SOC 206 MAJOR SUBCULTURE ESSAY 2000 words

THE PUNK MOVEMENT

Theory has traditionally been approached from an objective orientation. We can trace a

progression however throughout the 19th and 20th century in the apparent evolution of

social scientific theory from objective through to more subjective approaches. The

question remains though, does the theory accurately reflect change in society or does the

'perspective' of theory and theoretical approach of the researcher only tease out

particular aspects of a social phenomenon. By holding the topic of 'subculture'

constant, social scientific theory can be put into question. This essay examines

subcultures from the 1950's to the present in order to revisit assumptions about theory.

The Punk subculture is examined specifically through semiotic analysis within a

broader Sociological framework in order to find out what a more subjective approach to

theory over this time period can reveal.

Subcultural theory in the past described subcultures as fairly uniform and static.

Theorists referred to the 1960's and 1970's within a Modern paradigm which was

objectivist in nature understanding subculture as a problem to be fixed. Subcultural

delinquency was seen as noise and as unnatural, '...a temporary blockage in the system

of representation.' (Hebdige 1997, p130). More recent subcultural theory describes

subcultures as transient, informal and hybrid. But subcultures have always been about

'youth', about times of economic uncertainty, employment pressures and reliant on class

distinction (Van Krieken et al. 2006, pp517-518). Meanwhile, in Postmodern society

we see the so called 'disappearance' of subcultures which have become dispersed and

commodified by a youth distracted by consumerism and media images (Muggleton

2000, pp48-50). Subcultures are defined as subordinate to the dominant culture and as

having alternate beliefs. The groups that rebel are often referred to as reflective

subcultures because they are reacting within the philosophy of the dominant culture,

unlike 'outlaw' motorcycle gangs for example or the 'alternate' hippie movement

(MSpapers 1998, p6).

1

The subcultures of the 1950's began in Britain with the Teddy Boys who challenged the

notion of stereotyping by 'appearing' imminently respectable yet behaving contrary to

public expectation with fighting and burglary. They also challenged certain notions of

class by wearing suits reminiscent of 1930's high culture and yet behaving in a way

usually associated with the working class (MSpapers 1998, p8). Moral panics were

instilled by the media in the 1960's and 1970's providing a target for youth rebellion

(Weinzierl 2003, pp16-19). The Teddy Boys were followed by the Mods and Rockers

of the 1960's which centred largely around contradicting values of consumerism. The

Mods aspired toward the upper class by wearing suits, collars and ties. They didn't

accept the traditional representations of these items however, they rather fetishisized

them as objects within themselves. The Rockers on the other hand stood for working

class values. The main conflict between the Mods and the Rockers was expressed as a

struggle over space to 'hang out'. The Skinheads were another subculture around the

1960's which stood for a militant-style and often violent form of nationalism. This

came out of a reaction to declining economic conditions and increased competition with

immigrants for jobs (MSpapers 1998, pp8-9).

The Punk movement came about in part as a reaction to the Skinhead movement and in

part centralising the dichotomy of the Mods and Rockers, but also due to harsh

economic conditions. Mid 1970's Britain saw an economic recession which exposed

prolonged poverty and inequality with a government which seemed at a loss to create

any positive change. The Punks grew as a reaction to the lack of security provided by

the State and evolved as a contempt for society, tradition and authority, especially the

government. They expressed themselves by doing the opposite to what was perceived

to be the norm and 'performing it' in public spaces. As an expression of this sentiment

they internalised 'struggle' by deliberately contradicting their core values with the

opposing visual symbols. For example, they stood for anti-racism yet wore the

Swastika, they were anti-religion yet wore crosses. They dressed outrageously by

mainstream standards and 'hung out' at train stations and bus stops to shock everyone

and to mock tradition. They had lost all faith in the government and institutions of

society. They sought to create anarchy by attempting to disassemble the existing

2

structures and allowing society to be rebuilt in a more natural order (MSpapers 1998,

pp9-11). Similar economic conditions were prevailing in the United States at this time

and the Punk movement grew here also but was more focussed on music and image

rather than substance. Punk in America become commercialised and in reaction moved

to a more hardcore era in the 1980's which also had an effect on British Punk subculture

(MSpapers 1998, p6). This angst is what triggered the DIY concept within the punk

movement and the negation, mockery and reappropriation of fashion. Punks wore

garbage bags as clothing and used safety pins to hold together ripped or torn clothing,

ripped clothing traditionally being a cue to buy something new and unblemished

(MSpapers 1998, p11). The punks also went 'dumpster diving' in order to retrieve

discarded supermarket food for example, which served to negate the market mechanism

of quality product branding and the economic mechanism of demand and supply.

Health food shops were also relieved of products without conventional means of cash

exchange in order to thoroughly cleanse the corporatised product which had disguised

itself as 'natural' (Clark 2004, pp26-28).

But not only did the Punk subculture attempt to tear down all forms of traditional

societal institutions such as the State and religion they also had their own culture,

values, structure and philosophy. They endeavoured to uncover the world in its natural

state without the corruption and ideology of the parent culture. Punk culture and style

was highly arranged and consistent. Punk music provided the opportunity to reinforce

Punk philosophies and clubs provided a place to rally. The music emulates the clothing

style, it is raucous, untidy and focusses on the underlying message and rhythm rather

than the obvious chords. The music demonstrates a desire for change, it demands not to

live as an object in the capitalist world but rather to live as a subject of history and yet

feel that DIY action can make a difference (MSpapers 1998, pp 11-14). They don't want

'inspiration' they want pure 'creation' from within the subculture and the individual and

not determined by the externalities imposed by society (Derrida 1998, pp114-117).

That said, Punks have still been accused of selling out to the mainstream due to the

popularity of Punk bands like The Clash and Sex Pistols. However, the Punk subculture

3

clearly defines its grievance; they don't outright reject capitalism, they specifically

reject how it's become 'mass culture' and lost its sense of imagination, skill and hard

work. They want to return to nature, authenticity and truth (MSpapers 1998, pp14-15).

This return to authenticity, however, plays into capitalism. From a normative

perspective, this is the contradiction because as Punks pursue authenticity they are

setting a criteria for belonging to their subculture and thus outcasting poseur or

inauthentic Punks who have 'the look' but not the cultural sentiment (refer post 2

reference). Thus their focus on authenticity both places the individual front and centre

and yet negates any individual manifestations of punk identity outside hardcore punk

values. But from a Punk perspective this makes sense. Jacques Derrida outlines the

process of this concept in 'under erasure' by outlining the detachment and change of

meaning through a metaphor of language (Deoxy 2009). Clark also outlines this idea in

terms of space at the Black Cat Cafe where he uses a metaphor of the Nation State

system saying that the cafe is demarcated by an American border sign which has been

moved 2000 miles north of the actual American border. The cafe is symbolically, but

not geographically, situated just outside the US jurisdiction (Clark 2004, p19). In true

DIY style, Punk subculture effectively inverts mainstream hierarchies by placing Punk

subculture as ontologically greater than the individual which are in turn both greater

than society. It inverts all traditional theoretical value outlined by the social sciences

and previous conceptions of subcultural theory (Hughes et al. 1995, pp145-159).

The Punk movement has effectively used the individual to reflect Punk values back onto

society and mass culture through symbolic interactionism (Van Krieken et al. 2006,

pp653-664). As soon as any form of Punk style is taken up by the mainstream the

Punks refashion themselves and make the mainstream version anti-fashion. They

constantly work to maintain their own distinctive style. This creates a constant source

of authenticity for the mainstream and at the same time a constant injection of Punk

subcultural value into mainstream culture (MSpapers 1998, p17). 'True' Punks state that

being a Punk has allowed them to move out of the 'system' and experience absolute

freedom. Punks nurture what mainstream society rejects. The pursuit for authenticity is

maintained within the movement through internal 'policing' and dialogues. These

4

mechanisms of surveillance are enacted through the continually questioned dedication

of younger members and through monitoring the behaviour of the older members by the

subculture itself. This is further internalised within individual Punks as they both

believe the group to embody a kind of essence of God and nature, and yet practice self-

mutilation, drug addictions and self-loathing exhibiting their mortality (MSpapers 1998,

pp18-24).

In this sense then, it could be viewed that the Punk subculture has in fact emulated a

subset of the traditional values of mainstream society with the 'Punk group' representing

what mainstream theory perceives as 'society' or what Durkheim refers to as society

being greater than the sum of individuals. Followed by corresponding interpretations of

objective and subjective reality fulfilled by the Punk subculture as both its 'group entity'

and what it represents as individuals (Hughes et al. 1995, pp145-159). The Punk

subculture views itself as being 'outside' society while theory informs us that it is rather

'inside' society right at the very centre, like the eye of a cyclone (MSpapers 1998, p24).

In this sense, the Punk subculture has created a kind of 'bubble' maintaining Modern

capitalist structures and hierarchies but without the mass cultural aspects of Postmodern

society. This can be evidenced by the hierarchies of power that exist within Punk

subculture produced through gender stereotypes and patriarchy which emulates

mainstream society (Profane Existence 2009). For example, female Punks tend to

reside only on the fringes of the subculture by still living at home with their parents but

performing nursing duties or a housekeeping roles for the male Punks who are at the

centre of the culture (MSpapers 1998, p22).

Through the Punk subculture, social science theory has been able to be formulated

which, through a combination of Sociological theory and semiotic analysis, has created

a kind of logical anti-logic or dialogic. The Punk subculture has effectively provided a

theoretical framework which challenges the 'order' of Western capitalism and

completely inverts all forms of logic as the mainstream understands it (Brokaw 2010,

pp117-120). What remains missing in the cycle is academia's 'pure' theory or 'pure'

ethnography from the perspective of the Punks themselves. Novel ways have been

5

suggested by enticing them 'in' through their music (MSpapers p28). But the logistics

of this are difficult to conceive. If Punks were to contribute their perspective, then what

would be the form of the language and how would it correlate with the conceptual

frameworks and language of academia? And if it were expressed through the language

and understanding of academia then how pure or real would the Punk perspective still

be? How would this scenario be possible and how is it that theoretically this seems so

close yet in practicality it seems world's apart? The Punk subculture shows that without

the existence of God the Western system of logic as we know it falls down (Derrida

1988, pp114-117). Our notions of space are also challenged here, because the Punks

seem to be in two places at the same time. The theory tells us that they are at the 'centre'

yet from the Punk perspective they are 'outside' society. Space seems to become

unhinged from physical boundaries and by becoming internalised is a reflection of

where we imagine or believe ourselves to be. Both conceptions of space are equally

legitimate in liminal space (Boellstorff 2008, p117).

Postmodern society reflects Punk sentiments of romance and sensibility. Weber's

verstehen of 'cause' and 'meaning' have collapsed into an aesthetic of hedonistic

consumerism. Muggleton states that characteristics of sensibility and aesthetics were

readily apparent in the 1960's though, he states that Postmodern aesthetics is nothing

new but just an intensification. Further, he demarcates the advent of the punk

movement as a turning point in subcultural behaviour (Muggleton 2000, pp44-46).

Postmodernism can be seen as a return to roots or origins, a rebirth of when the universe

was created from Big Bang, an atomisation and dispersal. From this position, the Punk

subculture is held constant and it is rather theory which is put into question (Van

Krieken et al. 2006, pp600-612). When looked at in this way, evidence of similarities

begin to emerge between lived Modernist conceptions of life expressed through

subcultures and aspects of Postmodern society that we see today. This is evidenced in

primary research recently conducted in the form of a semi-structured interview outlined

in Appendix 1. The interview demonstrates evidence of a romantic sensibility and a

lack of clearly demarcated subcultural boundaries even in the 1960's (McQuilty 2010).

Further, an interview between Jim Morrison and Ray Manzerek in 1969 talking about

6

the music and contemporary society on Youtube exemplifies the hallmarks of

Postmodern culture in extraordinary detail and can be accessed at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoVJ-55ZloE&feature=related (Youtube 2006).

Over longer periods of time subcultural behaviour can be mapped onto larger economic

cycles seeming to emerge always when economic conditions are in decline. This is

outlined in the Kondratieff Wave which outlines economic cycles of around 54 years

over the last 200 years. Each part of the cycle where the economy is in decline

subcultural behaviour correspondingly emerges (Fisher 1998). Subcultural theory cites

1860's, 1920's and 1960's as being significant periods of subcultural behaviour and

subsequent periods of hedonism and sensibility. This places the cycles of society within

a larger economic frame outlining cycles of social activity (Van Krieken et al. 2006,

pp514-538). Both Marx and Weber discussed the inescapable effects of capitalism.

Youth are always implicated because they are the weakest point in the hegemonic

system (Van Krieken et al. 2006, pp538-548). Weinzierl comments on this phenomenon

by pointing out that since the 1980's and 1990's subcultural moral panics have now

become about the entire generation of youth (Weinzierl 2003, pp16-19).

It is clear that we can benefit from a subjective approach to research and that the

inclusion of 'culture' is essential to gain a more complete picture of society. Such a

multidisciplinary approach utilises a broader spectrum of available data. It is clear that

subcultures have made an impact not only on society but also on social scientific theory.

The Punk contribution to the academic community is complete and they have 'done it

their way' because in order to study phenomena we cannot help but become implicated

in it. The Punk subculture informs us, from a researcher perspective, that the richer the

data the more we lose our objectivity. The Punk subculture is evidence of the great

resources of information available which can inform theory through a balanced

approach to research.

7

APPENDIX 1

Primary Research – Semi-structured Interview

Interview with Linda Riede on 1960's Subcultures

– Friday, 23 April, 2010, 2.15pm – 2.45pm

Conducted over lunch at the club, Linda is my Mum and she gave consent to do the

interview aware that I was researching subcultures for uni. I explained that I was trying

to find out what she thought about subcultures in the 1960's while she was a teenager

growing up in south eastern Sydney. I asked Mum if she would mind reading over the

interview once I'd typed it up to see if she felt that it accurately reflected what we'd

discussed, to which she agreed.

Q. What subcultures do you remember when you were growing up?

There were the mods, they were more upper-class. I don't know whether they were but

they tried to act like they were. There were the rockers. The rockers and the mods

didn't get on. The rockers were like the westies, they were lower class and didn't live

near the coast.

Q. Did you belong to a group?

Well we lived near the coast so I guess I was a surfie. I also went through a 'modish'

period too I think. The surf culture was fantastic, it was like an escape from reality, or a

return to nature or something.

Q. What was it like back then, could you be in a few subcultures or did you mainly stick

to one?

No, you could change, you could be one during the day say, and then another one when

you went out on the weekend or out at night. You could sort of dress up and experiment

8

with things. You could try different combinations of fashion, there was more scope to

do that than there previously was. Everyone would try different things.

Q. Could like a rocker become a mod or a surfie become a mod?

There were certain classes that you stuck to. A rocker wouldn't become a mod because

they were more lower class. Classes didn't really swap but you could swap sort of in the

same class.

Q. Were there any revivals ever of old subcultures?

No, there weren't really any previous subcultures. There weren't really any subcultures

in the 1950's just the 60's.

Q. Nothing to revive?

No, there was only the 1950's and the war, it all really just started in the 60's.

Q. What bands were popular around then?

The Beatles and Elvis were really popular, they took over from the surfie music.

Q. Weren't the Beatles and Elvis really straight?

No, they were right into drugs. The Beatles weren't at first, they were really clean cut

and a bit naïve but then they changed. Yellow Submarine was really sort of D & M and

Indian influenced. I think they were fairly heavily into drugs when Yellow Submarine

came out. And then Elvis had the movies also, he was really popular.

Q. What did the Brady Bunch seem like then?

9

Really 1950's, really idealised. People knew it wasn't serious. Families weren't really

like that. There was Happy Days as well, but that had Fonzie, he was quite rebellious,

sort of like a rocker.

Q. Did you ever go to political rallies or protests or anything like that?

No not really, but my friend and I used to go into Hyde Park a lot and listen to Webster.

We'd both wear our white sneakers with the Australian flag painted on them.

Q. What was Webster?

This guy, he used to talk in Hyde Park and everyone would sit around and listen.

Q. What did he talk about?

Oh all sorts of stuff really, about life. He was like a kind of advisor. He was older, in

his 30's or 40's maybe but he didn't talk down to you like other adults did, he sort of

talked to you like an adult or like an equal. He seemed like he wouldn't judge you and

seemed really open minded and accepting of difference sort of. He gave you a good

feeling. He talked about the war in Vietnam and about freedom and that sort of thing. It

was all sort of about peace not war. Sometimes there'd be religious speakers in the park

but everyone would laugh at them and wouldn't listen to them.

Q. What do you remember most about those times?

It was a time of amazing change, you don't see it like that today. It was an amazing

time. The Vietnam war had a big impact on people. People became more aware. They

had actual live footage of the war on TV. People were conscripted then spat on when

they came back. And that agent orange, so many of them came back with so many

health problems that they passed on to their children. So many of them committed

suicide in the first year after they got back, a lot of them ended up with really bad

10

psychological problems. I think mainly because they were treated so badly when they

got back, not like the ones that came back from WWII, they were treated like heroes.

Q. Did people blame them or the government?

Both I think. People were angry with the government because they felt that we

shouldn't have been there. But people were also angry with the ones that went over

there because they didn't take a stand against the government. They didn't have a choice

though, they would have ended up with a jail record for the rest of their lives.

Q. What do you remember most about the Vietnam war?

It was different to other wars, it was the war without a cause kind of because we didn't

really know why we were there or really what they were fighting about. They said

communism but it seemed so far away and remote sort of. And it was a war without

rules. In the other wars they fought out in the open but the Viet Cong would go

underground in all these tunnels they'd built and women and children would be carrying

bombs and guns too, civilians got involved.

Q. What did Nan and Pa think about it all?

Oh, they thought it was all pretty crazy I think, it was so different from when they were

growing up. They didn't really talk about things much though or show their feelings,

they just always pretended to be happy. Our generation talked about their feelings

more, they were more open. Not rebelling just expressing their feelings, but I think it

looked like they were rebelling authority. Yer they just acted happy all the time.

Q. Like the Brady Bunch?

Yer, I think because they lost Dad's brother in the war (WWII), they had his death.

Mum said she'd never seen Pa cry before. They never really talked about it that much

11

though. They talked about him, but never really said how they felt about it.

Q. What did The Doors seem like compared to the Brady Bunch?

Oh, they were amazing, they were so ahead of their time. They were really inspiring,

like an escape. They were against authority and sort of encouraged people to question

things. There was a strangeness though, they were really black.

Q. Is there anything else you can think of that was significant at the time?

Yer, the moon landing was pretty big.

Q. Do you think this may have been timed or even staged to take people's focus off the

realities of the Vietnam war?

Yer, they made a movie about that and said the moon landing was filmed in the desert or

something. It could have been, it made people start to think about space travel, they had

all the Apollo launches and the Russians were launching satellites.

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boellstorff, T 2008, 'Place and time', in Coming of Age in Second Life: an

Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human, Princeton University Press, Princeton

Brokaw, G 2010, 'Indigenous American Polygraphy and the Dialogic Model of Media',

Ethnohistory, Vol. 57, Issue 1, pp117-133

Clark, D 2004, 'The Raw and the Rotton: Punk Cuisine', Ethnology, Vol. 43, No. 1,

pp19-31

Deoxy 2009, Writing under erasure, accessed 22/10/2009,

http://deoxy.org/alephnull/erasure.htm

Derrida, J 1988, 'Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences', in

Lodge, D (ed), Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader, Longman, London

Fisher, D 1998, Kondratieff Wave, accessed 24/4/2010,

http://www.angelfire.com/or/truthfinder/index22.html

Hebdige, D (1997), 'Subculture: the meaning of style (1979)', in Gelder, K and

Thornton, S (eds.), The Subcultures Reader, Routledge, New York: 130-142

Hughes, J A Martin, P J Sharrock, W W 1995, Understanding Classical Sociology:

Marx, Weber, Durkheim, London, Sage

McQuilty, J 2010, Primary Research Interview, 23/4/2010, Interview with Linda Riede

on 1960's Subcultures

MSpapers, 1998, A Detailed Journey into the Punk Subculture: Punk Outreach in Public

Libraries, accessed 17/3/2010, http://www.ils.unc.edu/MSpapers/2483.pdf

13

Muggleton, D 2000, Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style, Berg,

Oxford, United Kingdom

Profane Existence, 2009, Patriarchy and punk: Fighting hegemonic masculinity in a

supposedly equalitarian subculture, accessed 22/4/2010,

http://www.profaneexistence.org/latest-news/protest-a-resistance/923-patriarchy-and-

punk-fighting-hegemonic-masculinity-in-a-supposedly-equalitarian-subculture

Van Krieken, R Habibis, D Smith, P Hutchins, B Haralambos, M Holborn, M 2006,

Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, 3rd Edition, Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs

Forest

Weinzerl, R 2003, 'What is 'post-subcultural studies' anyway?', Post-Subcultures

Reader, Berg, New York, pp3-23

Youtube, 2006, The Doors - 10 Minute Interview 1969, accessed 15/4/2010,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoVJ-55ZloE&feature=related

14