Brockhampton: The All-American Boyband

Counterpublics and Contradictions

Pough makes another point about counterpublics that can help us better understand Brockhampton and arguments more generally. She writes (2004), “Even as the Hip-Hop generation is vilified, alienated, and marginalized, certain elements within Hip-Hop work to vilify, alienate, and marginalize others” (p. 19). In other words, simply because a counterpublic is forced into a subordinated status does not mean that they cannot act as a dominating force. Brockhampton has worked in many ways to empower those Hip-Hop has traditionally alienated and marginalized, most centrally gay individuals. Yet, they also fit into Pough’s framework. In 2018, one of the band’s members, Ameer Vann, was accused of mental and sexual abuse by multiple women and was forced to leave the band. Brockhampton also has close ties to Shia LeBeouf, whom many members consider to be a close friend and mentor (Kim, 2018). Shia was accused of a range of abuses by his former girlfriend FKA Twigs (Benner and Ryzik, 2020).

This situation, where a counterpublic deals with internal issues of suppression and alienation, poses difficult but common issues to argument. How should counterpublics deal with internal issues that can work to undermine the arguments they pose? As individual arguers, what is the best way to proceed when made aware of issues and weaknesses that can compromise the strength of a position? Should individuals hide their weaknesses in the hopes of emerging from the argument victorious? Or should individual arguers be honest about their issues and weaknesses as a sign of good faith?

These are essential questions to argue. Many learn from an early age that the goal of argument is to win and that to accomplish this goal it is incumbent to present the strongest aspects of the argument while trying best to hide possible weaknesses. This makes sense in a framework of argument as a dichotomous win-lose scenario. For the sake of Brockhampton’s success, it makes sense that they would try to minimize the presence of their internal contradiction. As a counterpublic vulnerable to villainization from mainstream media, minimizing such contradictions can be understood as necessary for their survival. Mainstream publications are already quick to cast counterpublics’ rhetoric and actions in a deviant and violent light. Brockhampton speaking openly about their internal contradictions would expose the group to even more attack from dominating forces. 

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, the band was asked about the potential of Brockhampton being canceled in the aftermath of the Shia LeBeouf controversy. The group was quick to change the subject, ending that portion of the interview with one band member saying, “We should leave it at that.” Discussing their connections to the accused abusers would have exposed their weakness and, in a win-lose framework of argument, would have led to a loss.

In a world where argument is a human relation, this win-lose approach can be destructive. When hiding weaknesses that are relevant to the conflict or argument at hand, there is a failure to contribute to good faith in argument. When Brockhampton shied away from confronting their internal contradictions embodied in their relationship with Shia LeBeouf, they failed to demonstrate a willingness to argue from a place of honest dialogue. Their goal was not to engage in argument logically or ethically, but rather to shut the conversation down entirely for their benefit. It is easy to understand this unwillingness to be honest about issues as a form of “bullshit.” Jenny Rice (2015) describes “bullshit” as a kind of rhetorical blockage where, in an attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance, individuals attempt to stop the flow of conversation at all costs. Publics, counterpublics, and individuals alike may avoid being honest about their own problems or ideological contradictions to stop any conversation that may challenge their positions or arguments. 

When engaging in argument as a human relation and within the framework of dialogue, the parties involved must be honest about their issues and internal contradictions. Taking the time to lay out the issues and the premise of the argument certainly opens individuals up to criticism and judgment. Doing this also allows the argument to have the mutuality that is necessary for change and evolution. As Rice (2015) puts it: “Porousness can sometimes sink belief, much like too many holes in a ship. Yet, this is precisely the delicate beauty of rhetoric. In a moment of exposure before my interlocutor, my beliefs are likewise exposed to the possibility of transformation” (p. 470). Through presenting the relevant strengths and complications to those that are engaged in conflict with the individual, it is possible the individual may face unflattering responses. However, exposing these aspects of the individual’s argument, also makes for arguments rooted in mutuality and porousness.

Additionally, this exposure is meaningful in terms of ethos. When individuals take the time to be vulnerable in arguments and open up about issues that are relevant to the conflict at hand, they show tremendous “good faith.” It clearly demonstrates that the goal is not simply to “win” an argument or prove the other person wrong. Otherwise, individuals would only present information that was flattering. By admitting the issues and being honest about how arguers may have been implicit in the very systems they are arguing against, they are showing that what they want is not to “win,” what they want is to further our collective understanding of the truth. The willingness to be vulnerable is a strong indicator that arguers are not interested in partaking in bullshit. Instead, they are interested in arguments that serve the interest of truth and mutuality.

For Brockhampton, it is important that they admit as a counterpublic how they have been implicit in certain aspects of the life world they oppose. Their music embodies narratives that try to empower women and oppose rape culture, but they have a clear history with people who have engaged in abuse. Admitting and addressing their history with the individuals that embody the narratives they oppose certainly opens Brockhampton up to criticism and judgment. This is difficult for counterpublics because they may feel especially hesitant to admit their internal issues, which may be used by those in power to further alienate these groups. However, waiting until these issues are discovered by the public sphere means that these groups never have control of “the gaze.” Not only does being upfront and honest about internal issues and weaknesses serve the counterpublics ethos, but it also allows them to contextualize and explain these issues before they become re-interpreted through the public sphere’s lens.  

Taking the time to be honest about these aspects of their history in context to the arguments they are making about traditional boybands also demonstrates a great deal of “good faith” and strengthens their ethos. They are proving to their fanbase and to those who want to preserve the traditional boyband that they are willing to put it all out there and engage in mutuality and the flow of ideas. This can also serve as a guiding principle to those who are a part of other counterpublics. Recognizing and acknowledging how a group who is marginalized may also work to marginalize others is a way to engage in “good faith” arguments.