Christian

From Black Flags To No Flags:
Punk's Noble/Savage Resistance To Presidential Constructions of National Identity

Answering which of the forty-three Presidents of the United States of America is the "most punk" is maybe a quixotic task. Taft once said he didn't "believe in the divinity of Christ", which was fairly unconventional for a president, but not exactly revolutionary. Martin Van Buren may have had some unruly hair and muttonchops, but previous research proves that punk goes beyond just style. Really, the only president to even acknowledge punk rock exists in public speech was Ronald Reagan (himself a kind of lightning rod for punk fury), when he praised Theresa K. Dozier as teacher of the year in 1985.[1] Reagan laughed in that speech, at Dozier's teaching tactic of "dressing up for Punk Rock Day" to connect with her students. Clearly, he didn't take punk seriously.

The first problem in attributing "punkness" to any president is that punk is a fairly slippery concept to define. In fact, John Charles Goshert puzzlingly argues that punk can be defined solely by its un-definability.[2] Another factor is that the presidency is an inherently conservative institution, that usually seeks a consensus and isn't often ready to initiate any major social or political changes.[3] In contrast, punk identity has always been associated with resistant and progressive politics and behavior.[4] Punks and presidents mix about as well as oil and water in the semiotics of American discourse. This study seeks to prove the theory that the punk scene in America is inherently resistant to the ways national identity is constructed by the presidential institution. This resistance will be established as a performance of the imaginary noble/savage, a strategy used by revolutionaries in American history going back to the Boston Tea Party.

The essay will first provide evidence that the American presidency seeks to arrest the parameters of national identity through rhetoric. Presidents attempt to do this in three different ways: 1) by becoming a protagonist in a national narrative, 2) by legitimating hierarchical frameworks in society and 3) by acting as discursive signs. Their attempts to fix national identity into one static meaning are what Benedict Anderson calls an "imaginary community."[5] We are all individuals with a plurality of identities, but nationalism is a stable fiction that we all live under, a fiction connected to both our dominant culture and the language of our State institutions.[6]

Next, the essay will explore how punk has been defined as politically resistant in past academic research. This will establish that punk is not a subculture as Dick Hebdige originally called it, but what Joanna Davis calls a scene.[7] The punk scene relies on the creation of "open spaces" where identity is unfixed and fluid, because punk is a historically contingent movement and not just a musical genre or material style.[8] Since the presidency is attempting to arrest the state of identity and the punk scene attempts to keep it open and free, their two positions contradict one another within American culture. The first example of this occurred in the 1980's Southern California punk movement—headlined by bands like Black Flag, the Circle Jerks and the Dead Kennedys. There, President Ronald Reagan was a major symbol for punk frustration because of his rhetoric of conservative traditionalism and his part in the "tax revolt" of California Proposition 13.[9] Ryan Moore has well established that punks during that movement utilized cultures of authenticity and deconstruction to vent their anger and protest Reagan.[10] This study changes Moore's terminology of the authenticity/deconstruction identity to one of the imaginary noble/savage. It does this because 1) this later phrase has a historical link with American protest against authority, 2) it is representative of the unfixed nature of American national identity and 3) it is a performance of altered language and style of clothing, much like punk itself is performed through these channels of communication. This theory of the noble/savage performance allows a categorization framework, demonstrating the fluctuating internal contradictions that keep punk identity in direct opposition to any attempt of presidential rhetoric to arrest identity in place.

Finally, this essay applies the noble/savage theory to the case study of contemporary American punk rock band Anti-Flag, finding their productions to be a significant site of resistance to the national identity constructed by President George W. Bush. It focuses on the songs and artwork of the Anti-Flag album The Terror State and the representations of the band on their website, as well as the websites of the two non-profit organizations run by the band's members. Anti-Flag confirms that contemporary punk rock is still politically resistant by incorporating noble/savagery strategies. They also utilize these tactics to create an open space within the punk scene where their fans can experiment with identity in an unfixed state, transgressing the limits imposed upon national identity by the rhetoric and policies of George W. Bush's presidency.

These findings are not just important to punk cultural theory, but also to future analyses of politically resistant social movements. The noble/savage contradiction within punk identity provides an example of how similarly performed dichotomies could prove useful for groups in opposition to political language's attempt to define and restrict them. It also disproves that punk is apolitical because they have not mobilized into an effective movement[11] or that punk is merely a style of resistance that only confronts cultural boundaries.[12] Finally, this study addresses Michelle Phillipov's concern that cultural scholars are theoretically unequipped to analyze punk because of its inherent political contradictions.[13] I propose that this reworked model of noble/savagery might address those concerns, and characterize punk identity as being inherently resistant to dominant power, regardless of an individual punk's political affiliation.

Presidential National Identity Construction

The American presidency is an institution that can act as a site for the creation of national identity in three parallel ways. First, Americans experience the presidency as a narrative, where a president plays out a dramatic role as a protagonist that we derive national meaning from.[14] Also, presidential rhetoric can define what being an American means, constructing a framework that maintains executive power.[15] Finally, a president and the language he uses can act discursively to arrest national identity.[16] All three of these methods act to establish and maintain the hierarchies of power in both State institutions and society, where there is a constant struggle between a president, other political institutions and the imaginary public. Through a combination of these three methods, presidents use American identity construction in attempts to gain or maintain their power.

Carol Winkler demonstrates how Americans interpret presidencies as narratives with her analysis of how Jimmy Carter is seen as a tragic hero in American myth.[17] She argues that the American population viewed Carter as a heroic protagonist who had to experience his political "death" as a result of the Iran hostage crisis. Winkler points out that through presidential narratives like Carter's, America learns about its own limits.[18] Despite these narrative lessons, once a president politically enters a particular narrative, he has no choice but to play that narrative out. When Americans choose an appealing political narrative, they are left to follow that candidate’s story along until the next election.

These narratives are then developed and played out within presidential rhetoric, the second method of presidential influence on national identity. Sean Parry-Giles demonstrates that in the 2004 American presidential campaign, the rhetoric that targeted undecided voters fragmented their identity in national consciousness to be primarily white, with little diversity.[19] Because of the intensity of this rhetoric, the presidential position in contemporary politics was reaffirmed as both white and patriarchal.[20] In another example, Mary Stuckey argues that President Roosevelt’s rhetoric surrounding the Brownsville Raid was not only an instance of a president attempting to maintain executive power, but also a text that identified African-Americans as inferior to other Americans. Roosevelt framed his rhetoric so that racism was a hidden premise of his arguments and avoided race as a direct issue while marginalizing African-Americans in the process.[21] Presidential rhetoric directly influences American national identity and indirectly constrains the limits to that identity. Social groups placed at these limits may often find themselves in opposition to the presidential construction of their identity as secondary citizens.

This kind of identity fixing is advanced by James Jasinski's theory of constitutive rhetorical historiography. Jasinski argues that political language is discursive when it manages power.[22] He finds rhetorical dimensions of control within our understanding of individual identity, time and spatial experience, community, and even political concepts. In a case study of how constitutionalism was constructed in The Federalist Papers, Jasinski describes political texts as changing our very concepts of reality by molding the world through an attempt to arrest social meaning. Anne Norton further defines this discursive power, focusing specifically on the presidency and declaring that the institution's first function is a semiotic one.[23] Like Jasinski, Norton concludes that presidents do not just signify our current sense of self, they can discursively re-define time and space for us too. American identity and history are constantly negotiated through our relationship to a president as a discursive sign.

When presidents exude influence over the hierarchy of power in politics, they can inadvertently influence the power structures within society itself when their language excludes sub-groups from the polity. As they seek to define national identity through inclusion, there is always a simultaneous process of exclusion occurring.[24] Stuckey proves this with her analysis of Roosevelt, when in his struggle to maintain rhetorical control against the Senate he simultaneously isolated African-Americans from the dominant social structure.[25] Roosevelt's rhetoric arrested African-American identity into a marginal position for many years after his presidency. In that example, we see that presidents can fix the identity of particular social groups within national consciousness, and that the repercussions of their language have serious consequences. The presidency then is a site that does not only maintain its own identity of power, but also maintains the power of the status quo in America, including some citizens while excluding others. Through this constitutive negotiation with the public, the presidency acts as a significant site for national identity creation.

Despite this powerful influence, the public and the president still operate in different realms of power. Presidents may articulate national identity, and a number of Americans may recognize themselves in those words, but not every American is necessarily interpolated by their efforts.[26] As such, a president does not have a top-down command over public deliberation.[27] Benedict Anderson has proven, national identity is itself a fiction, ironically originating when languages of power transitioned from the church to capitalism.[28] Michael McGee has furthered the argument that any collective identity like nationalism is just a rhetorical construction.[29] Human beings do not naturally have a collective will, so constructions like national identity are illusions that serve to stabilize society and provide political myths to stave off community crisis.[30] Only individuals exist, with fluid, always changing identities. It is in the unstable contradictions of human consciousness where possible sites of resistance (like punk) may rise up against the institutional powers (like presidents) that seek to statically identify and constrain them. Now that the presidency has been established as a site that attempts to fix identity in permanence this argument will examine how the punk scene makes use of humanity's inherently fluid identity through contradictive strategies of performed noble/savagery.

Punk Resistance

In scholarly literature, punk has often been defined as a site of resistance, beginning in the late 1970s with Dick Hebdige's Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Hebdige argued that punk is a style of resistance; in particular a style that it is subversive to dominant culture because it threatens cultural boundaries and exposes the ways hegemonic discourse is constructed.[31] Traditionally, punk has also been defined as anti-authoritarian and anti-establishment.[32] Some even consider it to be a prototype for other resistant subcultures, such as globalization protesters and even Latino gangs.[33] In America, this position places it in direct opposition to the presidency (the dominant sign of authority and establishment) uncovering the limits that institution imposes upon American national identity.

Because of punk's consistent oppositional stance to mainstream society, as culture changes so do punk identities. This historical contingency makes punk identity continually subject to change.[34] Punk is constantly changing and at odds with its own constituents over its unfixed identity. Hebdige's "subculture" terminology then has been refuted because it implies that punk has a static and unchanging identity. Instead, as Joanna Davis argues, punk should be understood as a scene, where identity is negotiated as punk participants age and cope with the pressures of mainstream culture.[35] With this scene framework in mind, it should be distinguished that the punk scene then is not contingent on a specific genre of music and is more of an identity that is developed in order to articulate radical politics.[36] In order to present the punk scene as political, a cultural examination must disengage from musical aesthetics. Otherwise, any analysis of punk would become trapped in an attempt to justify the more conservative and mainstream punk music that has become popularized since the early 1990s.[37] This understanding is important to acknowledge before examining a punk scene's particular resistant tendencies, especially with regard to national identity. For this reason, this essay's later case study of the band Anti-Flag will stay away from musical criticism.

While the punk scene should not be examined by its musical qualities, it can and should be examined for its communal qualities. Punks may not mobilize concretely to form a singular political movement, but there are aspects of social organization at the scene's heart. The fluidity of identity within the punk scene is maintained when it creates an open space where participants can try out various revolutionary identities without suffering any consequences.[38] Within this open space punks can operate beyond the limits on identity imposed by institutional forces like the presidency. Influential punk musician Ian Mackaye (of the bands Fugazi, Minor Threat and The Evens) says, "Punk is a free space where anything can go -- a series of actions and reactions, and people rebelling and then rebelling against rebelling."[39] Because this open space creates a tension between punk and conventional identity, there is also a necessary opposition to any fixed definition of identity within a punk scene. This again is a reason to avoid examining punk as a musical genre or subculture, instead of as a site of resistance.[40] This research hopes to keep from making this mistake by analyzing the tension between identity characteristics within a particular manifestation of the punk scene, and understanding them as crucial to punk's political resistance.

Punks use various sites within their community to debate the characteristics of their identity, sometimes in relation to the music produced by punk bands[41] and other times in relation to the various political factions within their local scene.[42] Moore defines two characteristics that punk scenes use to maintain this deliberation. First, punk is a culture of authenticity where earnestness and independence are valued over a devotion to commercialism. Moore cites Mackaye's Dischord Records as an example of authentic punk in action.[43] Dischord was started as a do-it-yourself record label, where the musicians produced and distributed their music themselves, without the assistance (or acknowledgement) of the mainstream music industry. Dischord bands did not wait until a record company representative noticed them, they went ahead and built their own following and made and sold records there. Dischord was also the starting point for the straight-edge lifestyle that spread rapidly from Washington D.C. to other punk scenes in New York City, Boston and California. Straight-edge advocates an abstinence of drugs and alcohol, a significant personal decision that in American culture is definitely construed as a high ideal to hold oneself to. Attached to this ideal was the pledge that Mackaye's bands would only play in all-ages concert venues. This was another authentic characteristic of the Dischord scene, where punks advocated that their music and performances should be available to everybody, not just the fans willing to buy alcohol as well as a show ticket.

Secondly, Moore defines punk as a culture of deconstruction that embraces irony and nihilism as tactics of resistance against mainstream culture. The Sex Pistols are Moore's primary example of punk deconstruction, as a shocking spectacle that confronted British national identity by subversively re-appropriating symbols of the dominant culture.[44] The first example he provides is the Pistols' appearance on a popular television program where guitarist Steve Jones called the show's host a variety of vulgar epithets ("dirty fucker" and "fucking rotter" included). Most important to the Sex Pistols' deconstructive character was their song "God Save The Queen" which openly mocked the authority of the British Royalty at the time of celebration for Queen Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee.

The tension between such examples of authenticity and deconstruction is what allows the open space for punk deliberation to be both politically active and nihilistically ambivalent about dominant culture. This tension is strikingly similar to the fractured noble/savage performance described by Philip Deloria in his book Playing Indian. Deloria proposes that American identity is an unfinished project that can be traced to a split between a simultaneous desire for civil order and unhindered freedom.[45] Nowhere is this split more manifest in American history than during revolutionary activities such as the Boston Tea Party, where American colonists performed acts of resistance against British rule in Native American disguises.[46] These forms of resistance manifested themselves in language and the style of clothing worn by colonist revolutionaries. These performed disguises "readily calls the notion of fixed identity into question"[47] much like the open space that the punk scene provides to its participants. Punk authenticity then is a manifestation of the noble performance, while its deconstructive style and crude language is obviously analogous to savagery.

Deloria believes all noble/savage performance to be set in two European traditions about inverting social power and authority. These may also be the true ancestors of the punk scene. The first of these traditions is the pre-Lent celebration of Carnival, where participants created a second life for themselves that expressed social frustration through anarchist behavior.[48] American appropriation of the imaginary Indian offered a similar opportunity, where participants could try on a new "savage" identity in order to challenge British politics. Punk deconstruction is a contemporary version of this savage performance, where punks treat their appearance and behavior as symbols of resistance against mainstream culture. There are many obvious similarities between an Indian disguise and the style of a punk identity: tattoos, mohawks, and body piercings are all part of stereotypical Indian imagery. In his book Punk and Neo-Tribal Body Art, Daniel Wojick argues that because punks have limited access to the dominant discourse, they display their alienation through this neo-tribal style.[49] Further similarities to Carnival anarchism can be seen in Moore's description of deconstruction culture, where punks are free to behave with wanton disregard for mainstream cultural custom.

The second European tradition of the noble/savage performance is Misrule, where New England puritans protected their social order by poaching land and developing moral economies that threatened the law keepers of their time.[50] These rebels saw themselves as defending their colonial customs against the British State and inventing their own customs that legitimated their history as a community. This is where discipline became a factor of the imaginary Indian identity used in protest. The importance of a new, genuine culture to these early Americans is synonymous to the culture of authenticity manifested in the punk scene. Noble punks run their own record labels, magazines and concert venues outside of the contemporary business culture, creating what Bourdieu would call a new habitus.[51] While its open space allows punks to try on new and radical identities, it discourages the attitudes of the mainstream and any self-concern with what others think of them.[52] Rademacher's recent study of punk identity formation through Internet message boards confirms that the most grievous offense one could commit within the punk scene is to ask if you are "punk enough" to be part of it.[53] Any attempt to fix punk identity in this way ("What do I need to do to be punk?") is discouraged and potentially excludes a participant from the scene. The example Rademacher provides is of a thread on a punk message board, where one poster asks how she should style her hair to be "more punk."[54] Two other posters call her out on this faux pas and then proceed to exclude her from punk identity by defining her as a "teenie" or "prep." In Rademacher's study, these terms represent the excluded Other in punk ideology, people who are concerned with prestige and are conscious of their style. In order to be an authentically noble punk, one must avoid dominant American culture and never request acceptance into the habitus.

The punk culture of authenticity is analogous to the imagined nobility placed upon Native Americans in the noble/savage performances of the American Revolution. It requires characteristics of discipline and genuineness before it is legitimated. The similarities continue: punks do not talk about what constitutes their noble/savage identity, in the same way that early American colonists never discussed their appropriation of noble/savage identity from an imaginary Indian other. Both parties just perform their identity; any attempt to verbally justify it ruptures that performance. The Native American then is displaced and erased from the consciousness of the same revolutionaries that simulate what they think the Native American is like.

Deloria's argument centers on this necessary displacement of Native Americans from the American consciousness in order to maintain this fiction of noble/savagery. The contradictions that might have been found in the identities of real Native Americans would have disrupted the liminal construction of an "American" identity for colonists. American history then is filled with examples of policies that either sought to destroy or assimilate Native Americans into this new culture.[55] Because of this long history of displacement, American punks performing their contemporary version of the noble/savage identity do not have a public contradiction to threaten the way their scene's open space lets them live out this unfixed identity. The Native American "Other" has already been marginalized away from mainstream society enough so that punks are free to wear mohawks and proclaim their "unique" independence without any incongruity to remind them of where these tactics of resistance originate.

The connection between the punk cultures of authenticity/deconstruction and the noble/savage performance of the American Revolution is now clear. From this point on, this analysis will refer to the split using the terms of nobility and savagery because of the relationship these words have to revolutionary practices in American history. This historical implication/connection is important to remember when examining punk resistance to contemporary political authority. There are potentially other ways to describe this dichotomy, but what is most important for this analysis is the fracture within punk identity. McAllister even argues that this punk dissociation can be treated psychologically with the schizoid dilemma model, where individuals rationalize attitudes of detachment by excluding others from affection.[56] This exclusion is performed through a punk's shocking appearance, their cynicism, their mockery of modern culture, and their ambivalence toward mainstream society.[57] All of these symptoms are further evidence of the crucial tension where nobility and savagery are able to collide.

It is this very tension that allows the punk scene to act as a site for new resistance, against the national identity constructed by contemporary presidential rhetoric. When we remember the presidency's tendency to exclude social groups through their speech acts, we see that punks have been successful in their resistant tactics. Excluded groups are either ignored by presidents, or rendered politically invisible in presidential speech.[58] Recall Reagan's sarcastic dismissal of dressing up for "Punk Rock Day." All other presidents have ignored this cultural phenomenon; Reagan only spelled out their exclusion from American identity with his quip to

Theresa K. Dozier. But unlike other social groups, punk identity seeks this exclusion through its resistant tactics of noble/savagery. The punk band Anti-Flag provides an excellent text to study this resistance in a contemporary setting, as they demonstrate the noble/savagery performance in action against the rhetoric of President George W. Bush.

Anti-Flag: The Terror State

The Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania punk band Anti-Flag started in 1988 when original members Justin Sane and Pat Thetic started playing music together, but they did not really become a popular name in the punk scene until 1996 when they released the full-length album Die For The Government. Their songs address a wide range of contemporary political issues including the draft ("You've Got To Die For The Government"), political corruption ("Their System Doesn't Work For You"), fascism ("This Machine Kills Fascists"), class war ("Kill The Rich"), police violence ("Fuck Police Brutality"), and most important to this study, American nationalism ("Red, White and Brainwashed"). "What we've been trying to do our whole career is put activism and music together," drummer Pat Thetic says, "The anger is many times the impetus for the activism."[59] This describes what makes Anti-Flag a pertinent site to examine punk resistance; they align themselves with the overt political faction of the punk scene, and are aware that anger and activism constitute their identity there. Another important theme that has appeared in their work over the years is a pride and celebration of unity within the punk scene ("Davey Destroyed the Punk Scene" and "A New Kind Of Army"). Anti-Flag seems to yearn for the concrete mobilization of punks as a social movement that Moore describes as problematized by the duality of punk identity.[60] Also, Anti-Flag's interior album artwork often includes essays by, or links to information from popular political critics like Howard Zinn or Arundahti Roy. The band demonstrates here a willingness to legitimatize political thought outside of the punk scene, a path that can eventually lead to an uncertainty about their punk identity.

Many of these general characteristics about the band already exhibit the noble/savage dichotomy in their particular approach to political music and activism. In order to examine punk's resistant response to national identity construction after the events of September 11^th, 2001, this study mostly narrows its focus to the Anti-Flag album The Terror State, which is their first full-length recording after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began. Analyzing material examples of Anti-Flag's lyrics and activism will provide a clear demonstration of how the tension between noble and savage performance creates an unfixed identity that allows Anti-Flag and their fans to resist the framework for national identity constructed by the rhetoric of President George W. Bush.

The interior CD booklet for The Terror State only includes one photograph of the members of Anti-Flag (see Appendix image I).[61] They appear to be four Caucasian men between their twenties and thirties, standing in some kind of dilapidated mill or warehouse with broken bricks littered across the floor. Two of them (singer Justin Sane and bassist Chris #2) have black mohawk hairstyles. Drummer Pat Thetic has bleached hair that is styled in a series of spikes. All of the men are wearing matching outfits: black pants and black button down shirts with a light, symbol-less armband on their right biceps. As stated before, the mohawk hair of punk scene is clearly synonymous with the stereotypical Mohawk of the imaginary Indian, symbolizing the characteristic of savagery upon its wearer. Justin Sane and Chris #2 clearly make use of this tactic in their presentation, while Pat Thetic's hair is also of a punk style that may not recall imagery of Native Americans but would still semiotically represent wildness and unconventionality by contemporary mainstream hairstyle standards. Examining the photography section of Anti-Flag's website reveals that bassist Chris #2 also has extensive tattoos along his right arm and bears a nose ring as well.[62] Tribal body adornment like tattoos and piercings are also indicative of Indian savage imagery. Wojick describes punk neo-tribal body art as reflecting an estrangement from society.[63] Here, Anti-Flag makes use of these symbols of style to separate their selves from dominant American culture.

The matching outfits of Anti-Flag recall imagery of Nazi soldiers with their similar dark uniforms and the armbands of the Schutzstaffel. Within mainstream American discourse, it is arguable that not many images represent savagery more than symbols of Nazi Germany. In 2003 Anti-Flag contacted their fans via e-mail and advertised on their website with a call to wear white armbands on March 28^th, 2003 as a symbol of protest against the war in Iraq.[64] Called "Wear Your Convictions On Your Sleeve Day", this call to action exemplifies the culture of deconstruction within the punk scene, ironically using war imagery to protest war itself. The band website highlights letters from fans about their experiences wearing such armbands.[65] By taking a symbol of militaristic brutality and reversing its meaning as a sign of protest against such violence, Anti-Flag utilize the performance of savage othering as a tactic for social activism. Nowhere within the artwork for The Terror State do Anti-Flag state the importance of this subversion of meaning, but the deconstruction works either way, as a symbol of savagery or a symbol for peace.

Similar to other punk musicians (Sid Vicious, Joey Ramone, Darby Crash etc.), Anti-Flag's members re-name themselves for their public persona within the band. By playing with the way surnames follow first names in English, the member's "punk names" become humorous phrases or words with negative connotations. "Justin Sane" becomes "just insane" while "Pat Thetic" is "pathetic". While this again recalls the savage side of punk, these names do not define Pat as pathetic or Justin as insane, but are tactics that reveal the nature of the punk scene; that all identity there is unfixed and traditionally negative symbols can be built into new, constructive semiotic signs.

Even the band's name "Anti-Flag" demonstrates this manipulation of meaning. Given the band's lyrics, most assume that the name has anti-American connotations. The interior booklet for the album A New Kind of Army provides a definition for fans:

Anti-Flag does not mean Anti-American. Anti-Flag means anti-war. Anti-Flag means the common people of the world are better off living in unity and peace. Anti-Flag means to stand against corporate greed that hurts millions while benefiting a handful of extremely rich. Anti-Flag means to fight against mindless nationalism. Anti-Flag means unity.[66]

This quotation again provides an explanation for what appears to be crass savagery, but is in fact another tactic of deconstruction. "Anti-Flag" has immediate negative connotations for participants in mainstream culture, particularly those with a strong sense of national identity. As a tactic of savagery, it is literally "uncivilized" in that the name rebukes nationalism entirely. But from the definition the band provides, there are elements of nobility as well. It espouses the high ideals of peace and unity, together with a rhetoric of populism against aristocracy. The competing punk performances of noble and savage appropriately collide here. A band's name is the primary symbol of its identity to those unfamiliar with their music or style. Anti-Flag's name is inherently punk with its division between a mainstream "savage" anti-American interpretation and the punk scene's "noble" anti-war interpretation.

Within the actual songs on The Terror State, Anti-Flag exhibits a similarly uncivilized use of language. In many ways their song lyrics have the crude quality of an immature adolescent rebelling against authority in the direct simplicity of their accusations. The very first track "Turncoat" begins with a shouted chorus of "Turncoat! Killer! Liar! Thief!" These disparaging accusations are hurled with anger directly at President George W. Bush.[67] A later track "Wake Up!" says, "If I had a lighter in hands/ With some oily rags/Is that what it'd take/To wake you from your sleep?/Woke up from your American dreams/To be surrounded/Surrounded in flames!"[68] The implication here almost seems like the singer is willing to burn Americans alive unless they agree with his political position. Lyrics like these show the band performing their savage persona directly: inflammatory name-calling, threatening to kill people, and using profanity casually ("Any dumb fuck can murder/Kill Kill Kill" on "Sold As Freedom").

However, the nobility of their punk performance can be confirmed in these lyrics as well. Here is where the band's identity comes into direct conflict with the presidential rhetoric George W. Bush uses to frame American identity post 9/11. The song "Sold As Freedom" directly addresses Bush's use of pro-war rhetoric as a solution to terrorism: "Answer the call up/join the proud the few/Pull on the trigger with your heart and soul/Cause war is peace now we know/wrapped in a flag and sold to you/Sold as Freedom it's up to you to see through lies by those who've led us to endless world strife." For Anti-Flag, it is a noble action to warn their listeners (or the "Underground Network") of the ways the War in Iraq has been marketed. These lyrics show the band engaging in a condemnation of military recruitment, simultaneously with an amateur criticism of how Bush has rhetorically constructed the War in Iraq. "Power To The Peaceful" similarly addresses Bush's presidential rhetoric justifying the war in Iraq as an act of liberation: "This is not a war of the urging people. This is not a war of economic independence It's a war for conquest It's a war for military power It's a war for money The road to universal slaughter." Lyrics like this put Anti-Flag in direct opposition to Bush's early statements on Iraq like "In the town of An Najaf, members of our 101st Airborne Division have been welcomed as liberators"[69] and "Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators, and we will depart as liberators."[70] Anti-Flag accuses Bush of being deceptive, maintaining their nobility in this confrontation to his power. The phrase "urging people" is used to recall Bush's use of "liberators," again trying to reveal some hidden political agenda at work. In many ways Anti-Flag's lyrics are amateur attempts at rhetorical criticism, where they take political texts and try to reveal the speaker's motivations. Like many rhetorical critics, Anti-Flag are interested in the political effects of presidential speech, and their lyrics clearly attempt to show who stands to gain or lose power from it. These lyrics eschew the comprehensive categories of public discourse used by rhetoricians in favor of a less sophisticated criticism distributed to their own community. Punks do not require the warrants of evaluation that academics do; the scene responds better to this combination of vulgar invectives and truth to power.

The lyrics of The Terror State celebrate Anti-Flag's solidarity with that punk community with the song "Rank-N-File." With the lyrics, "I'm standing with the rank-n-file, I'm marching with the underground, Our black hearts worn on our sleeves!" Anti-Flag recalls the armbands of their convictions again, twisting the usage of the phrase "rank-n-file" from its original military connotation to a new definition of unity through subculture and social protest. Being part of their underground "army" represents dignity in this context. One cannot be part of the Rank-N-File without a sense of punk nobility.

The Terror State artwork provides a quasi-handbook to punk nobility within a series of short essays explaining the meaning behind most of the album's songs. Arundahti Roy, Paul Krugman, and Emma Goldman are cited in these texts, rhetorically associating Anti-Flag with the "noble" credibility of these political critics. The statements within the artwork further attempt to reveal facts about current political events to demonstrate the negative qualities Anti-Flag finds in the Bush administration. This is best demonstrated in "If You Don't Control Your Government," about Bush's adherence to The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a foreign policy paper written by administration officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.[71] In this accompanying essay, Anti-Flag insinuates that PNAC's strategy premeditated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with the goal of keeping America as the world's only super power.[72] One premise of this essay's argument is that Anti-Flag speaks from a noble position of authority, informing their fans of the truth while the American media and State keep them blind to reality. This position is most evident on the front page of the album insert, which plainly states, "Choices have been made for you by persons other than Anti-Flag and Fat Wreck Chords regarding the artwork of this release. Want to make the choice for yourself? Visit this website: www.theterrorstate.com/censorship"[73] At the time off this writing, the website listed does not belong to Anti-Flag, so what kind of artwork was originally intended cannot be confirmed. But the intention is clear; Anti-Flag rhetorically stands against the powers that seek to suppress their freedom of speech in the printing of this album artwork. This message exists to let the audience know just how authentic Anti-Flag is. The statement places the onus on the fans, giving them back their freedom of choice, seemingly taken away by some unnamed perpetrator.

While the artwork demonstrates the noble performance in action, elements of the divergent savage performance exist as well. Inverting the slipcase for The Terror State CD reveals a message from Anti-Flag to their consumers. Attached is an image of George W. Bush with the stamped phrase "One-Term President" underneath. The message calls for fans to Xerox the image and "post everywhere"[74] showing Anti-Flag's deconstructive use of political images as a tactic of protest and general mischief. It also implicates the fans of Anti-Flag, assuming they will participate in this kind of vandalism. The inference here is that punks are willing to engage in such uncivil strategies to call attention to corruption or injustice. A final example of this deconstructive artwork appears inside the booklet. Every song's lyrics are accompanied by a photographed symbol of war, such as a gas mask, bullets, a grenade, multiple guns and a torn target from a firing range. Like their use of the Nazi-like armbands and militaristic phrases such as “Rank-N-File,” this artwork is inverting the traditional symbols of war to highlight Anti-Flag's anti-war argument.

Outside of The Terror State, Anti-Flag performs other actions interpreted as noble within the punk scene. First, they run A-F Records, their own record label that puts out material by Anti-Flag as well as other less known political punk bands. Moore's primary example of cultures of authenticity was with Ian Mackaye's Dischord Records, where a pious Do It Yourself work ethic takes precedence over punk cynicism.[75] The A-F Records website states, "We are working to A) raise and donate proceeds from sales of certain releases to charity, and B) release and promote bands who address social and global problems in their music or who at least strive to be a part of/or support the underground community."[76] This statement preserves Anti-Flag’s punk nobility. It is important to the punk scene that Anti-Flag does not run a record label for the primary purpose of making money because this would align them with the commercialism of the American corporations their songs protest against. Instead, A-F Records donates their profits to charity and advertises that they will not produce a record unless it aligns with their political positions.

The members also manage two non-profit organizations. The first of these is MilitaryFreeZone.org a website dedicated to removing a section of the No Child Left Behind act allowing military recruiters access to the personal information of high-school students.[77] The website provides a five-step action item list for fans to protest military recruitment, links to college financial aid sites outside of military service and cites examples of military recruiters who lied about the background or physical tests of their recruits. Anti-Flag's second non-profit organization is the Underground Action Alliance (UAA), "dedicated to promoting civic participation of members of the punk rock community and beyond."[78] The website for UAA provides resources for activists, daily news related to social protest, and home projects to engage new visitors in activism. The site proclaims that it "encourages people to become citizen activists" so that public deliberation will prevail in American politics.[79] Both of these organizations provide Anti-Flag with a cache of noble authenticity by proving they do not just preach about progressive politics in their music, but actually live progressive lives too.

Given the extent of their noble activism and their appropriation of symbolically savage fashion and language, it would seem difficult for Anti-Flag's status within the punk scene to be threatened. However, in 2005 the band signed a two-album record contract with major record label RCA. Immediately, the reserve of authenticity and goodwill the band had accumulated was depleted as fans found Anti-Flag's decision to be hypocritical after their years of anti-corporate lyrics. "We've learned over the years that unless you're at the table, nobody pays attention to what you have to say," Pat Thetic replied in a recent interview, "I know a lot of great bands that we grew up with that were talking about similar things, but nobody gave them the time of day. Nobody heard what they were saying because they were in basements and halls and they weren't able to impact change."[80] This kind of response demonstrates Anti-Flag's attempt to regain punk authenticity by associating their major label record deal with political affectivity. When the dimension of nobility is taken out of punk identity (by acts such as the RCA record deal), it releases the tension between the two divisions of punk performance, fixing their savagery in permanence. This fixed status closes off the "open space" that fluid punk identity exists within. In order for Anti-Flag's identity to remain punk they need to retain that tension and rebuild their noble status, whether through more charity, adherence to the strict unwritten code of the punk scene or further activist programs.

Anti-Flag continues to perform noble actions through their activism, despite the RCA record deal. Military Free Zone and the Underground Action Alliance are still active, and the lyrics on For Blood And Empire—their first RCA release—do not seem any less political than before. However, one of the songs on this new album marks another transgression for Anti-Flag's punk identity, this time away from their savage performance rather than their noble one. "Depleted Uranium Is A War Crime" is a song that the band wrote using parts of an interview they conducted with U.S. Representative Jim McDermott of Washington state.[81] Since the song, Anti-Flag and McDermott announced that McDermott would introduce bill H.R. 2410 — The Depleted Uranium Munitions Study Act, to the 109th Congress.[82] The band has had a relationship with McDermott since 2004 when he praised them from the House floor for being active citizens, proving that "Voting Is Going To Be The In Thing In 2004".[83] McDermott also worked together with Anti-Flag on their criticism of the No Child Left Behind act.[84] This partnership challenges the heart of the noble/savage dichotomy necessary in punk identity. While collaborating with a U.S. Representative characterizes Anti-Flag's cause as noble and authentic, this kind of behavior is seen in the punk scene as an acknowledgment of American government and culture, far too civilized an act to still be considered savage. Even an interviewer from Education Weekly sensed that this somehow placed Anti-Flag's punk identity in jeopardy. In a news article about their collaboration with McDermott, the band was asked if it was "un-punk to team up with Washington politicians". Justin Sane answered, "You get a barrel of bad apples, there's probably one or two that are good," he said. "Wherever we can find allies, we're willing to work with them."[85] Statements like this continue to affirm Anti-Flag's noble behaviors, while denying the savage cynicism that punk holds toward dominant culture. The multiple contradictions between Anti-Flag's performative behavior, the record deal and the partnership with a legitimate politician keeps their punk identity in a flux, still unfixed. Every act that confirms one characteristic, while denying the other, pushes punk identity toward permanence.

Maintaining the contradictions between these noble and savage qualities is what keeps Anti-Flag's punk identity in an unfixed state. If this identity cannot be set permanently, then it is set in direct opposition to the fixed framework of American national identity. As argued previously, when a President defines national identity, he seeks to arrest the possibilities available to a citizen. Punk identity (like we have seen with Anti-Flag) discourages that fixity, but only if it keeps itself in a constant flux between nobility and savagery. When Anti-Flag moves too far toward one side of this dichotomy or deny aspects of another, they risk both their membership within the punk scene and their unique position in opposition toward Presidential rhetoric.

Conclusion

This study argues that because of the open space of unfixed identity within the punk scene, it is a naturally resistant site to the attempts by presidential rhetoric to fix American identity. The example of Anti-Flag provides a rich example of how this struggle for identity proceeds in a material context, but there are several limitations to its verification of punk noble/savagery. A review of these follows, starting with the limits to analyzing only punk content and not its audience. Also, there are many institutions besides the American presidency that seek to arrest national identity. I will end with a brief examination of political affectivity within the punk scene and how the noble/savage model may be applied to other texts.

This study only analyzes the content of punk commodities: music, websites, shows and clothing. While producers of punk (like Anti-Flag) do create strong rhetorical arguments against nationalism and presidential politics, I do not believe that there is a top-down command from punk band's rhetoric to punk fans anymore than the presidency has a direct command over American national identity.[86] There is room in both for deliberation among constituents, and further research into the identity construction of a punk audience may be necessary to confirm the noble/savage dichotomy.

Secondly, this study only examines a site of punk noble/savagery that is specifically resistant to the national identity constructed by the presidency. There are several institutions in American society that impose limits on national identity through the language they use. Arguments have been made that the language of America's legal system[87], its schools[88] and its history[89] all participate in the construction of identity. While it is likely that the resistant qualities of punk identity confront those institutions at different sites, this study does not examine them.

Finally, there is still a looming question of the political affectivity of punk within the academic community. In Moore's original study on cultures of authenticity and deconstruction within punk, he argues that because of punk's nihilism and its ironic stance toward authority, it rarely offers a political position one could agree to.[90] Without what Moore calls a "utopian imagination," both authenticity/nobility and deconstruction/savagery neglect to include those outside of the punk scene. This leaves questions about its political affectivity, since it prohibits building into a mass movement toward social change. Anti-Flag encounters this exact problem when they entered into the mainstream dominant culture by signing to a major label. Their goal may have been to reach a larger audience so they are not preaching to the converted, but they stop "being punk" when their noble/savage performance is threatened within the scene.

Along with Moore's question of political affectivity, other research concludes that punk scenes are not always political. Phillipov wonders: if there are concrete examples of punk bands and fans that are not overtly political, than do cultural studies theorists devalue the "punkness" of participants for being apolitical?[91] Phillipov cites Tsitsos' study of punk slam dancing as an example of the split between political and apolitical factions within the punk scene.[92] Here Phillipov points out that the culture of punk does not necessarily impose a single political position on its participants. I would argue that even though these factions may have separate political beliefs, their very performance of being punk is political and oppositional to dominant American identity. In Tsitsos' study, the political faction has a controlled and regulated style of slam dancing, while the apolitical punks are more anarchist and wild in their movements. Again we can see the dichotomy of nobility (civil and self-regulated) and savagery (wild and uninhibited) at work within the slam-dancing pit. What makes this site political is not the rhetoric of its participants, but the creation of a literal open space where anyone can come in and try out the noble/savage behavior of slam dancing. This open space loosens the restrictions upon American identity imposed by the rhetoric of political institutions.

This argument can also be applied to examples of conservative politics within the punk scene, such as the community websites "GOPunk" or "Anti-Anti-Flag" that both support the Bush administration's policies. In an article on the rise of this element, Nick Rizzuto (founder of the Conservative Punk website) says, "Punk has been hijacked by an extreme left wing element. It's blame America first. Everything is America's fault and everything is Bush's fault."[93] While at first glance this may seem vastly different from the radical politics of Anti-Flag, the performance of punk within these communities is the same. Conservative punks retain the savagery of punk fashion and cynicism, together with the idea that their support of capitalism and American ideology is a noble behavior.[94] In the same article, Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant states, "I think these people are anti-establishment and as it sounds supporting George Bush is anti-establishment because a lot of people their age are supporting Kerry."[95] From the conservative punk position, national identity is not being constructed by the president, but by the hegemonic tide supporting the president's political opponents in 2004. Parry-Giles’ argument for presidential national identity construction (cited at the beginning of this essay) came from this same example. She argues not that Bush himself was constructing national identity, but that the play between his campaign and John Kerry's mutually constructed America as being predominantly white and patriarchal.[96] Conservative punks still believe that the online spaces they create are being resistant to the dominant ideology of American culture, and that supporting the Bush administration and speaking their opinions within the scene is punk behavior.[97] The tactics of noble/savage performance are the same, but their perspective of the dominant establishment is different. These may not be the progressive politics of a band like Anti-Flag, but conservative punks still see themselves as being politically resistant to national identity.

In his case study of the band The Make-Up, Theodore Matula concludes that punk acts deliberatively, and creates an open space where members can try out new, revolutionary identities without suffering adverse consequences.[98] In their book Punk Rocker's Revolution, Curry Mallott and Milagros Peäna come to a similar conclusion, stating that it is this fluid cultural space that prevents punk from being just a musical style.[99] This is what makes punk inherently political. Whether this behavior eventually leads to political action in the forms of voting, protest, or other forms of social activism cannot be confirmed by analyzing just the production of punk or the behaviors of punk fans. Some kind of ethnographic audience study would likely be necessary.

Given the different ways noble/savage performance can be applied to punk identity, I believe that it addresses a theoretical concern Michelle Phillipov expresses when she states, "Cultural studies offers us few tools with which to come to terms with musical engagements that fall outside the more conventional ‘political’ analyses that have characterized most of the existing work on punk."[100] Phillipov is concerned that some punks are devalued by academics, because their behavior is not overtly political, as with Anti-Flag. While this current study specifically analyzes political resistance in the punk scene, I think from the slam-dancing example described earlier that this noble/savage dichotomy exists within many of the apolitical behaviors of the punk scene as well. Perhaps then, this is one of the tools that Phillipov is searching for and can continue to be used to place value on members of the punk scene who may not be overtly political, but still exhibit resistance to political discourse in their identity. In ways, this argument may sound similar to Hebdige's (now thirty-year old) conclusion that punk is simply a style of resistance.[101] But I think the key revelation here is that political resistance comes specifically from an unfixed and contradictory identity. This kind of strategy might also be useful to other social groups that find themselves in opposition to institutional language that seeks to restrict their identity through fixed definition.

By applying the model of noble/savage identity performance to the punk scene, we can see that the open space necessary for punk identity cannot be formed without the tension between these dual performances. Like all social identities, punk has an in-group (those who are punk) and an excluded out-group. Who gets to be considered punk has always been a question for members of the punk scene, but one that can never be asked out loud.[102] The open space of the punk scene problematizes any kind of arrested definition of that identity. Any theoretical attempts to define punk in static and fixed terms will face opposition. This is precisely what makes punk a politically resistant identity, because the tension between its savage behavior and its noble positioning transgresses the limits of national identity as imposed by the rhetoric of political institutions like the presidency.

Appendix Photo: