hip hop (Photo credit: soonerpa)
On June 26th, 2012 Intelligence Squared and Google+ presented the first global debate on Hip Hop ever held. Emily Maitlis and Jemima Khan, of the BBC, moderated the debate. Participants included Tricia Rose, Jason Whitlock, KRS-One, Q-Tip, ?uestlove, Estelle, Jesse Jackson, Toure and others.
The Focus of the Discussion
The proposition that was debated was this: Hip Hop does not enhance society; it degrades it. The question asked was: “When you hear Hip Hop, do you feel inspired or degraded?”
There were two sub-questions during the debate: Is Hip Hop a potentially liberating force to inspire social movements for political, economic and cultural change? Is Rap a bad form of poetry?
Arguing in the affirmative (that Hip Hop does not enhance society) was barrister Eamon Courtenay. Arguing for the negative (against the proposition that Hip Hop does not enhance society) was commentator Michael Eric Dyson.
This was the third in a series of “Versusdebates.”
A Summary of Conclusions
At the end of the day, despite the apparent differences between the participants, they shared a general consensus that Hip Hop must be criticized out of love because it is a powerful art form that provides a means of expression for young African Americans and members of the African Diaspora, who have been denied their humanity and whose rights to self-expression have historically been suppressed. The art form has been hijacked and commodified by the corporate entertainment industry and its message has been re-directed toward the promotion and glorification of misogyny, drugs, and black-on-black violence. These aspects of Hip Hop, most of the participants agreed, should be criticized, but as an art form Hip Hop should be preserved.
Hip Hop Is A Self-Critical Culture
The main points made by people who did not agree with the proposition, that Hip Hop does not enhance society, were that Hip Hop is not a singular culture or art form; it is multifaceted and reflects many different social experiences. They argued that Hip Hop has the potential for mobilizing movements for social justice, and some of the participants said that they have used it in this way. They also said that Hip Hop is self-critical, capable of internal dialogue and self-correction. There are debates within Hip Hop communities about misogyny and black-on-black violence, they said.
Those who argued against the proposition also said that, because Hip Hop samples from earlier genres, Hip Hop enables its listeners to appreciate the music their parents listened to. Hip Hop helps listeners to contextualize and appreciate earlier cultural products, they said.
The Hip Hop They Are Talking About Is Dead
The arguments in favor of the proposition asserted that the Hip Hop those on the other side were talking about, the Hip Hop that facilitates intergenerational dialogue and raises social and political consciousness, no longer exists. It is, they said, effectively dead.
It has been replaced, they said, by a prison culture. They argued that Hip Hop has become the marketing arm for the “prison-industrial complex.” Despite declining crime rates Hip Hop is used to sow fear in the public mind and justify building more prisons and imposing mandatory sentences on non-violent offenders.
What Are the Buyers of Hip Hop Consuming?
The affirmative argued that Hip Hop has become the victim of a commercial takeover by predatory capitalism. As a result, people who purchase Hip Hop music today — mostly white, suburban males, since the 1990s — are buying stereotyped images of young black males. The affirmative also argued that the Hip Hop industry is selling the killing of young black men. The affirmative repeatedly returned to key questions that they said people should ask in order to understand the social impact of Hip Hop: What are young people buying when they buy Hip Hop? What images and ideas are they consuming? Supporters of the proposition argued that its buyers are consuming one-dimensional caricatures of black males and “21st century minstrels.” They said that Hip Hop, its consumers and its critics, could not do the community justice until they represented the genre’s subjects and its performers as complicated, three-dimensional human beings.
Building on the “death of Hip Hop” theme, the affirmative argued that African American music, going back to the Negro Spirituals, has never been about simply reflecting reality. Had it only reflected things as they were, there would be no hope for redemption or social change. Black music, they argued, has always been about providing a vision for the future and, even through the Blues, the music has been about the resilience of the spirit under oppressive conditions. Hip Hop, they argue, has gotten away from that tradition.
The Coded Language of Hip Hop
In terms of whether or not Hip Hop is actually an art form, its defenders argued that Hip Hop speaks in coded language that often leaves it misunderstood by the uninitiated. The quality of the discussion deteriorated as participants went back-and-forth over whether or not listeners should be offended by the use of terms such as “N–rs” and “B–es.” The defenders of Hip Hop argued, unconvincingly, that when Hip Hop artists refer to these terms they are not really making derogatory comments about women and blacks. KRS-One argued that they are talking about African kings and female dogs, while other participants in the debate said that the references to “B–es,” for example were not about women, but about cars — or could even be directed toward men.
Those who argued that Hip Hop is a form of poetry said that, in the tradition of African American discourse, which is rich in signifying and indirection, Hip Hop must be listened to with appreciation for its linguistic complexity and nuance. African American speech, they argued, has always been coded and has camouflaged the actual meaning of words; this was a necessary skill for survival under the oppression of Jim Crow and slavery. Others argued that Hip Hop’s listeners do not only focus on the lyrics, they focus — above all — on the effects of vocal percussion. The rhythm and beat of the vocals, they said, is actually more important to Hip Hop than the words themselves.
Less War, More Social Welfare Programs, Better Parenting
Michael Eric Dyson and Jesse Jackson responded to questions about the negative messages in Hip Hop by saying that the US and the UK should spend more money on education and social welfare programs. They also said that the two societies should stop sending their young people off to war. Another participant in the debate blamed poor parenting for the inability of young people to distinguish between the messages in Hip Hop and the way one might actually want to live one’s life. It’s up to parents to raise their children properly, they argued, including filtering out lyrics that young children should not be exposed to. They said critics should stop blaming Hip Hop artists for behavior that is the result of poor parenting.
Why Single Out Hip Hop?
Those who argued against the proposition said that Hip Hop should not even be on trial in the debate; that the very notion of singling it out reflected racial and cultural bias. “Why do people resist Hip Hop?” they asked. Their answer was that Hip Hop is one of the most powerful forms of expression to articulate the humanity of oppressed people; and that young black males are generally seen as not being worthy of art and self-expression. They said that the genre has proven to be effective in articulating the experiences and fundamental humanity of black people.
Moreover, Hip Hop, they argued, is not the only entertainment and cultural form that promotes misogyny and violence — these things, they said, are at the core of American culture and of the Judeo-Christian narrative. Supporters of the proposition countered that, while Hip Hop may not be the only promoters of these dysfunctional values, commercial Hip Hop is now their most celebrated form.
“I Can’t Debate This Any Longer”
By the end of the debate a number of participants criticized the whole discussion itself and most of the questions that were asked. They said this without offering their own suggestions for questions that should be asked instead; questions that might yield greater insight into the subject. This generally happens during discussions of controversial issues when some participants feel they are not up to the task of analysis and don’t want to have their assumptions questioned.
To Love and to Criticize Strongly
Author and University professor Tricia Rose, who repeatedly provided the most insightful comments during the debate, said, “We should be able to love Hip Hop and criticize it strongly at the same time.”
See also: Hip Hop is Not as Simple as You Think and How to Listen to Hip Hop
Hip Hop on Trial
Also of Interest: The Irony of Hip Hop; Has Hip Hop Lost Its Way?; Rejecting Blackness to Embrace Hip Hop?; and Does Hip Hop Have to be Afrocentric to be “Authentic”?
Related Books of Interest: The Hip Hop Debate: Hip Hop and the Cultural Mainstream; Black Racial Identity and Schooling
Related articles
- Hip-hop on trial, but is the accusation false? (guardian.co.uk)
- Tory youth adviser blames hip hop music for the killing of black youths in London (leftfootforward.org)
- OKAYPLAYER.COM: Hip Hop On Trial: ?uestlove Vs Jesse Jackson (soulofsydney.org)
- Jay-Z at Hackney Weekend: but does hip-hop degrade or enhance? (guardian.co.uk)
postblackhistory 