This thread appeared on alt.rave... it's a great discussion on PLUR (Peace, Love, Unity, and Respect) in the rave community.

Isn't raving all about coming together....happiness or some bs like that? What makes a rave good? Who is to say that DC raves are so k-kool. Jesus, spare me. The last place I ever thought I would hear "my rave is better than yours" would be in this newsgroup.

morrow

Isn't raving all about coming together....happiness or some bs like that?

In a selfish kind of way, yes. In the end, we are all a very diverse bunch of people who happen to like dance music, dancing, the physical environment at raves, and the good feelings which result from a variety of things that vary from person to person. The key word is diverse -- people think that "coming together" means being a homogenous mob of grinning, hugging, handholding hippies who think exactly alike. Every day on the regional rave related mailing lists, on alt.rave, and in real life, we are reminded of the fact that we are all very different, and most of us aren't going to sacrifice our individuality for PLUR. The "U" in PLUR only goes so far.

Recently you were reminded that there are some people in our little subculture who are, for whatever reasons, concerned with comparing the quality of their local scene with others. I find it as annoying as you do, but don't get frustrated that you're witnessing behavior that doesn't conform to your idea of what a Real Raver (tm) should be displaying.

Sure, some people can be annoyingly immature about "the scene" but like it or not, they're a part of it, too. Look at it as diversity rather than betrayal, and you won't have to post "uh! I thought raves were about <insert PLUR cliche here>"

xjam@cork.cs.berkeley.edu (The Crossjammer):
Sort of invalidates the R though doesn't it?

Not at all; in fact, I was thinking that people need to be more respectful of other ravers' diversity... as in the case of when one person doesn't think another is being a "true raver" or whatever because they did or said something that didn't conform to a mold they have invented or inherited.

Person A: "My scene is better than yours"
Person B: "Hey, raves are about <insert cliche here>. You're not cool because you're not exactly 100% <cliche again>."

Sounds like there's no R there with either of them.

Look out! It's the PLUR Police! :)
Mike

So then a scene based on PLUR can embrace folx who have no R?
Sorta contradictory to me.

Peace. Love. Unity. Respect.
If you feel like it.

Not really contradictory at all. Respect comes from yourself. If other people have no respect that's their problem. It becomes your problem when their lack of respect impinges on your own particpation . . . but still the most you can do is calmly confront them about it . . . no one will change unless they do the changing themselves.

But anyway, what I mean is that Peace/Love/Unity/Respect is an IDEAL to which EACH of us can aspire and act. That is *quite* different from going around expecting other people to adhere to it. I find I am my most frustrated with things when I start expecting others to meet some "standard" of PLUR, rather than just concentrating on creating it in myself for myself. I think this is sort of what Mike Brown was getting at.

One thing I've learned for sure is that no one is perfect -- and that's part of the diversity of human beings.

Laura

I totally agree with Mike J Brown and Laura. (by the way, Mike, very well said!)
I think we shouldn't "judge" others because they're different from us. No matter how much we might be convinced that what WE think is right.

-prior-

So then, what unifies ravers? What defines the community? If there's no standard of PLUR what are you bonding off of?

If PLUR is optional and not even expected of others, than clearly it can not be the unifying concept. For a scene touting PLUR as what takes it above "a bunch of people dancing in a field" this is somewhat contradictory.

I quite understand that none of us is perfect. Respect is one of the things that helps us get by. I don't believe it's somehow fascist to expect that of other people. On the other hand, I don't get too bent out of shape when it's not proferred.

What follows is my opinion based on my own personal experiences. I never claim that what I am saying is "right" or even that there is any kind of "right" answer.

So then, what unifies ravers?

The desire to rave. Really: I feel like we come together because we like to dance and hear music and meet people outside of the "club scene" that defined the late 80's and early 90's.

What defines the community?

People who go to events and see each other, people who help to throw parties, people who don't know each other but still talk via the net.

If there's no standard of PLUR what are you bonding off of?

You are bonding off of shared experience, basically. Talking to someone in the UK over the net about the latest Mike Dredd release can be a bonding experience. Seeing a person at a party two or three times so you start to say "hi" and "how are you" can be a bonding experience. Working closely with a bunch of people to throw a party can be a bonding experience. Being at a party and feeling like you and the people around you are having a good time can be a bonding experience.

If PLUR is optional and not even expected of others, than clearly it can not be the unifying concept.

I agree. I do not think Peace/Love/Unity/Respect is the unifying concept behind raves. I think that desire to have a good time and express ourselves in the format of "rave" is the unifying experience, and PLUR is an outgrowth of that. Once the PLUR is accepted into yourself, or expressed by yourself, or experienced by yourself, or generated by yourself, you then move on to another level, which is to be drawn to other people with the same understandings. From there a different community bond can be formed, but I would not say it is the sole bond in the rave scene. There are probably as many reasons for people feeling part of the rave community as there are people in the rave community.

For a scene touting PLUR as what takes it above "a bunch of people dancing in a field" this is somewhat contradictory.

I agree. I think that the scene has it backward: I think that the PLUR arises out of the bunch of people dancing in the field, (or, applying this to other unified subcultures, doing WHATEVER it is they do) and that people have the result (awareness and creation of PLUR) confused with the cause. "Rave" is but one path to experiencing, sharing, and creating PLUR.

Laura

Hold on...
Wait a minute...
This can't be USENET...
Two people having a debate...

AND FINDING OUT THEY ACTUALLY AGREE!

What Laura said.
Film at 11.

If PLUR is optional and not even expected of others, than clearly it can not be the unifying concept. For a scene touting PLUR as what takes it above "a bunch of people dancing in a field" this is somewhat contradictory.

I think the key here is being aware that when a unifying vibe happens in its ideal form, it is a rather spontaneous, unforced occurance. People can't be expected to do anything. At a rave, an environment is created to be condusive to allowing a shared feeling of PLUR to happen. It may or may not, but if it does, it has to feel natural and noncontrived to be genuine. Some party-throwers seem to have an intuition as well as a core following that contribute to a plur vibe. With others, it can be hit or miss. It is rare that any party can achieve complete unity since there usually some attendees that do not sync up with certain aspects, i.e. style of music. The best place to find some variation of PLUR is usually on the dance floor, were people are at least united by the most fundamental activity of raving.

As a side note, I don't find the PLUR acronym to be totally accurate for my experiences with the rave scene. I see Peace as a subset of Love and Respect, and therefore redundant. I would replace it with Energy, though I realize that neither LURE or (ack) RULE has as nice a ring to them as PLUR. Actually, my personal (if anyone cares) ideals are more focused on Love, Energy, Truth. (LET?). "Truth" denotes openmindedness and awareness of self and the world. I feel that Truth + Love covers the important Respect ideal. Anyway, these concepts are suitably vague enough so that ultimately they all point in the same direction, which is wordlessly apparent to all those immersed in the actual experience.

yes, i agree with Lee's picture of peace as a subset of love and respect and that the guiding ideals of love, energy, truth ought to be enough but i think it's important to accentuate the role of respect. as laura has mentioned in previous threads without respect the rest of it really doesn't mean much. love is a very ambiguous term which can be distorted and used for unloving ends. i have an uncle in cincinnati, oh, a city known for it's anti-gay ballot initiatives, who preaches the fundamentalist christian rhetoric of loving gays (in the christian sense of love thy neighbour) while trying to "reform" their behavior. i am not intending to make a blanket flame of fundamentalist christian ideals but i feel that this concept of love is distorted. it simply is not possible to love that which we don't respect. respect is mutual. by putting ourselves in the moralizing position of passing judgement upon another- passing judgement with the strength that we feel we need to change or merely insult them- we have presupposed the self-image of superiority. we have put ourselves in a position above those we are judging. respect is a mutual activity and we can't respect that which we look down upon. whether it be "my club is better than yours" or "you are silly for drawing X's on your hands" it's pretty obvious that these comments are not driven by love or respect. i have to admit to my own hypocrisy in not always maintaining these ideals. but there is no reason to throw out idealism just because it isn't always practical. idealism is impractical by it's very nature. i just admit to my own hipocrisy and move on, trying to avoid it but certainly not denying it. the important idea here is that this concept of respect as a mutual activity is important for the survival of any of the other ideals. if wew consider ourselves dominant we do not accept and we do not respect. than we love in name only.

jonas

Jonas writes:
love is a very ambiguous term which can be distorted and used for unloving ends.

Yes, but this is true of any important word. If the words were perfectly 100% precise, then there wouldn't be any problems, people would all say "of course" all the time.

it simply is not possible to love that which we don't respect. respect is mutual.

No no! Love comes first. First you must feel love which comes from within YOU. THEN when you see others, you should see that they have the SAME love within them! Then respect comes very easily. :-) If you require "mutual respect" or "respect where due", soon enough there is none. P, U and R all come from L. :-)

but there is no reason to throw out idealism just because it isn't always practical. idealism is impractical by it's very nature.

This is not intended as a flame of the writer here, but...

THIS IS THE BIG LIE!

(Of course, it depends upon what is meant by practical :-) ...)

Being deterred from your ideals by "practicality" - ie putting the material world first - and you are ultimately left with nothing!

respect, :-)

Ken

yes, yes. good call. i think that's what i was trying to say but the idea got lost somewhere between my brain and my finger tips. no flame taken.

btw. when i spoke of mutual respect i didn't mean that from the "respect where due" pt of view but rather as a counter to that militaristic idea of respect as something a drill sargeant can frighten out of a soldier by talking down to the soldier. two people need to see themselves on the same level for respect to work,not as one subservient to another (imho). i suppose that could be seen as a form of love where i only see it as respect. the two interact to create a unity where there is no longer an us and them mentality, creating peace and spurring on the whole cycle. the four pillars dance about eachother drawing a picture of truth and the energy to perpetuate it. whoah. am i getting hippy or what? : ) i guess i haven't been listening to enough gabber lately to keep me angtsful and cynical ; )

due, : )

jonas