Thursday, April 13, 2017
Class Discussion 4/13
Summarize Greene's argument. What is the relationship between this academic argument, his topic, and the voice he uses. With what advantages does it afford him? With what disadvantages does it afford him. Assuming Greene is not stupid (never assume authors are stupid), why did he choose to write his article like this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Greene's argument is that too many people (Cultural Studies people primarily) don't try to see the fucked upness in punk music. His topic, punk music, is usually somewhat "angry" and so the tone he uses is also kind of off-putting. This is an advantage because I know I personally couldn't have made it through an academic voice explaining all of this stuff about punk music - I think his voice allows for a greater audience to enjoy and therefore understand the argument he is trying to make. So yeah, he's not stupid. He just wants more people to appreciate punk music for all of the reasons he listed in the article.
ReplyDeleteI think what Greene is trying to say is that Peru's punk scene is more than just music. The rhetoric behind it is affecting the environment around them. I think his style of writing is influenced by the genre he is writing about, so he's trying to sound punk or rebellious. I guess he was worried about staying on brand. The disadvantages may be that he isn't taken as serious. I feel like he chose to write like this because he wanted to and because he felt that there would be some benefit from it that I have no clue about.
ReplyDeleteanother disadvantage was just that the way he discussed things didn't feel like it was an academic article
DeleteThe voice he uses clashes with the normal academic terminology and voice just like how the culture of what he is writing about tries to under fuck the system. It challenges the norm. It plays into his argument that the music is more than a style but a culture. The disadvantage of this is like the culture people might not take him seriously.
ReplyDeleteI think the topic and Greene's argument and the voice that he uses all tie in together because he's discussing the concept of punk and the problems it has in terms of trying to be different from the social norms and society itself, with a voice that not only sounds informed, but sounds passionate as well. The advantage that this passion affords Greene is that it makes him sound credible in what he says, but his disadvantage comes in that the language that he uses could make audiences take him less seriously and undermine his credibility. I think Greene chooses to write the article this way because it allowed him to use his most passionate voice in order to discuss the topic.
ReplyDeleteHe acts like a dick that doesn't care about anything that actually cares about everything. It gives him an all-knowing, anarchist power with the focal point being that he is cool af and says big words mixed with "fuck" occasionally that, what I initially believed, had little usefulness or direct change to my life. I think it hurt his argument tremendously as I only focused on his great asshat-ness and couldn't retain the actual point of it myself.
ReplyDeleteGreene basically gives us the impression that the world would be better this way, and uses examples to support his idea. He relates all of these things together by using the perspective as an outsider to show that his idea is helpful in one way or another. It is helpful because of the relationships he explains with European anthropologists and trying to stay away from the realm of the early communists. This is not helpful because it takes a very special approach to achieve his reasoning with the under-fucking concept. He chose this writing approach because it gives the reader the real background as to why underfucking would be helpful in the context of a band or real life situation.
ReplyDeleteGreene's argument is to challenge cultural studies. I think Greene wrote this article like this because it evokes more thought and challenges a lot of subcultural theorists because he doesn't think they're doing their job right.
ReplyDeleteGreene's argument was against really everything that European anthropologists were for. He didnt like the lack of diversity. He didnt like that focus on things that will only be good for yourself. He didnt like how they focused on material things. His tone was very overbearing for me personally. It was kind of like the beginning of "Sausage Party". Like we get it, you can fucking shit damn cuss. But it did have the advantage of being different and memorable. People are going to relate to this article so much more than a long, drawn out academic journal. Some people won't take him seriously, but more of the audience he is going for will.
ReplyDeletePS- masturbation
He is able to make a strong stance on many academic norms, such as calling out other researchers and avenues of research. He also has this punk-persona that he can put on, which is quite cool. There is an endearing quality to the writing as well, almost a hyper-real language that gives it a completely different read than it's analytical-written counterparts.
ReplyDeleteThere is a real stigma against crass language like this in a scholarly article by society, and I would say his biggest weakness is the size of the audience that he is going for. Because he used "Fuck" so much, many people are going to find it nonintellectual, when it is indeed intellectual. He's backed himself into a corner with the language he is using, and that could be intentional, but nevertheless he lost some readers with it.
Greene's argument is that, in order to create a utopian society, subcultures must "underfuck" the system in order to have control but not have anarchy. The relationship between his academic argument, his topic, and the voice he uses is that it all has an aggressive and uprising feel to it because it all expresses the need for change, which is a positive advantage. A disadvantage choosing to present his argument in this way is that some people might find him unprofessional. Greene chose to write his article like this in such language in order to express how passionate he is about the topic.
ReplyDeletean advantage that green has is being able to express his self and able to say what he wants without being held back. a disadvantage would be some people my find his voice as being disrespectful and not formal. I feel that he uses this type of style because he wants to get out of regular "norm" writing style, also to show people they can say what they want however they feel.
ReplyDeleteThe academic argument, his topic and the voice he uses is a way of subversion in itself. He chose to write the article in this style to prove the subtle way of underfucking. He is making these academic points in a style that does not seem academic. His style makes him easy to relate to. I could see this as a disadvantage to the older crowd where vulgar language is treated as taboo because they may not take him seriously. I think that his point of writing in that way is to prove a point about underfucking by doing it himself.
ReplyDeleteGreene's argument was that Punk was dismissed when it first came out as not a sub culture when it should have. Greene's voice of using cuss words and 'inappropriate' language with the academic style creates an eye catching argument. The use of 'fuck' and other strong language enabled me to hold focus on the paper, due the fact that is how my friends speak. It was also most understandable in this setting, than just using a lot of large academic words. Although on the down side some people reading this article would dismiss Greene as being not intellectual enough, because the vocab consists of cursing and such. To write this article in the way Greene did was that if one were to dismiss the argument to due to the language they would be no better than the cultural studies people who dismissed punk subculture, or the anthropologists who dismissed other cultures.
ReplyDeleteHe wrote the argument in an attempted to relate to the people that he is writing about. Rather, give an example of the people he is writing about. He is saying that this is a stereotypical depiction of someone who is "against the system." His argument is that people tend to categorize these people as a static, non-changing people who do very little in the world. "The idea that sub-
ReplyDeletecultures are ritualized rebellion rather than revolutionary action,"
His argument is basically that it doesn't matter what happens police or administrative wise, punk rock's problems will always continue to exist as long as the concept of under-fucking lives on. I think that the relationship between all three of these concepts is that while they're intertwined, they all kind of disagree with each other. The argument is hating on his topic all while his tone is super condescending and matter-of-fact. I feel like this benefits him by making him seem edgy and not really leaving any room in the article for questions or counter arguments. I feel like a disadvantage of this is that I am left kind of confused after reading it because I feel rather contradicted and just confused in general on all the different arguments that are being made (granted this could just be because of the fact that I am easily confused). I believe that this article was probably written in such a way as to connect with those that he is talking about. If the article was written in a scholarly manner, the people that he is telling quite frankly to stop would never be interested in reading such a piece and would never see such an argument.
ReplyDeleteBy making an academic argument against the academic analysis of punk movements, Greene is treading on dangerous ground, as it opens him up to the same criticism he gives. By introducing his argument through a voice that is every bit as crass and explicit as the punk movement he is writing about, he essentially cloaks his academic argument in the guise of someone telling you to go fuck yourself.
ReplyDeleteGreene's argument is basically the idea that people dont understand what punk actually is and what its saying.
ReplyDeleteHe uses a "dont give a fuck" voice in this argument, but he also layers in some academic slang.
Basically, this lets the reader "turn off" their critical thinking for a split second and he is able to be entirely too direct in what he is trying to say. Also, the constant masturbation references serve as a kind of entertainment that is also able to connect to what he is saying.
The biggest disadvantage is that sometimes he goes back into the whole "academic" side and it feels way too formal and dry in comparison to the rest of it, but those academic notes are necessary to get his point across as well.
I think he chose to write his article like this because of the band and topic he was covering in it, the same way the we change the way we cite things.
Greene's argument is targeted at anthropologists, but I feel like he has a personal problem with most all academics, or at least the culture that has been fostered in their community. The relationship between his argument, the topic, and the voice he uses all follow the same "under-fucking" guidelines. The whole "I do what I want. I can be smart without being one of the old white men in a dick measuring contest." The advantages of using this style of writing are that it would connect to a punk audience more, or at least show others a glimpse into the mind of someone involved in that culture.The disadvantages of using this style are that people would generally be more dismissive of his article, and write him off as uneducated or incompetent.
ReplyDeleteGreene's argument is that people in cultural studies can not fully label/ understand the subculture of punk rock. His topic is the problem of perus underground punk his academic argument is that white anthropologists from england are trying to label the culture without being it. The voice he uses is very crass and vulgar. This gives him the advantage of being straight up and even relating to the punk rockers themselves. The disadvantage is that other people published or reading this journal might not take him serious. He chose to write his article like this because he might relate to the music, like the music, and prove that you dont have to be a stuck up white anthropologist from europe to talk about cultures.
ReplyDeleteGreene chooses this style and it helps him get his point across but at the same time I think it hurts him more than anything. He's just saying fuck a lot which comes off as too edgy for me to take it serious. I guess he wrote this article the way he did to prove his point. Obviously he's intelligent and I understand what he's going for, and because the topic is what it is being a little edgy helps, but it seems like every point he makes is over the top. Masturbation included.
ReplyDeleteIt affords him a better connection to an audience with a smaller vocabulary (almost like using layman's terms), it fits into the context of the punk mindset (his topic setting), I think it affords him a more engaging emotional tone (not angry necessarily but connotive emotional words are valuable and contribute to reading rhythm as well I think), and maybe it's also a benefit matcjing some tone of some of the piece's subjects (the music's sound and the revolutionaries or under-miners discussed.) The disadvantages to this voice could be lack of understanding from an audience section that may already struggle to understand, this could be emphasized by region specific(?) slang language, and the usage of this voice could also turn away some critical reading audiences that don't enjoy the language or deny credibility due to the tone mentally related to it.
ReplyDeleteGreene's argument can be summarized that the problems in underground punk lie within the general problem of the system as a whole. "The problem
ReplyDeleteof the punk underground is rooted in the fucked up power structure of our
totally fucked up system." His topic makes sense, and his evidence is strong enough where it is a convincing academic piece but his tone threw me off. I suppose his tone fits into the culture of underground punk so that relationship makes sense there but its hard to read it without just assuming that he's angry. Rightfully so- fucked up systems are cause to be angry. I can't really peg why he chose to write it in this tone. In some ways, it is harder to take seriously but the tone also makes it easier to get riled up about. Its also just a little bit more interesting. The personality in his argument is a lot cooler than just a cut and dry academic argument.