A Just (Electric Lady) Land: Jimi Hendrix and John Rawls
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Sykes, Robbie & Tranter, Kieran (2017) A just (electric lady) land: Jimi Hendrix and John Rawls. Law and Literature, 29(3), pp. 383-403. This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/124796/ c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu- ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected] Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. https://doi.org/10.1080/1535685X.2017.1361674 This is a preprint version of: Robbie Skyes and Kieran Tranter ‘A Just (Electric Lady) Land: Jimi Hendrix and John Rawls’ (2017) 29(3) Law and Literature 383-403 DOI: 10.1080/1535685X.2017.1361674 It is available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1535685X.2017.1361674 A Just (Electric Lady) Land: Jimi Hendrix and John Rawls Robbie Sykes and Kieran Tranter Dr. Robbie Sykes, BIntBus, LLB (Hons), PhD (Griffith), DipGrad (Otago). Robbie Sykes is an adjunct research fellow at the Law Futures Centre, Griffith University. Through his research, he seeks to jurisprudence to the philosophical concerns expressed through popular culture, focusing particularly on rock music and video gaming. Correspondence: [email protected] Associate Professor Kieran Tranter BSc, LLB (Hons), PhD (Griffith). Kieran Tranter is an Associate Professor at Griffith Law School, Griffith University. He is interested in forms of law and legal relations expressed through everyday objects and texts. Word Count: 9578 1 Abstract, This article argues that the life and work of rock musician Jimi Hendrix reveals that John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice is politically inert. Rawls sought to convince of the principles needed for a just society via an abstract scenario of his own making. Comparably, Hendrix attempted to free the minds of his listeners by depicting, through his surreal lyrics and prismatic guitar playing, mental journeys to elevated states of awareness. Hendrix’s depictions of ineffable internal states elucidate the difficulties of utilizing the abstract to improve real world justice. The psychedelic “trips” on which Hendrix takes his listeners parallel the hallucinatory nature of Rawls’s vision: the divestment of identity demanded by Rawls’s logic alienates his plan for society from the imperatives of life in the political world. Keywords Cultural Legal Studies · Music · John Rawls · Jimi Hendrix Introduction This article stages a “jam session” between political philosopher John Rawls and rock star Jimi Hendrix. Specifically, it argues that Hendrix’s life and music1 reveals Rawls’s grand theory of justice as lost in a haze of political inertia. At first, the combination seems as jarring as the contrast between the three-piece suits of Rawls, mild-mannered Harvard professor, and the psychedelic finery of Hendrix, mind-altering showman and “high priest” of 1960s counter- culture.2 Such incongruity suggests that Hendrix is of no use in understanding Rawls’s work. Rawls’s A Theory of Justice3 (henceforth “ATOJ”) is carefully considered, patiently thought out, and shows in its Harvard University Press publication the hallmarks of elite institutionalism. In contrast, Hendrix’s onstage antics – gyrating wildly, playing the guitar with his teeth, and letting loose streams of feedback – suggest a man with no regard for decorum, let alone patrician concerns over governmental structure. Rawls meticulously plots out the intricate details of the ideal order, while Hendrix is to be found enveloped in paisley swirls and 2 whorls of reefer smoke; hardly a candidate, it would seem, for perceiving the “big picture” of society as charted in ATOJ. However, it is this contrast that makes Hendrix particularly useful in critiquing ATOJ. The outsized character projected by the guitar god’s performances and the vivid colors with which he painted his musical pictures highlights features of Rawls’s theory previously shrouded in grey plaid. The starting point for joining the two is the aforementioned notion of the “big picture.” Rawls and Hendrix are kindred spirits to the extent that they observe the wider world with an attitude of detachment: Hendrix sits and smokes, going with the flow and flashing knowing smirks at the follies of those caught up in the hustle and bustle; Rawls is above the fray of quotidian society, divested of self-interest and calmly advocating how the world could be improved. Comparison with Hendrix shows that the seemingly-reasonable Rawls is, in fact, as “out there” as any rock star shaman. Hendrix portrays the ineffectualness and frustrations of daydreams and acid trips, shortcomings which, it is argued, also apply to Rawls’s theory. Ian MacDonald points out that while the acid trip may reveal the energies that (purportedly) structure reality, this insight cannot be acted upon: all one can do is sit back and “dig” the beauty of forces that spark off each other without greater meaning.4 This “un-actionable intelligence” is also present in Rawls. This article concludes that ATOJ, despite its beautiful structure, is politically inert. Rawls’s work merely reinforces the status quo because it sits removed from important concrete realities. Hendrix provides a vivid understanding of Rawls because Hendrix, unlike Rawls, was aware of – indeed, sung about and enacted through his performances – the hindrances encountered in the abstract world. This article’s tie-dyed juxtaposition of Rawls’s vision of justice and Hendrix’s musical world occurs in four sections that, adopting musical terminology, are labelled “sets”. In the first set, the use of popular music to elucidate jurisprudence is defended, and the possibility of connecting Hendrix’s work with Rawlsian justice is foreshadowed. The second set identifies 3 the journey to the abstract in Rawls and Hendrix. The third charts the impossibilities of the return journey from the abstract to the real. In the fourth Hendrix’s recounting of psychedelic uncertainty are used to explain why Rawls remains lost in the “haze” of political inertia unable to substantiate an order of justice in the real. Set One: Law and Music, Rawls and Hendrix This article’s method strives to illuminate jurisprudence by analyzing it in relation to popular music. Existing studies that couple law with music have sought insight by identifying similarities between musicianship and the technical concerns of legal practice, with matters of interpretation,5 improvisation,6 authenticity,7 and aesthetics8 being prominent lines of enquiry. Classical,9 folk,10 country,11 and jazz12 are the musical genres usually employed in these endeavors. Popular music, especially the rock format, has been largely neglected in law and music’s interdisciplinary dialogue.13 This article differs from previous studies: not only does it analyze law through rock music, but it also delves into broader philosophical concerns instead of examining the specific tasks carried out by lawyers and judges. The analysis presented here “riffs” on MacNeil’s version of cultural legal studies, which has argued for the usefulness of popular culture in understanding law.14 MacNeil contends that popular culture is a forum in which jurisprudential discourses are present, albeit submerged, and that popular cultural artefacts are a rubric by which academic understandings of jurisprudence can be deepened and critiqued.15 Through this approach, popular culture is viewed as expressive of widespread anxieties and hopes concerning legality. Film,16 television,17 comic books18 and video games19 have all been recruited to produce novel critiques of jurisprudential theories. This article asserts that popular music should take its place alongside these forms as a means for cultural legal enquiry. 4 Nonetheless, as the method employed in this article draws upon music rather than fiction and visual drama, so it diverges at points from MacNeil’s undertaking. While fiction offers self-contained works as diagnostic tools, the analytical resources present in the world of rock include not only music, but concert performances and promotional videos with their staging, costuming, and unique forms of physical expression, as well as album art and photographic documentation of musicians’ lives and work, news media interviews, and biographical accounts. All of these constituents factor into the discourses of rock music, and, as argued by Georges-Claude Guilbert, coalesce into a larger text suitable for analysis.20 At the center of this vortex of material is the rock star. The form of analysis to be undertaken here looks to the life, as well as artistic enterprises of the rock star, and to the immaterial worlds created in the rock star’s music, to throw into relief both the intellectual project of the legal theorist and the social activity of law. Beyond merely illustrating legal theoretical concepts, the rock star may provide a new angle from which law can be known, a union of the Apollonian and Dionysian.21 Robbie Sykes and Kieran Tranter have previously argued that the stark dissimilarity in the rhetorical styles of rock music and legal theory provide a method for “amplifying” otherwise suppressed problems and inconsistencies within legal theory.22 This article continues such an approach, showing how Hendrix performs and problematizes Rawls.