Straight edge is a lifestyle and subculture where, intentionally, and in the face of actual opportunities, one does not:
It also generally involves some affection for hardcore punk.
One can view Straight edge as a lifestyle only, or as a life-time commitment to one's self to stay away from the things listed above. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_Edge [Jul 2004]
Despite the previously discussed disparity, straight edge hardcore
is generally meant to be inspirational and insurgent. In Lipstick
Traces: A Secret History of the Twentieth Century Greil Marcus
distinguishes what makes punk rock so enduring is ‘…its desire
to change the world’ (Marcus, 1989: 5). Straight edge philosophy
aligned with its hardcore attempts to establish a lifestyle that
does not utilise drugs or casual sex. Not only does it position
itself against these practices, but straight edge attempts to
change them, ‘[i]ncreasingly disenchanted with societal ills,
young men and women adopt the straight-edge doctrine as a blueprint
to better first themselves, and then the world in which they live’
(http://www.straight-edge.com, my italics). Involvement in such
political activities as animal rights, anti-racist campaigns, and
the awareness of feminist issues is an indication of straight
edge’s revolutionary desires; at shows there are often tables
filled with pamphlets regarding various issues. The activist
nature of the subculture leads me to disagree with Dick Hebdige’s
claim that, ‘[s]ubculture is… an insubordination. And at the
same time, it is also a confirmation of the fact of powerlessness,
a celebration of impotence (Hebdige, 1983, Gelder and Thornton,
eds., 1997: 404). Straight edge is empowering to its members,
not paralysing. Simply by attending a show, or singing along to
lyrics in their bedrooms, the kids secure a notion of a group
unified against common enemies, empowering the individuals by
certifying their beliefs. At a show the intensity of emotion,
insurrection and contentment as a result of the denial of
specific societal practices and recognition that "you are not
alone", is obviously a powerful energy: fists adorned with
Xs(28) are thrown into the air, gaping mouths scream lyrics, and
the movement on the floor is that of an unstoppable tempest.
These kids are not howling themselves into submission, but
saluting their dissidence.
Style
‘For youths in search of an expressive medium, goods could function
symbolically as "weapons of exclusion" [Douglas and Isherwood 1979:
85], as boundary markers, as a means of articulating identity and
difference’ (Hebdige, 1983a, Gelder and Thornton, eds., 1997: 401).
Dick Hebdige proposes that hair, clothing, music—style—is what
disjoins the individual from the masses. Subcultures, such as
straight edge, purposely disengage with their contemporaries to
establish a style which evokes a collective representation of
the group as separate from the populace. In the early and middle
90s there was a definite style that included wide-leg pants,
chain wallets, backpacks, and running shoes. However, since
mainstream culture has appropriated a similar style, straight
edge "fashion" is now more difficult to distinguish. Though
the previous early and middle 1990s style is considered mainstream,
the clothing still exists within the scene yet it is no longer
the dominant style. In early 1996 in the scenes of the Northeast
U.S. I observed an increase of baggy khakis, Polo shirts, and a
return to a more conventional mode of fashion than in the preceding
years. People seemed to be digging out all the clothes they had
shoved to the back of their closets during the "big pants" era.
Not only had the mainstream kids of the late 1990s swiped their
style, but the new-to-the-scene kids had also; the "genuine"
hardcore kids had to return to their fashion pasts to recover
their authenticity.
Though straight edge culture promotes equality and attempts
to establish a collective without a hierarchy, there is definitely
a "ruling class" which is founded upon ‘subcultural capital’:
In thinking through [Pierre] Bourdieu’s theories in relation to the
terrain of youth culture, I’ve come to conceive of "hipness" as a
form of subcultural capital. Although subcultural capital is a term
that I’ve coined in relation to my own research, it is one that
accords reasonably well with Bourdieu’s system of thought…Subcultural
capital confers status on its owner in the eyes of the relevant
beholder…subcultural capital is objectified in the form of
fashionable haircuts and well-assembled record collections
(full of well-chosen, limited edition "white label" twelve-inches
and the like)…subcultural capital is embodied in the form of being
"in the know"… (Thornton, 1995: 11).
Music erudition is highly respected in the scene, especially if a
music collection is as extensive as one’s knowledge. Possessing a
history within the scene is also admired; there are many
conversations about who was at which show how many years ago.
Most of the people in the scene currently are too young to have
been involved in hardcore’s salad days of the 1980s, but
subcultural capital is still gained by attendants of shows in
the late 1980s and early 1990s.
T-shirts, sweatshirts, patches, and stickers are another form
of subcultural capital within the straight edge subculture,
especially preceding the late 1990s. Shirts advertise bands and
beliefs for many straight edge members, allowing other members to
determine what level of "hipness" (Thornton, 1995: 11) the
wearer is on. The shirts, patches, and stickers are usually
bought through member distros, independent record labels, and
individual members. Phil Cohen suggests that clothing is ‘…not
directly produced by the subculture but…selected and invested
with subcultural value in so far as they express its underlying
thematic’ (Cohen, 1972, Gelder and Thornton, eds., 1997: 94).
Though Cohen’s 1972 publication precedes straight edge culture,
straight edge can currently prove his theory to be inaccurate.
T-shirts play a distinct role in straight edge style as both a
signifier of personal convictions and a representation of straight
edge as a culture; most of them were created, and sometimes printed,
by the bands and kids themselves to assert their ‘underlying thematic’
(Cohen, 1972, Gelder and Thornton, eds., 1997: 94). The band
shirts distinguish music loyalties, while other shirts have agendas
such as the promotion of vegetarianism/animal rights,
environmental conservation, and equality of gender and race.
Especially significant shirts of the straight edge culture are
shirts with messages that include the words "straight edge"
along with a drug-free message. These shirts create an alliance
of members wearing the shirts at the shows and explain, via the
messages printed on the shirts, what straight edge is when they
wear them in the public realm. Small cotton patches are also
designed similarly to the shirts. These patches are sewn, or
merely pinned, to the back of backpacks and on clothing and
used for the same purpose as the shirts.
Shirts and other paraphernalia with straight edge motifs
are obvious badges of the subculture. However, the most
significant emblem is the "X". Xs are used in various ways
to represent straight edge: around members’ names (ex. XAshleyX),
sXe(29), e-mail addresses, on clothing, tattoos, web pages, album
covers, etcetera. The triple X (XXX) is an infamous way of
utilising the X to symbolise straight edge. Various straight
edge members told me that the X originated in bars, scrawled
across the back of kids’ hands by bar bouncers to denote that
the kids were under the legal drinking age. The X was a symbol
to bartenders that the wearer was prohibited from purchasing
alcohol. Straight edge appropriated the X and uses it to
display a rejection of alcohol and other drugs. Similar to
the way in which the word "queer" was seized from heterosexual,
homophobic mouths and used by some homosexuals to label
themselves, straight edgers adopted the previously prohibitive
X as their significant symbol. In her book Bodies That Matter
Judith Butler explains that appropriation of queer is ‘redeployed,
twisted, queered from a prior usage and in the direction of urgent
and expanding political purposes’ (Butler, 1993: 228). Bar
bouncers used the X as a symbol of exclusion, X-ing kids to keep
them from drinking. Straight edgers did not, then, adopt the X
simply as an emblem of self-exclusion, but rather a symbol of
rejection. As Butler claims of queer, straight edgers have taken
the X and reshaped its representation to empower their position
as marked by the X.
The proper use of the X is debatable within straight edge
culture. Many straight edge hardcore fans "X-up" before shows,
drawing a large, black X on the back of each hand (figure 5), as ‘a show
of pride for who you are and what you believe in’(30).
Figure 5(31)
However, other straight edgers believe that it is an "advertisement"
and a way of distinguishing oneself to be superior to those not wearing
the X (whether the other is straight edge or otherwise), ‘I am
straight edge for me, and I see no reason in advertising it to the
rest of the world(32).’ Blakslee suggests that X-ing up is a kind of
boast, ‘I’m not saying that boys look dumb when they shake those
marked fists through the air; on the contrary, they highlight
the epitome of a unified scene enjoying a show. But males always
seem to need something to show off, whether that be a car, a
number on a basketball jersey, a college on a t-shirt, or a
hand slicing the oxygen.’
Backlash
One may be deluded into thinking that a subculture which promotes
such positive youth morals as a drug-free lifestyle and abstention
from promiscuous sex is completely motivating and enduring.
However, both within and outside of the straight edge community
there are quarrels and defeat. It is simple to imagine the
discord between straight edge and non-straight edge ideals.
As I have previously stated, hardcore is not merely a straight
edge construction. Hardcore is a type of music listened to and
created by various people possessing disparate moralities.
Obviously there are clashes between straight edgers and those
not belonging to their subculture at shows, where everyone
congregates to see bands. Many of my respondents claimed that
straight edge is an ideal that they adhere to personally, not
an ethic to be forcibly thrown at others. All respondents had
both straight edge and non-straight edge friends. However the
only non-straight edger who replied to my survey, a person
involved in the punk and hardcore scenes, said:
…I think the whole scene is stupid. I have been harassed
by straightedgers for smoking in front of them. That’s
completely intolerable. I can get along with straightedge
people, as long as they’re not militant types. There [are]
times I think most straightedge people don’t know what they
are standing for.
I have witnessed such antagonism at shows and believe that it is a
small, though significant, aspect of the subculture.
Straight edge also has problems within its fold. "Selling out"
is a hotly debated issue among straight edgers. Selling out is when
someone who is straight edge "loses the edge" by drinking, smoking,
or using drugs. Considering that the oldest personally known
straight edger by any of my respondents is 28 years old, seemingly
everyone sells out eventually. Selling out can be an overnight
process, deciding to have a drink at a party, or a gradual activity
where one simply no longer believes in the culture’s tenets.
Whatever mode selling out takes, it usually means that the person,
or "sell out", will be the subject of gossip and possibly disdain
within the particular scene, depending upon each straight edger’s
view. One of my respondents claimed, ‘[a]ll the kids I knew that
were so fucking into the edge have quit straightedge. Back in
the day I thought it was lame, because everyone went back on
all the shit they said. But now…I guess I don’t care anymore.’
Other respondents claimed that some people just make the wrong
choice by becoming straight edge and, since it is not an
appropriate lifestyle for them, they quit—there is nothing
immoral about making an incorrect choice. However, selling
out is a significant aspect of the subculture. Subculture
members seemingly grow up and grow out of straight edge,
pointing to what is the weakest point in the subculture’s
structure. If one can simply become weary of the subculture’s
doctrines with age, and experience, it possibly denotes a
phase or a cycle of maturation among 80s and 90s drug exposed,
AIDS imperiled youth. Kids may be turning to subcultures such
as straight edge as an evacuation from societal plights.
Then, once they have matured and gotten accustomed to the
hazards of reality, they sell out to become part of popular
culture once again. A phase of development has possibly
established itself as a subculture for kids who are disgusted
with or afraid of contemporary reality. If selling out is a
phase of straight edge then it is possible that participating
in the subculture is simply a phase of teen life; this theory
severely transforms the chosen identity of straight edgers
into an aspect of biological and emotional progression, hence
diminishing the subversiveness of the subculture.
The last question of my survey addressed why the person wanted to
help me by taking the time to answer over fifty questions. Many
respondents answered similarly to this, ‘[I wanted] to represent
the opinion of a straightedge kid who isn’t a closeminded thug.
There are a lot of them(33).’ I assume that he is not attempting to
discredit straight edge by intimating that straight edge consists
of a band of bullies. He is only warning that ‘thugs’ exist and
they are not to be taken seriously. Whether labelling someone a
sell out is simply intolerance of others or dedication to the
culture is disputable. However, it is a quandary which must be
addressed; each straight edger will eventually have to make the
choice between lifetime devotion or temporary infatuation, and
reconcile the repercussions.