eds. David Muggleton and Rupert Weinzierl. Oxford, New York:
Berg, 3-25.
Wall, Derek. 1999. Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movement: Radical Environmentalism and
Comparative Social Movements. London, Routledge.
Wood, Robert, T. 1999. “‘Nailed to the X’: A Lyrical History of the Straightedge Youth
Subculture.” Journal of Youth Studies 2, no. 2, 133–151.
Wood, Robert, T. 2003. “The Straightedge Youth Sub-Culture: Observations on the Complexity
of Sub-Cultural Identity.” Journal of Youth Studies 6, no. 1, 33–52.
Czech zines:
A-Kontra 3/2005
Ace Ventura 1/2001, 2/2003
Bakteria 1/2003, 2/2004
Biosfere 5/2002
Buryzone 11/2005
Cabaret Voltaire 22/2003
Defender 3/2000
Different Life 9/1995, 6/1995,
Doom´s Day 1/2000, 5/2003
Euthanasia 7/ 1997, 8/1997
Express Your Feelings 7/1998
Fragile 3/2002, 4/2003, 6/2005
Hluboká Orba 17/ 1999, 18/1999, 19/2000, 20/2000, 21/2001, 22/2001, 23/2002
Hogo Fogo 1/1996
Choroba mysli 3/2004
30
Impregnate 5/1998, 9/2000, 10/2001, 12/2003
Just Do It Yourself 1/2003, 2/2003, 3/2004, 4/2004
K.A.Z/Express Your Feelings 5/10/2001, 6/11/2004
Killed by Noise newsletter
Kompost 1/2003
Komunikace 4/2001, 6/2002, 7-8/2004
Levantate 3/ 2001, 4/2003
Limo Kid 1/2001
Malárie 4/1992, 5/1993, 7/1997
Minority 1/1996, 2/1996, 5/1996, 8/1997
Move Your Ass 7/2004, 8/2004, 10/ 2005, 11/2005, 12/2006
Nobody Fucks Jesus 1/2000, 2/2000
Rescator 2/1999
Samba 3/2001, 4/2002
Sami sobě 9/2003, 10/2003, 11/2004
Sluníčko/Doom‘s day 2/4/2002
Příští Vrahžda
Vrahžda šest/2002
XenslavementX 2/2001, 3/2002
XtemplettonX 2/2001
Ya Basta 5/2002, 6/2003
Zines from other countries:
Abolishing Borders From Below 12/2003, 18/2005, 21/2005, 22/2005
Harbinger 1, 4 (printed version), the rest available at:
http://www.crimethinc.com/library/english/libharb2.html
Heartattack 22, 23, 27, 35 (Thirty years and counting issue)
Inside Front 9/1996, 10/1997, 11/ 1998, 12/1999, 13/2003
Maximum Rock´n´roll 196/1999, 221/2001, 225/2002, 235/2002, 251/2004, 262/2005, 267/2005
Profane Existence 27/1996, 36/1998, 41/2003, 42/ 2003, 43/2003(Black Bloc issue), 45/2004,
46/2004, 47/2005
Reason to Believe 3/2001 (Special feature on female participation in the DIY scene)
Reason to Believe 4/2001 (Interview w/Stef – Catharsis)
31
Reason to Believe 5/2002 (Rise and fall of DIY distributions? + Squatting issue)
Reason to Believe 6/2002 (Rise and fall of DIY part.2.)
Webs:
Direct Action: Twelve Myths about Direct Action: Voting Vs. Direct Action. Available at
http://www.crimethinc.com/downloads/12.html.
Houdy 2005. “Proč je důležité býti DIY [Why It Is Important to Be DIY].” Available at
www.czechcore.cz (published on February 16, 2005).
http://www.crimethinc.com/downloads/diyguide1/
http://www.czechcore.cz
http://www.ebullition.com/censorship.html
32