💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › graham-whiteman-festival-moment.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:41:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Festival moment
Author: Graham Whiteman
Date: 1970
Language: en
Topics: festivals, gatherings, music
Source: Retrieved on August 13th, 2019 from http://autonomies.org/2019/08/the-anarchy-of-woodstock/
Notes: In 1970, Anarchy magazine (nº 116, October), published three short essays under the theme of “Instant Anarchy”. The first of the three was a piece by Graham Whiteman entitled the “Festival Moment”, in which we are offered an anarchist reading of the woodstock music festival (and of festivals in general). - msg via Autonomies dot org

Graham Whiteman

Festival moment

THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF ANARCHISM is concerned with the question of

authority. Anarchists believe that a viable social organisation is

possible without the assistance of a cruel, unjust and inherently evil

coercive authority—and that mankind would be a happier, healthier and

infinitely better species if it existed in a condition of freedom. Given

this belief, all libertarian thinkers have attempted to construct

theories of social organisation based on freedom and co-operation. But,

from the earliest anarchist writings, down to those of the present day

(see ANARCHY 62), the approach has been an intellectual one.

In the last few years, however, some most notable ad hoc experiments in

this field have been made by people uncommitted to any political creed.

It is possible that, through the medium of the open-air “pop” (the most

convenient, if misleading word) festival, we are witnessing the

beginnings of an “instant anarchy”.

At first sight, the linking of a large-scale music festival with the

idea of social freedom may seem a paradox: they are mostly designed by

profit hungry promoters (see Financial Times, 6.7.70), in order to

squeeze as much money as possible from their long-haired patrons. The

audience is dependent—for their food, drink and general comfort—upon the

facilities provided. These provisions are likely to be expensive, as are

the fees charged for admission to the site. It lies with the nature of

those attending a festival to transform what is basically an economic

exercise, into an experiment in non-authoritarian (if temporary)

community living. Without attempting any snapshot sociology, it is clear

that participants in the sub-culture of youth are anarchic in their

life-style: they have rejected the handed-down values of the parent, the

teacher, the politician. To put it simply, the “heads” can manage very

well without the heavy hand of authority, even if their ideas of useful

living conflict with those of the well-read anarchist.

The concept of open-air music festivals is not new. Pop festivals,

however, with their drugs, nudity and general freedom, have only been

with us since 1967, and, since that time, some thirty

festivals—involving a rough total audience of three million—have

occurred in the US alone. Britain was rather late in following the

fashion, but has since produced quite a few (Bath, Isle of Wight,

Plumpton, etc.). To date, the most widely reported and discussed

festival took place in New York State, in August of last year; because

of the film illustrating it, those who were not present are able to see

that this event—Woodstock—was notable in many ways. It has perhaps, a

special relevance to the anarchist.

Woodstock lasted over three days, and the audience has been estimated as

consisting of “half a million freaks”, coming, ostensibly, to see some

of the major pop musicians. The site was labelled, among other things,

as the “10th largest city in the US”. If it was a city, then it was

certainly an unusual one. During the three days, there were no murders,

thefts, fights, race-riots or any of the worse things that modern urban

man accepts as “normal”. Despite some of those problems that daily occur

in cities (traffic jams, the disposal of rubbish, overcrowding, the

straining of basic amenities), the film is able to show us people

smiling, laughing, just enjoying themselves and their freedom; the

interviews emphasise the important place that freedom has in the lives

of these people. They regard it as a basic right, to be jealously

guarded from the encroachment of the policeman and the parent; Woodstock

was a massive affirmation of this right.

The Village Voice (21.8.69) confirmed this view. According to their

reporter, the most amazing aspect of the festival was, again, not the

music, but “the physical stamina, tolerance and good nature of a

basically indoor, urban group of people caught in wretched outdoor

conditions. It showed more dramatically than any planned demonstration

could have that hip kids are fundamentally different from the

beer-drinking, fist-fighting Fort Lauderdale crowds of yesteryear” …

“people shared what they had, overlooked their differences, kept their

cool, and generally smiled all weekend”.

Unfortunately, not everyone realised the significance of Woodstock. The

film shows us local traders, who are delighted at the crowds—and the

money they have brought with them. It also shows us local residents who

are anything but delighted, not only because their lawns are being

trampled and defaced with rubbish, but because they have been confronted

by a huge mass of people who are patently disinterested in tight

suburban conformity—people who have long hair! people who go naked in

public! people who use drugs! and people who do not have the slave

mentality. These are the same residents who were pleased, when, after

the festival, the Chief of Police was deprived of his job. He had

offended his superiors by not arresting people inside the

festival-grounds. It seems that part of a policeman’s duties is to stop

citizens enjoying themselves.

The Establishment Press too, where it is not being outrightly hostile,

is generally bewildered by such manifestations of co-operation and

fraternity as can be seen in Woodstock (a pleasing exception was Barry

Norman, in the Daily Mail of 25.6.70). Having a direct interest in the

maintenance of exploitation and conformity, the large dailies

concentrate on the more superficial, sensational facets of the pop

festivals, and ignore their true significance—just as, with a political

demonstration, they deal almost exclusively with the demonstration

itself, and not the issue that promoted it. So, we read headlines, such

as “Nude Girl Dances” or “New Drug Worry At Festival”. As might be

expected, they hardly believe that large groups of people can gather and

live together, without going dangerously berserk, especially when those

groups are made up of people who find no attraction in the life of the

obedient cog in the great economic machine.

Accepting that “Woodstock” reinforces Kropotkin’s optimism in the basic

sociability of human-beings, it remains for us to ask certain questions.

The crowd at Woodstock was continually urged, throughout the course of

the festival. to remain calm; they were constantly congratulated on

their behaviour. Would this behaviour have been any different if a

Hitler or a Stalin had taken over the stage and made a speech? To answer

this, we must return to the “freaks” themselves. Much of the music they

favour has a strong element of violence—complete with guitar-smashing

and screamed vocals; it might appear that this would be reflected

amongst the audience. But no, the music seems to be a form of catharsis;

the audience apparently grow more pacific as the noise-level increases.

One remembers a heartwarming scene in the film, where people gaily

trample down fences, and one is forced to doubt the willingness of the

festival crowd to be led, or manipulated. As long as the harassment is

verbal, they just ignore it, or employ that terrible weapon, the laugh.

Food, drink, sanitation and provisions for shelter are usually provided

at the larger weekend festivals (though they tend to be badly

organised). At Woodstock, these were indeed provided (and mismanaged)

and they had only to last for three clays. Could the audience itself

have organised these things and kept them going for a week, or a month?

It is probable that necessity would have forced them to: there was much

voluntary sharing of food at the festival, and this gives the impression

that co-operation might have overcome any attempt at exploitation.

Lastly, the members of the audience, in co-operating, were “looking

after their own”, drawing on the common strength of their own

alternative culture. What if a group of middle-aged Americans had

arrived, complete with prejudice and sons in the National Guard? The

crowd at Woodstock had to pass through just such people to reach the

site, and what happened on that site was an example to the latter.

Admittedly, one must be a little cautious with one’s enthusiasm, when

one examines the composition of the pop festival audience. As the

director of the Woodstock film (Michael Wadleigh) put it. “If you put

400,000 adults together in a field for three days, would they have

produced a better record?” One naturally doubts if they would—through no

real fault of their own. In a society that deliberately sponsors

alienation and a blind obedience to all authority, it is much safer to

live and react in a manner pleasing to those in control. The main

example provided by festivals is that it is possible to live without the

ministrations of an authority, once an instilled prejudice towards that

authority is forgotten. The slave has to deny the validity of the

slave-master.

There is an element of romance in some anarchist literature, a nostalgia

for a golden past, a desire to return to innocence and simplicity of

living (e.g. Tolstoy). From this view, there often follows a wish to

retire into the countryside, and build a community based on mutual aid,

free from those evils which appear to be inherent in city-living. The

modern commune movement is an extension of this concept. Rock festivals

provide a temporary illustration of this desire. One of those with

experience of a large outdoor festival agreed. “You’re ‘escaping’ from

the city, you know? You can smoke, fuck, whatever, and mostly they are

going to leave you alone” (Rolling Stone, 6.8.70).

One wonders if a temporary experience like this can have a more

permanent significance. Woodstock, if permanent, would have become one

of America’s major cities in size alone, and certainly a unique one in

the principles by which its citizens conducted themselves. Something

lasting could well have come from a display of pop music—and pop music

is basically a transitory experience, as is the whole spectrum of

pop-culture.

A community functioning on the principles of harmony and freedom might

have a better chance of survival if, initially, it was a smaller unit

than that which forms the audience of a festival like Woodstock. However

well-intentioned a group of people are, the common problems of living

inevitably provide opportunities that could be exploited by the

self-seeking; these opportunities would be magnified, where those to be

led are great in number (sheer density of population, is, of course, an

argument against democracy). So, until the organisation of a community

is functioning, it might be advisable to limit the number of individuals

concerned. Naturally, it would be of the utmost importance for those

individuals to keep a jealous guard on their freedom; it would rest with

them to collectively resist the encroachments of the potential boss or

policeman.

Any community has to work to survive. Without entering into the common

anarchist theories of industry and agriculture, it is possible to say

that the means of production can be held in common and used in such a

way that fair and plentiful distribution of basic necessities is

maintained. Anyway, one feels that the “heads” would find the rigours of

competition just too much of a “hassle” to be worth bothering with.

Those who also find working too much of an inconvenience would either

have to live off the charity of those who are willing to support them,

or leave the community and re-enter “straight” society. It is probable

that most would find that working for themselves under a mutually

organised system of industry and in support of a non-capitalist idea is

not too taxing, either spiritually or physically.

Those things that provide for the actual mechanics of living (e.g.

housing, schools, hospitals, etc.) could be easily and cheaply

provided—perhaps with the “Drop-City” structures in mind. All extra

services would grow organically. Basically, housing itself, for

instance, is expensive only when the price of the necessary land is

itself exorbitant; one would assume that the land for our community is

already available—the crowds at a pop-festival do not have to leave.

They would merely be making use of what is already theirs! The

ever-attentive policeman would have a difficult task in evicting several

hundred thousand people, and would even the elusive conscience of

society sanction the forcible removal of a group of people who just want

to build their own homes, make their community, and start living in

freedom?

The children born and brought up in such a city, under such a

libertarian ethos, would be an added guarantee of the success and

viability of the anarchist community. They would learn from their

parents’ errors, come to maturity and found their own communities, and,

in turn, a new generation of children would inherit the example.

Co-operative communities would mushroom until their very number made it

impossible for them to be ignored. One then pictures an unemployed

government, sitting in the midst of its redundant army and police-force,

realising at last that the master is neither necessary or wanted.

Those who think that this is but an idealistic dream are the same people

who thought that it was impossible for people to gather en masse in a

peaceful fashion—a terrible pessimism. The anarchist vision might, in

the end, be realised as an off-shoot of something unconnected with

social change: the gathering of people to enjoy themselves. Thus,

Malatesta’s definition of revolution as being “the creation of new

living institutions”, the example provided by those institutions and an

educative programme arising from them, might all arise from the

much-maligned pop-festival: a process of “instant anarchy”, feeling its

way and being shaped by necessity, rather than a programme taken from

the text-books.

…

Ultimately cities will exist only as joyous tribal gatherings and fairs,

to dissolve after a few weeks. Investigating new lifestyles is our work,

as is the exploration of Ways to explore our inner realms—with the known

dangers of crashing that go with such. We should work with

political-minded people where it helps, hoping to enlarge their vision,

and with people of all varieties of politics or thought at whatever

point they become aware of environmental urgencies. Master the archaic

and the primitive as models of basic nature-related cultures—as well as

the most imaginative extensions of science—and build a community where

these two vectors cross. —MILES in International Times 78 ( April 24-May

7, 1970)