Hip Hop Intelligentsia Is Me

SFGate.com "Hip-Hop Intellectuals: A radical generation comes of age"

The greatest stuggle faced by our world is not the war against terrorism. Nor is it infectious disease... or even poverty. Our greatest battle is over who controls the definition of a few important words. From where and whom the long, controlling arm extends... we can only speculate. But the attempt to control the meaning of the term "hip hop" illuminates this dynamic, as major media outlets turn thousands of unsuspecting artists, writers, myth-makers, activists, and entrepreneurs, into spokespeople for a non-existent "hip hop" intellectual movement. Little do these well-intentioned propagandists realize... they are merely pawns in a cosmic battle of semantic proportions.

Here is how Adam introduces the main point of his article for SFGate.com...

"But is there something deeper going on than the flash of 50 Cent's platinum chains and Eminem's silver tongue? Where is hip-hop's artistic vanguard, its intelligentsia? Wasn't this $1.6 billion-a-year industry once rooted in resistance?

It was, and if you know where to look, it still is. Many of today's most vibrant young artists -- from rapper Jay-Z to solo performer Sarah Jones to novelist Zadie Smith -- can best be understood through the matrix of hip-hop. Just as the jazz aesthetic birthed nonmusicians such as novelist Ralph Ellison, poet Amiri Baraka, photographer Roy Decarava and painter Romare Bearden, hip-hop has produced its own school of thinkers and artists. Call them hip-hop intellectuals: folks who derive their basic artistic, intellectual and political strategies from the tenets of the musical form itself -- collage, reclamation of public space, the repurposing of technology -- even if they're not kicking rhymes or scratching records. "

This is such a vague reach of a thesis, one has to wonder what the real agenda here is. Yes, jazz and hip hop are both influential genres of music, shaped primarily by black men... but that is where the similarities end. Hip Hop actually has a lot more kinship with doowop and the blues. But then Adam makes even more of a stretch by suggesting that artists -- such as Ralph Ellison, Amiri Baraka, Roy Decarava and Romare Beardenwith -- have analogous counterparts in the contemporary hip hop landscape.

Sure,

The fiction of writers such as Toure ("The Portable Promised Land"), Zadie Smith ("White Teeth"), Junot Diaz ("Drown") and Oakland native Danyel Smith ("More Like Wrestling") crackles with cross-stitched rhythms and multicultural wordplay."

The problem here is not that these writers don't have "cross-stitched rhythms and multicultural wordplay" (whatever those are)... the problem is that Adam never establishes the significance of this cross-stitching and wordplay, nor does he establish the connection between these artists and hip hop. Clearly, we live in a more multicultural world. But so what? Being influenced by other cultures makes not the artist hip hop.

Another quote from the article...

"A hip-hop mind state is an eager, hungry mind state," says Wimsatt."

Oh yeah? Well then... for WHAT is a hip hop mind state eager and hungry? And are the needs and wants of hip hop people different from other cultural groups, such as punk rockers and skateboarders? And WHY are people with hip hop mindstates so eager and hungry? None of this is ever established in Adam's article.

But Upski Wimsatt offers his perspective...

"Kids of my era who got into hip-hop wanted to know everything about it, wanted to master it. The same way I wanted to be the best graffiti writer in Chicago when I was young -- and was willing to go out all night and find the spots no one else knew about and paint them -- I'm now trying to find the people no one has mobilized politically and bring them together."

Isn't this devotion true of a wide range of people, including skateboarders, BMXers, drug addicts, stock brokers, lawyers? Of course it is. But pay close attention to the last line, where Upski speaks of mobilizing people politically. That is the true motivation here: politics. For both Adam and Upski are part of a so-called intelligentsia that bears little resemblance to intelligentsias of the past. This intelligentsia is almost exclusively concerned with issues of social and cultural classification in the mainstream media (i.e. who gets to define hip hop?). Yet, no one bothers to ask why the term is so important.

In the same way that KRS-One led a successful campaign to codify hip hop's ten "elements", Adam and other media figures are attempting to reconfigure the definition of hip hop in a way that suits their political agenda. The term hip hop has salience. The term hip hop has authenticity. In a world where people substantial amounts of power can be acrued through TV shows, video games, magazines, and movies... establishing a connection with hip hop gives a substantial advantage over rival corporations... and intellectuals such as myself.

From the beginnings, hip hop has devoted itself to self-definition. When we ask -- what is the connection between graffiti and hip hop music? -- KRS-One would say the music part of hip hop is no more "hip hop" than graffiti, breaking, and other activities associated with many late 1970s residents of the Bronx. When I had a conversation with KRS a few years back, he suggested that hip hop was as much a group of activities, as it was a way of looking at the world.... a philosophy, if you will. But on the details of his philosophy, KRS delivered no coherent vision. At one point he suggested that in the same way that deejays revolutionized the use of turntables... so any object could be plugged into the hip hop formula and used for something completely different than its intended use.

The only thing in Adam's article that resembles or suggests a coherent philosophy is the concept of "collage", which is described as the mixing of disparate elements of high and low culture in music, writing, and other artforms. In other words... multiculturalism is hip hop. Hip Hop is multiculturalism. Kids these days are multicultural, and the art they make is multicultural. Therefore, todays youth is hip hop.

Oh yeah... the other defining characteristic of hip hop -- according to Adam -- is the concept of "taking back public space". The connection with hip hop is established by virtue of graffiti. This is how they establish authenticity:

a) graf = hip hop
b) graf = taking back public space
c) taking back public space = hip hop

Do you see how they operate? This is some basic logic type ish, mixed with some good old-fashioned authoritarian dogma. But if Adam can back it up... bring it on! Adam... How are people "taking back" public spaces?

To this Adam suggests that today's "hip-hop intellectuals are still staking out public space -- not only in the arts but also in education and journalism".

Read on...

"University classes on hip-hop have proliferated in the past decade; there are now more than 100 being taught around the country, some by such noted scholars as Tricia Rose (author of the seminal hip-hop text "Black Noise: Rap Music and Black Culture in Contemporary America")."

Now, I've read Tricia Rose's book Black Noise and it's definitely a first-rate analysis of hip hop. It's intellectual. And it's safe to say Tricia is an intellectual. And Tricia is spreading intellectualism. But does this constitute an intelligentsia? And how does this intelligentsia "take back public space"? And there are all sorts of logistical questions, with regard to the taking back of public space. Are private colleges and universities considered "public space"? What is the connection between writing and talking about hip hop, and the dynamics of core public functions such as transportation, the military, government bureaucracy, the police and judicial system? Of course, Adam never gets to the bottom of this.

Next, Adam moves on to journalism...

Even the industry devoted to covering hip-hop culture can be seen as a source of resistance. "Hip-hop journalism works between two worlds," says Chang. "It fights the old-boy rock-critic network and also the highbrow world of cultural criticism -- both traditionally very white -- by developing an indigenous cultural criticism." The fight Chang describes is taking place not only within the pages of magazines such as The Source, XXL and Stress, which are devoted entirely to the culture. Hip-hop journalists such as Chang, Jon Caramanica, Kalefah Sennah, Oliver Wang and Joan Morgan are also bringing it to the pages of The New York Times, The Nation, Spin and even GQ.

Anyone who claims that The Source, XXL, and Stress are "sources of resistance" is conveniently ignoring the fact that these magazines simply reinforce and help people make money off of an artistic status quo. You will only make it into these magazines if what you do is ALREADY considered hip. These magazines don't contradict and challenge the status quo... they ARE the status quo. Actually, they are usually mere conduits of the status quo, simply reinforcing or advertising pre-existing trends. But all of this discussion overlooks the "taking back public space" issue. Someone forgot to tell Adam that magazines are advertisements for private corporations, not open public forums.

I will say, Adam does give props to one of my favorite books Ego Trip's Big Book of Racism. But agreeing on the entertainment value of this book is where Adam and I depart. This is how Adam fits the book into his article...

"Though a palpable hip-hop sensibility runs through the work, there is barely a word in the "Big Book" about beats, rhymes, break dancing or graffiti. This omission illuminates a further point about the hip-hop mind state: Once in place, it maintains no topical allegiance to hip-hop itself. Because hip-hop is a culture that is constantly synthesizing, evolving and testing out new notions, it can survive higher education, wider experience, even the process of growing up. A hip-hopper can be bored to death with every rapper in the world and still consider herself hip-hop."

Do you see the contradiction? How can hip hop have no allegiance to itself, and yet still be hip hop? Is this some sort of postmodern pop culture koan? Or is this merely where the logic breaks down and Adam is basically forced to admit that the term hip hop is so vague and ill-defined that every new generation will redefine the term to serve its changing needs. Whatever happened to words having fixed definitions? I guess I'm not against malleable definitions. But I definitely DON'T like Adam's definition. And I'm still not sure what a "palpable hip hop sensibility" is exactly. Though I sense it is simply a vague assessment that "the writer thinks like me".

me = hip hop
they = think like me
they = hip hop

Adam finishes his piece with an aside about how today's hip hop intellectuals are frustrated by "rap's minute attention span, disorganization, violence, misogyny, cynicism, self-obsession, arrogance, machismo, homophobia and materialism." Adam suggests that in the late 1980s, hip hop had a political consciousness in the form of groups such as Public Enemy, KRS-One, The Jungle Brothers, X-Clan, Brand Nubian, and Queen Latifah.

Once again, Jeff Chang comes through with the quote...

"When [Public Enemy] hit in '89, they focused a lot of issues that were urgent, from ethnic studies to racism in education to affirmative action to college admissions," says Chang. "It seemed like an incredibly energized period to me. Intellectually, it was all of a piece, from "Fight the Power" down to how to actualize that in activism and journalism. And if you shift the details, the context is still there for a lot of folks."

But, as Chang notes, "art never produces coherent politics." While deeply oriented to social justice, this generation of young entertainers didn't have the fully conceived agendas, or access to resources, or experience in coalition building, to lead a movement.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Hey Adam... just let Jeff talk, OK?

You know, at this point I don't even feel like finishing my critique of Adam's circuitous meanderings. There is simply no real point here. And my message to Adam is simple: let's not redefine the term "hip hop"... let's redefine the term "intellectual" and make sure that it's not confused with "shortsighted propagandist".