men against wall

8/12/2019 Men Against Wall

1/14

MEN AGAINST THE WALL:GRAFFITI(ED) MASCULINITIES

This paper invokes the categories of the masculine that have been discursively con-

structed in the historical and social context of hip hop and graffiti culture. The pro-

duction and performance of graffiti(ed) masculinities are the result of a complex

mix that samples notions of class, race, violence, space, commodification, gender,resistance, and violence. Graffiti culture embodies the colonizers ideals of a mas-

culinity that is dangerous, aggressive and takes risks, while giving men a medium

with which to tell their stories and allowing them to express their emotions. The ar-

ticle argues that graffiti(ed) masculinities are composed of seemingly disparate and

complex components that shadow the masculine ideals of the colonizer, of hege-

monic masculinity, as well as borrowing from notions of subordinate and resistive

masculinities.

Keywords: hip hop, graffiti, masculinity, gender, race, national identity, workingclass

Borrowing various versions of masculinity, the construction and production of masculin-

ities located in hip hop and graffiti culture fuses these disparate elements together in unique

ways. Graffiti(ed) masculinities draw on hegemonic notions of successful and correct

forms of masculinity, which are altered through damaged and subordinated masculinities

to produce new systems of meaning. Graffiti culture embodies the colonizers ideals of a

masculinity that is dangerous, aggressive and takes risks, while giving men a medium with

which to tell their stories, and allowing them to express their emotions and form deep andlasting relationships with others based on trust, respect, and a sense of community. At-

tempting to understand the masculinities that are produced and performed within graffiti cul-

ture involves an understanding of the elements that are pieced together to inform them.

These masculinities emerge from a dialogue between politics of space, race, class, gender,

nationality, commodification and consumer culture, resistance, violence, and hip hop cul-

ture. Theories of class, race and space are important paradigms for understanding graffiti

178

KARA-JANE LOMBARD*

THE JOURNAL OF MENS STUDIES, VOL. 21, NO. 2, SPRING 2013, 178-190.

2013 by the Mens Studies Press, LLC. All rights reserved. http://www.mensstudies.com

jms.2102.178/$15.00 DOI: 10.3149/jms.2102.178 ISSN/1060-8265 e-ISSN/1933-0251

* Curtin University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to the author, School of Media, Culture and CreativeArts, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Western Australia 6845. Email: [email protected]


2/14

culture and the masculinities it enfolds. This paper invokes the categories of the masculine

that have been discursively constructed in the historical and social context of hip hop and

graffiti culture.

Influenced by a tradition of oral leaders and artists, (Lusane, 1993), hip hop is groundedin Black and Puerto Rican street culture (Flores, 1987) and spans ethic, cultural and lan-

guage barriers. Hip hop comprises four elements: DJing, MCing, breakdancing, and graf-

fiti. All forms of hip hop are considered visible symbols of resistance (Brake, 1985). Hip-hop

graffiti emerged from the Black neighbourhood cultures of New York City in the early 1970s

as part of a larger, homegrown, alternative youth culture (Ferrell, 1995-96), and by the end

of this decade its aesthetic codes and stylized images began to disseminate to major cities

across America and throughout the globe. A unique form of inscription, it depicts words

and phrases in disguise (Gross & Gross, 1993), and is labelled apocryphal as the written

words both reveal and conceal their identitythey reveal themselves to the insider or ini-tiated but conceal themselves from the uninitiated.

Hip-hop graffiti is comprised of three basic forms: tags, throw ups and pieces. A tag is a

stylized version of a signature, a mark of identification that is instantly recognizable, and

is the most basic form of graffiti. There are two types of tagging: individual and crew. Throw

ups are large two-dimensional versions of tags. The outlines of letters are usually drawn in

one color and filled in with another color. The piece, short for masterpiece, is the most so-

phisticated kind of graffiti. Usually designed and practiced beforehand in a piecebook,

pieces are most often completed by a crew or several writers. Pieces can include characters

as well as words and phrases, and are of complex design and style, featuring backgrounds,

patterns and multiple colors.

The production of graffiti(ed) masculinities transpires very much like that of a graffiti

piece, which fuses images from popular culture with those of the writers own imaginings

to create something unique. This kind of bricolage also operates in the construction of mas-

culinities involved in the graffiti scene. In the production of graffiti(ed) masculinities, space,

race, nationality, resistance, violence, language, the body, hip-hop culture, the politics of the

street and consumer culture, all come together in a complex exchange that informs a mas-

culine ideal that is both correct and damaged, dominant and oppressed.

Although modes of masculinity vary by race, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation (Brod,

1987), conventional, phallocentric perspectives on masculinity repeatedly put forward im-ages of the male and of maleness which conform to an enactment of the dominant element

which conform to an enactment of the dominant element of the binary pair (Lucas, 1996,

p. 209). The construction of a successful, modern, Western hegemonic masculinity usually

involves the valorisation of qualities such as authority, competition, physical strength, ag-

gression, power, activity, taming, colonisation, domination, violence, independence, pride,

resiliency, self-control, desire for control (Denborough, 1995; Fasteau, 1974; Lucas; Peter-

son, 1998; Thompson, 1987).

Masculinities must operate, or be competent at operating, some degree of power and au-

thority (Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 1998). The hegemonic masculinity that functions inAmerica is the culturally idealized version of masculinity that is certainly identifiable as

the dominant form among several racial, sexual and class-based masculinities (Nagel,

1988, p. 246), all of which have their own notions of what constitutes power and authority.

If subjectivities are produced and determined within the spaces of power and difference

179

MENAGAINST THEWALL


3/14

(Middleton, 1992), it is important to expose the origins of these differences and the ways

in which power operates by constructing particular male bodies as normal or natural and oth-

ers as pathological or unnatural (Peterson, 1998). Through control over the ideologies, in-

stitutions and knowledges that support power, White masculinity has been constructed asthe dominant, hegemonic masculinitycorrect, whole and undamaged. Black masculinity

became one of many subordinated masculinities, one of the pathological mirrors for White,

hegemonic masculinity. Racial taxonomies constructed a hierarchy upon which White Eu-

ropean males ruled and provided the standard against which all other human being and cul-

tures were judged (Peterson, 1998). This led to ethnocentric assumptions about Western

culture and the inferiority of all other races (Harris, Torres, & Allende, 1994), which a num-

ber of writers trace to the emergence of the institution of slavery in America.

While Europeans came to America voluntarily to seek new opportunity, Africans came in

chains to work an economic system in which they had no stake. Although the slave trade hadbeen in operation since before the fifteenth century, American slavery was set apart, in part,

by its racial basis. With only a few early and significant exceptions, slaves were of African

origin, and almost all Africans were slaves. This branded Black skins as inferior (Coombs,

1972). The historical construction of racial taxonomies and the grand narratives of White

Europeans produced a White-supremacist discourse and practice that declared Black mas-

culinity to be inferior and inconsistent. Denied citizenship rights, Black men were effectively

denied manhood rights, which applied to White males only. Thus the White master was rep-

resentative of hegemonic masculinity. Black men were also apprehended from acquiring

the symbols of this masculinity, denied both a physical and metaphorical space in America.

The parallels with those involved in the graffiti scene appear numerous. Graffiti writing is

not just a reclamation of space for those who use and inhabit it, it is also the rewriting and

renegotiation of that space.

African American men eventually came to occupy a space in Americathe ghetto. The

last remaining vestige of mass exploitation, poverty and crime in America (Booker, 1964),

the Black ghetto is pervaded by a sense of hopelessness and inability to move into the

mainstream of the nations life (Farmer & Black, 1971, pp. 42-43). In the past, many ghetto

dwellers found the mainstream closed to them, and they rejected it and many of the Amer-

ican values that operated within it (Farmer & Black). Whether or not this still holds true is

bound to be debated, however this remains the sentiment running through the veins of thecontemporary graffiti writereven if he does wear designer brands and want fame. In the

same way that graffiti writers tag symbols of the authorities that oppress and control them,

so Black citizens who burned their neighbourhoods down, rejected the sanctity of private

property and the white mans values imposed upon them, values which have helped keep

them in chains (Farmer & Black, p. 43). Like the slave who was not able to own property,

African Americans felt the property that they were burning down was not their property

they did not own it, it was a symbol of their continued exploitation. Burning that property

gave them a sense of destroying their prison (Farmer & Black).

In order to escape ghetto life and the position of permanent wagelessness, Black maleyouth resorted to a life on the edges of crime (Mercer & Julien, 1988). Thus the hustler

or gang member was born. The hustler is an institutionalized figure in Black underclass so-

ciety that activates illegality as a style of life. The hustler accommodates himself to the sys-

tem of oppression, using illegal means to attain the normative ends of the White patriarchal

180

LOMBARD


4/14

role (Mercer & Julien). Adopting the idea of masculinity being constitutive of an active and

independent economic agent (Mercer & Julien) so characteristic of hegemonic masculini-

ties, the hustler adapts this to whatever means at his disposal. The survival strategies of the

hustler are informed by a machismo (Mercer & Julien) and bravado. It relies just as muchon the correct poses, posturing and costuming as it does on attitudes and actions. Machismo

is a self-made masculinity, in that it employs whatever means possible to ensure its sur-

vival, of which violence is a part.

Malcolm X (cited in Malcolm X & Hayley, 1964) elaborated on the survival strategies of

the hustler by describing his experiences:

I was a true hustler, uneducated, unskilled at anything honourable, and I considered

myself nervy and cunning enough to live by my wits, exploiting any prey. A hustler

knows that if he ever relaxes, if he ever slows down, the other hungry, restless foxes,

ferrets, wolves, and vultures out there with him wont hesitate to make him theirprey. (pp. 109-110)

The hustler continues to operate in the production of Black masculinities, and has been

appropriate by many Black men, regardless of social position. They argue that it is possi-

ble to be hustler on Wall Street or in the Projects (Manifest, 2001). It is the performance of

a subordinated masculinity based on hegemonic ideals.

Gangsta rap obviously invokes the stereotypes of Gz (gangsters) and hustlas. Mas-

culinities involved in the graffiti scene also adopt the hustlestealing paint and com-

mitting other petty crimes. As a symbol of a marginalized masculinity that despite all odds,manages to succeed, it is an apt image for those males involved in graffiti culture. The hus-

tle is actually quite destructive. It is a masculinity that must remain largely invisible to

achieve its goals, a masculinity that must never let its guard down, retaining an almost para-

noiac watchfulness.

Moral panics, created by official discourses on race-related crime issues, have created the

problem category of Black youth (Marriott, 1996). The dominant representations of Black

male youth are as deviant and criminal, and their social relations have acquired the status

of a state ideology that reinforces negative stereotyping and characterizes Black masculin-

ity as in constant need of policing and surveillance. Institutions such as the criminal justice

system, the state and the media, have become racialized in their representations of Blackyouth (Marriott). The problem of the young Black male becomes even more critical with

the arrival of hip hop.

Initially an underground movement, by the late 1980s, rap and the broad spectrum of

Hip Hop had become the dominant cultural environment of young African-Americans, par-

ticularly males (Lusane, 1993, p. 42). Run-D.M.C. was one of the first groups to make

headlines, and are widely recognized as the progenitor of modern raps creative integration

of social commentary, diverse musical elements, and uncompromising cultural identifica-

tion (Dyson, 1993). D.M.C.s debut was the genres first gold record, attracting the atten-

tion testosterone-fuelled males (Collins, 1998). But with lyrics like guess what America,we love you, D.M.C. would never raise hell like Niggaz With Attitude. N.W.A. did not

love America. They were angry, controversial, misogynistic. Gangsta rap had arrived. Like

the separatist politics of Black nationalism, the rap artist often essentializes Black people,

mimicking racist discourses and denying the heterogeneity of Black identity.

181

MENAGAINST THEWALL


5/14

The rapper performs a validized version of Black masculinity that evokes the stereotype

of the Nat (a vengeful savage bent on physical confrontation) produced through the slav-

ery narrative, and is a potent source of White fear and desire. Rap artists frequently exam-

ine the realities of existence in ghetto, detailing the unemployment, miseducation,discrimination, homicides, gang life, class oppression, police brutality, drug and alcohol

abuse and the regressive gender politics that many Black male youth find themselves trapped

in. For bell hooks (1994, p. 117), Black males have been seduced into making money by

producing lyrics that promote violence, sexism, misogyny. The tragedy is that a great deal

of Black male aggression is often directed at other Black men, as was evinced in the East

versus West Coast rivalry in rap that led to the death of Notorious B.I.G. a.k.a. Biggie Smalls

and Tupac Shakur. The versions of masculinity these Black men reproduce not only serves

to maintain their bondage, but literally serves (to do in or do over another) them as

well. hooks (1994) argues that the sexist, misogynistic, and patriarchal ways of thinkingand behaving that are glorified in gangsta rap are a performance of the prevailing values in

our society that are created and sustained by White supremacist capitalist culture. She be-

lieves it is much easier to attack gangsta rap than to confront the culture that produces that

need (hooks).

By the mid-1990s, raps popularity transcended divisions of class, race and gender, and

images of gangsta rap became commodified by the corporate and White, middle-class world.

Its elements of machismo and misogyny attracted the attention and emulation of White

teenage boys who appropriated the signifiers of Black, hyper-masculinity as symbols of so-

cial prestige. White boys adopted significations of Blackness to enhance their masculinity

(Rutherford, 1997). They were simply purchasing a masculine performance. Rutherford

states that masquerading Blackness is part of a short-lived adolescent revolt, a means of

asserting themselves against parental authority and stabilising an uncertain masculine iden-

tity (p. 151). I am more inclined to believe that White males are attracted to the hard-

ness and hypersexuality of this Black masculinity that confirms their masculine prowess.

The consequence for Black boys are more severe, as stereotypes can trap them in the tra-

ditional representations which present a restricted and unrepresentative image of Black mas-

culinity (p. 51). Young White males appropriate these badges of masculinity but can always

leave them in their closet, while Black male youth are trapped behind their badges.

The popularity of hip hop with White, Anglo males is essentially the pimping of Black cul-ture to its oppressors. It perpetuates and maintains an underclass (hooks, 1994). The com-

modification of graffiti works in the same way. The art markets response to graffiti was

phenomenal, but short lived. Marketed for its novelty value, graffiti art became popular

primarily because it offered insight to the lives of the inner-city culture (Powers, 1996,

p. 141), depicting an exciting and dangerous life on the edge.

Life on the edgethe life of the male African American, hip-hop artist and graffiti

writeris inevitably an existence bound up with violence and crime. Crime is a resource

subordinate masculinities utilize to achieve an undamaged masculinity, it is a strategy for

the accomplishment of successful masculinity. Graffiti is not only constructed as a crime,it is also considered a form of violence. As far as masculinity is concerned, violence equals

competence (Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 1998). Violence is seen as an appropriate way for

males to behave (Thompson, 1987), being brought up to believe a part of them that has an

affinity for violence, and indeed, thrives on it (Fasteau, 1974). It is rooted in the social and

182

LOMBARD


6/14

cultural systems of the West (Formaini, 1990) and built into patriarchal masculinity (Robin-

son, 1994). That Black men are denied patriarchal rights and yet are perceived to be the

cause of so much violence, is a contradiction hegemonic masculinity has yet to resolve. The

graffiti writeras a masculine underdogcannot employ violence without being further po-sitioned as damaged and dangerous. As a form of semiotic violence as well as a violence en-

acted upon the landscape, the practitioners of hip-hop graffiti are often viewed as deviants

or non-conformists, having failed to internalize societys condemnation of violence (Brod,

1987), unless, of course, they are using violence to uphold institutions of hegemonic power,

systems that are sustained through violence themselves. Violence is only an appropriate

function/ mode of communication/ process/ strategy for dominant masculinities. It is an ap-

propriate and necessary behaviour of power and control (Thompson, 1987).

Whether actual physical violence is a part of graffiti culture is an area of contention, and

no doubt where graffiti(ed) masculinities intersect with gang life, actual physical violenceis bound to increase. Both hip-hop and graffiti culture are constructed through violence by

hegemonic masculinities, the middle classes, but they themselves also construct their worlds

as violent. The graffiti threat is articulated by the victims as a form of violence. Susan

Stewart (1994, p. 222) argues that the faade that graffiti inscribes is clearly a projection

or an externalization of the private body of the middle classes. It must also be an exter-

nalisation of the hegemonic male body (whose realm has been traditionally considered that

of the urban and public), which is perhaps why it is so crucial that the graffiti be policed with

such militance.

Class is another important paradigm for understanding graffiti culture. Born out of the

economic, political and ethnic inequalities prevalent in America (Ferrell, 1995-96), graffiti

is formally overdetermined as the medium of the urban poor (Fleming, 1997, p. 5)even

if it is increasingly produced by middle-class, suburban exponents (Ferrell). Whether a graf-

fiti writer bombs (writing graffiti prolifically) alone, with a group of friends, in a crew,

or as part of a gangthe masculinities involved in the graffiti scene take something of

working-class masculine ideas.

The successful performance of working-class masculinity involves fighting and drinking

(Canaan, 1996). Fighting is to the working-class male what tagging or piecing is to the graf-

fiti writer. It arranges masculinity into a hierarchy, and provides a means of affirming their

place in society, and a context for reversing the outcome of a prior psychological drama(Canaan). So whereas Neil got in a fight after an argument with someone close to him

(Canaan), graffiti writer GKAE went on an intense graffiting spree one summer after hav-

ing some girl troublebombing three to four pieces a night for thirty-five nights straight

(Powers, 1999). He comments that, going all out like that, Im not normal I detach my-

self (p. 79). In working-class masculinities, the fight also severs the link between body

and self (Canaan). In a similar way, graffiti fragments the body and self, however instead

of projecting the self through violence onto the body of another, graffiti writers project

pieces of their selves onto walls and trains. With violence (and graffiti writing), there is a

sense that to maintain or gain control, one must lose control, and that the greatest momentof consciousness and self-control comes from this severance between body and self.

In working-class culture, drinking becomes a measure of hardness as it allows for, and per-

mits the loss of self control (Canaan, 1996), which leads to increased risk taking (Canaan).

Successful masculinities operating in graffiti culture involve the manly cogito: I risk there-

183

MENAGAINST THEWALL


7/14

fore I am. Graffiti itself is imbued with riskfrom being discovered by authorities and pun-

ished, to occasions of injury and sometimes even death. Status within graffiti culture is

gained by taking risks and hitting dangerous locations, which gains the individual writer or

crew further respect.Territory is also an important part of the working-class males life, as it is central to their

identities and indicative of where they came from, and where they could go to (Canaan,

1996, p. 121). Territory is similarly important to the graffiti writer, especially the gang

writer, whose purpose it is to mark the territory of a gang. Notions of territory also serve to

establish a strong sense of community (Canaan). Working-class males may fight among

themselves, as graffiti writers compete with each other, and yet both groups are infused

with a strong sense of connectedness and community. Prominent graffiti authority Jeff Fer-

rell (1995-96) describes how these alternative communities bring graffiti writers a sense of

family, love and deep bonds, even as they cut across language, gender, racial, and class bar-riers.

In Stiffed, Susan Faludi (1999) examined the shift in notions of what it means to be a

man that occurred with Americas shift toward a more corporate future. Industrial society

distanced fathers from their sons and put into place a peer culture, as fathers are replaced

as role models for their sons by the boys peers (Badinter, 1992). Thus an apprentice-type

relationship develops between young males as they join together under the rule of another

male who is slightly older, slightly stronger, or slightly brighter, a sort of older brother, the

leader who is admired and copied and whose authority is recognized (p. 91). This is sim-

ilar to what happens with the formation of crews in graffiti culture. This way of becoming

a man is that of an alternative to hegemonic masculinity, which asserts authority over other

men while the mentor system places men in command of a body of knowledge (Faludi,

1999). The masculinities emerging from Americas industrial past are versions that favour

inclusion and a sense of community, often with a mentor system (Faludi). The masculini-

ties represented by the corporate future, on the other hand, are evocative of the slave era in

that they are based on exclusion of privilege, individual performance and competition. Graf-

fiti(ed) masculinities take something from both these models.

Another aspect common to the experience of being a working-class man is to have ex-

pressed feelings that government policies constrained them and intruded on their lives

(Canaan, 1996, p. 117). Graffiti writers are also opposed to the structures, institutions andideologies that attempt to control their lives. Through the production of graffiti, they resist

the existing forms of power, social, legal and political control levelled against them, as well

as constructing alternative arrangements (Ferrell, 1995-96). One foci of graffitis resistance

is considered to be spatial control and the regulation of urban environments (Ferrell). Fer-

rell explores the ways in which the practitioners of youthful graffiti attempt to resist the

increasing segregation and control of urban environments and show how participants in the

graffiti underground undermine the efforts of legal and political authorities to control them

(p. 73). Graffiti disrupts the orderly latticework of authority (p. 79) that confines to pre-

arranges patterns of social and spatial isolation (Ferrell).Modern cities are systematically fractured by ethnic, class, and consumer segregation

(Ferrell, 1995-96) and increasingly defined by the segregation and control of urban space

(Ferrell). For Johanna Garvey (1995, p. 108), the city can be seen as initially gendered

feminine, only to be filled in and thus conquered, to become a space of male power. It be-

184

LOMBARD


8/14

comes a male space: one of domination, hierarchy and conquest, a sprawling, showy space,

a full space (p. 108). Men appropriate the city and then fill in its space (p. 113). Of course,

modern graffiti is a writing thatfills space (Fleming, 1997), authenticating hegemonic forms

of masculinity. At the same time, graffiti resists this idea of masculinity, as writers bomb ortag on the symbols of the systems they opposelarge businesses, public buildings and such

(Ferrell), reducing the urban landscape to a sort of anarchy. Urban, public space is the site

for hegemonic masculinity, but dangerous masclinities are also seen to operate in the street.

The street is one of the spaces in which male youth are especially pathologizedespe-

cially if they are Black male youth, or young male graffiti writers. Uniformed masculini-

tiesthe police and security guards who serve and protectattempt to regulate these

damaged masculinities by maintaining spatial control and the dominance of hegemonic

masculinity.

Writers violate the citys spatial sorting by climbing fences and tagging private prop-

erty (Ferrell, 1995-96). Graffiti erodes the divisions between public and private space, re-

claiming public space for those who primarily inhabit it (Stewart, 1994), as well as those

masculinities who inhabit it. Graffiti raises questions of exclusion and inclusion regarding

space and race, class, gender, as well as versions of masculinity. In inscribing the landscape,

graffiti also rewrites it from the inside out, and interrupts the spaces between the different

arenas in which varieties of masculinity perform.

Graffiti not just resists but imposes its own order and values over those of the hegemonic

authorities. Graffiti writers often argue that it is ethical to write on spaces that have been

abandoned or poorly maintained (Stewart, 1994, p. 218). Social commentary often ac-

companies pieces (we are the sons of the ghetto and we will survive by Skeme, Spinsstop Koch and war is selfish death), and messages like Gregs we are unstoppable, we

are uncatchable, we are nasty and to the boys in blue, catch me if you can serve as re-

minders that public space is still public, and attempts to maintain hegemonic masculinity

through control of space and those who inhabit the segregated city will be disturbed.

Even though the realm of the public is considered that of the masculine, men are effec-

tively defined as a social group for whom only a limited range of forms of interaction are

valid within public space (Middleton, 1992, p. 120). Repressive masculine roles that im-

poverish men from expressing feminine traits are challenged by graffiti culture. Graffiti

writing allows men a public stage upon which to tell their stories. As Rev Suicide (cited inPowers, 1999, p. 98) graffitied,

TO JOE Public YOU MIGHT BE ASKIN YOURSELF RIGHT NOW, WHAT IS

THIS SHIT ITS ABOUT A KID WHO IS JUST LIVIN HIS LIFE AND

TELLING HIS STORY, THE ONLY WAY HE KNOWS HOW.

Another of his pieces reads, I WAS BORN ON APRIL 17, 1967 IN BROOKLYN, NY.

THE HOSPITAL VICTORY MEMORIAL. Graffiti allows Rev Suicide (and many others,

including the oppressed) to tell their storiesstories that might not otherwise be visual-

ized. Whether as detailed as Revs, or a simple tag of someones namegraffiti is telling astory. It is the story of a complexly woven masculinity that performs through graffiti writ-

ing and the culture surrounding it.

Greater divides of space are also crucial in informing the construction and performances

of masculinities in the graffiti scene. Devon D. Brewer (1992) informs us that in America,

185

MENAGAINST THEWALL


9/14

writers on the West coast are more likely to participate in legal graffiti projects than those

in New York. He attributes this to the differing histories and community responses in the re-

gions. Hip-hop graffiti on the East coast has had a longer history and more aggressive com-

munity response than its Western counterpartfacts that appear to have entrenched theillegal focus of activities there and contributed to the outlaw ethos of New York writers.

Thus, for an East Coast writer, bombing illegally is evidence of a successful, undamaged

masculinity, as writers who do legal pieces are scorned. By not doing illegals you have no

right to refer to yourself as a graffiti writer or a participant of aerosol culture for in essence

you have ignored the raw principle of writinggetting up illegally, said one writer I spoke

with. Writers in California are less likely to associate illegals with a damaged masculin-

ity.

Thus it follows that the masculinities at work in the Australian scene should be different

from those operating in America. Not only because the two countries have had differentgraffiti histories, but because they also have different histories of masculinity. America is

founded on injustice, its history is written in blood (Young, 1971), even though it was col-

onized by free and independent people who relocated there of their own accord. Australia

has built its house on quite a different foundation, and yet European settlement of Australia

began with the establishment of a penal colony. Informed by its British roots, Australia is

also affected by the overwhelming influence of America. Australian national identity is

marked by the conflicting politics of mateship and meritocracy.

Peter Looker (1994) argues that Australia, Britain and North America encompass a shared

economy of gender relations, although each country has local inflections. Whereas Ameri-

can masculinity has an ethos of masculine individualism (Lucas, 1996), Australian mas-

culinity accesses ideologies of mateship, characterized by obnoxious larrikinism, giving

your mates a hand, fierce loyalty, as well as a reckless element, enterprise, courage and

daring (Townsend, 1994). Mateship is a part of the human phenomenon of male bonding

(Townsend), and as one of the great Australian institutions (Townsend), it is a culture of

youthful self-congratulatory Aussie masculinity, which highlights standing up for oneself

and ones mates, against authority or anything else; physical prowess; and daring or excit-

ing escapades. To be successful in this culture is to be a legend (Walker, 1988). Mateship

is a code, a tribal thing, that appears to play a greater part in mens lives during adoles-

cence and early adulthood (Townsend, 1994, p. 214). It can be dominated by its less at-tractive characteristicschauvinism and a booze-based, adolescent way of relating (p.

213). The ideals of mateship play an important role in both American and graffiti scenes,

and this is perhaps where the masculinities involved in graffiti scenes of both countries part

ways.

The masculinities involved in the graffiti scene are by no means coherent, however. The

homogenous appearances of these masculine performances are deceitful, and ignore the

complexities and disparities involved in the construction of these masculinities. Attitudes

toward female writers is one area in which these disparities are exposed. When asked why

they thought women did not have a stronger presence in contemporary hip hop, SPIEonecited the usual (patriarchal) suspects and called for respect for females. Neonski replied:

cause theyre not strong. Writing isnt a womans thing. Its a messy, lonely art form with-

out much credit or acknowledgement (Spie, Poem, Neonski & Art Student, 2001a). For

Neonski, there appears to be something essentially male about writing.

186

LOMBARD


10/14

Just as essentialist notions that establish Black stereotypes and argue that Blacks are prone

to crime by their nature, some writers believe that graffiti writers possess qualities that fe-

males do not havestrength, the ability to endure loneliness and disregard for authority.

Hegemonic masculinity constructs the subordinate masculinity of the graffiti writer as dan-gerous within the public sphere, who in turn subordinate females by also relegating them

to the private. MC Tash says,

another writer tried to tell me that graf isnt in a girls nature etc. Well it isnt

easy being a woman in the world of hip hop, yet we still manage to prove the fellaz

wrong in the form of dope walls and trains on our own all over the world. Well

all this sexism [and having babies] hasnt faze us coz international female pioneers

are still goin sick. (cited in MC Tash, Lotus & Cruel Die, 2001)

Lotus agreed with her: who said graf was for boys only anyway? Hip Hop is not about

racism or sexism, but within the egotistical graf scene a lot of guys are stuck in a time warp,

sticking with outdated notions such as all girls are toys etc (2001). Clearly, attitudes to-

wards women are not as clear-cut in the graffiti scene as they are in rap music.

Political, legal and religious authorities paint a picture of a damaged masculinity involved

in graffiti writing. An Australian National Conference on Graffiti Control in 1996 was told

of Toddbullied at school, he did not find his father easy to talk to. Jeremy was described

as having an unsettled home life, involved in primary school mischief and is now into drugs,

shoplifting and graffiti. He had injured himself quite badly while hitting (graffiting). Mark

was labelled as musical and enjoying drawing but teased by his father and unable to express

his sensitive side (National Conference on Graffiti Control, 1996). For all these boys graf-

fiti provides an outlet for their emotions, their sensitivity even. Something must be going

on that the majority of these young men seem to have problems with older boys and men.

These graffiti(ed) masculinities are quite obviously sick. They are perhaps not the once

dangerous masculinities of the subordinated male in a public space, but clearly, they will be

if left unchecked.

Who do you think the first New York graffiti writers were, Black or White? And before

answering, do you even think its important? Ask these questions to graffiti writers and one

is bound to get a sense of the diversity in graffiti culture. Neonski says, the first writers wereof all nationalities (Spie, Poem, Neonski & Art Student, 2001b). Juan Flores (1987, p. 582)

argues that most of the New York graffitists have been black and Puerto Rican youth, and

that some of the best subway artists are youths of Italian and other national origins. There

is clearly an important working-class basis to the graffiti movement that should not be over-

looked majority of the practitioners are black and Puerto Rican (p. 583). He does con-

cede however, that determining the relative ethnic sources of subway graffiti is the most

complicated of all (Flores). With few exceptions, this subculture featured black and His-

panic minorities in low-income neighbourhoods, says Lynn Powers (1996, p. 138). She

only has it half right. Ethnically, racially and culturally diverse, graffiti(ed) masculinities arejust as varied. Contemporary writers today are increasingly middle class, of European de-

scent and from suburbia. Yet these writers, perhaps once the embodiment of that elusive

hegemonic masculinity, draw from the same systems that the original writers employed

clearly of an inferior masculinity, whether it be class, economical or racially based. It is

187

MENAGAINST THEWALL


11/14

interesting that these boys wish to insert themselves in the discourses of the oppressed and

subordinated.

According to SPIEone, writin is the voice of the young and oppressed (Spie, Poem,

Neonski & Art Student, 2001b). Notions of class and race are important in this respectnot only are their concerns the concerns of the graffiti culture but graffiti is the signifier of

those oppressed through race and classeven if it is practiced by middle-class, suburban

youth. According to Ferrell (1995-96), increased physical control, severe legal restrictions

and militancy directed at graffiti writers by anti-graffiti activists and the authorities are met

by new forms of resistance, vigilance and militance on the part of graffiti writers. Writers

transform political pressure into personal and collective pleasure (p. 82) as increased il-

legality heightens the excitement involved (Ferrell). Thus the authorities amplify the mean-

ing and intensity of the very activity they work to suppress (Ferrell). Graffiti contributes to

alternative economic arrangements and underground economies (Ferrell). The undergroundand alternative systems involved in hip-hop and graffiti culture point to the fact that, in the

face of a loss of meaning for mens roles and masculine identities (Looker, 1994, p. 154),

the men involved in these subcultures have formed new ideas of masculine identity and

what constitutes a successful masculine performance. Graffiti violates the citys ethnic seg-

regation by bringing together people of all races (Ferrell). By bombing on large businesses,

public buildings and other symbols of the system they oppose, writers make clear their re-

sistance to urban control (Ferrell), the segregation of masculine varieties, and the valorisa-

tion of hegemonic masculinity. Graffiti writers also construct their own aesthetic and value

systems. If we regard the power structures of society as masculine, then graffiti resists dom-

ination and control by hegemonic forms of masculinity as well.

In her study of graffiti, identity and gender, Nancy MacDonald (2002) writes that graffiti

allows men to create a more defined sense of their masculinity. Graffiti(ed) masculinities are

complex formations. Shadowing the masculine ideals of the colonizer, of hegemonic mas-

culinity, they also borrow from notions of subordinate and resistive masculinities. These

masculinities are also composed of both industrial and corporate ideals of masculinity. Local

and situational inflections aside, graffiti writerswhether from the hood or suburbia,

whether White or Blackdraw upon the same ideals in their masculine performance. Bor-

rowing from the masculine constructions of subordinated races and classes, they amalga-

mate these elements with those of hegemonic masculinity. Graffiti writing is just as muchabout rivalry as it is about a system of apprenticeship and a network of compassionate

friendships that allows men to express themselves openly. It employs that sign of proper

training, discipline, control and knowledgegood handwriting and the written formand

places it in the discourse of criminality. Masculinity authority Peter West (1995, p. 4) says

that, we tell boys their lives must be risky, wild and aggressive. I do not suppose we

imagine they become graffiti writers.

The versions of masculinity that operate within the graffiti scene and the performance of

these masculinities are a legacy of its hip-hop heritage. Borrowing the techniques of sam-

pling employed by hip-hop music, graffiti(ed) masculinities are often composed of seem-ingly disparate and complex components that are arranged to produce masculinities that

subvert as well as conform to dominant, hegemonic notions of masculinity. The production

and performance of graffiti(ed) masculinities are the result of a complex mix that samples

notions of class, race, violence, space, commodification, gender, resistance, and violence.

188

LOMBARD


12/14

The figure of the robot - so often used in hip-hop and graffiti imageryis not an image that

easily comes to mind when picturing graffiti(ed) masculinities. These are not roles confined

to a metal straightjacket, an unyielding and mechanical masculinity, but one that allows

men the complexities of the experiences and rituals they face everyday.

REFERENCES

Badinter, E. (1992).XY, on masculine identity. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Booker, S. (1964).Black mans America. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Brake, M. (1985). Comparative youth culture: The sociology of youth cultures and youth sub-

cultures in America, Britain and Canada. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Brewer, D.D. (1992). Hip hop graffiti writers evaluations of strategies to control illegal graffiti.

Human Organization, 51(2), 188-195.Brod, H. (1987). The case for mens studies. In H. Brod (Ed.), The making of masculinities: The

new mens studies (pp. 39-62). Boston, MA: Allen and Unwin.

Canaan, J.E. (1996). One thing leads to another: Drinking, fighting and working-class mas-

culinities. In M. Mac an Ghaill (Ed.), Understanding masculinities: Social relations and cul-

tural arenas (pp. 114-125). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Collins, R. (1998). Kings of rock. Retrieved from http://weeklywire.com/ww/01-12-98/gam-

bit_swell.html

Coombs, N. (1972). The Black experience in America. Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers.

Denborough, D. (1995). Slugs & snails & puppy dogs tails. In K. Healy (Ed.),A mans world

(pp. 14-16). Balmain, NSW: Spinney Press.Dyson, M.E. (1993).Reflecting black: African-American cultural criticism. Minneapolis, IN:

University of Minnesota.

Faludi. S. (1999). Stiffed. London, UK: Chatto & Windus.

Farmer, J., & Black, A.D. (1971). The Negro and American values: A conversation between

James Farmer and Algernon D. Black. In J.A. Moss (Ed.), The Black man in America: Inte-

gration and separation (pp. 42-50). New York, NY: Dell Publishing.

Fasteau, M.F. (1974). The male machine. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ferrell, J. (1995-96). Urban graffiti: Crime, control and resistance. Youth and Society, 27, 73-87.

Fleming, J. (1997). Wounded walls: Graffiti, grammatology, and the age of Shakespeare, 39, 1-

23.Flores, J. (1987). Rappin, writin, and breakin.Dissent, 34, 580-584.

Formaini, H. (1990).Men: The darker continent. London, UK: Henemann.

Garvey, J. (1995). City limits: Reading gender and urban spaces in Ulysses. Twentieth Century

Literature, 41, 108-120.

Gross, D.D., & Gross, T.D. (1993). Tagging: Changing visual patterns and the rhetorical impli-

cations of a new form of graffiti.Etc.: A Review of General Semantics, 50(1), 251-256.

Harris, I., Torres, J., & Allender, D. (1994). The responses of African American men to dominant

norms of masculinity within the United States. Sex Roles, 31(11/12), 703-719.

Haywood, C., & Mac an Ghaill, M. (1998). Schooling masculinities. In M. Mac an Ghaill (Ed.),

Understanding masculinities (pp. 50-60). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.hooks, b. (1994). Outlaw culture: Resisting representations. London, UK: Routledge.

Looker, P. (1994). Doing it with your mates: Connecting aspects of modern Australian mas-

culinity. In J. Hooton & D. Horn (Eds.), The abundant culture: Meaning and significance in

everyday Australia (pp. 205-219). St. Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

189

MENAGAINST THEWALL


13/14

Lucas, R. (1996). Dragging it out: Tales of masculinity in Australian cinema.Meridian, 15(2),

207-220.

Lusane, C. (1993). Rap, race and politics.Race and Class, 35(1), 41-56.

MacDonald, N. (2001). The graffiti subculture: Youth, masculinity and identity in London and

New York. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.

Malcolm X., & Hayley, A. (1964). The autobiography of Malcolm X. New York, NY: Grove

Press.

Manifest. (2001). Retrieved from http://www.manifestonline.com.

Marriott, D. (1996). Reading black masculinities. In M. Mac an Ghaill (Ed.), Understanding

masculinities: Social relations and cultural arenas (pp. 185-201). Philadelphia, PA: Open Uni-

versity Press.

MC Tash, Lotus & Cruel Die. (2001). Blitzkrieg interviews. Retrieved from http://www.home.gil.

com.au/~kasino/html/interviews.html

Mercer, K., & Julien, I. (1988). Race, sexual politics and Black masculinity: A dossier. In R.

Chapman & J. Rutherford (Eds.),Male order: Unwrapping masculinity (pp. 97-192). London,

UK: Lawrence and Wishart.

Middleton, P. (1992). The inward gaze: Masculinity and subjectivity in modern culture. London,

UK: Routledge.

Nagel, J. (1998). Masculinity and nationalism: Gender and sexuality in the making of nations.

Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(2), 242-269.

National Conference on Graffiti Control. (1996).Dealing with graffiti: Program of the first na-

tional conference on graffiti control; graffiti program. South Perth, Australia: Government of

Western Australia.

Peterson, A. (1998).Unmasking the masculine: Men and identity in a skeptical age

. London,UK: Sage Publications.

Powers, L.A. (1996). Whatever happened to the graffiti art movement?Journal of Popular Cul-

ture, 29, 137-142.

Powers, S. (1999). The art of getting over. New York, NY: St. Martins Press.

Robinson, D. (1994).No less a man. Bowling Green, KY: Bowling Green State University Press.

Rutherford, J. (1997). Forever England: Reflections on masculinity and empire. London, UK:

Lawrence and Wishart.

Spie, Poem, Neonski & Art Student (2001a). Graffiti interview part 2. Retrieved 20 February,

2004, from http://www.hip-hop.com/section10/interview2.html

Spie, Poem, Neonski & Art Student. (2001b). Graffiti interview part 1. Retrieved 20 February,2004, from http://www.hip-hop.com/section10/interview1.html

Stewart, S. (1994). Ceci tuera cela: Graffiti as crime and art. In S. Stewart (Ed.), Crimes of writ-

ing: Problems in the containment of representation (pp. 206-233). Durham, NC: Duke Uni-

versity Press.

Thompson, C. (1987). A new vision of masculinity. In F. Abbott (Ed.), New men, new minds:

Breaking male tradition (pp. 154-160). Freedom, CA: Crossing Press.

Townsend, H. (1994).Real men. Sydney, Australia: Harper Collins.

Walker, J.C. (1988).Louts and legends: Male youth culture in an inner city school. St. Leonards,

NSW: Allen and Unwin.

West, P. (1995). Its time to take boys in hand. In K. Healy (Ed.),A mans world(pp. 4-6). Bal-main, NSW: Spinney Press.

Young, W.M. Jr. (1971). Is America a civilized nation? In J.A. Moss (Ed.), The Black man in

America: Integration and separation (pp. 23-28). New York, NY: Dell Publishing.

190

LOMBARD


14/14

C o p y r i g h t o f J o u r n a l o f M e n ' s S t u d i e s i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f M e n ' s S t u d i e s P r e s s a n d i t s c o n t e n t

m a y n o t b e c o p i e d o r e m a i l e d t o m u l t i p l e s i t e s o r p o s t e d t o a l i s t s e r v w i t h o u t t h e c o p y r i g h t

h o l d e r ' s e x p r e s s w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . H o w e v e r , u s e r s m a y p r i n t , d o w n l o a d , o r e m a i l a r t i c l e s f o r

i n d i v i d u a l u s e .

men against wall

Documents