Wanna Battle? The MC as Geopolitical Warrior
BY Santi Suthinithet, July 24, 2009
What does Jay-Z’s latest beef with the Game have to do with the future of American foreign policy? According to Foreign Policy magazine writer and professor of international relations, Marc Lynch, it serves as an illustrative metaphor for “the nature of hegemony and the debate over the exercise of American power.”
His blog post on Foreign Policy’s website, “Jay-Z vs the Game: Lessons for the American Primacy Debate,” launched a vigorous online exchange with numerous political commentators, including bloggers from the Atlantic magazine and the Middle East Institute, many of whom, regard it as the most interesting and lively discussion they have engaged in in a long time. Just recently, the New York Times covered Lynch’s post on their Idea of the Day blog and NPR aired a radio interview with him discussing his theory of hip-hop geopolitics. Lynch may even be considering writing a book based on his concept. So, it is no exaggeration to say that from this one blog post has emerged something like a web phenomenon.
What’s behind all the hype? Essentially, Lynch argues that Jay’s career is representative of American hegemony because nobody else in the rap world has Jay’s combination of “hard and soft power.” He then points to how Jay uses this power—particularly in relation to his adversaries—to move into the debate regarding the best exercise of American power and influence towards other countries. After comparing and contrasting Jay-Z’s evolving approach to different rivalries throughout his career with different schools of foreign policy, Lynch comes to the conclusion that the best option for Jay to pursue in his current conflict with the Game is the so-called “realist” approach–consisting of a pragmatic application of soft power combined with proxy conflict.
Other commentators had their own takes on this idea—which is where things really started to get interesting. Instead of comparing Jay to a declining hegemonic power, Jonathan Wallace, Assistant to the President at the New America Foundation likens him to Obama, asserting that Hov’s attack on Auto-tune is comparable to Obama’s denunciation of the Bush doctrine: “Both Jay-Z and Barack Obama shrewdly pounced at the right moment to announce the death of a trend/policy that had already worn out its welcome.” Another blogger argued that “As a hegemon, Jay-Z is not a status quo power. He’s a counterrevolutionary actor.”
After following all of this it seemed only appropriate to me that we here at World Up should also join the fray. (Besides, why should the politicos have all the fun when the topic deals with hip-hop and its relationship and relevance to world affairs?)
In my humble opinion, Lynch’s metaphor is certainly apt enough in many ways. But if you go along with the general framework of his concept I believe some additional angles and questions begin to appear.
First off, if Jay-Z represents American hegemony and primacy, and the Game an “upper- echelon middle power,” and MCs such as Lil Wayne, 50 Cent, and Kanye (and where’s Eminem?) are considered the other great powers or “rising contenders,” what is the equivalence to notable MCs from outside of the country? What roles would the group DAM from Palestine or Iraqi rapper Narcy inhabit? How about Somalian rapper Knaan or Sudanese rapper and former child soldier Jal? Also, wouldn’t it be a good idea to mention Beijing’s burgeoning undeground scene ? And can we ignore the highly pivotal role of hip-hop artists in Senegal during the country’s 2007 elections, when rappers and DJs were one of the few groups unafraid of speaking out for democratic change? In this case I would have to say that the hip-hop artists acted very much as revolutionary actors. Surely talented and fascinating individuals like them have a place somewhere in a discussion about hip-hop and international relations?
Which leads me to another question, just how effective and accurate is it to compare individual rappers with entire nations or world powers? This is the micro vs the macro. Private citizens, even enormously influential celebrities and entrepreneurs like Jay, are still essentially beholden only to themselves and their own personal interests and local communities. Rappers are not forced out of necessity to deal directly with geopolitics. They wage battles for fundamentally different reasons; and obviously, what is at stake for the MC as an individual artist, albeit with a large entourage or fan base, is vastly less complicated and dire than what is at stake for an entire nation.
Lastly, if Jay-Z is to be considered emblematic of American hegemony, would the realist approach really be the best one for him to pursue against the Game and all other potential challengers? What if he were facing a more relentless, ruthless, and powerful opponent than the Game? What if this rival MC attacks a close ally, friend, or family member who is unable to defend themselves? Under what conditions does it become appropriate—or absolutely necessary— for a major power to fully exert all of its strength and influence? Or has the era of direct confrontation and interventionism really come to an end?
Well, continuing with the MC analogy we can look back to Lynch’s post for the example of Nas vs Jay-Z. What if Nas had not dropped the “Ether” bomb on Jay and didn’t release his (mostly) solid comeback album Stillmatic? As Lynch himself noted, Nas was at the time “recognized widely as the king of NYC rap” and it was Jay who was the contending power. Yet, Nas fought back–with full force–exerting all of his influence and lyrical power instead of ignoring or circumventing Jay-Z’s provocations. Wasn’t Nas’s career and standing in hip-hop much better after this?
Of course, it is consoling to know that in the end these MC battles are waged between individuals or small groups who are not politicians with political power over our lives, as opposed to the all-too-real geopolitcal battles of today where many thousands of lives have already been lost or irrevocably altered, and where figuring out who “won” will never be easy.
Permalink:
So hip hop artists represent nations?
Let\’s see… Old Dirty Bastard was kind of crazy and you never really knew what he was going to do. He would threaten people, start fights with other MCs, be they friend or enemy. And, of course, there was that time at the VMAs when he nearly had some unfortunate incident with explosive devices.
Would it be wrong to say that ODB is North Korea?
I wonder if ODB\’s fate is a foreshadow for NK? Perhaps they will crazy themselves to death, but on nuclear missiles instead of drugs…?
Lynch\’s argument is pretty silly, or flimsy at best, for the reasons the author outlines above. Really, Hova as the United States? The Game as a BRIC power?! You can, if you look deep enough, graft meaning onto anything. And, apparently, if you\’re the right person, sections of the chattering classes will lap it up.
The author (of this article) does make some interesting and valid points, though, about the real meaning of hip hop, the way a person would normally judge art, especially around Narcy, DAM, et al.
Comment by Dan — July 31, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
Great article!
Comment by Ian Mitchell — August 3, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Keep the comments coming!
Comment by EZC — August 3, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Well first off it sounds like to me that Mark Lynch has way too much time on his hands if he has come up witht this brilliant analogy. Did he figure all this out in his friend’s parents basement smoking weed? hmmm or maybe he is aligned with Jay Z hoping to help him rise on top with all of this publicity?
Comment by Keck — August 17, 2009 @ 11:34 am