Post on 13-Nov-2014
description
Post-millennial Punk Identities
Individualism in consumer society
Candidate number: 03022331
Supervisor: Paul Chambers
Word count- 10, 500
1
Contents
Page number
Prologue 3
Literature review and theory 4
Introduction…………………………………..…………………………..5
Origins and subcultures……………………..…………………...………5
Identity and the “closing days of the modern era”...................................8
Bodies of Consumerism………………………………………….……....9
Punk’s dead?.............................................................................................11
Embodiment versus Consumerism...........................................................12
Punk and Sociology at the Millenium......................................................14
Methodology 18
“Theoretical Confession” and Ontology…................................................19
Who’s punk?…...........................................................................................20
Interview and Analysis Methodology .......................................................23
Analysis 25
Introduction……………………………………………………………...26
Competing Definitions..............................................................................26
Learning to be “Punk” ..............................................................................28
Alternative Media......................................................................................30
Dress and Difference.................................................................................32
Individuality versus “the Scene”...............................................................38
Punk in Context- Conclusion....................................................................40
Epilogue....................................................................................................46
Bibliography 47
2
Prologue
“Don't try and tell me Green Day are punk. They're not, they're plonk and they're
bandwagoning on something they didn't come up with themselves. I think they are
phony…”
“…The government's against you, the police are on you. So there we are fending off
all that and it pisses me off that years later a wank outfit like Green Day hop in and
nick all that and attach it to themselves.”
John Lydon, former lead singer of the Sex Pistols (in Contactmusic.com 2006).
3
Literature Review
4
Introduction
My project is on contemporary interpretations of “punk”. My aim is not to find an
essentialist typology of punk, as this may exclude individuals whose interpretation
and experience of punk differs from other discourses. The aim will be to examine
differing experiences of punk for young Britains around the turn of the century and to
research the micro and macro social events which have shaped these interpretations.
Origins and Subcultures
“Punk” as a musical/social phenomenon dates from the mid to late 70s. It’s followers
draped themselves in anti-conformist and nihilistic rhetoric. Punk style was
recognisable as a collage of offensive (to the dominant discourse) images, leather
patched jackets and spiked haircuts, it was a spectacular style, which led to it being
oft analysed, most influentially by Hebdige (1979) and the Centre for Contemporary
Cultural Studies (CCCS).
The CCCS approach was influenced by Marxist and semiotic approaches. Albert
Cohen’s (1955 in Widdicombe and Wooffitt 1995:15) early work on delinquency
being a response to problems imposed by structure is a useful starting point for the
CCCS’s theories on punk. The essence is that culture is a response and solution (real
or “magical”(S. Cohen, 1997[1980]:155)) to the larger and out of reach structures of
society. Culture itself has a multiplicity of meanings, but culture is not just expressive
meanings but institutions and “ordinary behaviour” (Williams: 1965:57). So culture
5
represents more than what is nominally called “art” and immediate aesthetics.
Another early influence on the CCCS was Barthes’s (1972) study of semiotics in
everyday life, stretching from theatre, to conversations, to dress, and how each of
these aspects was part of an ideology. Althusser (1971 in Hebdige 1979:12) had
already shown that ideology was a malleable, relativised form, which was present in
structure and was unconscious. Hebdige (1979: 14) wrote that dominant ideology was
unequal in distribution, i.e. the working class had less power and thus less influence in
creating it. Also influential were Gramsci’s notes on hegemony (in Hebdige 1979:16),
which like Althusser’s theory of ideology, noted that forms of ideological control
even though virtually omnipresent, were not fixed and had to be (re)won and
sustained. There is thus the possibility of rival discourses which, to paraphrase
Hebdige (1979: 16), can “prise open” the interplay between ideology and social order.
Barthes’s (1971) notion of polysemy, which means that objects or actions can change
their meanings, is important here, as polysemy enables resistance even in a society
where a dominant ideology may be virtually omnipresent in structures. Thus Hebdige
and the CCCS devoted much of their study to the idea that style could be mobilized as
resistance by the members of subcultures.
To the CCCS, the punk style was seen as being a response to the specific historical
and structural factors of the time in Britain, such as increasing joblessness and
poverty. According to Hebdige (1979:87), punk’s response was so styled that
although it involved new appropriations of objects and dress, it was able to be read for
the most part as how it was written; a rebellion and a nuisance to established society.
In this way polysemy was used as a tool of subversion (Hebdige 1979:3). This was
6
important to the rise and infamy of punk, as it was the subversion of the ideology of
expression which caused the mainstream to react largely negatively to it (Hebdige
1979:91/2). Punk as an aesthetic style was a bricolage (items taken out of original
discursive context, see Clarke, 1976) of various styles roughly cut and held together
by objects such as safety pins, clothes pegs and bin liners which automatically became
“punk fashion” when taken out of their original use value contexts (Hebdige
1979:107). Also perceived from the punk style was a knowing, sometime ironic
signification; chains and straps represented bondage (Cashmore 1984 in Widdicombe
and Woofitt 1995:11).
What about the music? Punk had a musical aesthetic that was fast, abrasive, snotty
and even amateur in performance. Lyrics contained more social and political
comment than the contemporary pop music did (Laing 1985:27 in Longhurst
1995:169). If we pause to consider punk in it’s contemporary form, whatever the
subjectivities and values of those who are aligned with punk, the music is still of
paramount importance and we can trace aesthetic lineages from ‘77 style to the
present day, still operating ostensibly under “punk”. Willis (1990 [1978]) in his study
of biker boys and hippies drew connections between the music of the subculture and
the values and lifestyle, of the members. This implied that subcultures were in part,
objectively structured. Punk was said to define itself by using knowledge of the
structure of society (Grossberg 1990: 118). Hebdige took up this idea of a
“homology” (lifestyle and style being interdependent) and saw punk’s sensibility as
“…dislocated, ironic and self-aware.” (1979:123). To the CCCS theorists, the music
of punk arose as expression of the rebellious sensibilities of the subculture.
7
Identity and the “closing days of the modern era” (Maffesoli 1996:1).
Identity forms a necessary part of the debate on subcultures. In the modern age,
identity has been created relating to the context of society. For around thirty years, the
notion of identity has been reworked to allow for the growing ascendancy of capitalist
hegemony and globalizing influences, which have implications for everyday life on a
micro scale (Giddens 1991:32). It has also been noted that since the birth of punk,
there have been more changes to our society. The breakdown of grand narrative
structures such as the cold war has led to a more global consensus on liberal
capitalism and democracy and a discourse somewhat optimistically known as “the end
of history” (Fukuyama 1992). Global consensus has also resulted in the shrinking of
civil society, as actors are detached from the decision making process (Castells
1997:11). In Britain, the left (of which the punks traditionally represented the radical
wing), failed to represent a credible alternative to the free market values of
Thatcherism (Hirst 1989:11), thus resulting in schisms within the left. These global
and local influences have resulted in political apathy with voting figures in the 2001
British elections the lowest for 80 years (cited in Franklin, 2004:13).
Giddens see a move to individual “life politics” (1991:214), which are the everyday
decisions of action which relate to self-identity. This self identity can only be
maintained if backed up by authenticating devices located within the individual as
opposed to external objectivities (1991:215). We can see the original punk subcultures
to be representative of life politics, as they largely revolved around creating
alternative actions in music and aesthetics, as well as being partly backed up by more
traditional “emancipatory politics” (Giddens 1991:215) of political discourse.
8
Susman (1979 in Ewen 1990:45) sees a change in our ways of perceiving others, there
is a change from the “Character” which is intrinsic and relatively unchanging, to the
“Personality” which is extrinsic and mouldable. This suggests that our identities do
not have to stay fixed through our lifetimes, but are open to change. More and more
we are able to challenge the weakened power of the state to (re)construct our identity
(Castells 1997:243), the variety of subcultures itself being an example of the new self
determination. Hall (1992 in Longhurst 1995:124) shows how the Postmodern view of
identity differs from traditional sociological views. While sociology accepts that
while identities change over time, they are still grounded in our relationships with
others. Postmodernist views on identity is that is unfixed and dislocated. Willis (1990)
has put forward that in late modernity, symbolic work (the work in which we produce
identity, which shall be discussed later.) becomes “contested and unstable” (1990:
12).
Bodies of consumerism
Consumerism is one of the major factors identified as changing the way in which we
construct our identities. According to Bauman (1998: 24), consumerism represents a
shift in Western society from producing to consuming. Western society is thus reliant
on the consumer traits of the individual, which differ from a pre industrial fear of the
new and are more aligned to the spectacle and play of styles (Campbell 1987:39,
Muggelton 1997:170).
The body has also become more and more a foundation for identity owing in part to
the decline of religious institutions which constructed identity externally (Shilling
9
2003:2, Giddens 1991:218). We are more likely to use the relationship between
society and our possessions to create our own identities (Lury 1996:8). Dress is a
fundamental part of style and identity and it can be seen to have reflected the macro
social changes in production and consumerism. Our dress can become a visual
metaphor for identity as well as our status and morality (Davis 1992:25 in Entwistle
2000:35, Finklestein 1991:128).
Bell (1976) has posited that there is a contradictory pair of ethos within modern
capitalism, with a rational economy on one side and a hedonistic culture on the other.
If these two live in a symbiotic relationship (Campbell 1987), the question of
individualism must only be considered within a consumer context. Is there a
connection between increasingly individuality and “fragmentation and inauthenticity”
(Polhemus 1997)? Western economies have progressed to a stage where stylistic
uniformity, created by the scientific management approach of Taylorism and Fordism
has moved to stylistic niche markets. Post Fordist production means that there are
now many more styles to choose from (Muggleton 1997:171). But even though we
may participate in “mass but not homogenous” consumption (Tomlinson 1990:21),
marketers have long attempted to market identity as part of the value of consumer
products (Jenkins, 1996:7-8, Redhead 1990:78). What we see in adverts is less focus
on the use value of the product and more emphasis on the means of selling it by the
image which it projects (Featherstone 1991:178, Longhurst 1995:245). The possible
implications are that identity may be sold rather than constructed.
Considering the growth of consumerism and projection of images we may be even
more controlled than before. Entwistle (2000:21) argues that while we are not
10
controlled in the Foucaldian sense, for example physically proscribed corsets, we are
still controlled in a qualitatively different way by the need to conform to social norms.
An important way for subcultures such as punk to assess who is part of the group is
through style of clothing (Entwistle 2000:138).
Punk’s dead?
With an increasingly consumerist and individualistic led society, many theorists
believe they are observing a waning in homogenous subcultural groups such as punk
as more people pick and choose from a variety of styles. Many now look back to the
subcultural theories of Hebdige et al as being outdated. However Hebdige did note
that subcultural expression could be incorporated by consumerism and ideologically
normalised by institutions such as the media and the judiciary (1979:94). But there is
no longer the same degree of commitment and “internal cohesion” to subcultural
groups as there once was (Sweetman 2004:79). Being part of a subculture may be
more about expressing individuality then dedication to the subcultures ideals
(Sweetman 2004:84), thus the concept of homology cannot really fit tightly anymore
(Redhead 1990). Stylistically, with increased individuality leading to bricolage being
used by everyone (Clarke 1990:92), counter culture and mainstream styles have
become blurred (Wilson 1990:222 [2]). Willis (1990:16) argues that the impact of the
“spectacular” (i.e. aesthetically shocking) subcultures of the 50s and 60s are
impossible to replicate now as all “styles and taste cultures” aim to express identity
outside of work and it’s formal styles. There seems to be a paradox at the heart of
style led consumerism: when fashions become blurred, it becomes less easy to use
style as an identifier for a particular subculture. Arguably the political message of
11
punk has also been largely weakened. It has been argued that “punk” could no longer
be a statement of rebellion as it had been incorporated into society. Once incorporated
and commodified, it had “social exchange value” (McDonald, 1984 in Redhead
1990:43). Attalli (1985 cited in Best 1997:21) perhaps putting it in the most stark
terms;
“anticonformism creates a norm for replication…this is a mere detour on the road to
ideological normalization”
Thus while “punk” once symbolised rebellion, now it has been said that the
“dominant reading has been reversed” (Redhead 1990:32).
Embodiment versus Consumerism
Yet the study of subcultures, as part of a growing trend in sociological analysis has
taken a move to a subjective and interpretative approach, with the individual and the
body moving towards the centre of analysis (Shilling 2003:viii).
Embodiment is crucial to understanding the ways in which sociological discourse has
evolved to take into account micro social phenomena and the increasingly
individuality in society in relation to wider social and sociological discourse. While
theorists have posited that identity is created by our purchases (see above), Bourdieu’s
theory of “habitus” (1984), allows for the individual experiences to account for
consumer habits. Bourdieu offers that our tastes are developed by our social position,
for example class and education. Thus, Polhemus’s “supermarket of style” (1997), can
be seen to offer a vision of unlimited choice for everyone while ignoring the realities
12
of social differentiation along lines such as gender, class, and location (Entwistle
2000:39). Csordas (1993, 1996 in Entwistle 2000:27) explains the “paradigm of
embodiment” as being an analytical shift towards a phenomenological approach,
examining the meanings and location of the actors. Embodiment is about the context
and the location of the individual and is equally or more concerned with what the
body does rather than what is being done to it (Crossley 1995b:43 in Entwistle
2000:27
An interesting parallel can be drawn with subjective theories of nationalism. If we
accept that the embodied individual experiences punk in relation to his/her time and
space, then we also have to accept that their view of the whole of punk and the
individuals who are a part of it, is not objective but specific to the individual punk fan.
Thus as a whole, punk is an “imagined community” (Anderson 1991), present only in
the minds of individual punk fans. As with nations, despite being nominally
homogenous, there exist wide opinions and variations within the group of what
exactly constitutes the nation (Kymlicka 1995:867). Thornton’s (1997:202/3) concept
of “Subcultural Capital” developed from Bourdieu’s “Capital” is a study in the ways
which youth make their identity in the imagined mould of the subculture. While the
capital is objectified as consumer images in clothes, haircuts and record collections, it
is also embodied in aspects like slang/argot, and dancing. Nationalist identities too,
require culture to define and justify the group (Arnason 1990: 217).
Willis (1990) also takes an embodied approach to consumerism. He argues that while
stylistically it is now hard to make a statement, we put our own meanings into
consumption. The ways in which we make ourselves individual are through what
13
Willis calls “symbolic work” which are the meanings invested in language, the body
and drama, the settings for communication (1990:11). While Willis acknowledges that
symbolism is unstable and can be contested (15), he does not reduce consumers to
passive tools of consumerism, but rather located (or embodied) individuals who use
“grounded aesthetics” as a way of putting meaning and personalized perceptions of
culture into a consumer bought culture. There are parallels to be drawn with
Bourdieu’s (1984) and Williams (1965) holistic approaches to culture and
consumption. Bourdieu argues that aesthetics is a question of taste, which exists not
just in art but also in lived culture, and we participate in aesthetics by asserting “forms
over function” (1984:5) in our consumer and lived habits. While the structure frames
the choices of identity, it does not determine it, as each person consumes within a
context (O’Byrne 2001:154). Giddens’s “life politics” of self identity also recognises
the importance of the consumer bought signs. While abstract, they are defined by the
knowledge we bring to them (Giddens 1991:224). Theories of media have grown to
reject deterministic theories and see media as allowing individuals to contrast
themselves with media personalities to help create self identity (Blumler and Katz
1974 in Franklin, 2004:213).
We can see here that consumerism and the media do not merely represent a change in
economic activities but changes in everyday life at the level of identity and, as we will
see below relationships (Lunt and Livingstone 1992:24).
Punk and Sociology at the Millenium
“the nagging sense is that the lives, selves and identities don’t always stand for what
they are supposed to.” (Cohen 1997[1980]:160)
14
The increase of qualitative and interpretivist sociological theory and research has led
to more developed arguments against the CCCS approach. One of the earliest critics
was Clarke (1990[1981]) who put forward that the subcultural theory of Hebdige was
essentialist and was only concerned with analysing “original” members of groups. For
Clarke, this is too objective when analysing style as it raises the question of just who
decides what is real or not (1990:87). The problem with Hebdige’s account of
subcultures is that because it has a semiotic approach to the discipline it automatically
assumed that the style worn was a reaction to structure, while being sparse on
individual perceptions (Widdicombe and Woofitt 1995:25).
Sociological study of subcultures has thus moved to a place where the contradictions
of individual fluidity versus homogenous subcultures (Hodkinson 2004: 144) can be
tackled by a subjective approach, which puts the meanings and perceptions of subjects
at “the first, privileged level of analysis” (Muggleton 1997:183). Thus the distinction
is made between the nominal identity, which exists as a name, and the virtual identity,
which is created from lived experience (Jenkins 2001: 24). A similar distinction is
made by Touraine (1995: 167), who sees the “self” as produced by society’s
normalising structures, while the “I” is constituted through resistance. Giddens (1984)
has noted that our understanding of social activities are more founded in practical
consciousness than discursive (26). We can see a shift away from a purely textual
analysis of stylistic objects and ways of behaviour and a look at how modes of
subcultural behaviour construct rather than just express (Sweetman 2001:185). For
example, similar aesthetics can help groups recognise each other and feel common
(Maffesoli 1996: 77). They can also act as differentiators, and fulfil a function of
legitimating social differences, even if just on the surface (Ewen 1990: 42, Bourdieu
15
1984:7), as consumerism educates individuals in reading signs (Featherstone 1985:9
in Tomlinson 1990:21). By examining consumption of live music from the
perspectives of individuals we can see that the crowd itself interacts not just through
consuming the music but with each other (Fonarow 1997:364).
According to Bourdieu (1984:7), our systems of classifying, are what classify us and
thus consumption is a way of “legitimating social difference”. Culture can be viewed
as not just an attempt at symbolism or expression of a marketed identity, but as a way
to differentiate the self. This can take an individual approach (Willis 1990:89), which
can explain the increased blurring of styles and bricolage. However it can also take a
collective approach, with a perceived distinction in clothes or musical tastes elevating
the collective above or below the mainstream (Frith 1983:208 in Longhurst 1995:216,
Hodkinson 2004:144). Barth (1969:14 in Jenkins 1996:93) has written that the
products of a common culture act more as boundary markers rather than defining the
group. If we make a statement about ourselves with our dress, then relating to
subcultures, it can help “police” boundaries of the group (Entwistle 2000:138).
If consumerism involves interpretation, then dress and style involve acts of decoding
others and relating their style to “musical, political and social orientations” (Willis
1990:88). This can be summed in Fiske’s (1992 in Longhurst 1995:235) description
of “semiotic productivity”. Semiotic productivity is the way in which meanings of
social identity are created by the semiotic resources of the cultural commodities, but it
does not mean that the cultural commodities are deterministic of meaning.
But decoding styles of dress or musical taste is not as fundamental as the embodied
affectual feelings we experience. Sweetman (2001:193/4) argues that the body is more
16
than a screen for discourse and that while we experience an embodied, corporeal
affect, through the mediation of subcultural discourse, it is the experience which
forms our subjectivities on the subculture rather than the discourse. These experiential
and affective aspects are what give individuals their sense of belonging and
identification with the group (Sweetman 2004:79). The “affect” is notoriously hard to
describe but can be seen as pleasure which is above everyday gratification. Grossberg
(1992:56) describes it as the “feeling of life”. Famously, Barthes (1990[1977]: 296)
used the example of the “grain of the voice” which gave feelings “beyond (or before)
words”.
There are also changes in the approach to musical analysis. Kristeva (cited in Barthes
1990:296) draws a disctinction between the “phenosong” which can be analysed
through language, text and genre, and the “geno song” which is the embodied
performance. While the music industry may rationalize music in line with capitalist
and bureaucratic discourse (Goodwin 1992 in Longhurst 1995), Frith (1988 cited in
Longhurst 1995:172/3) has argued that not all aspects of music can be rationalised,
such as the “private” feelings, which can be interpreted from the music. It would be
oversimplistic to read emotion and meanings simply from lyrics (Redhead 1990:51).
On one hand we have the consumer society of marketed identities and weakened
ideology. On the other we have the embodied approach which takes into account the
un-sellable meanings that individuals place into the objects they consume. Any
approach to punk, will have to take into account the apparent contradictions of these
sociological theories.
17
Methodology
18
“Theoretical Confession” and Ontology
In my review of the literature it became clear that the study of styles, taken here to
mean dress and consumption habits, has significantly moved to a more qualitative and
interpretative analysis which puts individual meanings and perceptions at the first
level of analysis (Muggleton 1987:183). While still accepting the wider factors of
society, qualitative research, such as social interactionism studies how the social
world is interpreted and produced by individuals and treats the social context as
flexible (Mason 2002:3). The new style of analysis advocated is part of a movement
in sociological theory towards a more interpretivist or way of looking at the world.
Broadly, these frameworks aim for the study of human experience and the meanings,
interpretations, activities and interaction which constitute it (Blumer 1969: 2, Prus
1996:9). Thus interaction forms meanings in “it’s own right” rather than a medium for
determining factors (Blumer 1969:52). The arguments for the use of qualitative
research grounded in individual meanings for the study of (sub) cultures is covered in
the literature review. It can be summed in that the meanings of cultural objects of
subcultures can only be understood by examining the ways in which individuals
reflexively use them to form meaning. I believe this approach which argues that
personal meaning is the most valid data, to be an accurate and acceptable form of
research which reflects modern sociological discourse. Thus my ontological
perspective, from which my research and analysis will be drawn from, is one which
reflects this discourse.
However it is not just the written theory that has shaped my theoretical outlook but
my own lived experience. While one assumes that the goal of qualitative research is to
19
arrive at an utmost subjectivity, many have accepted that a social interactionist stance
must also accept that the researchers own meanings will play a part. Willis (1997)
suggests we make a “theoretical confession”, which need not be specific. My interest
in the subject matter is because of my own experiences of the plurality of punk music
and style. Willis puts forward that to gain enhanced subjectivity we must treat our
subject’s (as opposed to object) opinions as as valid as our own (1997:249). There is a
fine line in participant research between knowledge and bias, but by primarily
examining the individual perceptions I hope to have overcome this.
Who’s punk,?
A lot of the theory in the literature review attempted to bring in recent developments
to society, such as unfettered capitalism and consumer identities as backdrops to the
creation of (post) modern subcultural identities. There is also the notion that changes
in lifestyle can be reflexively made by individuals. I decided to concentrate my study
on young punk fans aged around 20-25 who were not even born when punk blew up
in 1976, so I could put their meanings into a more general context. This criteria also
put me at an advantage as it is my age, and on occasion, I was able to converse more
freely with the interviewees as I had experienced much the same as they had. I also
used aliases for the purpose of the analysis, to ensure confidentiality and to prevent
character judgement from the article.
Relating to punk, the only prerequisite was that in the life of the subjects (past or
present), they were enthusiastic listeners of music which they have nominally denoted
as “punk”. From herein the subjects will be referred to as “punk fans”, rather than the
20
more objective term “punk” which, used to describe individuals, usually comes to
mean squatters and politicised vagrants outside the mainstream economy. Although
the plurality of meanings was evident as one punk fan did call himself a “punk”.
Because of the variety of meanings associated with the word punk I also refrained
from using it in the interviews apart from to describe the music, something which
although itself has differing meanings, only differs on abstract aesthetics rather than a
lifestyle or ideology. As one of the key concepts of late modernism is the notion that
lifestyles are not fixed throughout time, I also chose to study those who were once
into punk as well as those who are still mainly punk fans. This gave me the
opportunity to examine the reasons behind why people moved on from punk.
Because of resource and temporal constraints, it was be hard to gain access to those
who were once into punk through random sampling. I was not be able to recognise
them through their aesthetic style and advertising for them seemed an unlikely
solution as I believed they would be unlikely to respond, especially given the small
resources I have access to, if they felt punk was no longer a major part of their
identity. Fortunately I had immediate access through mutual friends to subjects who
have consumed punk at a stage in their life with more commitment than they do now.
I used a snowballing method to gain interviewees. I had tried to advertise for
interviewees using a flyer, but this had no response. But I was able to meet people
through mutual friends. For people who I suspected might be punk fans, I asked them
if were into punk music, if they said they were I would ask them if they would like to
be an interview, but although I had already decided I wanted to interview them I
would ask them only after we had chatted about what punk bands we liked. I felt this
21
was necessary as I wanted to build a rapport with the individual first before asking
them to commit to an interview.
Because my sampling method was snowballing, this means that the sample relied on
my social activity and cannot be said to be representational of society. However,
because my theoretical standpoint holds that the idea of punk is highly subjective
through its individual embodiment, it must be accepted that it is impossible to gain all
perceptions. Thus using a snowballing method to gain interviewees does not
contradict my ontology. I justify this by subjective theories of embodiment covered
in the literature review. If individual embodiment is to be the foremost level of
analysis, then it will not matter if the selection of individuals is highly arbitrary, as I
believe that everyone’s perceptions will be equally valid.
Another problem with this method is that although I was primarily studying
individual’s “virtual identities” (Jenkins 1996), in some cases I had to use their
“cultural capital” (Thornton 1997) (e.g. bands, clothing) in order to assess them as
potential interviewees. While the onus was on the potential interviewee to define
themselves as a punk fan, for those I did not know personally it was up to me to
decide whether to approach them. This involved using my own subjective ideas of
what punk is. Having been a punk fan myself for around five years, I believe that I am
educated in reading signs. I am influenced here by the theories of Hodkinson and
Thornton, who took an approach which blending individuality and semi-objective
collectivity in their respective ideas of “Cultural Substance” and “Cultural Capital”.
So it was still possible for me to recognise someone into punk music, regardless of
their embodied individual meanings.
22
Interview and Analysis Methodology
As my ontology was centred on individual meaning, I chose interviews as the best
approach to gathering the data that I needed. This would give individuals the chance
to talk more at length. Although the subjects already knew I was a punk fan, in the
setting up of the interviews I had remained neutral about my opinions of punk, apart
from mentioning a few bands that I liked. I also decided to conduct the interviews as a
researcher rather than a fellow punk fan, and made the interviews individual, so as
gain more individually based information from the punk fans. I asked questions
relating to how people became punk fans, the activities they associate with punk, and
what the significance (if any) of punk is to them. I tried to keep my own biases out of
the interviews by not giving examples of what punk may mean. I asked the questions
at more abstract levels such as “does punk mean anything more than music?”, or “do
you associate it with politics?”, rather than “do you think punk politics are generally
left wing?” or “what do you think of the anti-conformism within punk?”.
The idea of dress or punk fashion will also played a big part in the interviews. The
literature has varying concepts of dress, from conscious meaning put into self made
clothes, to marketed identities, and also the constructive meanings of dress in group
life. Because I did not wish to judge the participants based on my experience of punk,
I generally studied dress in abstract. Specific details of style and fashion and their
relation to punk as a whole were only looked at after the meanings of dress for the
punk fans were established.
However, I had to attempt to analyse punk beyond the level of individuals and to
place the views, meanings and experiences within wider contexts. Following the
23
paradigm of embodiment, there is paramount importance placed on context. So the
analysis was an attempt to examine the context of the punk fan’s life in wider scope
and to see how the macro changes to society form the frame in which identity is
created. Giddens’ (1984) synthetic notion of “Structuration” helped influence the style
of the analysis. For Giddens, a system, which could be punk subculture, is defined as
the relationship between actors which become organised as regular activities
(1984:25). Structuration is the study of how individuals use rules and resources of
social systems (structure) actively, to reproduce the system (1984:25). Giddens shows
that structure (in most cases) is not a solid, objective form but is actually created and
maintained by interaction and the social knowledge of individuals.
So the “gateway” to analysing wider concepts was the study of the rules and resources
of the life of the individuals. These are the structures which they must negotiate. Of
particular interest were their perceptions of the rules and resources of punk and of life
as a young white male in a consumer society. Yet the interviews had to go deeper as
these “rules and resources” were not always consciously apparent to the punk fans.
In this scenario, It was necessary to examine the reasons why they did not perceive
any rules in a self reproducing culture such as punk. Firstly this related to their
individual embodiment and then to wider reasons.
The analysis and methodology hope to examine individuals and how their identity is
constructed by them in the context of their embodiment in society. From my
methodological and epistemological perspective, it can only offer the possibilities of
punk, but can also provide an insight into the lives of young punk fans in Britain and
how punk is reproduced and consumed.
24
Analysis
25
Introduction
The punk fans that I interviewed were from around the UK rather than all being
located in one place. They were all white males aged around 21 -23 and had first
experienced punk when they were in the mid to late teens and had become punk fans
subsequently. They first experienced punk at around the turn of the century at least
twenty years since the beginning. This shows that at the least “Punk” has been
reproduced throughout time, although apart from the music it seems almost
unrecognisable from “original” punk as we shall see.
Competing Definitions
What can we learn about the contemporary incarnation of punk from these
interviewees? They all saw punk as primarily a musical form, as this was the first
thing most said when asked about punk.
“Was it more than just liking bands and the music?”
Dave-“For me, it’s purely about the music,…I love the music, still do.”
I was trying to examine if the punk fans perceived any kind of ideology or
underpinning philosophy outside of the music. Gary, Dave, Will and Richard
associated punk with certain left politics, anti conformism and equality.
26
Will-“it’s kinda almost got a secondary meaning, to be a rebel. And to just rebel
against… authority figures. Punk’s definitely anti racist. At gigs I’ve been to, it’s
definitely not racist, or ageist or sexist or…”
Gary-“well I think punk has definitely got a message of anti conformism and like also
anti establishment, you know bands like Bad Religion and…you can just tell from the
lyrics.”
Richard-“you’ve got like the urm, like anti conformism kinda view. A lot of bands I
like are political too… generally like good views, anti racism, anti sexism, anti
homophobia…”
But these views remained secondary to the music and the subjects found it hard to
fully articulate a specific underlying philosophy as it was the experience of listening
to the music and seeing bands live rather than the discourse which helped sustain the
interest in punk. I believe this validates the notion of the affect which is formed by
embodied experience (Sweetman 2004:79).
There was great importance attached to friends who were also punk fans as all of the
interviewees shared their love of punk with their friends. And all had, at one time,
been almost exclusively friends with punk or alternative rock fans. For most it was
their friends who got them into punk and also helped sustain an interest in the music.
They all associated their best memories or feelings of punk when at gigs with their
friends.
27
Kevin- “A lot of the music I listened came directly from friends who might have made
me a mixtape or cd of recommended bands.”
Will- “since school I guess, what my friends, listened to a type of music, and I didn’t
know what it was. Kept going on about it. so I borrowed a Green Day album… I liked
it. then started buying allsorts, going to shows and stuff”
Dave- “yeah most of my mates [are into punk] it’s like a big crew of us, that’s what
we used to do really. Drink and...listen to music really play a bit of guitar.”
Learning to be “Punk”
So if we are treat music as a taste, then the idea of habitus (Bourdieu 1984) makes
sense here. As the individuals were embodied in a situation where they were exposed
and socialised to like punk music, they unconsciously developed a taste for the music
and the clothing so they did not perceive themselves to be conforming.
However, being into punk was more complex than simply developing a taste for the
music. The idea of being different from the perceived norm was common to all of the
interviewees, regardless of their specific ideas of punk. There was a conscious
awareness that their social group was different from the other social groups of teenage
life.
Dave-“We felt like we were not like everyone else.”
28
Kevin-“I felt proud to be different, you know?, it did feel like we were “better” or
more real than all the rest and everyone else was missing out”
Gary-“ I think when I first found other people that liked what I felt it did sorta feel
like we were the rebels, even though that sounds a bit crap now!”
Richard-“I think I felt that because punk was underground and I liked punk than that
made me a bit of a rebel and different, but different in a good way.”
So why was a taste for punk seen as different and against the mainstream? Much of
the literature on punk has written about how it has been commoditised and has lost
much of it’s original rebellious qualities and is ideologically weakened. While the
research did certainly show that for the interviewees, punk was more about music than
politics there was still the feeling that punk was still rebellious. Part of this could be
due the historical lineage of punk. The interviewees were all aware of the foundations
of punk, albeit at different levels of understanding and knowledge. Identity politics
are required to be historically situated (Zaretsky 1994 in Castells 1997:10). Thus even
if we accept that most of the revolutionary aspect of punk has been lost, the
knowledge of the musical lineage of punk and the founder member’s rhetoric is still
partially present in the minds of new punk fans. It could be said that it is the
commoditisation of punk which has enabled this. Key to our understanding here is the
nominal identity of punk. As we have seen above, the virtual identity (the individual
experiences) varies widely, yet it could be said that the social exchange value
(McDonald, 1984 in Redhead 1990:43) of punk in mainstream media is associated
29
with rebellion. So even someone with no lived experience of punk would still
associate it with counter culture due to punk’s incorporation as a sign.
Alternative media
While a discourse analysis of punk lyrics and of it’s mainstream sign value would no
doubt conclude that it contains a discourse of rebellion, this cannot provide us with all
the answers. A discourse analysis would have also concluded that because punk itself
is now a part of the capitalist system of trade it simultaneously lacks this rebellious
quality. But most of the interviewees found it hard to fully conceptualise a punk
ideology which may have been read from punk lyrics, or instead saw it as a musical
and lyrical culture which was more “real” or even “better”. It is also worth noting
that none of the interviewees were political activists, even those who did acknowledge
punk’s articulacy of political issues. This suggests that the rebellious qualities must
have been formed mostly from outside political discourse and more from lived
experience.
Thus we must examine the context in which they received punk, as this transcends the
objective discourses present in the product itself regardless of whether they had a
discourse of rebellion or not. For the interviewees, a lot of their exposure to punk was
through sharing music with friends and from this they went on to explore alternative
media such as the internet or punk record labels. But it is not just punk fans who share
music between themselves. One of the key themes arising from the interviews was
that of the perceived “underground” quality of punk music. The interviewees saw
30
punk as being qualitatively different from the mainstream media. It was noted that
punk music was not really popular and thus it had little mainstream exposure (in its
contemporary forms at least).
Richard- “Used to share a lot of music with friends and listen with them cause it
wasn’t so much hard to get hold of the music, but you didn’t hear it on the radio or
anything.”
Kevin-“It wasn’t about major labels”
“I guess it was cool because a few of the bands I was into were really obscure,
unknown bands.”
Will-“there’s lots of bands there which I listen to and no one had even heard of and I
know them…sorta made me feel cool cause it was like I was err different and the
bands were real good.”
Gary-“You didn’t really see a lot of punk in the media apart from stuff like Kerrang
and that.”
So when acquiring a habitus of punk as “good music”, the punk fans also
simultaneously internalised their perceptions of the mainstream media and it’s
portrayal of punk. As what they listened to was not part of what they saw as the
mainstream, this difference became part of their identity, and part of the identity of
their friendship group, as they saw themselves as liking and being part of an
alternative culture. This also explains why Gary and Kevin noted that their social
31
groups were comprised of fans of punk and metal music, as metal music was also
largely absent from the mainstream media.
Kevin- “I liked punk, but it wasn’t exclusive, cause we all liked a bit of nu metal back
then as well, and it sorta seemed that being a “greb” wasn’t about just being into
punk or just metal, but like, errr kinda mix of the two styles.”
Gary-“…at that time it was like the kids who were into metal and the kids who were
into punk sorta hung around together”
Dress and Difference
While the music was the most important aspect of being a punk fan, all of the
interviewees did note that their style in some way was similar to other punk fans. A
criticism levelled at contemporary punk is that its dress styles have become
commoditised as fashion rather than individualistic expression. However, while
acknowledging that their styles were representative of the particular punk fashions of
the time, Gary, and Dave wanted to distance themselves from the idea of fashion.
Dave, Will, John and Gary said that they wore the clothes they did because they liked
them rather than conforming.
Dave-“I just dress the same all the time, I just wore what I wanted to be honest with
you, I’ve always been a bit alternative.”
Will-“ …gradually I bought clothes that I liked.”
32
John-“You want to fit in with the crowd you want to be in, so yeah it probably did
influence what I was wearing…. I think personally it was more because I liked the
style of clothing rather than actually like copying a trend”
Gary-“I don’t think that my style of clothing changed much, at least not consciously.
Yeah I wore band t shirts and stuff like that of course.”
We can contrast this with the original punk styles, which were created and given
meaning by the wearer who appropriated everyday items to purposely give them new
meanings. Thus because the contemporary punk fans were not creating their own
clothing, they consciously did not give it personal meaning. Kevin and Richard also
expressed similar views to the others, but while still primarily concerned with the
music, consciously put meaning into their clothes.
Kevin-“…to dress like we did, it was a bit like a badge of honour, I felt proud to be
different”
“…when you’re walking down the street, it’s like you’re showing off your clothes in a
way, cause not many others are dressing like that.”
Richard-“Well I wanted to stand out and for people to see me as different. So yeah I
think that my clothes did mean a lot to me.”
Kevin and Richard, perhaps due to their embodied socialisation, thought more about
fashion. For those that were not concerned that much with fashion, a simple solution
33
would be that the reason for the group similarity was down to the learned habitus
simply by interaction with friends. But outside of “fashion”, dress had constructive
properties within the friendship group and the larger “imagined community. It served
as a practical way for individuals who shared a musical interest to identify each other
as fans of the music.
Dave-“…If I dress like that, the people would know what I’m actually into as well.”
Gary-“… I think at gigs you could wear whatever, but I guess you didn’t want to look
like a townie.”
Gary’s comment about not wanting to look like a “townie” at a gig seemingly hints at
pressures coming from within the imagined community of punk. But Gary, John,
Dave and Will did not perceive any pressures to dress in a certain way. In an attempt
to discover if there was any pressure from the scene I asked Dave if he would feel
comfortable going to a gig in mainstream clothing. His answer was that he didn’t
know because he wouldn’t wear that. What we can see is that because of the acquired
habitus of the clothing, for these punk fans they did not consciously feel pressure
from their imagined community of punk, as they wore what they liked which had
been internalised from friends, bands and other alternative media. It also shows that
not wanting to look like a “townie” was more about defining the boundary of the
group than defining the occupants (see Barth (1969:14 in Jenkins 1996:93)). However
we must be wary of placing too much emphasis on habitus, even though it serves as a
useful concept for the above punk fans perception of (lack of) dress “rules”. In some
cases it could be seen as too deterministic of socialisation without taking into account
34
the individual. Kevin and Richard, who had both had put the most conscious meaning
into their clothes, sometimes perceived pressures from within the punk scene.
Kevin-“sometimes I guess, you might feel, umm a little out of place if you were like in
a place with loads of like…I dunno. I think sometimes like it would be what t shirt
shall I wear tonight, like depending on what band you were going to see you know?”
Richard-“…like if I went to a gig I would definitely think about what I was gonna
wear sometimes”
Thus while they had acquired a general habitus of style, they were more self
conscious about how people saw them and wanted more to fit in. This is because they
were already thinking more about the meanings of their clothes on a personal level.
Habitus does not account for this as it is based more on taste, rather than reflexive
decisions about dress. We must also consider that for the other punk fans, the process
of learning to like certain styles of clothing was also informed by the perception of the
boundaries of the wider group. So maybe this does suggest that there were certain
rules. However for most, they were not what you could wear, but what you couldn’t.
However Gary, John and Dave seemed to be to be aware of a rebellious nature of
what they were wearing even if they did not consciously put much meaning into their
clothes.
Gary-“sometimes I felt a bit like the odd one out in certain situations, cause of what I
was wearing, but it wasn’t bad, I sorta liked it even.”
35
Dave-“It made me feel slightly rebellious, I suppose when I was 16…”
“ … It’s quite cool getting abuse, walking through town. (laughs)”
Will- “just walking around, well obviously no one really dressed that way, sometimes
people are like, when you dress differently to people, you feel the need to hurl abuse
at them. “
Did you care about people heckling you?
“No didn’t care really, it was sorta good, you know?”
John-“I wouldn’t say it was bad, but you were aware that you did look different and
you did stand out…didn’t affect me.”
At first this appeared to be a contradiction, as they claimed not to care about dress, yet
still put meanings into the punk style which they wore. But more careful analysis of
the uniqueness of dress may help solve this.
Dress, as a self constructed body, is intrinsic to modern identity. It is more immediate
than consumer habits such as music, as it is the first thing people will see. Thus is a
consumer orientated society, dress becomes part of an identity (though on varying
levels of consciousness). Because of the uniqueness of clothes as a consumer object,
the other punk fans could almost not help associating their clothes with rebellion. It
was created in a similar way to their perception of punk music, in that they were
internalising their surroundings. They had developed a habitus for clothing which was
visibly verified and then internalised as non mainstream. This accounts for the
36
apparent contradiction of simultaneously not caring about dress but still giving
meaning to it.
Gary, Dave and John expressed feelings which indicated they were against people
using clothing as a way to define themselves. Both Gary and Dave used the phrase
“fashion parade” to describe some of the behaviour at gigs.
John- “there were a lot of people who were into say dance music or whatever who
were starting to dress a bit more rock and listen to rock and punk. And maybe at the
time it was kind of this isn’t the culture which they normally embrace, if that makes
sense.”
Dave-“people could be like I’ll get a Mohawk, rip my jeans, just to look punk…when
you see someone wearing a patch, patches of clash, ramones, and you have a
conversation with them and they don’t actually know any songs. And that’s defeats the
purpose of having those patches. Obviously it’s a branded thing.”
So whilst the clothes did have meaning, they could only gain this meaning through
lived experience. Kevin and Richard were also critical of the scene, and felt people
were trying to hard.
Kevin- “It felt like some people into punk were just trying too hard to be rebels and to
fit in you know?”
37
In this case we can see a definer of group attitudes. Whilst not positing any specific
ideology or way of living, the attitude towards “fakers” shows that it was believed
that to be a punk fan was about lived experience and for some, not caring about
fashion. Thus the identities were backed up by a certain notion of authenticity.
Though it must be remembered that the punk fans who were seen as fake were
embodied in different times and social space and so had developed a different habitus
of punk.
Individuality versus the Scene
John, Richard, Gary and Kevin were the four interviewees who had changed the most
(in style and music) and were not as fully into punk as they were, this was reflected in
their current style of clothing and musical preferences. They were more likely to see
punk as one of many types of music they liked and associated it with good memories,
as did all the interviewees. Dave and Will still saw themselves as being primarily
punk fans, but also broadened their musical tastes and wanted more to be individuals
rather than just being a punk fan.
Will-“it was a big thing for a while. But now it’s just, I kinda feel that I’m punk, but
I’ve got my own little, that I’ve got my own person…”
Dave-“I would still call myself a punk, cause that is the majority of what I listen to,
but erm, but I’ve just broadened my horizons to other music as well.”
Dave also noted that sometimes he would wear punk clothes and sometimes he would
wear other clothes now.
38
Gary and Kevin spoke of how they perceived the punk scene to be growing in
popularity. Gary attributed the “fakers” to punk’s more mainstream appeal now. He
also felt that as it got more popular it was losing some of it’s political message. John,
who had once put rebellious meaning into his clothes said he no longer felt it had the
same message as more and more people wore what was once a minority fashion.
Kevin-“but either way I think I’m past that now anyway, I’d rather make a statement
by myself you know?”
It was the plurality of punk meanings which meant it was impossible to be an
individual or feel existentially secure by just defining yourself as a punk.
John was the punk fan who was the least articulate on any kind of punk ideology. His
reasons for changing his tastes were that he saw himself as more open minded to
different types of music and was not because he saw fault in the growing popularity of
punk music. This makes sense as he was the most likely to see punk as just a type of
music, and he grew up and made friends who weren’t into punk he learnt to like
different types of music.
“It wasn’t conscious, it’s just something that happens overtime, through meeting other
people, listening to other peoples music, going to festival, obviously you experience
different types of music.”
39
All the interviewees felt more of an individual than they did when they were more
“committed to punk”. They put their individuality ahead of remaining just a punk fan.
Richard-“At one time I was like all about the punk music, but that’s just silly really,
how can you just listen to one kind of music?”
Punk in context- Conclusion
Can we draw any conclusions about punk from these interviews? Because of the wide
variety of opinions and experiences it was hard to categorise the punk fans in
objective terms of how “punk” they were or are. But this was not the objective of the
research as I had realised before that the virtual identity of punk was pluralistic.
However careful analysis may help us understand not just punk, but the nature of
consumerism.
As a punk fan myself, I must resist from presenting punk in a wholly positive light
and take into account the findings which may contradict my assumptions before I
studied this area. I had expected the interviewees to be more articulate on punk
ideology, but this was not the case.
There was differing opinion on what exactly punk meant apart from music. And it
was not conceptualised into a holistic lifestyle, but was made up from either pieces of
left wing ideology or was simply seen as more real or better. From this we can see
that as an ideology in it’s own right, punk has been sufficiently weakened in the
decades since it’s birth, and does not exist as a definite ideology. For the interviewees
40
punk was primarily a style of music which they had learnt to like through a shared
habitus with their friends. The views on punk ideology of the interviewees can partly
be explained by more relatively contemporary factors. Capitalist hegemony, the
fracturing of the left and the increasing apathy towards mainstream politics represent
the wider political context in which the punk fans first received punk. They were far
from the politicized, class warriors of which Hebdige (1979) described as founding
the punk scene, and were not consciously trying to change the structure of society.
They were experiencing a music which had been created over twenty years before. In
the context of their places in time, they were experiencing “punk” as a normalized
object of consumerism, as a cd, tape or live gig, the main focus was always the music,
which reflected their hedonistic impulses to experience the “affect”. We must also
consider that many of the “original” punks experienced the subculture in this way, as
the stylistic homology of 70’s punks reflected the normalisation of “punk”.
The relative stylistic homogeneity of the punk fashions and the fact they were store
bought suggest that fashions had indeed become part of a “marketed identity”. But the
punk fans (whether they consciously presented themselves or not), bought the clothes
because they personally liked them. We could say that they had learnt through habitus
to like the clothing and were buying into the marketed rebellion. We could also say
the same thing about the marketing of the music and the feelings of difference felt
from listening to it. But this would ignore the individual meanings put into the
consumer objects, which itself is a vital part of identity in this society.
It was the context in which punk was consumed which created the feelings of
rebellion. They were skilled in reading and internalising the signs of modern
41
consumption and media, and because punk music came to them through friends and
the perceived “underground”, and was at the same time “different” to what they
perceived as the mass media, they put meanings of rebellion into the consumer
objects. And because simultaneously they were developing a taste for the music, these
feelings of rebellion were internalised as part of their self identity and were
authenticated by lived experience.
For the fashion, even though some declared they did not care about the way they
looked, because of the nature of the body in modern consumerism they could not help
giving meaning to their dress. Dress styles were used practically and helped define the
group against outsiders, even if the dress styles were not so much a uniform as a
looser, “anti-uniform” for some of the punk fans. The practically of dress though,
could easily apply to any group in society. Because dress is highly visible, the punk
fans internalised the whole of the society in which they lived and saw that their styles
were different to the perceived norm. Thus their dress identity was not created by
being specifically marketed as a normalised “rebellion”, but because it was perceived
to be so through lived experience of rival culture, just as the music had gained this
value.
The punk fans felt the most community at the level of friendship and shared the
feelings of difference and rebellion with their group. They were sharing music and
fashion directly with each other, rather than simply receiving it from more
mainstream sources. And because of the perceived difference between punk and the
mainstream, friends who were acting as alternative media were too, perceived to be
rebellious and different to larger society. At the level of live gigs, crowd interaction
42
also helped create temporary feelings of larger community. Feelings of community
came because at the level of friendship, the punk fans were both giving and receiving
objects, so they felt as though they were a constitutive part of the group.
So at the level of personal identity, punk still had the power to act as lifestyle politics
(Giddens 1991). But because of the context of both the resources of teenage life and
the societal effects of consumerism and political apathy, the foundation of authenticity
was based on lived experience of culture rather than what we might term traditional
politics. It was a politics of culture and consumerism because every time the punk
fans heard a punk song, bought an album, saw a live gig, or put on a band t shirt, they
were experiencing affect but were also investing meanings of personal identity into
each “normalised” setting of consumerism.
This was largely individually created, because the punk scene was not perceived to
offer a change of lifestyle, apart from that based on the meanings put into objects of
consumerism. Because punk was mostly perceived as a musical culture, the main
identity it offered was that of a “punk music fan”. This helps explain the temporary
nature of commitment to punk music of some of the fans. For John, who was the fan
who was most likely to see punk as purely music, his change in direction was that of
experiencing different music which he shared with new friends. The others, who did
not feel as committed to punk as they were, also did not contradict themselves as their
punk identities were always based on individual lived experience of culture, rather
than being externally proscribed. All the interviewees were still fans of the music, but
in the modern quest for individuality could no longer base their identities around
punk. Will and Dave still defined themselves as mainly punk fans, as both still were
43
friends mainly with other punk fans. Thus for them, their punk identities were still
largely formed by the sharing of music through the alternative media of their friends.
The importance of friends even overrides Dave’s criticism of the “fakers” of the punk
scene, as presumably, he did not perceive his friendship group to be fakers. For
others, as their friends and them experienced other musical styles, they found the
punk scene lacking, as it was either too popular or lacked the definition that they had
once given to it or was seen as more concerned with image than substance. What we
must remember is that in the battleground of culture, punk cannot claim exclusive
rights to rebellion, the explosion of post-Fordist niche markets means that other
cultures also at the periphery may give individuals feelings of difference and
rebellion.
We can say that in contemporary times the “self” can be marketed, in this case, the
punk fans were buying into a normalised, ideologically weakened “punk” which was
part of a wider consumer culture. The clothes too, were bought rather than being self
made. Analysing these punk fans in the manner of the original subcultural theorists
would conclude as above and note the rejection of ideology in favour of culture. Yet
by examining the “I”, which constitutes the virtual identity (Jenkins, 1996), we can
see that culture itself is a battleground which through lived experience creates feelings
of difference and rebellion.
I never went into this study with a view to finding out the “truth” of punk, with such
widespread diffusion and differing opinions such a task is practically impossible. Yet
the study has provided evidence and knowledge of the ways in which identity is
constructed in context and offers possibilities of punk identity. While consumerism is
44
a paradigm of how we live, it can only ever be a medium for identity and cannot sell
the un-sellable such as affect and lived experience. As embodiment and context are
intrinsic to identity, it would be interesting to see the effect on identity of other punk
fans living in the context of other societal identities such as gender, race or sexuality,
something which I did not cover here. Changes to the way we construct our identity
are also happening as we speak, as the internet becomes a new site of “virtual
communities” (Castells 1996:22). This sort of community is still recent and none of
the punk fans interviewed were major participants in online communities. Though
undoubtedly, as punk continues to evolve, these global online communities will help
form identity. With the new emphasis on modes of consumerism, we must also return
to the “original” punks to look at the similarities between them and contemporary
incarnations. If there was a similarity of dress styles, does this not indicate
consumerism (albeit at a smaller level) rather than true individual expression? How
many of the “originals” still live the punk lifestyle, or do they look back to it as a fun
time full of great music, just as those of today too? However those that still cling to
the ideals of the past may find themselves isolated, as all the discourse in the world
cannot bring back 1976 and cannot relate to the embodied individuals who constantly
reinterpret what it is to be “punk”.
45
Epilogue
John Lydon’s accusations against Green Day now seem trivial and misplaced. He
argues that they didn’t experience working class life in 80s Britain like he did and are
not punk. Yet this is precisely why Green Day are a different band with a different
style to the “punk” of Lydon’s day. It is because they didn’t and couldn’t experience
what Lydon did that their “punk” is different. Some look to punk as an objective,
linear experience, but to individuals, “punk” is what they make it.
46
Bibliography
47
References
Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities. London, Verso.
Arnason, J.P. (1990) ‘Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity’ in Featherstone, M. (ed) (1990) Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity. London, Sage.
Barthes, R. (1972) Mythologies. London, Paladin.
Barthes, R. (1977) ‘The Grain of the Voice’ in Frith, S. and Goodwin, A. (eds)(1990) On Record- Rock, Pop and the Written Word. London, Routledge.
Bell, D. (1976) The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. London, Heinnemann.
Best, B. (1997) ‘Over the Counter Culture’ in Redhead, S. w/ Wynne, D. and O‘Connor, J. (eds)(1997) The Clubcultures Reader- Readings in Popular Cultural Studies. Oxford, Blackwell.
Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction- A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London Routledge.
Campbell, C. (1987) The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism. Oxford, Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford, Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity. Oxford, Blackwell.
Clarke, G. (1981) ‘Defending Ski Jumpers, A Critique of Theories of Youth Subcultures’ in Frith, S. and Goodwin, A. (eds)(1990) On Record- Rock, Pop and the Written Word. London, Routledge.
Cohen, S (1980) ‘Symbols of Trouble’ in Gelder, K and Thornton, S. (eds)(1997) The Subcultures Reader. London, Routledge.
‘Green day are Plonk’ in Contactmusic.com [internet] 08/02/06. http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/rotten%20green%20day%20are%20plonk_08_02_2006 accessed 20/04/06
Entwistle, J. (2000) The Fashioned Body- Fashion, dress and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge, Polity.
Ewen, S. (1990) ‘Marketing Dreams- The Political Elements of Style.’ In Tomlinson, A. (ed)(1990) Consumption, Identity & Style- Marketing, Meanings and the Packaging of Pleasure. London, Routledge.
48
Featherstone, M. (1991) ‘The Body in Consumer Culture’ in Featherstone, M. Hepworth, M. and Turner, B.S. (eds)(1991) The Body- Social Process and Cultural Theory.
Finkelstein, J. (1991) The Fashioned Self. Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
Fonarow, W.(1997) ‘The Spatial Organisation of an Indie Gig’ in Gelder, K and Thornton, S. (eds)(1997) The Subcultures Reader. London, Routledge.
Franklin, B. (2004) Packaging Politics (2nd ed). London, Arnold.
Fukuyama., F. (1992) The End of History and The Last Man. London, Penguin
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge, Polity.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self Identity-Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge, Polity.
Grossberg, L. (1986) ‘Is there Rock after Punk?’ in Frith, S. and Goodwin, A. (eds)(1990) On Record- Rock, Pop and the Written Word. London, Routledge.
Hebdige, D.(1979) Subculture- the meaning of style. London, Methuen and co.
Hirst, P. (1989) After Thatcher. London, Collins.
Hodkinson, P.(2004) ‘The Goth Scene and (Sub)cultural Substance’ in Bennett, A. and Kahn-Harris, K. (eds)(2004) After Subculture- Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.
Jenkins, R. (1996) Social Identity. London, Routledge
Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship- a liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Longhurst, B. (1995) Popular Music and Society. Cambridge, Polity.
Lunt, P.K. and Livingstone, S.M. (1992) Mass Consumption and Personal Identity. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Lury, C.(1996) Consuming Cultures. Cambridge, Polity.
Maffesoli, M. (1996) The Time of Tribes- The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society. London, Sage.
Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching. London, Sage.
Muggleton, D. (1997) ‘The Post Subculturalist’ in Redhead, S. w/ Wynne, D. and O‘Connor, J. (eds)(1997) The Clubcultures Reader- Readings in Popular Cultural Studies. Oxford, Blackwell.
49
O’Byrne, D, (2001) ‘On the construction of Political Identity: Negotiations and Strategy beyond the Nation State’ in Kennedy, P. and Danks, C.J.(eds)(2001) Globalization and National Identities. Hampshire, Palgrave.
Polhemus, T. (1997) ‘In the Supermarket of Style’ in Redhead, S. w/ Wynne, D. and O‘Connor, J. (eds)(1997) The Clubcultures Reader- Readings in Popular Cultural Studies. Oxford, Blackwell.
Prus, R. (1996) Symbolic Interaction and Ethnographic Research. New York, State University of New York Press.
Redhead, S. (1990) The End of the Century Party. Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Shilling, R. (2003) The Body and Social Theory (2nd ed). London, Sage.
Sweetman, P.(2001) ‘Stop making Sense? The Problem of the Body in Youth/Sub/Counter Culture’ in Cunningham-Burley, S. and Backett-Milburn, K. Exploring the Body. Hampshire, Palgrave.
Sweetman, P.(2004) ‘Tourists and Travellers? ‘Subcultures’, Reflexive Identities and Neo Tribal Societies’ in Bennett, A. and Kahn-Harris, K. (eds)(2004) After Subculture- Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.
Thornton, S. (1995) ‘The Social Logic of Subcultural Capital’ in Gelder, K and Thornton, S. (eds)(1997) The Subcultures Reader. London, Routledge.
Tomlinson, A.(1990) ‘Introduction’ in Tomlinson, A (ed) )(1990) Consumption, Identity & Style- Marketing, Meanings and the Packaging of Pleasure. London, Routledge.
Touraine, A.(1995) Critique Of Modernity. Oxford, Blackwell.
Widdicombe, S. and Wooffitt, R. (1995) The Language of Youth Subcultures- Social Identity in Action. Hemel Hempstead, Harvester.
Williams, R. (1965) The Long Revolution. Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Willis, P (1976) ‘Theoretical Confessions and Reflexive Method’ in Gelder, K and Thornton, S. (eds)(1997) The Subcultures Reader. London, Routledge.
Willis, P. (1978) ‘The Golden Age’ in Frith, S. and Goodwin, A. (eds)(1990) On Record- Rock, Pop and the Written Word. London, Routledge.
Willis, P. (1990) Common Culture- Symbolic work at Play in the Everyday Cultures of the Young. Buckingham, Open University Press.
50