Hello everybody! I am currently reworking a book chapter about punk territoriality and quasy-political fights with Nazis for my future monograph. Yesterday night I was in the middle of trying to show how East German punk street violence goes back to the GDR industrial town gang violence. When I had enough I read a bit of Hilary Pilkingtons chapter about Russian punk violence in recent Fight Back book. Then I was quite fed up and turned on that documentary about a violent SXE crew called FSU. This all made me to think about the topic violence/territory. When you watch the documentary you see that police officials try to stretch the concept of gang in order to fit the FSU in it. They look slightly confused because the SXE gang was not about money and controlling streets but it was about the HC music and controlling the clubs. Which does not make sense from the perspective of a criminal gang. (Personally, I think I can understood the position of FSU about defending your brothers and clubs. Berlin skinhead/hooligan/streetpunk scene in the 1990s was not that violent but pretty close to it.) One idea I had was just that police guys do not get it and they had to construct some framework to interpret FSU in a way that was understandable for them. Another idea was, and I encountered it when writing the first draft of my chapter, that there is literally nothing analytical about intrasubcultural violence/fights written and the way subcultural studies portray subcultures territory is insufficient. The sociology of crime/deliquency is the closest thing when you want to explain subcultural violence and their notion of territory. The difference is, however, that subcultures (punk-skinhead-HC) give to their territory rather symbolic than concrete economic meaning (no street corner drug dealing for instance). And that difference matters! Any comments? youtube/watch?v=dGujAGTN56s
Posted on: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:36:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015