Punk is Bourgeois
“Culture is everything we don’t have to do.” – Brian Eno
Years ago, before I had any portfolio to speak of as a young videographer, I sat with a camera worth the remainder of my life savings thinking I’d made the biggest mistake of my life. I wanted to be an entrepreneur– to not be kept under the thumb of some corporate entity for the rest of my life– but I didn’t have a single client.
Advised to shoot free videos to improve my portfolio, I went and found a punk house in Houston, TX hosting some local acts for a Friday night show. If I was going to shoot something for free, I might as well get to enjoy what I’d be filming– a DIY rock show seemed fun anyway.
The house had the feel of a never-ending party; dilapidated, covered in graffiti, grass overgrown, a semi-circle of tattered couches around a campfire, strings of christmas lights stretched out from the limbs of a dead tree. A throng of people swarmed the residency.
The crowd consisted of various age ranges but the mean sat somewhere around 20. The dress code appeared to be some combination of colored hair, partially-shaven skulls, tattered clothing intermixed with designer pieces, an excess of tattoos and jewelry, piercings of the ear, the lip, the nose, the eyebrow, the tongue, the chin. The faint smell of mairjuana smoke and body odor permeated the space. I felt at home where others might have felt disgust.
For months I revisited this place and many others like it, filming videos for bands and local artists, making friends, and enjoying my time engaging with the DIY culture of my home area. In the youthful energy surrounding the space I felt both excitement at what was possible and skepticism that this would be the realization of that dream. I saw a place where people did meaningful work, collaborated, and seemed to forget their hangups. But, at the same time, I recognized certain problems within this subculture I’d stumbled upon– something dark and unseen by most within it.
At first glance at least something about the place seemed incredibly free. “I can’t believe this place is operational after so many years,” a friend said. “There are so many city code violations.” That didn’t last long– only a few months after my arrival, the rowdiness of the crowd overflowed into surrounding properties, car tires were pissed on. Angry neighbors filed complaints to the city, and one of the most prominent community centers^1 was shut down.
For a time there was hope that the subculture would thrive in spite of this event– I was wrong. I soon realized that what had personally resonated with me within punk culture, and what Punk™ actually is (and was) are two very separate things.
There is much talk of appropriation these days; this assumption that nothing can be borrowed or exchanged from one group to the next. I reject this. Anyone that might criticize my rejection seems to not see the infinite ways they already, in a spirit of self-refutation, appropriate culture– the language, symbols, and behavior of other groups– constantly.
All cultures are necessarily composed of imitation and invention. To be conscious of the production of culture is indispensable; especially if one is to use it rightly. In this essay I will appropriate punk from its current use (and history) to present something that transcends it. I will make the case that everyone who ever called themselves “Punk” was, in fact, always a poser.
We must distinguish two phenomena: ‘Punk™’ (also known as PunkCorp) and ‘punk’. The differences between these, at first glance, seem trivial– a capital letter– but the point to be made is quite sophisticated.
Punk™ is essentially a corporate brand attempting to sell the concept of self-expression and resistance, when in fact it is a particularly pernicious strain of conformist, pro-establishment attitudes; whereas punk is a far more authentic form of individualism and resistance to tyranny that can’t be attributed to something as vain as a hair-do or style of clothing. Which takes us to a critical fact surrounding the emergence of Punk™, which started as a fashion movement inspired by Vivienne Westwood in the 1970’s.
“Youth counterculture throughout the United Kingdom wanted to disturb the peace of English society, doing so by performing loud music, sporting what was then considered shocking clothing and makeup, and expressing revolutionary sentimentalities through their selfhood wherever applicable.“ ^2
Lamentation ensued as this early, traditional form of Punk™ became adopted by the mainstream, even though that seemed to be its original, hidden function from conception. Today’s Punk™ is essentially a nostalgic simulacrum of Westwood’s original concept.
Punk™ today– what I encountered here in the states in the DIY scene– has congealed into an undifferentiated mix of various ideas which are less positive in nature than they are critical. Postmodern in nature, they offer no real narrative except that all perspectives are equally valid (except those which assert claims of hierarchical value [the irony of which is lost on the postmodern Punk™]). This comes even at the price of consistency of narrative. Cognitive dissonance is no concern of Punk™, however.
Everyone within the movement seems to uphold a blend of various cultural identities, but to be a part of Punk™ you must at least be at minimal accepting of the following items/stances: pro-marxist and/or anti-capitalist ideology, violent/aggressive attitudes toward institutions deemed oppressive, antinomianism, anti-Christianity, pro-witchcraft/paganism, pro-drug-use, pro-polyamory, pro-gender nonconformity, pro-social justice, etc. Any overt (or even covert) embrace of capitalist or right-leaning attitudes is frowned upon. Libertarian positions seem to be the exception, but only insofar as it is complicit in the above stated positions. Victims are never to be questioned; merely identifying oneself as a member of a victimized class is all it takes to levy claims of abuse/assault/discrimination against a designated scapegoat. Embrace of things deemed disgusting such as body odor, fluid, and emission are seen as expressions and a way of “sticking it to the man.” A band by the name of “Bernie Sanders D***o” or “P**p C**t” wouldn’t even be considered edgy. I could name real names but you get the picture.
The main idea though, is you resist whatever it is currently in vogue to resist and you seek to create shock value for its own sake. Get drunk and rowdy– just don’t try and make any money or be exceptional or posit any sort of hierarchy of values outside of what is permitted by Punk™.
I remember one time, visiting a Punk™ friend of mine who lived downtown in a posh highrise apartment. His head was hooded, his outfit clandestine as he met me in the lobby. What was the meaning of this? He took me upstairs. We chatted in his living room, exchanged some footage, and he sent me on my way; but before I left, he stopped me. “Do you mind keeping it a secret that I live here? You know how punks can be.” I should’ve seemed more surprised, but I had always had a suspicion these punk houses were occupied mostly by rich kids LARPing as working class, and that being open about one’s success risked excommunication. I vowed to not mention it to any other Punk™. But why should I (or anyone else) care if my friend has money?
Capital is the enemy in this subculture. And yet capital certainly isn’t abolished in this subculture; as it never can be– it’s only displaced into the ever more abstract realm of metaphysical desire and status. In a culture where money and exceptionalism are seen as inherently evil, status is crucial; one must be seen as part of a respected member of the “in''-group. Most groups are like this, but the insistence on denying such while secretly pursuing it is what makes it so much more destructive as an impulse. Whose community center is the most inclusive? Whose band is the most popular? Whose biting whose sound? Who's doing the most in the name of social justice? In such a community it’s all a mad scramble to the top, in spite of whatever it is we pretend we believe.
“Silence is violence” is one commonly expressed term that means “if you don’t do my political will, you are complicit in an evil system and deserve to be exterminated along with it.” Open dialogue is not OK in Punk™. Friendship and love as abstractions are touted as virtuous, and yet bitter rivalries and falling outs ensue constantly^3. Attitudes or individuals deemed threatening and/or fascist are not considered innocent until proven guilty, but instead immediately guilty with no recourse.
Yet there is another identically named phenomen– punk– which is actually very different from everything I have just described. Punk is defined by a subversion of authority– not in open disobedience but in the form of an indomitable spirit– which seeks selflessness, freedom of expression, truth, humility, acceptance of all (even one’s bitterest enemies), mistrust of one’s lower desires, and a recognition of the true threat as not one from outside, but from within oneself– one’s soul. Part of this is visible within the hardcore, straight edge movement– a movement dedicated to abstaining from recreational drug use, alcohol, and “conquest” sex (using others for the sake of one's own sexual gratification)– denial of one’s selfish desire in favor of some higher purpose being key, here. It is the working man’s struggle, essentially, against decadence on one hand and tyranny on the other. Punk™, on the other hand, is bourgeois (insofar as it remains pretentious, self-obsessed, consumerist, suburban, conformist, and corporatist).
But you need to be extremely bored to come up with culture at all. The manufacture and maintenance of culture is inescapably bourgeois. It takes a lot of time, resources, and patience to cultivate something like a mohawk or that just right guitar tone. People struggling to survive simply can’t afford to put so much thought into something as trivial as their so-called refined tastes.
“But we don’t have any money! There’s no way we could be the oppressors!” exclaims the Punk™, desperate to remain embittered and appearing like the underdog. After all, the appearance of victimhood is a crucial aspect to maintain the identity of a Punk™. Victimhood allows them the luxury of never needing to self-reflect, to repent, to reflect deeper on everything that produced societal suffering that they may have perhaps contributed to. But you aren’t poor if you’re a Punk™– your capital just isn’t in the form of money. Your capital is social, political, temporal, intellectual; and you’re squandering it.
Youth itself is perhaps the greatest form of capital– the youth control the tides of culture, and youth itself can’t be purchased– most if not all geriatric billionaires would trade all their wealth to be 20 again. There is that saying, “youth is wasted on the young.” Should we really lament our condition?
There are those around the world without electricity to amplify their guitars and yet they smile, asking nothing of the world, only that they be permitted to continue strumming, drumming, howling. As creatives we must always keep in mind the necessity of abundant gratitude for being able to create at all– even in the face of struggle. We are owed nothing in this life; not our instruments, not our audience, not even our next breath.
I learned almost too late that “venue” was pejorative in this subculture– the term itself rife with capitalist connotations– betraying a lack of loyalty to the social justice alignment of Punk™; in fact capitalism is entirely antithetical to the Punk™ sentiment (read: brand)– at least rhetorically. My use of the term in place of ‘community center’ definitely outed me as a poser (someone appearing Punk™ while in fact not being Punk™). Thankfully one amiable punk so tattoo-ridden as to appear alien let me in on this little tidbit of information before “venue” became a regular means of me referencing the space to other Punks in conversation. What was ironic was the vehement insistence on distinguishing the community center from a venue, despite their interchangeability both in phrase and function. Ex: “I paid $15 to get into the community center.”
Take note of the fact that the desire to shock and selfhood are deeply intertwined here. One’s selfhood, then, being essentially determined in opposition to something. René Girard discusses this as being a common folly of aspiring contrarian positions– to think oneself original or authentic– when in reality, to define yourself in contradistinction to your rival is definitionally to be defined by your position re: them. Rivalry is mirroring is conformity…
Sexual assault (even against minors) is an unfortunate and yet extremely common matter in these spaces. Whether this is a matter of correlation or causation is uncertain, and my aim here is to be charitable. It seems weekly, there is a circulated post outing some specific individual for sexual assault, pedophilia, discrimination, and other offenses. Perhaps due to the values of the space, sexual assault is more readily called out, whereas in the day-to-day life it would remain hidden; however, it also might be possible that it is in some cases real and some cases manufactured. An accusation like that in a space such as these very quickly results in certain banishment, and even a high likelihood of violence.
