Mind-bendingly complicated neo-folk politics

Like other lefties who love dodgy music, the politics of transgressive cultures is something of an obsession. Neo-folk, with its constant flirtation with totalitarian aesthetics is a particularly tricky customer in this regard. I'm no expert on neo-folk so I'm not going to say much about it here. What I've found interesting recently is a recent blogossphere-led attack on Pete Webb, a IASPM colleague of mine, and author of the book Exploring Networked Worlds of Popular Music: Milieu Cultures.

One of the chapters of Pete Webb's book deals with neo-folk - the only academic treatment of the subject to my knowledge. Recently, Pete has come under withering criticism from the writer Stewart Home (here and here) and the blog Who Makes the Nazis (here and here), for treating neo-folk, and Tony Wakeford in particular, with kid gloves and essentially covering up for neo-facism. They don't quite accuse Pete of being a fascist but they do come close, even though Pete was involved in Anti-Fascist Action and the Anti-Nazi League.

Pete made a statement in response here. My instinctive sypathies are with him. The clash between him and the blogosphere is emblematic of the distance between the 'watchdog' approach to the far-right that traces and exposes the complex connections and influences between individuals, and the academic approach that takes a more nuanced position that concentrates on wider issues. The 2 approaches are both valid, but they can sit uncomfortably together, particularly given the uncivil language common in the blogosphere. 

Comments

[Graeme]

What "complex connections and influences between individuals"? Tony Wakeford was directly involved with the National Front. There's nothing at all complicated about it.

[Keith Kahn-Harris]

There's no disagreement that Tony Wakeford was an NF member. The disagreement lies as to how long he was involved in the far right and to his current sympathies. Also, there is disagreement as to how far his art is explainable by his NF involvement.

I'm not getting involved in this though...

[Florian Blaschke]

I've never liked the "watchdog" approach. It is a far too simplistic black-and-white, us-vs.-them worldview, with no allowance for nuances and the complications and absurdities of the real world. Watchdoggery ultimately means censorship, curtailment of free thought, as it even decries random musings, unrelated to any propaganda or concrete action, not to mention art, just because they are somehow touchy, and it tends to go overboard. For example, publish an alternate history novel in the manner of "In the Presence of Mine Enemies", and observe what happens. I like the quotation found here a lot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_White_Power#Quotation