Ely Vance
Occasionally, the method a social movement takes can become more important than the outcome desired, and occasionally, good, positive social change can be overshadowed by inherent prejudices and unfortunate human tendencies.
Take, for example, the current plight of rapper Tyler, The Creator. Rising to prominence as the unquestioned leader of hip-hop and art collective Odd Future around the turn of the decade, Tyler has built for himself a large cult fandom and is a legitimate star in some circles — perhaps not someone heard often on pop radio, but a young artist on the upswing who, it must be acknowledged, clearly takes his work seriously, regardless of personal opinions. (Full disclosure: I was a fan of Odd Future and Tyler in high school, but since graduating I have gravitated more toward associates Earl Sweatshirt and Frank Ocean.)
He is also no stranger to controversy. Famously, in his breakout song “Yonkers,” he raps that he wants to “stab Bruno Mars” in the esophagus and “crash that f—ing airplane that that f—– n—– B.o.B. is in.”He has been routinely accused of misogyny and homophobia, responding to most criticisms like he did to the pop duo Tegan and Sara when, after they took issue with his lyrics, he tweeted, “If Tegan and Sara need some hard d—, hit me up!”
It is no surprise then that protesters have begun to dog Tyler, making his life a bit harder. For whatever reason, Tyler has been singled out by the culture and media. My guess: Odd Future was so young and radical-seeming when they debuted, capturing the attention and imagination of impressionable youths in ways most acts do not — criticized by everyone from online music publications to traditional print media to Syracuse professor Boyce Watkins (who called the Mountain Dew ads Tyler directed “arguably the most racist commercials in history”).
And Tyler deserves some of this criticism. His standard retort, that he does not mean words like “f—–” in a homophobic sense because he is not homophobic, and that his gay friends and fans aren’t bothered by it, is a privileged and misguided interpretation of language. Similarly, his focus on rape and portrayal of violence toward women often seem to be relics of the misogynistic past of hip-hop, and popular art in general, an unfortunate throwback for an otherwise forward-thinking artist (not to imply that contemporary popular culture is not rampant with latent misogyny).
Yet, the actions of some protest groups and governments have taken these well-meaning critiques too far. Earlier in August, under pressure from Australian feminist group Collective Shout, Tyler canceled his tour of the country, telling his fans on Twitter that he hoped to be back soon. And although the group was not quite successful in its stated goal of getting his visa declined, it was the start of a growing trend. Indeed, last Monday, Tyler announced that he would have to cancel an upcoming string of shows in the United Kingdom and Ireland, explaining two days later that he had in fact been banned from entering the U.K. for 3 to 5 years, which the U.K. Home Office justified in a statement explaining that lyrics from his 2009 and 2011 releases Bastard and Goblin, in particular, “encourage violence and intolerance of homosexuality” and “foster hatred with views that seek to provoke others to terrorist acts.”
Tyler was 18 when Bastard came out, 21 when he released Goblin. That means that he has been restricted from his free movement around the globe due to things he said or wrote when he was a teenager, and protesters, feminist or otherwise, should take seriously the human rights implications of such a precedent. Regardless of what one might think of Tyler’s lyrics — and let me be clear: I find many of them repugnant, and perhaps worst of all, easy, going for cheap violent thrills and shocks rather than real development of character or tone — it seems clear that this outcome, a young human unable to visit a place because of what he said, is almost unacceptable.
And, worse, this outcome provides no victory for feminist groups, other than perhaps a growing sign that the world is taking feminism more seriously. In this case, though, they have aligned themselves with the patriarchal authority, helping the British and Australian governments in a decidedly anti-feminist fashion to keep out an unpredictable youth element. They have made their jobs easier, providing an excuse for the easy repression of an artist — a young, black artist.
Of course, Tyler, The Creator is not the only person whose movement has been restricted based on the content of his art. Conceptual artist Ai Weiwei has been famously held under house arrest for speaking out against the Chinese government, and there are numerous examples throughout history (the poet Ezra Pound being another notable case) of artists being held, detained and constrained because of things they said directly or through their art. Certainly, it would be inaccurate to portray Weiwei and other activists living under dictatorships as being completely fair comparisons to Tyler’s situation, but the fact that the goals of groups like Collective Shout and the actions of the British government align so directly with the policy of China should be of great worry to both bodies and a real reason to reconsider their strategies.
Because they should have a strategy. If feminist, gay rights or any human advocacy groups feel that Tyler, The Creator or any other cultural figure is promoting hateful or harmful views, they have the duty to make people aware of that, and they should do so. They should picket concerts, raise awareness and present their message to as many people as possible. The type of protest that presents an equal, opposing voice that attempts to convince, rather than an authoritarian silencing or constricting of a person’s speech or movement. What Tyler, The Creator has been subject to in recent weeks is not just an retrograde blast of failed social policy — indeed, it is beyond naive for anyone to think that in 2015 a person will be silenced by his or her physical limitations; any curious Australian or Briton can find Tyler’s entire oeuvre online, and they are certainly more likely to do so given the controversy. Rather, it is a reminder of a noxious human propensity to constrict others in response to constriction, to use righteous causes as an excuse for prejudice.
Australia, Britain and any other area of the world where Tyler, The Creator has enough fans to perform a show should let him do so. Collective Shout and other activist groups should protest those shows vigorously if they believe it necessary. As long as all voices are heard fairly, and all bodies allowed to move as they wish. Neither has to like the other, and ultimately, that’s OK.
Ely Vance is a senior English major. He can be reached at evancedbk@gmail.com.
