The Powers That Be Processes of Control in Crew Scene Hardcore

Ethnography
http://eth.sagepub.com/
The powers that be: Processes of control in 'crew scene hardcore'

Jeff Purchla
Ethnography 2011 12: 198
DOI: 10.1177/1466138110362012
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://eth.sagepub.com/content/12/2/198
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Ethnography can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://eth.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://eth.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://eth.sagepub.com/content/12/2/198.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jun 7, 2011

What is This?
Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012
Article
The powers that be:

Processes of control in
crew scene hardcore
Ethnography
12(2) 198223
! The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1466138110362012
eth.sagepub.com
Jeff Purchla
The New School for Social Research, USA
Abstract
This article adds to the literature about youth orientated music scenes by analyzing
norms of control in crew scene hardcore. Data were collected in three northeastern
US cities. This study contributes by proposing a framework in which enclave groups
known as crews can be studied; by exploring the experiences of women who are
involved with crew scene hardcore; and by illustrating how norms of control are formed
and managed through processes of interaction. Distinctive gender roles illustrate that
the norms of this music scene are derived from hypermasculine controls. This results
in the marginalization of women in the scene, no matter what their contribution to it is.
Keywords
norms, control, music scene, gender roles, hardcore, crews
This article is about the crew scene of American hardcore music. It contributes to
the expanding literature on youth oriented music scenes in three ways. First, it
proposes a framework in which enclave groups known as crews can be studied.
Crews are groups within the scene that share properties similar to those of gangs.
Second, it explores the experiences of women who are involved with crew scene
hardcore. Although the scene contains a signicant female population, it is uncommon for women to be full-edged members of crews. Third, it illustrates how
norms of control are formed and managed through processes of interaction.
Following an introduction to key terms and concepts such as scene, hegemonic
masculinity, and hypermasculine, this article will position the crew scene within
the general eld of American hardcore. This portion of the study includes two
subsections, one of which provides a detailed outline of crew properties and develops the hardcore crew as a concept. The other introduces gender dynamics found in
Corresponding author:
Jeff Purchla, 10 Westwood Drive, Bayville, NJ 08721 USA
Email(preferred): jeff.purchla@gmail.com
Purchla
199
the crew scene. These sections lead to a synthesis that supports this studys basic
claim, which is that norms of the crew scene are derived from constructions of
hypermasculine controls. This results in the marginalization of women in the
scene, no matter what their contribution to it is.
Concurrent with the widening literature on punk and hardcore music is a debate
about the analytical usefulness of the term subculture.1 Due to the highly dierentiated social and cultural arenas within punk and hardcore, it is useful to conceptualize this article as a study of a music scene. Scene is an appropriate
ethnographic term for this study because it was commonly used by respondents.
It also metaphorically reects an emergent urban psychological orientation that
of a person as an actor, self-consciously presenting him- or herself in front of
audiences (Irwin, 1977: 24). Straw (1997) further developed the concept of scene as
it applies to social organization around music. He drew from Bourdieu, whose
notion of the eld of cultural practices delineates the boundaries though which
cultural spaces are validated.2 These boundaries and practices validate music scenes
both culturally and regionally. OConnor (2002) argues in a study of various punk
rock scenes that the eld in which idiosyncratic music scenes are created relies on
their particular social geography. In contrast to OConnors work, which compares
four geographically distinct cities across North America, this study draws from
data collected in three northeastern US cities: New York, Philadelphia, and
Boston. All eld sites from which data were collected were representative of
crew scene hardcore, the properties of which will be claried in the next section.
The descriptor crew scene hardcore avoids using the overly inclusive term hardcore subculture, which may refer to a multitude of practices around the world, in
favor of a detailed analysis of this specic hardcore scene. Distinguishing between
scenes within a highly dierentiated eld of cultural practices illuminates why
patterns of interaction, such as those that dene gender roles for instance, vary
from scene to scene within hardcore and punk.3 As a specic scene within the eld
of hardcore, gender roles in the crew scene are distinct from other scenes. To
illuminate the distinctive gender roles found in the crew scene, subsequent sections
of this article will employ the terms hegemonic masculinity and hypermasculine.
First, a clarication of these concepts is necessary.
Connell (2005 [1995]: 77) writes that hegemonic masculinity can be dened as
the conguration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the
dominant position of men and the subordination of women. Although it is only
one kind of masculinity within any given range of gender relations, it is the dominant masculinity.4 Haener (2006: 105), in a relevant study of the straightedge
identity within certain hardcore scenes, which is a movement whose adherents
abstain from drinking, drugs, and promiscuous sex, draws from Connells denition of hegemonic masculinity. Haener, although careful to highlight the tension
between hegemonic masculinity and anti-sexist, pacist idealism within the
straightedge movement, outlines a general contempt for both physical and
mental weakness within certain factions of hardcore scenes. Following Haener,
200
Ethnography 12(2)
this study uses the term hegemonic masculinity to highlight the constellation of
physical toughness, male dominance, and male centered aggression in crew scene
hardcore. It argues that crews embody hegemonic masculinity in relation to gender
practices in the scene.
This study will employ the terms hypermasculine and hypermasculinity, similar to
the way Haener does for the straightedge movement, in reference to the exaggeratedly masculine performances found in crew scene hardcore. Grant (1996) provides a useful conceptualization of hypermasculinity through a study of heavy
metal and rap scenes. She writes that hypermasculinity in these scenes is a mimicry
of idealized masculine behavior. It is a reaction to the increasingly blurred gender
distinctions in late modernity, and is the response of young men to their perceived
powerlessness in the class structure.5 Hypermasculinity, conceived by Grant (1996:
6) as a metaphorical and literal performance, is helpful for this study. This term
is ethnographically valuable because it signies performances that illustrate
how gender roles are negotiated and managed by actors in the scene.6
Hypermasculine performance is typied by behavior such as dancing that pantomimes ghting. Hypermasculinity in this study is also linked to territoriality and
the exclusionary practice of crews toward not only women, but also toward men
who dont embody the hypermasculine ideal. However, the term is particularly
useful to contrast womens distinct experiences with the primary variables of
gender roles in this scene: perceptions of gendered notions of aggression, attitudes
toward dress and presentation, and bodily movements, especially movements in the
context of crew scene dancing. By employing the related terms hegemonic masculinity, hypermasculine, and hypermasculinity throughout the course of analysis,
this study aims to connect relevant theory to practice that is grounded in ethnographic research.
Ethnographic data gathered between September 2007 and January 2008 from 14
hardcore music eventsfor example shows in New York, Philadelphia, and
Bostonare the foundation of this study. The data include a wide sample of informal onsite interviews, and in-depth interviews with four insiders who, although not
necessarily representative of hardcore as a whole, were selected because of their
range of involvement and ability to provide detailed experiential knowledge about
this particular hardcore scene. These ndings were contextualized by the authors
decade-long recreational involvement with hardcore and its related scenes. The
advice of Loand and Loand (1995 [1971]: 1115) is relevant here. They encourage their readers to start where you are when beginning a project, because an
interest in the topic independent from social science opens the study to a course of
meaningful research. Mental head notes were the primary collection method
during the observation period. This was employed along with small jottings
made onto a pocket-sized memo pad. Following each visit to the eld, full eld
notes were written into a journal while waiting in a bus station or straight into a
computer if returning from a local site. Full eld notes were consistently written
upon the return from every site. This strategy helped recall various ephemeral acts,
episodes, and conversations that occurred at hardcore shows. Contemporaneous
Purchla
201
note writing helped oset the challenges of making head notes at distracting eld
sites. Disorientation at the sites was mostly due to high levels of environmental
noise at all times either from constant chatter, recorded music played through the
sites speaker systems, or extremely loud live music. This studys analysis begins by
situating the crew scene within the eld of American hardcore, which will lead to a
formal conceptualization of crews, followed by a contextualization of gender
dynamics in the scene.
Setting the scene

The crew scene is located within the general eld of American hardcore. American
hardcore arose from the lineage of punk rock, a movement characterized in the US
and the UK by bands like The Ramones and The Clash, which created a rift in
popular classic rock in the late 1970s.7 The early punk bands inspired fractions of
American youth to apply a do-it-yourself (DIY) ethic to launching their own
bands while creating networked scenes in the early 1980s.8 As early as 1981, regional US hardcore scenes were idiosyncratic due to geographical and infrastructural
dierences.9
By the mid-1980s the ferocity and tempo of certain branches of hardcore punk
became even less melodic and began to liberally employ a sonic aesthetic known as
breakdowns. Breakdowns, which are parts in songs that typically function as cues
to dance, inject slower heavy metal styled guitar ris into fast songs. The breakdown trend was especially evident in many mid- to late 1980s US northeastern
hardcore scenes. This sonic shift was integral to facilitate the hypermasculinity of
crew scene performance. Dancing at many shows connected to this scene in the
Northeast became replete with punches and kicks, like a pantomime of ghting.
The sound of many bands became harder. Most claimed to simply be hardcore
and symbolically dropped the punk orientation from their bands classication.10
The constellation of the musical breakdown and the dance performances at
many hardcore shows in the Northeast marks a turn in the genre that this study will
call crew scene hardcore. This term was chosen for the scene because with its
emergence came a celebration of not only popular bands, but also of enclave
crews known to be associated with certain bands.11 The position of crews in the
scene will be claried in the following subsection. Crew scene hardcore emerged
between the late 1980s and mid-1990s, due in part to an increasing inuence of
heavy metal on the scene thriving in and around New York City, which was
represented by bands like Sheer Terror, 25 Ta Life and Crown of Thornz. Today
well-known bands in this vein include Hatebreed, Terror, and Death Before
Dishonor. Although most actors involved with crew scene hardcore tend to be
young white men from the middle and working classes, eld data for this study
have shown that the presence of African American and Latino young men is
common. Certain shows in New York drew a large crowd from working-class
Latino neighborhoods in the Bronx. Also, the scene contains a signicant female
population, some of whom play key roles such as show promoter, photographer, or
202
Ethnography 12(2)
musician. But the inclusion of women in the scene is not absolute and complete,
which is a premise this study will support in a subsequent section.
Two formal characteristics of the crew scene are a revered connection between
bands and the crowd at shows, and the performance of dancing. Dancing has been
a highly symbolic and ritualistic gesture since the early scenes.12 Dancing in early
1980s American hardcore scenes evolved from a punk rock pogo, whereby dancers perform repetitive jumps in one relative spot on the dance oor, to a more
aggressive activity. One form of this latter style was referred to as the Huntington
Beach Strut or HB strut (Blush, 2001: 22). The HB strut, named after the violent
Huntington Beach scene in southern California, was often code for dancers to
pummel others on the oor. As the network of hardcore scenes expanded, this style
found its way to the Northeast. Dancing in many northeastern scenes, particularly
the crew scene, have continued to evolve in this aggressive direction to the point
where the performance may resemble kick boxing, and it is not uncommon for
punches and kicks to strike anothers body.
A connection between bands and the crowd at shows is also important to the
culture. It brings realness to the environment, which attracts people to the scene.
Eric, a 37-year-old diesel engine mechanic and show promoter from New York,
was initially drawn to the scene because it seemed more authentic to him than
mainstream pop music and culture. He shared:
When I go to one of my shows, nobodys [hair is] all teased up. Everybodys wearing
T-shirts from their favorite band and a ripped pair of jeans . . . much less havin to
worry about what kind of car I got, what kind of [neck] chain am I wearin and do I
have the right shoes on with this shirt.
This study will approach authenticity as a construct of outward performance

because its respondents generally perceive authenticity (or rather the realness to
which they often refer) to be largely determined by an actors self-presentation.13
Authenticity for this studys purposes, then, is accessed primarily through
self-presentation, which includes behavior such as crew scene dancing. The issue
of authenticity is problematic especially for women who face multiple binds when
dealing with perceptions of authenticity to the scene. This relation will be discussed
in more detail in later sections on gender relations, which follow the immediate
subsection on hardcore crews.
Hardcore crews
The term crew sometimes refers to a group of friends who hang out and regularly
go to hardcore shows together. Another connotation of crew, which is employed
throughout this article, refers to more formal and specic groups who go to shows
and hang out together, but also may make claims to specic locales. This kind of
crew has attributes corresponding to what Sullivan (2006: 20) calls a named gang.
They identify by specic group names, support crew aliated bands, may be
Purchla
203
structured in hierarchal ranks, patrol their locales, and/or identify by symbols of

membership such as apparel, beads, or tattoos. This article classies hardcore crews
between Sullivans (2006: 20) denitions of clique which is an aggregation of
individuals who practice bonds of solidarity but do not necessarily have a name or
leader or share symbols of group membership and named gang. That is not to
say hardcore crews are without properties similar to gangs. They have these properties, but Sullivan admonishes researchers of youth violence not to impose the term
gang upon groups who do not explicitly identify as such. He warns about the
dangers of focusing on reied groups rather than on social processes. Because crew
members generally do not refer to their group as a gang, this subsection will follow
Sullivans instruction and will focus on the processes of crew formation. The interaction processes amongst those in crews at large, however, do involve reication,
the activity of making abstract notions of status and symbols more concrete. The
process of reication in relation to the formation of crews for instance through
their attainment of names, apparel, and other commodities will be discussed after
a brief, general history of crews in hardcore.
Crews have a place in the history of hardcore music. Initially, many crews
formed as a result of restlessness or a means of protection during the early days
when outsiders frequently attacked hardcore kids. The Boston Wolfpack Crew,
the LADS, and the Suicidals are examples of crews in early American hardcore
(Blush, 2001). Although crews are part of hardcores mythology, they are also part
of this scenes reality. Certain crews are known internationally to hardcores contingencies. To name a few, these include US Thugs, Courage Crew, DMS, and
FSU. The acronyms by which the latter two crews identify take on meanings that
change.14 Hardcore crews obtain collective personas larger than life, usually due to
their storied history within the scene and because of the popularity of bands
associated with them. DMS, for example, is associated with legendary hardcore
acts Agnostic Front and Madball. FSU started as a Boston based crew who built
their reputation by purging Nazis from the citys hardcore scene. The latter crew
has received media attention in the last few years following homicide incidents in
Arizona, upstate New York, and most recently in Asbury Park, New Jersey, during
shows at which FSU aliated bands played. Support for FSU and its aliated
bands continues to grow, undoubtedly fueled by the mythic element by which they
are surrounded.
The mythication of hardcore crews is part of the scenes general folklore.
Retelling various stories of shows, people, bands, crews, along with ubiquitous
reminiscing of back in the day reinforces much of the scenes traditions. Two
main factors that contribute to the perpetuation and reinforcement of hardcore
folklore are scene longevity and social networks. If someone, or a crew or band, has
been around long enough and knows the right people, then one is entitled to make
favorable claims to a high scene status. Status is reinforced as long as one remains
relatively active and connected. Scene status is not necessarily correlated with crew
aliation, but someone with high status has a better chance of gaining closer entry
into the workings of a crew. Scene status is accrued in mysterious ways. Eric, 37,
204
Ethnography 12(2)
from New York, has an anecdote about the stupid manner in which he attained
scene status and became like a made-man of the crews.
JP: Howd it happen?
Eric: Im old.15 Dude, when I went to shows in 1988, nobody knew who the fuck I was,
dude. I went to a lot of shows. I went to a fuckin ass load of shows . . . that I did. But
these people all think they know me . . . they dont know me from those shows. I didnt
know anybody, dude. I walked in the door, I watched the band with my three friends,
and I went home.
Eric left the scene for about 15 years. He and his wife Rhonda, who is also
involved in the scene, raised a son and daughter. Eric acquired a drum kit before
moving into his house on Long Island and, in the spirit of DIY, subsequently
decided to start a band. He, along with many musicians, was not happy with
how local shows operated so he started his own promotion outt. Bands that
play for Eric spread the word about how organized his shows are. Other bands,
including those aliated with crews, would get in touch with him to book shows.
When these bands met Eric, they realized that he wasnt new to the scene. They
would reminisce about shows from back in the day even though neither party
knew each other during those times. Eric reected:
All of a sudden, theyre your best fuckin friend because they came . . . I came from
that same world. So then the fuckin ood gates opened. And all the shows came to me
cause nobody else on Long Island was doing a show worth two fuckin cents . . . So
when all the crews show up to my shows, I know all the bands already, and Im
instantly like a made-man, lets say. Im the main crew guy.
Erics age and the social networks he established though attending and booking
shows is how he attained high scene status and surrogate crew aliation, became a
made man, even though he is not an ocial member of any particular crew. His
status, role as a promoter, and social networks became aligned in a way that
created a mythical persona for Eric. Another crucial element entwined in the
crew mythication process is secrecy. Eric gave an example of how this may
happen. I run the shows and I know Chins, he pointed out. Chins, a gurehead
of a crew called IDS, plays in several bands. Eric held his hand to his mouth, softly
whispered, and imitated people talking about him:
I just saw him talking to Chins. Didcha see em? And then he was talking to Phil from
[the band] Irate. And then he was in the back with Dean from [the band] No
Redeeming Social Value. He knows everybody! Thats the whole thing, dude! [Eric
switches back to the whisper voice] Who is this guy? He knows everyone!
JP: Its almost like you created an aura around you.
Eric: I did. I created my own universe.
JP: But not intentionally.
Purchla
205
Eric: No-no-no-no, youre right. Thats why I sit back and laugh about it. And these
kids . . . the kids are all like [in a fawning voice] ohh, how are you? All I do is book
bands, show up, and shake peoples hand like Im the queen, man. Its really a bizarre,
a bizarre fuckin thing, man.
Erics close interactions with crews and bands sets him apart from those who
are not involved. An aura of secrecy surrounds them, which is intensied by the
symbolic power of the commodities and symbols associated with crews. Taussig
(1999) conducted a cross-cultural study of open secrets that focused on the symbolic power of objects such as currency and monuments. He notes what happens
when these objects and their secretive qualities are unmasked though a complex
process called defacement. Unmasking public secrets justies their revelation,
but does not expose them enough to destroy their secretive properties. Since
defacement cannot penetrate the many multiple layers of meanings attached to
public secrets, this process does not dissolve secrets, but rather compounds their
mystery. Taussig (1999: 5) denes public secrecy as that which is generally
known but cannot be articulated.16 A similar process is involved with the mythication of hardcore crews. Their existence within the scene is generally known,
but their mythical status and use of symbols attached to commodities such as
music, clothing, and tattoos generates a process of signication that perpetuates
the myth of crews.17 The myth of crews endures despite a continuing process of
unmasking, which in fact insulates them from the harm of public exposure, even
when a crew is subject to substantial media attention. Secrecy, as in the case
above of Eric and the crews, functions to exclude others. Exclusion produces a
kind of inequality between the crews, bands, and fans that ideally isnt supposed
to exist in the eld of hardcore. Secrecy negates the realness between bands and
fans, which is a connection central to many peoples attraction to the scene. Some
are thus drawn to what mediates them from the bands the secrecy and aura of
crews.
The mythication process inuences the formation of crews. None of these
crews started as what they are now, Eric said. To illustrate he gave an example
of the genesis of a crew called IDS:
IDS started as the Irish Drinking Squad. IDS was a bunch of fuckin Irish
hardcore kids from fuckin Queens [New York] who are all friends. Who were
sittin around a bar, playing hardcore shows and drinking beers and they said, Ha
ha, look! Were the Irish Drinking Squad or whatever. Ha ha, like, lets put back
some more beers.
At this moment in formation, a clique of hardcore kids begins to take on crew

properties via their attainment of a name. Next the hardcore crew begins to designate ocial members, who may be drawn from a pool of friends. One may also
court a crew for membership by performing what is arguably the most symbolic
206
Ethnography 12(2)
gesture in the scenes arena dancing. As Eric informed:

All these bands start havin shows. And all their friends decide, I should be in this
crew because I dance for them. I should be IDS, I should be IDS. So they start to
induct kids like a gang. Its fun still. Nobodys paying attention to like [Eric laughs]
what this can turn into eventually. They induct all their friends [by saying], yeah,
yeah, you guys are all IDS.
The crew, now a form that includes ocial members, is still somewhat of an
abstraction. Members play with the crews acronyms and their names begin to take
on dierent connotations. IDS, for example, becomes Instant Death Squad
among other monikers. Crews become less of an abstract idea and more of a
concrete thing when a crews name is attached, usually in acronym form, to commodities. The name is embroidered on T-shirts, hooded sweatshirts, and baseball
caps. Crew names are tattooed on members bodies. Most importantly, crew
aliated bands incorporate crew related codes into their songs and stamp crew
related slogans and images onto their album artwork. Titling albums according to
the initials of a crew is one strategy. Madball, a DMS aliated band, have albums
called Droppin Many Suckas and Demonstrating My Style. Integrity Denes
Strength is the name of an album by an IDS aliated band called Sworn
Enemy. Crews manipulate numbers that correspond to their slogans or names.
Death Before Dishonor, an FSU aliated band, plays a song called 666, F
being the sixth letter of the alphabet, which stands for Friends Family Forever
and is also a title of a Death Before Dishonor album. FSU members may have the
number 666 tattooed on their bodies and some chapters of the crew may include it
in their insignia. The number 378 is also popular with the crew. It corresponds to
the letters FSU on a telephone keypad. An FSU aliated band called Colin of
Arabia conveys on the sleeve of one record that the music within is 378 approved.
Fatality, a band aliated with a young New York City crew called BTD
Brothers Till Death, Beef Turns Deadly have a photograph of a black ball
cap embroidered with the crews acronym in the foreground of compact disc artwork. Another embodiment of crew properties is found in the form of beads. Some
actors wear beaded necklaces to communicate their aliation with crews. Symbols
such as crew tattoos, beads, and embroidered clothing distinguish crews from most
members of the scene.
When these properties are codied in objects, especially in a bands music and
artwork, the concept of a crew becomes tangible through its attachment to commodities. People from outside the crews immediate circle begin to fetishize them
vicariously though fetishism of the messages, symbols, codes, music, and images of
the bands albums. Although crews are unmasked through fetish, their secretive
qualities grow stronger. Crews, in a sense, become larger than life. This is especially
true for ocial members of crews who feel a duty to defend the mythical qualities
attached to their group a process that may, in certain circumstances, result in
scues between crews. This follows the territoriality of hypermasculine
Purchla
207
performance, which ebbs and ows. Most intercrew violence in New York, for
example, died down after an eruption of crews in the mid-1990s. A consensus
regarding the crew phenomenon is that younger kids today take crew activity to
the next level of violence. Nonetheless, crews in some scenes act as an authority.
Haener (2006: 129) wrote that hardcore crews are perhaps the most prominent
means of reinforcing [the scenes] hegemonic masculinity. They act to legitimate
patriarchy through a constellation of physical toughness, male dominance, and
male centered aggression. The package of crew imagery and music may be an
alluring mix of messages, but not every young man who likes the music of the
scene identies with a crew. However, a mans involvement does position him
among the dominant gender in the scene, which, despite the preponderance of
men, also contains a signicant number of women. The next subsection will introduce the context of the crew scenes gender dynamics.
Gender dynamics in crew scene hardcore

One shift from crew scene hardcores parent genre, punk rock, is the diminishing of
space that allows for challenges to gender construction and stabilization. Despite
the structural constraints to pose such challenges, however, some women in the
crew scene destabilize gender standards either overtly or inadvertently. Whether
they challenge or obey gender bound standards, women in the scene face multiple
binds. The context of the crew scenes gender dynamics, in terms of a womans
experience, cannot be separated from three themes: her self-presentation, gendered
notions of aggression, and the movement of her body. These themes will intertwine
to show that women in crew scene hardcore are marginalized, no matter what their
contribution to it is.
Haener (2006) concludes that girls who identify with the straightedge faction of
hardcore, despite their struggles with gender issues, are ultimately empowered by
their abstinence from drugs, drinking, and casual sex. Leblanc (1999) found similar
empowerment within the eld of punk rock. Punk allows, to some extent, for its
female members to resist mainstream ideals of beauty through experimentation
with dress, ostentatious hair, and other symbols of anti-institutional commitments.
Women in hardcore scenes who neither support straightedge nor punk value commitments, on the other hand, may be more likely to face disciplined standards
of femininity. Bartky (1997) makes the point that the idea of image, especially
for women, is interlaced with the self-policing of ones presentation. The expectation of women to meet an ornamental standard reveals a commitment to the
asymmetry between men and women, and reinforces the unidirectional gaze from
the former to the latter.18 Shannon, a 25-year-old photographer, reected on these
dynamics:
I think that in other genres of punk, [girls] make such a grand and obvious eort to
contradict the mainstream values of beauty. Its almost like they make themselves, like
typically ugly to be a rebellion from mainstream society . . . But in hardcore, a lot of
208
Ethnography 12(2)
the girls, you know, if you never saw them at a show, youd never guess that they were
into hardcore . . . They dress very typically, in that theyll wear like cute jeans and cute
shirts and look very cute and their hair will be cute. Like, theres a cuteness factor to a
lotta the girls.
The cuteness factor speaks to expectations for women to self-police their presentation and to fulll the ornamental standard of cuteness. Self-policing includes
a norm to restrain from displays of aggression, specically in the form of crew
scene dancing. Shannon shared about some consequences of disobeying the ornamental standard:
I think its pretty rare that a girl wouldnt pay attention to this [standard]. And those
are typically the girls who dance at shows, and . . . who become kind of one of the guys
and dont have a lot of the same, like, feminine qualities or attributes in the eyes of the
guys that are there. Like the girls who dont have the cuteness factor, who dont pay
attention to their appearances, denitely arent looked at as potential girlfriends or
anything.
According to Shannon, the girls who destabilize conventional gender roles by

dancing are stigmatized, perceived to lose feminine qualities, and punished by
relinquishing the potential of becoming girlfriends. Gender destabilization subverts
the cuteness factor and, in return, the girls who dance do not attract guys as much
as the girls who invest into cuteness. Girls who dance, as opposed to their cute
counterparts, disrupt the sexually objectifying male gaze. They become one of the
guys but, because of the overwhelming performance of hypermasculine controls in
the scene, this is only to an extent. Dancing doesnt necessarily legitimate a
womens authenticity according to scene standards. This eectively places them
in a bind somewhere between the guys and the cute girls. They are in limbo
defeminizied yet not fully masculinized.
When Young (1990: 143) wrote that women are much more restricted than men
in their active spatiality, her focus was on utilitarian movements rather than
motion without a particular aim such as dancing. However, because Young
(1990: 154) concludes that girls and women are not given the opportunity to use
their full body capacities in a free and open engagement with the world, her
argument elucidates the general reception of girls who dance at crew scene hardcore shows. This is why Shannon said, its kind of accepted that girls who dance at
shows automatically lose that cuteness because it looks very silly. And it is kind of
looked down upon. Later in the interview, Shannon admitted that to her, all
dancing looks silly . . . but I think automatically when girls dance . . . it becomes
. . . almost like a spectacle. Girls who dance lose cuteness and become a gazed
upon object of humiliation rather than decoration.
Crew scene dancing is one of countless aggressions that are historically
constructed, codied displays of patriarchy. Its aggressiveness, especially when
replete with punches and kicks, inscribes dancing as a male activity and excludes
Purchla
209
women from full participation in the ritual. Angier (1999) suggests that the typical
correlation between men and aggression is a result of a social reconditioning and
suppression of aggression that is also intrinsic to women. One result of this conditioning can be called the aggression myth. This notion posits dichotomized,
gender bound types of aggression. Men are associated with direct aggression
in the form of truculence, wars, and so forth while women are associated with
indirect aggression. The latter is manifest in reinforced cliches about female
treachery and female conniving (Angier, 1999: 266). The aggression myth conates
an understanding of cultural norms with an explanation of seemingly natural,
dominant phenomena. This study will return to the aggression myth, the issues
of bodily movement, and the self-presentation of women in the following section. It
will illustrate the experiences of women in crew scene hardcore set against the
hypermasculinity of the scene, while employing crews as enforcers of an ideal
type of control.
Hypermasculine controls
This section will use frameworks presented thus far by synthesizing the properties
of hardcore crew mythication, the context of gender dynamics, and the overall
hypermasculine constructs of the crew scene. Hypermasculinity, as dened earlier,
signies performances that illustrate how gender roles are formed and managed,
particularly in reference to gendered notions of aggression, attitudes toward dress
and presentation, and the use of space through bodily movements. Hypermasculine
performance also signies territoriality and the exclusionary practice of crews
toward not only women in the scene, but also toward men who dont embody
the hypermasculine ideal. Hegemonic masculinity, a term also operationalized in
this studys introduction, is employed to highlight the constellation of physical
toughness, male dominance, and male centered aggression in crew scene hardcore.
This section will open with an anecdote culled from eld notes.
One day, outside a main venue for larger shows in Philadelphia, long lines of kids were
waiting to get in. A small black SUV moved up an alley toward the venue. A woman
sat in the front passenger seat and a couple more were in the back. A white man with a
thinly shaved beard wearing a black baseball cap, backwards, was slouched low in the
drivers seat. After the car rolled past where I was standing, a thud, the sound of a tap
against metal, the sound of a hand or foot making sharp contact with some part of the
automobile cut through the chatter. The brake lights came on and the vehicle was
thrown into park. The driver ew out of the car. He looked to be in his mid to late
twenties and was wearing loose tting blue jeans and athletic sneakers. The young
man took a few steps toward the crowd, quickly scanning us as he approached with
clenched sts. Did you hit my car? he exclaimed charging toward a kid in shorts and
a hooded sweatshirt. But the drivers arm was already cocked and loaded, and a blow
was delivered to his targets face before the question could be answered. The punch
followed by another caused the kid to sway, stunned. The driver grasped his target by
210
Ethnography 12(2)
the sweatshirt and threw him to the ground. He rolled within a step from where I was
standing. Another kid, perhaps a friend, cried, He didnt even do it! The driver took
a moment to crack a st across the face of his second target, whose beaten head fell
into his hands. The driver turned toward the kid on the ground, kicked him in the face
two or four times and then walked matter-of-factly to his car. The entire episode took
no longer than 45 seconds. I asked the bystanders for their impressions of what they
had seen. A kid of average height, slightly chubby face, short hair and young, red
checks said, I have no comment. And no opinion, adding, curiously, sir. Another
shorter, skinnier kid with dark rimmed glasses and a black wool cap said, welcome
home.
Why was there such indierence toward this incident? The man in the car was
wearing a black T-shirt with bold white letters that read the name of his crew: FSU.
FSU members in Philadelphia communicate their group aliation more than any
other crew encountered during the observation period. BTD kids embroider their
crews name onto Yankee caps. An IDS crew kid was seen with a hooded sweatshirt embroidered with Instant Death Squad on the back and Queens, NYC on
the front. The DMS crew from New York does not readily advertise, but members
wear black and blue beads around their necks. Merchandise for FSU, on the other
hand, is an enterprise. Their shirts read, Nothing to Lose, Everything to Gain,
Shoot Straight, Stab Upwards, FSU Philly, and FSU Nation, which is a reference to the crews nationwide expansion. FSU guys also wear baseball caps,
typically black with the crews name in bold Old English font, embroidered with
white thread. Some caps simply display 378, the numbers that correspond to
FSU on a telephone keypad. Most FSU caps in Philadelphia display a graphic
of the liberty bell on its side. This exposure does not harm the aura attached to the
crew or their commodities, but actually compounds their symbolic power and
facilitates authoritative positions for FSU actors in the scene.
The crew performs security for some shows in Philadelphia. When FSU is in the
crowd, they are, to a sociologically relevant extent, the shows performers more so
than the band on stage because the crew controls the setting (Goman, 1959). Crew
members stand on the edge of the dance oor with watchful eyes. Essentially they
are looking to avoid two kinds of problems. One is to prevent lawsuits led by kids
(or parents of kids) against the shows promoter if they get hurt. The crew is
particularly mindful of stage divers. Because of the inherent danger of jumping
from a stage into a crowd, the crew particularly discourages the act. This means
that their hands are full, especially during packed shows when kids climb on to the
stage and dive o in a constant loop. FSU members disapprovingly shake their
heads, grab stage divers, and pull them across the oor by the shirt. This kind of
interaction denes the situation at shows and puts the crews in control.
The crew also looks out for problematic dance styles of which they dont
approve. The dance oor at a crew scene show is a domain of hypermasculine
performance, where the testosterone in and around the oor is pumping heavily,
and gendered notions of aggression, bodily movement, and the use of space are
Purchla
211
explicitly played out. As Shannon attested:

I dont think that guys dance for girls. I think that guys dance for other guys. I think
theres like a pecking order . . . If you didnt dance right or dance good enough or
dance correctly or do the little coordinated moves, in a acceptable way, [then] youd
just be known as a person who doesnt dance well, or youd get pushed o the oor or
something. Like, youd automatically lose a few tiers of respect because you dont
dance correctly [laughs].
Besides the implicit suggestion of homoeroticism, this statement is interesting

because it spells out the patriarchal essence of crew scene dancing. Its aggressiveness inscribes dancing as a male activity and excludes women from full participation in the ritual. The previous section referred to the aggression myth as a result of
the reconditioning and suppression of aggression intrinsic to both men and women.
This is one gender role distinction to be made. Crew scene hardcore perpetuates the
myth regarding gender bound forms of aggression. Scene dancing is understood as
a mans activity because of its amboyant, often exaggerated display of direct
aggression. Its common for dancers to pu out their chests and violently grapple
or punch the air, along with anyone within range. Their spin kicks, which may
also strike those close by, is often across the length of the dance oor. Dancers bop
tiny warm up jumps on their toes, with sts cocked to the side, like boxers between
rounds, or when their opponent hits the canvas. The insights of both Angier (1999)
and Young (1990) fruitfully apply here. Aggressive hardcore dancing not only lls
the space immediately around the actors body but, as in the case of cross-oor
cartwheels and spin kicks, it is a presence that lls the entire venue. Bodily movements and the male command of space reinforce the dance oor, and the scene in
general, as the domain of men.
There is a pecking order test of virility within the crew scene. If one makes a
point to dance hard on the oor in front of FSU members, for example, then ones
moves may be well received. The crew may ash nods, smiles, and give pats on the
back or other signs of approval. This kind of interaction between the crew and a
dancer was witnessed at a show in Philadelphia. I see you have your hands full
today, the dancer said to a crew member while outside of the venue between bands.
What can I do to help?
Throw kids out, he replied. Another chimed in:
Just throw kids out randomly. Stupid looking kids. We dont want stupid looking kids
here only good looking kids. If they are not as good looking as me, they have to go.
We should throw out all kids who are not as good looking as I am, but if we did that
no one would be at the show.
This man was covered in communicative crew symbols. He was wearing a cap
with FSU in the front left corner. The back of his cap was stitched with 666 and
378. FSU was embroidered in white thread over the right breast of his puy black
212
Ethnography 12(2)
jacket. Along the bottom edge of the jacket was Forever Societys Underdogs. He
had a grey washed tattoo across the front of his neck. In the middle of his tattoo
piece, the negative space of his white skin formed the letters FSU.
A 28-year-old leader of FSUs Philly chapter chatted with some kids while outside
the show. One topic of conversation was another crew in Philadelphia. The presence
of this other crew amused him and he did not perceive them as a threat to his own. In
fact the other crew isnt even around anymore. Theyve done their time in hardcore,
he declared and then paused for a few seconds. He smiled and asked rhetorically, Do
you know what subjugation means? We have this whole scene subjugated, he followed with delight. The aura surrounding FSU reinforces their perception as subjugators of the citys crew scene. The exclusion of outsiders justies FSUs possession
of their scene, and crews in other cities perform similar territoriality. Secrecy magnies reality, as Taussig (1999) notes. The magnication of this particular reality of
physical toughness, dominance, and aggression gives crews as ideal embodiments
of hypermasculine control and territoriality a formal means to subordinate others.
They subordinate not only women, but also men in the scene who do not perform the
hypermasculine ideal of direct aggression. The territoriality of crews is an open
public secret. The revelation of this secret in the episode above, for example, does
not dissolve the FSUs hold on their scene, but strengthens it. The crews control of
information denes the scene as their possession. A crews collective persona is
fueled by the rhetoric of exclusion and is dened by boundaries of secrecy and
mythication. Crews are a product of an attraction to establishing distance from
the Other. Their feelings of possession and self-importance are reinforced through
the aura-generating symbolic power of their commodities. The crews idealized distance from others in the scene follows the process of crew formation and manifests in
forms of exclusion, subordination, and direct aggression.
While not the only ones to endure subordination in the face of hypermasculine
controls, women in the crew scene oer the most visible challenge to the constellation
of male physical toughness, dominance, and direct aggression. This is seen in male
responses to women who challenge hegemonic masculinity. Women who dance at
shows, for example, threaten the mythied form of direct aggression. Here is another
gender role distinction related to the aggression myth. Men respond to the threat of
gender instability by reinforcing other dimensions of the myth. One example is that
women need protection from forms of direct aggression. This is played out through
metaphoric discourse. One of the most common metaphors deployed in the crew
scene is that of the family. Friends are often referred to as family, and family roles are
tacitly attached to people. Women, for instance, may play the role of mother.
Monica, a 30-year-old social worker, promotes shows in New York City. She usually
brings home baked cookies to the club, arranges them across the bar, and explains it
as, Betty Crocker meets hardcore! Girls and women are also assigned the role of the
little sister, whereas men are their protective bigger brothers. When Julie, the
27-year-old vocalist for a scene hardcore band, was asked about relations with her
male band mates, she replied, I lucked out. I couldnt ask for a nicer bunch of guys.
Im like a little sister to them. Monica referred to the DMS crew as the powers that be.
Purchla
213
The powers that be have their hand in everything. They watch [the] dancing,
they make sure everythings okay, she said. Its not like an intimidation thing.
Its like a big brotherly thing. Although Julie and Monica dont express disfavor
with their roles, a connotation exists that women who play the little sister are not
only subordinate to their big brothers, but are also in need of their supervision. This
dominance is not only in metaphorical situations. Monica once booked a show to
benet the actual family of a DMS member who passed away. The crew contacted
Monica to inform her that she did not have permission to organize the benet in
honor of one of DMSs fallen brothers. Even though she was asked by the family of
the deceased to have the show, she had to cancel it because Monica is not one of their
own. Monica chose to wait a couple of months for the dust to settle before booking
another show.
Monicas position as not one of [DMSs] own is exacerbated by her status as a
woman in the scene. They will never respect Monica, Eric admitted solemnly.
And I hate to say it.
JP: Who, DMS wont?
Eric: [shakes his head] Nope. Shes a girl. DMS, IDS, all these guys. Forget it. Theyre
gonna walk right over her shit every time and not be concerned that shes mad . . .
They like her, and not that its disrespect. Its not disrespect. But they will never take
an opinion of a girl like a guy. Its just an old thing thats never gonna die with these
guys.
Here the crews are understood to embody hegemonic masculinity. They act to
legitimate patriarchy and guarantee the dominant position of men in the scene.
Crews play no small part in the reinforcement of the scenes dominant masculinity,
but the direct aggression and hypermasculine performance of the scene are not
simply because of crews but are ingrained in the aggression myth.
The aggression myth, as it applies to the crew scene, is reinforced by womens
expectations to self-police their presentation as ornamental surfaces (Bartky, 1997).
Women who dance destabilize this by challenging gender boundaries on the dance
oor. They face the double bind of becoming defeminized yet not completely
masculinized. But not just women in the scene who destabilize gender standards
face multiple binds. The overall aggressiveness of the crew scene threatens to disqualify any visibly ornamental women from the scene. Eric shared an anecdote that
underscores this:
Eric: [A band] played for me last week and brought 14 fuckin girls with em. Fourteen
girls with fuckin makeup and teased up hair and 30 dollar fuckin blouses on. I dont
expect any of those girls to ever come to one of my shows again. Ever.
JP: Why? Did something happen?
Eric: No. Nothin happened. Ive got a room full of sweaty dudes, man. Why would 12
girls with blouses that cost 30 dollars and hairspray on wanna fuck around with
sweaty dudes with ripped T-shirts? They dont.
214
Ethnography 12(2)
Eric identied the girls at the show as too dressed up to embody his subjective
understanding of the authenticity so integral to the scene, centered on real dress and
presentation, and subsequently dismissed any of the girls further commitment to the
scene. Yet the lines between being cute, being too dressed up, and subsequent
awards or punishment for self-presentation are indiscriminate. Ornamental women
in the scene appear to receive hugs and other signs of approval and aection from
men. Eric substantiated this by telling a typical reaction toward Julie:
Julies like a little tiny girl. All the guys love her because shes hot, I guess . . . like, I
know her as a dierent person as they know her as, so I wont even get into that [Julie
grew up around Eric] . . . but its eye candy for them so they fuckin love her.
Even women with key positions in the scene, such as musicians like Julie, who
follow the ornamental standard are reduced to a treat for the sweet-toothed gaze:
eye candy. But the dominant masculinity in the scene is not without its active
challenges. Erics wife Rhonda nds the dierence in reception between ornamental
girls and those who dont meet the standard to be disrespectful. She is 36 years old,
has a slight overbite, and wears a baseball cap pulled low to her eyeglasses. Rhonda
nullies the importance of eye candy girls to the scene. Its just somethin to look
at, to have hot girls in hardcore, she said.
Rhonda dances at shows. Although her moves are replete with punches and
kicks, her challenge to the aggression and spatial myths go beyond directly aggressive crew scene dancing. Rhonda performs security at the shows that she and Eric
promote. Eric described his wife as the angriest person he has ever met. Shes the
terminator, dude. She watches that [dance] oor, she might as well have a striped
shirt and a fuckin whistle, man. At her shows, Rhonda plays an authoritative role
and commands respect. People literally kiss my ass, she shared. Eric conrmed,
we threw a kid out once and [he] had to kiss her ass to get back in and he did it.
Rhonda absolutely has respect for everyone and everything. But when you come
into my [show] and try to fuck shit up, she warned, Im gonna fuckin kill you.
Rhonda is aware that women in her scene are subject to qualitatively dierent and
often diminished forms of respect in distinction to what men receive. Thats why I
am the way I am, she reasoned. I command respect and you better fuckin kill me.
If youre gonna be a fuckin tough guy, you better fuckin kill me. Note that
Rhondas challenge to hegemonic masculinity is also framed in a metaphorical
and literal performance that mimics hypermasculinity, which itself is a mimicry
of masculine behavior. Rhondas position as a woman in the crew scene puts her on
the defensive. She equates respect with intense gender destabilizing expressions of
direct aggression. She is aware that respect and direct aggression are tightly bound
to the hypermasculinity of the scene. This is why she acts in such as way that
matches hypermasculine performance.
Other women in the crew scene internalize and subsequently disarm the struggle
against gender bound constructions of aggression and space. During a bands
performance in Philadelphia, its vocalist announced, theres no room for [the
Purchla
215
guitarist] Kims tits on stage. Snickers from the crowd followed. Kim, 22 years old,
recalled the episode:
Kim: Well . . . funny story about when he said that . . . I dont like it when our bass
player plays on the same side as me. Cause I try to move around a lot and we are
always bumping into each other and I just feel like conned. So . . . he was on my side
or whatever and I kept going over into his side. I dont mean to do it on purpose. Its
just what happens. Anyway, I brought it up on stage to Tommy our singer, who is also
my best friend [laughs]. I was like, theres no room for my boobs up on stage. And,
uh, he thought it was funny and decided to say it in the microphone!
JP: So it was a playful thing?
Kim: Yeah, I mean, Tommys my best friend. All the guys in the band . . . theyre
awesome people. They would never say anything condescending to me that they
werent joking about.
Kim felt bound on stage. The manner in which she expressed her connement to
Tommy, as a joke, and his decision to publicize it to a room full of sweaty dudes,
drew attention to her female body. In what context is the crowd supposed to
understand this episode? As a joke between friends, or as a symbolic announcement
that theres no room for women in the scene? Although Kim considers this episode to be benign, the joke and its annunciation drew attention to her mark as a
woman, which reinforced the male gaze and kept her aggression and spatial movements in check. Mulvey (1975) wrote that women in lm, a medium she noted to
draw its classic structure and form from patriarchal society, embody the duel signication of visual pleasure and castration anxiety for male spectators. Kims position on stage, like an image on screen, was a spectacle for the male gaze. When
Tommy drew attention to Kims body, he evoked both the threat of castration and
the visual pleasure of looking at a female body, a paradox to which the nervous,
mostly male crowd could only respond with uncomfortable laughter. The triangulation between Tommys joke, the pronunciation of Kims gender, and the check on
her aggression and spatial movements actively works against her absolute validation in the male dominated scene.
Validation in the scene is also particularly relevant to certain crews. Not just
women are excluded from their circles. One must possess mythical elements of
scene longevity and the right social networks to produce the proper persona.
Eric explained:
For the same reason that [the crews are] not gonna give Monica maybe the respect that
she deserves, right, theyre not gonna talk to you, either. And its always been that way.
Thats why this is funny to me because when I was a kid, those guys all shunned me, too.
Now Im their fuckin friend. They dont remember me from Adam, dude.
The extreme exclusivity of DMS, for example, along with their aliation with
legendary hardcore bands, tallies the crews mythic capital to an incredible amount.
216
Ethnography 12(2)
As Eric says, DMS is probably the strongest crew youll ever run across in your
fuckin life. They are a tight crew because it may take up to four years to join, an
ocial member disclosed, but one must be an approved prospect rst. When fans
of DMS aliated bands fetishize the crew vicariously through music, the mystery
of the crew teeters between being unmasked and being compounded. The aura of
the crew entrances fans to perform acts of loyalty. If an ocial crew member nds
someone representing the crew with symbolic and ritualistic acts like getting a
DMS tattoo, then they give that person two options: get it covered up or get
cut up. An unsanctioned DMS tattoo is inappropriate and disrespectful toward
the crew. These actions serve to intensify the mystery and aura of the crew and
protect it from public exposure.
Unlike members of FSU, who have received national media attention and conspicuously wear crew insignias, the DMS crew does not take well to publicity.
During my rst days in the eld, I overhead an angry man talking about DMS
grati he had seen on the wall of the mens bathroom at a club in Manhattan. I
asked him, thats not cool, right? To which he replied, No. Im the only one here
who is a member of that crew, so its not cool. This man told me about kids who
wish to support his crew by representing its letters, but the crew does not want that
kind of attention. He was bothered that I even approached him. I told him that I
was interested.
He cut me o. Interested in what?
Hardcore. Groups. Groups within hardcore, too tense to say my interest was a
sociological study of crews, although I did openly disclose my role as a researcher
to other key respondents.
You should have no interest [in DMS] whatsoever. Im being polite. I am
known as Mr Polite. You should have no interest, unless you are introduced
by someone. Thats the bottom line. Mr Polite assumed that my interest in his crew
meant that I wanted to join. He made it clear that membership in DMS was by
invitation only.
I mentioned this exchange to Eric, and asked if I should apologize to Mr Polite
to make sure that the situation was free of problems.
Eric: No. Probably not.
JP: But I dont want to disrespect him or be inappropriate.
Eric: And you will [be inappropriate]. And youll get fuckin punched in the mouth for
it, too. Its fucked up, dude. They are not that friendly. Theyre not that friendly with
me. Theyre only friendly with me because of this whole stupid persona that I have.
They think youre a cop, dude.
JP: I told Mr Polite that Im not a cop. He said he didnt give a fuck.
Eric: That doesnt matter. They think youre a cop dude, cause I thought you were a
cop, too.
Eric presumed I was with the police because he did not recognize me and I was
talking to a lot of people at the club. He relayed that talking to the wrong person at
Purchla
217
the club could have been a big fuckin problem for me. A suspicion of outsiders is
acknowledged within the scene. Thats just the way the hardcore thing is, Eric
admitted.
The powers that be

This study has shown that women face marginalization and multiple binds, no
matter what their contribution to crew scene hardcore is. If they transgress ornamental norms of self-presentation, they may be defeminized yet not fully masculinized. Similarly, following arbitrary ornamental standards provides eye candy for
the male gaze, while potentially disqualifying women from the scene. A dichotomized aggression myth is reinforced when female indirect aggression defers to male
direct aggression. When women are directly aggressive, such as in the case of crew
scene dancing, they are likely to become an object onto which humiliation is projected. Woman may feel the need to overcompensate displays of direct aggression
in an attempt to legitimate their position in the scene. One example of this is
Rhondas intense expression of territoriality, which is an active challenge to hegemonic masculinity. Many women have duly reported that they have that I dont
give a fuck attitude about gender constrictions in crew scene hardcore. They attend
shows because they love the scene. Nevertheless, women struggle for validation in
this scene where respect is professed to be a central value. Even women with key
positions such as a musician or show promoter, roles without which the scene
would not exist, struggle for respect from their peers. As Eric remarked regarding
Monica, a promoter of shows in New York, she has some [respect] . . . but shes
still a girl, remember? These points were made by illuminating the experiences of
women in the scene set against its hypermasculine performances, while employing
crews as enforcers of an ideal type of control.
The inuence of hardcore crews on their respective scenes could not be possible without the crew formation process. The storied past of hardcore, combined with
the secrecy and commodities that surround the crews, fuels their aura and allure.
Their mystery is both unmasked and compounded though symbolic and material
interaction with actors in the scene. These components enable the process of mythication. Crews as an abstract idea become concrete when hardcore bands incorporate crew codes, imagery and slogans into their albums. Fans of these bands begin to
fetishize crews through music, and the cycle continues when new crews are formed.
More established hardcore crews eectively control their local scene. If a crew has
been successfully mythied, then they are aorded a formal means of control by
acting as an authority. This leads to direct aggression, scues and, in the least
common but most tragic instances, fatal ts of violence.
Providing frameworks based on mythical constructions through which norms of
control can be analyzed may, with a lack of proper caution, lead to a complacent
deference to myth as the cause of oppression, violence, and patriarchy. It is no
intention of this study to appeal to that kind of deference. This article instead
218
Ethnography 12(2)
highlights important active challenges to typical patterns of interaction that must

be studied, as in the case of women who express direct aggression or disrupt the
sexually objectifying male gaze. A trend of studies that move toward these challenges will yield deep research on the everyday trial of myth, meaning, and control.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Terry Williams from the Department of Sociology at the New School for
Social Research for his encouragement. Alastair Gordon from the Department of Media,
Film & Journalism at Leicester De Montfort University, UK, gave extremely helpful suggestions on an earlier version of this article. My understanding of the scenes gender
dynamics beneted from taking Ann Snitows course called Gender Stable and Unstable:
Case Studies in the Changing Meaning of Gender as part of the Democracy and Diversity
Institute in Krakow, Poland, in the summer of 2008. Gustav Peebles also provided valuable
insight along the way. Last but not least, I extend my gratitude to Rhonda, Shannon, Kim,
Eric, and the women and men of the crew scene.
Notes
1. The debate about the analytical usefulness of the term subculture is generally traced to
the early work of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) department at
the University of Birmingham, UK. Works associated with the CCCS (Hall and
Jefferson, 2006 [1976]; Hebdige, 1979; Willis, 1978) developed the notion of youth subculture as a stylistic form of resistance, typically of working-class youth against the
dominant ruling class. Relevant works (Bennett and Kahn-Harris, 2004; Muggleton,
2000; Muggleton and Weinzierl, 2004) have problematized the concept of subculture as
developed in the Birmingham tradition. This latter school of research basically argues
that the CCCS approach stresses the spectacular differences of subcultures rather than
the mundane aspects of everyday life. The CCCS is accused of offering an interpretation
that cannot account for the postmodern breakdown of cultural divisions. One main
consequence of this breakdown is that there may no longer be a monolithic dominant
culture against which subcultures resist (Gelder, 2007).
2. A field (Bourdieu, 1993; Moore, 2007) refers to a nexus of relations that are relatively
autonomous from the social structure at large, although fields are always subject to the
political and economic pressures of the overarching social system. The field is a social arena
in which actors struggle and compete for resources, both symbolic (cultural capital) and
material (economic capital), which locate actors within the field according to their possession of said resources. Any network of interaction that is organized around a particular
practice has properties of a field. Straw (1997) aided his conceptualization of a music scene
by referring to Bourdieus (1984) study of how the field of cultural consumption is delineated by class and status indicators. Bourdieu (1993) further developed the notion of field
in relation to the production of culture. Moore (2007) and OConnor (2008) have recently
used a Bourdieuian approach to illuminate the field of cultural production in punk scenes.
Both works focus on the DIY, or do-it-yourself, ethic that enables punk and hardcore
bands to operate relatively autonomously from the mainstream music industry.
3. Several studies have analyzed the experiences of women in various punk and hardcore
scenes, but not necessarily the crew scene. Leblanc (1999) conducted a study of gender
resistance in punk rock. She found that punk provides its female adherents with a safe
Purchla
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
219
space to challenge mainstream standards of beauty. Her respondents were generally

empowered through their transgressions of those standards. Haenfler (2006) also
found that straightedge girls are ultimately empowered by their abstinence
from drugs, drinking, and casual sex. OConnors (2008) study of punk tracks its
actors efforts to remain relatively autonomous from the mainstream music industry.
He often found women to be substantially involved in key positions within the field
such as record label executive, photographer, or fanzine publisher. Moore (2007) and
Kearney (1998) analyze the third wave feminist Riot Grrl movement, with the latter
focusing on its separatist aspects.
Connell (2005 [1995]) argues for the existence of multiple masculinities within
any pattern of gender relations, one of which is the dominant hegemonic masculinity,
a position that is always contestable. It follows that not every masculinity found
in crew scene hardcore is in the hegemonic position, and actors who embody these alternate masculinities may challenge or face challenges by the dominant one. However,
womens active challenges to the dominant masculinity are particularly important
and this study will later discuss female challenges to hegemonic masculinity in the scene.
Grants (1996) observation about actors perceived powerlessness in the class structure
also applies to various hardcore scenes, including the crew scene. Willis (1993: 381), in a
study of American hardcore, notes that although actors in hardcore scenes may not be
located in the traditional working-class position of the class structure, they are often
subject to powerlessness though exploitative underemployment, which is a system that
degrades them as workers and flaunts them as consumers.
The notion of performance here is different than Judith Butlers influential notion of
subversion based on gender performativity, which has been criticized as a muddled
concept from which subjective action disappears (Brickell, 2005). Performance for this
study follows Brickells (2005: 39) application of a Goffmanian understanding of actions
always performed by someone(s), although those ones selves are reflexively constructed
with reference to others and to the symbolic resources provided by the surrounding
culture and social structures.
See McNeil and McCain (1996) for an oral history of early American punk and
proto-punk, especially the New York City scene. Savage (1992) surveys the early punk
scene in the UK. Blush (2001) presents a broad overview of early American hardcore in
what is mostly verbatim account, and Azerrad (2001) offers profiles of several seminal
American hardcore bands.
For an account of the DIY ethic in early American hardcore, see Blush (2001). Also, see
Gordon (2005), Moore (2007), and OConnor (2008) for scholarly works that illuminate
the ethics of DIY punk and hardcore scenes.
OConnor (2002) argues for the importance of regional differences to the infrastructure of
punk scenes. However, various punk and hardcore scenes can be found within the same
geographic region. For example, it would be unlikely for ABC No Rio, which is a New
York City center for art and activism, to promote shows that draw a typical New York
crew scene audience. ABC No Rio also has a strict policy whereby its promoters screen
bands songs for any racist or sexist content before they are allowed to play there.
Although crew scene bands are inherently neither racist nor sexist, this screening practice
would be an aberration within the promotion circles of the crew scene. This is only one
case of diversity within hardcore scenes, but it offers an example of the complex plurality
of practices and tastes in the general field.
220
Ethnography 12(2)
10. Neither the breakdown style nor enclave crews in hardcore are found exclusively in the
US Northeast, but the region was important in developing these trends. Also, countless
bands after the emergence of the crew scene consider their band and audience to be
punk and/or hardcore, and may be critical of crews. But many bands in the Northeast
during the mid- to late 1980s, by tailoring their sound to the formulaic breakdown
aesthetic, marked a significant shift away from hardcores musical roots in punk
rock. Not every band that plays breakdown style hardcore is associated with a crew,
but one is most likely to find the crew phenomenon within a scene where bands make
frequent use of the breakdown. Bands that are located within a musically punk position of the field may also employ the breakdown, but they generally follow a noticeably
different formula, and the dancing to these songs is less like a pantomime of fighting.
11. Actors within the field may often refer to the crew scene as beatdown hardcore,
thugcore, or tough guy hardcore. The third and most common of these phrases is
often taken to be demeaning by those involved with the scene. By employing crew scene
hardcore as a descriptor, this study aims to avoid imposing what may be considered a
demeaning phrase upon actors in the scene.
12. A connection between bands and the crowd at shows is not unique to the crew scene, but
is a salient characteristic across countless hardcore and punk scenes. Security guards,
metal barriers between the crowd and band, and even stages are generally distained.
Dancing at shows has been a staple interest when researching the field. Haenfler (2006),
Leblanc (1999), Lull (1987), and Tsitsos (1999) all include accounts of dancing in their
studies of punk and hardcore scenes.
13. Although a conception of authenticity based on outward performance and
self-presentation correlates with data for this study, the thorny issue of authenticity in
punk and hardcore scenes cannot be generalized according to it. An understanding of
authenticity varies from scene to scene and is complicated by social and cultural capital
(whom one knows, whether one is in a band, etc.), scene status, ones position in the
scene, cultural practices, and scene longevity to name a few factors. See Gordon (2005)
and Lewin and Williams (2009) for recent studies on authenticity in punk.
14. DMS formed in the early 1980s around New Yorks Lower East Side as Doc
Martin Skins, which is a reference to a type of boot popular amongst skinheads
at the time. Skinheads in punk and hardcore scenes, despite popular connotation,
are not a unified faction of racists. The complex racial ideology that has accompanied
hardcore, especially in its early days, exceeds the limits of this paper and deserves further research. The DMS crew, as one member informed, does not adhere to racist ideology and has dropped allusions to the skinhead scene. Now the acronym is more
likely to mean Dirty Money Syndicate, or Drugs Money Sex. The FSU crew
started as Friends Stand United, and has been also referred to as Fuck Shit Up, or
Forever Societys Underdogs. The pliability of crew names will be addressed later in
the article.
15. Bennett (2006) found that elder punks in a predominantly youth oriented scene turn
their age to an advantage through a discourse of punk knowledge and punk experience.
Like Eric in this study, many benefit from self-ascribed scene status.
16. For a classic account of secrecy, see Simmel (1950) who highlights the function of
secrecy in social life by explaining the fascination attached to it. Also, Goffman
(1959) illuminates how secrets are determined by information control and actors reflexive definition of the social situation.
Purchla
221
17. Thorntons (1997) concept of subcultural capital, which is both an indicator of status
within music scenes and a token of cultural competition between closely associated
groups, helps to understand the power of hardcore crew symbols and codes. Also see
Clarke (2006 [1976]) and Hebdige (1979) who apply Levi-Strausss term bricolage to
explain how groups alter, improvise, and manipulate the meanings of commodities.
Benjamins (1968) work on mass produced art suggests that the aura generated
by hardcore crews and their commodities is a response to the easily accessible and
reproducible music of the scene.
18. Mulvey (1975: 11) notes that the patriarchal order of society has divided visual pleasure
into active (male) and passive (female) forms of looking whereby the male gaze projects
its phantasy onto the female form which is styled accordingly. Mulveys work will be
discussed later when this study describes a particular episode at a show.
References
Angier N (1999) Spiking the Punch: In Defense of Female Aggression. Woman: An Intimate
Geography. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Azerrad M (2001) Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes from the American Indie
Underground 19811991. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Bartky SL (1997) Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power.
In: Conboy K, Medina N, and Stanbury S (eds) Writing on the Body: Female
Embodiment and Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, 129154.
Benjamin W (1968) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Illuminations:
Essays and Reflections. New York: Schocken Books.
Bennett A (2006) Punks Not Dead: The Continuing Significance of Punk Rock for an Older
Generation of Fans. Sociology 40(2): 219235.
Bennett A, Kahn-Harris K (eds) After Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth
Culture. Houndmills: Macmillan.
Blush S (2001) American Hardcore: A Tribal History. Los Angeles, CA: Feral House.
Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu P (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Brickell C (2005) Masculinities, Performativity, and Subversion: A Sociological Reappraisal.
Men and Masculinities 8(1): 2243.
Clarke J (2006 [1976]) Style. In: Hall S, Jefferson T (eds) Resistance Through Rituals: Youth
Subcultures in Post-War Britain, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Connell R.W (2005 [1995]) Masculinities, 2nd ed. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Gelder K (2007) Subcultures: Cultural Studies and Social Practice. London and New York:
Routledge.
Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
Gordon, A. (2005) The Authentic Punk: An Ethnography of DIY Music Ethics, PhD
dissertation, Department of Social Sciences, Loughborough University.
Grant J (1996) Bring the Noise: Hypermasculinity in Heavy Metal and Rap. Journal of
Social Philosophy 27(2): 530.
Haenfler R (2006) Straightedge: Clean-living Youth, Hardcore Punk, and Social Change.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
222
Ethnography 12(2)
Hall S, Jefferson T (eds) (2006 [1976]) Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in
Post-War Britain. London: Routledge.
Hebdige D (1979) Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London and New York: Routledge.
Irwin J (1977) Scenes. Beverly Hills, CA and London: SAGE.
Kearney MC (1998) Dont Need You: Rethinking Identity Politics and Separatism from a
Grrl Perspective. In: Epstein JS (ed.) Youth Culture: Identity in a Postmodern World.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Leblanc L (1999) Pretty in Punk: Girls Gender Resistance in a Boys Subculture. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Lewin P, Williams JP (2009) The Ideology and Practice of Authenticity in Punk Subculture.
Authenticity in Culture, Self, and Society. Farnham and Burlington, VA: Ashgate.
Lofland J, Lofland LH (1995 [1971]) Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative
Observation and Analysis, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Lull J (1987) Thrashing in the Pit: An Ethnography of San Francisco Punk Subculture.
In: Lindolf TR (ed.) Natural Audiences. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McNeil L, McCain G (1996) Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk. New
York: Grove Press.
Moore R (2007) Friends Dont Let Friends Listen to Corporate Rock: Punk as a Field of
Cultural Production. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 36(4): 438474.
Muggleton D (2000) Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style. Oxford and New
York: Berg.
Muggleton D, Weinzierl R (eds) The Post-Subcultures Reader. Oxford and New York: Berg.
Mulvey L (1975) Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen 16(3): 618.
OConnor A (2002) Local Scenes and Dangerous Crossroads: Punk and Theories of
Cultural Hybridity. Popular Music 21(2): 225236.
OConnor A (2008) Punk Record Labels and the Struggle for Autonomy: The Emergence of
DIY. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Savage J (1992) Englands Dreaming: Anarchy, Sex Pistols, Punk Rock, and Beyond. New
York: St Martins Press.
Simmel G (1950) The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.
Straw W (1997) Communities and Scenes in Popular Music. In: Gelder K, Thornton S (eds)
The Subcultures Reader. New York: Routledge, 494505.
Sullivan ML (2006) Are Gang Studies Dangerous? Youth Violence, Local Context, and
the Problem of Reification. In: Short JF, Hughes LA (eds) Studying Youth Gangs. New
York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 1525.
Taussig M (1999) Defacement: Public Secrecy and the Labor of the Negative. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Thornton S (1997) The Logic of Subcultural Capital. In: Gelder K, Thornton S (eds) The
Subcultures Reader. New York: Routledge, 200212.
Tsitsos W (1999) Rules of Rebellion: Slamdancing, Moshing and the American Alternative
Music Scene. Popular Music 18(3): 397414.
Willis P (1978) Profane Culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Willis S (1993) Hardcore: Subculture American Style. Critical Inquiry 19(2): 365383.
Young IM (1990) Throwing Like a Girl: A Phenomenology of Feminine Body
Comportment, Motility, and Spatiality. Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays in
Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
Purchla
223
Je Purchla received his Masters of Arts in sociology from the New School for
Social Research in New York City. He also studied at the Berlin Graduate School
of Social Science at Humboldt-University in Berlin, Germany, and participated in
the Democracy and Diversity Institute in Krakow, Poland. His interests include
symbolic interactionism, music, literature, and other cultural forms.
[email: je.purchla@gmail.com]

The Powers That Be Processes of Control in Crew Scene Hardcore

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Powers That Be Processes of Control in Crew Scene Hardcore

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethnography

The powers that be: Processes of control in 'crew scene hardcore'

Additional services and information for Ethnography can be found at:

>> Version of Record - Jun 7, 2011

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

The powers that be:

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Setting the scene

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

This study will approach authenticity as a construct of outward performance

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

structured in hierarchal ranks, patrol their locales, and/or identify by symbols of

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

At this moment in formation, a clique of hardcore kids begins to take on crew

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

gesture in the scenes arena dancing. As Eric informed:

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Gender dynamics in crew scene hardcore

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

According to Shannon, the girls who destabilize conventional gender roles by

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

explicitly played out. As Shannon attested:

Besides the implicit suggestion of homoeroticism, this statement is interesting

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

The powers that be

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

highlights important active challenges to typical patterns of interaction that must

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

space to challenge mainstream standards of beauty. Her respondents were generally

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

Downloaded from eth.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL FLUMINENSE on July 2, 2012

You might also like