Since the rise of the subculture, punk rockers have reappropriated a variety of symbols and everyday objects. The primary intention of this DIY is to shock viewers and make some sort of statement. An interesting example of this appears in Michael Muhammad Knight's novel The Taqwacores. During the passage from pages 211-12 of the text, Jehangir addresses the history of DIY punk, distinguishing between symbolic reappropriation in the punk subculture as a whole and Muslim punk: taqwacore. Before its analysis, the Star of David appears physically in the novel, generating numerous effects on readers. These effects extend to a wide readership including the Muslim community, the Jewish community and the equally less religious community, simply reacting to the physicality of a symbol in a text. The use of the Star of David in The Taqwacores by Michael Muhammad Knight succeeds in wowing a wide readership due to religious and cultural predispositions, the shock value produced by the physicality of the symbol, and a sense of connectivity with the Yusef character. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay It is important to examine 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 explains how literature and history work together: “art and literature do not simply reflect the ideas, beliefs, and desires of a society in a selfless way; they are shaped by them and actively participate in their questioning… 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 societal receptions of the Star of David to fully understand the significance of Knight's use of this symbol in his text. Equipped with historical significance, it is bound to elicit some sort of reaction, regardless of today's reading audience, due to past and current events. Malpas explains: “The act of imagination or inspiration which allows the creation of a work of art or a literary work 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 embedded as any other person. » (62) Essentially, it would be impossible for Knight to produce this text without including his personal experience in 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 certain 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 elements comes into play. Religious symbols are commonplace as a means of instilling shock and awe in spectators. Shane Gunster explains how subcultural DIY works: The real work of subcultures is not so much expressive as transgressive: the power of style does not arise from objective similarities between signs. and a way of life, but rather in the differences between the way a sign is normally used and its relocation by a subcultural group into a different semiotic context. (Gunster 201)As Jehangir points out, “old school punks like Iggy Pop and Sid Vicious wore the swastika and all that Nazi bullshit” (Knight 211). Historically, punks did not wear these symbols to support Nazism, but simply to create controversy and blur the lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The punk subculture perfected DIY by “constituting itself negatively via a dislocation of signifiers so severe that the “possibility of signification itself was fatally damaged” (Gunster 202). The main point here is that the meaning of the Star of David is so drastically played up that any meaning behind it becomes irrelevant. Whether or not readers and viewers see it in this Light is another matter entirely. Jehangir rhetorically questions the purpose of DIY taqwacore: "If it's Muslim punk, and our community and audience are all Muslim, what symbol is more troubling than the fucking Star of David?" (Knight 211). Taqwacore builds on the symbolic reappropriation that already exists in the punk subculture by using religious symbols guaranteed to elicit a reaction from its specifically Muslim audience. This effectively makes symbolic reappropriation something exclusively taqwacore rather than simply punk. In the case of the Taqwacores, the Star of David shocks not only the fictional audience of the text, but also the readers, who engage with the symbol almost as personally as Yusef does in actually seeing it. The physical appearance of the symbol is scattered in a stream-of-consciousness style, with a single dot appearing for every twelve lines of text. This indicates Yusef's troubled reaction when he sees the symbol everywhere in the house. He is described as being so distraught. noticing the symbol "jumping out at me from t-shirt iron-ons, necklaces, patches, and even tattooed forearms," ​​he cannot bring himself to say what it is (Knight 211). Then, rather than Knight simply stating which symbol is referenced in words, it appears physically in the text. This example 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 case in the novel where a symbol appears physically, and it is a rare phenomenon in all texts of this nature. The unusual physical presence of the Star of David in the text draws on readers' reactions to the symbol itself. DIY punk and taqwacore can also fuel diverse reactions from readers of various religious backgrounds. Malpas defines historicism as "the practice of interpreting texts on the basis of the idea that their meanings are generated by the historical contexts in which they are situated and that these contexts change as history progresses" (Malpas 57). The Star of David has taken on various meanings over time, and these meanings change depending on the religious and cultural exposure of the reader in question, whether through shock, fascination, or disgust, depending on the purpose of reappropriating the symbol . to annoy the Muslim readership, it would undoubtedly prove effective. Likewise, a Jewish reader might find it offensive if the symbol is used out of its original context. Alternatively, an agnostic reader might be disturbed by this news. appropriation simply because they find it disrespectful and inappropriate, regardless of its personal meaning. Perhaps if the symbol were used to convey a specific political message, receptions would be different, or readers, 2006. 55-65.