Punk was inextricably linked to Britain’s social, political and economic environment during the 1970s. The crisis provided the inspiration and indeed provocation of bands at the time; punk was an articulation of the disintegration of British society. Condemned to subordinate positions and second-class lives, it was, quite literally, the soundtrack to marginalised youth fighting back. By late 1978, punk is dead. It had lost its energy while other youth movements moved in to takeover by which point it had gone ‘overground’ anyway, having largely been co-opted by the mainstream. Sid Vicious’ untimely death in early 1979 is seen as the symbolic termination point. It is also a convenient end date because a new kind of politics emerged in Britain under Margaret Thatcher’s conservative government.

 The birth of punk in 1976 sent pop culture into a moral panic from which it has never recovered. It was exactly forty years ago on the Bill Grundy ‘Today’ show that the Sex Pistols stunned British viewers with remarks like ‘You dirty fucker’ and ‘what a fucking rotter’^[1]. It was this event that catapulted the sound and style of punk from being a musical revolution to a full-scale attack on civilised society and its cherished institutions. Despite its short lived existence, fascination with the style and sound of punk has been a mainstay in popular culture ever since its wild and shocking inception. Indeed one does not have to look far in contemporary Britain to see the everlasting impact of one its homegrown art forms. For the entirety of 2016, London will be awash with showcases of art, fashion, literature and, of course, music in commemoration of the continued influence of the genre-busting cultural phenomenon under the project ‘Punk.London’. Yet despite there existing a plethora of written study on punk ever since “pop culture” went mainstream^[2], much of what passes for punk history has been underpinned by the same naïve and myopic reiterations of half-truths that have gained greater authentic explanatory weight over the years. Incorrect historical connections have been made as a result of pressures to romanticise and seeing punk as a form of nostalgia; consequently the parameters of the debate have not been sound.

Revolt through style

The term ‘punk’ is a notoriously amorphous concept. At a very basic level, it is clear that punk was/is a subculture characterised as part artistic statement, part youth rebellion. It primarily manifested itself in music in bands like the Sex Pistols and the Clash who were disaffected and bored of the tame rock and roll scene of the ‘60s and early ‘70s. Unlike the hippy movement that preceded it, it had no ‘set agenda’ philosophically, indeed punk is defined as opposition, by what it ‘is not’. Yet it had identifiable attitudes that it stood for, in particular: an articulation of the frustration and dissatisfaction of ‘British working class with the establishment’; and an emphasis on ‘doing it yourself’ and a belief in spontaneity. Punk was, in essence, a mass culture critique of “bourgeois culture”; the way that it supported capitalist mode of production and its ideological underpinnings of all cultural products like music, art and films of its time. According to the the work of Birmingham’s Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS), all post-war youth subcultures were a reaction to the domination of working-class youth, as members of the working-class, within contemporary capitalist society of a bourgeois culture that had achieved hegemonic status and to their alienation, as young adults, from the working-class culture of their parents^[4]. Alienated from their immediate cultural surroundings such as the home, school, church and neighbourhood, youths from the working-class attempt to carve out their own culture, network and spaces; an environment in which they can feel at home within and offers them a sense of belonging and identity that otherwise doesn’t exist in their lives. The identification and appropriation with distinct styles of music, in this instance punk rock, plays an immense role in that process. Mods, skinheads, hippies and punks were distinguishable by the particular type of music they listened to. In each of their tribes, music was the totem.

Cultural forms that came out of this era of bourgeois dominance are seen as antithetical to genuine expression of human individuality and freedom. As such, popular culture serves to pacify the masses and ensures their acquiescence to increasingly oppressive social policy. In Adorno’s 1941 essay “On Popular Music”^[5], he wrote that the repetitious rhythms of popular music can be equated to the same repetitious rhythms that dominate the factory floor and thus, enjoying the former facilitates the acceptance of the latter. Cultural products that are in resistance to ubiquitous forms of social control must therefore stand not only as critiques of the content of bourgeois culture, but also in its structure and form^[6].

It is on these grounds that we can base our understanding of punk rock, to some extent, as a politically revolutionary movement. While traditional forms of “popular” and “classical” music are moderate and harmonic, punk rock is anarchic, disorderly and irregular. The chaotic nature is a denial of both the dominant, ideologically-based forms of inauthentic and plastic cultural experience of the mainstream and also a rejection of continued working-class, white-collar oppression. Lyrics that made reference to love and nostalgically pleasant experiences were replaced with expressions of anguish, spontaneous sex and dissonance in everyday life. After long being the domain of middle-class hippie types, rock was now dominated by real, objectively oppressed, working-class punk kids.

If we recognise a key defining element of punk as being its emphasis on class politics, then punk in its truest form could only have begun in one place – Britain. Punk was an explosion brought on by various unstable elements all coming to a head, the catalyst being the UK’s ongoing economic recession^[7]. “Crisis” and “doom” rhetoric dominated public discourse in the mid-1970s and the punks dealt with the testing economic crisis not just through their lyrics, but with their appearance and attitude. It was this topic to which Supertramp referred to in their 1975 album titled Crisis? – What Crisis?

Indeed one has to go through punk in order to understand the situation in the UK during the 1970s. Unemployment had reached unprecedented levels in the country which combined with record levels of inflation to create a situation so dire that it defied the laws of Keynesian economic theory^[8]. The government was forced to seek a bailout from the International Monetary Fund while on the political front there was a post-1945 peak in levels of industrial action. The national miners’ strike of 1974 could not be controlled by the government and cascaded into them calling an early election which they promptly lost. In the same year the campaign of the Provisional IRA had spread to British mainland which led to bomb attacks in Birmingham and Guilford that killed twenty-six and left scores injured. Meanwhile, existing racial tensions continued to build as the National Front accumulated significant levels of support which came to a head in the Notting Hill riots of 1976 as whites, blacks and police were all involved in violent clashing against each other^[9]. The peace and love feeling of the late 1960s was swept away and replaced with a new culture of violence and aggression throughout the 1970s, a trend which manifest itself in instances such as the Angry Brigade’s bombing campaign and increased levels of football hooliganism. The crisis conditions and sense of frustration was articulated in a number of early punk songs. ‘White Riot’ was written by The Clash after a number of its band members found themselves in the midst of the Notting Hill riots. The lyrics ‘We [the white youth] wanna riot of our own’ was an ode and expression of admiration for the insurgent spirit of the black West-Indians^[10]. The apocalyptic nature of that line was part of a much more general tone of public discourse within Britain at that time. It gave the marginalised left a voice in a time of intense social upheaval. Undoubtedly it was the musical expression of that period, “an oblique challenge to hegemony”^[11], and it was totally British in its nature.

A pseudo-political movement

Provocation, yes, incitement, no.’^[12] From a political point of view, Jon Savage’s comment is a rather damning indictment of the Sex Pistols and their manager Malcolm McLaren: they were happy enough in merely provoking authorities, but were not willing to go so far as to incite organised resistance against the state. On the one hand, it may be a mistake to expect too much of popular music. Yet punk undoubtedly presented itself as being more than just provocative music, and it certainly wielded a significant power of influence, which thus begs the question – why did it not push for a more outright smashing of the system? The left during the 1970s should have been delighted when a significant number of an entire generation displayed a strident demand for change, yet this commitment to social change was shackled by punks’ other commitment, that to radical aesthetic novelty. The problem in striving for a continued radical novelty is that solidarity and mass movement for social change cannot be engendered. Indeed punk presented itself as a complete break from from the established vernacular types of music that had come before it and was committed to a complete disassociation with what had gone on before, even if their predecessors were devoted to social change.

Punk tradition, according to Abercrombie, Lash and Longhurst, is ‘post-modern’^[13]. Punk’s urging of its participants to ‘break the windows and leap to freedom’ has maintained a modernistic or avant-gardist tendency, whether punk bands know it or not^[14] (Take the first words in ‘Anarchy in the UK’: ‘Right! NOW!’ Johnny Rotten demands instantaneous attention with a distinctly modernist gesture). The distinction of the term ‘avant-garde’ as taken as reference to artistic dedication towards newness and absolutely originality is common place in punk. Yet McKay highlighted punk’s problematic ‘stress on its newness and difference’^[15] and how its avant-gardist tendencies can be debilitating. There are advantages to its promotion of ‘novelty’; it provides ‘sources of energy, vision, creativity’ for the Left^[16]. Indeed Crass provided ‘positive opportunistic construction of anarchism around the newness, the perceived radical difference of punk’^[17]. Yet although novelty has a ‘real strength in its capacity to empower’, this empowerment is simultaneously undermined by the disturbing and relentless pursuit of the rhetoric of newness; the ‘Do It Yourself’ politics of individualism.

It is without hesitation that we can recognise the value of the self-powerment DiY espouses. It does not, however, single-handedly bring down the capitalist system. There must be more than just the empowerment of isolated individuals on the fringes if we are to ‘smash the system’ and induce systemic change within society. Seventies punk injected a degree of politicisation in a large chunk of the youth, yet the level of politicisation was not sufficient to smash the system – as Crass put it, the ‘school, army, church, corporation deal’ – comfortably outlasted the heyday of punk^[18].

Indeed punk and its various subgenres have never been particularly interested in mass movements, they have tended to conceive themselves in opposition to the mainstream (rather than demanding to become the new mainstream, which 1970s punk did to an extent^[19]). It is hard to see how any significant change beyond local and spontaneous experimentation could take place without a mass movement however. We can thus make a critique of anarchistic thinking and the emphasis of individuality and the DiY culture of punk from a Marxist perspective. While for the anarchist, the need for individual freedom surpases any other concern, for the Marxist the anarchistic surge of liberation is unsustainable. The Marxist will argue the anarchist’s revolt can never achieve the universal liberation that a successful dissolution of capitalism would require, due to its renouncing of organised party structure^[20]. Further, the Marxist call for organised and universal revolution is not employed by the anarchist, who stresses the freedom of the individual to make any choice they desire, regardless of class position and historical situation. Sidestepping the matter of class consciousness as the anarchistic thinker does, offers little real choice to culturally situated subjects (in this instance punks) and will thus be unappealing consequent to a particular range of factors (for example the cessation of full employment in the 1970s)^[21].

As such, we can see that the anarchistic tendencies of punk and the seventies punk scene encouraged large parties of young people to focus less on the issue of class and industrial exploitation and instead focus on the importance of recognising ‘no authority but yourself’^[22]. The lyrics in the Specials ‘Nite Klub’ are a case in point: ‘I won’t work ‘cause I don’t have to’^[23]. Punk songs that emphasised the sense of disillusionment with the work system were commonplace. Given that Marxist ways of thinking no longer apply in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries and that the Left is in no way more powerful or influential than it was fifty years ago (perhaps weaker), clearly then a complete rejection of the old ways – undoubtedly a key element of punk – has not had a positive outcome.

We should thus cast a skeptical eye over the punk movement and its political tendencies more so than has been common among the vast majority of literature on punk. Conflict sung in 1984 to ‘pile the pressure on and government will fall’, yet still Westminster stands^[24]. It encouraged an entire generation to hold faith in systemic change taking place spontaneously through wilful agency by a select few key figures (Sid Vicious, Johnny Rotten, etc.). Self-authority would seemingly be the only precondition for radicalisation: no public meetings or boring debates would be required. No organisation would be required for the revolution, the revolution itself was to be reinvented because punk year is a year zero^[25]. This is to say, that what made seventies punk so powerful – the feeling of being part of a radically new historical movement, unshackled from cultural history – is also what made it impotent. By dismissing the existing socialist organised struggles against the existing capitalist system, the punks disempowered themselves at exactly the same moment they empowered themselves.

Seventies punk repeated the feeling among the younger generation that a revolution was possible. Yet the revolution did not happen, and it surely failed to inspire the proletariat into active revolutionary struggle to a comparable scale to what occurred between the two world wars with the Communist Party of Great Britain^[26]. Sensibility and provocation would be the end of political engagement for many involved with the punk movement. It was insisted by The Stranglers that ‘something better change’^[27] yet the big change – the displacement of capitalism – never happened. What’s more, in the decades since no politicised popular music has taken us any closer to this big change, indeed there is a strong argument to suggest we have regressed.

Power of the Pussy

As soon as punk became acceptable by mainstream media and capitalist industry, it ceased to be a persistent subculture^[28]. Punk is seen as merely one of many “alternative” phases for adolescents to find acceptance amongst their peers that is accessible and annoying for parents, but will be “grown out of” once they get older. The image of punk has become neutered, representing commodified antiestablishmentarianism. It is prevalent throughout mainstream images on TV, The Sex Pistols’ John Lydon – once the emblem of subversive movement – recently the poster boy for Country Life butter advertisements^[29]. Consequently, it would appear to be the teleological end to punk music and recognising that its subsequent cultural manifestation did not bring about some ultimate change in social or political life – nor a lasting cultural change, as the aesthetic aspect of punk has become over commodified and thus rendered harmless. Yet outside of the Western lense, the development of a punk ethos continues to grow in the underground and independent music scenes throughout the world.

All-female Russian punk performance group Pussy Riot are the most explicit instance of direct punk rebellion taking place in the twenty-first century. Inspired by performance artists, the CIA and US feminist punk-revival underground fanzines (as opposed to its music), the group refuses to write or record songs. Pussy Riot’s guerrilla theater was highly effective in drawing global attention to – and world opinion against – Putin’s co-opting of Orthodox Christian authorities into increasingly powerful positions in state governance.

The vampirism practiced by the US administration through its co-opting of the “group as terrorist-political organisation” through its sponsoring of Pussy Riot is a typical example of its usual bloodsucking appropriation. However, because they do not make records, Pussy Riot are still alive and are yet to die, thus they have the potential to inflict the nuclear social apocalypse promised by punk bands who have proved delinquent and ineffectual in their delivery. More than any artist ever, Pussy Riot are the embodiment of pure punk promise: they produce nothing, they don’t tour, they exist outside of commodity exchange^[30]. Indeed they promise nothing and, per the punk archetype of absolute individualism, as a singular group they are completely alone; isolated from other punk bands and even from their nation.  To their audience they are incomprehensible, yet through their gesture of nihilistic defiance they have engendered hostile relations once again between the East and West. They have created a framework for liberals to advocate US intervention into Russia, an isolated and conceivably desperate nuclear power^[31]. In some ways, this gives them a status typically reserved for the ruling bourgeoisie elite. Pussy Riot’s protests against injustice and inequity parallels many worldwide protests that have taken place between 2011 and 2012 such as the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street movements. The uncompromising ferocity and persistence has flared up publicity and a sense of optimism and has demonstrated to people everywhere how powerful one act of defiance can shake the world. In an era of rampant commodification of the public sphere, Pussy Riot have produced a vicarious sense of revolt: that while David Cameron may listen to the Smiths, there are places in the world where being punk still has meaning. When issues of authenticity and radical novelty that plagued punk are deemed no longer relevant, the subculture will realise its political revolutionary potential through expansion into the international network, undefined by authenticity of style or by generational differences. As evidence by bands like Pussy Riot in Russia, the proliferation of the subversiveness inherent in punk could revive its antagonist nature on a global scale, rescuing punk from the doldrums of an alternative teen “phase” into an oppositional culture driven by more than just sound: but by social and political change for those those who lack individual power. So perhaps punk is not entirely dead after all.

References

^[1] Aylett, G. (2013) The Filth and the Fury: February 24th 2013. Available at: https://www.transdiffusion.org/2013/02/24/the_filth_and_t

^[2] Sabin, R. (1999) Punk Rock: so what? London: Routledge

^[4] Crossley, N. (2015) Networks of Sound, Style and Subversion: The punk and post-punk worlds of Manchester, London, Liverpool and Sheffield, 1975-80. Manchester University Press, pp 23-

^[5] Adorno, T. (1941) ‘On Popular Music’, in Storey, J (eds.) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. Pearson Education Limited, pp. 165-175

^[6] Tillman, R.H. (1980) ‘Punk rock and the construction of “pseudo-political” movements’, Popular Music and Society, Volume 7, pp. 165-175 [Online]. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03007768008591160

^[7] Crossley, N. (2015) Networks of Sound, Style and Subversion: The punk and post-punk worlds of Manchester, London, Liverpool and Sheffield, 1975-80. Manchester University Press, pp 23-

^[8] Ibid., 59

^[9] Gilroy, P. (1992) There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack, London: Routledge, p. 203

^[10] Laing, D. (1985) One Chord Wonders. Open University Press, pp-43

^[11] Hebdige, D. (1979) Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Methuen & Co. Ltd, pp 15-130

^[12] Savage, J. (1977) Sounds: June 7 1977. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/may/29/sex-pistols-jubilee-boat-trip

^[13] Abercrombie, N., Lash, S. and Longhurst, B. (1992) Popular Representation: Recasting Realism in Lash, and, Friedman (eds), Modernity and Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 115-40

^[14] Berman, M. (1992) ‘Why Modernism Still Matters’ in Lash and Friendman, Modernity and Identity, pp. 33-45

^[15] McKay, G. (1996) Senseless Acts of Beauty: Cultures of Resistance Since the Sixties. London: Verso, pp. 119-35

^[16] Ibid., p. 98

^[17] McKay, G. (1998) DIY Culture: Party & Protest in Nineties Britain. London and New York: Verso. p. 37

^[18] Crass. (1978) ‘Banned from the Roxy’, Feeding of the 5000 Crass

^[19] Dale, P. (2012) Anyone Can Do It: Empowerment, Tradition and the Punk Underground. Surrey: Ashgate. pp. 149-

^[20] Dale, P. (2016) Popular Music and the Politics of Novelty. London and New York: Bloomsbury. pp. 71-

^[21] Ibid., p. 71

^[22] Oey, A. (2006) There Is No Authority But Yourself. Submarine. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQ1CvwF7BQ

^[23] The Specials (1979) ‘Nite Klub’ The Specials. (Chrysalis)

^[24] Conflict (1984) ‘Increase the Pressure’, Increase the Pressure (Mortarhate)

^[25] Crossley, N. (2015) Networks of Sound, Style and Subversion: The punk and post-punk worlds of Manchester, London, Liverpool and Sheffield, 1975-80. Manchester University Press, pp 23-226

^[26] Worley, M. (2002) Class against Class: The Communist Party in Great Britain between the Wars. London: I. B. Tauris. p. 11

^[27] The Stranglers (1977) ‘Something Better Change’, No More Heroes (United Artists)

^[28] Hebdige, D. (1979) Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Methuen & Co. Ltd, pp 15-130

^[29] Lydon, J. (2010) ‘Country Life butter adverts are funding PiL reunion’ NME.com http://www.nme.com/news/public-image-ltd/52022 July. 13, 2010. 

^[30] Vail, T. (2013) ‘Pussy Riot: A Punk Prayer for Freedom’, Blog City Lights, 28 January. Available at:http://www.blogcitylights.com/2013/01/28/pussy-riot-a-punk-prayer-for-freedom/

^[31] Svenonius, I. (2015) Censorship Now!! AKASHIC BOOKS. pp 123-125