Something to be...

I am admittedly fascinated by a common trend in the modern psyche; there's this notion that what we are is qualitatively definitive of who we are, and by this measure we are able to constantly change without ever appearing inconsistent, dishonest, or just plain trendy. It's a convenient thing to have, I guess - this notion that by simply admiring something and quickly changing our superficial stylings to adhere to a new racket of ideals, morals, or clothes we can be whoever the fuck we want.

Some people call it adaptation. I call it closet schizophrenia.

I think the thing that stands out in all of this - or at least the thing getting my goat at the moment - is the newfound mission of Tom Gabel (the frontman and founder of Against Me!). Having signed to a major after releasing a DVD in which he specifically said he wouldn't, Tom has found a new trench in the pop culture battlefield in which to defend his ridiculous about-face. He calls it a new wave of music here to save the radio. Some people call it selling out, others call it a new trend to follow, I just think it's dishonest.

I'm more than a little sad about the fact that Against Me! is getting radio play and reviews in the Washington Post, Rolling Stone, and Blender (of all fucking publications). It's not that it hurts me that the band is getting the face time with major publications or even the fact that new people are hearing them. What bothers me is the innate tendency to use the reviews to market Against Me! as something they are not and to dissuade others from becoming comfortable (or even familiar) with what they were: anarchists.

Take this golden nugget from the blender article regarding "New Wave":

"When [Tom Gabel's] leftist punk band Against Me! graduated from playing anarchist squats to real rock clubs, he was a total sellout. When they left a tiny record label because it didn’t have $3,000 to buy a tour van: sellout! Charging more than eight dollars for a show? Getting on MTV? Professionally recording their CDs? S–E–L–L–O–U–T."

Do you smell the sarcasm? What's this shit about "anarchist squats to real rock clubs"? At what point does a venue catering to Anarcho idealism become a fake a one, and a venue catering to the superficial glamour and excess of "rock stars" become a real one? Why does it take a light show to be a real rock band?

These are all rhetorical questions, of course. Most of them don't warrant answers or responses because they're pointless to ask because at no point does any venue become - by any measure - false... unless of course your source of entertainment is Cartesian, in which case: good luck with that.

The questions matter though, or are at least valid, when taken in the context of how the article ends with Tom bemoaning his own inability to come to grips with what anarchism means:

"'I can talk about anarchism philosophically, but practically, I’m not sure what it means,' he says. Some of that ambivalence is theoretical, some personal."

While that ambivalence makes for a tortured artist that sells more records, it's not something I genuinely buy. At what point did anarchism become anything but a set of ideals declared by the individual, whomever that individual may be? That Tom needs a pamphlet or talking points to feel like he can authoritatively speak on what being Anarchist means to him betrays the real ordeal - the real struggle here - and that is that Tom isn't an Anarchist and he probably never was. That he's too scared to admit that he got burned out on the intellectual rigors of following an ideal that requires a lot of independent thought that a lot of people aren't likely to agree with doesn't make him a bad person, but it does make him a dishonest one. That, of course, is something Tom hasn't quite come to grips with:

"'We keep moving up,' Gabel says. 'Because we can’t go back.'"

It irks me that Against Me! is quietly settling for labels like "A Marxist My Chemical Romance" and claiming it's the scene that turned on them... that we have forced them to make more money at the expense of their own heartfelt philosophies. You can't stand on the stage, making money at the door, preaching the ideals of Anarchism and say, "It's all just for show" to the first major magazine that comes your way and expect the people that really believed you to take that lying down. I guess what I'm trying to say is: why should we be fans of people who make performance art (and money) out of our ideals?

This of course ties into what I was saying about "What" we are defining "Who" we are. Who Tom is is not an Anarchist - but because he wore the black clothes, because he decided he wasn't a capitalist (at some point, I guess) and because he wrote really amazing and convincing songs that preached Anarchism - he feels like he is entitled to say that that's who he was and now it's changed. That can't possibly be true, can it? I can't possibly just alter who I am because of what I say when the crowds are waiting and the spotlights are glaring only to switch the second that a new crowd is buying tickets at the door.

As an anarchist, it breaks my heart that this is something so many people disagree with. Not because I need agreement, but because the world I want to be better for everyone never will until we call this convenience of identity exactly what it is: dishonesty.