1

Do-It-Yourself Activism in Central Eastern Europe: The Case of

Brno Hardcore Scene in Czech Republic

Martin Koubek1

“What in reality is DIY? DIY = Do It Yourself. It is one of the basic values of hardcore/punk music and it

conveys that in hardcore/punk the boundary between an active agent and a passive spectator, between a band

and its audience, and between a creator and a consumer, is disappearing. In hardcore/punk everyone is creator

and consumer at the same time because it is an open culture. Everyone can have his own band, organize shows,

publish fanzine, distribute, have a label or get involved in some other way… DIY culture is the culture that we

create for ourselves and whose structures have been built up by ourselves outside of official cultural institutions

– because hardcore emerged precisely in opposition to the boring mainstream.” (Houdy 2005)

1. Introduction

Do-It-Yourself (DIY) activism (McKay 1998) came to the (not only academic)

attention in the last years also because of its relation to the global justice movement (GJM)

(Crossley, 2002, Day 2004, della Porta 2007, Smith 2008 etc.).2 There are several reasons:

their 1) relation to the direct action strategies3 (Epstein 1991, Wall 1999, Munro 2005); 2)

rejection of multinational corporations, business chains and companies and shared

anticapitalist rhetorics with some of the GJM manifests (Crossley 2002, Klein 2002,

Heartfield 2003, Ross 2004, Myers 2002, Moore 2007); 3) emphasis on alternative media and

information channels- offered for example by the internet (Duncombe 1997, Downing 2001,

Soderberg 2008, Dahlgren 2007, Jordan 2002, van Aelst and Walgrave 2004, Vegh 2003,

Coopman 2003, Wright 2004, della Porta et al. 2004: 93 – 117), 4) shared use of

organizational and mobilization resources provided by subcultures and contracultures

connected to DIY and GJM (McKay 1998, Day 2005, O’Hara 1999, Paris and Ault 2004,

Haenefler 2004a, 2004b, O’Connor 2003, 2004, Marchart 2004 etc.)4 and 5) stress on cultural

expression wheter in form of happenings, performances (Graeber 2002, Lott 2003, Johnston

1 Previous version of this article by Ondrej Cisar and Martin Koubek available here: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/nicosia/ws5/cisar.pdf 2 DIY activism is also often connected to the animal rights movement (Foreman 1985) and radical environmentalism – f.e. Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movements (Wall 1999, Doherty 2002) . 3 For example Harding (1998:80) says, that while we can percieve so-called non-violent direct since the 60s, contemporary DIY activism developed from protest and direct actions from the begining of 90s within the so-called „direct action movement“ (compare to McKay 1998: 7-8). 4 Especially in connection with German environment link is mentioned of subcultures/contracultures and global justice movement, which provides a so-called autonomous movement (see Katsiafikas 2006).

2

2009, Reed 2005: 240 – 285), protest carnivals (St. John 2004), festivals (Purdue et al. 1997)

or culture jamming (Klein 2001, 2002).

On the other hand, majority of the articles on DIY activism is oriented on Western

Europe and North American area. The aim of this paper is to focus on this kind of citizens´

participation in Central Eastern Europe, particulary in Czech Republic. Available texts on

political participation in this area often suggest relatively low level thereof and relatively

weak civil society (Howard 2002, 2003, Pickvance 1999, Fagin 2000, Mendelson and Glen

2002, for critique: Petrova and Tarrow 2006, Cisar 2008). And because these works dealed

mainly with formal and organized participation (e. g. membership in political parties, interest

groups, non-government organizations – NGOs) it was common that informal and more

diffused ways of collective action presently developing in the region fall out of the picture in

the available research. In response to this, our paper concentrates exactly on these loosely

organized forms of participation that are commonly associated with do-it-yourself activism.

More specifically, the paper focuses on some manifestations of DIY activism in so- called

hardcore scene in the South Moravian region. We expect that „scenes constitute an important

non-organizational component of civil society… and that they are an influential social

structure in the environment of some social movements that can be a more lasting structure

than interpersonal networks, but is nevertheless generally not embedded in formal

organizations“ (Leach and Haunss 2004: 3).

The goal of the paper is threefold. For one, it aims at broadening the understanding of

citizens’ participation in Central Eastern Europe. Secondly, although the concept of „scene“ is

established in the academic discourse, we don’t know much about internal diferentiation of

these networks and the way they function. Very often an ability of the scene to aglomerate

different actors and create social networks that connect individuals with different backgrounds

is pointed out, however a paper attempting to describe this perceived „miscellaneous“

structure would be hard to find. Then our second goal of this paper is to describe, with the

practical example of Brno „hardcore“ scene, particular discursive fields and their relation to

the activities of social movements (or social movement organizations- SMOs) and

subcultures. Finally, the third goal is to show specialities of this phenomenon in relation to

developing Central-Eastern European civil societies.

The outline of the paper is following: First, we introduce the concept of a scene and

define its common elements that can be identified in the academic production. In following

five chapters we are going to introduce these individual elements one by one and focus on the

connections with our research. At the end of the first part of the paper we present our own

3

definition of a scene which reflects some of the characteristics that can be perceived in

Central East Europe. The conceptual apparatus worked out in this part is subsequently employed

in the analysis of the Brno hardcore scene in the second part of the paper, which presents the

preliminary results of our empirical research.

2. Setting the Scenes

The term „scene“ has become recently more wide-spread in the academic production,

but the conception is not entirely new. Polsky (1967) used this term as descriptive label

interchangeable with terms as subculture or contraculture. Scene is also being discussed in

journalistic discourse as related to social networks of great metropolises (Straw 2002,

Peterson and Bennett 2004). In the 70s Irwin (1977: 278 quoted from Futrell, Simi and

Gottschalk 2006: 278) sees it as „collective activity that offer ongoing opportunities to plug

into more complete, emotionally sustaining relationships“. However, the real development of

this concept came at the begining of the 90s with the work of William Straw (1991/1997,

1993). Following discussion brought not only attempts for more precise empirical application

but also differentiation of the concept. Scenes were classified according to the „geographic“

character of their relation to the local, translocal („refers to widely scattered local scenes

drawn into regular communication around a distinctive form of music and lifestyle“ (Peterson

and Bennett 2004: 6) or virtual („newly emergent formation in which people scattered across

great physical spaces create the sense of scene via fanzines and, increasingly, trough the

Internet (Peterson and Bennett 2004: 6-7) spheres. Other authors identified scenes by „the

orientation of their core… …three main types of scenes are: subcultural non-movement

scenes, subcultural movement scenes, and countercultural movement scenes“ (Leach and

Haunss, 2009: 259).

The scene´s definitons differ too. We can see scene as „informal assemblages“

(Peterson a Bennett 2004: 4), „specific kind of urban cultural context and practice of spatial

coding“ (Stahl 2004: 53), „cultural space in which a range of musical practises coexist,

interacting with each other withnin a variety of processes of differentiation, and according to

widely varying trajectories of change and cross-fertifilzation“ (Straw 1997: 494), „space

produced by the intended consequences of members ´reflexivity´“ (Kahn-Harris 2004: 98) or

„ the element sof social movement´s culture that are explicity organized around music and

which participants regard as important for supporting movement ideas and activists

4

identities“ (Futrell, Simi and Gottschalk 2006: 276) and „simultaneously a network of people

who share a common identity and a common set of subcultural or countercultural beliefs,

values, norms, and convictions as well as a network of physical spaces where members of that

group are known to congregate“ (Leach a Haunss 2009: 259).

Despite these terminological differences, we can identify common traits of the „scene

concept“. These refer to different characteristics, but may complement each other in some

aspects. We can speak about: 1) notice of internal diversity of scenes and their distinction

from the concept of subculture which it used to be connected with.5 Subcultures, in some

cases, are seen as coherent formations with boundaries set on single principle, whether it is

class (Hebdige 1979) or, for example, choice of life-style (Maffesoli 1996). Scenes therefore

„complicate any notion of a single determinant“ (Stahl 2004: 54); 2) interconnectedness of

political and cultural activities, that take place in the scenes and may provide resources to

social movements. This point often refers to „transitive“ character of these social networks in

the framework of activities attributed to social movements or subcultures and contracultures;

3) geographic ties, that can sharply change the form of social networks and power relations

between the actors (O´Connor 2004: 177); 4) ties to the given music genre.

However, these common points can stem out of different premises. Appropriateness of

the concept can result from reasons referring to the present and to the external social, cultural

and technological changes tied to the globalization process (Kahn- Harris 2004: 98) or results

from revitalization of some of the theoretical approaches f. e. about the field of cultural

production or cultural capital (Bourdieu 1993, 1998)6 or „art worlds“ (Becker 1982). In the

following part, we are going to deal with the first of the foreshadowed points- the connection

of subcultures and scenes. We focus on the development of subcultural studies, where we try

to show, that whether were subcultures seen as political or non-political articulations, it is

„scene“- heterogennous social network defined by a local context can in some cases serve as

an „intermediate sphere“ (Leach and Haunss 2009: 255), where the elements of public

political and cultural spheres meet, and shape the form of social movements and subcultures

in the given area.

3. Scenes, Subcultures and Politics

The concept of „subculture“ had originally been understood as intimately linked to

5 For example Bennett and Kahn-Harris (2004: 13) use the term scene „to signify some kind of…located and subcultural space.“ 6 In case of subcultural studies we talk about a „subcultural capital“ (Thornton 1995, for critique Jensen 2006).

5

deviance and delinquency, and subcultures had been considered to be the outgrowth of the

efforts of deprived groups of the population to “obtain material and cultural rewards” (Bennett

and Kahn-Harris 2004: 4). Contrary to this understanding, the Birmingham Center for

Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) in the 1970s and 1980s understood subcultures as

part of a broader context of class relations and employed the Gramscian notion of hegemony

in order to explain their articulation practices. Subcultures came to be seen as a “spectacular

response” to the condition of class-based subordination of the British working class. This

response was not directly political; it was indirectly expressed in a particular style (Hebdige

1987) and rituals (Clarke et al. 1997). Due to its imaginary character, subcultural resistance

was unable to “alter the fundamentally class-based order of society” and remained restricted

in terms of its real-world benefits (Benett and Kahn-Harris 2004: 6).

The recent wave of subcultural research has developed its theoretical position with

reference to the so-called heroic CCCS model. This model has been criticized for offering an

overly reductive view of subcultural mobilization. According to Murdock and McCron, the

CCCS model “tends to draw too tight a relation between class location and sub-cultural style

and to underestimate the range of alternative responses” (quoted in Benett and Kahn-Harris

2004: 8). The model is thus unable to explain why youngsters in the same class position adopt

divergent life strategies. Studies in this so-called „post-subcultural“ theory have explicitly

accepted the fluid nature of recent subcultures whose identity could not be derived from class

position. At the same time, however, the post-subcultural theory has lost from sight the

potentially political character of new youth (sub)cultures and has equated them with consumer

choices in the ‘supermarket of styles’. Various notions such as “taste subcultures” (Lewis

1992: 141), “neo-tribes” (Maffesoli 1996), and “clubcultures” (Redhead et al. 1998) have

replaced the term subculture for the purpose of differentiating new collectivities from their

class-based predecessors.

Just as the CCCS model has ‘overpoliticized’ working-class subcultures by

considering everyday activities to be political in nature, post-subcultural theory has

‘underpoliticized’ the new subcultures of the early 1990s.71 Yet, for example, British (rave

and house) clubcultures in the beginning of the 1990s have provided a platform for DIY

activism in connection with the organization of street parties, protests “Reclaim the Streets”,

the Pollok Free State, No 11 Link Road campaign, and protests against Criminal Justice and

7 Both approaches have thus essentialized the actors they have studied by failing to pay due attention to actors’ articulation practices.

6

Public Order Act (McKay 1998). A very similar network of DIY activists (often connected to

the rave scene) developed within the punk/hardcore subculture. In a nutshell, just as it has

been an oversimplification to see working class subcultures as inherently political, it has been

equally wrong to see post-subcultures as inherently apolitical.

Reinterpretation of the concept of subcultures has been under way for about ten years

(Bennett and Kahn-Harris 2004, Weinzierl and Muggleton 2003 etc.) and there have been

attempts to emphasize their political activities and involvement in protest movements (StJohn

2003, Paris and Michael Ault 2004, Marchart 2003, 2004). Thus, the political basis of

subcultures is being revitalized „because they are part of much larger coalition of movements“

(Marchart 2004: 415). The neo-marxist discourse of the Birmingham school was in certain

cases supplanted by the radical-democratic discourse, that did not stress the class origin of

subcultures, but saw them as „new protest formations“ (e.g. as a part of anti-globalization

movement) and then (somewhat normatively) saw a strong pro-democratization character in it

(Marchart 2004: 419). In contrast to the above-stated, we suppose that (1) a general degree of

political articulation of subcultures cannot be determined. On the contrary, their connection to

the public sphere and the form of declarations of their demands will differ case to case,

context to context. In other words, punk/hardcore subculture will probably be more involved

in GJM than for example gothic subculture.

We also assume that (2) social movements don’t necessarily profit from the activities

of subcultures. Prevailing interpretation in social movement studies defines subcultures as

„tool-kits or repertoires from which actors select differing pieces for constructing lines of

action“ (Swidler 1989: 277), that „help to keep collective identities alive even when open

challenges to autority may not be taking place (della Porta and Diani 2006: 131) or, in the

other words, when movements are going through phases of „latency“ (Melucci 1989, 1996).

One of the arguments, that relativize this automaticly beneficial relation, is pointing to the

statement that the more closed social ties of an individual are or have concentric character, the

less readily is the individual going to accept even little different behaviour patterns or

repertoirs (Koubek 2008). If we assume expression of subcultures on a political level, the

degree of their orthodoxy or closeness in incompletely interconnected social networks with

given social movement might pose a problem. Willingness to cooperate on common project

in other way than by established modes of behaviour make the hostile action against the actor

who would be otherwise, according to his demands, relatively close to the given subculture.8

8 Particular example, which we already mentioned in our research, is the unwillingness to instrumentally-oriented logic of action that can include some activities of social movements; also, a tendency to prefer

7

In case of scenes, we not expect concentric, but intersecting social ties (Simmel 1964). In

other words, as it was already implicated, there is no single determinant, from which we could

deduce relations and internal structure of social networks. As our research shows, we can find

several more dividing axes and discursive fields that overlap but do not create a hierarchy

with a single tip. Just as some of the studies on subcultures (Wood 2003) we assume

„contextual and many layered“ identity (Haenfler 2004b: 407) inside the scenes.

And finally, (3) we assume that just scenes might be the linkage between the activities

of social movements and subcultures.9 In other words, we encounter the thesis about the

strength of weak ties here (Granovetter 1973). „Such linkages generate paradox: weak ties,

often denounced as generative of alienation are here seen as indispensable to individual´s

opportunities and to their integration into communities.“ (Granovetter 1973: 1378). Then the

more an individual is situated into persistent ties with high intensity in the given subculture,

the harder it might be to create new ties in new environment. Or conversely, our assumption

is, that in the multilayered environment of the scene, individuals carrying several „weak“ ties

to their surroundings, are actors who mediate and transport resources or repertoire in various

social networks. For this reason we are going to deal in the following text with scene as

possible source for the activity of social movements. We will also introduce second theme of

this article – DIY activism.

4. Scenes, Social Movements and DIY

Although the relevance of different concepts for social movements, where „opositional

frames and collective identities are constructed“ (Leach and Haunss 2009: 256), whether are

called „scene“, „free spaces“ (Polletta 1999), „safe spaces“ (Gamson 1996), „cultural

heavens“ (Fantasia and Hirsch 1995), „cultural laboratories“ (Mueller 1994), „submerged

networks (Melucci 1989) or „social movement communities“ (Taylor and Whittier 1992) is

often mentioned, we still don’t know enough about their inner constitution, from which their

connection to the given social movement may stem. In this chapter, we partially build on the

paper by Darcy K. Leach and Sebastian Haunss, which is important to our work for two

reasons: 1) it suggest a categorization of different types of scenes, and 2) it’s based on the

example of two local scenes (Berlin, Hamburg) in Germany. That makes it possible to

compare the outcomes of their research in different environments with certain aspects of local

unorganized action poses an obstacle for participating in NGOs, even if their demands were identical. 9 They are also sometimes seen as the extensions of social movement (Futrell, Simi a Gottschalk 2006), or subculture (Leach and Haunss 2009) environment.

8

scenes in Czech Republic, and come to conclusions about their similiarities or distinctions.

According to Leach and Haunsse scenes share three characteristics: 1) they have its

own culture 2) „the boundaries of scenes are constantly in flux“ (Leach and Haunss 2009:

259), and 3) the most important characteristic is „that it refers simultaneously to an integrated

network of both people and specific locales“ (Leach and Haunss 2009: 260). Furthermore,

scene can be created by any subculture. Some subcultural scenes are life-style oriented, others

politically, which gives them closer ties with the social movements. However that social

movement does not necessarily benefit from the connection (Leach and Haunss 2009: 259).

Contracultures, on the other hand, always imply political struggle and create scenes that are

closer to social movements. From these conclusions we can make out three types of scenes:

subcultural non-movement scenes, subcultural movement scenes and countercultural scenes.

This differentiation however poses questions, which correspond with our research of local

hardcore scene in Brno. If the main characteristic of a scene is its tie to the geographic

locality- how should we treat interconnected social networks in which for example the borders

between subcultural movement scenes and countercultural scenes might be indistinguishable

and so this distinction becomes useless? Or, from a different point of view, if scenes are most

often created in places with high density of social networks (as metropolises and big cities),

can in certain cases (or locales) emerge a scene that is rather inclusive, i.e. including both

contracultural and subcultural elements? This thesis can be further backed by situations, when

a given social movement to which a scene is/might be connected has very heterogenous

character, and is able to mobilize actors with very different backgrounds, as in the case of the

global justice movement. Then for example, DIY activism is only one of the strategies that

can be identified in a given scene. However, this strategy is also ascribed to the activities of

social movements, subcultures and contracultures. But, for some academics, do it yourself

activism makes the research difficult because its declared renouncement of participation

through official organizational structures, as its processes and mechanisms cannot be

sufficiently observed through the official channels. For these reasons we are going to give a

short summary on DIY activism and its relation to the activities of social movements and

subcultures.

The problematic of DIY activism made its way to the center of attention of both

subcultural and social movement studies in the mid-1990s. While the concept itself was not at

all new, it gained new currency due to the rise of the radical environmental and direct action

movements in Great Britain (Wall 1999, McKay 1998) and due to the mobilization of the

movement for global social justice that opposed neoliberal globalization (Klein 2001, Hardt

9

2002, Ancelovici 2002, Graeber 2002, Hardt and Negri 2000, 2004, della Porta, Tarrow

2005). The origins of the concept can be traced back at least as far as the 1960s, when it

emerged in relation to the mobilization of extra-institutional movements in the form of

squatting and direct action politics (McKay 1998: 7). According to McKay, there is a direct

link between the direct action movements of the 1960s (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament,

protests against the Vietnam War, squatting campaign of 1968-69) and the subsequent

development of DIY activism (Ibid: 7-8). This link is further demonstrated in a study of the

art and protest communities of the 1970s and 1980s (Epstein 1993) and in many contributions

to the theory of new social movements (NSM) (Melluci 1989, 1996, Cohen and Arato 1992,

Eder 1993).

The fast social transformation in the last decades of the 20th century has made

research on DIY activism timely and important for two major reasons. The first is the general

shift towards postmaterialism in industrially developed societies (Inglehart 1991). As the

theory of NSM has already aptly pointed out, this shift has changed the agenda of major social

conflicts in Western countries, making it possible for social movements to focus on lifestyle

choices rather than on mobilization in pursuit of major political change.

Subcultural/contracultural participation has thus become an alternative way of doing politics.

The second reason for the increased significance of research on DIY activism has been

the feeling, generally shared during the 1980s and the 1990s, that the old radical politics no

longer has the capacity to counter the forces of capitalist globalization (see also Cisar 2005).

The struggle for autonomy and authenticity characteristic of DIY ethics has provided one

possible response against the alienating forces of economic globalization and the global

spread of consumer culture (see also Hardt and Negri 2000, 2004). As a result, the theme of

DIY protest politics has been taken on by social, political, and cultural studies positioned at

the intersection of academic work and activism. More specifically, the DIY problematic has

been addressed in studies focused on rave clubcultures (Redhead 1998), punk

subculture/counterculture (O’Connor 2003, 2004a, 2004b), straightedge hardcore (Wood

1999, 2003, Haenfler 2004a), political mobilization of radical environmental groups (McKay

1998), autonomous movement, and anti/alter-globalization movements (Hardt and Negri

2004).

Although DIY activism has become an established issue in mainstream academic

discourse, its application faces several problems. The concept of DIY is too ambiguous to

carry a definite meaning. In different cases it can refer to different phenomena, including

culture and the politics of everyday life, anti-authoritarian struggles, anarchist elements in

10

political mobilization, resistance against consumerism and corporate culture, resistance

against institutionalized politics, collective identity building, subcultural lifestyles. The

heterogeneity of the concept is further demonstrated by the plurality of its manifestations, e.g.

squats, alternative community centers, street parties, demonstrations, direct actions, musical

festivals, underground concerts, infoshops, fair trade stores, provision of food for homeless

people (O‘Doherty et al. 1997, McKay 1998). As a result, it is virtually impossible to pinpoint

the concept’s exact relation to notions such as social movement, subculture, counterculture,

and community. In this paper, therefore, we limit the meaning of the concept to a particular

ethics that informs the activities of movements striving for autonomy and independence from

the dominant consumer-oriented society.

Now follows the third point which is usually connected with the concept of scene. It is

its geographic anchoring and the need to examine scenes in their local context. We have to

mention the specific conditions that can be observed in the area of Czech Republic. The

account is not complete, but we hope that the pointed-out facts represent the pecularities of

Central Eastern European context.

5. Scenes and Local Particularities: „Alive in the Land of the Dead“

Case studies analyzing given local scene are quite frequent (Stahl 2004, Bennett

2002), but we can also find less geographically anchored works examining „scene" as a

branched social network around a musical genre (e.g. here black metal or extreme metal

(Kahn-Harris 2004a, 2004b). Nevertheless, even these are connected to the phenomena, that

are specific to the given area and are not transferable to other geographical locale.10 The ties

to the local context are, if we go back a little to Leach and Haunsse (2009: 260), „perhaps the

most distinctive feature of scene… and geographic aspect of scenesis expressed in the fact

that they form around recognized scene locations—meeting places like bars, clubs, parks,

street corners, and so on. in recognized parts of town—where being part of the scene can be

physically experienced and the signifiers of membership can be enacted and validated.“ There

is one location missing in this account of possible scene locations. The authors did not

mention it here, but they point out its influence in their case studies on Berlin and Hamburg.

In both cities, there can be identified a strong presence of autonomously occupied

10 In case od black metal scene (Kahn-Harris 2004a) the object of interest is understandably Norway, especially the first half of the 90s and groups like „Inner circle“ or „Black Metal Mafia“, whose excesses that took form of terrorist actions (burning churches, torturing and murders of priests) are tied to specific temporal and geographical constelations, that are hard to imagine elsewhere in this scope (although there are different opinions– see Mareš 2004), these however point to the connection of black metal scene with radical right-wing extremism.

11

buildings/zones, squats or AJZs (Autonomes Jugendzentrums). We do not intend to simplify

specifics of individual scenes to this factor, but the very limited existence of such spaces,

which provide relatively stable background for function of social networks in the given locale,

is probably one of the most prominent perceiveable differences from scenes of Czech

Republic and Central Eastern Europe respectively (with possible exeption of Poland). Squats

Rote Flora, Köpi and districts like Kreutzberg are the focal points (epicentres) in Berlin just as

well as in Hamburg (Leach and Haunss 2009: 264- 266). Does the nigh non-existence of

squatting in Czech Republic influence the form of scenes, that are through various means

connected to the social movements? What form do the mentioned „scene locations“ have here

and what is their role?

Currently, the only spaces with the status of a squat in Czech Republic are the Milada

villa in Prague (along with its surroundings – the Miluška villa). We can however identify

places that have a „semi-autonomous“ status, in that they have been occupied but then, after

an agreement with local institutions, authorities or magistrates, the inhabitants of these

buildings started to pay a symbolic fee for the rent or energy.. That is true for example with

the Vrah centre in Rožnov pod Radhoštěm, club Futra in Orlová or ending Liberté in Český

Těšín. The history of squatting in Czech Republic is longer though. Attempts to occupy

buildings were concentrated mostly in Prague. Probably the most known was squat called

Landronka (1993 – 2003), another centre of activities was Papírna, partly because of the

presence of Jakub Polák (ČSAF). Papírna was evicted in December 18th 2003. Other centres

include Sochorka (1992 – 1997, the spaces were however legalized after an agreement with

Praha 7 municipality) and Zenklovka (1997 – 1998, which had to be evicted on the demand of

the owner of the building, a protest action and occupation of the vestibule of the Main

Railway-Station ensued, along with giving out food to homeless people within the Food not

Bombs initiative). The situation in Brno was more complicated, mainly because of faster and

harder attitude of the police and city authorities. The most escalated case was probably the

one of Nová Zahrada squat in Porhajmova street (August 1997- November 1997). The

officers of the riot unit of Brno police first insulted the squatters, then locked them up into a

single room and threw a tear gas grenade in.11 Other attempts (some of the cases were more of

a demonstrative) to occupy buildings in Brno were short-lived. Squats in Francouzská street,

Tuřany, Pisárky and Kociánka did not last longer than a month before being evicted.

Generally, we can say that autonomous zones are created mainly in the first half of the

11 Saying: „To the gas chamber with you!“

12

90s (Růžička 2006). Conversely most of the remaining occupied buildings in Czech Republic

were evicted since 2002 (e.g. 2002- Šafránka, 2003- Papírna, Ladronka). Similar development

is perceivable in Western Europe, but the squatter/autonomous movement had been more

etabled in this area and the wave of repressions did not have such a severe impact as in Czech

Republic. These restrictions can be of course related to the changes in the political

opportunity structure (POS) (Tarrow 1998, Meyer 2004), that were set of by the attacks on

WTC in USA on September 11th 2001 and following counter-terrorist legislative measures.

These were in some cases used as means to restricting or closing down autonomous zones in

Denmark, Germany and Italy in an attempt to restrict/eliminate the ativities of GJM.

Based on a long-term participated research in German and Czech realities, we can

suppose that absence of squats, independent artist spaces and AJZs can to a certain extent

change the form of social networks that constitute the environment of the scene. In most of

these places, there exist internal rules of conduct that are shared by their inhabitants and that

also often include specific conditions of cooperation with other subjects. Around these

neuralgic nodes of the scene, groups with clearly stated agendas, that preclude broader

cooperation within the scene, are formed. Sure, such enclosement of social relations can be

found in Czech environment too. In Czech Republic, however, these networks are limited to

spaces that are not in the care of persons from the same network or related subcultures and

social movements. Transmissivity of these spaces and fluctuation of people is higher, than in

relatively closed environment of squats. Similary, the impossibility to fully adapt the rules of

their function to the conditions of the scene may lead to higher circulations of persons

involved. Because of instability, short durations and constant changing of the „scenes

locations“, the local social networks are often heterogennous and able to absorb different

types of actors, who can cooperate on common projects even though their opinions may vary.

In part, the theory of strenght of weak ties comes to mind again.

6. Scenes and Music Styles

In the introductory chapter, we defined four main points12, that are shared by most of

the authors using the concept of scene. The last point– the tie of the scene to a given musical

genre – seems to be the most problematic, at least in the environment of Czech Republic. As

our research shows, way in which is the given genre operationalized by inividual actors,

influences their civil participation and may vary greatly. In many cases it is but a common

12 Heterogennous character and connection to subcultures, interconnection of political and cultural levels, ties to a given locale and ties to given musical genre.

13

denominator with various content. Moreover, its unified form would be refused by the

individuals in different discursive fields of the scene. For this reason we will treat the musical

scene not as a basic condition, but a probability matrix of emergence of social networks,

which crystalize geographically as well as ideologically and have a changeable character

which stems out of temporally-limited dominant and subordinate poles of the scene discourse.

Until now we discussed individual aspects of the concept of scene and tried to show its

connection with subcultural and social movements studies. Now we will introduce and shortly

comment on the working definition of scene we are going to use in the research, which is

described in the second part of the paper.

7. Working Definition

Meanwhile, we purposedly avoided one question. Even when subcultures are recently

increasingly seen as heterogeneous fields with permeable boundaries that enable continuous

communication between the subculture and its enviroment, we are still speaking about scene

in this paper for several reasons: 1) our research took place in a geographically enclosed

locale and we can assume that in different locales the form and mutual relation of discursive

fields will change, in dependence on the actual opportunity structure. Thus our primary

interest lies in a social formation that reflects all these geographical differences. This allows

us to examine the composition of discursive fields on an exemple without unwanted

generalization; 2) second, no less important, reason is, that we can in individual discursive

fields encounter a shared identity to particular social networks in the given locale, but not to

one particular subculture or social movement. On the contrary, we can often encounter a

demonstrative renouncement of the given subculture or instrumental using of the resources

offered by the subculture (or the movement) but without any identification with it. Our case

study will reveal this multivocal character of the so-called autonomous hardcore scene in

South- Moravian region. This scene blends the cultural and political aspects of activism in at

least four different ways that determine the likelihood of ‘hardcore kids’ explicitly engaging

in political participation.

Thus we understand a scene as geographically determinated social networks of

individuals and groups which coexist, interacting with each other withnin a variety of

trajectories of differentiation in the network of special locations. These different social

networks do not necessarily share same beliefs, norms, values or life-style apart from

awareness of belonging to the particular social networks in the given locale. In broader sense,

it means that scenes can be created not only by subcultures – they can be identified for

14

example in the sports and business fields. Of course, these scenes often lack closer connection

to social movements, just as the movements are not connected to all the scenes that surround

the subcultures (Leach and Haunss 2009: 259). Our case study of „hardcore“13 scene

in Southern Moravian region14 however has these overlaps thanks to the DIY activism and

political participation, although one of the main questions of the article is, what is their form

and what does the inner structure of the scene look like.

8. Contentious Conversation in Social Movement Theory 15

As we already stated, the goal of this paper is to demonstrate on an example the

internal differentiation of discursive fields within the scene. By the term „discursive field“ we

mean dynamic terrain in which the struggles for meaning take place (Steinberg 1999: 748).

These fields are historically and contextually dependent, partially structured through

hegemony, and vocabularies, symbols and meanings in them are dialogic (Steinberg 1998:

856), while they are not directly determining these meanings and values, rather forming the

limits of action and instruments of its creation (Spillman 1995: 140). „Discursive fields

emerge or evolve in the course of discussion of and debate about contested issues and events,

and encompass not only cultural materials (e.g. beliefs, values, ideologie, myths and

narratives, primary frameworks), but also various set sof actors whose interest are aligned,

albeit differentially, with the contested issues or events, and who thushave a stake in what is

done or not done about those issues and events.“ (Snow 2004: 402). In this broader cultural

context16 we can identify frames- „interpretative scheme that simplifies and condenses the

„world out there“ by selectively punctuating and encoding objects, situations, events,

experiences and sequences of action“ (Snow a Benford 1986: 137). Although it is not our goal

to classify particular frames, only to identify the differences in the cultural context –

discursive fields, we need to elaborate a bit on their function. These discursive frames are

usually depicted as symbolic devices that underpin collective action and help sustain it in

time. Since frames are strategic devices employed by political actors in a discursive struggle

within a particular field of interaction, they are essentially contested. However, although

frame theorists stress the dynamic and contentious character of framing, according to some

13 We will use this term in following text, as other possible adjectives as „Brno’s“ or „Brno’s autonomous“ refer to broader social networks than those we focus on in this paper. 14 Although, because of different definitions thereof , it is hard to specify whether it stems from subcultural or contracultural base, both factors are present. 15 The title paraphrases Tilly’s “Contentious Conversation” (Tilly 1998). 16 Called „discursive oportunity structure“ by the structuralists (Koopmans and Statham 1999).

15

critics they tend to conceptualize the processes of framing and counter-framing as if they

occurred “between relatively modular and synchronic packages” (Steinberg 1999: 739). They

thus see contentious interaction as if it were taking place between ready-made sets of

meanings, between clearly delimited actors with predetermined identities and interests, as if it

were a clash of two enclosed positions in a billiard-ball manner. Such an understanding,

however, fails to do justice to the inherent “multivocality of collective action discourse”

(Ibid.: 740) and underestimates the possibility of frames’ transformation and change.

Contrary to this understanding, Marc Steinberg proposes a more dynamic – dialogic –

analysis of social movements’ discourse that emphasizes its multivocal character: “Discourse

… is best perceived as a multivocal practice; any communication likely has more than one

meaning for the participants” (Steinberg 2002: 211). When we take this perspective,

movements emerge as discursive fields that are internally highly structured and never

hegemonized by a single set of meanings. According to Steinberg (1998, 1999, 2002, 2004),

there are different genres continuously developing in every collectivity and interacting with

each other as well as with the external environment. The meaning of a movement is always a

temporary result of endless conversations taking place within the collectivity and between its

segments and other spheres of society. There is no fixed identity of an actor; there is just

complex interplay of interpretations that help to construct a movement’s identity.

Steinberg arrives at a position largely similar to that characteristic of some

contemporary scene theorists: “a dialogic analysis focuses on multiple and temporal

relationships in the construction of oppositional genres rather than the more bipolar and

dichotomous depictions offered by subcultural theory…” (Steinberg 2004: 11). These

theorists, too, depict the studied collectivities as complex social fields connected to other

social spheres and at the same time internally structured. In this respect, both perspectives

manage to overcome the dichotomized model of political interaction (subculture versus

mainstream, authorities versus challengers) that characterizes the CCCS model (subcultural

theory) and the theory of social movements (political process model, framing studies). In this

paper we contend that one cannot understand the dynamics of ‘scenes’ unless one takes notice

of these theoretical developments. There is no homogeneous and clearly delimited hardcore

scene in the Czech Republic; there is, however, a highly structured discursive field defined by

several different genres that have important implications for the political mobilization

potential of the individual participants in the scene. The next sections of the paper further

develop this basic argument.

16

9. Methodology

Data for our research was collected (a.) during a long-term participant observation

inside the Czech hardcore scene, and (b.) during 15 semi-structured interviews (each

approximately 90 minutes long). The group of respondents consisted of scene participants at

the age between 20 and 32 years, 10 men and 5 women, involved in several types of activities

(organizers of concerts and protest activities, musicians, fans) and in different stages of

involvement (newcomers, insiders, dropouts). The names of respondents were altered due to

fear of possible sanction. Each interview was centered on the respondent’s attitude towards

DIY, his/her definition of DIY and the role DIY plays in his/her activities, the respondent’s

attitude towards active protest participation (or his/her conceptualization of active protest

participation), and the possible participant’s involvement in NGOs. The interviews were

conducted in the Czech Republic, mostly in the region of South Moravia between fall 2005

and spring 2006.

In order to make it possible to analyze the transformations of the scene during the

period of post-communism, we have researched relevant web servers (czechcore.cz,

freemusic.cz, diycore.net, diy.freetekno.cz) and printed zines that were published in the Czech

Republic between 1990 and 2005 (e.g. A-Kontra, Agaila, Call for Justice, Different Life,

Dooms Day, Do or Die, Fragile, Hluboká orba, Impregnate, Killed by Noise, Komunikace,

Malárie, Minority, Move Your Ass!, Oslí uši, Slzy na rtech/Private View of Slavery,

XenslavementX). This research has been supported by supplementary research of some

Slovak (www.prasopal.sk, sxehc.sk, www.hard-core.sk) and Polish (www.hard-core.pl)

Internet sites. Similarly, we have included relevant articles from Slovak (Biosphere, Ya

Basta!, LimoKid), German (Abolishing the Borders from Below), British (Reason to Believe)

and US-based (Harbinger, Heartattack, Inside Front, Maximum Rock´n´Roll, Profane

Existence Short, Fast and Loud) zines.

10. The Hardcore Scene in the Czech Republic: A Conceptual Map

What is hardcore? The answer to this question would always betray the respondent’s

involvement not only in the scene, but also in political activism generally. According to one

perspective: “The basis of HC [hardcore] is the idea of D.I.Y (do-it-yourself) that is based on

the maximal rejection of the music business … HC is therefore one form of struggle, it is a

lifestyle (do not confuse it with the style of dressing), which is tightly connected with the

17

animal rights movement, the anarchist, environmental, and anti-fascist movements, squatting,

etc.” (zine Different Life, November-December 1995). Indeed, the interconnectedness among

DIY, autonomous protest movement, and the underground hardcore scene is very common in

the Czech Republic (and not only there). At the same time, we shall see that there is no

singular way of defining the hardcore scene. The ‘political’ reading represented by the above

quote is just one of the possible ways in which the scene can relate to the broader world of

social and political mobilization.

We conceptualize the hardcore scene in Brno as a discursive field. The boundaries that

separate the scene “from the inauthentic and commercial are understood as porous and

permeable, requiring constant policing through the ongoing process of classifying and

reclassifying certain ‘tastes’ as legitimate” (Weinzierl and Muggleton 2003: 10). ‘Debates’

that define the exact meaning of the hardcore scene to its members are continuously going on

within this field. These debates also determine the relationship of scene members to other

social spheres, including the sphere of politics. We propose to depict the major conflict lines

of the debates going on within the Czech hardcore scene as two continuums – the first one is

formed by the axis of commodification and the second one by the axis of politicization (see

figure 2).

The Axis of Commodification

One of the major issues that constitute the first dividing line in the field is whether it is

legitimate to accept musical records that are in style similar to records produced in a DIY

fashion but are products of the so-called major labels (the so-called „Big 4“: Sony BMG,

EMI, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group). Such records are produced by

subdivisions of big companies that used to be independent labels but have been co-opted by

the major labels to scout potentially interesting and successful groups for them. In the Czech

Republic this debate started off already in the beginning of the 1990s (see zines Malárie,

Different Life, Euthanasie) and mirrored similar debates abroad. The debate has been going

on since then without declining in intensity.

Those who argue in favor of accepting major labels claim that these labels provide

music groups with better conditions for creative work and better financial conditions. Major

labels are in addition appreciated for their ability to make the final product widely available

on the international market: “It is undisputable that in major labels the production determines

the impression the record leaves. In most cases, the records are perfectly produced, they have

superb sound and sophisticated booklet – they are perfect there where DIY labels cannot be

18

because they lack money” (Contribution to the Internet debate at czechcore.cz, Dec 12, 2004).

Advocates of major labels do not fear the commercialization of hardcore; on the contrary,

they see it as a way of improving the quality of production.

The process of commercialization of (part of) hardcore has been taking place since the

beginning of the 1990s, and has been related to the boom of alternative/grunge groups from

Seattle, USA. The big companies, however, have not incorporated these alternative groups to

the dominant cultural code, as the CCCS model would have it. On the contrary, the groups

have been encouraged to preserve their alternative character and have not been asked to

change either music or lyrics (the most well-known example was the American band Rage

Against the Machine). Together with their fan bases, these groups were then included into the

big firms’ commercial empires and have thus constituted new market segment, as well as a

new segment in the dominant cultural code. This development has presented the ‘hardcore

kids’ with a dilemma. Had it been a simple case of incorporation, the attitude would probably

be clear: outright rejection. Yet, the differentiated inclusion of hardcore bands in the show

business has been a more complicated issue and it has served to deepen the division between

sympathizers and critics of marketization. While sympathizers have renounced DIY principles

(and, as a result, have disconnected the cultural and the political dimensions of hardcore),

critics have insisted on the indisputable significance of DIY for the self-definition of hardcore

culture.

Critics of major labels emphasize the process and the background of the production of

a record and their wider consequences: “So, what is the difference between “our” DIY scene –

the underground – and the mainstream? Is it not precisely philosophy and politics? If it is no

longer important whether there are contracts or not, whether there is someone making profit

or not, on which stage the show takes place, whether it is about music and not about

philosophy/politics, so what’s the meaning of the words’ underground’ and ‘independent’? In

what respect is it still ‘hardcore’?” (Contribution to the Internet debate at czechcore.cz, Dec

13, 2004) “DIY is an axiom of hardcore punk. It defines this subculture. Go on driveling

about boundaries whatever you wish. For me personally, the boundary lies before and behind

ethics and behavior in general.” (Contribution to the Internet debate at czechcore.cz, Feb 16,

2005).

To sum up, the first division line in the hardcore field can be understood as a

continuum where the two extremes are formed by divergent conceptions of the quality of a

record – the conception of quality as a product (the stress is put on sound and design) and the

conception of quality as a process of creation (the stress is primarily put on the underground

19

dimension of production and DIY ethics). The product – process axis of commercialization in

figure 1 depicts this division line.

The Axis of Politicization

Yet another fault line in the hardcore field brings about internal conflict. This fault line

is a continuum between, on the one side, an instrumental understanding of art production as a

tool of political activism and, on the other side, an emotional understanding centered on

individual needs and identity. This internal division in the field is depicted by the identity –

politics line in figure 1. We see this line as an axis of politicization. The instrumental

understanding is demonstrated by one of our respondents, an active member of a hardcore

band and an organizer of INPEG (the organization that coordinated the protests against the

joint meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Prague in 2000),

who claims: “…I think that this group on a major label that sings a song, the name of which I

do not remember, about challenging gender roles, might in a way be more political and can

have a much bigger political impact than a DIY hardcore group“ (Interview Vladimir, Brno,

Feb 20, 2006). The identity-based understanding is illustrated by an organizer of DIY concerts

in Brno who describes his activities as follows: “…for me it is important to do it myself

without contracts, because it is based on trust between the group and the organizer. The

principle is important for me. It is equally important for me that there is no money involved in

it. It would not suit me to organize bigger concerts … However, I do not see anything political

in this“ (Interview Ivan, Brno, Dec 21, 2005).

The combination of the axis of commercialization and the axis of politicization gives

us a conceptual map of the discursive field of the Brno hardcore scene (see figure 2). The map

is formed by four quadrants that depict four different social clusters grouped behind different

discursive genres. As figure 2 demonstrates, there are four ways in which an individual can

relate to the broader discursive field of hardcore. In our understanding they describe different

modes of participation in the broader social setting of the scene. Sector II is close to the logic

of action of subcultures, sector III to the logic of instrumentally-oriented activism, and sector

IV to the countercultural logic of action. Sector I depicts a commercialized subcultural

segment of society that does not provide any specific platform for political mobilization. In

general, the individual’s way of identification with the discursive field of hardcore has

important repercussions for his/her communication with mainstream society and especially

with the political sphere.

20

Figure 2: The Conceptual Map of the Hardcore Scene in the Czech Republic

individual identity

Sector I: Sector II:

Hardcore as a Style, Hardcore as a Subculture,

Music, Entertainment Alternative Lifestyle

product process/DIY

Sector III: Sector IV:

Hardcore as a Recruitment Hardcore as a Counterculture

Base for Instrumentally-

Oriented Activism

politics

Inter-sectoral relations

The map of the hardcore scene in Brno is formed by four sectors. We shall offer

detailed descriptions of these sectors and analyze their relation to DIY activism. We start off,

however, by analyzing inter-sectoral relations. In general, there is an open communication

between sectors located next to each other but there is little communication between sectors

that are located diagonally. Communication between sectors I and II is based on the

individualized way of participation that both sectors share and on common elements in their

general conceptualization of hardcore as a music subculture rather than as a political

enterprise. Sectors II and IV on their part share a belief in the prominent importance of DIY.

Although they define its role in somewhat different terms, it provides them with a common

21

framework of communication. The existing communication channels between sectors III and

IV are propped up by the sometimes overlapping political agenda of the two sectors. Sectors I

and III are connected by much less developed channels.

The described formula of inter-sectoral relations shows, that we cannot identify the

collective identity based on shared beliefs or ideas. Such scene’s ‘identity’ is defined by

several inter-sectoral overlaps that do not necessarily encompass all scene members.

Geographical proximity and sharing of the same physical space is, however, the base that

makes it possible to form ties to particular social networks of the actors. At the same time,

shared location in certain cases allows creation of weak ties between particular segments and

surroundings that can work as connecting spaces for activity of other social formations, e.g.

social movements.

In such a setting, the key role is played by those individuals that are embedded in more

than one sector because they create and support inter-sectoral communication channels.

As we have already argued, there is little communication between sectors that are

positioned diagonally. Sector I is the complete opposite of sector IV. While sector I can be

largely characterized as an apolitical commercial adolescent subculture, sector IV claims to

represent politicized alternative ethics that differ from both the commercial mainstream and

‘politics as usual’. For those located in sector IV, individuals in sector I are part of what they

wish to distance themselves from; in fact, they are even deemed more dangerous than the

‘normal’ mainstream because they attempt to present themselves as an alternative. For those

in sector IV, sector I is a sector of posers.

Similarly, there is small cooperation between sectors II and III. Individuals in sector II

(often belonging to the older generation) often express skepticism and aversion towards the

political and ideological agitation (with a radical left orientation) characteristic of sector III

(see the definition of sector III below). This differentiation is very strongly pronounced in the

post-communist context of the Czech Republic, as scene members from the older generation

tend to associate political agitation with the political agitation orchestrated by the old

communist regime. Such a tendency is in fact typical for the whole society and is not a unique

characteristic of the hardcore scene (see Howard 2002, 2003). The divergence between

sectors II and III is thus the result of a generational rift within the scene: “I remember one

major ‘accident’ when XXX was not able to digest certain politically-engaged lyrics; actually,

it was a bit too much for me as well. It is understandable when you have had that Bolshevik

turning even toilet paper into political agitation; it was difficult to listen how a band from the

West explicitly expresses something that by virtue of its rhetoric was similar to that Bolshevik

22

crap. I think this was a major problem for that older generation.” (zine Hluboka orba, no.

25/2005, 104)

To sum up, sectors that are positioned next to each other share certain common

frameworks of understanding that serve as a basis of a collective identity; sectors positioned

diagonally share nothing of this kind. In the next subsection we turn to the characteristics of

the four sectors and the sectors’ relationship to DIY.

Hardcore Scene Sectors and DIY

The following part of our case study argues that DIY activism plays a very different

role in the different clusters in the scene. More specifically, sectors II and IV tend to identify

themselves with DIY activism.

Sector I is formed by those individuals that emphasize product and identity, which

means that they identify themselves with the scene first of all through musical style and

informal networks formed around cultural activities such as concerts, journals, festivals.

There is almost no room for politically motivated messages. These individuals are not striving

very eagerly to differentiate themselves from the mainstream. For them, the division between

underground and mainstream is a thing of the past: “… all those people who are interested in

punk and hardcore and who speculate on why it is so that this band is on a major label and

that one is not, and who are trying to define what DIY is and what it is not – I would like to

tell them that they are stuck in history...” (newsletter Move Your Ass, 16. 6. 2005, 20). Their

identity is based on a particular musical style and broader friendship networks ‘attached’ to

the scene. Their participation in hardcore is very individualized, focused on personal

fulfillment and self-realization. The salience of this sector has increased as a result of the

above-mentioned commercialization of part of the hardcore scene in the 1990s.

Individuals in this sector do not base their activities (such as political participation) on

DIY principles. The quality of their participation is broadly similar to that which we observe

in sector II, the major difference being the lack of DIY ethics in sector I. Individuals located

in this sector are open to a dialogue with mainstream society and, as a result, their pattern of

political participation closely resembles that of the rest of society. Their identification with

hardcore is mediated through a particular musical taste that does not translate into political

stances. For them, culture and politics are two different and unrelated things.

Sector III is formed by individuals whose relationship to the hardcore scene is rather

instrumentally oriented. Their motivation for politically oriented activities and citizens’

participation comes primarily from areas that are not directly related to DIY and to the

23

hardcore community. The sector includes activists that organize political protests and

demonstrations and whose relationship to the hardcore scene and DIY is only latent. For

them, the scene is just one potential recruitment base for political activism. The activists’

ideological attitude correlates with DIY in relation to anti-authoritarianism and radical

democracy, but, at the same time, DIY is not in the center of their activities. DIY principles

are only secondary to the political impact of their activities. In this respect, the activists that

make up sector III are very loosely embedded in the hardcore scene.

These scene members deem it acceptable for a band to go commercial in an attempt to

address wider audience and to thus enhance its political impact (e.g. The International Noise

Conspiracy, Chumbawamba, Rage Against the Machine, Against Me). According to one

respondent: “The DIY principle is probably important, but it is not crucial for me… [T]hat

group [The International Noise Conspiracy] is thoroughly political, they are throwing in the

word capitalism in every second song. And I accept their argument that on a major label they

would have the chance to address more people. Bands that say that DIY is crucial for them

and that they would never go for a major label are “clean” in their message, but, at the same

time, they enclose themselves and forego additional opportunities [to disseminate their

attitudes].” (Interview Vladimir, Brno, Feb 20, 2006) All in all, the product (in this case –

political mobilization, demonstration, lobbying, etc.) is much more important than the way of

‘production’, be it DIY or not. Citizens’ participation in this sector is not directly related to

DIY.

DIY is a key element in citizens’ participation for the individuals belonging to sectors

II and IV. Both of these sectors are based on DIY principles as opposed to the product

principles typical of sector I (where the product is a record) and sector III (where the product

is political action). The main difference between sector II and sector IV, however, is to be

found in their conceptualization of DIY. In sector IV, the meaning of DIY is given by its

concrete political impact. DIY acquires a primarily political meaning; it is understood as part

of political action and is framed in an ideological language. DIY ethics is understood as a way

of changing the broader social structures. In contrast, in sector II DIY is rather part of

participants’ lifestyle choices and personal identity. In this sector, DIY ethics has no political

meaning; it has impact only at a personal and emotional level.

Our respondents’ involvement in protest activities illustrates well the difference

between the two sectors. Individuals located in sector II typically participate in protests and

demonstrations that are already planned and organized. They provide logistical support, i.e.

they support activities such as transportation or preparation and distribution of materials. One

24

respondent described his role in protest activities in the following way: “for example, I

participated in the production of banners for a demonstration… in general, I’ve been involved

in the technical support of such events”

(Interview Ivan, Brno, Dec 21, 2005). Individuals in sector II prefer such a repertoire of action

that does not call for a long-term involvement in a concrete organization or network of

activists but that rather provides support for those in sector IV who are actively engaged in

organization and mobilization for concrete projects. Participation is thus highly individualized

and focused on the participant’s personal need to demonstrate a positive attitude towards

protest activities. Respondents in sector IV, in contrast, participate directly in organizational

work; they are fully involved in concrete political and social activities such as organization of

demonstrations and the building of community centers (e.g. the Liberté center in Český Těšín,

Futra in Orlova or Vrah in Roznov pod Radhostem were built with the help of people from the

hardcore scene).

This section focused on internal divisions and discursive dynamics within the scene. In

the next section, we turn to the scene’s external relations to its broader social environment.

More specifically, we focus on the relationship of different segments of the scene to the

sphere of NGO-based political activism.

11. Participation in NGOs

The differences between the sectors are clearly identifiable when it comes to

instrumentally-oriented participation in NGOs. The different sectors of the hardcore scene

have different relationship to NGO-based participation. Sector I is in a way apolitical and so

there is no analytically relevant relation between this sector and NGO activism. Sector III is

primarily formed by political activists and their mobilized followers, who take active part in

NGO activism. However, it is politicized in its own way without any explicit and relevant

relation to hardcore or DIY.

Let us now turn to sectors II and IV. Respondents in sector II express uneasiness with

organized membership in NGOs. The most important reasons for their non-involvement are

the hierarchical and excessively complex way of decision-making typical of NGOs and the

ensuing fear of losing their voice in such complicated structures. One of them (27 year-old,

organizer of hardcore shows in Brno) added: “I started attending the meetings [of one NGO]

and saw that they consisted of three-hour long quarrels over complete crap, and then I

realized that it was going nowhere and that my priorities were somewhere else, not in

25

spending this way three hours every day” (Interview Ivan, Brno, Dec 21, 2005). Other

respondents expressed similar views: “I did not participate in these organizations because I

did not agree with some concrete individuals, even though I was sympathetic to the overall

conception of the particular NGO; also, I did not like all that labeling and organizing. All this

simply did not appeal to me, it was important for me to work with people whom I knew and

who were my friends”

(Interview Boris, Brno, March 21, 2006). Our research revealed that individuals in this sector

shared a rather negative view on instrumental participation in NGOs. At most they have been

willing to support NGO campaigns and projects; they have never got involved as active

organizational cadres.

Respondents located in sector IV take the opposite stance. In the Czech Republic there

have been several cases when the local hardcore scene in a particular city or a town has

created a local branch of an NGO. For example, the local chapters of the environmental

organization NESEHnuti (Independent Social Environmental Movement) in Boskovice and

Napajedla were densely linked with the local hardcore scenes. The activities of the activist

group Cabaret Voltaire in North Bohemia are likewise interlinked with the hardcore scene. On

the other hand, the abovementioned local branches of NESEHnuti did not last long. The

involved individuals from the hardcore scene gradually withdrew, causing the collapse of the

local chapters or forcing big changes in membership. These outcomes, however, were not

caused by internal developments in the respective local hardcore scenes. They were rather the

effect of the organizational development of NESEHnuti. The organization started out as a

grassroots movement that lacked a clear organizational structure and hierarchy. However,

with the initial stage of development completed, there was a need to develop a more

sophisticated managerial structure that necessarily meant bureaucratization and

professionalization of the organization. The organization lost the appeal of a decentralized and

loosely organized activist network and ceased to be attractive to activists who valued direct

action and DIY and could thus not tolerate NESEHnuti’s decision to follow in the steps of

other bureaucratized NGOs. These examples demonstrate that there are always potential

tensions in the relationship between DIY and NGO-based political participation.

DIY activism is much more compatible with various forms of direct action movement

that are often directly linked with the countercultural sector of the scene. DIY is a crucial

component of this movement; in fact, the direct action movement is often regarded as the

predecessor of DIY activism (Munro 2005, McKay 1998). The repertoire of direct action

debated and supported by part of the hardcore scene includes activities such as Food Not

26

Bombs (distribution of free food to homeless people), consumers’ boycotts, squatting, street

parties and radical environmental protection. Further, the veganism and vegetarianism that

characterize some components of the hardcore scene (especially the straightedge movement)

provide an ideological platform for radical animal rights activists who occasionally attack

vivisection laboratories and big farms. Although there is only a handful of such activists in the

Czech Republic and they operate in complete secrecy, their activities are generally accepted

in the hardcore scene. Subject to debate are only the means of action they choose and, above

all, the issue of the acceptability of violence as a tool of political activism.

Individuals in sectors II, III, and IV display a tendency to take part in direct action.

Their motivation is, however, very different. Those in sector III are motivated instrumentally

and consider direct action as just one possible tactics in the broader repertoire available to

political activists. For them, direct action is complementary to NGO-based activism and they

are willing to take part in both. In contrast, sectors II and IV are skeptical of NGO-based

activism. Individuals in sector II participate in direct action on the basis of interpersonal

friendship networks and do not show any evidence of explicit ideological commitment.

Individuals in sector IV, on the other hand, get involved in direct action on the basis of

ideological motivation.

For sector IV, direct action is not just one possible way of doing activist work; it is the

only real alternative to mainstream politics. It is the only segment of the hardcore scene that

embraces DIY as a political principle and recoils from NGO-based activism, which it deems

inherently ineffective, mired in endless discussion, and incapable of bringing about real

changes in society. This stance has been reinforced during the 1990s due to the

professionalization of many originally activist NGOs (as in the example of NESEHnuti

above). As a result, for the last fifteen years DIY activism has been alienated from the

mainstream NGO-based activism that has been gradually institutionalizing throughout this

period and has largely become part of the standard political business.

12. The Development of communication in the Hardcore Scene

In the beginning of the 1990s, the Czech hardcore scene was formed by a tight

friendship network. Today, as the conceptual map suggests, it contains highly differentiated

social clusters: “I think that [the period of the first half of the 1990s and today] just cannot be

compared. Nowadays it is completely different, there is a bunch of variously connected people

capable of arranging things, locations where you can make a show. These opportunities did

27

not exist before. It used to be impossible to organize events without the help of acquaintances,

and so if you did not know anybody, it was hard to do anything” (Interview Kristina, Brno,

April 1, 2006). The gradual expansion of the scene, however, weakened the originally strong

social ties that were constitutive of Czech hardcore in the first half of the 1990s. This was

related to two developments.

On the one hand, one part of the scene has been gradually commercialized and has

opened up to new external influences (see the subsection The Axis of Commodification above

for a more comprehensive information). On the other hand, the use of the Internet has

changed the communication infrastructure of the scene.17 We argue that to a large extent it has

been the development of the Internet that has made it possible for the scene to internally

diversify. According to one respondent, the Internet has clearly helped to broaden the group

of active scene members: “… it used to be just the selected few that were able to organize

concerts because they had contact with the band or had its phone number. Now you can find

tour dates on the website and it is possible to contact the group or the booking agency, etc.”

(Interview Ivan, Brno, Dec 21, 2005). Online information and Internet-facilitated international

contacts have reduced the salience of interpersonal networks and has provided an impetus for

internal differentiation within the scene and for the formation of the four different sectors.

We do not argue that the Internet has mobilized uninvolved individuals to join the

hardcore scene or embrace DIY principles. The Internet is not deemed capable of initial

mobilization; it is rather seen as the means of further activization of those already mobilized

(Norris 2001, 2002, Agre 2002, Hand and Sandywell 2002). Our research has not identified a

single individual that would be initiated to the scene via the Internet. Most of the respondents

have been recruited through friendship networks; some of them have joined on their own on

the basis of either their political persuasion or music taste. However, the Internet has clearly

contributed to the crystallization of particular hardcore genres (the sectors in figure 2).

In general, the impact of the Internet has been more pronounced in cultural rather than

political terms. In terms of cultural impact, the development of the Internet has brought about

a decrease in the number of printed zines (see also Duncombe 2005). Although it is very

difficult to determine the exact number of zines due to their irregular publication and short

periods of existence, the general trend can be illustrated by some numbers. In 1999 there were

20 – 25 zines in the Czech Republic (e.g. Ace Ventura, Buryzone, Defender, Dooms Day,

17 In certain cases the impact of the internet led to considerations of so-called virtual scenes (Peterson and Bennet 2004). It is not our goal to deal with this term in a more detailed way, this paper concentrates on the impact of the spreading of the internet on the communication procedures within the „real“ local scene.

28

EYF, Fragile, Hluboká Orba, Impregnate, Killed by Noise, Noise master, Rescator,

XenslavementX); today there are 5 – 10 zines (Hluboká Orba, Cerelitida, Noise Master,

Trhavina) and no newsletters (until 2007- Killed By Noise or, to a limited extent, Move Your

Ass) with longer publication history.18 Contrary to printed media, Internet servers focused on

the hardcore/punk scene in the Czech Republic (e.g. czechcore.cz., freemusic.cz, ipunk.cz)

have boomed and, in terms of the number of visits daily, some of them are able to compete

with servers focused on mainstream production.

In terms of political impact, the use of the Internet for political activism is rather

limited in the hardcore scene. The most important problem is the security of Internet-based

communication: “Internet is a very important communication medium… but there are many

apparent risks involved, for example, security… I think that in the case of INPEG [the

organization that coordinated the protests against the joint meeting of the International

Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Prague in 2000] it was clear – our discussion group

was corrupted. We had a discussion and decided that when there were very important

messages that, [if leaked], could endanger our whole activity, we would be using face-to-face

communication, and the Internet would be used just for arranging meetings. But then we

thought that we did not have anything to hide and if ‘they’ wanted, they would get to known

anyway… Definitely, there were individuals and even groups that forwarded information

further” (Interview George, Brno, Jan 15, 2006). Another respondent added: “Presently, I

cannot imagine the organization of some big action without email and the Internet, but in the

case of direct actions there is a rule that the Internet is not used for concrete arrangements

but only for arranging meetings where you learn the rest. … I do not regard the Internet as

safe communication” (Interview Vojtech, Brno, Jan 30, 2006). Direct actions are organized on

the basis of personal communication within a given affinity group rather than with the help of

computer-mediated communication. The Internet only supplements already existing

traditional communication channels. In sum, the preceding analysis suggests that the value

and function of the Internet is ambiguous when it comes to organizational work in local

settings. However, the real potential of Internet-based communication is not realized at the

local or national levels, but at the transnational level.19

18 Only zines that have had at least three issues are included in the evaluation. 19 The use of the Internet for political activism has recently intensified in response to the mobilization of segments of the anti/alter-globalization movement, which is to a certain extent rooted in DIY-based countercultural networks. DIY activism preceded the currently developing Internet-based forms of individualized participation in the movement for global justice. The current form of transnational activism, which does not rely on the organizational work of NGOs but rather on “loosely linked distributed networks that are minimally dependent on central coordination, leaders, or ideological commitment” (Bennett 2005: 205)

29

The concrete methods of Internet use differ across the sectors of the hardcore scene.

Sectors I and II utilize the Internet as a major source of information on hardcore music and

bands, for booking and communication with booking agencies, and for the organization of

shows. Similarly, sector IV has found the Internet instrumental in the creation of an

alternative network for the distribution of information on bands, shows, and festivals. This

network serves as a platform for the activities of a specific group of individuals who organize

tours and provide locations for shows (e.g. squats), and who are united on the basis of DIY

ethics. Unlike the other sectors, this sector uses the Internet for political communication, too,

although it does so only to a limited extent due to the security considerations discussed above.

Sector III, on its part, has taken advantage of the Internet as a new medium of communication

and has been using it in agreement with the instrumental goals of activists (e.g.

communication, coordination, self-presentation) (see Bach and Stark 2003).

The relationship between DIY activism and the new communication media can be

summed up in the following way. The cultural impact of new communication media is

strongly felt in the hardcore scene. The Internet has to a certain extent replaced traditional

media such as printed zines and snail mail. It has provided some individuals with additional

organizational resources and has thus enabled them to intensify their activities in the scene.

Throughout the 1990s this development has stepped up the process of internal differentiation

within the scene. The increasing use and effectiveness of the Internet has made organizational

work in terms of cultural activities less dependent on interpersonal networks and social capital

generated through face-to-face communication. The impact of the Internet on direct action

activities, however, has been much more limited due to perceived security problems with

computer-mediated communication. At the same time, by virtue of its transnational character,

the Internet has strengthened cross-border communication channels and intensified

communication among existing alternative networks. Further, by virtue of its radically

decentralized character, the Internet has enabled highly individualized ways of participation in

the hardcore scene typical of sectors II and IV. All things considered, the development of the

Internet has transformed the hardcore scene and the relations among its various segments.

13. Conclusions

This paper has focused on the manifestations of DIY activism in the hardcore scene in

Brno, Czech republic. It is impossible to understand this scene in terms of a subculture united by

resembles the constitutive principles of DIY activism as it developed on the national level.

30

a single collective identity. The scene constitutes a highly structured social setting engaged in

both intense internal debates and debates with its external environment. It is therefore

impossible to see the scene as a separate social sphere clearly differentiated from the rest of

the society. By demonstrating the existing connections between the scene and various social

spheres, the article shows that „scenes“ can operate as various bridges to other social

formation or generally to political participation. It also demonstrates, that there are elements

of subculture, contraculture and social movements repertoire to be found within the hardcore

scene in Brno. It is possible that the inclusion of the scene is caused by relatively high

fluctuation of persons involved and little chance to build stable and lasting space for activities

of the scene, that is in Western Europe provided for example by local squats or AJZs.

Confirmation of this assumption/hypothesis however requires another comparative study, that

would (synchronnously and diachronnously) compare the environment of Central Eastern

Europe and Western Europe.

Two dimensions characterize the inter-scene discourse of the Brno hardcore scene.

They refer to the emphasis that scene members put on self-realization vs. political action and

on product vs. process of production. The different stances with regard to these two

dimensions form four distinctive discursive genres that represent four social clusters in the

hardcore scene. The paper has proposed a conceptual map that informs the analysis of the

internal dynamics of the scene and that models the involvement of scene members in other

social spheres. On the one hand, there are scene members who are part of a standard

consumer culture (sector I); on the other hand there are scene members who fiercely resist

such a culture (sector IV). On the one hand, there are scene members who stress within-group

interaction (sector II); on the other hand there are scene members pursuing instrumental

policy goals in the sphere of standard politics (sector III).

Most importantly from the point of view of this paper, the sectors differ in the extent

to which they adhere to DIY principles in their activities. DIY defines only one half of the

discursive field of Czech hardcore (sectors II and IV) and is of no importance for the other

half. In addition, only in sector IV DIY activism translates into an explicitly political

articulation of a direct action movement that is at the same time culturally embedded and

political in its orientation.

References:

Agre, Philip E. 2002. “Real-Time Politics: The Internet and the Political Process.”

31

Information Society 18, no. 5, 311–331.

Ancelovici, Marcos. 2002. “Organizing against Globalization: The Case of ATTAC in

France”. Politics & Society 30, no. 3, 427-63.

Bach, Jonathan and David Stark. 2003. “Technology and Transformation: Facilitating

Knowledge Networks in Eastern Europe.” Technology, Business and Society Programme

Paper no. 10. Available at

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN018156.pdf.

Becker, Howard S. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California.

Bennett, Andy and Keith Kahn-Harris. 2004. „Introduction.” In. After Subculture: Critical

Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture. Eds. Andy Bennett and Keith Kahn-Harris. New

York, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-18.

Bennett, Andy and Richard A. Peterson. 2004 „Introducting Music Scenes.“ In. Music Scenes:

Local, Translocal, and Virtual. Eds. Bennett, Andy and Richard A. Peterson. Nasville:

Vanderbilt University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. Oxford: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Teorie jednání. Praha: Karolinum.

Cisar, Ondrej. 2005. “The Left in the Beginning of the 21st Century.” In Trajectories of the

Left. Ed. Lubomir Kopecek. Brno: CDK, 11-26.

Cisar, Ondrej. 2008. Politicky aktivismus v Ceske republice. Brno: CDK.

Clarke, John, Stuart Hall, Tony Jefferson and Brian Roberts. 1997. “Subcultures, Cultures and

Class.” In The Subcultures Reader. Eds. Ken Gelder and Sarah Thornton. London: Routledge,

100–111.

Cohen, Jean L. 1985. “Strategy or Identity: New Theoretical Paradigms and Contemporary

Social Movements.” Social Research 52, no. 4, 663-716.

Coopman, Ted M. 2003. „Alternative Alternatives: Free Media, Dissent, and Emergent

Activist Networks.“ In. Representing Resistance: Media, Civil Disobedience, and the Global

Justice Movement. Eds. Andy Opel snd Donnalyn Pompper. Westport: Praeger.

Crossley, Nick. 2002. “Global Anti-Corporate Struggle: A Preliminary Analysis.“ British

Journal of Sociology 53: 667-691.

Dahlgren, Peter. 2007. „Civic Identity and Net Activism: The Frame of Radical Democracy.“

In. Radical Democracy and the Internet: Interrogating Theory and Practice. Eds. Lincoln

Dahlberg and Eugenia Siapera. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Day, Richard F. 2005. Gramsci Is Dead. London: Pluto Press.

Day, Richard F. "From Hegemony to Affinity," Cultural Studies 18, no. 5, 716-748.

32

Della Porta, Donatella and Mario Diani. 2006. Social Movements: An Introduction. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing.

Della Porta, Donatella and Sidney Tarrow. Eds. 2005. Transnational Protest and Global

Activism. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Della Porta, Donatella. Andretta, Massimiliano. Mosca, Lorenzo. Reiter, Herbert. 2006.

Globalization from Below. Transnational Activists and Protest Networks. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press. 93- 117.

Della Porta, Donatella. Ed. 2007. The Global Justice Movement: Gross-national and

Transnational Perspectives. London: Boulder.

Doherty, Brian. 2002. Ideas and Actions in the Green Movement. London: Routledge.

Downing, John D. H. 2001. Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social

Movements. Thousand Oaks, London, New Dehli: Sage Publications.

Duncombe, Stehen. 1997. Notes From Underground: Zines and the Politics of Alternative

Culture. London: Verso.

Eder, Klaus. 1993. The New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in

Advanced Societies. London: SAGE Publications.

Epstein, Barbara. 1993. Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct Action

in the 1970s and 1980s. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Fantasia, Rick and Eric Hirsch. 1995. "Culture in Rebellion: The Appropriation and

Transformation of the Veil in the Algerian Revolution." Repression and Mobilization. Eds.

C. Davenport, H. Johnston, and C. Mueller. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Foreman, David. 1993. Eco Defense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching. Chico: Abbzug

Press.

Futrell, Robert; Simi, Pete and Simon Gottschalk. 2006.„Understanding Music in Movements:

The White Power Music Scene.“The Sociological Quarterly 47, 275–304.

Gamson, William A. 1996. "Safe Spaces and Social Movements." Perspectives on Social

Problems 8:27-38.

Graeber, David. 2002. “The New Anarchists.” New Left Review 13, 61-73.

Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. „The Strength of Weak Ties.“ American Journal of Sociology, 78

no. 6, 1360-1380

Haenfler, Ross. 2004a. “Collective Identity in the Straight Edge: How Diffuse Movements

Foster Commitment, Encourage Individualized Participation, and Promote Cultural Change.”

Sociological Quarterly 45, no. 4, 785–805.

Haenfler, Ross. 2004b. „Rethinking Subcultural Resistance: Core Values of the Straight Edge

33

Movement.“ Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 33, no. 4, 406- 436.

Hand, Martin and Barry Sandywell. 2002. “E-topia as Cosmopolis or Citadel.” Theory,

Culture & Society 19, no. 1/2, 197–225.

Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, London: Harvard University

Press.

Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2004. Multitude. War and Democracy in the Age of

Empire. London: Penguin Books.

Hardt, Michael. 2002. “Today’s Bandung?”. New Left Review 14, 112-18.

Heartfield, James. 2003. „Capitalism and Anti-Capitalism.“ Interventions 5, no. 2, 271–289

Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge.

Howard, Marc Morje. 2002. “Postcommunist Civil Society in Comparative Perspective.”

Demokratizatsiya 10, no. 1, 285-305.

Howard, Marc Morje. 2003. The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inglehart, Ronald. 1991. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Jensen, Sune Qvotrup. „Rethinking subcultural capital.“ Young 2006; 14; 257 – 276.

Johnston, Hank. 2009. „Protest Cultures: Performance, Artifacts, and Ideations.“ Culture,

Social Movements, and Protest. Ed. Hank Johnston. Farnham: Ashgate 3- 32.

Jordan, Tim. 2002. Activism! Direct Action, Hacktivism and the Future of Society. London:

Reaktion.

Kahn-Harris, Keith. 2004a. „The ‘Failure’ of Youth Culture: Reflexivity, Music and Politics

in the Black Metal Scene.“ European Journal of Cultural Studies 7; 95- 111.

Kahn-Harris, Keith. 2004b. 'Unspectacular Subculture?: Transgression and Mundanity in the

Global Extreme Metal Scene' In. After Subculture: Critical Studies in Subcultural Theory and

Research Eds. A. Bennett and K. Kahn-Harris. Palgrave, 107-118

Katsiaficas, George. 2006. The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social

Movements and the Decolonization of Everyday Life. Oakland: AK Press.

Klein, Naomi. 2001. “Reclaiming the Commons”. New Left Review 9, 81-89.

Klein, Naomi. 2002. No Logo. New York: Picador.

Leach, Darcy K. and Sebastian Haunss. 2009. „Scenes and Social Movements.“ In. Culture,

Social Movements and Protest. Ed. Hank Johnston. Farnham: Ashgate. 255- 276.

Lewis, George H. 1992. “Who Do You Love?: The Dimensions of Musical Taste.” In

Popular Music and Communication. Ed. James Lull. London: Sage.

34

Lott, Anthony. 2003. „The Mobilizing Aesthetics of Street Protests.Preview.“ Peace Review,

15, no. 2, 195- 200

Maffesoli, Michel. 1996. The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass

Society. London, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Mareš, Miroslav. 2005. Terorismus v ČR. Brno: Centrum strategických studií.

Marchart, Oliver. 2003. “Bridging the Micro-Macro Gap: Is There Such a Thing as a Post-

subcultural Politics?” In The Post-Subcultures Reader. Eds. David Muggleton and Rupert

Weinzierl. New York: Berg, 83–97.

Marchart, Oliver. 2004. “New Protest Formations and Radical Democracy.” Peace Review 16,

no. 4, 415–420.

McKay, George. Ed. 1998. DiY Culture: Party & Protest in Nineties Britain. London: Verso.

Melucci, Alberto. 1989. Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in

Contemporary Society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Melucci, Alberto. 1996. Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mendelson Sarah E. and John K Glenn. 2002. „Introduction: Transnational Networks and

NGOs in Postcommunist Societies.“ In. The Power and Limits of NGOs: A Critical Look at

Building Democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia Eds. Sarah E. Mendelson and John K

Glenn. New York : Columbia University Press.

Meyer, David S.2004. „Protest and Political Opportunities.“ Annual Review of Sociology, 30

no. 1, 125-145

Moore, Ryan. 2007. „Friends Don´t Let Friends Listen to Corporate Rock: Punk as a Field of

Cultural Production.“ Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 36, no. 4, 438-474.

Mueller, Carol. 1994. "Conflict Networks and the Origins of the Women’s Movement." In

New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Eds. E. Larana, H. Johnston, and J. R.

Gusfield. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Munro, Lyle. 2005. “Strategies, Action Repertoires and DIY Activism in the Animal Rights

Movement.” Social Movement Studies 4, no. 1, 75–94.

Myers, J.C. 2002. „What is Anti-Capitalism?“ In. The Anti-Capitalism Reader. Ed. Joel

Schalit. New York: Akashic Books. 25- 34.

Norris, Pippa. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet

Worldwide. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Norris, Pippa. 2002. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press.

35

O’Connor, Alan. 2003. “Punk Subculture in Mexico and the Anti-globalization Movement: A

Report from the Front.” New Political Science 25, no. 1, 43–53.

O’Connor, Alan. 2004a. “Punk and Globalization. Spain and Mexico.” International Journal

of Cultural Studies 7, no. 2, 175–195.

O’Connor, Alan. 2004b. “The Sociology of Youth Subcultures.” Peace Review 16, no. 4, 409-

414.

O’Doherty, Richard, Derrick Purdue, J. Dürrschmidt and Peter Jowers. 1997. “DIY Culture

and Extended Miliuex: LETS, Veggie Boxes and Festivals.” Sociological Review 45, no. 4,

645– 667.

O’Hara, Craig. 1999. The Philosophy of Punk. More than Noise! London, Edinburgh, San

Francisco: AK Press.

Paris, Jeffrey and Michael Ault. 2004. „Subcultures and Political Resistance“ Peace Review

16, no. 4, 403-407.

Petrova, Tsveta and Sidney Tarrow. 2007. “Transactional and Participatory Activism in the

Emerging European Polity: The Puzzle of East Central Europe.” Comparative Political

Studies 40, no 1, 74-94.

Pickvance, Christopher G. 1999. „Democratisation and the Decline of Social Movements: The

Effects of Regime Change on Collective Action in Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and

Latin America.“ Sociology 33, no. 2, 353- 372.

Polletta, Francesca. 1999. “Free Spaces’ In Collective Action.” Theory and Society 28: 1–38.

Polleta, Francesca and James M. Jasper. 2001. “Collective Identity and Social Movements.”

Annual Review of Sociology 27, 283-305.

Polsky, Ned. 1967. Hustlers, Beats, and Others. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Redhead, Steve, Derek Wynne and Justin O’Connor. Eds. 1998. The Clubcultures Reader:

Readings in Popular Cultural Studies. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ross, Robert J. 2004. „From Antisweatshop to Global Justice to Antiwar: How the new New

Left is the Same and Different From the Old New Left.“ Journal of World-Systems Research

10, no. 1, 287–319.

Rucht, Dieter. 1990. „The Strategies and Action Repertoires of New Movements.“ In.

Challenging the Political Order: New Social abd Political Movements in Western

Democracies. Eds. Russell J. Dalton and Manfréd Kuechler. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Růžička, Vlastimil. 2007. Squaty a jejich revoluční tendence. Praha: Triton.

Simmel, Georg .1964. „The Web of Group Affiliations.” In. Simmel, Goerg. Conflict and the

36

Web of Group Affiliations. New York: Free Press, 125-195.Smith, Jackie. 2008. Social

Movements for Global Democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Snow, David; Rochford Jr., Burke; Worden, Steven a Robert Benford. 1986.„Frame Aligment

Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation." American Sociological Review,

51, no. 4, 464-481.

Snow, David. 2004. „Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields.“ In. The Blackwell

Companion to Social Movements. Eds. Snow, David; Soule, Sarah and Hanspeter Kriesi..

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.380- 412

Soderberg, Johan. 2008. Hacking Capitalism: The Free and Open Source Software

Movement. New York: Routledge.

Spillman, Lyn. 1995. „Culture, Social Structures and Discursive Fields.“ Current Perpectives

in Social Theory, 15, 129 – 154.

Stahl, Geoff. 2004. „It´s Like Canada Reduced: Setting the Scene in Montreal.“ In After

Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture. Eds. Andy Bennett and Keith

Kahn-Harris. New York, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-18.

St. John, Graham. 2004. „Counter-Tribes, Global Protest and Carnivals of Reclamation.“

Peace Review 16, no. 4, 421-428.

Steinberg, Marc W. 1998. “Tilting the Frame: Considerations on Collective Action from a

Discursive Turn.” Theory and Society 27, 845–72.

Steinberg, Marc W. 1999. “The Talk and Back Talk of Collective Action: A Dialogic

Analysis of Repertoires of Discourse among Nineteenth-Century English Cotton Spinners.”

American Journal of Sociology 105, no. 3, 736–80.

Steinberg, Marc W. 2002. “Toward a More Dialogic Analysis of Social Movement Culture.”

In Social Movements: Identity, Culture and the State. Eds. David S. Meyer, Nancy Whittier

and Belinda Robnett. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 208–225.

Steinberg, Marc W. 2004. “When Politics Goes Pop: On the Intersections of Popular and

Political Culture and the Case of Serbian Student Protests.” Social Movement Studies 3, no. 1,

3-29.

Straw, Will. 1991. “Systems of Articulation, Logics of Change: Communities and Scenes in

Popular Music.” Cultural Studies 5, no. 3, 361-375.

Straw, Will. 1993. „Shifting Boundaries, Lines of Descent: Cultural Studies and Institutional

Realignments in Canada“ In. Relocating Cultural Studies: New Directions in Theory and

Research. Eds. Valda Blundell, and Ian Taylor London: Routledge. 86-102.

Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies” American Sociological

37

Review 51, no. 2, 273-286.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, Verta, and Nancy Whittier. 1992. „Collective Identity in social movement

communities: Lesbian feminist mobilization.“ In. Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, Eds.

A.D. Morris & C.M. Mueller. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity. 104–129

Thornton, Sarah. 1997. “The Social Logic of Subcultural Capital.” In The Subcultures Reader.

Eds. Ken Gelder and Sarah Thornton. London: Routledge, 200–209.

Tilly, Charles. 1998. “Contentious Conversation.” Social Research 65, no. 3, 491–510.

Van Aelst, Peter and Stefaan Walgrave. 2004. “New Media, New Movements? The Role of

the Internet in Shaping the ‘Anti-Globalization’ Movement.” In. Cyberprotest: New Media,

Citizens, and Social Movements. Eds. W. van de Donk, B.D. Loader, P.G. Nixon and D.

Rucht, London and New York: Routledge: 123-146.

Vegh, Sandor. 2003. „ Classifying Forms of Online Activism: The Case of Cyberprotests

Against the World Bank.“ In. Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice. Eds.

Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers. New York, London: Routledge.

Weinzierl, Rupert and David Muggleton. 2003. “What Is ‘Post-subcultural Studies’

Anyway?” In The Post-subcultures Reader. Eds. David Muggleton and Rupert Weinzierl.

Oxford, New York: Berg, 3-25.

Wall, Derek. 1999. Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movement: Radical Environmentalism

and Comparative Social Movements. London, Routledge.

Wood, Robert, T. 1999. “‘Nailed to the X’: A Lyrical History of the Straightedge Youth

Subculture.” Journal of Youth Studies 2, no. 2, 133–151.

Wood, Robert, T. 2003. “The Straightedge Youth Sub-Culture: Observations on the

Complexity of Sub-Cultural Identity.” Journal of Youth Studies 6, no. 1, 33–52.

Wright, S. 2004. „Informing, communicating, and ICTs in contemporary anti-capitalist

movements.“ In Cyberprotest: New Media, Citizens, and Social Movements. Eds. W. van de

Donk, B.D. Loader, P.G. Nixon, and D. Rucht. London: Routledge, 77-93.

Czech zines:

A-Kontra 3/2005

Ace Ventura 1/2001, 2/2003

Bakteria 1/2003, 2/2004

38

Biosfere 5/2002

Buryzone 11/2005

Cabaret Voltaire 22/2003

Defender 3/2000

Different Life 9/1995, 6/1995,

Doom´s Day 1/2000, 5/2003

Euthanasia 7/ 1997, 8/1997

Express Your Feelings 7/1998

Fragile 3/2002, 4/2003, 6/2005

Hluboká Orba 17/ 1999, 18/1999, 19/2000, 20/2000, 21/2001, 22/2001, 23/2002

Hogo Fogo 1/1996

Choroba mysli 3/2004

Impregnate 5/1998, 9/2000, 10/2001, 12/2003

Just Do It Yourself 1/2003, 2/2003, 3/2004, 4/2004

K.A.Z/Express Your Feelings 5/10/2001, 6/11/2004

Killed by Noise newsletter

Kompost 1/2003

Komunikace 4/2001, 6/2002, 7-8/2004

Levantate 3/ 2001, 4/2003

Limo Kid 1/2001

Malárie 4/1992, 5/1993, 7/1997

Minority 1/1996, 2/1996, 5/1996, 8/1997

Move Your Ass 7/2004, 8/2004, 10/ 2005, 11/2005, 12/2006

Nobody Fucks Jesus 1/2000, 2/2000

Rescator 2/1999

Samba 3/2001, 4/2002

Sami sobě 9/2003, 10/2003, 11/2004

Sluníčko/Doom‘s day 2/4/2002

Příští Vrahžda

Vrahžda šest/2002

XenslavementX 2/2001, 3/2002

XtemplettonX 2/2001

Ya Basta 5/2002, 6/2003

39

Zines from other countries:

Abolishing Borders From Below 12/2003, 18/2005, 21/2005, 22/2005

Harbinger 1, 4 (printed version), the rest available at:

http://www.crimethinc.com/library/english/libharb2.html

Heartattack 22, 23, 27, 35 (Thirty years and counting issue)

Inside Front 9/1996, 10/1997, 11/ 1998, 12/1999, 13/2003

Maximum Rock´n´roll 196/1999, 221/2001, 225/2002, 235/2002, 251/2004, 262/2005,

267/2005

Profane Existence 27/1996, 36/1998, 41/2003, 42/ 2003, 43/2003(Black Bloc issue), 45/2004,

46/2004, 47/2005

Reason to Believe 3/2001 (Special feature on female participation in the DIY scene)

Reason to Believe 4/2001 (Interview w/Stef – Catharsis)

Reason to Believe 5/2002 (Rise and fall of DIY distributions? + Squatting issue)

Reason to Believe 6/2002 (Rise and fall of DIY part.2.)

Webs:

Direct Action: Twelve Myths about Direct Action: Voting Vs. Direct Action. Available at

http://www.crimethinc.com/downloads/12.html.

Houdy 2005. “Proč je důležité býti DIY [Why It Is Important to Be DIY].” Available at

www.czechcore.cz (published on February 16, 2005).

http://www.crimethinc.com/downloads/diyguide1/

http://www.czechcore.cz

http://www.ebullition.com/censorship.html