Cultural Labyrinth…Organic Machines

With close reference to 15, I shall demonstrate how “the double articulation of youth subcultures – first to their ‘parent’ culture, second, to the dominant culture” are useful in defining Ah Beng as a subculture (Clark, Hall, Jefferson, & Roberts, 1975, p. 101). For their parent culture, I shall refer to the prehistory of ethnic Chinese Secret Societies that precedes the generation of Ah Bengs. Then I shall explore their relations and resistance to the dominant culture through the national ideology of language and education policy. Next I shall survey their “activity of stylisation” through the use of “materials available to the group for construction of subcultural identities” and “of their contexts” (ibid, p. 108). Finally, with reference to Muggleton’s “focus on the dynamic processes of stylistic and ideological transmission, transformation and fragmentation,” I shall touch on local mass media representations and how it influences the hypothesis of Ah Beng as a subculture (1997, p. 200).

Parent Culture: Ethnic Chinese Secret Societies

            According to Clarke et al., despite a subculture’s exhibition of a distinctive “shape and structure” as compared to “their ‘parent’ culture,” “there must also be significant things which bind and articulate them with the ‘parent’ culture” (1975, p. 100). While Ah Bengs are positioned within a specific environment that sets them off from the socio-political milieu experienced by the precedent working class, there is a shared mentality with their parent culture, the Chinese Secret Societies prevalent in Singapore by 1850 (Comber, 1957, p. 23). These societies were established as a result of the influx of Chinese immigrants who seek for community and are influenced by the indirect rule during Colonial times, in which leaders from Chinese dialect groups are appointed to solve the language barrier issue between the Chinese and ruling British. As of recent, the stringent criminal laws initiated by the independent government has eradicated most Secret Society activities.

According to Blythe, “the society, with a secret ritual and binding blood-oath of loyalty provided the individual with a social background, a body politic in miniature, in and through which he found authority, protection, assistance, a sense of kinship” (1969, p. 1). Ah Bengs develop “distinctive outlooks” which are “structured by the parent culture” by associating and amplifying the problems faced by the early Chinese immigrants who seek an alternate community closer to their ethnicity (Clarke et al., 1975, p. 108). They form gangs or brotherhoods rooted in tradition, embodying the ‘Other’ and symbolically becoming ‘immigrants’ through their alienation within a global and industrialised Singapore.  This is illustrated in a scene in 15, when Shaun and Erick travel around Singapore in search of the perfect building, seemingly symbolic of a conjectural utopian space, for Armani’s suicide attempt. A simple phone call by Erick mobilises a network of Ah Bengs in the search, demonstrating the mutual assistance of the Brotherhood. However, Armani ends up rejecting an array of modernist buildings that are devoid of ethnicity and negatively comments on the pastiche of a redeveloped Chinatown.

With the advent of modernisation in the 19^th century, the organizational nature of the secret societies shifted from “occupational monopolization” to “territorial demarcation” with interests “in the collection of protection money within their own operational territories” (Lau Fong, 1981, p. 76, 82). Melvyn chats with his friend in 15, “Heard they want to beat us up because we stole their territory.” There are also various scenes of simulated fights among rival gangs on the basis of territory. While the purpose of protection as offered by the societies isn’t explicitly made known within Ah Beng subculture, the significance of territory remains, signifying a sense of pride and structure “to anchor individual members to a collective reality” (Stahl, 1999, par. 7). An important aspect of their parent culture is the practice of Brotherhood, in which “the institutionalisation of ceremonial meetings, processions, joint acts of worship and other rites and rituals function to generate trust among members and reinforce their cohesion” (Lau Fong, 1981, p. 124). For Ah Bengs in 15, such formally organised rituals are replaced with communal activities such as drug taking, group masturbation and body piercing sessions. The importance of Brotherhood penetrates the very nature of their lives, embodied in their actions and heavily articulated through their argot. In a voiceover, Vynn says, “We have no family, only brotherhood. In our world, we speak of camaraderie, never of love.”

The notion of  “generational specificity” demonstrates that “youth encounters the problematic of its class culture in different sets of institutions and experiences from those of its parents,” in which “education is the institutional sphere which has the most sustained and intensive impact on the lives of the young” (Clark et al., 1975, p. 105). There is a tension with the working-class parent who attempts to reconcile with the dominant culture by asserting the importance of institutionalised education to the youth subculture in a harsh way, despite coming from a background devoid of it. In 15, Shaun gets a trashing cum scolding by his father in Hokkien dialect:

“Why didn’t you attend school? (…) You think you’re good at fighting? Retaliate and hit me then! Can you make a living with all these tattoos?”

However, despite the tension, the harsh use of vulgarities in dialect by the parent culture is adapted by the Ah Beng’s “argot which classifies the social world exterior to them” within the perspective of violent resent, projected both at society and self (ibid, p. 104).

Dominant Culture: Hegemony thru Singapore’s Educational  Policy

The dominant culture in Singapore is taken as the nation’s ideology. There is an emphasis on “multiracialism, Confucianism and political and social conformity,” revolving around the attempt to globalise Singapore into “an open society that can really compete economically in the late Twentieth Century” (Clammer, 1998, p. 23). The instigated policies revolve around embracing a global mindset in contrast to the loss of a ‘true’ Singaporean identity rooted in ethnic history. Taking education as an “Ideological State Apparatus,” schools can be seen as “the site of class struggle” in which Ah Bengs “find means and occasions to express” themselves through “contradictions” (Althusser, 1977, p. 139-140). I shall explore their “negotiation, resistance and struggle” in regards to language and streaming policy, hegemonic process that “constitute[s] a lived ‘reality as such’ for the subordinate classes” (Clark. et al., 1975, p. 102-103).

            According to Pakir, “English is the language of instruction in all schools, with one of the other official languages being followed through as the second school language” (cited in Rubdy, 2001, p. 342). The use of English “as the premier official language” “imbued with status and power,” has resulted in “social class differentiation” (Pakir, n.d., p. 343 & 365). The importance of English is further emphasised with the “Speak Good English movement” which aims to “promote the use of Standard English among Singaporeans and decrease the usage of Singlish,” which is “a home-grown, spoken vernacular English unique to Singapore” (Rubdy, 2001, p. 345 & 348). The Ah Bengs speak a mix of Mandarin, dialects and Singlish in an attempt to challenge the importance and significance of English asserted by state ideology. In 15, a group of middle-class students confront Vynn and Erick in proficient English:

“At least we can speak better English! Not like you Chinese hooligans! (…) And do you need us to lend you a dictionary to look up the meaning of hooligan?”

A distinct elitist divide exists between both groups. Ah Bengs are looked upon as failures due to their incompetence in English. In a later scene when they single out one of the middle-class students, Armani confronts him in mandarin, signifying a recuperation of locality as opposed to the dominant emphasis on English:

“You speak only English? Don’t you know how to speak Mandarin? Fuck you! Are your parents Caucasian? Why fake an accent? Answer me! Don’t you like to slang?”

            Other than language, Education policy in Singapore implements ‘Streaming’, “the separation of students into different categories” based “on the belief that students are not born equal in terms of intellectual and academic capability” (Streaming, n.d., par. 1 & 6-7). This further illustrates that that the concept of a ‘classless youth culture’ has to be rejected in subcultural studies as education policy itself works towards and is signifying of a class differentiation, despite Singapore’s lack of emphasis and subtle denial of it. Ah Bengs are situated within the ‘Normal’ stream, which leads them “to take up technical and vocational education” that leads to working-class jobs, as opposed to the “Express” and “Gifted” stream which leads to higher education (ibid, par. 14).

Clark et al. claims, “within the dominant culture,” subcultures “experience and respond to the same basic problematic as other members of their class who are not so differentiated and distinctive in a ‘subcultural’ sense” (1975, p. 101). The streaming process is known to assert copious amounts of stress on students from working-class families as a whole. They suffer the stigma and self-fulfilling prophecy of their sub-intellect, in which a universally extreme measure would be suicide. In 15, the theme of suicide looms feverishly around not only within the Ah Beng subcultural field but also within working-class youth as a whole, bringing to mind the scene when Vynn and Melvin witness the suicide of a ‘neighborhood’ school student. Ah Bengs react to the hegemonic educational system by collectively accepting their fate, projecting a unified style in defiance and subverting educational processes through deviant activities such as ‘Pontang’ (skipping school), as compared to passive negotiation, visible in Jack Neo’s I Not Stupid (2002), which situates itself in the larger field of ‘normal’ stream students.

 Ah Beng Group Identity: Meaning thru Style

            According to Clark et al., “The registering of group identity, situation and trajectory in a visible style both consolidates the group from a loosely focused to a tightly bounded entity: and sets the group off, distinctively, from other similar and dissimilar groups” (1975, p. 110-111). This is highly applicable to Ah Bengs through their communally adopted style and activities, of which I will explore their dress sense, music preferences and body modifications.

            Ah Beng dress sense consists of a haphazard mixing and matching of high and low fashion style with the emphasis on loudness in colour, which is taken as a challenge to mainstream conceptions of ‘good taste’ with the intention to get noticed. For example, a bright colourful shirt and cheap slippers are combined with branded jeans. Their hairstyles are often long with centre-partings and dyed yellow or in other bright colours. Through the use and fetishism of certain consumer products, they even manage to impose a distinct style to the school uniform, “actively constructing a specific selection of things and goods into a style” in which they destabilise “from their given meaning and use, to other meanings and uses.” (ibid, p. 109). For example, with the school uniform, the Ah Beng wears a small bright coloured backpack worn tightly high up their back as contradiction towards the generic large backpack that represents studiousness in school.

            Rather than formulating a distinct genre of music, Ah Bengs juxtaposed musical elements dating back to their parent culture with the contemporary. The genre of ‘Euro-Dance’, an upbeat synthesiser variation of techno that exists in the European mainstream, is adopted as the Ah Bengs music of choice.  The optimistic tone and playfulness of this genre is perversely subverted by the chanting of gang cheers over its beat. In 15, the narrative is littered with self-reflexive rehearsals of these ‘gangland techno anthems’, in which a particular one goes:

“The sacred sword amongst the Brotherhood. The eight immortals storm the underworld. The dragon soars the seven seas, keeping loyalty in the Brotherhood.”

This is the staple form of music played at ‘Night Clubs’ frequent by Ah Bengs, in which such cheers are recited collectively on the dance-floor. This inflicts a heavy aura of ethnic traditionalism within the club, which is a xenophobic attempt to diffuse the foreign environment and music and to collectively bind them against the dominant culture.

Ah Bengs view their bodies as canvases used to reflect their collective alienation. They obsessively participate in body modifications that include tattoos and body piercings. When Shaun is asked why he gets so many piercings, he simply replies, “I’m used to the pain.” This signifies an expression of a seasoned threshold of ‘pain’, suffered through the hegemony of a dominant culture so jarring that they have gained a negatively matured outlook of resentment, in which their lives are practically abused and over at the age of 15. With a connotation of aggressiveness, tattoos more explicitly portray their collectiveness through the common themes of idioms expressing brotherhood over flowing dragons and other ethnic mythological signifiers of ‘pastness’. Within the “stylistic creation” of Ah Beng subculture, these piercings and tattoos are made to “reflect, express and resonate” collectively with “aspects of group life,” in which there is a “reciprocal effect” with “the outlooks and activities which structure and define their use” (ibid, p. 110).

 Conclusion: Ah Beng within Post-subcultural Frameworks

            I have positioned the advent of Ah Beng subculture within its relation to its parent culture of ethnic Chinese secret societies and the state ideology of education and language policy as dominant culture. Next, I’ve explored how a distinct public identity is established through stylistic recreation in relation to their dress sense, music and body modifications. I will conclude by considering the viability of Ah Beng as a subculture within postmodernism.

According to Muggleton, within a postmodernist age of media-saturated “commodity production,” subcultures are not defined by “particular sociotemporal contexts and tied to underlying structural relations” but are subjected to a stylistic pastiche of “free-floating signifiers” that function as recyclable identities (1997, p. 198-199).  With Ah Beng situated within a framework of deviancy, functioning as the antithesis to National ideology, its genuine context and meaning is censored and articulated differently within Singapore’s government dominated media culture. 15’s release in Singapore perfectly demonstrates the extent of governmental censure. At the most, harmless qualities of Ah Beng subculture, such as the use of Singlish is playfully incorporated into local programs like Phua Chu Kang, in which a comical, outlandish, Singlish speaking building contractor is taken as the paradigm of an Ah Beng. The mass media only works to communicate their “preferred meanings and interpretation” that are destabilised from its original context (Hebdige, 2005, p. 449). Furthermore, the traditionalism and locality of Ah Beng subcultural style disables it to be interpreted and copied into post-subcultures globally. It could be argued that 15 propagates and encourages its development into a post-subculture. However, it can hardly be considered a form of popular-culture with its censure, which works to discourage further attempts in the same thematic. Therefore, Muggleton’s thesis is problematic when applied to Ah Beng subculture.

15’s realism captured the bleak atmosphere of the subculture in which the contradictions derived from “the intersection between the located parent culture and the mediating institutions of the dominant culture” are negotiated “in an imaginary set of relations” within “a micro social level” (Clark et al., 1975, p. 107; Cohen, 1997, p. 96). Ah Beng subculture, though embedded in meaning, is seen as nihilistic. Thus, instead of promoting the spread of Ah Beng subculture, 15 can be seen as a wake up call to its futility, a swansong for a dying subculture. Before 15, their only means of articulating themselves is through actual contact and confrontations. The use of class relationships established by Clark et al. remains useful in defining Ah Beng as a subculture. However, as I have demonstrated, ethnicity should not be marginalised in the process as it has a profound relation to their class-consciousness. In addition to class and ethnicity, a more in-depth analysis which considers factors such as gender and “the multiple determinations and motivations drawing individuals” to Ah Beng subculture which will enable a greater understanding (Stahl, 1999, par. 17).  Perhaps, it is not surprising that the Chinese ethnicity contained through Singapore’s ideology of rapid globalisation and development surfaced within the new generation in open defiance.

References

Aglionby, John. (2004, Jan 5). Police Censor Fly-on-wall Tale of Gang Life: Acclaimed Film Dubbed a Threat to Singapore’s National Security. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from http://film.guardian.co.uk/censorship/news/0,11729,1116357,00.html

Althusser, Louis. (1977). Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: NLB.

Blythe, Wilfred. (1969). The Impact of Chinese Secret Societies in Malaya. London: Oxford University Press.

Clammer, John. (1998). Race and State in Independent Singapore 1965-1990: The Cultural Politics of Pluralism in a Multiethnic Society. England: Ashgate Publishing.

Clark, J., Hall, S., Jefferson, T., & Roberts, B. (1997). “Subcultures, Cultures and Class”. in Gelder, K., & Thornton, S. (eds.). The Subcultures Reader. London: Routledge.

Cohen, Phil. (1997). “Subcultural Conflict and Working Class Community”. in Gelder, Ken., & Thornton, Sarah. (eds.). The Subcultures Reader. London: Routledge.

Comber, Leon. (1957). An Introduction to Chinese Secret Societies in Malaya. Singapore: The Straits Times Press.

Hebdgie, Dick. (2005). “The Function of Subculture”. in During, Simon. (ed.). The Cultural Studies Reader. (2^nd edn.). London: Routledge.

Lau Fong, Mak. (1981). The Sociology of Secret Societies: A Study of Chinese Secret Societies in Singapore and Peninsular Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Muggleton, David. (1997). “The Post-subculturalist”. in Redhead, Steve et al. (eds.). The Clubcultures Reader: Readings in Popular Cultural Studies. Oxford: Blackwell.

Pakir, Anne. (n.d.). Bilingual Education with English as an Official Language: Sociocultural Implications. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from http://digital.georgetown.edu/gurt/1999/gurt_1999_25.pdf

Rubdy, Rani. (2001, Nov). Creative Destruction: Singapore’s Speak Good English Movement. World Englishes, 20(3), 341-355. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6645139&site=ehost-live

Stahl, Geoff. (1999). Still ‘Winning Space?’: Updating Subcultural Theory. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue2/stahl.htm

Streaming Controversy. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2007, from http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01348/streaming.html

Urban Dictionary: Ah Beng. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2007, from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ah+beng

Walsh, Bryan. (2003, Aug 25). Street Survivors. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501030901-477974,00.html

Filmography

15,       Royston Tan, 2002.

I Not Stupid,       Jack Neo, 2002.