Hip-Hop's herd mentality

In the hip-hop world, the aggressive assertion of one man’s dominance against other men is reminiscent of dogs urinating on everything as a means to claim territory and assume the position of alpha dog.

By subscribing to this very curbed definition of masculinity, hip-hop fans refuse to reject stereotypical masculine standards and prevent potential progress that would open the community to members who do not fit within this mold.

While rejecting anyone who does not subscribe to the “hard” image, the hip-hop community eliminates its own members trying to maintain it.

The pursuit of this image ultimately deteriorates the community from the inside.
Using violence to assert dominance proves to be a self-destructive method of preserving hip-hop ideals.

Hip-hop encourages its community to assert itself and take control, especially through violence and hyper-masculine projections. By doing this, it asserts itself as a dominant figure in its community and takes control by constraining its members to limited societal roles.

Originally, hip-hop appealed to people who were victimized by discriminatory authority figures. Its members now victimize each other, discriminating against those accused of presenting feminine traits.

This trend is exemplified in gestures like 50 Cent’s boorish slight of Ja Rule and the hostile response Frank Ocean received for embracing his bisexuality. Fat Joe notes they, “can’t go around smiling at each other anymore.”

Instead, they turn a cold shoulder to one another to seem “hard.”

They seem victims to a system of ideas, like parts of a machine working against one another.

Talib Kweli calls hip-hop “ego-driven,” interested in serving the self by dominating others, but this driving ego is more of a collective force.

 Man’s individual desire for dominance and importance is not only influenced but also eclipsed by the community’s desire for these things.

Hip-hop emphasizes the whole and not the parts, with these parts lobbying to consistently represent the image coveted by the whole.

The desire for dominance and importance is not restricted to the hip-hop community.
It is everyone’s, so it’s conceivable that a musical genre emphasizing this human need would appeal to people outside of the exclusive hip-hop community.

Fans ignorant of origins and initial themes still appreciate hip-hop’s present form and current themes, but due to hip-hop’s collective ego, the community seems predominantly concerned with preserving its exclusiveness.

This state of affairs has an isolating effect, creating an us versus them mentality that does little to combat discrimination.

Because hip-hop figures do not seem interested in transcending stereotypes, the art cannot be thought of as progressive.

These stereotypes are ultimately well-maintained illusions and conflict with hip-hop’s effort to represent authenticity.

In engaging and posing for these stereotypes, these performers never really stop performing.

They keep the show going in their struggle to represent the community ideals accordingly and in turn inspire narrow-minded views about and within the hip-hop community.

Through inflated egos and with narrowed minds, the genre’s main figures effectively devalue women and homosexuals, forfeiting their empathy while maintaining that the suffering of the hip-hop community could never be understood.

It seems this culture has progressed to a point of no progression, essentially segregated itself and diminished the importance of individual expression.

Individual thinking is discouraged if it’s not in accordance with hip hop masculine standards.

Hip-hop has become a members-only club trapped in a box, turning away those who dare to think outside it.

­— ambhendr@indiana.edu