Since the rise of the subculture, punk rockers have reappropriated a variety of everyday symbols and objects. The main intention of this bricolage is to shock viewers and make some sort of statement. An interesting example of this appears in Michael Muhammad Knight's novel The Taqwacores. In the transition to pages 211-12 of the text, Jehangir touches on the history of punk bricolage, distinguishing between symbolic reappropriation in the punk subculture as a whole and Muslim punk: taqwacore. Prior to its analysis, the Star of David physically appears in the novel, generating a series of effects on readers. These effects extend to a wide readership, including the Muslim community, the Jewish community, and the equally less religious community, simply by reacting to the physicality of a symbol in a text. The use of the Star of David in Michael Muhammad Knight's The Taqwacores manages to amaze a wide audience due to religious and cultural predispositions, the shock value produced by the physicality of the symbol, and a sense of connection with the character of Yusef. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayIt is significant to look at this passage from a historicist perspective to understand why punk's use of the Star of David in the Taqwacores provokes a reaction and has the capacity to formulate controversy among a wide readership. Simon Malpas discusses how literature and history work together: "art and literature do not simply reflect the ideas, beliefs and desires of a society in a disinterested way; they are shaped by them and are actively involved in challenging them ... literature and culture are sites of power and resistance” (Malpas 61). It is important to understand the history of punk subcultural appropriation of religious symbols, as well as the social reception of the Star of David to fully understand the meaning behind it. Knight's use of the symbol in his text. Rich in historical significance, it is bound to receive some sort of reaction regardless of today's reading audience due to past and current events. Malpas explains: The act of imagination or inspiration that allows you to create a work of art or literature must be analyzed not as a mystical force belonging to a genius, but as a function of the circulation of social discourses in which the artist or writer is as deeply rooted as any other person. " (62) Essentially, it would be impossible for Knight to produce this text without including personal experience within his own social discourse. Likewise, it would be impossible for readers not to read this text without experience and cultural predispositions coming into play By physically displaying the Star of David, Knight inevitably elicits a degree of surprise from unexpected readers, each with their own understanding and interpretation of the symbol. In the punk subculture, the reappropriation of cultural and cultural values. Religious symbols are common as a means of eliciting shock and awe in viewers. Shane Gunster explains how subcultural bricolage works: The real work of subcultures is not so much expressive as transgressive: the power of style does not derive from objective similarities between signs. and a lifestyle, but rather in the differences between the way a sign is normally used and its relocation by a subcultural group in a different semiotic context. (Gunster 201) As Jehangir points out, “old school punks like Iggy Pop and Sid Vicious, they wore the swastika and all this Nazi bullshit” (Knight 211). Historically punks didn't carrythese symbols to support Nazism, but simply to create controversy and blur the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The punk subculture perfected bricolage by "negatively constituting itself through a dislocation of signifiers so severe that the possibility of meaning itself has been fatally damaged" (Gunster 202). The main point here is that the meaning of the Star of David is played out so drastically that any meaning behind it becomes irrelevant. Whether or not readers and viewers see it in this light is an entirely different matter. Jehangir rhetorically questions the purpose of taqwacore bricolage: “if this is Muslim punk, and our community and our audience are all fucking Muslims, what symbol is more disturbing than the Star of David?” (Knight 211). Taqwacore builds on the symbolic reappropriation that already exists in the punk subculture using religious symbols that guarantee a reaction from its specifically Muslim audience. This effectively makes symbolic reappropriation something exclusively taqwacore rather than just punk. In the case of The Taqwacores, the Star of David works not only by shocking the imagined audience of the text, but also the readers, who interact with the symbol almost as much as Yusef actually seeing it. The physical appearance of the symbol is scattered in a stream-of-consciousness style , with a single period appearing per twelve lines of text. This indicates Yusef's agitated reaction to seeing the symbol throughout the house noticing the symbol "jumping out at me from iron-on t-shirts, necklaces, patches, and even tattooed forearms" that he can't tell what it is (Knight 211). So instead of simply stating the symbol being referred to in words, it physically appears in the text. This instance puts readers in Yusef's shoes, allowing them to experience their own reaction to the symbol. Readers are drawn directly into the text through visual means, significantly changing the pace of the text. This is the only instance in the novel where a symbol physically appears, and a rare occurrence in texts of this nature as a whole. The unusual physical presence of the Star of David within the text is based on readers' reactions to the symbol itself. Punk and taqwacore bricolage can also fuel a variety of reactions from readers of different religious backgrounds. Malpas defines historicism as “the practice of interpreting texts based on the idea that their meanings are generated by the historical contexts in which they are found and that these contexts change as history progresses” (Malpas 57). Religious symbols such as the Star of David have taken on a variety of meanings over time, and these meanings change depending on the religious and cultural exposure of the reader in question, whether out of shock, fascination, or disgust, whether the purpose is to reclaim the symbol to irritate Muslim readers, it would undoubtedly prove to be a success. Likewise, a Jewish reader might find it offensive that the symbol is used outside of its original context. Alternatively, an agnostic reader might be disturbed by the re-. appropriation simply because they find it disrespectful and inappropriate, regardless of personal meaning. Perhaps if the symbol were used to convey a specific political message, the reception would be different, or readers would be able to gain more insight into Knight and punk. the motivations of the subculture. However, as Jehangir states, the purpose of questioning the meaning of the Star of David is simply “because it's funny” (Knight 212). The simple fact of removing the symbol from its serious historical and religious context and depositing it within, 2006. 55-65.