Alexei Yurchak claims youth subcultures in the USSR in the
1970s and 1980s were apolitical, some individuals appeared unaware of key
soviet figures, and instead they pursued artistic experiments along side
working in boiler rooms.
But, under oppressive regimes how can one be apolitical?
In March 2013, Your Middle East published an article called
“Turkey’s apolitical generation”, contrasting the Turkish “youth [is] not
interested in politics” with the youth in neighbouring Arab states leading
uprisings in 2011. However within months this article was shown to be fallible.
With the Gezi park protests in May 2013 and since consistent protests against
the government, with young men taking to wear mini skirts in the most recent
protests, the articles argument is called into question. Clearly trying to
label an entire generation as apolitical is controversial, but what this
example emphasises is the impossibility of remaining uninvolved in politics long term. For example Yurchak explains the Necrorealists
(an “apolitical” subculture) concern they would have faded out had it not been
for the Perestroika reforms of the 1980s, as the governmental “legitimacy”
enabled them to televise their work on national television networks in
1989.
Yurchak distinguishes between the subcultures aim to remain
apolitical and the political impacts they had upon society. I would argue
further, and claim that it is impossible to present the aim and the result as
separate entities. The group sought for “organic freedom”, a freedom beyond
politics and social norms, this anarchical like dream is politically based.
Similarly the protestors in Gezi began in protest against the urban plan for
the park, but the result, which ensued, was political, critiquing political
freedoms.
Both the Necrorealists and the Gezi protestors present movements,
originate from the political despite an absence of political goals, they are
products of the political situation and context. And whether it is through
making obscure naked films or occupying a park, these are outlets for them to
express deeper discontents, concerning their social and political existence.
Pfannkuch, Katharina. 'Turkey’s Apolitical
Generation'. Your Middle East. N.p., 2015. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
Yurchak, Alexey. “Suspending the Political: Late Soviet
Artistic Experiments on the Margins of the State.” Poetics Today 29: 4 (Winter
2008), 713-733.
I do believe you are arguing on a very interesting topic; namely how groups which seems unpolitical or originally have unpolitical goals are actually the result of the socio-political situation and are in the end usual for political ends. At least that is how I understood your hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteIf the topic was very interesting and can be linked to censorship and its influence on how these groups are "hijacked", I found your article slightly confusing : what is the relationship between youth subcultures groups in USSR (authoritarian regime) in the 1980s/1970s and the youth protest group in Turkey (not officially a authoritarian regime) in the 2010s ? I agree the assignement was very short so you did not have a lot of space to develop your arguments. However, despite the limited space, one line or two to link these two groups would have made your case stronger.
Lastly, on a small detail : it would be easier to read you with shorter sentences. Some of your sentences are so long that they can become confusing.
Overall a very interesting topic where you can feel the depth of the research behind. I would be very interested to read your essay if you were to develop on the youth subcultures throughout regimes and generations.
Turkey as a whole; with its regime, it's people and several ways in which censorship is a part of life, was the reason that I was interested in this elective. For the same reason, this blogpost was a very interesting read for me; as someone who has been labeled as a part of “the apolitical generation” and at the same time been a part of the Gezi Park Movement.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your question about the relationship between the two groups, I would personally answer this in two parts.
Firstly, Grainne, in her post makes a relation between one specific group (Necrorealists) and the Gezi protesters, not youth subcultures groups in USSR in general. She further explains how “The group sought for “organic freedom”, a freedom beyond politics and social norms`” but had political results, which is similar to the case in Turkey.
Secondly, there are several regimes around the world that are considered authoritarian by the international public even though they are not “officially” authoritarian. Turkey is an example of this, just like Russia and many others.
Also, I am confused with the “hijacked” word that you used in your comment since as far as I know neither of these groups were hijacked. Could you elaborate on that please?