About Me #2 - A College-Educated, Taxpaying Punk

["About me" posts, despite their name, are meant to have some relevancy to the reader as well. See my introduction to them here.]

I'm a punk. No, I've never worn a torn shirt with safety pins, nor contemplated a mohawk (and not just because I couldn't grow one if I tried). I've got a college degree. I didn't grow up "on the streets". I haven't touched a single (non-musical) drug in my life. I've never smashed a beer bottle in the street. Musically, alongside rock, I've played folk songs, disco and Mizrahi. I've covered the Sex Pistols, and I've covered the Beatles; I've covered Simon & Garfunkel and Nirvana. I pay my taxes. My police record is clean. I'm nearly ten years past my teens. I've worked at the same institution (in different capacities) for 6 years now. Rest assured these are all irrelevant to the subject at hand - I am, undoubtedly, 200%, a punk.

The word "punk" has gathered an incredible mishmash of meanings. For many, the image that still comes to mind is that of thuggery - ratty clothes, "fuck-you" attitude, outspokenness, smashing things, crudeness. "Punk politics" has come to include a grab bag of causes, from anti-authoritarianism to veganism to anarchism to fascism to extreme left-wing politics. So first of all, I have to clarify: I'm not talking about punk the musical form, nor the "fashion", nor the politics of punk. I'm talking about punk as a way of life; the ideology of punk.(1)

The pervasive, mostly negative image of "punks" I mentioned above, stems primarily from the more visible sections of its audience, rather than from most of its original musical founders - especially those in the US. To avoid a laborious history lesson, just take it from me: in 1975-77, when punk was still in its infancy, the only things the so-called "punks" in the States had in common were lots of energy and a critical thought process.

So what is the ideology of punk? Punk ideology combines anti-dogmatism with a simple imperative: think. As Jello Biafra, singer of the great Dead Kennedys, put so succinctly: "punk ain't no religious cult - punk means thinking for yourself". It discourages preconception - don't automatically reject an idea simply because it seems out of left field. Always question, but stay balanced. Don't automatically go with "the majority", nor be a reactionary for its own sake. A punk tries as much as possible to simply remove the common wisdom from the equation. Punks have a healthy disregard for norms and empty rhetoric as any kind of indication of "worth". Rather, they'll try to deconstruct a situation and put it back together themselves. If the conclusions coincide with extant norms, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too. Needless to say, they will often fall somewhere in between.

Despite its uneven implementation among punks, punk ideology tries to avoid being auto-rejectionist. If someone doesn't agree with you, he/she is not "the enemy". By all means try to convince by way of rational explanation, but certainly don't catalog and otherwise reject out of hand the validity of others' opinions. Punk is not relativist, though. A common trapping of the aforementioned rejection-of-the-assumed is that it can lead to a paralysis of self-doubt. But the punk outlook is a positivist one: it encourages action, and it encourages forming a well-considered opinion. Yes, always be open to criticism of your opinion, be willing to revise, update or replace it entirely if need be, but first make sure you have one, and know why you do.

The next obvious question is why use the term "punk" and not just, say, "thoughtful person"? Without making an overly restrictive generalization, it's because punk ideology has one added tendency that's not intrinsic to a thoughtful person: the desire to simplify. This comes across in punk as the musical genre, but also as a way to make choices in life. A punk will look for a simpler way to do things, and appreciate functionality and practicality. It doesn't mean he/she is trying to live like a monk, nor that he/she must be free of any guilty pleasures; but by and large, the ornate, the overpriced and the extravagant are instinctively off-putting to a punk. This is why you will see some punks choose to live communally, shunting the job-car-house-family track(2), and why you will see a tendency towards simplicity and directness in the music. But this criteria is actually fairly flexible - one needn't be resistant to economic or social status advancement to be a punk; he/she should only not see them as the prime measures of "success" in life.

Last but not least, punk ideology requires being a civil human being. As Ian Mackaye, one of the first to actually sing and speak about these issues, said in an interview recently: "When I play music, there is no code of behavior beyond general humanitarian [values-R.T.]: you don't attack, assault people, or be ugly or intolerant.. but that would be the same if I invited anyone to my house for dinner, too."(3)





(1) I'm not trying to create an artificial split between punk the music and punk the ideology. Needless to say, punk began as a musical movement. But its ideology existed right from the start, and permeated the music in both its composition and its subject matter.

(2) Again, this too comes across in the music - see my mention of the brilliant economy of a certain punk band in an earlier post. This is also the principle driving many of the political strains mentioned above - anti-consumerism, environmental concerns and social justice - though the dogmatism that often accompanies them defeats the very purpose of punk as I see it..

(3) Available here. Be warned - while Mackaye shines (as usual), the interviewer doesn't really "get it".