“I am not a political preacher and believe strongly that music is supposed to unite people rather than divide.” - TPM

I found this a curious quote from the BHTM message board that got me considering my own opinions on the matter. I would have to say that I disagree and would question the desire to define so strongly a supposed role for music or any other art form. In the more defined context of “art from the perspective of the artist” I can see a rightful desire to direct one’s own art toward whatever purpose intended.  In a broader sense I see art as necessarily being freed from the bonds of any defined purpose.

Some of my very favorite pieces of music have been aimed at confronting political differences and for many must represent an intended statement of divisiveness. Consider examples from Viet Nam/Hippie era music.

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
Were finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

- Neil Young

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
Step out of line, the men come and take you away.
You better stop.
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down.

- Stephen Stills

One might ague that these were lyrics designed to be a source of unity to the anti-war position but to the “establishment” they were unquestionably divisive and sought only to take sides. 

Even today’s muse is rife with lyrics of division as a response to the polarity of our present political landscape.

Who'll be the last to die for a mistake
The last to die for a mistake
Whose blood will spill, whose heart will break
Who'll be the last to die

- Bruce Springsteen

Don't wanna be an American Idiot
Don't want a nation under the new mania
can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind-fuck America
Welcome to a new kind of tension

All across the alienation
Where everything isn't meant to be OK
Television dreams of tomorrow
We're not the ones who are meant to follow
For that's enough to argue

Well, maybe I'm the faggot America
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda
Now everybody do the propaganda
And sing along to the age of paranoia

-Billy Joe Armstrong

I personally believe that art thrives on its potential to be whatever it may be interpreted to be. Despite even the expressed intent of an artist there is nothing to prevent any consumer of art to interpret or even misinterpret in whatever way he chooses. A song or a poem intent on unity may become an anthem of divisiveness in the hands of the masses. I applaud the musical art form in all its varied manifestations. The ability of a church hymn to unify is just as appropriate as an overt political message may be apt to divide.

Each artist will determine the intent of his own message. Suffice to say that where one is divisive he risks dividing his own potential audience. Clearly as Springsteen proposes death as mistake he is just as divisive as Toby Keith while intoning a boot is your ass being the “American Way”. In either case each artist limits his appeal to a segment of society as a whole. I understand completely the desire of an artist that his art not build fences but I would also like to celebrate the ability of free artistic expression to build fences, to boldly illustrate difference and to inspire heated debate.

Hi Lynne,

I wasn’t really considering a ready example of   “A song or a poem intent on unity” becoming “an anthem of divisiveness”.  I was more just illustrating the point that art in any form will become whatever it will become as it enters the public consciousness. An artist can want for a specific purpose but once their art is consumed by the public it exists all but independent of these wants and desires.

I think that any attempt to unify, by any means, risks being divisive depending on one’s perspective. To have an “us” you must have a “them”. When you define any set of values and describe them as being desirable or worthy of adopting, you are asking someone else to reassess their own perspective and to in effect convert to your way of thinking in order to achieve unity. Art (or in this discussion music) makes this attempt rather innocently though at times eloquently with curious results. One example that comes to mind (another among my all-time musical favorites) is John Lennon’s all time classic “Imagine”.

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one.

For me this is unquestionably Lennon’s sincere plea for peace and unity “a brotherhood of man”. It is also an affront to religion, nationalism and capitalism and implies that such institutions and our loyalty to them are the root cause of violence and poverty in the world. The lines of division are explicitly drawn with the words “I hope someday you’ll join us” leaving no doubt that there exists a desirable ideology embraced by Lennon's “us” and a less desirable one being embraced by those who might want to reconsider and convert. A phrase like “Imagine there’s no heaven. It’s easy if you try.” Is potentially a deep personal insult to many religious types. Not only does it propose that core religious beliefs are flawed but is does so by implying that one clings to such beliefs by way of a lack of both imagination and intellectual effort. So is this song intent on unity, division or a little bit of both? To those in agreement is must be a song about unification. To those it insults it may represent stark division.

One curious tidbit I stumbled upon. Apparently in the aftermath of 9/11 for a period of time Clear Channel came out with a list of songs that it suggested should not be played in effect censoring them from its playlists. Among those listed songs was “Imagine”. So why this song? It appears to beg for unity. It cries out for global peace and seeks to tear down institutional division. What better message could one send in the aftermath of such a despicable warlike attack. Apparently not everyone agrees. Maybe some see their institutions as the only pathway to unity. Perhaps for them a “brotherhood of man” is only achieved through uniform allegiance to Christianity or Islam, Democracy or Theocracy. Apparently for some Lennon’s version of unity is just a bit too divisive.

Thanks for answering Lynne. My brain needs this discussion.

Darren