A convenient scapegoat

UNESCO Courier, July, 2000 by Davey D

I mention these incidents to highlight a much larger point. Hip-hop is a convenient scapegoat because its communities don't have the political power or money to control the type of media images projected worldwide. This has resulted in unbalanced coverage and the maligning of a culture.

Another major issue to consider is the violent imagery often promoted by the rappers themselves. A cottage industry has blossomed over the past ten years as record companies and artists make a killing by selling a "thugged out", misogynistic, gangsta image. There is no denying that some of these artists actually adopt the attitudes their songs and videos project. However, there are other ways of reading these coded lyrics and images. To begin with, some rappers use the violent metaphors as part of a long tradition of toasting or bragging about their musical prowess. As African American author and professor Robin D.G. Kelley points out, by exaggerating and boasting about imaginary criminal acts, rappers engage in "verbal duels over who is the 'baddest'." Kelley also shows how the narratives operate on two levels. Insiders can appreciate the irony of the duels while outsiders--namely white middle-class kids--are enthralled by a literal reading. Judgements aside, gangsta rappers take this audience on a fantasy tour of "the ghetto"--a forbidden zone of cop-killers and whores. The rappers are simply playing up on the appeal of the evil fantasies.

Now you may not approve of this pandering. But remember, the artists are just a small cog in the machine of the multi-billion-dollar (per year) music business. Radio stations, DJs, video outlets, promotion people and record labels must also shoulder the blame. These money-makers aren't just catering to popular demand. They are cultivating the market.

Major radio stations are literally flooded with hundreds of pieces of music every day. Who is more responsible for influencing the public: the radio station with a million listeners or the artist that the station chooses to play? If an artist like Snoop Dog or Dr Dre (both associated with violence) come in for an interview, the journalist is not obliged to focus exclusively on the negative side of their "ghetto upbringings". They could ask about positive projects the artist might be pursuing. Yet it's more profitable to play up the negative stereotypes that people have of rappers and black people in general. One could argue that the artist should challenge the unbalanced questioning. But it's crucial to realise that the problem of violence is bigger then the artist.

The violence associated with hip-hop must be seen in proper perspective. We can condemn the violent acts of certain individuals without maligning a culture. We can read between the lines of masculine joustings via the microphone. We can also recognise the mainstream cultural obsession with violence: just check out the ticket sales to Hollywood's gangster films or TV programmes. In short, we have to recognise the complexity of hip-hop. Rappers offer more than just a mirror of the violence in their own communities--their work reflects that of society as a whole. In short, hip-hop will remain as violent as we allow it to be. It won't change until we do.