<< На главную страницу

Efimova Ekaterina Sergeevna

Modern Subculture as a 'Marginal' Oral Culture

Even in the 1960s the researches into the sign aspect of culture, conducted within the framework of structural and semiotic trend, were by no means limited to studying only a traditional "archaic" material. The regulating function of semiotic systems and regulation mechanisms of social behavior in modern or at least non-archaic society were investigated in terms of synchronism. Works, dedicated to gambling (games of cards), advertisement signs, street traffic, were published. In those years J.M. Lotman conducted seminars on the History of mode of everyday life, and he asserted that a mode of everyday life as a symbolic clue is one of the most important parts of culture. This trend in ethnology and folkloristics obtained a special development during the last decade, when such seminars as "Modern Urban Folklore" (headed by S.J. Nekludov and A.F. Belousov), virtual workshop "Folklore and Post-folklore), and later on the Center of Typology and Semiotics of Folklore started functioning. Their work resulted in a great achievement – this country's first complex studies of the urban folklore of the second half of the 20^th century "Modern Urban Folklore" (Moscow, 2003). This treatise describes traditions of contemporary subcultures, "transitional rites" of the urban culture, the mythology of the urban space, current speech usage of modern townsfolk.

The "epoch of meta-narration" has been replaced by the time of micro-stories – simple, petty, local histories, where the worlds, which position themselves as marginal ones, are realized. One of such local histories is the monograph  "Contemporary Prison: Mode of Everyday Life, Traditions and Folklore". The appearance of these worlds is not connected with the "era of postmodernism" – they arose with the appearance of the city. Nowadays one of the ways to describe cultural differentiation of the modern city is the theory of subcultures. While investigating verbal and non-verbal texts of a contemporary subculture, a philologist is interested, first and foremost, in the integral picture of the world, its signs and symbols, multi-variant "common knowledge" of a certain tradition, rendered by those texts. That "common knowledge" can also be included into traditional package of a limited number of stereotypical for the given culture motives (elementary semantically significant units of narration, which are capable of concentrating in themselves the meaningful content of a concrete tradition). The interpretations of motives at the semantic level give the possibility to establish the typology of folklore plots, behind which one can find a single meta-plot scheme.

In the light of contemporary theories it would be alluring to interpret the subculture of professionals of a certain social institution as a semiotic fixation of authority, and the subculture of clients as its blocking (in fact, while studying the contemporary Russian jail, we originally intended to do that in order to continue the basic ideas of M. Fuko's works), but if we speak about a subculture as a whole, then "a stranger", as it turned out, does not always represents "the authority". "Strangers" for the prison community are "cops", while for the theatrical community, for example, "strangers" are "the audience" (even in those cases when the person from "the audience" is a representative of "the authority"), and the fact that they are just "not of our feather", they are "not like us", becomes semantically significant. The central cultural opposition between "of-our-feather" world and "stranger's" world is described in a subculture according to the universal cultural stereotype: "of-our-feather" world is characterized as the world of genuine values and that is why it is originally marginal. In accordance with the mythological logic the marginality itself is a guarantee of the subsequent "accession to the throne". In the thievish subculture, where a thief is characterized as a "king" and there exist rites for "crowning a thief", it is emphasized, that the origin of "genuine thieves" is connected with the lower world: the thievish world "is born in a rubbish pit", and the first puppet theater, in accordance with the logic of the "puppet" narrative, appeared though in Paris, but in a public toilet (1). We can mention the logic of the accession to the throne in fairy tales of the youngest brother – a fool and an outcast. Here it is also the logic of a trick: by making the strangers believe that he is a "fool" and an "outcast", the character has an opportunity to triumph. "The marginal world" is attractive, first of all, as the world of game, or more precisely, of tricks, which give a chance of getting free from any "authority". Representatives of all the modern subcultures, including scientific ones (2), position themselves as "marginal". The object of analysis in the monograph  "Contemporary Prison: Mode of Everyday Life, Traditions and Folklore" are not "they" – "the strangers" – but "we" – "the marginal individuals" (whatever "we" are: researchers, prisoners or parachutists (3).              

Even such a specific marginal community as modern Russian jail is constructed in accordance with the universal laws, characteristic of any self-organizing community. On the basis of the material of the prison world we have determined several groups of especially significant behavioral stereotypes, having the maximum meaning, playing the decisive role in the formation of the prison community (probably, like any other one): expressing the idea of primacy of the general over the particular; expressing the idea of activity, equality, brotherhood; expressing the idea of honor, dignity, beauty; and, first of all, expressing the idea of freedom. If we speak about the contemporary Russian society, then we can say that slang expressions and thieves' songs in our current speech usage (which are, by the way, popular in prisons only with juvenile offenders), the interest in "marginals", shown by the post-folklore researches, and the counter interest, caused by the publication of a new book about jail (4) – all this attests to the fact, that now Russian people don't have the "identity crisis", as it is widely believed, but on the contrary, a new identity is being born, which makes them search for their own sources in "principally marginal worlds", where the main cultural value is freedom. For example, central symbols of the prison subculture are encoded in such a way that "prison" is understood not as a penitentiary, but as an opportunity to become free (about freedom as the main cultural value of the prison world see chapter "Symbolics of Prison Subculture" in "Contemporary Prison").

The author of "The Dictionary of Russian Argot" V.S. Elistratov proves that argot/slang is a language of the people, who are in the process of creating a culture; this is a rough copy of the future culture. Today's polyphony of "marginal" cultures is also a rough copy of the future culture.

However, as regards the sign-and-symbolic behavior of representatives of subcultures, the real practice here, like in any other culture, doesn't always coincide with the ideal norms. Thus, in the prison subculture the "ideal" prison (i.e. the one, where inmates live in accordance with criminal laws and notions) is moved aside in time and space by the bearers of tradition (see paragraph "Ideal and Reality" in "Contemporary Prison") – the mere existence of these norms in this or that discourse becomes significant. Mythologizing the "golden age" of a subculture is not of lesser significance in spite of the fact, that such "golden age" is characterized as a "passed" one, even when a subculture has existed for a dozen years (this country's rastamen, for instance, speak about the decay of the Rastafarianism, and tolkienists point to the end of Tolkienism (5)).

Ethnology and anthropology were mostly interested in the archaic for a long time.  It was believed that all the "ethnographic" aspects of life were highly semiotic especially in traditional societies.

However, modern researches show little difference between the notorious "Polynesians" and us. Our society can be regarded as a distortion of the "exotic" one, and the "exotic" society, in its turn, as a distortion of ours (M. Mid). But we can also see how "exotic" our own mode of everyday life is, and try to comprehend the reason for this "exoticism" (6).            

Contemporary studies reveal a striking similarity between the mode of everyday life, traditions and beliefs, which arise in modern subcultures and in traditional societies. This similarity doesn't seem to be a paradox, if subcultures are considered in the light of the interpersonal communication.  The most vivid example of the abovementioned fact is an active life in modern subcultures of the so-called "archaic beliefs" (about prison myths and magic rituals see chapter "Prison Myths and Rituals" in "Contemporary Prison"). G. and G.A. Frankforts explained the abyss between contemporary and "ancient" human beings by the fact, that for a contemporary person the world of phenomena is, first of all,  an "It", while for an ancient person, as well as for a primitive one, this world is a "Thou", which implicates the subject into "bilateral mutual relationship". Developing this thought, E.S. Novik, who studies the shaman culture (i.e. the most "archaic" one), convincingly proves, that the perception of the reality (including the non-sign reality such as a spoken remark, bearing the expectations of the speaker) is formed by the orientation of the culture at the oral transmission of the information (when even time-space breaks are overcome according to the model of the interpersonal communication).

The oral form of information exchange in subcultures is predominant (chapter "Oral Literature" in "Contemporary Prison" is dedicated to the detailed studies of the extensive genre system of prison folklore: legends, short stories, bylichkas, funny narrative and dialogue forms of oral texts). At the same time a strict boundary is not drawn in the socially peripheral worlds between different means of encoding the information; oral literature is inseparable here from the entire "semiotic ensemble". For example, a narrative, a tattoo, a scar – all of them are equally informative messages for a criminal, just like dreads and reggae are for a rastaman.  All these objects or phenomena of the material world turn out to be the signs and remarks, provoking the response of the addressee. Such general setting provides the opportunity for a subculture to perceive even the non-sign reality as a certain sender's addressed message, awaiting a response.

The same situation is also observed in professional subcultures. The contact of a collective farmer with her sickle, of a soldier with his submachine gun, of a puppeteer with his/her puppet, is constructed in accordance with the models of the interpersonal communication. A sickle, a submachine gun and a puppet are means of encoding complex information, and in this case the main thing for the representative of the subculture is the pragmatics of the communication processes, the comprehension of the imperative force of the symbols (of the central symbols of the given subcultures in the abovementioned examples), which requires a response. Wide propagation of "archaic beliefs" (fetishism, animatism, magic) in subcultures will turn out to be natural, if these beliefs are regarded as "presumptions of communication" (E.S. Novik).

Generally speaking, the guarantee, that "archaic beliefs" will be characteristic of a representative of a modern subculture or a social periphery, is his/her ability to interpret "correctly" – from the point of view of his/her internal "sub-cultural" norms and the specific picture of the world – the signs of his/her subculture, to respond and to react to them, to be familiar with them in a certain way (to perceive and describe oneself as an addressee). The other guarantee is the fact, that he/she acts as a sender, who addresses the world with remarks awaiting a response, remarks, which are in the form of dreads, fenechki (narrow bracelets of color threads with a pattern) and tattoos or a submachine gun, a puppet and a sickle. The world enters the field of the oral culture, and consequently, the field of beliefs, where the person regains the ability (lost by the written culture) of interpreting the sign reality and the non-sign one as a remark addressed personally to him/her and requiring an immediate response.  On the Day of the Last Judgment or, for instance, facing some extraterrestrial civilization, the mankind would form a single "marginal" oral culture, because it's in the subculture that an "It" again turns into a "Thou" and utilitarian pragmatics becomes just a condition for the realization of the highest sacral goals. However, nowadays numerous subcultures – from the prison to the communal kitchen – are islets of the oral ("archaic") culture in the world of the written language and new information and communication technologies.

Notes.

1.    For the more detailed info about "puppet" mythology see: E.S. Efimova "Folklore of the social periphery: Puppeteer and puppet in the oral literature of modern puppet theater" in the collection of works "Living Puppet" (is being prepared for publication).

2.    The opposition between "of-our-feather" and "stranger" in the oral literature of one of the scientific subcultures is considered, for example, in a course paper by A. Veremeenko "Folklore of Folklorists" (the work is done within the framework of students' seminar "Modern urban folklore" conducted by the grant recipient at the Philological Faculty, MPSU, 2000 – 2002).

3.    Most articles on subcultures in the book "Modern Urban Folklore" are the result of the included observation: T.B. Tschepanskaya ("Youth communities") belonged to the "System", V.V. Golovin ("Subculture of Drafted Soldiers", co-authors M.L. Lurye and E.V. Kuleshov) was selected for military service by draft, I.V. Utekhin ("Folklore of Communal Flats") lived in a communal flat, the article on programmers' folklore (K.E. Shumov, "Programmers' Professional Myth") is written by a computer specialist, and the article about parachutists (N.E. Livanova, "Parachutists' Folklore") by a parachutist. 

4.    It is significant that the reviewers of "Contemporary Prison", representatives of the subculture of journalists, when citing the texts of the genre of "trap-questions" ("chaffs"), which is the most representative genre in the prison folklore, use the logic of trick, the logic of reflective control over "strangers" by proposing the reader to enter the dialogue with a "marginal world": "I won't tell you the correct answer – read "Contemporary Prison" (Russian journal, April 30, 2004) "The correct answer is in the book. On page 159" (IG Exlibris 13 (263)). 

5.    These motives sounded, in particular, in the reports delivered by the representatives of subcultures at our Roundtable "Modern Anthropology" (June 2, 2004), club " Bilingva", Moscow.

6.    T.B. Tschepanskaya's fundamental monograph, dedicated to the subculture of the youth, has become the first work in this country's ethnography, which revealed the specific character of the formation of the contemporary "external" culture on the basis of symbolics (T.B. Tschepanskaya, "Symbolics of the Subculture of the Youth. Ethnographic Studies of the System: 1986-1989", St. Petersburg, 1993). As for a number of new researches, dedicated to the semiotic description of the contemporary mode of everyday life, it is especially worth mentioning I.V. Utekhin's brilliant book, the second edition of which has just been published (I.V. Utekhin, "Essays on the Communal Mode of Everyday Life", Moscow, 2004).

I am extremely grateful to the  John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for its support, without which the research into the prison subculture and the marginal world of Russia could have failed.