Hebdige Subculture Chapters

DICK HEBDIGE
SUBCULTURE
THE MEANING OF STYLE
LONDON AND NEW YORK

INTRODUCTION:
SUBCULTURE AND
STYLE
I managed to get about twenty photographs, and w ith bits of

chewed bread I pasted them on the back o f the cardboard
sheet of regulations that hangs on the wall. Some are pinned
up with bits o f brass wire which the foreman brings me and
on which I have to string coloured glass beads. Using the
sam e b eads w ith w hich the prisoners n ext door m ake
funeral wreaths, I have made star-shaped frames for the
most purely crim inal. In the evening, as you open your
window to the street, I turn the back o f the regulation sheet
towards me. Smiles and sneers, alike inexorable, enter me
b y all the holes I offer. . . . T hey w atch over m y little
routines. (Genet, 1966a)
N the op en in g pages o f T he T h ie f’s J o u rn a l, J ean
I G enet describes how a tube o f vaseline, found in his

possession, is confiscated b y the Spanish police during a
raid . T h is ‘d irty, w retch ed o b je c t’, p ro cla im in g his
hom osexuality to the world, becom es for G enet a kind o f
guarantee - ‘the sign o f a secret grace w hich was soon to save
me from contem pt’. The discovery o f the vaseline is greeted
2 SUBCULTURE: THE MEANING OF STYLE
w ith laughter in the record-office o f the station, and the police

‘sm elling o f garlic, sweat and oil, but . . . strong in their m oral
assurance’ subject Genet to a tirade o f hostile innuendo. The
author joins in the laughter too (‘though painfully’) b u t later,
in his cell, ‘the im age o f the tube o f vaseline never left m e’.
I w as sure that this pun y and m ost hum ble object w ould
hold its ow n against them ; b y its m ere presence it w ould
b e able to exasperate all the police in the w orld; it w ould
d ra w d ow n u p o n its e lf co n tem p t, h atred , w h ite and
dum b rages. (G enet, 1967)
I have chosen to b eg in w ith these extracts from G en et

b ecau se he m ore than m ost has exp lo red in b o th his life
and his art the su b versive im p licatio n s o f style. I sh all be
return in g again an d again to G en et’s m ajor th em es: the
status and m eanin g o f revolt, the id ea o f style as a fo rm o f
R efusal, the eleva tio n o f crim e into art (even though, in
our case, the ‘c rim es’ are o n ly b ro k en cod es). Like G enet,
we are in tereste d in su b cu ltu re - in the exp ressive form s
and ritu als o f those sub ord in ate groups - the te d d y boys
and m ods and rockers, the skinhead s and the punks - who
a re a lte r n a te ly d is m is s e d , d e n o u n c e d a n d c a n o n iz e d ;
treated at d ifferen t tim es as th reats to p u b lic ord er and as
harm less b u ffoon s. Like G en et also, w e are in trig u ed b y
the m ost m un dan e ob jects - a sa fety pin, a p o in ted shoe, a
m o to r c y c le - w h ic h , n o n e th e le s s , lik e th e tu b e o f
vaselin e, take on a sym bolic d im en sion, b ecom in g a form
o f stigm ata, tokens o f a self-im p o sed exile. F inally, like
G en et, w e m u st seek to recrea te th e d ia le ctic b etw e en
a c tio n a n d r e a c tio n w h ic h r e n d e r s th e s e o b je c ts
m e a n in g fu l. F or, ju s t as th e c o n flic t b e tw e e n G e n e t’s
‘u n n a tu r a l’ s e x u a lity a n d th e p o lic e m e n ’s ‘le g it im a te ’
o u tra ge can b e e n c a p su la te d in a sin gle o b ject, so the
tension s b etw een d om in an t and su b ord in ate grou p s can
b e fo u n d reflected in the su rfaces o f su b cu ltu re - in the
INTRODUCTION: SUBCULTURE AND STYLE 3
styles m ade up o f m undane ob jects w h ich have a double

m eanin g. O n the one hand, th ey w arn the ‘stra ig h t’ w orld
in a d v a n c e o f a s in is te r p r e s e n c e - th e p r e s e n c e o f
d iffe r e n c e - a n d d ra w d o w n u p o n th e m s e lv e s v a g u e
su sp icion s, u n ea sy lau gh ter, ‘w hite and dum b ra g es’. On
the oth er hand, fo r those w ho erect them into icon s, w ho
use th em as w ord s o r as c u rse s, th ese o b jects b ecom e
signs o f fo rb id d en id en tity, sou rces o f valu e. R ecallin g his
h u m ilia tio n a t th e h a n d s o f th e p o lic e , G e n e t fin d s
con solatio n in the tube o f vaselin e. It b ecom es a sym bo l o f
his ‘triu m p h ’ - ‘I w ou ld in d eeed rath er have shed b lo o d
than rep u d iate th at silly o b ject’ (G enet, 1967).
T he m ean in g o f su b cu ltu re is, then , alw ays in d isp u te,
and sty le is the area in w h ich the op p o sin g d efin itio n s
c la sh w ith m ost d ra m a tic fo rce . M u ch o f th e a va ila b le
sp a c e in th is b o o k w ill th e re fo re b e ta k e n u p w ith a
d escrip tio n o f the p ro cess w h ereb y o b jects are m ade to
m ea n a n d m ea n a g a in as ‘s t y le ’ in s u b c u ltu r e . A s in
G en et’s n ovels, th is p ro cess b eg in s w ith a crim e a ga in st
the n atu ra l ord er, th o u gh in th is case the d ev ia tio n m ay
se e m s lig h t in d e e d - th e c u lt iv a tio n o f a q u iff , th e
a cq u isitio n o f a sc o o te r o r a reco rd or a certa in typ e o f
s u it. B u t it en d s in th e c o n s tr u c tio n o f a s ty le , in a
g estu re o f d efia n ce o r co n tem p t, in a sm ile o r a sn eer. It
sig n a ls a R efu sal. I w o u ld lik e to th in k th a t th is R efu sal
is w o rth m a k in g, th a t th e se g e stu re s h a ve a m ea n in g,
th a t th e sm ile s a n d th e sn e e rs h a ve som e s u b v e rs iv e
va lu e, even if, in the fin a l a n a lysis, th e y are, lik e G e n e t’s
g a n g s t e r p in - u p s , j u s t th e d a r k e r s id e o f s e ts o f
regu la tio n s, ju s t so m u ch g ra ffiti on a p riso n w all.
E ven so, g ra ffiti can m ake fa scin atin g read in g. T h ey
d raw atten tion to them selves. T h ey are an expression both
o f im potence and a kind o f pow er - the pow er to disfigure
(N orm an M ailer calls gra ffiti - ‘Y o u r p resen ce on th eir
P resence . . . hanging y ou r alias on th eir scen e’ (M ailer,
1974)). In this b ook I shall attem pt to decipher the graffiti,
to tease out the m eanings em bedded in the various post

w ar youth styles. B u t b efore we can proceed to individual
subcultures, w e m ust first define the b asic term s. T he w ord
‘ s u b c u ltu r e ’ is lo a d e d d ow n w ith m y ste ry . It su g g e sts
secrecy, m asonic oaths, an U nderw orld. It also invokes the
larger and no less d ifficu lt concep t ‘c u ltu re’. So it is w ith
the id ea o f culture that we shou ld begin.
ONE
F ro m cu ltu re to h eg em o n y
Culture
Culture: cultivation, tending, in Christian authors, worship;

the actio n or p ractice o f cu ltivatin g the soil; tillage,
husbandry; the cultivation or rearing o f certain animals (e.g.
fish); the artificial developm ent o f microscopic organisms,
organisms so produced; the cultivating or development (of
the mind, faculties, manners), improvement or refinement
b y education and training; the condition o f being trained or
refined; the intellectual side of civilization; the prosecution
or special attention or study o f any subject or pursuit.
(Oxford English Dictionary)
L is a n o to r io u s ly a m b ig u o u s
as the ab ove d efin itio n
t rates. Refracted through centuries o f usage,
the w ord has acquired a num ber o f quite different, often
contradictory, m eanings. Even as a scientific term, it refers
b o th to a process (artificial d evelopm en t o f m icroscop ic
organism s) and a product (organism s so produced). M ore
specifically, since the end o f the eighteenth century, it has

been used b y English intellectuals and literary figures to focus
critical attention on a whole range o f controversial issues. The
‘quality o f life’, the effects in hum an terms o f mechanization,
the division o f labour and the creation o f a m ass society have
all been discussed within the larger confines o f w hat Raym ond
W illia m s has c a lle d the ‘C u ltu re an d S o c ie ty ’ d eb ate
(W illiam s, 1961). It was through this tradition o f dissent and
criticism that the dream o f the ‘organic society’ - o f society as
an integrated, m eaningful whole - was largely kept alive. The
dream had two basic trajectories. One led back to the past and
to the feudal ideal o f a hierarchically ordered com m unity.
H ere, c u ltu re a ssu m ed an a lm o st sa cred fu n ctio n . Its
‘harmonious perfection’ (Arnold, 1868) was posited against
the W asteland o f contem porary life.
The other trajectory, less heavily supported, led towards the
future, to a socialist U topia w here the distinction betw een
labour and leisure was to be annulled. Two basic definitions of
culture emerged from this tradition, though these were b y no
means necessarily congruent with the two trajectories outlined
above. The first - the one which is probably m ost fam iliar to
the reader - was essen tially classical and conservative. It
represented culture as a standard o f aesthetic excellence: ‘the
best that has been thought and said in the w orld’ (Arnold,
1868), and it derived from an appreciation o f ‘classic’ aesthetic
form (opera, ballet, drama, literature, art). The second, traced
b ack b y W illia m s to H erd er and the eigh teen th cen tu ry
(Williams, 1976), was rooted in anthropology. Here the term
‘culture’ referred to a
. . . particular way of life which expresses certain meanings and

values not only in art and learning, but also in institutions and
ordinary behaviour. The analysis of culture, from such a definition,
is the clarification of the meanings and values implicit and explicit
in a particular way of life, a particular culture. (Williams, 1965)
FROM CULTURE TO HEGEMONY 7
This d efin itio n o b vio u sly had a m u ch b ro a d er ran ge. It

encom passed, in T. S. E lio t’s w ords,
. . . all the characteristic activities and interests o f a people.

D erby Day, Henley Regatta, Cowes, the 12th o f August, a
cup final, the dog races, the pin table, the dartboard,
W en sleyd ale cheese, b o iled cabbage cut into sections,
beetroot in vinegar, 19th C entury G othic churches, the
m usic o f Elgar. . . . (Eliot, 1948)
A s W illia m s n oted , su ch a d efin itio n cou ld o n ly be

supported if a new theoretical initiative was taken. The theory
o f culture now involved the ‘study o f relationships betw een
elem en ts in a w h ole w a y o f life ’ (W illia m s, 196 5). T he
em phasis shifted from im m utable to historical criteria, from
fixity to transformation:
. . . an em p h asis [w hich] fro m stu d y in g p a rticu la r

m eanings and values seeks not so m uch to com pare these,
as a w ay o f establishing a scale, b u t b y studying their
m odes o f change to discover certain general causes or
‘trends’ b y w hich social and cultural developm ents as a
whole can be better understood. (Williams, 1965)
W illia m s w as, then , p ro p o sin g an a lto g e th e r b ro a d er

form ulation o f the relationships between culture and society,
one which through the analysis o f ‘particular m eanings and
valu es’ sought to un cover the concealed fu ndam entals o f
history; the ‘general causes’ and broad social ‘trends’ w hich lie
behind the m anifest appearances o f an ‘everyday life’.
In the early years, w hen it w as being established in the
U niversities, Cultural Studies sat rath er uncom fortably on
the fence betw een these two conflicting definitions - culture
as a standard o f excellence, culture as a ‘w hole w a y o f life’ -
unable to determ ine w hich represented the m ost fruitful line
o f e n q u iry . R ich a rd H o g g a rt an d R a y m o n d W illia m s
portrayed w orking-class culture sym pathetically in w istful

accounts o f pre-scholarship boyhoods (Leeds for H oggart
(1958), a W elsh m ining village for W illiam s (1960)) bu t their
w ork displayed a strong bias tow ards literature and literacy1
and an equally strong m oral tone. H oggart deplored the w ay
in w h ic h th e tra d itio n a l w o rk in g -c la ss c o m m u n ity - a
co m m u n ity o f tried and tested v a lu es d esp ite th e d ou r
landscape in w hich it had b een set - was being underm ined
and replaced b y a ‘C an dy Floss W orld ’ o f thrills and cheap
fictio n w h ich w as som eh ow b lan d a n d sleazy. W illia m s
tentatively endorsed the new m ass com m unications bu t was
c o n cern ed to e sta b lish a e sth e tic and m o ral c rite ria fo r
distinguishing the w orthw hile products from the ‘trash’; the
jazz - ‘a real m usical form ’ - and the football - ‘a w onderful
gam e’ - from the ‘rape novel, the Sunday strip paper and the
latest Tin Pan drool’ (W illiam s, 1965). In 1966 H oggart laid
down the b asic prem ises upon w hich Cultural Studies were
based:
First, w ithout appreciating good literature, no one w ill

really understand the nature o f society, second, literary
critical analysis can be applied to certain social phenom ena
o th e r th an ‘a ca d e m ic a lly r e sp e cta b le ’ lite ra tu re (for
example, the popular arts, m ass com m unications) so as to
illu m in a te th e ir m ea n in gs fo r in d iv id u a ls and th e ir
societies. (Hoggart, 1966)
The im plicit assum ption that it still required a literary

sensibility to ‘read ’ society w ith the requisite subtlety, and
that the two ideas o f culture could be ultim ately reconciled
was also, paradoxically, to inform the early w ork o f the French
writer, Roland Barthes, though here it found validation in a
m ethod - semiotics - a w ay o f reading signs (Hawkes, 1977).
B a rth es: M y ths a n d signs
U sing m odels derived from the w ork o f the Sw iss lingu ist
F e rd in a n d de S a u s su re 2 B arth es so u g h t to ex p o se the
a rbitra ry n ature o f cu ltu ral ph enom ena, to un cover the

laten t m eanings o f an everyd ay life w hich, to all intents and
purposes, w as ‘p erfectly n atu ral’ . U nlike H oggart, Barthes
was not concerned w ith distin guishin g the good from the
bad in m odern m ass culture, b u t rath er w ith show ing how
a ll th e a p p a r e n tly s p o n ta n e o u s fo rm s a n d r itu a ls o f
c o n te m p o ra ry b o u r g e o is s o c ie tie s are s u b je c t to a
sy s te m a tic d is to r tio n , lia b le a t a n y m o m e n t to b e
dehistoricized, ‘n atu ralized ’, converted into m yth:
T h e w h o le o f F ra n ce is ste e p e d in th is a n o n y m o u s
id eology: o u r press, ou r film s, ou r th eatre, o u r pu lp
literature, our rituals, our Justice, ou r diplom acy, our
conversations, our rem arks about the w eather, a m urder
trial, a touching w edding, the cooking w e dream of, the
g a rm en ts w e w ea r, e v e ry th in g in e v e r y d a y life is
dependent on the representation w hich the bourgeoisie
has and m akes us have o f the relations betw een m en and
the w orld. (Barthes, 1972)
Like E liot, B arthes’ notion o f culture extends beyon d the

library, the opera-house and the theatre to encom pass the
w hole o f everyd ay life. But this everyd ay life is for Barthes
overlaid w ith a significance w hich is at once m ore insidious
a n d m ore s y s te m a tic a lly o rg a n iz e d . S ta rtin g fro m the
prem ise that ‘m yth is a type o f sp eech ’, Barthes set out in
M ythologies to exam ine the n orm ally hidden set o f rules,
codes and conventions through w h ich m eanin gs particular
to sp ecific social groups (i.e. those in pow er) are rendered
un iversal and ‘given ’ fo r the w hole o f society. He fou n d in
phenom ena as disparate as a w restling m atch, a w riter on
holiday, a tourist-guide book, the sam e artificial nature, the
sam e id eological core. E ach had b een exp osed to the sam e
prevailin g rh eto ric (the rh eto ric o f com m on sense) and
turned into m yth, into a m ere elem ent in a ‘second-order
sem io lo g ica l sy ste m ’ (B arth es, 1972). (B arth es uses the
exam ple o f a photograph in Paris-M atch o f a N egro soldier

saluting the F rench flag, w hich has a first and second order
connotation: (1) a gesture o f loyalty, b u t also (2) ‘France is
a g r e a t e m p ire , an d a ll h e r so n s, w ith o u t c o lo u r
d iscrim ination, fa ith fu lly serve u n der her fla g ’ .)
B arthes’ application o f a m ethod rooted in linguistics to
other system s o f discourse outside language (fashion, film,
fo o d , etc.) op en ed up c o m p le te ly n ew p o s s ib ilitie s fo r
c o n te m p o ra ry c u ltu ra l stu d ie s. It w as h o p ed th a t the
in visible seam b etw een lan gu age, exp erience and rea lity
could be located and prised open through a sem iotic analysis
o f this kind: that the gu lf betw een the alienated intellectual
and the ‘rea l’ w orld cou ld b e ren d ered m ean in gfu l and,
m ira cu lo u sly, at the sam e tim e, b e m ade to d isap p ear.
M o reover, u n der B arth es’ d irectio n , sem io tics prom ised
nothing less than the reconciliation o f the two conflicting
definitions o f culture upon w hich Cultural Studies was so
am biguously posited - a m arriage o f m oral conviction (in
this case, B arthes’ M arxist beliefs) and popular themes: the
study o f a society’s total w ay o f life.
This is not to say that sem iotics was easily assim ilable
w ithin the C ultural Studies project. T hough Barthes shared
the litera ry preoccupations o f H oggart and W illiam s, his
w ork introduced a n ew M arxist ‘prob lem atic’3 w h ich was
a lie n to the B ritish tr a d itio n o f c o n cern ed an d la r g e ly
untheorized ‘social com m entary’. As a result, the old debate
seem ed su d d en ly lim ited . In E. P. T h om p son ’s w ord s it
appeared to reflect the paroch ial concerns o f a group o f
‘gentlem en am ateurs’. Thom pson sought to replace W illiam s’
definition o f the theory o f culture as ‘a theory o f relations
betw een elem ents in a w hole w ay o f life’ w ith his ow n m ore
rigorously M arxist form ulation: ‘the study o f relationships in
a w hole w ay o f conflict’. A m ore analytical fram ew ork was
required; a new vocabulary had to b e learned. A s part o f this
process o f theorization, the w ord ‘ideology’ cam e to acquire a
m uch w ider range o f m eanings than had previously been the
case. W e h ave seen h o w B arth es fo u n d an ‘anon ym ou s

id e o lo g y ’ p e n e tra tin g ev ery p o ssib le le v e l o f so cia l life,
inscribed in the m ost m undane o f rituals, fram ing the m ost
ca su a l so c ia l en c o u n te rs . B u t h o w can id e o lo g y b e
‘ a n o n y m o u s’, a n d h o w can it a ssu m e su c h a b ro a d
significance? Before w e attem pt any reading o f subcultural
style, w e m ust first define the term ‘ideology’ m ore precisely.
Id eo lo g y : A lived rela tion
In the Germ an Ideology, M arx shows how the basis o f the

capitalist econom ic structure (surplus value, neatly defined
b y G odelier as ‘P rofit . . . is unpaid w ork’ (Godelier, 1970)) is
hidden from the consciousness o f the agents o f production.
The failure to see through appearances to the real relations
w hich underlie them does not occur as the direct result o f
som e kind o f m asking operation consciously carried out b y
individuals, social groups or institutions. On the contrary,
ideology b y definition thrives beneath consciousness. It is
here, at the level o f ‘norm al com m on sen se’, that ideological
fram es o f reference are m ost firm ly sedim ented and m ost
effective, because it is here that their ideological nature is
m ost effectively concealed. A s Stuart Hall puts it:
It is precisely its ‘spontaneous’ quality, its transparency, its

‘n a tu ra ln e ss’, its re fu sa l to b e m ade to exam in e the
prem ises on w hich it is founded, its resistance to change or
to correction, its effect o f instant recognition, and the
closed circle in w hich it m oves w hich m akes com m on
sense, at one and the same time, ‘spontaneous’, ideological
and u n co n scio u s. You can not learn , throu gh com m on
sense, how things are: you can only discover where they fit
into the existing schem e o f things. In this way, its very
taken-for-grantedness is w hat establishes it as a m edium in
w hich its own prem ises and presuppositions are being
rendered invisible b y its apparent transparency. (Hall, 1977)
Since id eology saturates everyd ay discourse in the form

o f com m on sense, it cannot b e b racketed o ff from everyday
life as a self-con tain ed set o f ‘political op in ion s’ or ‘biased
view s’. N either can it b e reduced to the abstract dim ensions
o f a ‘w orld vie w ’ or u sed in the crude M arxist sen se to
designate ‘false con sciou sn ess’. Instead, as Louis A lth u sser
has pointed out:
. . . id eology has very little to do w ith ‘con sciou sn ess’. . .

. It is profou ndly u n co n scio u s. . . . Id eology is indeed a
system o f representation , b u t in the m ajo rity o f cases
th e se r e p r e s e n ta tio n s h a ve n o th in g to do w ith
‘ c o n s c io u s n e s s ’ : th e y a re u s u a lly im a g e s a n d
occasion ally concepts, b u t it is above all as stru ctu res
that th ey im pose on the vast m ajo rity o f m en, not via
th e ir ‘ c o n s c io u s n e s s ’ . T h e y a re p e rc e iv e d -a c c e p te d -
su ffered cu ltu ral ob jects and th ey act fu n ctio n a lly on
m en via a process that escapes them . (Althusser, 1969)
A lthough A lthusser is here referring to structures like the

family, cultural and political institutions, etc., we can illustrate
the point quite sim ply b y taking as our example a physical
structure. M ost m odern institutes o f education, despite the
apparent n eutrality o f the m aterials from w hich th ey are
constructed (red brick, white tile, etc.) carry within themselves
implicit ideological assumptions which are literally structured
into the architecture itself. The categorization o f knowledge
into arts and sciences is reproduced in the faculty system which
houses different disciplines in different buildings, and m ost
colleges m ain tain the trad itio n al division s b y d evotin g a
separate floor to each subject. M oreover, the hierarchical
relationship between teacher and taught is inscribed in the very
lay-out o f the lecture theatre where the seating arrangements -
benches rising in tiers before a raised lectern - dictate the flow
o f information and serve to ‘naturalize’ professorial authority.
Thus, a whole range o f decisions about what is and what is not
p ossible w ith in ed u cation have b een m ade, h ow ever

unconsciously, before the content o f individual courses is even
decided.
These decisions help to set the lim its not on ly on w hat is
taught but on h ow it is taught. Here the b u ild in gs literally
r e p r o d u c e in c o n c r e te te rm s p r e v a ilin g (id e o lo g ic a l)
n o tio n s a b ou t w h at ed u ca tio n is and it is th ro u g h this
p ro c e ss th a t th e e d u c a tio n a l str u c tu re , w h ic h can , o f
course, b e altered, is placed b eyon d question and appears
to us as a ‘g iv en ’ (i.e. as im m u tab le). In th is case, the
fram es o f our th in kin g have b een tran slated into actu al
b ricks and m ortar.
Social relations and processes are then appropriated b y
in d iv id u a ls o n ly th ro u g h the fo rm s in w h ic h th e y are
represented to those individuals. These form s are, as we
have seen, b y no m eans transparent. T h ey are shrouded in
a ‘co m m o n s e n s e ’ w h ic h s im u lta n e o u sly v a lid a te s and
m ystifies them . It is precisely these ‘perceived -accepted -
s u ffe r e d c u ltu r a l o b je c ts ’ w h ic h s e m io tic s se ts o u t to
‘in terrogate’ and decipher. A ll aspects o f culture possess a
sem iotic value, and the m ost taken-for-granted phenom ena
can fu n c tio n as sig n s: as e le m e n ts in c o m m u n ic a tio n
system s governed b y sem an tic rules and codes w h ich are
not them selves d irectly apprehended in experience. These
signs are, then, as op aqu e as the so cia l relatio n s w hich
produce them and w hich th ey re-present. In oth er w ords,
there is an id eological dim ension to every signification:
A sign does not simply exist as part of reality - it reflects and

refracts another reality. Therefore it m ay distort that reality or
be true to it, or m ay perceive it from a special point o f view,
and so forth. Every sign is subject to the criteria o f ideological
evaluation. . . . The domain of ideology coincides with the
domain o f signs. They equate with one another. W henever a
sign is present, ideology is present too. Everything ideological
possesses a semiotic value. (Volosinov, 1973)
To uncover the ideological dim ension o f signs we m ust first

try to d isen ta n g le the cod es th ro u g h w h ich m ean in g is
organized. ‘Connotative’ codes are particularly im portant. As
Stuart Hall has argued, they’. . . cover the face o f social life
and render it classifiable, intelligible, m eaningful’ (Hall, 1977).
He goes on to describe these codes as ‘m aps o f m eanin g’
w hich are o f n ecessity the product o f selection. T h ey cut
acro ss a ran ge o f p o ten tia l m ea n in gs, m a k in g certain
m eanings available and ruling others out o f court. W e tend to
live inside these m aps as surely as we live in the ‘real’ world:
they ‘think’ us as m uch as we ‘think’ them, and this in itself is
quite ‘natural’. A ll hum an societies reproduce them selves in
this w ay through a process o f ‘naturalization’. It is through
this process - a kind o f inevitable reflex o f all social life - that
p a r tic u la r sets o f so c ia l re la tio n s, p a r tic u la r w ays o f
organizing the world appear to us as if they were universal
and timeless. This is w hat Althusser (1971) m eans w hen he
says that ‘ideology has no history’ and that ideology in this
general sense w ill always be an ‘essential elem ent o f every
social form ation’ (Althusser and Balibar, 1968).
H ow ever, in h igh ly com plex societies like ours, w hich
fu n ctio n th rou gh a fin e ly graded system o f d ivid ed (i.e.
specialized) labour, the crucial question has to do w ith which
specific ideologies, representing the interests o f w hich specific
groups and classes w ill prevail at any given m om ent, in any
given situation. To deal w ith this question, w e m u st first
consider how power is distributed in our society. That is, we
m ust ask w hich groups and classes have how m uch say in
defining, ordering and classifying out the social world. For
instance, if we pause to reflect for a m om ent, it should be
ob viou s th a t a ccess to th e m ean s b y w h ich id ea s are
dissem inated in our society (i.e. principally the m ass media) is
not the same for all classes. Some groups have m ore say, more
opportunity to m ake the rules, to organize m eaning, while
others are less favourably placed, have less pow er to produce
and impose their definitions o f the w orld on the world.
Thus, when we come to look beneath the level of ‘ideology-in-

general at the w ay in which specific ideologies work, how some
gain dominance and others remain marginal, we can see that in
advanced W estern democracies the ideological field is b y no
means neutral. To return to the ‘connotative’ codes to which
Stuart Hall refers we can see that these ‘maps of meaning’ are
charged with a potentially explosive significance because they are
traced and re-traced along the lines laid down b y the dominant
discourses about reality, the dominant ideologies. They thus tend
to represent, in however obscure and contradictory a fashion, the
interests o f the dominant groups in society.
To understand this point w e should refer to Marx:
T he id eas o f the ru lin g cla ss are in ev ery ep och the

ru lin g id eas, i.e. the class w h ich is the ru lin g m a teria l
fo r c e o f s o c ie t y is a t th e sa m e tim e its r u lin g
in te lle ctu a l fo rce . T h e class w h ich has the m eans o f
m a terial prod u ction at its d isposal, has co n tro l at the
sam e tim e over the m eans o f m en ta l prod u ction , so that
g e n e ra lly sp ea k in g , the id ea s o f th o se w h o la c k the
m ea n s o f m e n ta l p r o d u c tio n are s u b je c t to it. T h e
ru lin g ideas are n oth in g m ore than the id eal exp ression
o f th e d o m in a n t m a te r ia l r e la tio n s h ip s g ra sp e d as
ideas; hence o f the relatio n sh ip s w h ich m ake the one
c la s s th e r u lin g c la s s , th e r e fo r e th e id e a s o f its
d om inan ce. (M arx and E ngels, 1970)
This is the b asis o f A n ton io G ram sci’s theory o f hegem ony

w h ic h p r o v id e s th e m o st a d e q u a te a c c o u n t o f h o w
dom inance is sustained in advanced cap italist societies.
H egem ony: The m oving equ ilibriu m
‘ Society cannot share a com m on com m unication system so

lo n g as it is sp lit into w arrin g cla sse s’ (B recht, A Short
O rganum fo r the Theatre).
The term h eg em o n y refers to a situ a tio n in w h ich a

provisional alliance o f certain social groups can exert ‘total
social authority’ over other subordinate groups, not sim ply b y
coercion or b y the direct im position o f ruling ideas, but b y
‘w in n in g and shap in g con sen t so th at the p o w er o f the
dom inant classes appears both legitim ate and natural’ (Hall,
1977). H egem ony can o n ly b e m ain tained so long as the
d o m in a n t cla sse s ‘ su cceed in fram in g a ll com p etin g
d efin itio n s w ith in th e ir r a n g e ’ (H all, 1977), so th a t
su b o rd in ate grou p s are, if n ot con trolled ; th en at le a st
contained within an ideological space w hich does not seem at
all ‘ideological’: w hich appears instead to be perm anent and
‘n a tu ra l’, to lie ou tsid e histo ry, to b e b eyo n d p articu lar
interests (see Social Trends, no. 6, 1975).
This is how, according to Barthes, ‘m ythology’ perform s its
vital function o f naturalization and norm alization and it is in
his b o o k M y th o lo g ie s th a t B arth es d em o n strates m ost
forcefully the full extension o f these norm alized form s and
m eanings. However, G ram sci adds the im portant proviso that
hegem onic power, precisely because it requires the consent of
the dom inated majority, can never be perm anently exercised
b y the same alliance o f ‘class fractions’. As has been pointed
out, ‘ H egem ony . . . is not u n iversal and “g iv en ” to the
co n tin u in g ru le o f a p a rticu la r class. It has to b e w on,
reprod uced , sustain ed . H egem ony is, as G ram sci said, a
“m o v in g e q u ilib riu m ” co n tain in g rela tio n s o f forces
favourable or unfavourable to this or that tendency’ (Hall et
al., 1976a).
In the same way, form s cannot be perm anently normalized.
T h ey can alw ays b e d econ stru cted , d em ystified , b y a
‘m yth ologist’ like Barthes. M oreover com m odities can be
symbolically ‘repossessed’ in everyday life, and endowed with
im plicitly oppositional m eanings, b y the very groups who
originally produced them. The symbiosis in which ideology and
social order, production and reproduction, are linked is then
neither fixed n or guaranteed. It can b e prised open. The
consensus can b e fractu red , ch allen ged , overru led , and

resistance to the groups in dominance cannot always be lightly
dismissed or autom atically incorporated. Although, as Lefebvre
has written, we live in a society where ‘ . . . objects in practice
become signs and signs objects and a second nature takes the
place o f the first - the initial layer o f perceptible reality’
(Lefebvre, 1971), there are, as he goes on to affirm, always
‘objections and contradictions which hinder the closing o f the
circuit’ between sign and object, production and reproduction.
W e can now return to the m eaning o f youth subcultures,
fo r the em erg en ce o f su ch grou p s has sig n a lle d in a
spectacular fashion the breakdown o f consensus in the post
w ar period. In the following chapters we shall see that it is
precisely objections and contradictions o f the kind w hich
Lefebvre has described that find expression in subculture.
H ow ever, the ch allen ge to h egem on y w h ich su b cu ltu res
represent is not issued directly b y them. Rather it is expressed
ob liq u ely , in sty le. T h e o b jec tio n s are lo d g e d , the
contradictions displayed (and, as w e shall see, ‘m agically
resolved’) at the profoundly superficial level o f appearances:
that is, at the level o f signs. For the sign-com m unity, the
com m unity o f m yth-consum ers, is not a uniform body. As
V olosinov has written, it is cut through b y class:
C lass does not coincide w ith the sign com m unity, i.e.
w ith the to ta lity o f users o f the sam e set o f signs o f
id e o lo g ic a l c o m m u n ic a tio n . T h u s v a r io u s d iffe r e n t
classes w ill use one and the sam e lan gu age. A s a result,
d ifferen tly oriented accents intersect in every ideological
sig n . S ign b ec o m es the a re n a o f th e cla ss stru g g le .
(Volosinov, 1973)
T he struggle b etw een d ifferen t d iscou rses, d ifferen t

definitions and meanings within ideology is therefore always, at
the same time, a struggle within signification: a struggle for
possession o f the sign which extends to even the m ost mundane
areas of everyday life. To turn once more to the examples used

in the Introduction, to the safety pins and tubes o f vaseline, we
can see that such commodities are indeed open to a double
inflection: to ‘illegitim ate’ as w ell as ‘legitim ate’ uses. These
‘hum ble objects’ can be m agically appropriated; ‘stolen’ b y
subordinate groups and m ade to carry ‘secret’ m eanings:
meanings which express, in code, a form of resistance to the
order which guarantees their continued subordination.
Style in subculture is, then, pregnant w ith significance.
Its tran sform ation s go ‘a gain st n atu re’, in terru p tin g the
p ro cess o f ‘n o rm a liz a tio n ’ . A s su ch , th e y are ge stu res,
m o vem en ts tow ard s a sp eech w h ich o ffen d s the ‘ silen t
m a jo rity ” , w h ich ch a llen g e s th e p r in c ip le o f u n ity and
cohesion, w hich contradicts the m yth o f consensus. O ur task
b ecom es, lik e B a rth es’, to d iscern the hid d en m essages
inscribed in code on the glossy surfaces o f style, to trace
them out as ‘m aps o f m eaning’ w hich obscurely re-present
the v e ry co n tra d ictio n s th ey are d esign ed to reso lv e or
conceal.
A cadem ics w ho adopt a sem iotic approach are not alone in
reading significan ce into the load ed surfaces o f life. The
existence o f sp ectacu lar subcultu res con tin u ally opens up
those su rfaces to oth er p o te n tia lly su b versiv e read in gs.
Jean Genet, the archetype o f the ‘u n n atu ral’ deviant, again
exem plifies the practice o f resistance through style. He is as
co n v in ced in his ow n w a y as is R o la n d B arth es o f the
id e o lo g ic a l c h a r a c te r o f c u ltu r a l s ig n s. H e is e q u a lly
op p ressed b y the seam less w eb o f form s and m ean in gs
w hich encloses and yet excludes him . H is reading is eq u ally
p a r tia l. He m a k e s h is o w n lis t an d d ra w s h is ow n
conclusions:
I w as astounded b y so rigorous an edifice w hose details

w e re u n ite d a g a in s t m e. N o th in g in th e w o r ld is
irrelevan t: the stars on a g e n e ra l’s sleeve, the stock-
m ark et q uotation s, the olive h arvest, the style o f the
ju d ic ia ry , the w h ea t ex ch a n g e, the flo w e r-b e d s, . . .

N o th in g. T h is o rd er. . . h ad a m ea n in g - m y ex ile.
(Genet, 1967)
It is th is a lie n a tio n fro m the d e c e p tiv e ‘ in n o c e n c e ’ o f

appearances w hich gives the teds, the m ods, the punks and
no doubt future groups o f as yet unim aginable ‘ d evian ts’
the im p etu s to m ove fro m m a n ’s seco n d ‘fa ls e n a tu r e ’
(Barthes, 1972) to a gen u in ely expressive artifice; a tru ly
subterran ean style. A s a sym bolic vio lation o f the social
o rd er, su ch a m o v em en t a ttra c ts an d w ill co n tin u e to
a ttract attention, to provoke censure and to act, as w e shall
see , as th e fu n d a m e n ta l b e a r e r o f s ig n ific a n c e in
subculture.
No subculture has sought w ith m ore grim determ ination
than the punks to detach itse lf from the taken-for-granted
lan d scap e o f norm alized form s, n or to b rin g dow n upon
itse lf such vehem ent disapproval. W e shall b egin therefore
w ith the m o m en t o f p u n k and w e sh a ll re tu rn to th at
m om ent throughout the course o f this book. It is perhaps
a p p ro p ria te th a t the pu n ks, w ho h ave m ade su ch large
claim s fo r illiteracy, w ho have pushed p rofa n ity to such
sta rtlin g ex trem es, sh o u ld b e used to test som e o f the
m ethods fo r ‘rea d in g’ signs evolved in the cen tu ries-old
debate on the san ctity o f culture.
TWO
A p ril 3, 1989, M arrakech

The chic thing is to dress in expensive tailor-m ade rags
and all the queens are cam ping abou t in w ild -b oy drag.
There are B ow ery suits that appear to b e stained w ith
urine and vom it w hich on closer inspection turn out to
b e intricate em broideries o f fine gold thread. There are
clochard suits o f the fin est linen, sh ab by gen tility suits .
. . felt hats seasoned b y old ju n k ies . . . lou d cheap pim p
suits that turn out to b e not so cheap the loudness is a
subtle harm on y o f colours o n ly the very b est P oor Boy
shops can turn out. . . . It is the double take and m any
carry it m uch fu rth er to as m an y as six takes (W illiam
B urroughs, 1969)
H o lid ay in th e sun: M iste r R o tte n m akes th e gra d e
HE B ritish su m m er o f 1976 w as e x tra o rd in arily hot
T and dry: th ere w ere no record ed preced en ts. From

M a y th r o u g h to A u g u s t, L o n d o n p a r c h e d an d
sw eltered under lu m in ou s skies and the in evitab le fog o f
e x h a u s t fu m e s . I n it ia lly h a ile d as a G o d se n d , a n d a
n atio n al ‘to n ic ’ in the press and televisio n (w as B rita in ’s
‘cu rse’ fin a lly b rok en ?) the sun p rovid ed sea so n a l re lie f
from the d reary cycle o f d oom -laden h ead lin es w h ich had
d om inated the fro n t pages o f the tablo id s th rou gh ou t the
w in te r . N a tu re p e r fo r m e d its s ta tu t o r y id e o lo g ic a l
fu n c tio n a n d ‘ s to o d in ’ f o r a ll th e o th e r ‘b a d n e w s ’ ,
p ro v id e d ta n g ib le p r o o f o f ‘ im p ro v e m e n t’ a n d p u sh ed
asid e the strik e s and the d isse n sio n . W ith p re d ic ta b le
r e g u la rity , ‘b rig h t you n g th in g s ’ w ere sh o w n flo u n cin g
a lo n g O x fo rd S tre e t in h a re m b a g s an d b e a c h sh o rts,
b ik in i tops and p o laroid s in th at la s t u pliftin g item fo r the
N ew s a t Ten. The sun served as a ‘ch eek y ’ p o stscrip t to
the crisis: a lig h th ea rte d ad d en d u m fille d w ith tro p ica l
prom ise. The crisis, too, cou ld have its holid ay. But as the
w eeks and m on th s passed and the h eatw ave continu ed ,
the old m yth o lo g y o f doom and d isaster w as rea sserted
w ith a v e n g e a n c e . T h e ‘ m ir a c le ’ r a p id ly b e c a m e a
com m on place, an ev eryd a y affair, u n til one m orn in g in
m id -Ju ly it w as su d d en ly re-ch risten ed a ‘frea k d iso rd er’ :
a d read ful, last, u n lo ok ed -for fa cto r in B rita in ’s d ecline.
T h e h e a tw a v e w a s o ffic ia lly d e c la r e d a d ro u g h t in
A u g u st, w a te r w as ratio n ed , crop s w ere fa ilin g , and H yde
P a r k ’s gra ss b u rn ed in to a d elicate shad e o f ra w sien n a.
T h e en d w as at hand and L ast D ays im a g e ry b eg a n to
fig u r e o n ce m o re in th e p r e s s . E c o n o m ic c a te g o r ie s ,
cu ltu ra l and n a tu ra l p h en o m en a w ere co n fo u n d ed w ith
m ore th an cu sto m a ry a b a n d o n u n til the d ro u gh t to o k on
an a lm o s t m e t a p h y s ic a l s ig n ific a n c e . A M in is te r fo r
D ro u g h t w as a p p o in ted , N atu re h ad n ow b een o ffic ia lly
d eclared ‘ u n n a tu ra l’, and a ll th e a ge-o ld in fe re n ces w ere
d ra w n w ith a n o b lig a to r y m o d ic u m o f ir o n y to k e e p
w ith in the b o u n d s o f com m on sen se. In la te A u g u st, two
even ts o f c o m p letely d ifferen t m y th ica l sta tu re co in cid ed
to co n firm the w o rst fo reb o d in g s: it w as d em o n strated
th a t th e e x c e s s iv e h e a t w a s t h r e a te n in g th e v e r y
s tr u c tu r e o f th e n a t io n ’s h o u s e s ( c r a c k in g th e
fo u n d atio n s) and th e N o ttin g H ill C arn iv al, tra d itio n a lly
a p a ra d ig m o f r a c ia l h arm on y, ex p lo d e d in to vio le n ce.
H O L ID A Y IN T H E SUN 25
T h e C a r ib b e a n f e s t iv a l, w ith a ll its C o o k ’ s T o u r s
c o n n o ta tio n s o f h ap p y, d an cin g co lo u red fo lk , o f ja u n ty
b r ig h t c a ly p s o s a n d e x o t ic c o s tu m e s , w a s s u d d e n ly ,
u n a c c o u n t a b ly , tr a n s fo r m e d in to a m e n a c in g
c o n g re g a tio n o f a n g ry b la c k you th s and em b a ttled po lice.
H o rd e s o f y o u n g b la c k B rito n s d id th e S o w e to d a sh
a cro ss the n a tio n ’s te le v isio n screen s and c o n ju red up
fe a r fu l im ag es o f o th e r N eg ro e s, o th e r c o n fro n ta tio n s,
o th e r ‘lon g, h ot su m m ers’. T h e h u m b le d u stb in lid , the
sta p le o f e v e ry ste el b an d , the sy m b o l o f th e ‘ ca rn iv a l
s p ir it’, o f N egro in g e n u ity and the re silie n c e o f gh etto
cu ltu re, to o k on an a lto g e th e r m ore om in ou s sig n ifica n ce
w h e n u se d b y w h ite -fa c e d p o lic e m e n as a d e s p e r a te
sh ie ld a g a in st an a n g ry rain o f b rick s.
It w as during this strange apocalyp tic sum m er that punk
m ade its sen sation al debut in the m usic press.1 In London,
esp ecially in the south w est and m ore sp ecifically in the
vicin ity o f the K in g’s Road, a n ew style w as b eing generated
c o m b in in g e le m e n ts d ra w n fr o m a w h o le r a n g e o f
h eterogeneous you th styles. In fact punk claim ed a dubious
parentage. Strands from D avid Bow ie and glitter-rock w ere
w oven together w ith elem ents from A m erican proto-punk
(the Ram ones, the H eartbreakers, Iggy Pop, Richard Hell),
from that faction w ithin London pub-rock (the 101-ers, the
G orillas, etc.) inspired b y the m od subcultu re o f the 60s,
from the C an vey Island 40s revival and the Southend r & b
bands (D r F eelgood, L ew Lewis, etc.), from n orthern soul
and from reggae.
N o t s u r p r is in g ly , th e r e s u ltin g m ix w a s so m e w h a t
u n sta b le : a ll th e se e le m e n ts c o n s ta n tly th r e a te n e d to
separate and retu rn to th eir origin al sources. G lam rock
c o n trib u ted n arcissism , n ih ilism and g en d er con fu sion .
A m e rican pun k o ffe re d a m in im a list a e sth e tic (e.g. the
R am ones’ ‘P in h ead ’ or C rim e’s ‘I Stupid’), the cult o f the
Street and a penchant fo r self-laceration. N orthern Soul (a
g e n u in ely secret su b cu ltu re o f w o rk in g-class you n gsters
d edicated to acrobatic dancing and fast A m erican soul o f

the 60s, w h ich cen tres on clu bs lik e the W igan Casino)
b rought its subterran ean tradition o f fast, je rk y rhythm s,
solo dance styles and am phetam ines; reggae its exotic and
dangerous aura o f forbid d en id en tity, its conscien ce, its
dread and its cool. N ative rhythm ‘n b lu es reinforced the
b rashn ess and the speed o f N orthern Soul, took rock b ack
to th e b a s ic s a n d c o n tr ib u te d a h ig h ly d e v e lo p e d
iconoclasm , a th o rou gh ly B ritish persona and an extrem ely
selective appropriation o f the rock ‘n ro ll heritage.
T h is u n lik e ly a llia n c e o f d iv e rs e a n d s u p e r f ic ia lly
in c o m p a tib le m u s ic a l tr a d itio n s , m y s te r io u s ly
accom plished under punk, found ratification in an eq u ally
eclectic clothing style w h ich reprod u ced the sam e kind o f
cacophon y on the visu al level. The w hole ensem ble, literally
safety-pinned together, becam e the celebrated and high ly
photogenic phenom enon know n as punk w hich throughout
19 77 p ro v id e d th e ta b lo id s w ith a fu n d o f p r e d ic ta b ly
sen sa tio n a l c o p y and the q u a lity p ress w ith a w elcom e
catalogue o f b ea u tifu lly b rok en codes. P unk reprod u ced the
en tire sa rto ria l h isto ry o f p o st-w ar w ork in g-class you th
cultures in ‘cut up’ form , com bining elem ents w hich had
origin ally b elon ged to com pletely d ifferen t epochs. There
w as a chaos o f quiffs and lea th er jack ets, b roth el creepers
and w inkle pickers, plim solls and paka m acs, m od d y crops
and sk in h e ad strid es, d ra in p ip es and v iv id sock s, b u m
freezers and b ovver boots - all kept ‘in place’ and ‘ou t o f
tim e ’ b y the sp ectacu la r ad hesives: the s a fe ty pins and
plastic clothes pegs, the b ondage straps and b its o f string
w hich attracted so m uch horrified and fascin ated attention.
P u n k is th e re fo re a s in g u la r ly a p p r o p ria te p o in t o f
d ep a rtu re fo r a stu d y o f th is k in d b e c a u se p u n k style
contain ed d istorted reflection s o f a ll the m ajo r p ost-w ar
subcultures. But b efore w e can in terpret the significan ce o f
these subcultures, w e m ust first unscram ble the sequence
in w hich th ey occurred.
BOREDOM IN BABYLON 27
B o red om in B ab ylon
O rdin ary life is so dull that I get out o f it as m uch as

possible. (Steve Jones, a Sex Pistol, quoted in M elod y
M aker)
It se e m s e n tir e ly a p p r o p ria te th a t p u n k ’s ‘u n n a tu r a l’
synthesis should have hit the London streets during that
b izarre sum m er. A p ocalypse w as in the air and the rhetoric
o f punk w as drenched in apocalypse: in the stock im agery
o f c r is is a n d su d d e n c h a n g e . In d e e d , e v en p u n k ’s
epiphanies w ere hybrid affairs, representin g the aw kw ard
and u n stea d y con flu en ce o f the tw o ra d ic a lly d issim ilar
lan guages o f reggae and ro ck . A s the shock-haired punks
b egan to gather in a shop called Sex on a corn er o f the
K in g’s Road, aptly nam ed the W orlds End, D avid B ow ie’s
d a y o f the D ia m o n d D ogs (R.C.A . V icto r, 1974) and the
trium ph o f the ‘super-alienated hum anoid ’ w as som ehow
m ade to coincide w ith regg ae’s D ay o f Judgem ent, w ith the
overthrow o f B abylon and the end o f alienation altogether.
It is here that w e en counter the first o f pu n k’s endem ic
contradictions, fo r the visions o f apocalypse su p erficially
fused in punk cam e from essen tially antagonistic sources.
D avid Bow ie and the N ew Y o rk punk b an d s had pieced
together from a variety o f acknow ledged ‘artistic’ sources -
from the litera ry avant-garde and the underground cinem a
- a self-con sciou sly profane and term inal aesthetic. Patti
Sm ith, an A m erican punk and ex-art student, claim ed to
have invented a n ew form , ‘rock p o etry’, and incorporated
readings from R im baud and W illiam B urroughs into her
act. Bowie, too, cited B urroughs as an influence and used
his fam ous cut-up technique o f random ju xtap osition s to
‘ co m p o se ’ ly ric s. R ich a rd H ell d re w on th e w ritin g s o f
Lautream ont and H uysm ans. B ritish punk bands, generally
youn ger and m ore self-con scio u sly proletarian, rem ained
large ly inn ocen t o f literatu re. H ow ever, fo r b etter or w orse,
th e lite r a r y so u rc e s tu rn e d o u t to b e fir m ly a lth o u g h

im p licitly inscribed in the aesthetics o f B ritish punk too.
Sim ilarly, there w ere connections (via W arh ol and W ayne
C oun ty in A m erica, via the art school bands like the W ho
and the C lash in Britain) w ith underground cinem a and
avant-garde art.
B y the early 70s, these tendencies had b egu n to cohere
into a fu lly fledged n ih ilist aesthetic and the em ergence o f
this aesthetic together w ith its characteristic focal concerns
(polym orphous, often w ilfu lly perverse sexuality, obsessive
individualism , fragm en ted sense o f self, etc.) generated a
good deal o f con troversy am ongst those interested in rock
cu ltu re (see M elly, 1972; T a ylo r and W all, 1976). From
Jagger in Perform ance (W arner Bros, 1969) to Bow ie as the
‘thin w hite d uke’, the spectre o f the d and y ‘drow ning in his
ow n op era’ (Sartre, 1968) has haunted rock from the w ings
as it w ere, and in the w ords o f Ian T aylor and D ave W all
‘plays b ack the alienation o f you th onto itse lf (1976). Punk
represents the m ost recent phase in this process. In punk,
alien a tion assum ed an a lm o st ta n g ib le q u ality. It cou ld
alm o st b e gra sp ed . It gave its e lf up to the cam era s in
‘b lan kn ess’, the rem oval o f expression (see any photograph
o f a n y punk group), the refu sal to speak and be positioned.
This trajecto ry - the solipsism , the neurosis, the cosm etic
rage - had its origins in rock.
B ut at alm o st every tu rn the d ictates o f this profane
aesthetic w ere counterm anded b y the righteous im peratives
o f another m usical form : reggae. Reggae occupies the other
end o f that w ide spectrum o f influences w hich b ore upon
punk. A s early as M ay 1977 Jordan, the fam ous punk shop
a s s is ta n t o f S ex an d S e d itio n a r ie s w a s e x p re s s in g a
preference fo r reggae over ‘n ew w a ve’ on the pages o f the
N ew M u sica l E xpress (7 M ay 1977). ‘It’s the on ly m u sic we
[i.e. J o rd a n and J. R otten] d ance to ’. A lth o u g h R otten
h im se lf in sisted on the re la tiv e a u to n o m y o f pu n k and
regg ae, he d isp la ye d a d eta iled k n o w led g e o f th e m ore
BOREDOM IN BABYLON 29
e s o te r ic r e g g a e n u m b e rs in a s e r ie s o f in te r v ie w s
th r o u g h o u t 19 7 7. M o st c o n s p ic u o u s ly a m o n g st p u n k
groups, the C lash w ere h eavily influenced not o n ly b y the
m u sic , b u t a ls o b y th e v is u a l ic o n o g r a p h y o f b la c k
Jam aican street style. Khaki b attle dress stencilled w ith the
C aribbean legen d s DUB and H E A V Y M A N N ERS, n arrow
‘sta-p rest’ trousers, b lack b rogu es and slip ons, even the
pork pie hat, w ere all adopted at differen t tim es b y various
m em bers o f the group. In addition, the group played ‘W hite
R iot’, a song inspired d irectly b y the ’76 Carnival, against a
screen -p rin ted backdrop o f the N otting H ill disturbances,
and th ey toured w ith a reggae discotheque presided over b y
D on L e tts, th e b la c k R a s ta fa ria n d-j w h o s h o t th e
docum en tary film P u nk w hile w orking at the R oxy Club in
C ovent Garden.
A s w e s h a ll see , a lth o u g h a p p a r e n tly se p a ra te an d
autonom ous, punk and the b lack B ritish subcultu res w ith
w h ic h re g g a e is a s s o c ia te d w e re c o n n e c te d a t a d eep
structural level. But the dialogue b etw een the two form s
cannot prop erly be decoded until the internal com position
and significan ce o f b oth reggae and the B ritish w orking-
c la ss y o u th c u ltu re s w h ic h p r e c e d e d p u n k a re fu lly
un derstood. T h is in volves tw o m a jo r tasks. F irst reggae
m ust b e traced b ack to its roots in the W est Indies, and
second the histo ry o f post-w ar B ritish youth culture m ust
be reinterpreted as a succession o f d ifferen tial responses to
the b lack im m igran t presence in B ritain from the 1950s
onw ards. Such a reassessm ent dem ands a shift o f em phasis
aw ay from the norm al areas o f interest - the school, police,
m edia and parent culture (w hich have anyw ay been fa irly
exhaustively treated b y oth er w riters, see, e.g. H all et a l.,
1976) - to w hat I feel to b e the large ly n eglected dim ension
o f race and race relations.
SIX
S u bcu ltu re: Th e u n n a tu ra l b re a k
‘I felt unclean fo r abou t 48 h ou rs.’ (G .L.C. cou ncillor after

seeing a concert b y the Sex Pistols (reported N ew M u sica l
E xpress, 18 J u ly 1977))
[Language is] o f all social institutions, the least amenable

to initiative. It blends w ith the life o f society, and the latter,
inert b y nature, is a prim e conservative force. (Saussure, 1974)
U B C U L T U R E S r e p r e s e n t ‘ n o is e ’ (as o p p o s e d to
S sound): interference in the ord erly sequence w hich

le a d s fro m r e a l e v e n ts an d p h e n o m e n a to th e ir
re p re se n ta tio n in the m ed ia . W e sh o u ld th e re fo re n ot
u n d e re stim a te th e sig n ify in g p o w er o f th e sp e c ta c u la r
subculture not o n ly as a m etap hor fo r poten tial anarchy
‘ o u t th e r e ’ b u t as an a c tu a l m e c h a n is m o f s e m a n tic
disorder: a kind o f tem porary b lockage in the system o f
representation . A s John M epham (1972) has w ritten:
D istinctions and id en tities m a y be so d eeply em bedded

in our discourse and th ought abou t the w orld w hether
this b e becau se o f th eir role in our practical lives, or
SUBCULTURE: THE UNNATURAL BREAK 91
b e c a u s e th e y are c o g n itiv e ly p o w e r fu l a n d a re an
im portant aspect o f the w ay in w hich w e appear to m ake
sense o f our experience, that the theoretical challenge to
them can b e quite startling.
A n y elisio n , tru n c a tio n o r co n v erge n ce o f p rev ailin g

lin gu istic and id eological categories can have profou nd ly
d isorien tin g effects. T h ese d eviatio n s b rie fly exp ose the
arb itrary nature o f the codes w hich underlie and shape all
form s o f discourse. A s Stuart H all (1974) has w ritten (here
in the context o f exp licitly political deviance):
N ew . . . d evelopm ents w h ich are b o th d ram atic and

‘m eanin gless’ w ithin the consensu ally validated norm s,
pose a challen ge to the norm ative w orld. T h ey render
problem atic not on ly h ow the . . . w orld is defined, b u t
h ow it ought to be. T h ey ‘b reach our exp ectan cies’. . . .
N o tio n s c o n c e r n in g th e s a n c tity o f la n g u a g e are

intim ately bound up w ith ideas o f social order. The lim its o f
acceptable lin gu istic expression are prescribed b y a num ber
o f apparently un iversal taboos. These taboos guarantee the
con tin u in g ‘tran sp a ren cy ’ (the ta k en -fo r-gran ted n ess) o f
m eaning.
P re d ic ta b ly th en , v io la tio n s o f th e a u th o rized cod es
th r o u g h w h ic h th e s o c ia l w o r ld is o r g a n iz e d an d
e x p e rie n c e d h ave c o n s id e ra b le p o w e r to p ro v o k e an d
disturb. T h ey are gen erally condem ned, in M ary D ou glas’
w ords (1967), as ‘con trary to h olin ess’ and Levi-Strauss has
n o te d h ow , in c e r ta in p rim itiv e m y th s, the
m ispron unciation o f w ords and the m isuse o f lan gu age are
c la ssifie d a lo n g w ith in c e s t as h o rre n d o u s a b e rra tio n s
capable o f ‘ unleashing storm and tem pest’ (Levi-Strauss,
1969). Sim ilarly, sp ectacu lar subcultu res express forbidden
c o n te n ts (c o n s c io u s n e s s o f c la s s , c o n s c io u s n e s s o f
difference) in forbid d en form s (transgressions o f sartorial
a n d b e h a v io u r a l c o d e s, la w b r e a k in g , e tc .). T h e y are
profane articulations, and th ey are often and significan tly
d efin ed as ‘u n n atu ral’. T he term s used in the tabloid press
to d escrib e th o se y o u n g ste rs w h o, in th e ir co n d u c t or
c lo th in g , p r o c la im s u b c u ltu r a l m e m b e r s h ip (‘f r e a k s ’,
‘an im als . . . w ho fin d cou rage, lik e rats, in h u n ting in
p a ck s’1) w ou ld seem to su g gest th a t the m ost p rim itive
anxieties concerning the sacred distin ction b etw een nature
and culture can b e sum m oned up b y the em ergence o f such
a group. No doubt, the b reaking o f rules is confu sed w ith
the ‘ ab sen ce o f r u le s ’ w h ich , a cco rd in g to L evi-S trau ss
(19 6 9 ), ‘ se e m s to p ro v id e th e s u r e s t c r ite r ia fo r
distin guishin g a n atural from a cu ltu ral p rocess’. Certainly,
the official reaction to the punk subcultu re, particu larly to
the Sex P isto ls’ use o f ‘fou l lan gu a g e’ on television 2 and
r e c o rd 3, an d to the v o m itin g a n d s p ittin g in c id en ts at
H eathrow A irport4 w ould seem to indicate that these b asic
tabo os are no le ss d ee p ly sed im en ted in co n tem p o ra ry
B ritish society.
Tw o form s o f in co rp o ratio n
Has not this society, glutted w ith aestheticism , alread y

in te g r a te d fo r m e r r o m a n tic is m s , s u r re a lis m ,
e x iste n tia lism and even M a rxism to a point? It has,
indeed, through trade, in the form o f com m odities. That
w h ich y e ste rd a y w as r e v ile d to d a y b eco m es c u ltu ra l
con sum er-good s, con su m ption thus en gu lfs w h at w as
intended to give m eaning and direction. (Lefebvre, 1971)
W e have seen how subcultures ‘b reach our expectan cies’,

how they represent sym bolic challenges to a sym bolic order.
But can subcultures always be effectively incorporated and if
so, how ? The em ergen ce o f a sp ecta cu la r su b cu ltu re is
invariably accom panied b y a w ave o f hysteria in the press.
This hysteria is typically am bivalent: it fluctuates betw een
TWO FORMS OF INCORPORATION 93
dread and fascination, outrage and am usem ent. Shock and

h o rro r h ea d lin es d om in a te the fro n t p age (e.g. ‘ R o tten
R azored’, D aily M irror, 28 June 1977) w hile, inside, the
editorials positively bristle w ith ‘serious’ com m entary5 and
the centrespreads or supplem ents contain delirious accounts
o f the latest fads and rituals (see, for exam ple, O bserver
colour supplem ents 30 January, 10 J u ly 1977, 12 February
1978). Style in particular provokes a double response: it is
alternately celebrated (in the fashion page) and ridiculed or
reviled (in those articles w hich define subcultures as social
problem s).
In m ost cases, it is the subculture’s stylistic innovations
w h ich firs t a ttra c t the m e d ia ’s a tten tio n . S u b s eq u e n tly
deviant or ‘anti-social’ acts - vandalism , swearing, fighting,
‘an im al b e h a v io u r’ - are ‘ d isco v e red ’ b y th e p o lice, the
judiciary, the press; and these acts are used to ‘explain’ the
subculture’s original transgression o f sartorial codes. In fact,
either deviant behaviour or the identification o f a distinctive
uniform (or m ore typically a com bination o f the two) can
provide the catalyst for a m oral panic. In the case o f the
punks, the m ed ia’s sighting o f punk style virtu ally coincided
w ith the discovery or invention o f punk deviance. The D aily
M irror ran its first series o f alarm ist centrespreads on the
su b cu ltu re , c o n c e n tra tin g on th e b iz a r re c lo th in g and
jew ellery during the week (29 N o v - 3 Dec 1977) in w hich the
Sex P istols exp lo ded into the pu blic eye on the Tham es
Today program m e. On the other hand, the m ods, perhaps
b ecau se o f the m u ted ch ara cte r o f th eir style, w ere not
identified as a group until the Bank H oliday clashes o f 1964,
although the subculture w as, b y then, fu lly developed, at
le a s t in L ond on . W h ich ev er item op en s the a m p lifyin g
sequence, it invariably ends w ith the sim ultaneous diffusion
and defusion o f the subcultural style.
A s the su b cu ltu re b egin s to strike its ow n em in en tly
m a r k e ta b le p o se , as its v o c a b u la r y (b o th v is u a l a n d
v e r b a l) b e c o m e s m o re a n d m o re f a m ilia r , so th e
referen tial con text to w h ich it can b e m ost con ven ien tly
assign ed is m ade in crea sin g ly apparent. E ven tu ally, the
m ods, the punks, the glitter rock ers can b e incorporated ,
b ro u g h t b ack into lin e, lo cated on the preferred ‘m ap o f
p ro b le m a tic so c ia l r e a lity ’ (G ee rtz , 1964) a t th e p o in t
w h ere b oys in lip stick are ‘ju s t kids d ressin g u p ’, w here
girls in ru b b er d resses are ‘d au gh ters ju s t lik e y o u rs’ (see
pp. 9 8 -9 ; 1 5 8 - 9 , n. 8). T h e m edia, as Stuart H all (1977)
has arg u ed , n ot o n ly reco rd re sista n c e , th e y ‘ situ a te it
w ith in the d om in an t fram ew o rk o f m ea n in g s’ and those
young people w ho choose to in h ab it a sp ectacu la r youth
c u lt u r e a re s im u lta n e o u s ly r e tu r n e d , as th e y are
rep resen ted on T .V . an d in the n ew spapers, to the place
w here com m on sen se w ou ld have them fit (as ‘a n im a ls’
c ertain ly, b u t also ‘ in the fa m ily ’, ‘ ou t o f w o rk ’, ‘ up to
d a t e ’ , e tc .). It is th r o u g h th is c o n tin u a l p r o c e s s o f
recu p era tio n th at the fractu red ord er is rep aired and the
su b cu ltu re in co rp o ra ted as a d ive rtin g sp ectacle w ith in
the d om in an t m yth o lo g y from w h ich it in part em anates:
as ‘fo lk d e v il’ , as O th e r, as E n e m y . T h e p r o c e s s o f
recu p era tio n takes tw o ch ara cteristic form s:
(1) the conversion o f subcultural signs (dress, m usic, etc.)

into mass-produced objects (i.e. the com m odity form);
(2) the ‘labelling’ and re-definition o f deviant behaviour
b y dom inant groups - the police, the media, the ju d i
ciary (i.e. the ideological form).
The com m odity fo r m
T h e fir s t h as b e e n c o m p r e h e n s iv e ly h a n d le d b y b o th
jo u rn a lists and acad em ics. The relatio n sh ip b etw een the
sp ectacu lar su b cu ltu re and the variou s in d u stries w hich
service and exp lo it it is n o to rio u sly am biguous. A fte r all,
such a su b cu ltu re is con cern ed firs t and fo rem o st w ith
consum ption . It op erates ex clu sively in the leisu re sphere
(‘I w o u ld n ’t w ea r m y pu n k o u tfit fo r w ork - th e re ’s a tim e

an d a place fo r ev eryth in g ’ (see n ote 8)). It com m u nicates
th ro u g h co m m o d ities even if the m ea n in gs a tta ch ed to
th o s e c o m m o d itie s a re p u r p o s e fu lly d is to r te d o r
o v e r th r o w n . I t is th e r e fo r e d if f ic u lt in th is c a se to
m a in ta in a n y a b so lu te d istin ctio n b etw e en co m m ercia l
ex p lo itatio n on the one h and an d c re ativ ity /o rig in a lity on
the other, even th ou gh th ese catego ries are em p h atica lly
op posed in the valu e system s o f m ost su b cu ltu res. Indeed,
the cre atio n and d iffu sio n o f n ew sty les is in e x tric a b ly
b ou n d up w ith the process o f prod u ction , p u b licity and
packagin g w h ich m u st in e vita b ly lea d to the d efu sio n o f
the su b cu ltu re’s su b versive po w er - b o th m od and punk
in n o v a tio n s fe d b a c k d ir e c t ly in to h ig h fa s h io n an d
m ain stream fash ion . E ach n ew su b cu ltu re estab lish es n ew
trends, gen erates n ew look s and soun ds w h ich feed b ack
into the app rop riate ind u stries. A s Joh n C larke 1976b has
observed:
The diffusion o f youth styles from the subcultu res to the

fashion m arket is not sim ply a ‘cu ltu ral process’, b u t a
r e a l n e tw o r k o r in fr a s tr u c tu r e o f n ew k in d s o f
com m ercial and econom ic institutions. The sm all-scale
record shops, recording com panies, the b ou tiq u es and
one- or tw o-w om an m anufacturin g com panies - these
v e r s io n s o f a r tis a n c a p ita lis m , r a th e r th a n m o re
g e n e ra lis e d an d u n s p e c ific p h e n o m e n a , s itu a te the
d ialectic o f com m ercial ‘m an ipu lation ’.
H ow ever, it w ould b e m istaken to insist on the absolute

a u to n o m y o f ‘ c u lt u r a l’ an d c o m m e r c ia l p r o c e s s e s . A s
Lefebvre (1971) puts it: ‘Trade is . . . b oth a social and an
intellectu al p h enom enon ’, and com m odities arrive at the
m arket-place alread y lad en w ith significance. T h ey are, in
M a r x ’s w o rd s (19 7 0 ), ‘s o c ia l h ie r o g ly p h s ’6 a n d th e ir
m eanings are inflected b y conven tion al usage.
Thus, as soon as the origin al innovations w hich signify

‘s u b cu ltu re ’ are tra n sla te d in to co m m o d ities an d m ade
g en era lly availab le, th ey b ecom e ‘fro zen ’. O nce rem oved
from their private contexts b y the sm all entrepren eurs and
big fashion interests w ho produce them on a m ass scale,
th ey becom e codified, m ade com prehensible, rendered at
once public prop erty and profitable m erchan dise. In this
w a y, th e tw o fo rm s o f in c o r p o r a tio n (th e se m a n tic /
id e o lo g ic a l and the ‘r e a l’ /co m m ercia l) can b e sa id to
converge on the com m odity form . Y ou th cu ltu ral styles m ay
b e g in b y issu in g s y m b o lic c h a lle n g e s , b u t th e y m u st
inevitab ly end b y establishing n ew sets o f conventions; b y
creating n ew com m odities, n ew industries or rejuven ating
o ld o n e s (th in k o f th e b o o s t p u n k m u st h a ve g iv e n
haberdashery!). This occurs irrespective o f the su b cu ltu re’s
p o litic a l o rien tatio n : the m a cro b io tic resta u ra n ts, cra ft
shops and ‘antique m ark ets’ o f the hippie era w ere easily
converted into punk b ou tiq u es and record shops. It also
happens irrespective o f the startlin g content o f the style:
punk clothing and insignia could b e b ou gh t m ail-ord er b y
th e su m m e r o f 19 7 7, a n d in S e p te m b e r o f th a t y e a r
C o s m o p o lita n ra n a r e v ie w o f Z a n d ra R h o d e s ’ la te s t
co lle ctio n o f cou tu re fo llies w h ich co n sisted e n tire ly o f
variation s on the punk them e. M odels sm ouldered beneath
m o u n ta in s o f s a fe ty p in s a n d p la s tic (th e p in s w ere
jew elled , the ‘p lastic’ w et-look satin) and the accom panying
article ended w ith an aphorism - ‘To shock is ch ic’ - w hich
presaged the sub cu ltu re’s im m inent dem ise.
The id eo lo g ica l fo r m
The second form o f incorporation - the ideological - has

b een m ost ad eq u a tely treated b y those sociolog ists w ho
operate a tran sactio n al m od el o f d evian t b eh aviou r. For
ex a m p le, S tan C o h en has d e sc rib e d in d e ta il h o w one
p a r tic u la r m o r a l p a n ic (su r ro u n d in g th e m o d -ro c k e r
c o n flic t o f the m id -6 0 s) w as la u n c h e d an d s u sta in e d .7

A lth o u g h th is ty p e o f a n a ly s is c a n o fte n p r o v id e an
ex trem e ly so p h istica ted e x p la n a tio n o f w h y sp ectacu la r
subcultures con sisten tly provoke such h ysterical outbursts,
it tends to overlook the su b tler m echanism s through w hich
p o te n tia lly th r e a te n in g p h e n o m e n a are h a n d le d an d
con tain ed . A s the use o f the term ‘fo lk d e v il’ su ggests,
rath er too m uch w eight tends to b e given to the sen sation al
e x c e s s e s o f th e ta b lo id p re s s a t th e e x p e n s e o f the
am biguous reactions w hich are, after all, m ore typical. As
w e have seen, the w a y in w hich subcultu res are represented
in the m ed ia m akes them b oth m ore a n d less exotic than
th ey a ctu ally are. T h ey are seen to contain b oth dangerous
aliens and b oisterou s kids, w ild anim als and w ayw ard pets.
R o la n d B arth es fu rn ish e s a k e y to th is p a rad o x in his
d escription o f ‘id en tification ’ - one o f the seven rhetorical
figures w hich, according to Barthes, d istin gu ish the m eta
lan gu a g e o f b o u rg eo is m yth olog y. He ch a ra cte rize s the
p e tit-b o u rg eo is as a p erso n ‘ . . . u n ab le to im agin e the
O th e r . . . the O th e r is a sc a n d a l w h ich th rea ten s his
existen ce’ (Barthes, 1972).
Two basic strategies have been evolved for dealing w ith this
threat. F irst, the O th er can b e trivialized , n atu ralized,
domesticated. Here, the difference is sim ply denied (‘Otherness
is reduced to sam en ess’). A ltern atively, the O ther can be
tran sform ed into m ean in gless exotica, a ‘ pure object, a
spectacle, a clown’ (Barthes, 1972). In this case, the difference is
consigned to a place beyond analysis. Spectacular subcultures
are continually being defined in precisely these terms. Soccer
hooligans, for example, are typically placed beyond ‘the bounds
o f com m on decency4 and are classified as ‘anim als’. (‘These
people aren’t human beings’, football club m anager quoted on
the New s at Ten, Sunday, 12 M arch 1977.) (See Stuart Hall’s
treatment o f the press coverage of football hooligans in Football
Hooliganism (edited b y Roger Ingham, 1978).) On the other
hand, the punks tended to be resituated b y the press in the
family, perhaps because members o f the subculture deliberately

obscured their origins, refused the fam ily and willingly played
the part o f folk devil, presenting themselves as pure objects, as
villainous clowns. Certainly, like every other youth culture,
punk was perceived as a threat to the family. Occasionally this
threat was represented in literal terms. For example, the Daily
M irror (1 August 1977) carried a photograph o f a child lying in
the road after a punk-ted confrontation under the headline
‘VICTIM OF THE PUNK ROCK PUNCH-UP: THE BOY W HO
FELL FOUL OF THE M OB’. In this case, punk’s threat to the
fam ily was made ‘real’ (that could be m y child!) through the
id eo lo g ica l fram in g o f p h otograp h ic evid en ce w h ich is
popularly regarded as unproblematic.
N one the less, on oth er occasions, the opposite line was
taken. For w hatever reason, the inevitable glut o f articles
gleefully denouncing the latest punk outrage was counter
balanced b y an equal num ber o f item s devoted to the sm all
details o f punk fam ily life. For instance, the 15 O ctober 1977
issue o f W om an’s Own carried an article entitled ‘Punks and
M others’ w hich stressed the classless, fan cy dress aspects o f
punk.8 Photographs depicting punks w ith sm iling m others,
reclining next to the fam ily pool, playing w ith the fam ily dog,
w ere placed above a text w hich dw elt on the ordinariness of
individual punks: ‘It’s not as rocky horror as it appears’ . . .
‘punk can be a fam ily affair’ . . . ‘punks as it happens are
n o n -p o litic a l’, an d , m ost in sid io u sly , a lb e it a ccu ra te ly,
‘J o h n n y R o tten is as b ig a h o u seh o ld n am e as H ughie
G reen’. Throughout the sum m er o f 1977, the People and the
N ew s o f the W orld ran item s on punk babies, punk brothers,
and punk-ted w eddings. A ll these articles served to m inim ize
the Otherness so stridently proclaim ed in punk style, and
defin ed the subcu ltu re in precisely those term s w h ich it
sought m ost vehem ently to resist and deny.
O n ce a g a in , w e sh o u ld a v o id m a k in g a n y a b s o lu te
d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n th e id e o lo g ic a l a n d c o m m e r c ia l
‘m an ipu lation s’ o f subculture. T he sym bolic restoration o f
d a u g h te rs to th e fa m ily , o f d e v ia n ts to th e fo ld , w as
undertaken at a tim e w hen the w idespread ‘cap itu lation ’ o f
p u n k m u s ic ia n s to m a rk e t fo r c e s w a s b e in g u sed
throughout the m ed ia to illustrate the fact that punks w ere
‘on ly hum an after a ll’. T he m usic papers w ere filled w ith
the fam iliar success stories describing the route from rags
to rags and riches - o f punk m usician s flyin g to A m erica, o f
ban k clerks becom e m agazine editors or record producers,
o f harrassed seam stresses turned overnigh t into successful
b u sin e ss w o m e n . O f c o u rse, th e se su c ce ss sto rie s had
a m b ig u o u s im p lic a tio n s . A s w ith e v e r y o th e r ‘ y o u th
revo lu tion ’ (e.g. the b eat boom , the m od explosion and the
Sw inging Sixties) the relative success o f a few individuals
created an im pression o f energy, expan sion and lim itless
upw ard m obility. This u ltim ately rein forced the im age o f
the o p en so c ie ty w h ich th e v e r y p rese n ce o f the pu n k
s u b c u ltu re - w ith its r h e to r ic a l e m p h a s is on
unem ploym ent, high-rise livin g and n arrow options - had
o r ig in a lly co n tra d icte d . A s B arth es (1972) has w ritten :
‘m yth can alw ays, as a la s t resort, sig n ify the resistance
w hich is b rou gh t to b ea r against it’ and it does so typically
b y im posing its ow n id eological term s, b y substituting in
this case ‘the fa iry tale o f the a rtist’s creativity’9 fo r an art
fo rm ‘w ith in th e c o m p a ss o f e v e r y c o n s c io u s n e s s ’ ,10 a
‘m u sic’ to b e ju d ged , dism issed or m arketed fo r ‘n oise’ - a
log ica lly consistent, self-con stituted chaos. It does so fin ally
b y replacing a subcultu re engendered b y history, a product
o f real h istorical contradictions, w ith a handful o f b rillian t
nonconform ists, satanic geniuses w ho, to use the w ords o f
Sir John Read, C hairm an o f E .M .I, ‘becom e in the fullness
o f tim e, w h olly acceptable and can contribute greatly to the
developm ent o f m odern m u sic’.11
SEVEN
S tyle as in ten tio n a l co m m u n icatio n
I speak through m y clothes. (Eco, 1973)
HE cycle leading from opposition to defusion, from
T resistance to incorporation encloses each successive

subculture. W e have seen h ow the m ed ia and the
m a rk e t fit in to th is c y c le . W e m u st n o w tu rn to the
su b c u ltu re i t s e lf to c o n s id e r e x a c tly h o w an d w h a t
su b cu ltu ral style com m u n icates. Tw o q u estion s m ust be
a sk e d w h ic h to g e th e r p re s e n t us w ith so m e th in g o f a
p a ra d o x : h o w d o es a su b c u ltu re m a k e se n se to its
m em bers? H ow is it m ade to sign ify disord er ? To answ er
these questions w e m ust define the m eaning o f style m ore
precisely.
In ‘The Rhetoric o f the Im age’, Roland Barthes contrasts
the ‘ in te n tio n a l’ a d v ertisin g im age w ith the a p p a re n tly
‘innocent’ news photograph. Both are com plex articulations of
specific codes and practices, bu t the news photo appears more
‘natural’ and transparent than the advertisem ent. He writes -
‘the signification o f the im age is certainly intentional . . . the
advertising im age is clear, or at lea st em p hatic’. B arthes’
STYLE AS INTENTIONAL COMMUNICATION 101
distinction can be used analogously to point up the difference

betw een sub cultu ral and ‘n orm al’ styles. T he su b cu ltu ral
stylistic ensem bles - those em phatic com binations o f dress,
dance, argot, m usic, etc. - b ea r a pproxim ately the sam e
relation to the m ore conventional form ulae (‘norm al’ suits and
ties, casual wear, twin-sets, etc.) that the advertising image
bears to the less consciously constructed news photograph.
O f co u rse, sig n ifica tio n n eed n ot b e in ten tio n a l, as
sem ioticians have repeatedly pointed out. Umberto Eco writes
‘not only the expressly intended com m unicative object . . . but
every object m ay be view ed . . . as a sign’ (Eco, 1973). For
instance, the conventional outfits w orn b y the average m an
and wom an in the street are chosen within the constraints of
fin a n ce , ‘ta s te ’, p refe re n ce, etc. an d th ese ch o ices are
undoubtedly significant. Each ensem ble has its place in an
internal system o f differences - the conventional m odes of
sartorial discourse - w hich fit a corresponding set o f socially
prescribed roles and options.1 These choices contain a whole
range o f m essages w hich are transm itted through the finely
graded distinctions o f a num ber o f interlocking sets - class
and status, self-im age and attractiveness, etc. Ultimately, if
nothing else, they are expressive o f ‘norm ality’ as opposed to
‘d e v ia n ce ’ (i.e. th e y are d istin g u ish e d b y th e ir relativ e
in v isib ility , th e ir a p p ro p ria ten ess, th e ir ‘n a tu ra ln e s s’).
H owever, the intentional com m unication is o f a different
order. It stands apart - a visible construction, a loaded choice.
It directs attention to itself; it gives itself to be read.
T h is is w h at d istin g u ish e s th e v isu a l en sem b les o f
sp ec ta c u la r su b cu ltu res fro m th o se fa vo u red in the
surrounding culture (s). They are obviously fabricated (even
the m ods, precariou sly placed b etw een the w orlds o f the
straight and the deviant, finally declared them selves different
when they gathered in groups outside dance halls and on sea
fronts). They display their own codes (e.g. the punk’s ripped
T-shirt) or at least dem onstrate that codes are there to be used
and abused (e.g. they have been thought about rather than
throw n together). In this th ey go a gain st the grain o f a

m ainstream culture whose principal defining characteristic,
according to Barthes, is a tendency to m asquerade as nature,
to substitute ‘norm alized’ for historical form s, to translate the
reality o f the world into an im age o f the world w hich in turn
presents itself as if com posed according to ‘the evident laws of
the natural order’ (Barthes, 1972).
A s w e have seen, it is in this sense that subcultures can be
said to transgress the law s o f ‘m an ’s secon d n atu re’.2 By
re p o sitio n in g and re c o n te x tu a liz in g co m m o d ities, b y
subverting their conventional uses and inventing new ones,
the subcultural stylist gives the lie to w hat Althusser has called
the ‘false obviousness o f everyday practice’ (Althusser and
Balibar, 1968), and opens up the world o f objects to new and
c o ve rtly op p o sitio n a l read in gs. T he com m u n ication o f a
significant difference, then (and the parallel com m unication
o f a group identity), is the ‘po in t’ behind the style o f all
spectacular subcultures. It is the superordinate term under
w hich all the other significations are m arshalled, the message
through w hich all the other m essages speak. Once w e have
granted this initial difference a prim ary determ ination over
the whole sequence o f stylistic generation and diffusion, we
can go back to exam ine the internal structure o f individual
su b cu ltu res. T o retu rn to o u r e a rlie r an alogy: i f the
spectacular subculture is an intentional com m unication, if it
is, to b o rro w a term fro m lin g u istics, ‘m o tiv a ted ’, w h at
precisely is being com m unicated and advertised?
S tyle as b rico la g e
It is c o n v e n tio n a l to c a ll ‘m o n ste r’ a n y b le n d in g o f
disson an t elem ents. . . . I call ‘m on ster’ every original,
inexhaustible beauty. (Alfred Jarry)
The subcultu res w ith w h ich w e have b een dealing share a

co m m o n fe a tu r e a p a rt fro m th e fa c t th a t th e y are a ll
STYLE AS BRICOLAGE 103
p red om in an tly w orking class. T h ey are, as w e have seen,

cultures o f conspicuous consum ption - even w hen, as w ith
the skinheads and the punks, certain types o f consum ption
a re c o n s p ic u o u s ly r e fu s e d - a n d it is th r o u g h the
distinctive rituals o f consum ption, through style, that the
s u b c u ltu re a t o n ce re v e a ls its ‘ s e c r e t’ id e n tity a n d
com m unicates its forbid d en m eanings. It is b asica lly the
w a y in w hich com m odities are u sed in subcultu re w hich
m a rk the su b c u ltu re o ff fro m m o re o rth o d o x c u ltu ra l
form ations.
D iscoveries m ade in the field o f anth rop ology are helpful
here. In particular, the concept o f bricolage can b e used to
e x p la in h o w su b cu ltu ra l sty les are c o n stru cte d . In T he
Savage M in d Levi-Strauss shows h ow the m agical m odes
utilized b y prim itive peoples (superstition, sorcery, m yth)
can b e seen as im p licitly coherent, though ex p licitly b e
w ild erin g, system s o f co n n ectio n b etw e en th in gs w h ich
p erfectly equip their users to ‘thin k’ th eir ow n w orld. These
m a gical system s o f co n n ectio n have a com m on featu re:
th e y a re c a p a b le o f in fin ite e x te n s io n b e c a u s e b a s ic
e le m e n ts can b e u se d in a v a r ie ty o f im p r o v ise d
c o m b in a tio n s to g e n e ra te n ew m e a n in g s w ith in them .
B rico la g e has thus b e e n d escrib ed as a ‘ scien ce o f the
concrete’ in a recen t d efin ition w h ich clarifies the origin al
anth rop ological m eaning o f the term:
[Bricolage] refers to the m eans b y w hich the non-literate,

non-technical m ind o f so-called ‘prim itive’ m an responds
to the w orld around him . The process involves a ‘science
o f the concrete’ (as opposed to our ‘civilised’ science of
th e ‘ a b s tr a c t’) w h ic h fa r fro m la c k in g lo g ic , in fa c t
carefully and precisely orders, classifies and arranges into
structures the m inutiae o f the physical w orld in all their
profusion b y m eans o f a ‘lo g ic’ w hich is not our own. The
stru ctu res, ‘im p ro vise d ’ or m ade up (these are rou gh
tr a n sla tio n s o f th e p ro cess o f b r ic o le r) as a d hoc
respo n ses to an en viron m ent, then serve to estab lish

hom ologies and analogies betw een the ordering o f nature
and that o f society, and so sa tisfa cto rily ‘ex p la in ’ the
w orld and m ake it able to be lived in. (Hawkes, 1977)
The im p licatio n s o f the stru ctu red im p ro visa tio n s o f

bricolage for a theory o f spectacular subculture as a system
o f com m unication have already b een explored. For instance,
John Clarke has stressed the w ay in w hich prom inent form s
o f d iscourse (p articu larly fashion) are rad ically adapted,
subverted and extended b y the subcultural bricoleur:
Together, object and m eaning constitute a sign, and, within

any one culture, such signs are assembled, repeatedly, into
ch ara cteristic form s o f discou rse. H ow ever, w h en the
bricoleur re-locates the significant object in a different
position w ithin that discourse, using the sam e overall
repertoire o f signs, or when that object is placed w ithin a
different total ensemble, a new discourse is constituted, a
different message conveyed. (Clarke, 1976)
In this w ay the teddy boy’s theft and transform ation o f the

Edwardian style revived in the early 1950s b y Savile Row for
wealthy young m en about town can be construed as an act of
bricolage. Similarly, the m ods could be said to be functioning
as b rico leu rs w h en th e y a p p ro p ria ted a n o th er ran ge o f
commodities b y placing them in a sym bolic ensem ble which
served to erase or subvert their original straight meanings.
Thus pills m edically prescribed for the treatm ent o f neuroses
w ere used as ends-in-them selves, and the m otor scooter,
originally an ultra-respectable means o f transport, was turned
into a m enacing sym bol o f group solidarity. In the sam e
im provisatory m anner, m etal combs, honed to a razor-like
sharpness, turned narcissism into an offensive weapon. Union
jacks were em blazoned on the backs o f grubby parka anoraks
or cut up and converted into sm artly tailored jackets. More
STYLE AS BRICOLAGE 105
subtly, the conventional insignia o f the business world - the

suit, collar and tie, short hair, etc. - were stripped o f their
original connotations - efficiency, ambition, com pliance w ith
authority - and transform ed into ‘em pty’ fetishes, objects to
be desired, fondled and valued in their own right.
A t the risk o f sou n d ing m elod ram atic, w e cou ld use
Umberto Eco’s phrase ‘semiotic guerilla warfare’ (Eco, 1972) to
describe these subversive practices. The w ar m ay be conducted
at a level beneath the consciousness o f the individual members
of a spectacular subculture (though the subculture is still, at
another level, an intentional communication (see pp. 100-2))
but w ith the em ergence o f such a group, ‘w ar - and it is
Surrealism’s w ar - is declared on a world o f surfaces’ (Annette
Michelson, quoted Lippard, 1970).
The radical aesthetic practices o f Dada and Surrealism -
dream work, collage, ‘ready m ades’, etc. - are certainly relevant
here. T h ey are the classic m odes o f ‘anarchic’ discourse.3
Breton’s m anifestos (1924 and 1929) established the basic
premise o f surrealism: that a new ‘surreality’ would emerge
through the subversion o f com m on sense, the collapse o f
prevalent logical categories and oppositions (e.g. dream/reality,
w ork/p lay) and the celebration o f the abn orm al and the
forbidden. This w as to be achieved principally through a
‘juxtaposition o f two more or less distant realities’ (Reverdy,
1918) exemplified for Breton in Lautreamont’s bizarre phrase:
‘Beautiful like the chance meeting o f an umbrella and a sewing
m achine on a dissecting table’ Lautream ont, 1970). In The
Crisis of the O bject, Breton further theorized this ‘collage
aesthetic’, arguing rather optimistically that an assault on the
syntax o f everyday life which dictates the ways in which the
m ost mundane objects are used, would instigate
. . . a tota l revolution o f the object: acting to divert the

object from its ends b y coupling it to a n ew nam e and
sig n in g it. . . . P ertu rb a tio n an d d efo rm a tio n are in
dem an d here fo r th e ir ow n sakes. . . . O b jects thus
reassem bled have in com m on the fact that th ey derive

from and yet succeed in differing from the objects w hich
surround us, b y sim ple change o f role. (Breton, 1936)
M ax E rn st (1948) puts the sam e point m ore cryptically: ‘ He

w ho says collage says the irration al’.
O b v io u s ly , th e se p r a c tic e s h a v e th e ir c o r o lla r y in
b ricola ge. The subcu ltu ral b ricoleu r, like the ‘au th or’ o f a
su r re a list co lla g e , ty p ic a lly ‘ju x ta p o s e s tw o a p p a re n tly
in c o m p a tib le r e a litie s (i.e . “ f la g ” : “j a c k e t ” ; “ h o le ” :
“teesh irt” ; “com b: w eapo n ”) on an apparen tly unsuitable
scale . . . and . . . it is there that the explosive ju n ction
occu rs’ (E rnst, 1948). P unk exem p lifies m ost c le arly the
subcultu ral uses o f these anarchic m odes. It too attem pted
th ro u g h ‘ p e rtu rb a tio n and d e fo rm a tio n ’ to d isru p t and
reorganize m eaning. It, too, sought the ‘explosive ju n c tio n ’.
But w hat, if anything, w ere these subversive practices being
used to signify? H ow do w e ‘rea d ’ them ? By singling out
punk fo r sp ecia l atten tion , w e can lo o k m ore c lo sely at
som e o f the problem s raised in a reading o f style.
S tyle in re v o lt: R e v o ltin g style
N oth in g w as h o ly to us. O u r m o v em en t w as n eith er

m y stic a l, c o m m u n istic n o r a n a rc h istic . A ll o f th ese
m ovem ents had som e sort o f program m e, b u t ours was
com pletely nih ilistic. W e sp at on everything, including
ourselves. O u r sym bol w as n othin gn ess, a vacu u m , a
void. (George G rosz on Dada)
W e’re so pretty, oh so pretty . . . vac-unt. (The Sex Pistols)
A lthough it w as often d irectly offensive (T-shirts covered in

sw ear w ords) and th reaten in g (terrorist/gu erilla outfits)
punk style w as defin ed prin cip ally through the violence o f
STYLE IN REVOLT: REVOLTING STYLE 107
its ‘cut up s’. Like D ucham p’s ‘rea d y m ades’ - m anufactured

objects w hich qualified as art b ecause he chose to call them
such, the m ost unrem arkable and inappropriate item s - a
pin, a plastic clothes peg, a television com ponent, a razor
blade, a tam pon - could b e b rou ght w ith in the province o f
punk (un) fashion. A n ything w ithin or w ithou t reason could
b e tu r n e d in to p a r t o f w h a t V iv ie n W e s tw o o d c a lle d
‘co n fro n ta tio n d re ssin g ’ so lon g as the ru p tu re b etw een
‘n atu ral’ and constru cted context w as clearly visible (i.e.
the rule w ould seem to be: if the cap d oesn ’t fit, w ear it).
Objects borrowed from the m ost sordid o f contexts found a
place in the punks’ ensembles: lavatory chains were draped in
graceful arcs across chests encased in plastic bin-liners. Safety
pins were taken out of their domestic ‘utility’ context and worn
as gruesome ornaments through the cheek, ear or lip. ‘Cheap’
trashy fabrics (PVC, plastic, lurex, etc.) in vulgar designs (e.g.
m ock leopard skin) and ‘nasty’ colours, long discarded b y the
quality end o f the fashion industry as obsolete kitsch, were
salvaged b y the punks and turned into garm ents (fly b oy
drainpipes, ‘com m on’ miniskirts) which offered self-conscious
com m en taries on the n otion s o f m o d ern ity and taste.
Conventional ideas o f prettiness were jettisoned along with the
traditional feminine lore o f cosmetics. Contrary to the advice of
every wom an’s magazine, m ake-up for both boys and girls was
w orn to be seen. Faces becam e abstract portraits: sharply
observed and m eticulously executed studies in alienation. Hair
was obviously dyed (hay yellow, je t black, or bright orange with
tufts o f green or bleached in question marks), and T-shirts and
trousers told the story of their own construction with multiple
zips and outside seams clearly displayed. Similarly, fragments
o f school uniform (white brinylon shirts, school ties) were
symbolically defiled (the shirts covered in graffiti, or fake blood;
the ties left undone) and juxtaposed against leather drains or
shocking pink m ohair tops. The perverse and the abnormal
were valued intrinsically. In particular, the illicit iconography of
sexual fetishism was used to predictable effect. Rapist masks
and ru b b er w ear, lea th er b o d ices and fish n et stockings,

im p la u sib ly po in ted stiletto heeled shoes, the w h ole
paraphernalia o f bondage - the belts, straps and chains - were
exhumed from the boudoir, closet and the pornographic film
and placed on the street where they retained their forbidden
conn otation s. Som e young punks even donned the d irty
raincoat - that m ost prosaic symbol o f sexual ‘kinkiness’ - and
hence expressed their deviance in suitably proletarian terms.
O f course, punk did m ore than upset the w ardrobe. It
u n d e rm in e d e v e r y r e le v a n t d is c o u rs e . T h u s d a n c in g ,
usually an involvin g and expressive m edium in B ritish rock
and m ain stream pop cultures, w as turned into a dum bshow
o f b lan k robotics. P unk dances b ore abso lu tely no relation
to the d esu lto ry fru gs and clinches w h ich G eo ff M ungham
describes as intrin sic to the respectable w orking-class ritual
o f Saturd ay n ight at the T op Rank or M ecca.4 Indeed, overt
d isplays o f heterosexu al interest w ere gen erally regarded
w ith contem pt and suspicion (who let the BOF/ w im p5 in?)
and conven tion al courtship patterns found no place on the
flo o r in d a n ces lik e the p o go, the p o se an d the robot.
T hough the pose did allow fo r a m inim um sociab ility (i.e. it
could involve two people) the ‘cou ple’ w ere gen erally o f the
sam e sex and ph ysical contact w as ruled ou t o f court as the
relationship d epicted in the dance w as a ‘p rofession al’ one.
One participan t w ould strike a suitable cliche fash ion pose
w hile the oth er w ou ld fa ll into a classic ‘B ailey’ crouch to
snap an im agin ary picture. T he pogo foreb ad e even this
m uch interaction , thou gh ad m itted ly there w as alw ays a
good deal o f m asculine jo stlin g in fron t o f the stage. In fact
the pogo w as a caricature - a reductio a d a bsurdum o f all
th e so lo d a n c e s ty le s a s s o c ia te d w ith ro c k m u sic . It
resem bled the ‘an ti-d an cin g’ o f the ‘ L eapniks’ w hich M elly
d escribes in connection w ith the trad b oom (M elly, 1972).
The sam e abbreviated gestures - leapin g into the air, hands
clenched to the sides, to head an im agin ary b a ll - w ere
repeated w ith out variation in tim e to the strict m echanical
rhythm s o f the m usic. In contrast to the hip p ies’ languid,

free-fo rm d ancing, and the ‘id io t d a n cin g ’ o f the h ea vy
m e ta l ro c k e rs (see p. 155, n. 12 ), th e p o g o m ad e
im provisation redundant: the o n ly variations w ere im posed
b y changes in the tem po o f the m u sic - fa st num bers being
‘in terpreted ’ w ith m anic abandon in the form o f fran tic on-
th e -s p o ts , w h ile th e s lo w e r o n es w e re p o g o e d w ith a
detachm ent borderin g on the catatonic.
T h e ro b o t, a re fin e m e n t w itn e sse d o n ly at the m ost
exclusive punk gatherings, w as b oth m ore ‘exp ressive’ and
less sp on tan eous’ w ithin the ve ry n arrow ran ge such term s
acquired in punk usage. It consisted o f b arely perceptible
tw itches o f the head and hands or m ore extravagant lurches
(Fran kenstein ’s first steps?) w hich w ere abru ptly halted at
ran d om points. T h e resu ltin g pose w as held fo r several
m om ents, even m inutes, and the w h ole sequence w as as
suddenly, as unaccountably, resum ed and re-enacted. Some
ze a lo u s p u n k s c a r rie d th in g s on e ste p fu r th e r an d
choreographed w hole evenings, tu rnin g them selves fo r a
m atter o f hours, like G ilbert and G eorge,6 into autom ata,
livin g sculptures.
The m usic w as sim ilarly distin guished from m ain stream
ro ck and pop. It w as u n ifo rm ly b a sic and d ire ct in its
appeal, w hether through inten tion or lack o f expertise. If
the la tte r , th e n th e p u n k s c e r ta in ly m a d e a v ir tu e o f
n ecessity (‘W e w an t to b e a m ateu rs’ - J o h n n y R otten).
Typically, a b arrage o f guitars w ith the volu m e and treble
tu rn e d to m a x im u m a c c o m p a n ie d b y th e o c c a s io n a l
sa x o p h o n e w o u ld p u rsu e re le n tle s s (un) m e lo d ic lin e s
against a turbulent backgrou nd o f cacophonous drum m ing
and scream ed vo ca ls. J o h n n y R o tten su ccin ctly d efin ed
punk’s position on harm onics: ‘W e’re into chaos not m u sic’.
The nam es o f the groups (the U nw anted, the Rejects, the
Sex Pistols, the Clash, the W orst, etc.) and the titles o f the
songs: ‘Belsen w as a G as’, ‘If Y o u D on ’t W ant to Fuck Me,
fuck o f f , ‘I W ann a b e Sick on Y o u ’, reflected the tenden cy
tow ards w ilfu l desecration and the vo lu n tary assum ption o f

o u tc a s t sta tu s w h ic h c h a r a c te r iz e d th e w h o le p u n k
m o v em en t. S u ch ta c tic s w ere, to a d a p t L e v i-S tr a u s s ’s
fam ous phrase, ‘things to w h iten m oth er’s h air w ith ’. In the
early days at least, these ‘garage b a n d s’ could d ispense w ith
m u sic a l p r e te n s io n s an d s u b stitu te , in the tr a d itio n a l
r o m a n tic te rm in o lo g y , ‘ p a s s io n ’ fo r ‘ te c h n iq u e ’ , the
lan guage o f the com m on m an fo r the arcane posturings o f
the ex istin g elite , the n ow fa m ilia r a rm o u ry o f fro n ta l
attacks for the b ourgeois n otion o f en tertainm ent or the
classical concep t o f ‘h igh art’.
It was in the perform ance arena that punk groups posed
the c le a r e st th r e a t to la w an d o rd er. C e rta in ly , th e y
succeed ed in su b vertin g the con ven tion s o f con cert and
nightclub entertainm ent. M ost significantly, they attem pted
both physically and in term s o f lyrics and life-style to move
clo ser to th e ir au d ien ces. T h is in its e lf is b y no m eans
unique: the bound ary betw een artist and audience has often
stood as a m etaphor in revolutionary aesthetics (Brecht, the
surrealists, Dada, M arcuse, etc.) for that larger and m ore
intransigent b arrier w hich separates art and the dream from
reality and life under capitalism .7 The stages o f those venues
secure enough to host ‘n ew w ave’ acts w ere regularly invaded
b y h ord es o f pun ks, and if the m an agem en t refu sed to
tolerate such blatant disregard for ballroom etiquette, then
th e gro u p s a n d th e ir fo llo w e r s c o u ld b e d ra w n c lo se r
together in a com m union o f spittle and m utual abuse. A t the
Rainbow Theatre in M ay 1977 as the C lash played ‘W hite
R io t’, ch airs w ere rip p e d ou t an d th ro w n at the stage.
M eanwhile, every perform ance, how ever apocalyptic, offered
palpable evidence that things could change, indeed w ere
ch an gin g: th a t p e rfo rm a n ce its e lf w as a p o s s ib ility no
authentic punk should discount. Exam ples abounded in the
m usic press o f ‘ordinary fan s’ (Siouxsie o f Siouxsie and the
Banshees, Sid V icious o f the Sex Pistols, M ark P o f Sniffin
G lu e , J o rd a n o f th e A n ts) w ho had m ade the sym b o lic
crossing from the dance floor to the stage. Even the hum bler
positions in the rock hierarchy could provide an attractive
alternative to the drudgery o f m anual labour, office w ork or
a youth on the dole. The F inchley Boys, for instance, were
reputedly taken o ff the football terraces b y the Stranglers
and em ployed as roadies.
If these ‘success stories’ w ere, as we have seen, subject to
a certain am ount o f ‘skew ed’ interpretation in the press, then
th e re w ere in n o v a tio n s in o th e r areas w h ic h m ad e
opposition to dom inant definitions possible. M ost notably,
there was an attem pt, the first b y a predom inantly w orking-
class youth culture, to provide an alternative critical space
w ithin the subculture itself to counteract the hostile or at
le a s t id e o lo g ic a lly in fle c te d c o v e ra g e w h ic h p u n k w as
receiving in the m edia. The existence o f an alternative punk
press dem onstrated that it was not only clothes or m usic that
could be im m ediately and cheaply produced from the lim ited
resources at hand. The fanzines (Sniffin G lue, R ipped and
Torn, etc.) w ere journals edited b y an individual or a group,
c o n s is tin g o f re v ie w s, e d ito ria ls an d in te rv ie w s w ith
prom inent punks, produced on a sm all scale as cheaply as
possible, stapled together and distributed through a sm all
num ber o f sym pathetic retail outlets.
T he lan gu a g e in w h ich the variou s m a n ifesto es w ere
fr a m e d w a s d e te r m in e d ly ‘w o r k in g c la s s ’ (i.e . it w as
lib e ra lly peppered w ith sw ear w ords) and typing errors and
g r a m m a tic a l m is ta k e s , m is s p e llin g s a n d ju m b le d
pagin ation w ere le ft un corrected in the fin al proof. Those
c o rr e c tio n s an d c ro s s in g s o u t th a t w e re m a d e b e fo r e
publication w ere left to b e deciphered b y the reader. The
o v e r w h e lm in g im p r e s s io n w a s on e o f u r g e n c y an d
im m ed iacy , o f a p a p e r p ro d u ced in in d e ce n t h a ste, o f
m em os from the fron t line.
This in evitab ly m ade fo r a striden t bu tton holing type o f
prose w hich, like the m u sic it described, w as d ifficu lt to
‘ tak e in ’ in a n y q u a n tity . O c c a sio n a lly a w ittie r, m ore
a b s tra c t item - w h a t H a rv e y G a rfin k e l (th e A m e ric a n

e th n o m e th o d o lo g is t) m ig h t c a ll an ‘ a id to s lu g g is h
im agination s’ - m ight creep in. For instance, Sniffin G lu e,
the first fanzin e and the one w hich achieved the highest
circu latio n , co n tain ed perh ap s the sin gle m ost in sp ired
ite m o f p ro p a g a n d a p ro d u ced b y th e su b cu ltu re - the
d efin itive statem ent o f pu n k’s d o-it-you rself ph ilosophy - a
diagram show ing three fin ger positions on the neck o f a
gu itar over the caption: ‘ H ere’s one chord, h ere’s two m ore,
n ow form your ow n b an d ’.
E ven the graphics and typograp hy used on record covers
and fanzin es w ere hom ologous w ith pu n k’s subterranean
a n d a n a rc h ic sty le . T h e tw o ty p o g ra p h ic m o d els w ere
g ra ffiti w h ich w as tra n sla ted into a flo w in g ‘sp ra y c a n ’
script, and the ran som note in w hich ind ivid u al letters cut
up from a variety o f sources (new spapers, etc.) in different
type faces w ere p asted to g eth er to fo rm an anon ym ou s
m essage. The Sex P istols’ ‘G od Save the Q ueen ’ sleeve (later
tu r n e d in to T - s h ir ts , p o s te r s , e tc .) fo r in s ta n c e
incorporated b oth styles: the rou gh ly assem bled legen d was
p a sted acro ss the Q u ee n ’s eyes and m o u th w h ich w ere
fu r th e r d is fig u r e d b y th o se b la c k b a r s u se d in p u lp
detective m agazines to conceal id en tity (i.e. th ey connote
c rim e o r sc a n d a l). F in a lly , th e p ro c e ss o f iro n ic s e lf
a b a s e m e n t w h ic h c h a r a c te r iz e d th e su b c u ltu re w as
extended to the nam e ‘pu n k’ itse lf w hich, w ith its d erisory
c o n n o ta tio n s o f ‘ m ea n a n d p e tty v illa in y ’ , ‘r o tte n ’,
‘w o r th le s s ’ , e tc. w a s g e n e r a lly p r e fe rr e d b y h a rd c o re
m em bers o f the subcultu re to the m ore neutral ‘n ew w a ve’ .8

Hebdige Subculture Chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hebdige Subculture Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DICK HEBDIGE

LONDON AND NEW YORK

I managed to get about twenty photographs, and w ith bits of

N the op en in g pages o f T he T h ie f’s J o u rn a l, J ean

I G enet describes how a tube o f vaseline, found in his

w ith laughter in the record-office o f the station, and the police

I have chosen to b eg in w ith these extracts from G en et

styles m ade up o f m undane ob jects w h ich have a double

to tease out the m eanings em bedded in the various post­

Culture: cultivation, tending, in Christian authors, worship;

specifically, since the end o f the eighteenth century, it has

. . . particular way of life which expresses certain meanings and

This d efin itio n o b vio u sly had a m u ch b ro a d er ran ge. It

. . . all the characteristic activities and interests o f a people.

A s W illia m s n oted , su ch a d efin itio n cou ld o n ly be

. . . an em p h asis [w hich] fro m stu d y in g p a rticu la r

W illia m s w as, then , p ro p o sin g an a lto g e th e r b ro a d er

portrayed w orking-class culture sym pathetically in w istful

First, w ithout appreciating good literature, no one w ill

The im plicit assum ption that it still required a literary

B a rth es: M y ths a n d signs

a rbitra ry n ature o f cu ltu ral ph enom ena, to un cover the

Like E liot, B arthes’ notion o f culture extends beyon d the

exam ple o f a photograph in Paris-M atch o f a N egro soldier

case. W e h ave seen h o w B arth es fo u n d an ‘anon ym ou s

Id eo lo g y : A lived rela tion

In the Germ an Ideology, M arx shows how the basis o f the

It is precisely its ‘spontaneous’ quality, its transparency, its

Since id eology saturates everyd ay discourse in the form

. . . id eology has very little to do w ith ‘con sciou sn ess’. . .

A lthough A lthusser is here referring to structures like the

p ossible w ith in ed u cation have b een m ade, h ow ever

A sign does not simply exist as part of reality - it reflects and

To uncover the ideological dim ension o f signs we m ust first

Thus, when we come to look beneath the level of ‘ideology-in-

T he id eas o f the ru lin g cla ss are in ev ery ep och the

This is the b asis o f A n ton io G ram sci’s theory o f hegem ony

H egem ony: The m oving equ ilibriu m

‘ Society cannot share a com m on com m unication system so

The term h eg em o n y refers to a situ a tio n in w h ich a

consensus can b e fractu red , ch allen ged , overru led , and

T he struggle b etw een d ifferen t d iscou rses, d ifferen t

areas of everyday life. To turn once more to the examples used

I w as astounded b y so rigorous an edifice w hose details

ju d ic ia ry , the w h ea t ex ch a n g e, the flo w e r-b e d s, . . .

It is th is a lie n a tio n fro m the d e c e p tiv e ‘ in n o c e n c e ’ o f

A p ril 3, 1989, M arrakech

H o lid ay in th e sun: M iste r R o tte n m akes th e gra d e

HE B ritish su m m er o f 1976 w as e x tra o rd in arily hot

T and dry: th ere w ere no record ed preced en ts. From

d edicated to acrobatic dancing and fast A m erican soul o f

O rdin ary life is so dull that I get out o f it as m uch as

th e lite r a r y so u rc e s tu rn e d o u t to b e fir m ly a lth o u g h

S u bcu ltu re: Th e u n n a tu ra l b re a k

‘I felt unclean fo r abou t 48 h ou rs.’ (G .L.C. cou ncillor after

[Language is] o f all social institutions, the least amenable

S sound): interference in the ord erly sequence w hich

D istinctions and id en tities m a y be so d eeply em bedded

A n y elisio n , tru n c a tio n o r co n v erge n ce o f p rev ailin g

N ew . . . d evelopm ents w h ich are b o th d ram atic and

N o tio n s c o n c e r n in g th e s a n c tity o f la n g u a g e are

Has not this society, glutted w ith aestheticism , alread y

W e have seen how subcultures ‘b reach our expectan cies’,

to tease out the m eanings em bedded in the various post