The Rolling Stones and Philosophy_ It's Just a Thought Away - Luke Dick [103]
Though it’s incorrect, there’s a logic to this view of The Stones as being disaffected, checked out, and apolitical. If you’re not tuned into mainstream political discourse and engagement, then you aren’t a ‘true citizen’. Such a disparaging view arises from a limited conception of political activity. People come together, communicate ideas, and make decisions about their mutual interests. They then pursue these interests through traditional political activities like voting, contacting elected officials, or standing in picket lines and engaging in demonstrations. This is what is known as the “public sphere.” The public sphere forms the connection between the state and the private lives of individuals, and is seen as essential for democratic society.
But what if you aren’t engaged in political discussions or political action? What if you willfully remove yourself from mainstream politics? The conventional view is that you’re no longer being political. This is why people think The Stones are apolitical. They don’t engage in the direct political activism of groups like The Beatles, nor the on-stage finger-wagging (in spite of iconic photographs of Jagger doing exactly that) of bands like U2.
Because they rarely came out engaging directly in social activism, they weren’t singing politically charged music like Bob Dylan. Richards and Patti Hansen never spent a week doing a celebrity “bed-in” to protest war, the way Lennon and Yoko Ono did. So it’s tempting to assume that The Stones aren’t engaged in politics.
But how can you be so wrong? By projecting an anti-establishment image of rebellion that ran counter to prevailing social norms, The Stones helped to legitimize a counter-cultural identity. They challenged traditional institutions and structures without having to be overtly political. And, because they took counter-culture rebellion and transformed it into mainstream, they were able to push boundaries and challenge conformist thinking at a mass level.
Like a Rollin’ Stone
Audiences at Stones’ concerts may not have been told who to vote for or where to stage a rally, but as a band The Rolling Stones legitimized a lifestyle; one of rebellion and decadence (it is rock’n’roll, after all), but also of individualism and antiestablishment identity. More so than groups like The Beatles—whose softer, gentler image made them the original “boy band” and much more acceptable to mainstream American audiences—The Stones were the original “bad-boy band” that appealed to the fringes of the counter-culture that rejected social norms and conventions. With songs like “Satisfaction” indicting popular media and mainstream society, and “Brown Sugar” flirting with a variety of lusty and scandalous topics, The Stones presented a hard edge to rock that shook the cultural foundations.
Take “Let’s Spend the Night Together.” In order to even play the song on the popular Ed Sullivan Show, the band was required to change the lyrics to “Let’s spend some time together.” When they returned to the studio after the performance wearing SS uniforms with swastikas to protest the censorship of their music, they were subsequently removed and banned from ever appearing on the popular show again. These are hardly the actions of an apolitical group.
As a part of the so-called British Invasion, The Stones joined bands like The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks, and The Zombies in cracking into pop-charts outside of the UK, most notably in the United States. An early sign of globalization, these bands helped to internationalize rock’n’roll. In the process, they began to influence cultural movements and trends around the world. Within the US, The Stones became a symbol of rebellion and social antagonism, the trademarked lips and tongue appearing on sleeveless t-shirts and dorm room posters across the country. They legitimized