Hyper-Heteromasculinity in 1970S Australian Popular Music Cultures
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
‘Sheilas and Pooftas’: Hyper-Heteromasculinity in 1970s Australian Popular Music Cultures Rebecca Hawkings Macquarie University In 1978, a letter writer to Rock Australia Magazine (RAM) wrote disparagingly of pop music’s ‘sheilas and pooftas’, and positioned them as the antithesis of ‘Aussie rock and roll.’1 The colloquial language employed by the letter writer reveals a deeper fear and loathing of non-masculine (‘sheila’) and non-heterosexual (‘poofta’) influences on Australian popular music culture. Indeed, gender and sexuality were two key ways by which ‘Australianness’ in popular music during the 1970s was recognised, and this article seeks to unpack and problematise those nationalising demarcations. Using the analytical framework of performative hyper-heteromasculinity (specifically, the ‘ocker’ identity and variations thereof), this article will critically engage with artists including Billy Thorpe and The Aztecs, Skyhooks, and The Angels, in order to better understand the complex nexus of gender, sexuality, and cultural nationalism that defined much of 1970s Australian popular music. Introduction In 1978, a letter writer to Rock Australia Magazine (RAM) wrote, At last Australia is coming up with some good recording artists. People like Midnight Oil, David Warner, the Angels, Cold Chisel etc. Not like this fuckin’ disco shit which is fit for sheilas and pooftas… There is Aussie rock and roll playing in the pubs these days.2 Colloquial language and slurs aside, the letter writer articulates an under-examined aspect of Australian popular music of the 1970s; namely, the demarcative role of gender and sexuality in ascribing ‘Australianness’ to music cultures. Indeed, the 1970s provide a fascinating example of the fear and loathing of the non-masculine (‘sheilas’) and non-heterosexual (‘pooftas’) in music cultures recognised as ‘Australian’. This article will unpack the nexus of gender, sexuality, and cultural nationalism in 1970s Australian popular music through the shifting (and often simultaneous) interpretations of the ‘ocker’ performative identity, and the related theoretical framework of hyper-heteromasculinity. By tracing the ‘ocker’, the ‘anti- ocker’, and the ‘flamboyant ocker’ as performative (and, indeed, formative) identifying tropes in 1970s Australian popular music, this article will demonstrate the ways in which gender and sexuality acted as complex markers of ‘Australianness’ in these historically specific music cultures. Defining Hyper-Heteromasculinity in Australian Popular Music 1 Letter to RAM, December 1978, quoted in V. Riley, ‘Death rockers of the world unite! Melbourne 1978- 80 – punk rock or no punk rock?’ in P. Hayward (ed.), From Pop To Punk To Postmodernism: Popular music and Australian culture from the 1960s to the 1990s, Sydney, Allen & Unwin, 1992, p. 121. 2 Letter to RAM, December 1978, p. 121. 1 c) The Limina Editorial Collective http://www.limina.arts.uwa.edu.au Limina, Volume 20.2, 2014 Rebecca Hawkings Before considering the role of the ‘ocker’ identity in Australian popular music, it is first important to outline, however briefly, the theoretical framework used to unpack this nexus of gender, sexuality, and cultural nationalism. This paper will employ the concept of ‘hyper-heteromasculinity’ drawn from Donald Mosher and Mark Sirkin’s socio-psychological theory of hypermasculinity.3 In 1984, Mosher and Sirkin described hypermasculinity as a particular type of aggressive macho personality, consisting of three components: ‘(a) callous sexual attitudes towards women, (b) violence as manly, and (c) danger as exciting.’ 4 Four years after publishing this work, Mosher – this time with Silvan Tomkins – outlined the ways in which such a theory could be read as historically specific and, most interestingly, tied to ideas of national identity. He noted that hypermasculinity, … links the historical events that served as prototypic scenes to a group or nation’s script. For example, the frontier… produced historical scenes still linked to the American ideological emphasis on rugged individuality.5 The Australian context similarly sees an historically gendered interpretation of the ‘nation’s script’; a discourse of performative identity that has variously been expressed through the archetypal constructions of the larrikin, the ANZAC, the lifesaver, the sportsman, the bushman, the squatter, and – eventually – the ‘ocker.’6 This ‘script’ of masculinity correspondingly shapes the construction of Australian rock music of the 1970s. As Carl Rhodes and Alison Pullen have noted, Australian rock music of this era was a reflection of a ‘cultural meaning of Australian masculinity.’7 Similarly, Shane Homan has defined the genre through its ‘masculine mainstream performative tradition.’ 8 Globally, rock music has been read as the stronghold of a specific performance of masculinity – what Simon Frith and Angela McRobbie notably termed ‘cock rock.’ 9 In this respect, the Australian context replicates this gendered demarcation, particularly – as Greg Young and Raymond Evans have detailed – in the juxtaposition between masculine (and nationalised) rock music and its non-masculinised (and subsequently less nationalised) pop music peer.10 Contrasted to the predominantly female (or feminised) space of pop music, 3 D. Mosher & M. Sirkin, ‘Measuring a macho personality constellation’, Journal of Research in Personality, vol. 18, no. 2, 1984, pp. 150-163. 4 Mosher & Sirkin, ‘Measuring a Macho Personality’, p. 150. 5 D. Mosher & S. Tomkins, ‘Scripting the Macho Man: Hypermasculine Socialization and Enculturation’, The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 25, no. 1, 1988, p. 62. 6 Mosher & Tomkins, ‘Scripting the Macho Man’ p. 62; J. Rickard, ‘Lovable Larrikins and Awful Ockers’, Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 56, 1998, pp. 78-85; R. Crawford, ‘Anyhow… where d’yer get it, mate? Ockerdom in Adland Australia’, Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 90, 2007,,p. 2; M. Bellanta, Larrikins: A History, Brisbane, University of Queensland Press, 2012; J. Rickard, ‘National Character and the “Typical Australian”: An Alternative To Russel Ward’, Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 3, no. 4, 1979, pp. 12-21; C. Moore, ‘Australian Masculinities’, Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 22, no. 56, 1998, pp. 1-16. 7 C. Rhodes & A. Pullen, ‘Commercial gender: Fracturing masculinity in the case of Oz Rock’, Culture and Organization, vol. 18, no 1, 2012, p. 34. 8 S. Homan, The Mayor’s A Square: Live Music and Law and Order in Sydney, Sydney, Local Consumption Press, 2003, p. 4. 9 S. Frith & A. McRobbie, ‘Rock and Sexuality’ in S. Frith & A. Goodwin (eds.), On Record: Rock, Pop and the Written Word, New York, Routledge, 1990, pp. 317-332. 10 G. Young, ‘So slide over here: the aesthetics of masculinity in late twentieth century Australian pop music’, Popular Music, vol. 23, no. 2, 2004, pp.173-193; R. Evans, ‘…To try to ruin: rock ‘n’ roll, youth c) The Limina Editorial Collective 2 http://www.limina.arts.uwa.edu.au Limina, Volume 20.2, 2014 Rebecca Hawkings Australian rock music has, in large part, been ‘produced as a music befitting of men and masculinity… marketed by its business producers to the hard drinking man understood as the other to ‘sheilas and pooftas’.’11 Australian rock music, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, was a space within which the ‘script’ of a hyper- heteromasculine national identity was reiterated and reconstructed. In adopting Mosher’s theory of hypermasculinity to explain these gendered discourses in Australian popular music, this paper makes one small adjustment, using the phrase ‘hyper-heteromasculinity’ to emphasise the role of predominant (hetero)sexualised discourses and performative ideas as linked to recognitions of ‘Australianness.’ Though Mosher’s work does include ‘callous sexual attitudes towards women’ in his working definition, the focus of his analysis is on violence in masculinity. Australian popular music cultures, I would argue, were far more sexualised than they were celebratory of violence; hence the reference to both ‘sheilas’ and ‘pooftas’ in the RAM letter of 1978.12 The Ocker In 1979, Harry Oxley rather harshly characterised the ‘ocker’ as, ‘a self- satisfied vulgarian, a beer-sodden slob uncouth in behaviour and thought… ‘one of the boys’ spending his time and money in the pubs.’13 Existing studies of the ‘ocker’ have focused primarily on film and theatre, with more recent studies examining the ‘ocker’ in the world of advertising – spearheaded, as Robert Crawford noted, by John Singleton.14 The ‘ocker’ Crawford describes was part of that longer historical lineage of the archetypal ‘Australian’ (male), ‘from the bushman to the Digger and then on to the lifesaver.’15 The ‘ocker’ as an identity has been explicitly linked with the larrikin identity of earlier Australia, a working-class masculinised discourse centred on an ‘authentic’ nationalised archetype – the ‘quintessential, typical Australian male.’16 On the 12t July 1976, the ABC broadcast a Monday Conference debate between author and social critic Max Harris and advertising executive John Singleton. The debate centred around the portrayal (and indeed, the existence) of the ‘ocker’, an identity which host Robert Moore summarised as ‘fair dinkum Australians; the ones without pretence. ‘Ockerism’ is self-recognition and confident self-acceptance.’17 It was a characterisation with which Singleton agreed, noting that the ‘ocker’ (though he questioned the specific phraseology) was ‘naturally Australian… the things that we enjoy naturally in Australia