Beer, David - Punk Sociology

Punk Sociology
David Beer
ISBN: 9781137371218
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218
Palgrave Macmillan
Please respect intellectual property rights

This material is copyright and its use is restricted by our standard site license
terms and conditions (see palgraveconnect.com/pc/connect/info/terms_conditions.html).
If you plan to copy, distribute or share in any format, including, for the avoidance
of doubt, posting on websites, you need the express prior permission of Palgrave
Macmillan. To request permission please contact [email protected].
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0001
Punk Sociology
10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-10-07
Other Palgrave Pivot titles
Owen Anderson: Reason and Faith in the Theology of Charles Hodge: American Common
Sense Realism
Jenny Ruth Ritchie and Mere Skerrett: Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand:
History, Pedagogy, and Liberation
Franois Bouchetoux: Writing Anthropology: A Call for Uninhibited Methods
Robin M. Lauermann: Constituent Perceptions of Political Representation: How Citizens
Evaluate their Representatives

Erik Eriksen: The Normativity of the European Union
Jeffery Burds: Holocaust in Rovno: A Massacre in Ukraine, November 1941
Timothy Messer-Kruse: Tycoons, Scorchers, and Outlaws: The Class War That Shaped
American Auto Racing
Ofelia Garca and Li Wei: Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education
yvind Eggen and Kjell Roland: Western Aid at a Crossroads: The End of Paternalism
Roberto Roccu: The Political Economy of the Egyptian Revolution: Mubarak, Economic
Reforms and Failed Hegemony
Stephanie Stone Horton: Affective Disorder and the Writing Life: The Melancholic Muse
Barry Stocker: Kierkegaard on Politics
Michael J. Osborne: Multiple Interest Rate Analysis: Theory and Applications
Lauri Rapeli: The Conception of Citizen Knowledge in Democratic Theory
Michele Acuto and Simon Curtis: Reassembling International Theory: Assemblage Thinking
and International Relations
Stephan Klingebiel: Development Cooperation: Challenges of the New Aid Architecture
Mia Moody-Ramirez and Jannette Dates: The Obamas and Mass Media: Race, Gender,
Religion, and Politics
Kenneth Weisbrode: Old Diplomacy Revisited
Christopher Mitchell: Decentralization and Party Politics in the Dominican Republic
Keely Byars-Nichols: The Black Indian in American Literature
Vincent P. Barabba: Business Strategies for a Messy World: Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving
Cristina Archetti: Politicians, Personal Image and the Construction of Political Identity:
A Comparative Study of the UK and Italy
Mitchell Congram, Peter Bell and Mark Lauchs: Policing Transnational Organised Crime and
Corruption: Exploring Communication Interception Technology
Jnos Kelemen: The Rationalism of Georg Lukcs
Patrick Manning: Big Data in History
Susan D. Rose: Challenging Global Gender Violence: The Global Clothesline Project
Thomas Janoski: Dominant Divisions of Labor: Models of Production That Have Transformed
the World of Work
Gray Read: Modern Architecture in Theater: The Experiments of Art et Action
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0001

Punk Sociology
David Beer
University of York, UK
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0001

David Beer 2014
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this
publication may be made without written permission.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted
save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence
permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,
Saffron House, 610 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published 2014 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martins Press LLC,
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave and Macmillan are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN: 9781137371225 EPUB
ISBN: 9781137371218 PDF
ISBN: 9781137371201 Hardback
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
www.palgrave.com/pivot
doi: 10.1057/9781137371218

DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0001
For Joe and Mad

Contents

Acknowledgements vii
Preface and Playlist viii
Part I The Background
1 Introduction: Sociology, Uncertainty, and

the Possibility of an Imagined Future 2
2 The Punk Ethos 19
Part II Towards a Punk Sociology
3 From a Punk Ethos to a Punk Sociology 31
4 Relativistic, Open, and Eclectic:

Sociological Knowledge 35
5 Raw, Stripped Back, and Fearless:

Communicating Sociology 43
6 Bold, Inventive, and the Do-It-Yourself

Ethic: The Sociological Terrain 53
7 Conclusion: The Limits of Punk Sociology

and a Glimpse into Its Future 61
References 71
Index 76
vi DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0001

Acknowledgements

I would particularly like to thank Andrew James (my
editor), as well as Nick Gane, Roger Burrows, and Les
Back for the enthusiasm they showed in the early stages
of this project, without which I may not have built up the
confidence to write it. For discussing the project and other
related ideas with me along the way Id like to thank Ruth
Penfold-Mounce, Michaela Benson, Gareth Millington,
Sam Burgum, Sam de Boise, David Hill, Barry Sandywell,
and Daryl Martin. Thanks go to my mum and dad for let-
ting me be a bit of a punk when required. Ive dedicated
this book to two young punks, who Ive had the pleasure
to see grow up. Most of all though, as always, Id like to
give special thanks to Erika and Martha.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0002 vii

Preface and Playlist

Malcolm McLaren, the vanguard of punk, has this simple
message etched on his gravestone: Better a spectacular
failure, than a benign success. By coincidence I came across
this epitaph at around the time I started writing this book.
For some reason it seemed fitting. Not only does it relate
directly to one of the core topics of this book, punk, but it
also captured the way I was feeling about the project. At the
time, this book felt like a fairly significant risk to take. I think
this probably says more about the limiting conventions that
can be felt in academic work, which I discuss a little in the
first chapter, than it does of how genuinely risky or radical
this book actually is. But, nevertheless, I have written a book
that I hope will be provocative and challenging. My hope is
that you will read the following book in the sentiment in
which it is intended. That is to say, I hope it will be read as a
positive statement about the future of sociology, rather than
as a negative or destructive statement about the discipline
as it is. In this book I will hint at, and sometimes explicitly
point towards, the limitations that I see in sociology; this is
a necessary step in setting up the ideas I am trying to com-
municate here. I raise these points of limitation in the spirit
of collaboration and genuine academic debate. I present
these issues because I have an investment in a discipline that
helps thousands of students, year on year, to see the world in
new ways whilst also providing a much needed and fertile
space for critical reflection. I raise these points because Im
keen to see a vibrant future for sociology.
As I make clear in the conclusion to this book, the vision I
offer for sociology in this text is intended to be provocative.
viii DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0003

Preface and Playlist ix
I hope that it will stimulate debate. I offer one vision here, one amongst
many. I want this book to provoke debate about sociology and what it
might be, where it might go, and what it might hope to achieve. I am
not suggesting that the vision I offer here is the only option for sociology
to take. Indeed, as is fitting with the type of sociology I propose here,
there is plenty of room for an eclectic mix of different types of sociologi-
cal work. Different types of sociology can work together, can respond to
one another, can argue, and can disagree. This book might give you some

ideas about the type of sociology you would like to see, it might give you
some ideas about the type of sociology you want to stand against, it might
even force a rethink or reconsideration of what sociology is. I hope it
will. What this book will do is provide an unapologetic take on a form of
sociology that embraces its uncertainty and turns it to its advantage. This
is a form of sociology that doesnt hesitate to ask questions. It is a book
that looks towards a vibrant and exciting future for the discipline.
Given its focus on the future of the discipline and its desire to spark
debate and questions about the very nature of sociology, this is a book
that has been written for sociologists at any stage of their career from
undergraduate and postgraduate students through to established pro-
fessors. It might even be a book that could be used to trigger interest
in prospective sociology students. It is no textbook, but I have tried to
make the discussions and ideas accessible and broad in their appeal. This
book will be for anyone with an interest in sociology. This text will look
to provoke a response from any reader. Im hoping, and this is, of course,
overambitious, that it might be used to fire the sociological imagination
of sociologists whoever they are (even if they dont yet know that they
are budding sociologists).
When compiling this book I began to wonder what attitudes punks
themselves might have towards sociology. During my research I stum-
bled across this direct reference to the discipline:
Right!
Here we go now
A sociology lecture
A bit of psychology
A bit of neurology
A bit of fuckology
No fun!
(John Lydons improvised intro to
No Fun from October 1976,
taken from Savage, 1991: 156)
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0003

x Preface and Playlist
It would seem, if potentially only in jest, that Johnny Rotten is prepared

to think of a punk song as a kind of sociology lecture. As well as pro-
viding a direct connection between the two terms at the centre of this
book, this discovery also served to remind me of one final thing Id like
to emphasize before I begin. As I have already hinted, it is important
that this book is not seen to be an attack on the discipline of sociology.
I am not saying that sociology is No Fun. This book does not represent
a statement about what is wrong with sociology today, it does not allow

itself to become overly occupied with failings. There are some hints at
the issues that the discipline faces, and there are some problems that
need to be tackled. But this is not a negative statement. Rather I intend
provide a positive set of assertions about the way in which we might
manage and negotiate the future of the discipline to wrestle back our
intellectual agenda in what might be a difficult social, cultural, and eco-
nomic environment. For the moment weve probably had enough talk
of crises. Such crisis debates have been very productive, but they can
also be potentially disconcerting, demoralizing, and even inhibiting for
sociologists (particularly those early on in their careers). I am not going
to dwell here on what might be wrong, but I do intend to say quite a bit
about what might be done.
A playlist
Whilst writing the book it occurred to me that much of the vibrancy and
energy of punk is captured in its audio and visual properties. These are
hard to communicate solely through text. I thought it might be helpful to
provide some guidance in this regard, although Im sure that many read-
ers will already have varying experiences and knowledge of punk and its
outputs. The images and videos are easy to locate through a simple web
search or by referring to some of the books I cite in Chapter 2. The music
though is a little more difficult to navigate. In terms of understanding the
audio aesthetics of punk, the key moment comes with the discussion of
the punk ethos in Chapter 2. With this in mind, below is a short playlist
that is intended to accompany Chapter 2 of this book. It is by no means a
comprehensive playlist, but it might help to soundtrack the key features
of the punk ethos that I describe and it may be useful in helping the
reader to experience the vitality and visceral properties of punk more
directly. This list is intended to provide a sonic dimension, to orientate
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0003

Preface and Playlist xi
anyone who is fairly new to the movement, and to bring alive the punk
ethos discussed in Chapter 2.
A playlist to accompany Chapter 2 of this book:
I wanna be your dog The Stooges

Blitzkrieg bop The Ramones
Heart of glass Blondie

One chord wonders The Adverts
New rose The Damned
Im a clich X Ray Spex
God save the Queen The Sex Pistols
White man in Hammersmith Palais The Clash
Typical girls The Slits
Magnificent seven The Clash
What do I get? The Buzzcocks
Holidays in the sun The Sex Pistols
Hong Kong garden Siouxsie and the Banshees
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0003

DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004
Part I
The Background

1

Introduction: Sociology,
Uncertainty and the Possibility
of an Imagined Future
Abstract: This chapter focuses upon the disciplinary and

social contexts in which sociology operates. It identifies
a general sense of uncertainty in the discipline. It also
outlines the challenges of the neoliberal academy. This
chapter argues that in order to prevent sociology from
withering, and to ensure its vibrant future, we need to
turn to alternative forms of knowledge. This chapter
suggests that punk might provide a source of inspiration
for developing creativity, inventiveness, and liveliness in
sociology.
Beer, David. Punk Sociology. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2014. doi: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004.
2 DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

Introduction 3
It is probably fair to say that there is quite a bit of uncertainty in sociology

at the moment. This sense of uncertainty doesnt look like it is likely to
leave any time soon. This is nothing new. Sociology is renowned for its
almost chronic sense of crisis. It could even be said that a continual sense
of crisis has dogged large parts of its history. John Holmwood (2010: 650)
has pointed out, for instance, that sociology has to be achieved against
an internal tendency to self-subversion. This is perhaps illustrative of
a discipline that lacks self-esteem, a discipline that is self-conscious,

and maybe even insecure as Arthur Stinchcombe (1994) has put it, a
disintegrated discipline. Stinchcombe (1994) argues that fragmenta-
tion is a central problem in forging a solid future for sociology. What
Stinchcombe is concerned with is the growing inability of sociology, as
a disintegrated discipline, to defend itself. At the heart of the fragmen-
tation or disintegration described by Stinchcombe (1994: 283) is the
wide variety of substantive subject matter in disintegrated disciplines,
and the strong boundaries around substantive specialities. Stinchcombe
suggests that this simply means that people cannot get interested in each
others work. This type of disciplinary segmentation has been echoed in
Andrew Abbotts (2001) classic study of the Chaos of Disciplines. In this
book Abbott describes how fractal distinctions carve up disciplines and
make dialogue both within and between disciplines extremely difficult.
As I will describe in this book though, a more open form of diversity in
the discipline is something we might strive for. We need to find a way
to resolve the heightened forms of specialization that translate into the
barriers that prevent cross-fertilization. Despite the problems and diffi-
culties, and this might be considered a little nave and utopian, we might
look to cut across the distinctions and specialisms that currently divide
those with a shared if diverse interest in what Becker (2007) calls telling
about society.
Given the apparent fragmentation it has experienced, it is perhaps not
surprising that Steve Fuller (2006: 1), in his attempts to think through
a new sociological imagination suitable for our times, has even sug-
gested that sociology is suffering from an identity crisis. But can we
let this broader sense of uncertainty permeate into our sociology? Can
we let it shape and define our practice and our collective sociological
imagination? Perhaps a better question would be to ask if we should
let this uncertainty come to inhibit and restrict what C. Wright Mills
(1959) called the promise of sociology. A sense of crisis might help us
to rethink our purpose and approach, but if left unattended it might also
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

4 Punk Sociology
become inhibitive and restrictive. If it undermines our confidence then

it is likely to limit and restrain our approach and ultimately hold us back.
A sense of crisis, in itself, is not a productive thing, but, if dealt with
properly and directly, it might lead to productive outcomes.
In the face of the challenges and questions that are being posed it
would be understandable if sociologists were to be overwhelmed by a
desire to play it safe. Yet this retreat to apparent safety might in itself
become counterproductive. It is likely to de-energize the discipline,

to restrict its scope, and to place sociology in the background of pub-
lic dialogue. It might mute our voice amongst the din of dialogue on
social matters. We sociologists might simply be left to whither on the
vine. Playing it safe and moving into the background might even come
to undermine the credentials of the discipline, a discipline intended to
be at the forefront of social commentary, particularly in the eyes of the
next generation of prospective students and sociologists who will no
doubt be drawn towards engaging and exciting ideas and accounts of the
world that they can associate with or that speak to them. In a context in
which narratives and commentaries of the social world are to be found
densely packed into the cultural forms we consume (Beer & Burrows,
2010), can we afford to be tentative? Will the discipline thrive and regen-
erate if it is not able to spark interest and to speak to the next generation
of sociologists? These questions are, of course, open to some debate, as
are the potential responses. So, instead of playing it safe, being tentative
and conservative, and living by the newly forged rules of the game, my
suggestion, no, my demand here, is that we respond to our uncertainty
by being bold, creative, imaginative, and, if we can bring ourselves to
manage it, unapologetic and maybe even radical. I will use this opening
chapter to try to set up the issues and to think about the conditions and
circumstances that sociology is responding to and that are likely to shape
the possibilities and opportunities that we face.
Put simply, this book develops the notion of a punk sociology. This is a
form of sociology that takes inspiration from, what might be described
as, the punk ethos. The book uses the punk ethos to re-imagine sociology.
The argument of the book is that the attitude and sensibility of punk can
productively be used to regenerate and energize the sociological imagin-
ation. What motivates this agenda is the pressing need to look for inspir-
ation in shaping the future of sociology in a changing social context. It
is part of a broader project aimed at thinking through the possibilities
of drawing upon cultural forms and alternative forms of knowledge in
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

Introduction 5
order to re-imagine sociological practice, ideas, and forms of commu-

nication. As it works through the various features of the punk ethos, the
book demonstrates how these ideas, approaches, and attitudes might be
adapted to sociology. At a time when the focus has been absorbed or
hijacked by what is often referred to as the impact agenda, this book
aims to show how we might develop a form of sociology that is engaging
for the wider public, that is relevant and responsive, and that makes
people feel like anyone can engage in sociology. This, I claim, will lead to

a vibrant future for sociology in terms of both its research and teaching.
This is a book aimed at firing the sociological imagination by rethinking
the principles and values that are at the heart of sociology and socio-
logical work.
As the above suggests, this is a book that aims to imagine a productive
and vibrant future for sociology. The book opens with such a promise,
to return to C. Wright Mills, and then elaborates the different features of
the punk ethos that might be used to shape sociology. The book returns
to some key literature on the punk movement; it uses these to outline
the core principles, attitudes, and practices that are central to the punk
ethos. The book then moves to focus upon how this ethos might be
imported into a punk sociology. The second half of the book explores
these features in turn, and critically applies each to the sociological pro-
ject. The book then concludes by summarizing the key features of a punk
sociology and by imagining where this approach might take us over the
coming years. There will be a number of places throughout this book that
will engage with cutting-edge issues and debates within sociology, and
the book will explore what answers a punk sociology might have for the
types of problems and issues that have been highlighted by sociologists
over recent years. These include the apparent public indifference shown
towards sociology (particularly off the back of the economic downturn),
the problem of a public sociology, the challenges to sociologys jurisdic-
tion from commercial and cultural forms of sociological discourse and
analysis, the perceived waning of the promise of sociology, the oppor-
tunity and challenges of digital data and digital sociology, the position
of the discipline within the audit culture and the neoliberal university,
increases in fees and reductions in research funding, and the opportun-
ities for re-imagining the craft of the discipline, along with a range of
other issues outlined in visions of disciplinary fragmentation, crises, and
the like. This book is not an indulgent or nostalgic return to a particular
cultural moment; it is instead a reflection upon the state of sociology
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

6 Punk Sociology
within the contemporary context in which it operates. It shows how we

might use cultural resources as inspiration, as alternative forms of know-
ledge, which might be powerful in thinking about how sociology might
respond to its contemporary challenges and opportunities. This book
attempts to show how our response can be creative and imaginative as
we attempt to engage people in sociology and as we carve out a success-
ful future for the discipline.
In a time of uncertainty, which sociology appears to be in as a result

of a range of largely external social, cultural, and economic conditions
it is important to return to the core issues within our discipline and to
reflect upon their purpose and value. This book looks to do just that.
It looks to provoke imagined futures for sociology and to reflect upon
how we might develop particular responses to these imagined futures.
This book offers what I hope will be seen as an imaginative response, a
response that resists particular pressures to play it safe which in turn
are likely to narrow sociologys remit and limit its scope. It is a book that
promotes diversity and resistance in the discipline. It is a direct response
to calls for a renewed creativity in the deployment of the sociological
imagination (which I will describe in a moment). I suggest here that in
order to develop a response to these calls, which are actually quite diffi-
cult to respond to, we might look back to punk for inspiration. We can
use punks ethos or sensibilities to imagine just one alternative future for
sociology.
To situate the arguments of this book, in what remains of this introduc-
tory chapter, I will discuss briefly some of the contemporary conditions
under which sociology is being performed. I have already suggested that
sociology is in a moment of uncertainty, but we might wonder what the
conditions are that have contributed towards this shaky self-esteem. This
short chapter, and even the book as a whole, cannot aim to fill in all the
gaps in this particular story. There are actually some excellent resources
that we might turn to in order to understand the issues faced by sociology
throughout its history. In the British context we can see the battles over
the form and direction of sociology from its inception. An instructive
example is Chris Renwicks (2011) account of sociologys relations with
biology and the appointment of the first British chair of sociology at the
London School of Economics. Renwicks account shows that sociology
might have gone in a very different direction if this single appointment
had been made differently, which is illustrative of how sociology was,
in a sense, uncertain about its identity from the outset. To continue the
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

Introduction 7
narratives around the changing identity of sociology we could also turn

to Mike Savages (2010) accounts of post-war British sociology. There are
also other prominent histories of British sociology, such as that provided
by Halsey (2004) and across a range of articles (with a new book on the
history of sociology edited by John Holmwood and John Scott soon to
be published). The competing narratives and complex histories we find
in these accounts only afford an understanding of sociology in one par-
ticular national context. If we were to look internationally we would find

vastly different forms of sociology, with equally if not more profound
complexities in the cultivation of disciplinary identities and values.
Hence, it is not really possible here to attempt to elaborate a full histor-
ical account of our uncertainty, rather this is something that might be
pieced together from these various resources and might then be explored
in its contemporary manifestation through a range of accounts of crisis,
limitation, and instability (the range of literature here is significant in
its volume, but prominent examples would certainly include Savage &
Burrows, 2007; Burawoy, 2005; Adkins & Lury, 2009, 2012, Osbourne
et al., 2008; Ruppert et al., 2013 amongst many others). What we see then
is an emergent desire to re-imagine the practice of sociology (Fuller,
2006: 7), or as John Holmwood (2010: 649) has put it, it is seen to be a
discipline that has to be achieved, or continually re-invented, in new
circumstances.
What I am particularly interested in here are accounts that, respond-
ing to this general sense of crisis, provide some thoughts on the future of
sociology, the values that we might cling to, and the ways in which the
discipline might be re-imagined or re-invented. These are accounts that
tend to endorse a renewed engagement with Mills notion of a socio-
logical imagination, alongside an eagerness to hone and rework this con-
cept to suit the particular problems and challenges of the contemporary
world. It is in this type of work that we find a set of questions to which
we might respond. These are questions that are a little more particular
and go beyond the more general sense that sociology might be reshaped
and re-energized. What we find is a growing set of literature in which
sociologists are being encouraged to be creative and inventive. This is
a call that many of us would agree with in broad terms, but that we may
also find to be extremely hard in practice. Let us consider what these
calls are suggesting and what they leave open to interpretation, before
moving on to think about the particular response that I suggest in this
book.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

8 Punk Sociology
Of course, visions for the future of sociology are not likely to converge
around any particular shared ideals. As Abbott (2006) has shown, the
very basis of the discipline is far too fragmented for this to happen. But
there is a growing sense that we will need to think radically about the way
forward. In some cases this might be to reaffirm and rediscover some of
the important concepts that have fallen by the wayside, such as value
and measurement (Adkins & Lury, 2012). In other cases the suggestion
might be that we will need to build a sociology that is responsive to social

transformations and that adapts with them, such as the recent call for an
interest in new social connections (Burnett et al., 2010), digital sociology
(Orton-Johnson & Prior, 2013), or the social life of methods (Ruppert
et al., 2013). Underpinning many of these positions is a sense that we need
to be creative and imaginative in rethinking what sociology is and what
it does. This stream of thought found a voice in a recent article reflecting
on the work of C. Wright Mills some 50 years after his death. In this piece
Nicholas Gane and Les Back (2012) return to the promise and craft of
sociology laid out in the work of Mills. They attempt to argue that the
enduring relevance of Mills legacy is his way of practicing intellectual
life as an attentive and sensuous craft but also as a moral and political
project (Gane & Back, 2012: 404). In other words, returning to Mills
work, Gane and Back remind us that sociology need not be restricted
in the form it takes, and in fact that sociology needs to use Mills work
to rediscover an interest in experience, the senses, and its place in moral
and political debates (an argument on the importance of experiences and
senses to the sociological imagination can also be found in Fraser, 2009).
Again, this might be contentious, particularly in a discipline where neu-
trality has become a central feature. Gane and Backs piece is important
because it represents a direct call for sociologists to re-engage with Mills
work and to use it to think about the way we might develop the craft
of sociology in new and creative ways. As they put it, it is necessary to
think again about the promise of the discipline and, beyond this, what
might be brought to this promise by the kinds of critical attentiveness,
of dialogue and critique, and of different forms of writing or inscription
that are central to the sociological craft (Gane & Back, 2012: 415). The
argument here is that, in order to do this, Mills vision of what sociology
can be, in its exercise of an attentive and imaginative craft, still has much
to offer (Gane & Back, 2012: 418). Clearly then the theme of the day, in
response to a sense of crisis and a changing social setting, is that we need
to be imaginative in re-imaging the craft of sociology.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

Introduction 9
This argument, concerning the craft of sociology, continues in a recent

collection of pieces on Live Methods (Back & Puwar, 2012). This collection
gathers together pieces concerned with offering a lively and imagina-
tive engagement with how sociology is conducted (see for example the
account of curation in sociology in Puwar & Sharma, 2012). The scope
of the collection is far reaching, and actually shows the range of ways in
which this re-imagining of sociology might lead us. Rather than attempt
to sketch all of these out, we can remain focused on the core idea: liveli-

ness. In a central piece designed to orientate the collection, on the topic
of live sociology, Les Back (2012: 18) suggests that there is more oppor-
tunity to re-imagine sociological craft now than at any other point in the
disciplines history. The argument here is that sociologists are faced with
a world that is producing new forms of data, a social world that is media
saturated with versatile devices and where social media lead individuals
to broadcast aspects of their everyday lives. For Back, we are re-imagin-
ing sociology at a time when new opportunities for social research are
rapidly opening up. These opportunities are presenting themselves, par-
ticularly if we open up our understanding of sociological research and
attempt to exercise our sociological imagination in ways that perhaps
diverge from our established understandings of sociological practice.
There is an absence within these emergent cultures, Back argues, of the
attentiveness that sociology can bring. The core point is that, for Back
(2012: 34, italics in the original), we need to bring a bit of craftiness into
the craft. Clearly then this requires the creativity and craftiness of the
sociologist to be exercised. Back (2012: 34) summarizes his position in
the following terms:
live sociology involves developing the methodological opportunities offered

by digital culture and expanding the forms and modes of telling sociology
through collaborating with artists, designers, musicians and film-makers
and incorporating new modes and styles of sociological representation.
The use of digital devices...offer the opportunity to augment sociological
attentiveness and develop mobile methods that also enable the production
of empirical data simultaneously from a plurality of vantages.
Backs vision of live sociology then is something of a creative engage-

ment with the world, which attempts to think not just how we might
conduct a sociology of these changes but also how sociology might be
a part of these changes in its forms of analysis and communication. It is
seen to be a collaborative endeavour that draws on new knowledge. We
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

10 Punk Sociology
are left to wonder what types of ideas and approaches might structure
such an expansion of sociologys promise. In the conclusion to his piece
Back (2012: 36) makes the claim that we, as sociologists, need to argue for
an alternative future but also craft one into existence. This sentiment is a
call to sociologists to respond to their conditions. But it does leave some
questions about exactly how we might craft an alternative sociology
into existence. As I will discuss in a moment, one option is to borrow
such a vision or ethos from another place and to transpose it onto soci-

ology. This, I suggest, might help us to move beyond the fairly intimidat-
ing or scary, maybe even inhibiting, idea that we might be responsible
for coming up with a viable and re-crafted future for sociology.
Elsewhere, Celia Lury and Nina Wakeford (2012a) invite us to involve
ourselves in developing inventive methods. In the introduction to the
edited collection on this theme, Lury and Wakeford (2012b) attempt to
provide an agenda for these inventive methods. They base this agenda
around a series of assertions about what makes for a particularly invent-
ive method, these are then pursued by the various contributors whose
chapters range from dealing with the inventive use of anecdotes, experi-
ments, numbers, photos, patterns, sounds, amongst others. Again, Lury
and Wakeford position this piece, echoing the earlier collection on the
question of what is the empirical? (Adkins & Lury, 2009), as a response
to what they describe as the current renewal of interest in the politics of
method (Lury & Wakeford, 2012b: 1).
In general terms, they contend that inventive methods are oriented
towards an investigation of the open-endedness of the social world, they
add that their hope is that these methods will enable the happening of
the social world its ongoingness, relationality, contingency and sensu-
ousness to be investigated (Lury & Wakeford, 2012b: 2, italics in the
original). They attempt to work some specificity into these quite general
aims. The assertions that they work with, and that, they state, are not
intended to aspire to either unity or completeness (Lury & Wakeford,
2012b: 2), revolve around a number of key statements. For example,
they argue that it is not possible to apply a method as if it were indif-
ferent or external to the problem it seeks to address, but that method
must rather be made specific and relevant to the problem...if methods
are to be inventive, they should not leave that problem untouched.
(Lury & Wakeford, 2012b: 3). There is a sense of immanence here, with
methods operating from the inside of the issues they aim to investigate.
The implicit suggestion here is that methods, which are integrated into
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

Introduction 11
the social world, will need to change with that social world. They talk
of reconsidering the relevance of method and how it might fit with the
here and now (Lury & Wakeford, 2012b: 3). This attachment of methods
to the changing social world is something that has been examined his-
torically by Mike Savage (2010). Savages book performs the exact role
of exploring how methods contribute to the framing of change (Lury
& Wakeford, 2012b: 6). We can start though with the general point that,
according to Lury and Wakefords (2012b: 1011) vision, inventive meth-

ods are devices that are usable in multiple contexts and are also part of
the assemblage and apparatus of particular situations.
Perhaps unsurprisingly Lury and Wakeford (2012b: 4) also assert that
inventive methods are not bound to particular disciplines, they need to
be interdisciplinary in nature. Alongside this, and returning to the issue
of relevance, they also argue for the need to think of our approaches in
distinction to commercial forms of research, this is a challenge they too
suggest that we need to take on. Perhaps the most telling of the assertions
they present concerns the point that inventiveness does not...equate to
new (Lury & Wakeford, 2012b: 6). This approach then is not just about
finding new things and using new methods to do it, it can also be to
use old resources to think in inventive ways. These assertions, of which I
have picked out only a small handful, come together to define the notion
of inventive methods. For example, Lury and Wakeford (2012b: 7) state
that their proposal:
is that the inventiveness of methods is to be found in the relation between
two moments: the addressing of a method...to a specific problem, and the
capacity of what emerges in the use of the method to change the problem.
We have something here that is illustrative of the way that such

approaches might be embedded in the world. They continue, All of this
is a way of saying that inventiveness is a matter of use, of collaboration, of
situatedness, and does not imply the ineffectiveness of methods, only that
their inventiveness...cannot be secured in advance (Lury & Wakeford,
2012b: 7). This would indicate that it is by having a go, by trying things
out, that inventiveness might emerge. It might seem an obvious point
but it is not until we try things out that we know if they will work. This
experimentation takes a level of commitment and bravery, it is to invest
an effort in something that is risky and may not pay off.
If this collected volume on inventive methods is not a conventional set
of how-to recipes for research (Lury & Wakeford, 2012b: 7), then what
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

12 Punk Sociology
is it? Inventive methods, we are told, act as a provocation to the reader

that might allow them to consider (more) methods in relation to your
own purposes, to begin devising yourself (Lury & Wakeford, 2012b: 2).
So, although we have some substantial discussion of inventive methods
and a series of examples of how they might pan out, the collection is not
prescriptive. It is still left to the reader to follow this lead and be invent-
ive. This is no easy feat. And again, we are left to wonder what might
provoke this invention. Lury and Wakeford provide us with a tantalizing

hint in concluding their agenda setting piece. They say that:
Grasping this excess, configuring it, is one of the principal sources of a

methods capacity to be inventive, a capacity that can only be enhanced
by the use of the material-semiotic properties of materials and media
to expand relations between the sensible and the knowable. (Lury &
Wakeford, 2012b: 21)
The suggestion here seems to be that we should turn to materials that

we can think with and that might then provide us with a means to be
inventive. At least that is one possible reading of this passage. And this
is only a hint. The sense again though is that sociology needs to look
outwards for inspiration. It leaves us to wonder where we might turn for
the apparent mass of opportunities that are available for us to rethink
our approach.
All of the above leaves us with some difficult questions to answer. We
can see that there are debates about where sociology might go and how
it might be performed, but we are left with some unanswered questions
about how this might happen. These questions concern the way we might
proceed with such a renewed engagement with the sociological imagin-
ation, especially one that is based upon a more creative and inventive
craft. We have been given this as an opportunity, but Im not sure that we
have been presented with much in the way of a model of how to proceed,
of where we might look for inspiration, or how we might appropriate
other forms of invention and creativity into sociology. How do we re-
imagine the craft and promise of sociology? How do we find ways of
being creative, inventive, and lively? How can we deploy the sociological
imagination in creative ways? How can we resist the restrictions of
uncertainty, crisis, and measurement? My answer in this book is to use
cultural resources to help us to be creative and to re-imagine. In this case
I turn to punk; the explanation for this choice will, hopefully, become
clearer during the book. But for the moment at least, let us reason that it
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

Introduction 13
provides us with a model for guiding or provoking creativity and inven-

tion. It provides a tracer bullet for a potential direction in which soci-
ology might travel. It gives us a model for being creative and inventive
and it affords us, in my view, an approach from which sociology might
learn to rediscover its promise.
Of course, one thing I have said little about here is the changing
environment within which sociology is most usually being conducted:
the university. It is widely acknowledged that universities are changing

(Wernick, 2006). This has undoubted implications for how knowledge
is produced. It is also likely to have differential impacts amongst aca-
demic disciplines (Holmwood, 2010). The form the university takes, the
way it is funded, how academic practice is managed and measured, and
how the university is seen within broader systems of governance are all
likely to have consequences for how sociology is done and the form it
ultimately takes. Without wanting to get too bogged down within cur-
rent higher education policy, which of course takes many forms across
many national contexts, it is worth dwelling for a moment upon the
institutional context of sociology, particularly as this is likely to continue
to have powerful outcomes for sociological research. What is perhaps
most notable currently is the turn towards political theory in order to
understand the trajectory of university life. This is particularly appealing
because it allows us to think of global differences whilst also attempting
to see what universities share as a common future. However accurate
it might be, the currently popular concept of neoliberalism is often
invoked in order to explain the current conditions that academics find
themselves working in (the references are numerous and growing; for
just one recent example, and making the common connection between
neoliberalism and zombies, see the various mentions of neoliberalism in
Whelan et al., 2013).
Neoliberalism has become a catch-all term for the wider political and
social conditions that have come to impinge on the working practices
of academics and sociologists. Neoliberalism is something of a slippery
concept, but it occurs fairly frequently in writings and discussions on the
state of higher education. In very general terms it has been suggested that
the lynchpin of neoliberal ideology is the belief that open, competitive,
and unregulated markets, liberated from all forms of state interference,
represent the optimal mechanism for economic development (Brenner
& Theodore, 2002: 2; and for a detailed response to Foucaults key
accounts of neoliberalism see Gane, 2012b). Now, of course, this starting
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

14 Punk Sociology
definition is quite open and can translate into different forms in differ-
ent contexts. Brenner et al. (2010) describe this variability in terms of
variagated neoliberalization. They use this term to do two things. First,
it shows that neoliberalism is not a discrete and coherent ideological
project. And, second, it redefines neoliberalism as an ongoing project
or process of neoliberalization. Given this broad scope, it is easy to see
how the central focus upon the imposition of markets and competition
on the social sphere mean that neoliberalism is a concept that academics

might be able to readily apply to their own conditions. Research assess-
ment exercises, league tables, student fees, citation scores and impact
factors, virtual learning environments, time allocation models, funding
bids, and so on are readily understood to be the materialization of neo-
liberal ideologies within higher education. For example, Robyn Dowling
(2008: 2), reflecting on some of the growing literature that talks of the
neoliberal university, contends that:
Neoliberalism is the dominant trope here, with geographers, like other

social scientists, exploring the neoliberalization of the contemporary uni-
versity (...). These neoliberalization processes include the infusion of market
and competitive logics throughout universities, the rise of audit processes
and cultures of accountability, and the replacement of public with private
(...) funding.
Indeed, we even find that neoliberalism is seen to be embodied in the

lives of academics. To pick out an example, Ros Gill (2010) has spoken
of the hidden injuries of the neoliberal university. In this case we see
an account of the affective responses caused by the apparent encroach-
ment of neoliberal ideologies, with bodily and emotional outcomes for
individuals. Gill (2010: 241) argues that academia represents an excellent
example of the neoliberalisation of the workplace and that academics
are, in many ways, model neoliberal subjects, with their endless self-
monitoring, flexibility, creativity and internalisation of new forms of
auditing and calculating. This plays out, she argues, in the form of inse-
curity, stress, anxiety and shame (Gill, 2010: 241).
It should be added that Gill is not alone in her assertions. In a piece
titled Living with the h-Index?, which refers to a way of calculating
citations, Roger Burrows (2012) also describes in some detail the way in
which the rise of new types of metrics, or number-based measures, have
made aspects of academic life increasingly visible and measurable, with
profound consequences. Again, directly linking this to a wider neoliberal
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

Introduction 15
agenda, Burrows describes the increasing possibilities for audit that

arise from the university sectors vast new data assemblage. Like Gill,
for Burrows, academics, including sociologists, are complicit within this.
According to Burrows (2012: 368), the central problem is that academic
value is, essentially, becoming monetized, and as this happens academic
values are becoming transformed. Again, the practices of sociologists are
not just being measured but they are also being altered. The interpretations
vary, but the broader movement towards market-based higher education,

which takes many forms, is often seen to be an attack on education as a
social right (Holmwood & Bhambra, 2012) as well as potentially erod-
ing the values of certain types of work whilst pushing researchers and
lecturers towards others. These systems of measurement dont report on
practices; they change behaviours and shape experiences. Indeed, they
cajole the academic towards certain types of work, they encourage the
academic to play it safe, even though, as I discuss in this chapter and in
Chapter 7, this is actually counterproductive if we play it safe there is a
chance that few people will have an interest in what we have to say.
We have to wonder what these conditions might mean for the culti-
vation of academic disciplines such as sociology. The outcomes are not
yet clear. But it would seem that there is a need to tackle such issues and
to think deeply about how sociology might respond to these conditions.
We may not necessarily agree with Ros Gill and others, with regard to
the consequences and hidden injuries (although there is a good chance
that we might), but there is a need to understand the broader social, pol-
itical, and institutional conditions that shape sociology. In other words,
we cannot leave our sociological imaginations at the door when we think
about what sociology is. We need to understand how the biography of
the discipline of sociology is also being shaped by its wider social condi-
tions. I do not have any particular answers for this. My expectation is
that the readers of this book will actually be experiencing different types
of contextual issues in their work, across geographies, and across time. It
would seem though that sociologists are already suggesting that neolib-
eralization is coming to directly impact upon how they do sociology.
It is obvious that we are not going to reverse the apparent marketiza-
tion and neoliberalization of higher education. Instead, we need to think
about how we should respond. The best response, that is to say the best
form of protection, is to shape a discipline that is attractive, lively, and
exciting. A discipline that draws people in. This will ensure that soci-
ology has a ready-made and substantial audience, and that it is able to
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

16 Punk Sociology
attract those who will then go on to be the future of the discipline. It

will also make it far more likely that value is seen to reside in the socio-
logical project. This does not mean that we are selling out, it is not to go
with the flow and to simply adopt the spirit of market-based competition
into our lives. Rather it is to work towards a version of sociology that
thrives under these conditions by offering an alternative voice and an
engaging tone. Sociology will then thrive, because it will draw people
into its debates, into its ideas, and into its findings, all of which are likely

to provide alternative visions of the social world. This is a version of
sociology that plays the game to its advantage. It is a version of sociology
that succeeds by its own rules. This is a version of sociology that oper-
ates in the contemporary, if you will forgive the expression, knowledge
economy, whilst providing a space for thought and provocation. My sug-
gestion is that the best way to achieve all of this is to work on producing
a discipline that fires peoples imaginations. Sociology might then work
at creating messages that seep out into the circulations of data in social
media, that draw responses, that speak to different audiences, in differ-
ent places, that show the world in new light, that responds quickly but
also offers considered and timely reflection in each case stimulating
and provoking. A dull, disconnected, and worthy discipline might sur-
vive for a while, maybe even indefinitely, but it is likely to wither whilst
becoming increasingly marginal. We do not want sociology to become
an esoteric pastime for a small band of insular followers.
This changing context of knowledge production is bound to have a
constitutive effect on sociology. This is inevitable. In this instance, what I
am suggesting with punk sociology, is that we attempt to play along with
the demands placed on us, but that at the same time we try to preserve
a creative space. This will be a space in which sociology is not entirely
bounded and shaped by the directions that are intended for it (by sys-
tems of government, measurement, and the rhetoric of impact). In other
words, it uses an engagement with a creative cultural form to help direct
it away from the obvious and to give it space to react and respond to the
challenges it faces. The punk ethos, as one example, gives us the type of
creative space and imaginative framework that might allow us to con-
tinue to thrive in a changing academic and social context, whilst also
enabling us to be bold and confident, and to think in ways that escape
from orthodoxy and conservatism. It is to find a way of productively
responding to the requirements we face whilst also turning them to our
advantage. Perhaps most of all, it is not an attempt at escape, rather it is
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

Introduction 17
to face up to the challenges and to respond accordingly. It is not to shy

away but to stand up to structural, systematic, and external pressures in
the same way that it is also a call to stand up to internally manifested
senses of crisis, uncertainty, and disciplinary convention.
What this introduction suggests is that there are significant possibil-
ities for turning to cultural resources in our re-imagining of the meth-
odological, conceptual, and communicative repertoire of sociology and
the social sciences more generally. This could take many forms; there are

many cultural resources that might provide such a schema for thinking
about disciplinary practices and approaches. In this case I have opened
by claiming that we might look back to the punk scene to respond to
calls for a re-energized engagement with the promise of a creative
and inventive engagement with the social world. Drawing on cultural
resources, such as punk, might give us scope to imagine the discipline
in ways that are not possible with our established conceptual and dis-
ciplinary ideas. In other words, cultural resources give us imaginative
spaces in which disciplinary ideas might be completely reworked away
from contemporary academic, cultural, social, and economic pressures
and structures. This introduction sets the background to the project of
a punk sociology. It intimates towards the hope that this book might be
seen to be a direct intervention across a range of contemporary debates
within sociology and the social sciences, and it is also suggestive of how,
more broadly, we might draw upon cultural resources to rethink and play
with conventions and ideas. It might seem strange to look back nearly 40
years in order to do this, but, as I will show, the punk ethos is there to
be refreshed and reused in ways that respond to distinctly contemporary
questions. This book stands as a direct response to both the sense of crisis
and uncertainty we may be experiencing, which is likely to be particu-
larly profound for those in the early stages of their sociological journey,
and to the calls for a renewed sociology that is responsive to the social
world. It is also an attempt though to provoke and engage sociologists
in the promise of the discipline and in an unlimited and unconstrained
engagement with its future. The rest of the book is concerned with elab-
orating upon the notion of a punk sociology and with trying to convince
the reader that it might be a good idea to pursue further, or at the very
least it will provide a framework to react against and argue with.
To this end, the book itself is separated into two parts. The first part of
the book contains two chapters that provide the background for the book.
This chapter has set the book in the context of contemporary sociology,
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

18 Punk Sociology
the second sets up the key features of a punk ethos. The chapters in part
two attempt to apply the key features of the punk ethos to sociology. It
begins with a short chapter that outlines the move from the punk ethos
to punk sociology, and follows this with chapters that explore this move
in detail. These will be relatively short and concise chapters that take the
basic ideas outlined and try to adapt them to help in rethinking how
sociology is done and the type of approaches and ideas it might develop.
Each chapter uses particular features of the punk ethos to open up ques-

tions about sociology and how it might be developed. In keeping with
the punk aesthetic, these chapters are short, explicit, and suggestive
intended to be the sociological equivalent of a direct burst of energy in
a 2- or 3-minute song, with no solos and little tangential or unnecessary
content. These chapters are structured to be representative of the features
they describe. They provide ideas that the reader might use or respond to.
These chapters are not detailed instructions about how sociology should
be done. They are rather intended as interventions, thought experiments,
encounters with an imagined set of possibilities. Part two closes with a
short concluding chapter that reiterates the notion of a punk sociology
and begins to imagine where it might take sociology in the future. Let us
begin though by opening up the punk ethos.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0004

2

The Punk Ethos
Abstract: This chapter provides further background to the

book by outlining the key features of the punk ethos. This
chapter uses various historical and biographical sources to
uncover the key features of the punk movement. The chapter
does not aim to provide a detailed history of punk, instead it
looks across a range of resources to define the punk ethos.

Macmillan, 2014. doi: 10.1057/9781137371218.0005.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0005 19

20 Punk Sociology
The term punk has a long and fairly complex history. To reduce this
history down to just a few lines:
The word punk, in its archaic meaning as prostitute, first appeared in
print in England in 1596, and was soon in common use...But in the twentieth
century it acquired a new meaning in the US as a petty criminal, especially
a young male hoodlum. Both these outsider senses of the word made it ideal
to be co-opted by the rock critic Dave Marsh, who used it in 1970...in this
sense of the word punk anti establishment dissenter, Roundhead rock

rebel, willful iconoclast. (Maconie, 2013: 190191)
Focusing upon the more contemporary use of the term this chapter seeks
to outline the key features of the punk ethos, rendering it open to applica-
tion in the following chapters. However, this chapter is not going to rehash
the history of punk, this has been covered many times in the past (the key
work here is the insider account offered by Jon Savage, 1991). Punk has
been well documented and these histories do not need to be reiterated.
There is no real point in reproducing such histories here (there is also an
account of punks long-term cultural influence in Savage, 1996). Rather,
my intention is to call upon some of the key works on punk in order to
build a set of key characteristics that rest at the heart of a punk sensibility.
This chapter will look to mine these historical and biographical texts to
pull out the key features of the punk ethos, its sensibility, its attitudes,
its general approach, its techniques, and its practices. These explorations
of punks features will be illustrated through specific instances, pieces of
music, performances, participant quotes, and the like. The examples from
punk serve here as vehicles for thinking through the punk ethos. The
chapter will conclude by outlining and grouping the key features of the
punk ethos so that these might then be transposed onto sociology.
Like the music itself, I want to try to be direct and cut away any
unnecessary sounds. What we get here is the equivalent of the punk riff.
Or, as one punk fanzine put it: This is a chord, next to a diagram of an
A chord, This is another, next to an E chord, and This is a third, next
to a G chord, it concludes Now form a band (this is described along
with an image in Savage, 1991: 280281). This sentiment was embodied
in The Adverts 1977 song One Chord Wonders. We are looking for the
three chords that you need to play along with the punk ethos which in
the second half of the book will become the three chords that are needed
to play punk sociology. This is a concept, this is another, this is a third,
now be a sociologist.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0005

The Punk Ethos 21
One of the immediate problems that we are faced with in trying to

define punk (for an etymology see Kugelberg & Savage, 2012: 348351)
is that a key feature of the movement is its discomfort with labels, cat-
egories, and boundaries. As such, it is a movement that is hard to tie
down to a clearly defined set of characteristics with discrete boundaries.
As Marc Bayard has put it:
The major problem with trying to explain punk is that it is not something
that fits neatly into a box or categories. Not surprising as punk had made the

explicit aim of trying to destroy all boxes and labels. With that as a major
hurdle, any project that tries to define punk or explain it must do so with
very broad brush strokes. Punk and punk music cannot be pigeonholed to
some spiked-haired white male wearing a leather jacket with a thousand
metal spikes listening to music real loud. If thats all it was and is then Im
not evenly remotely interested. (Bayard in OHara, 1999: 11)
This reveals two things. The first is that we may have trouble if we try
to be too prescriptive or reductive in setting out the punk ethos. The
second, and turning this to our advantage a little, is that one of the defin-
ing characteristics of punk is this very discomfort with categorization
and definition. This discomfort with labels and the sense of inward
facing iconoclasm is expressed neatly in the following statement from
John Lydon, perhaps the person most associated with the punk move-
ment, talking about the term punk:
Its meaningless! Once you accept a title like that you are a slave to the sys-
tem. The very thing you think you are rebelling against you are replacing.
Youre just a different structure with the same moronic mentality. I have
to go for being an individual, and Im sorry but a category like punk is not
about individuals. (John Lydon in Robb, 2006: 411)
Part of the punk sensibility is to look to cross-boundaries and barriers

and to escape the restrictions of normalizing categories and labels. For
some, like Lydon, the term punk is self-defeating. It simply becomes a
label or category for those who set out to avoid the restrictions of such
labels and categories, as such it becomes a label to be escaped from not
into. In his classic study of subculture, Dick Hebdige (1979: 106) noticed a
similar pattern of behaviour embodied in an acute desire to disrupt and
reorganize meaning. As he notes, no subculture has sought with more
grim determination than the punks to detach itself from the taken-for-
granted landscape of normalized forms, nor to bring down upon itself
such vehement disapproval (Hebdige, 1979: 19). This is both an outward
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0005

22 Punk Sociology
and inward looking attempt to question norms and to disrupt cultural

hierarchies. It is the subversiveness typical of punk (OHara, 1999: 33).
This problem then becomes the first potential characteristic, the punk
ethos requires the punk to aim to cross barriers and to eschew simple
labels. This gives us something of a starting point, however slippery, that
contextualizes much of the discussion that follows. We need to be wary
of the playfulness and discomfort of punk when we start trying to define
it. We need to keep in mind that punk has the potential to be protean

and changeable, that it reacts against being defined, and that its attempts
to cross-boundaries make it hard to contain. Bayard suggests that we
proceed with large brush strokes, the problem though is that if the defin-
ition becomes too broad then the focal points of punk will be lost and it
will become amorphous or nebulous.
We see these types of problems of definition recurring in the literature
on punk. Simon Reynolds (2011: 240) points towards what he observes
as a paradox right at the heart of punk: this most revolutionary move-
ment in rock history was actually born from reactionary impulses. This
in turn points us towards some potential problems in working with a
movement that is about rejection. Such a movement would inevitably
be defined by what it is rejecting and what it is reacting against (which
are often understood to be the economic downturn, oppressive social
norms, and the rise of progressive rock music, amongst other things).
Indeed, punk is often defined by its reactionary impulses, but this is not
solely about rejection (as Reynolds goes on to argue, punk often looks to
the past to find new possibilities). Punk cannot be reduced to or defined
by the things it rejected or rejects, it has its own properties rather than
merely being a reaction against things (Savage, 2012).
Where punk followed its reactionary impulse, it was often attempting
to find new cultural terrain and new perspectives, and perhaps even try-
ing to break out of established conventions and ideas. Often this would
take the form of playful and ironic swipes at the cultural forms it saw as
being established and staid. This playfulness was just a symptom of some
wider concerns in the punk movement with the oppressiveness of estab-
lished norms and values. The punk movement can be seen as an attempt
to question such norms. OHara frames this in terms of authority and
conformity of which The Sex Pistols famous performance of God Save
the Queen on a boat on the Thames during the 1977 jubilee celebrations
would be the archetypal example (for a short account see Maconie, 2013:
189197). He claims that Punks question conformity not only by looking
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0005

The Punk Ethos 23
and sounding different...but by questioning the prevailing modes of

thought (OHara, 1999: 28). The image here is of a movement concerned
with questioning established visions of the world. If orthodoxies are chal-
lenged then questions might be asked, OHara suggests, that tend not to
get asked by conformists. The result may well be the emergence of new
types of questions, something that sociologists may be keen to embrace.
This is to break free from the confines and limits of conventions and
established accounts so as to develop new perspectives and reveal new

types of questions. Of course, the questioning of conformity involves
the questioning of authority as well (OHara, 1999: 28). As Savages rich
history tells us, punk is not just a reaction to hippy excess (Savage, 1991:
81), it has wider aims and targets.
Similarly there is often some resistance to reducing punk to a few
superficial aesthetic properties. Instead, such notions are often firmly
rebuked, with punk being seen as a deep-rooted and almost vocational
calling. For example, John Robb (2006: 1) reflects, Punk changed every-
thing. Not just our trousers. Our Lives. This echoes Hebdiges (1979: 108)
observation that punk did more than upset the wardrobe. It undermined
every relevant discourse. Here punk becomes a way of life and a sensibil-
ity that resonates beyond fashion. Again, the following insider account
reveals such a reaction:
Ill tell you what I think Punk isnt it isnt a fashion, a certain style of dress,
a passing phase of knee-jerk rebellion against your parents, the latest cool
trend or even a particular form of style or music, really it is an idea that
guides and motivates your life. The Punk community that exists, exists to sup-
port and realize that idea through music, art, fanzines and other expressions
of personal creativity. And what is this idea? Think for yourself, be yourself,
dont just take what society gives you, create your own rules, live your own
life. (Mark Anderson, Positive Force handout in OHara, 1999: 36)
There is a sense here of an eagerness to prove that punk should not be

dismissed as something frivolous and short-lived. Rather it is suggested
that it is a way of thinking that permeates into cultural forms. In this
particular quote, we see punk described as a community that supports
the shared re-working of rules. A Do-it-yourself movement, in which
forms of communication, creativity, and dissemination are co-opted to
work towards this shared project. Again, this is not a prescriptive re-
ordering of everyday life, but a much more relative take on the part that
rules and social norms play within peoples lives, with individuals being
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0005

24 Punk Sociology
encouraged to create your own rules. This type of sentiment arises fairly
frequently in accounts of punk, in both the historical accounts and the
fanzine content and song lyrics of the time. In the introduction to his
oral history of punk, John Robb (2006: 3, italics in the original) describes
such an approach in these terms:
the best thing about it was that we were not just passive consumers: we
owned it as well. We were all involved. It wasnt just the superstar groups

dictating the debate. We all were! Everyone had their own version of punk.
Everyone decided what punk was for them.
Again we see here not just the sense of activity and energy attached to
punk, echoing the sense that punk was a profound choice and a way
of life, but we also see the problems of definition that arise when the
essence of punk is seen to be its mobility and flexibility. As a relativistic
social movement, in which hierarchies were not allowed to dominate
expression, the cultural forms were seen to be a product of the individ-
uals vision of punk rather than some overarching hegemonic ideological
vision of what it should be. Although, as I return to in the conclusion to
this book, this can also lead to fragmentation and a lack of coherence at
the heart of the movement, and thus this relativism can also be seen as
a pathological presence. However, Hebdige (1979: 113) claimed that there
was a unifying order to this fragmentation and that the chaos cohered
as a meaningful whole, but later accounts point towards some deep ten-
sions between key protagonists within the movement (see for example
the account of the relations between The Clash and the Sex Pistols in
Gray, 2001: particularly pages 196197). This vulnerability is a tension
that resides within punk and that might need to be considered as we
potentially move such a project into our own practices.
The relativistic tendencies of punk play out in a number of ways.
Perhaps the most telling is in the way that punk attempted to break down
barriers and hierarchies. This is most notably achieved by artists focusing
upon making music that was so patently and aesthetically stripped back,
raw, bold, and fearless. Referring to the New York Dolls and the Stooges,
who are often seen as Punk precursors, Reynolds (2011: 246) points
out that the songs were short, solo-free, stripped raw and swaggering.
This is a kind of sonic iconoclasm, in that it attempts to bring the music
down-to earth, rather than allowing it to appear to belong to a cultural
elite. This sense of hierarchy and its subversion can be found in many of
the insider accounts of punk, as this excerpt illustrates:
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0005

The Punk Ethos 25
the great thing about punk was that everything was independent. Before
that there was only big promoters, there was no room for you. Before punk
there was only the bourgeois life of other musicians; it seemed like they
were very grand, reminiscent of classical musicians of the aristocracy of the
French revolution period. (Poly Styrene in Robb, 2006: 280)
Here the locked-in presence of a cultural elite is compared to the aris-

tocracy. The vision is of cultural production as being the preserve of the
fortunate few, based upon patronage and nepotism. For Poly Styrene,

the punk movement was a move towards a more democratic cultural
landscape, which was a product both of the music and style and of the
introduction of independent structures in cultural production. The punk
sensibility spread into the business models of the cultural industries of
the time.
The attempt to break down barriers required aesthetic sensibilities
that stood against such hierarchies. In place of music that seemed hard
to make, that perpetuated the lack of social mobility in the cultural sec-
tor, punk adopted what Jon Savage refers to as deliberate unlearning
(Savage, 1991: 82, italics in the original). This was an attempt to strip the
music back to its basic sounds and messages and to remove any possible
pretension from its form and communication. This deliberate unlearn-
ing became the means by which the music communicated a sonic
discomfort with the cultural virtuosity and slickness of the time. The
music, Hebdige (1979: 109) also comments, was similarly distinguished
from mainstream rock and pop [and] was uniformly basic and direct in
its appeal, whether through intention or lack of expertise. The rough-
ness of the music was a part of the iconoclasm of the movement and
the projection of its DIY ethic. This DIY ethic, for some, is central to
punk, as Kugelberg (2012: 46) writes, the legacy of punk is simple: the
immediate implementation of D.I.Y grassroots culture...No distance.
Form a band, start a blog, become an artist, a DJ, a guitar player, an edi-
tor. This DIY ethic played out in a number of ways, in the music and in
the business practices, but it was perhaps most clearly honed in the use
of self-publication and alternative means of communication that often
took the material form of fanzines. As Hebdige described (1979: 111),
fanzines (Sniffin Glue, Ripped and Torn, etc.) were journals edited by
an individual or a group, consisting of reviews, editorials and interviews
with prominent punks, produced on a small scale as cheaply as possible,
stapled together and distributed through a small number of sympathetic
outlets. Clearly the communicative possibilities and media have changed
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0005

26 Punk Sociology
radically since the mid to late 1970s, and the possibilities for decentral-
ized communication are now widespread in social media (which I will
return to in Chapter 5). These strategies suggested to the audience that
this was not a select esoteric group of self-perpetuating stars, but that
anyone can join in, and cultural production then appeared more attain-
able and instant. Anyone can be involved and participate. It has been
suggested that this was part of an attempt to break down the standard
barriers present in the performer/viewer relationship (OHara, 1999:

33). Hebdige (1979: 110) makes a similar claim, suggesting that [m]ost
significantly, they attempted both physically and in terms of lyrics and
life-style to move closer to their audiences. Punk then sought to make
the audience part of the cultural form, to create the perception of prox-
imity with the audience and to remove the barriers between musician
and audience something we have often seen associated with notions of
postmodernism and post-structuralism, but in this case played out in a
more tangible and material form.
What the above points towards is a general sense of cultural openness.
Punks relativism removes the obstacles of established hierarchies. As
such it can be understood to be a cultural movement that draws upon
a rich pallet of cultural resources. Far from being limited to a particu-
lar set of creative properties, punk is actually eclectic and open. It is far
from being narrow or adhering to the caricatured vision of punk that is
often seen in the image of Mohawk hairstyles and safety pins. Rather the
original punk movement was culturally diverse and was extremely open
to outside influences and sources of inspiration. Don Letts, who at the
time was the DJ at the famous punk venue the Roxy club, recalls:
mostly I played dub raggae, because I couldnt play those punk records all
night and I love dub reggae. As the bands started getting signed they did
start releasing records the Damneds New Rose, stuff like that I started
slipping them in, and the punks didnt want me to play them! They wanted
me to keep playing the reggae. I soon realized that they were turned on by
the anti-establishment vibe of the Burn Down Bablyon business. (Don
Letts in Robb, 2006: 283)
Here, in this account, we see the eclecticism and openness of punk. This
came out in the diversity of music played in the venues, but it was also
to be found in the music itself. The Clash famously blended different
types of music and incorporated various styles from the outset, typified
by their cover of Junior Murvins song Police and Thieves. Don Letts
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0005

The Punk Ethos 27
refers to the fusion found in another punk band of the time; according to
him, the ultimate punky-reggae hybrid were the Slits, with their heavy
bass, and they were eventually produced by Dennis Bovell of Matumbi
(Don Letts in Robb, 2006: 283). For Letts, this fusion of cultural styles
was a product of the multicultural environment, he claims that it was
intravenous almost, not this abstract thing (Don Letts in Robb, 2006:
283). But what this suggests, alongside the fluid definitional properties
and relativism of punk, is that the punk sensibility is open to inspiration

from outside resources. It is open, eclectic, and outward looking. We
find support for this type of claim across many of the accounts of punk,
and particularly where it intersects with (Dub) Reggae (see for instance
Hebdige, 1979; Savage, 1991; and Gray, 2001).
Despite this musical fusion, it has been suggested that in may ways
the non-sonic aspects of punk were more crucial in terms of generating
all these futures than the music itself (Reynolds, 2011: 258). This point
permeates through this chapter. The music was an artistic embodiment
of the punk ethos, it is a central and important part of the punk move-
ment but it doesnt tell the whole story. Some of the features of the punk
ethos find their way through in these non-sonic forms, be they aesthetic,
political, philosophical, and in the practices and actions of protagonists.
As I suggested at the opening of this chapter, I didnt want to re-write the
history of punk here, indeed this would have distracted us from the key
function of this chapter. What I was keen to do was to provide a direct
engagement with the punk ethos that might then be translated across
into the sociological project, to give a sense of the punk sensibility that
might be useful in thinking about its potential values as a resource for
thinking with. The aim was not to discuss punk at length but to boil it
down to its key features or characteristics, which in turn will serve as the
foundation for the proposals made in this book the reader can always
turn to some of the resources I have referenced here if they wish to find
out more about the punk movement, plus it is highly likely that the
reader will already have at least some passing knowledge (if not a highly
detailed knowledge) of the punk scene.
One of the problems was always going to be the slipperiness of punk
that arises from its historical baggage and the frequent discomfort that
those associated with punk might have with labels and categories. Despite
this we can find some consensus in terms of the punk ethos and what
it might be. These are often implicit within the stories and anecdotes
that populate the biographies, autobiographies, and popular histories.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0005

28 Punk Sociology
And we have to obviously be careful that we are not too reliant on post-
rationalized accounts of such scenes. Let us put such concerns to the
side for the moment and close this chapter with some brief reflections on
what the key features of the punk ethos may be. These closing thoughts
will combine direct references to the earlier descriptions of punk, with a
general overview that emerges from reading through historical accounts
of punk.
The central properties of punk can be, and often are, contested. Rather

than try to encapsulate everything here, let me focus on the key prop-
erties of punk that are of most use in the context of this book. Drawing
on the above discussions, and the biographical and historical resources
used, we can understand punk to be highly relativistic; it is not con-
cerned with hierarchies and it attempts to see the world from plural and
multiple perspectives. It is about the drive of the individual to make a
contribution and to sometimes look to subvert restrictive or oppressive
social categories, norms, or conventions. This in turn leads punk to be
open and eclectic. It is outward looking and is keen to respond, react
against, or draw upon alternative cultural resources. The products of this
background and approach are then often quite raw, stripped back, and
fearless. A punk is not afraid of their own limitations and vulnerabilities.
Nor do notions of legitimacy or authenticity inhibit them. Punk seeks
to break down and transcend boundaries and obstacles and to erode the
lines between the performer and the audience. Finally, we can see this
form of communication operating in a terrain in which cultural expres-
sion is relatively unrestricted. The punk can then be bold and inventive
in their work. Conventions do not hold them back, and the idea of play-
ing it safe is discordant with its central motifs. The driving force here
is a strong commitment to a pro-activism that is often expressed as the
do-it-yourself or DIY ethic. The DIY ethic is an extension of the invent-
iveness of punk and affords an unbounded engagement with the cultural
world. This leads punks to use the opportunities and materials that they
encounter to express their creative forces. This is often highly opportun-
istic and is based upon the use of media and social networks in new and
unpredictable ways. The punk finds a way to make things happen and
finds a way to be unconventional in carving out pathways of expression
and communication. The punk adapts to the terrain in which they are
operating and refuses to be restricted by the limitations of access and
funding. Punk is based on resourcefulness.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0005

The Punk Ethos 29
Beyond these core features there are some other general issues that
are worth a moment of reflection. We have seen in this chapter that
the punk sensibility is founded upon the questioning and challenging
of established modes of thought. It attempts to open up new questions
and find new perspectives and new ways of seeing. It has a deep-seated
discomfort with established ideas about the world, with consensus and
with conventions. This discomfort is important to the punk identity, and,
as we have seen, it even leads punks to be uncomfortable with the very

notion of punk itself. Punk seeks to break from categories, conventions,
and established visions so as to generate new questions and perspec-
tives. It seeks to foster its own discomfort and to find creative ways of
expressing it. Perhaps it is the very convention of the separation of the
performer from the audience that is one of the ways that this discomfort
is most keenly expressed. This removal of the divide between the punk
and the people they hope to communicate with, and the culture they seek
to reflect and react to, is something that will no doubt resonate through
the following chapters. The question we now turn to in the second part
of the book is whether we can productively apply this punk ethos to the
craft of sociology.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0005

Part II

Towards a Punk Sociology
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0006

3

From a Punk Ethos to
a Punk Sociology
Abstract: This brief chapter explores the way in which the

punk ethos might be transposed onto sociology. It clarifies
the objectives of the book and provides an account of the
structure, order, and purpose of the remaining chapters. This
chapter begins the movement from the punk ethos to punk
sociology.

Macmillan, 2014. doi: 10.1057/9781137371218.0006.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0006 31

32 Punk Sociology
This short chapter acts as a bridge between the prelude of part one and
the series of short riffs that make up part two of the book. Part one
closed with the suggestion that we use the punk ethos that I outlined
and apply this to the sociological craft. The general argument of the
opening chapter was that cultural resources might provide us with some
inspiration for re-imagining sociology and for opening up new ideas.
The sense was that the discipline needs to react to its current pressures
and to find ways of being creative and inventive, whilst also returning

and to what C. Wright Mills (1959) called the promise of sociology. The
question I posed concerned the means by which we might find ways to
be creative and imaginative. The conventions that are established in dis-
ciplines inevitably shape our perspectives. My suggestion was that out-
side resources can allow for us to find creative and imaginative ways to
develop sociology. Clearly the argument of Chapter 1 went a little further
than this, but this brief interlude refocuses the project of this book and
sets up the chapters that follow. The suggestion I made was that punk
might act as just such a resource. In Chapter 2 we then explored exactly
what the key features of a punk ethos might be. Before moving on with
this project, which I call punk sociology, Id like to use this short chap-
ter to clarify the structure and approach of the chapters that make up
the second part of this book. The purpose of this chapter is to move the
book away from the discussion of punk and begin to move towards the
discussion of punk sociology.
Using cultural resources to think through problems, issues, and ques-
tions is not uncommon in academic work. It is far from a mainstream
approach, but there is a growing body of work that attempts to use litera-
ture (Lewis et al., 2008; Carlin, 2010; Taylor, 2008, Daniels et al., 2011),
poetry (Abbott, 2007; Brown, 1977; Martin, 2010), film (Diken, 2005;
Alsayyad, 2006), TV (Gregg & Wilson, 2010; Penfold-Mounce et al.,
2011), music (Beer, 2014), social media (Crampton, 2009), and other types
of cultural resources to explore social and cultural phenomena. These
works often use such resources to engage the sociological imagination
and to think through the analytical issues that are being considered. In
these instances fictional and other cultural resources are used to explore
actual social and cultural phenomena. This type of work can be seen to be
controversial in some respects, but it appears to be the way that cultural
forms enable the illumination and reappraisal of established research
topics that generates a good deal of enthusiasm amongst researchers.
This is perhaps most impressively achieved in Howard Beckers (2007)
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0006

From a Punk Ethos to a Punk Sociology 33
programmatic book Telling About Society, to which I referred in the

opening chapter. In this text Becker explores how alternative cultural
resources perform a similar role to sociology in that they tell about
society, they merely use different forms of communication to do so (I
discuss this further in Chapter 4). Beckers open approach is suggestive
of the value in these resources and that sociology may also use them to
explore, communicate, and complement their work. Indeed, we can even
return to C. Wright Mills initial observations about the presence of the

sociological imagination outside of the discipline of sociology (for an
account see Beer & Burrows, 2010). Indeed, it has even been argued that
the presence of sociological commentary outside the discipline creates
some serious questions for how we might proceed (Osborne et al., 2008).
Where might sociology fit when cultural forms are so densely populated
with sociological narratives about the world (Beer & Burrows, 2010)?
Let us put these debates (which I also began to cover in Chapter 1) to
one side for the moment, instead let us differentiate the punk sociology
project from some of this other work as there are some key variations.
Although the punk sociology project might use punk music as a socio-
logical resource for thinking about particular social issues, or it might
involve using punks music, aesthetics, or lyrics to see what they tell
about society, the punk sociology project moves beyond this. In many
cases the punk sociologist will use different cultural resources in their
work, but these will not be restricted to the actual outputs of punk.
Rather, what the punk sociology project I am outlining here does is use
the punk ethos to re-imagine the way that sociological work is done. It is
not about using punk music as a way into particular analytical problems
or questions, it is rather to use punk as a resource for thinking about
how we do sociology. This is a key difference. A punk sociologist is likely
to want to think with and draw upon alternative and outside forms of
knowledge such as film, literature, TV, social media, and the like, as
well as materials from across the scientific, computational, political, and
journalistic fields but this is not restricted to the outputs that might be
labelled as punk. Rather this is about using punk as a resource for reflect-
ing upon our very craft and the way we go about being sociologists. In
this instance, punk is an approach rather than an object of study.
Of course, this comes with its problems. I intend to return to what I
will call the pathology of punk in the concluding chapter of the book.
We might begin though by thinking about the way the punk sociology
project might be channelled, filtered, and directed. We might at this
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0006

34 Punk Sociology
point contend that rules are for fools and a punk sociology needs to
be anarchic. At which point this book would have to end. Or we might
say that punk is about avoiding structures, categories, and labels and so
the punk sociologist should not seek to define too clearly what they are
about. But this wouldnt get us very far. Instead we are going to have to
allow for some tension to emerge. We are going to have to live with the
discomfort of having some defining properties that we might then hang
punk sociology on. So, in scoping-out the punk sociology project in the

next three chapters Im going to be engaging in something that might
seem counterintuitive to the very project that Im working on. Let us not
forget though, as we have seen in Chapter 2, that punk did actually have
some order, it did cohere, there are some shared properties, and, as Nick
Crossley (2009) has shown, it even had a relatively tight-knit social net-
work at its centre (even if this did then collapse).
With these concerns in mind, but at the same time wanting to put
together a coherent book that the reader may actually be able to use, the
next three chapters attempt to provide a fairly structured account of how
the punk ethos might translate into sociology. As I have indicated, this is
not restrictive or prescriptive, but some order does need to be imposed
upon such a project. The following chapters become a kind of heuristic
framework that the reader may then respond to. In order to provide such
a framework I have organized the key features of the punk ethos iden-
tified in Chapter 2 into three sections that map onto the discipline of
sociology. The first of the three chapters, Chapter 4, focuses upon socio-
logical knowledge and applies the relativism, openness, and eclecticism
of the punk ethos. The second of the three chapters, Chapter 5, focuses
on the communication of sociology and applies the raw, stripped-back,
and fearless properties of the punk ethos. The final of the three chapters,
Chapter 6, focuses upon the terrain of sociology and looks to apply the
boldness, inventiveness, and DIY ethic of the punk ethos. Together then
these form a flexible and mobile framework from which to build punk
sociology. The idea being that these open up a series of possibilities for
thinking about how punk sociology might be developed and how it
might translate directly into sociological knowledge, communication,
and the terrain that the discipline covers (as well as the types of ques-
tions it might ask). Each is presented as a short and punchy equivalent of
a 23-minute punk song, stripped-back to the basics and intended to be
direct and provocative.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0006

4

Relativistic, Open, and Eclectic:
Sociological Knowledge
Abstract: Beginning the process of applying the punk

ethos to sociology, this chapter focuses on the formation
and accumulation of sociological knowledge. It takes three
properties from the punk ethos to do this. This chapter
explores how sociological knowledge might be developed
through the relativistic, open, and eclectic approach of punk.

Macmillan, 2014. doi: 10.1057/9781137371218.0007.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0007 35

36 Punk Sociology
What is better, Shakespeare or The Simpsons? This is not an arbitrary

question, but one that I seem to remember being asked. The answer for a
punk sociologist is likely to be neither. Both have different types of value
and reveal different things. But the punk sociologist would certainly take
a stronger position than this might suggest. They are likely to be sensitive
to the idea that one is likely to be seen as an acceptable and credible form
of knowledge whilst the other is likely to be seen as being lightweight
and unimportant this might lead the punk sociologist to challenge

such a hierarchical interpretation of these cultural forms by answering
this question provocatively: The Simpsons! In Chapter 2 we saw that
the punk ethos was based upon some relativistic tendencies. These ten-
dencies were located in its discomfort with hierarchies, in its general
approach towards the empowerment of individuals, and in its treatment
of culture in fairly egalitarian terms. For the punk there is value to be
found in the types of culture that are often belittled or underestimated.
The consequence was a movement that, in idealistic terms, was open
to embracing diverse cultural forms and that then became eclectic in
its outlook and in the resources it drew upon. We can start with these
themes and use them to think about the way that knowledge might form
if we were to adopt a punk sociology.
Ive already mentioned Howard Beckers (2007) book Telling About
Society. The introduction to this book raises some issues about socio-
logical knowledge that the punk sociologist may wish to give some
detailed consideration. Most notably we are confronted by questions
about who has the right to do sociology and to make assertions about
the social world. Becker (2007: 6) makes the following argument:
My own professional colleagues sociologists and other social scientists

like to talk as though they have a monopoly on creating such representa-
tions, as though the knowledge of society they produce is the only real
knowledge about that subject. Thats not true. And they like to make the
equally silly claim that the ways they have of telling about society are the
best ways to do that job or the only way it can be done properly, or that their
ways of doing the job guard against all sorts of terrible mistakes we would
otherwise make.
Beckers point is provocative. Sociology needs, according to Becker, to be

more open and to accept that it is far from being alone in telling about
society. It also needs to avoid making claims that its own versions of
the social world are more important or better than these other forms
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0007

Relativistic, Open, and Eclectic 37
of knowledge it needs to avoid what Becker (2007: 6) calls standard

professional power grab. Becker (2007: 6) argues that:
considering the ways that people who work in other fields visual artists,
novelists, playrights, photographers, and filmmakers as well as laypeople
represent society will show analytical dimensions and possibilities that
social science has often ignored that might otherwise be useful.
The message, which extends observations that can be found in C Wright

Mills (1959) classic work, is that these cultural forms do something
similar to sociology, it is simply that the forms of knowledge and com-
munication vary. For Becker (2007: xi) these forms of knowledge are of
real importance; he adds that he found as many good ideas in fiction,
drama, film, and photography as [he] did in what [he] was supposed
to be reading (and for a more recent account of what this sociological
knowledge outside of the discipline might mean for academic sociology
see also Osborne et al., 2008; Beer & Burrows, 2010). Perhaps though we
need to cast the net even wider and to find sociology in an even broader
range of places and maybe in even less predictable forms. The punk soci-
ologist would consider the potential value of all sorts of resources.
A punk sociologist would accept and embrace this broad range of
different types of social knowledge. It does not restrict itself by claim-
ing its ultimate authority over the social world, it does not shut out
powerful forms of telling about society simply because they arise from
non-academic sources. The relativist tendencies of the punk sociologist
would lead them to consider all knowledge about the social world to
have some potential merit and value, whatever that might turn out to
be. This requires the sociologist to be genuinely open in their outlook
and in their use of resources. This openness requires two things. First
it requires the sociologist to not feel undermined by the mere presence
of other forms of knowledge about the social world. We need to work
on our sense of self-esteem and not feel threatened by the presence of
other forms of social commentary, critique, and analysis, whatever forms
these may take. Contemporary culture is often quite densely populated
with accounts and commentaries on the social world, from documen-
taries and authentic drama to realist comedy, social experiment TV,
and the various forms of ethnographic interrogation that are typical of
social media and social networking sites (for an overview and detailed
explanation of the sociological imagination in contemporary culture, see
Beer & Burrows, 2010). The punk sociologist would look to draw upon
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0007

38 Punk Sociology
such ideas, curate them, reflect on them, learn from them, and critically
respond to the way in which they envision and enact the social world.
So, the first step is to not be too nervous about accepting that we, as
sociologists, are not the only people with something analytical to say
about the social world. Accepting this does not undermine our position,
it strengthens it, it opens up new resources for thinking with, it provides
new visions of the social world for us to compare and contrast with our
own, it provides new means of communication and new audiences. We

are more likely to have problems if we try to ignore these other visions
and representations of contemporary social and cultural life. The punk
sociologist is never defensive, or at least they try not to be, nor are they
overtly concerned about the idea that other forms of knowledge may
question or undermine their own. Indeed, the internal iconoclast in the
punk sociologist welcomes the challenge and enjoys the limitations of
their own work being explored and illuminated. They enjoy this type of
interaction. And it is much better to have the interactions fostered by
the intersection of forms of knowledge about the social world than it is
for them to remain separate and discrete. The punk sociologist works
to allow parallel ideas to merge and is not too concerned with what this
might mean for their own standing or their own credibility. What is
likely to happen is that if we take on such an approach, then our open-
ness will be appreciated and the way that sociology is viewed by an out-
side audience will actually be enhanced.
Second, this acceptance of these other forms of sociological content
outside of the academy requires us to develop a sensitivity to its form
and what it might have to say. This is not easy. We are generally trained to
identify sociological discourse, we are used to the types of questions and
insights that sociologists use, we are used to reading articles and books
that are often quite obviously sociology or are from a cognate discip-
line. As with punk itself, which adopted all kinds of aesthetic and sonic
properties from elsewhere, most notably in its fashion and in its graphic
design, this requires us to develop an appreciation of audio and visual
accounts of the social world, and to use texts that do not conform to our
expectations of what sociology is (or what sociological data is). In other
words, we need to train ourselves to be open and to coach ourselves to
see sociology in sources where we may not be expecting to see it.
Along with such a sensitivity comes new responsibilities. Once we
have identified these different alternative sociological forms, we will
then need to find ways to interrogate them. Whole new possibilities
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0007

will be opened up as we become more eclectic in our scope (although

I would add that many sociologists already engage with a broad range
of resources in their work, so for many this will not be entirely new).
We will then need to adapt to this eclecticism and to find new ways of
translating resources into knowledge. There will be a responsibility to
work with but also to challenge and critically appraise the accounts of
the social world that we locate and identify. Accepting that we are not the
only voice, and not even the most important voice, is a step towards the

relativism that is central to the punk ethos. This could be transformative
for sociology. It will allow us to see and enact the social in new ways, and
it will also allow us to see the position of the academic discipline of soci-
ology and, hopefully, what it might offer that will make its value clear.
In other words, this type of openness and eclecticism will not only fuel
the sociological imagination, it will also allow us to see the context in
which sociology is operating and allow us to position ourselves. In many
ways, if we overlook these other forms of social insight, we will never be
able to understand where we fit in, what we are contributing, or how our
ideas compare with others. The argument then is that working towards
openness and eclecticism in our resources will not only enrich our socio-
logical knowledge, it will also afford an increased self-awareness about
our position within the social milieu and the innumerable competing
visions it offers of the social world.
This starting point requires the punk sociologist to be open in
their treatment of existing accounts of the social world, which goes
beyond mere interdisciplinarity. But what about the punk sociologists
approach towards gathering accounts and answering their research
conundrums? In Chapter 2 it was clear that amongst the boundaries
that punk attempted to transcend, most notable was that between the
performer and the audience. In applying the punk ethos to sociology,
we might readily transform this into an attempt to break down the bar-
rier between the researcher and those who they are researching. And
we might also extend this to an attempt to break down the boundaries
between the sociologist and their audience (as I will discuss in the fol-
lowing chapter). This links us directly into long-running debates on the
position of the researcher in their own research. By breaking down the
distinction between researcher and researched, the sociologist becomes
a more active and present part of the research. On the other hand, the
break-down of the barrier between the sociologist and the audience is
likely, in turn, to make the sociologist part of that audience. As such, this
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0007

40 Punk Sociology
second move draws us towards recent debates on what has been termed
public sociology (Clawson et al., 2007) or the public face of sociology
(Holmwood & Scott, 2007). It is not appropriate or in keeping with this
book to open these complex and detailed debates in this short chapter,
but the move to a punk sociology does not come without some baggage.
Whatever the various positions taken in these debates, the punk sociolo-
gist is likely to be uncomfortable with such pronounced distinctions
between the researcher, the researched, and the audience and is likely

to want to undermine them. We will return to the issue of communica-
tion in the following chapter; let us focus now upon what this means for
the generation of sociological knowledge, and as such let us focus upon
the boundary between the researcher and the researched.
By way of clarification though, let us pick out one recent example that
shows what might be meant by breaking down these barriers between the
punk sociologist and both those they are researching and those they hope
to share knowledge with. In so doing what we quickly see is that socio-
logical knowledge is not the product of isolation, but is a part of the social
world it describes (Savage, 2010). If we return to Chapter 2 we might recall
that punks attempted to break down the standard barriers present in the
performer/viewer relationship (OHara, 1999: 33). This, as we have seen,
can be applied to communication (I follow this up in Chapter 6). But in
the case of the researcher and the researched, this can perhaps be explored
through Shamser Sinha and Les Backs (2013: 3) recent piece on making
the social sciences more sociable. They argue that we should develop ways
of working with rather than on participants. The argument here is that
we need to break down the barriers and to enter into more of a dialogue
with those we are researching. This, they argue, affords new sociological
horizons. Beyond this we might of course turn to the use of anecdote,
observation, and various types of broadly ethnographic work to think
about the position of the researcher in the research process. We could
literally point to dozens of pieces that consider the role and presence of
the researcher in their own research and in their fieldwork. But the punk
sociologist would look to sidestep these debates by embracing their part
in the research process and by looking to play with distinctions between
the researcher and the researched. The punk sociologist, based again upon
their relativistic tendencies, is likely to see all knowledge as being subject-
ive or as a means of enacting the social (Law, 2004). As such they are fully
implicated in the products of research and are happy therefore to accept
their presence and to research with rather than research on.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0007

In terms of sociological knowledge, punk sociology is clearly pointed

towards breaking down barriers and questioning established positions
this is not to wish to destroy what is already there, although it might, but
it is to have an unbendable desire to see what else is possible. We heard
about the aesthetics of punk in the earlier chapter of this book, and we
will return to this in the following chapter, but the process of deliber-
ate unlearning (Savage, 1991: 82, italics in the original) is worth some
closing reflection. We might engage in a little deliberate unlearning in

sociology. This is not to forget the past, sociology has a short enough
memory as it is, and punks often used various historical resources and
reference points to open new possibilities. Instead we might attempt
to deliberately unlearn the discipline and see what happens. We might
unlearn our honed and established ways of working, we might unlearn
our established ideas and concepts, and we might unlearn some of the
dominant ideas we have about the social world. This would not be to
destroy them, but to see what new constellations might be formed if
we were to escape from what has become entrenched in sociology.
Sociologists could unlearn so as to approach the discipline and social
world afresh and see potentially new or mutated ways of doing sociology
and being sociologists which might well even be informed by forgotten
or disregarded elements of its past.
The punk ethos requires questions to be asked of conventions, estab-
lished ideas, norms, and forms of consensus. Like punk itself, punk soci-
ology should seek to open new vistas, new perspectives, new spaces for
critical thought, and, most crucially, it should seek to ask new questions
and break with established conventions. By breaking with and challen-
ging conventions, consensus, and established categories and ideas we are
able to generate new types of questions and to make new inquiries into
social and cultural life. The impulse to follow conventions and ask the
same type of questions in the same types of ways is actually really strong;
it is almost gravitational in its pull. This tractor beam is only likely to
become more powerful as systems for measuring value shape research
practices and impose themselves on sociological research. Taking risks,
as we will discuss in the following two chapters, will be hard to do. The
conditions are likely to draw us towards the conventions. The skill of the
punk sociologist will be to spot conventions and to question them. Or,
perhaps a better way of putting it is to say that punk sociologists will
look to get a different point of view when looking at the social world.
They will think about the other directions from which the problem
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0007

42 Punk Sociology
might be viewed, they will think laterally, they will try to spot the gravity
of established ideas and will push against it, they will seek to think in
unpredictable and unconventional ways even about some of our oldest
sociological topics, but most of all they will look to find the blind-spots
that conventions be they methodological, conceptual, or otherwise
have marked out in the social world. The punk sociologist wonders what
it is that sociology is missing and tries to find it. The only way to really
do this is to break with patterns, to cross some boundaries, and to play

with and sometimes defy conventions.
In general terms we need to reflect upon the types of knowledge that
sociology draws upon. There is some value in taking a more relativis-
tic position. This is likely to lead us towards a more open and eclectic
engagement with resources. Having a more open view of the value of
different forms of knowledge, as has been argued by Howard Becker,
means that sociology might see the social world in new ways. Punk soci-
ology opens itself up to new resources (which might actually in some
cases be neglected or dusty historical resources) by finding sociology
and sociological inspiration in a much wider range of places and forms.
Using new types of resources, treating these visions of the social world
seriously, is likely to drastically reconfigure our accounts of the social
world. It will also lead to new forms of social engagement with new
types of audiences. The relativism of punk often took the form of icono-
clasm. Punk often looked to actively undermine hierarchies, challenge
complacency, and upset received wisdom. This might be a bit extreme
for sociology, hopefully not, but perhaps at least a gentle and knowing
iconoclasm might still be of value, in that it allows us to avoid a com-
placent position, it allows us to develop outspoken forms of political
engagement, and it prevents us from becoming stuck in a rut. We might
not wish to undermine ourselves, but we might wish to adopt some of
this iconoclastic sentiment so as to question our practices and the value
of the knowledge that we produce. Punk sociologists must be open in
their approach, they must adopt and play with a wide range of forms of
knowledge, whilst at the same time also interrogating the unique values
of their own contribution as such they will practice, like punk, a kind
of inwardly directed iconoclasm.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0007

5

Raw, Stripped Back, and
Fearless: Communicating
Sociology
Abstract: Following from the previous chapter, this chapter

continues to apply the punk ethos to sociology. In this instance
it focuses upon the way that sociologists communicate their
work. It begins with a discussion of the problems facing
the communication of sociological ideas, and suggests that
it might be productive for sociology to be more fearless in
offering stripped-back and raw forms of social insight.

Macmillan, 2014. doi: 10.1057/9781137371218.0008.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0008 43

44 Punk Sociology
As was briefly alluded to in Chapter 2, one of the key defining features

of punk was its stance against forms of progressive or prog rock.
Similarly, if we are looking to provide points of comparison, then punk
sociology might be understood to exist in counter-distinction to prog
sociology. This distinction provides a helpful starting place for thinking
about the communication of sociological work. Punk sociology stands
as the antithesis of what might be thought of as prog sociology. Prog
sociology, as the academic adaptation of prog rock, could be under-

stood to be sociology that is indulgent, maybe even self-indulgent, and
self-congratulatory. This is sociology that is wrapped up in its own sense
of self-importance. As with the prog rockers foregrounding of virtuosity,
the prog sociologist is someone who uses their research to show off their
virtuosity in research the sociological equivalent, we might imagine,
of a 10-minute guitar, keyboard, or drum solo. Prog sociology uses
research as a vehicle for demonstrating the abilities of the researcher.
Its pursuit of legitimacy is bound up in the demonstration of difficult,
fiddly, and hard-to-master skills. This is not to diminish these skills, it
is instead to point to sociological research thats intent and purpose is to
highlight just how good the sociologist is. Thus, what we get are lengthy
and ongoing productions of sociological showboating. A sociology that
is more interested in technique than it is in ideas (for a discussion of this
see Gane, 2012a).
Prog sociology of this type can take many different forms. We have
probably all witnessed this type of showboating at some time (in talks,
books, articles, and even in referees reviews of our articles perhaps). In
some ways we might return to C. Wright Mills (1959) distinction between
grand theory and abstract empiricism. I dont want to rehearse this
argument, or the mid-range theories it might push us towards, but this is
helpful in thinking of the way that prog sociology might be understood
in practice. These demonstrations of virtuosity can be found in both the-
oretical and empirical work. Who has the most nuanced understanding
of a particular theorist? Who has the best syntactic grasp and turn of
phrase? This is not much different from the competitions that take place
to be the most rigorous, to have the most sophisticated, in-depth, and
unequivocal understanding of an advanced method. Or where research
projects are used to refine a method or to show just what a detailed
appreciation of the technical aspects of that method the individual has.
As Zygmunt Bauman (2011: 160172) has recently pointed out, sociology
can obscure its message through both language and number. So, prog
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0008

Raw, Stripped Back, and Fearless 45
sociology need not be restricted to one area within our discipline, it

can crop up anywhere. Indeed, C. Wright Mills (2008a: 7985) stinging
essay IBM plus reality plus humanism = Sociology, outlined how the
temptation to baffle, and to play it safe, can be found in both the work
of sociologists who he refers to as The Scientists and those he refers to
as Grand Theorists (an argument he famously went on to develop in
The Sociological Imagination) it is worth noting that in this essay Mills
(2008a: 85) also tells us to be more imaginative. Mills (2008b: 67) prob-

lem, which is the problem we see in the prog sociologist, as he explains
in another essay on the work of Thorstein Veblen, is that one of them
makes a fetish of Method and the other of Theory. Both, accordingly,
lose sight of their proper study. This is now a fairly well-rehearsed argu-
ment, yet it still retains its importance and relevance. The point I want to
emphasize here is that the problems of prog sociology are not restricted
to particular branches of the discipline.
Prog sociology might be seen as problematic for a number of reasons.
The most significant issue is that the ideas, the substance of sociology, get
shaped or obscured by the desire to demonstrate virtuosity. The second
problem we might point towards is that it is likely to be hard to engage
with, for other sociologists, academics in other disciplines, and for a
wider audience. Often these audiences have little interest in technique,
but they can associate with substantive ideas about the social world.
The interests of a prog sociologist are likely to be esoteric and insular,
dressed, as they are, in a legitimizing cloak of technical capability that is
meant to attract the attention of other prog sociologists whilst baffling
those seen as outsiders or without the requisite abilities to understand
what is happening.
Ive already indirectly suggested how punk sociology is different to this
vision of prog sociology. We can use this as one point of comparison, but
this is not to suggest that the distinction between punk and prog soci-
ology is the only thing that defines it. Yet we might instantly assume that
punk sociology does not attempt to define itself through its virtuosity,
and that it places ideas at the centre of the sociological enterprise. In this
brief chapter, I suggest that sociology should be raw, stripped back, and
fearless in the forms of communication it takes. It should not be hung
up on using technique to find its legitimacy and authenticity, rather it
should rely on how engaging and revealing its ideas and findings are,
and it should find ways of communicating these in a direct manner.
Avoiding foregrounding virtuosity does not mean that sociology lacks
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0008

46 Punk Sociology
skill. Sociology can still achieve quality. It is just that our research should
never simply be a vehicle for showing off our technical abilities.
Punks own response was to eschew overt virtuosity and to produce
quite raw and stripped-back outputs. There was simply no aspiration to
virtuosity. Which, in sociology, might actually help to remove some of
the barriers to communication that virtuosity might generate. Beyond
this though, Punks stripped-back outputs were illustrative of a kind of
fearlessness. The musicians were not afraid to put their limitations on

display. Indeed, the demonstration of these limitations became part of
the character and appeal of the music with some musicians appar-
ently hiding their skills and playing badly to fit with the aesthetic. This
chapter does not suggest that we should do this. But it does, however,
suggest that this fearlessness might be powerful within sociology. If
we remove the fear of demonstrating our limitations, then we will be
able to move quickly and respond to the social world adapting our
approaches without fear that the outputs may have our own limita-
tions inscribed upon them. In some instances, and to capture some
unfamiliar aspects of the social world, we may need to produce a
more stripped-back and raw sociology. This may particularly be the
case where we might wish to act quickly so as to be part of the debates
around events and other important social phenomena. There is possi-
bility and value in producing a raw and stripped-back sociology that
is founded upon a sense fearlessness. In short then, a sociology that is
not inhibited by aspirations towards virtuosity or by the fear of under-
mining its own legitimacy. This is a sociology that doesnt feel the need
to reassert its authority over the social world. It is instead a sociology
without inhibitions.
This leads us to think about the style of the punk sociologists writ-
ing, language, and other outputs. The obvious suggestion, based on the
discussion above and on the punk ethos described in Chapter 2, is for
sociology to be quite direct and punchy, to attempt to write and talk in a
way that is raw and stripped back rather than overly long, unnecessary,
and potentially pretentious. This though is far from easy. We do not
want to lose the nuance of what we hope to say, and we dont want to be
too reductive in our accounts of the social world. Indeed, punk music
often had complexities folded within what, on the surface, appeared to
be quite raw and basic music. If we take the combination of styles in
the music of The Slits for example, we find a rather raw set of songs that
actually belie an attempt to encounter cultural diversity. Similarly, the
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0008

famous stylistic experiments of The Clash offer a direct but playfully

complex layering of music and lyrical references. This is something we
need to treat with care. We do not want to reduce our sociology to an
overly simplistic encounter with the world. But punk is far from being
obvious or predictable, and maybe it is in its variety and its creative
and variable means of expression that we might find guidance. The
punk sociologists style is not reductive, but it is likely to be direct and
unapologetic. It might deal with complex social issues, but in creative

and incisive ways. Different topics and issues might call for different
types of writing and dissemination. It is hard though to be too explicit
in saying what form these writings might take, and there are those who
are much better placed than myself to offer guidance on writing style.
Again we reach one of those moments where tension emerges between
the necessity to leave the punk project open and the desire to create an
explicit agenda.
This discussion of raw, fearless, and stripped-back sociology has
echoes of some of the guidance offered by Howard Becker (1986) in his
Writing for Social Scientists (which is a firecracker of a book wrapped
up in a misleadingly tame and comforting title). This book offers some
mechanical advice that is aimed at helping social scientists to write in a
more direct manner and to give them the confidence to take more risks.
Beckers book returns to the issues associated with fear and the risks
associated with writing. These are very real if we are to try to adopt a
more fearless approach. In one chapter, Becker includes a lengthy letter
from another sociologist, Pamela Richards, who explains in some detail
the types of fears and sense of risk that she associates with writing. In
Richards account, even showing work in progress or writing that is not
yet polished to colleagues is seen as a risky business, never mind put-
ting such work on public display. The fears communicated in Richards
letter are likely to chime with those fears many of us have in writing.
The concern might be that producing a more stripped-back account will
undermine our own standing, both inside and outside of the academy.
This is likely to be the fear that punk sociologists will try to overcome,
at least they might attempt to overcome it. Taking on such risk is worth
the effort as it will open up new means of communication and poten-
tially draw in different audiences and engage students and colleagues
in different ways. As I write this chapter it is already becoming obvious
that raw and stripped-back blog posts are circulating to significant and
varied audiences in a way that more polished journal articles are unable
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0008

48 Punk Sociology
to achieve. So the potential is there for a diversity of writing styles to

emerge and for sociologists to sometimes be more direct and raw in
their response to the social world. The engagement we might potentially
have with these germs of ideas are likely to be productive in terms of the
sense of value the sociologist has for themselves and the way they are
valued by others.
Beckers book argues along similar lines. He points out that hard work
is not enough but that you must also take some chances, let others see

your work, open yourself to criticism. That may be frightening, even
painful, in the short run. (Becker, 1986: 165). For Becker the long-term
benefits of taking chances is well worth the risk (in this case he is talking
about showing work to colleagues and sending out publications, but we
can see how this argument might fit with regard to taking chances with
writing and writing styles). We might seek to take risks but, he suggests,
Social organization may...keep you from making these (typically) sim-
ple and safe experiments (Becker, 1986: 166). Returning to Chapter 1,
we can see how the context in which sociology is performed might be
seen to shape its products. This, for Becker, also needs to be resisted. This
general sense of fear is summed up in the following excerpt, which we
might see as being a variation on Malcolm McLarens epitaph: We write
that way because we fear that others will catch us in an obvious error if
we do anything else, and laugh at us. Better to say something innocuous
but safe than something bold you might not be able to defend against
criticism (Becker, 1986: 9). If we are to try to be more fearless in our
communication, then we will no doubt be confronted with such risks
and fears. The aim though would be to resist the temptation to stay safe,
and to avoid the draw of being innocuous. Punk sociologists are likely
to be sticking their necks out quite a bit by making positive statements
and making claims that are open to criticism. Indeed, part of being a
punk sociologist and avoiding being innocuous, is opening yourself up
to criticism. The punk sociologist is likely to be moving into territory
that sociologists might have given little attention to in the past (more of
this in Chapter 6), so the sense of risk will be more acute.
As Im writing this chapter, one of the pressing issues in the commu-
nication of sociological work concerns the use of social media. The rise
of social media, in which anyone can create media content, is currently
causing sociologists to ask what is stopping them from communicating
with wider audiences. I have argued elsewhere that these social media
come with their own politics of circulation (Beer, 2013a), that is to say
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0008

that their material infrastructures shape the flows of data and infor-
mation. Underlying algorithms and metadata shape the content we
encounter in these media and influence the visibility of the content. I
have previously discussed the consequences of these developments in
social media for sociologists (see Beer, 2012, 2013b, 2013c). Given the way
in which punks used fanzines, which relied upon their creative uses of
the materials that were available to them (paper, scissors, stencils, pens,
photos, copiers), we might intuit that the punk sociologist is likely to do

something similar with the new types of media-based materials that are
now available.
The punk sociologist tries to develop an awareness of the underlying
politics of these media, of their data circulations, and of the networks
that form. We cannot imagine that social media are democratic simply
because they are decentralized. We would need to be aware of this. We
would also need to be aware that the use of social media in developing,
communicating, and disseminating our research is likely to expose it to
these remediations and their politics of circulation. As such our research
findings and ideas will no longer take a comfortable amble towards a
potential audience, rather they are likely to be caught in the torrent of
data circulations typical of contemporary decentralized media, with
unpredictable results. In some instances the research will disappear from
view; in other instances it will catch a wave of interest or maybe even go
viral or trend. These outcomes will be a product of social medias pol-
itics of circulation. Our research, when communicated through social
media, is likely to take on its vibrancy and the variability of visibility
that it promotes. We have to be prepared for our research taking on a
life of its own (Beer, 2013b), particularly as it has energy breathed into
it by the lively data circulations that define contemporary media. Part
of being fearless is accepting the unpredictability of the circulation of
our ideas in this context. Letting ideas go out into the social world in
which global dissemination is an ordinary daily practice can be a little
unsettling, but it also brings new possibilities and new connections. The
debates about public sociology (Clawson et al., 2007) and sociologys
public face (Holmwood & Scott, 2007) were formulated before these
media developments took hold. As such they need to be re-imagined
to tally with the ongoing remediation of everyday life. The punk soci-
ologist would seek to understand and work with this remediation. The
dissemination practices of the punk movement based on hand written,
cut-and-pasted, and self-printed fanzines distributed through shops and
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0008

50 Punk Sociology
at gigs might seem small in comparison, but it is the aesthetics of these

practices and the creative and unconstrained attempts at novel types of
communication that we might borrow from punk. The materials might
have changed but we can find inspiration in the sentiment and in the
drive to co-opt media and materials in communicating ideas.
The punk ethos in sociology would mean that the sociologist is not
restricted in the means of communication that they use; they are more
likely to try different types of writing and different styles, exploring dif-

ferent topics, and reacting to what matters although of course the use
of alternative forms of communication has a long history amongst soci-
ologists, with many adopting journalistic arms to their work and being
involved in activist networks, and so on. One day the punk sociologist
is writing a blog post, the next they are working on an audio podcast,
the next they are creating posters, the next they are making short films,
the next they are curating content. They gather, uncover, and generate
insights through their sociologically sensitive trawling of the social
world, using the things they find to illustrate and enliven sociological
topics (using anything from art, to film, to advertising, to photography,
to web visualizations, to flyers they get through their front door, to
guidebooks the options are limitless). Books and journal articles will
still matter; they are still likely to be the bedrock of academic commu-
nication. But the punk sociologist looks to use these traditional forms of
communication in unusual and maybe even subversive ways, and then
looks to build on this work through other forms of communication and
through other media. The debates on open-access publication, escaping
the paywalls that limit communication, create new questions for aca-
demic publishing and communication, the punk sociologist is likely to
be working around the edges of what is possible and exploring the reach
of their means of communication anyway. Similarly, the punk sociolo-
gist might be interested in the debates on public sociology, but, as we
have seen in Chapter 4, the boundaries between the sociologist and their
audiences are much less pronounced for punk sociologists already.
In terms of communication, perhaps more than anything, soci-
ologists should never be bored, or appear to be bored, with their own
work. Boredom, be it genuine or feigned to suggest seriousness or the
fatigue of rigour, suggests that sociologists are hesitant to move with
their enthusiasms. This hesitancy may have come about from a fear of
leaving an analytical comfort zone, or a fear of moving on from an area
that has been kind to a researcher. The punk sociologist is not afraid to
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0008

move on, particularly if they feel their enthusiasm is ebbing away. This
is more difficult than it sounds, and it requires the researcher to reassert
the fearlessness of punk. A punk sociologist is mobile, and this helps
them to communicate their ideas. Enthusiasm and excitement for fresh
ideas, questions, and issues helps to energize communication. Mobility is
important in the life cycle of the individual sociologist. Even if we move
into territory we know little about, we can still use this fearlessness to
produce stripped-back yet vital accounts of the social world that various

types of audiences will want to engage with. Sometimes this will be raw.
On occasions this might mean that in communicating our ideas we will
be vulnerable or exposed. But the ideas will still be there, in their early
form, for others to react to. People can often engage with these raw ideas;
statements that are not definitive give others space and an invitation to
respond. Also, Ive found that sociologists tend to enjoy this type of inter-
action around raw and emergent ideas. The roughness around the edges
gives others some purchase to respond and encourages them to enter
into a dialogue about the limitations and inadequacies of the proposal.
This is engagement nonetheless, and we should embrace it rather than
fear that it might undermine our legitimacy as researchers. The result
is far more likely to be positive, with there being a sense of excitement
around these new ideas. If we engage in such a challenge together there
is also likely then to be a growing empathy for such a raw engagement
with the changing world, there will be a growing empathy for sociologists
who are trying to react to it. This type of sociological communication is
crucial in the maintenance of the discipline and in enabling us to speak
across disciplinary, social, and geographical boundaries.
The punk sociologist looks to communicate widely, with various audi-
ences, and the work they produce is direct and incisive, whilst still being
lively, nuanced, and layered. The stripped-back nature of the punk soci-
ologists work means that there are few barriers to communication with
audiences inside and outside of academia. Indeed, its instant form is
likely to attract audiences. Different types of writings might be used and
different forms of communication will enable this to occur. Sometimes
these will be short and punchy, the equivalent of the single in music, on
other occasions they will be album-length book works that are built out
of collections of punchy chapters and phrases, they might even take the
form of sociological gigs with lively talks and audio-visual stimulus. The
punk sociologist does not need a list of possibilities because they will
look to exploit the opportunities for communication that are available
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0008

52 Punk Sociology
and will respond to these opportunities. They will find ways around the
restrictions and limitations that are there, using the means and potentials
that the remediation of everyday life might bring. The punk sociologist
adapts their means of communication to suit the changing mediascape
and materials with which they are faced.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0008

6

Bold, Inventive, and the
Do-It-Yourself Ethic: The
Sociological Terrain
Abstract: This chapter continues to apply the punk ethos

to sociology. In this instance it focuses upon what might be
understood as the sociological terrain. These are the spaces
in which sociological research is conducted and devised. This
chapter argues that sociology needs to be bold and inventive.
It then shows how we might apply the do-it-yourself ethic of
the punk movement to sociological work.

Macmillan, 2014. doi: 10.1057/9781137371218.0009.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0009 53

54 Punk Sociology
Building upon the suggestions about knowledge formation and the

communication of ideas outlined in the previous two chapters, in this
chapter we can reflect upon what might be thought of as the socio-
logical terrain. This is the space in which we think, research, and act. In
Chapter 1 we discussed the impulse to play it safe, in this chapter Id like
to address this issue directly, by suggesting that we should aim to oper-
ate against such impulses by seeking to be bold in our engagements with
the social world. We need to take risks and to be outspoken on issues,

both as they happen and after periods of reflection and consideration.
This is not just because we want sociology to get some attention. The
punk sociologist is not really interested in sociology as a brand or in
using social issues to promote that brand. It is rather because the punk
sociologist wants to communicate and wants to make bold statements
about their ideas and about the changes and continuities that they are
observing. This is going to provide two types of inventiveness. First, the
punk sociologist will need to be inventive in the type of sociology that
they are doing, the type of questions they are asking, and the type of
ideas they wish to communicate. Second, the punk sociologist is going
to need to be inventive in responding to their conditions, in working
around the limitations of the austere neoliberal structures in which they
are operating, and in finding opportunities that counteract the limita-
tions of funding and powerful constraining norms and conventions.
One way forward is to reflect on the boldness and inventiveness of
punk, but more specifically we might look to take on the Do-It-Yourself
ethic of the punk movement.
Being bold though, in many respects, is to go against our training as
sociologists. Sociologists are often trained to be neutral and passive. We
are trained to work in sedentary ways. We are trained to make socio-
logical wallpaper. We are trained to find ways to blend ourselves into
existing established debates be they in substantive topics, methods,
theoretical schools, and so on. We are trained to find a pigeonhole or
hook for our work, and to stick with it. The problem is that the better
we are at being trained and giving the training, the more we blend in
together. This might create some nice pockets of coherence within the
discipline even if it actually fragments the discipline into incompatible
groupings (Abbot, 2001) but it actually draws us into the background
of the social world. I can see this in my own work, and Im happy to sug-
gest it as an example. When writing I tend to try to be considered and
reflective in my tone. I follow the dictum, which I assume is a product of
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0009

Bold, Inventive, and the Do-It-Yourself Ethic 55
the attempt to draw on an objectivist and scientific approach in order to

legitimize the discipline, be more neutral.
In the past I have accepted the comment given to me by the reviewer
of an article that I should make my writing less conversational. I had
a go. It occurred to me that this sort of statement is a mechanism for
attempting to make articles look the same, to make them look like they
belong together. So, in many ways we are having any boldness we might
possess trained out of us in the early stages of our careers; this is a pres-

sure that then continues even when a sociologist might be established in
the discipline. Ive tried to encourage my students to be bold. But they
already see it as risky, even in their undergraduate studies. They worry
about grades and the potential negative outcomes of being unconven-
tional which is understandable given the pressures that they are often
under. They ask, Are we allowed an opinion? I say, Of course you are,
just make sure you explain how youve arrived at it, show your work-
ing. Or I might explain the difference between having an opinion and
being opinionated. Even here Im actually being complicit in training the
boldness and inventiveness out of these students. The message is actually
loud and clear to sociologists at any stage of their career, be neutral and
mimic. This is not damaging in itself. But doesnt sociology need to be
aware of its own norms and regulative expectations? Part of being a punk
sociologist would be to spot such norms and to challenge and question
them, to play with them, and to subvert them. We can see instantly that
this is likely to evoke a good deal of fear, it is, after all, likely to be seen as
very risky. Alongside this it goes against our training, so we are neither
used to being bold nor have we been developing it as one of our skills. It
is not even a desired skill as things stand. There are of course some very
outspoken and bold sociologists and social scientists. Im not trying to
generalize too much here, Im actually over-exaggerating in the hope of
provoking a response (a tactic often used by punks). Perhaps we can try
to spot these bold and daring voices and learn from them.
The general problem is that if sociology is not bold and inventive, and
it does become the wallpaper of the social world, then who is going to
pay it any attention? How will it regenerate and renew itself? How will it
draw in students? The questions continue. The pursuit of boldness needs
to start with us acknowledging the unwritten rules of sociology and then
with us trying to play with them or work against them. We might work
on sidelining some of these expectations so that we can make bold state-
ments about our ideas. Although it seems risky, being bold and inventive
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0009

56 Punk Sociology
in our work is actually likely to be productive and positive. It will make

a sociological way of doing things into something that is relevant, edgy,
and exciting. This can only improve our position and help to circulate
our ideas.
Alongside boldness, we can see that the punk ethos promotes inventive-
ness. Ive combined inventiveness in this chapter with the Do-It-Yourself
ethic, which is the proactive and improvisational tendency in the punk
sensibility. The punks means of inventiveness was to react against domin-

ant ideas about music, art, and social conduct. The inventiveness of punk,
if we are to use that as a model to help us to be more inventive, came as
a product of stripping things back, crossing boundaries, and exploring
forms and styles that they were not comfortable or familiar with.
Given what I have said so far, it is probably not surprising if I conclude
that punk sociologists seek to adapt to a changing terrain and a changing
social world. This is not just to adapt what it is that they are saying and the
findings they are generating (i.e., telling stories about a changing world),
although this would ensure its ongoing relevance. It is also to change and
adapt some of their own practices in response to that changing world,
to keep their practices fresh, and to ensure that their own approach is
appropriate for seeing the terrain that they are attempting to study and
understand. It is not just the sociologists ideas that change in response to
the social world, the way that they do sociology should also adapt. Part
of developing an inventiveness in sociological work, and building upon
the inventive work that is already there, is to find new ways of generating
insights into the social world based upon the way that social connec-
tions, senses of difference, interactions, organizational structures, and
identities operate. One recent example of this is sometimes referred to as
digital sociology (Orton-Johnson & Prior, 2013; Lupton, 2012). Digital
sociology is a useful example because it not only attempts to research
the changing media infrastructures, media formats, and technological
re-working of everyday life, but also attempts to use these changes to
develop new insights, new methods, to work with new types of data
sources, and to take advantage of the new types of questions that can be
asked. Those interested in what is described as digital sociology are also
tending to use DIY means of communication, with social media outlets
such as Twitter and blogs being used to publish and disseminate ideas in
various stages of development. We perhaps have something here that is
suggestive of how this inventiveness and DIY ethic might be deployed.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0009

The DIY ethic in punk sociology is about finding ways to use the
opportunities that are out there to create insights (the new data that is
being captured through changing media for example, see Beer, 2013a),
to ask new questions, and to find new means of communication. The
punk fanzines mentioned in Chapters 2 and 5 can be seen as the epitome
of the do-it-yourself approach of punk, which we can imagine easily
translates into the use of social media. Ive discussed this a little already,
but creative DIY outlets might be forged out of new forms of decentral-

ized social media. We can work with individual or collectively authored
blogs, we can use outlets for publishing audio and video content (see
Chapter 5), and so on. In these media we can see how the terrain
develops and how our ideas circulate and become part of the terrain we
are analysing ideas, like other data, are much easier to track through
digital media. We can also think about how the digital by-product data
produced by these media might then create opportunities for sociologi-
cal insight and new types of methods.
I spoke a little about the changing university and the implications of
neoliberal austerity and measurement for academic practice in Chapter 1.
It is worth returning to this briefly to think about how this wider ter-
rain impacts upon the practice of the punk sociologist. We can start by
suggesting that the punk sociologist refuses to be held back by austerity,
although of course in reality this might be hard, particularly if jobs are
under threat. The punk sociologist uses the limitations of austerity to
find creativity, to motivate their nothing-to-lose attitude, and to embed
resistance and edginess in their outlook. They bounce off the restrictions
and respond with creative means. Sometimes these restrictions are based
upon a lack of funding or resources. Sometimes other material boundar-
ies that are part of austerity measures, such as systems of measurement
and audit, will come into play. Punk sociologists use this to fire their
radical edginess and as a challenge to make things work. Bold invent-
iveness is not just about how we conduct sociological investigation, it is
also about the way we develop the structure of the discipline against the
economic and social restrictions that might be placed upon us. We still
need to argue our case and to make claims for the increased funding of
sociology, but at the same time we need to find ways to make sociology
work in whatever conditions we find ourselves in. This is tricky, and the
answers will vary depending on the institutional and geographical con-
text in which we are operating.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0009

58 Punk Sociology
New media forms provide some opportunities for connecting and

finding new terrains to study, but we might also look back and think
about how old materials like paper and postal services might actually
attract attention to our work in an age of digital saturation. We might
find and create new ways of publishing or develop new types of events,
we might foster departmental and university-level initiatives that help us
to explore social questions in collaborative ways. The punk sociologist
might use some tried and tested formulas for doing these things, but we

might also try to develop some of our own. The punk sociologist might
co-opt unusual spaces and put on impromptu gigs or happenings, which
are publicized using whatever means of communication they think will
work best (letters, postcards, social media, posters, megaphones). We
might have a series of events around places of sociological interest. Or
we might adapt our university spaces to make them work for us, redec-
orating them with artworks, and giving them soundtracks. Breaking with
conventional delivery patterns and scheduling and seeing what happens.
The punk sociologist is unlikely to be too comfortable with the conveyor
belt of papers at academic conferences. A punk sociology event is more
likely to have increased space for collaborative discussion and critique,
to remove the barriers between speaker and audience, to be more impro-
visational in nature, to use cultural forms to open discussion, to be more
about the collective than the individual. We may even be uncomfortable,
as punks would be, with the superstar status that is sometimes conferred
on academics (the equivalent perhaps of the stadium rock star). Again
though we hit the barrier of the punk sensibility. We shouldnt be too
prescriptive in imagining where this might lead. Indeed, the punk soci-
ologist may wish to organize a seemingly conventional conference that
they then use to subvert mainstream ideas and to bring together and
expose clichs and provoke the tensions and clashes that reside at the
heart of the discipline. It is important that the punk sociologist is left to
imagine their own events and to design their terrain as they wish and in
response to the particular restrictions and limitations that they face.
This chapter follows on directly from the discussions of the previous
two chapters; it aimed to further cement the terrain in which we conduct
and configure sociology. It picks up on the issues relating to an openness
towards knowledge and the stripping back of forms of sociological com-
munication. These culminate in a call for a bold and inventive encounter
with the social world. This chapter suggests that sociologists need to
be bold, to be outspoken and daring, to take risks, and to, on occasion,
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0009

be audacious. The problem, as Steve Fuller (2009: 143) observes, is that

improvisation is a skill that goes unrewarded, if not actively despised
in academia. Improvisation is not necessarily the same as inventiveness,
but we can see how they might be correlate skills. Punk would often look
to improvise around formulas and patterns, so as to challenge them; this
was part of its inventiveness. So, as Fuller argues, perhaps one way of
honing inventiveness is to look to improvise and see what the products
are. They are likely to be inventive and experimental, and to have the

raw, stripped-back, and bold qualities of punk.
Being bold, though, does not mean adopting a reactionary approach
when responding to the social world although it might require us to be
more responsive. Rather, it is about having a sense of confidence in our
work that allows us to engage and speak out. Beyond this, though, it is
also a part of how sociology is performed. A key aspect of the boldness
and inventiveness of punk, as has been developed in Chapters 2 and 4, is
an eagerness to cross boundaries and to overcome conventional cultural
barriers. It is about trying new things. It is about exploring new ques-
tions and new possibilities. It is about digging up aspects of the social
world that get little attention (even when they are sometimes in the
mainstream). In short, punk was founded upon a bold approach towards
engaging in practices that the protagonists sometimes had restricted
or little knowledge of. It was about having a go. It was about taking on
issues or opportunities because they mattered or because they seemed
to be of value. This chapter calls for sociologists to follow this lead and
to have a go. It calls for sociologists to, on occasion, break with conven-
tions and to move into unfamiliar analytical territory. This will keep the
discipline vibrant and relevant. Sociology then, if sociologists are happy
to cross boundaries and analyse bits of the social world that they know
little about, will respond to a greater variety of aspects of the social. Punk
sociology is keen to explore new things, even those things that sociolo-
gists themselves might know little about.
The outcome of punk sociologys bold, stripped-back approach is that
sociology will seem accessible and closer to the social world. It will erode
the distance that sociologists sometimes get as a consequence of both
their own self-exile and the limited media exposure that they often have.
We want sociology and its ideas to be at the forefront of debates on the
social world, and we want potential students and future academics to be
drawn in by sociologys responsiveness and excitement. In short, bold-
ness, inventiveness, and the DIY ethic will give the sense that sociology is
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0009

60 Punk Sociology
not an exclusive club, but it is instead a space in which different types of

people might speak in sociological terms about the world they encoun-
ter. Anyone can be a DIY sociologist. This is not something we should be
afraid of in fact if we look at popular culture there are already lots of
DIY sociologists out there (Beer & Burrows, 2010) it does not under-
mine our position. Rather, this tacit and widespread interest in vernacu-
lar sociology (Beer & Burrows, 2007, 2010) is a positive thing; it shows a
widespread sociological tendency, a broad interest in sociological issues,

and therefore it demonstrates that sociology is of interest to people. We
can join in and be part of this, but only if we do not feel threatened by
this observation or scared of the way it might erode or own jurisdic-
tion. In fact this is already happening, lots of people are talking about
the social world, if we ignore this then we might have a problem. The
better option would be to understand what is being said and to join in.
This is to open up the sociological terrain and to enter into critical and
reflective dialogue with these visions of the social world. Opening up
the sociological terrain in this way, making it seem closer to the social
world, engaging with DIY sociologists, and being bold, and doing some
DIY ourselves will create a sense of possible involvement that is likely
to lead to a wider engagement with sociology and its ideas. Adopting
the boldness, inventiveness, and DIY ethic of punk will not only expand
sociologys repertoire and terrain, it will also, as a by-product, make the
discipline seem more approachable and enticing to those who are cur-
rently understood to be outsiders.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0009

7

Conclusion: The Limits
of Punk Sociology and a
Glimpse into Its Future
Abstract: This closing chapter returns to the problems faced

by sociology today. It argues that it is crucial that sociologists
do not opt to play it safe. Instead it argues that we need to find
ways to revitalize the discipline and to make it both exciting
and vibrant. The chapter provides an overview of the punk
sociology project and also develops some of the limitations,
pathologies, and problems that punk sociology might face.

Macmillan, 2014. doi: 10.1057/9781137371218.0010.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0010 61

62 Punk Sociology
Perhaps the overriding message of this book, even though it may have
remained fairly implicit within the previous chapters, is that sociology
cannot afford to be reserved, conservative, or timid. We need to retain
our modesty and grounding, yet we should also aim to be outspoken,
provocative, and confident. As I described in the opening chapter, it looks
like sociology will increasingly be operating in the marketized economies
of neoliberalism this is actually already an ongoing process in most
places. We cant dwell around bemoaning our luck. We need to respond.

More than this, we need to respond on our own terms. The context in
which sociology is being performed is likely to draw us towards forms
of sociology that play it safe. If we are not careful we might start trying
to do sociology to suit the systems of measurement that are already an
established part of the university data assemblage (see Burrows, 2012).
The problem is that playing it safe will actually lead us to the opposite
of its intentions. If we are not careful then the growing impulse to play
it safe will become pathological and destructive. Sociology will become
timid and irrelevant, it wont capture the attention and imagination of
prospective students nor will it attract public interest and reaction.
This, ultimately, will not be good for sociology. My suggestion is that we
fight the impulse to play it safe and instead we take the challenge head
on. The way to ensure that the strength of sociology is maintained and
maybe even honed is to manufacture a sense of confidence and assert-
iveness. My suggestion here is that we turn to the punk ethos to do this.
But this is only the start. It represents one strand of a larger project: the
project of re-imagining sociology. The combination of a sense of uncer-
tainty and even perpetual crisis in the discipline of sociology with
a changing social, organizational, and economic climate is sure to raise
some serious difficulties. We need to react and we need to find a way to
sustain sociology through such difficulties. One way to do this, maybe
the only way, is to try to make sociology as engaging, invigorating, and
lively as possible.
In the opening chapter of this book I offered some reflections on recent
work that attempts to project us into the future of sociology. In this
opening chapter I showed how there was a growing sense that sociology
needed to return to the promise and craft of sociology. The sense was
that what is needed is an attempt to cultivate a sense of inventiveness,
liveliness, creativity, and imagination in sociology. The problem, I sug-
gested, is how we might do this. How can we be creative and imaginative?
Where might we get the inspiration for rethinking our craft? The answer
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0010

Conclusion 63
I have given here is that we might look outside sociology and maybe
even outside of academic forms of knowledge. The suggestion has been
that we might turn to cultural resources to rethink the communicative,
conceptual, and methodological repertoire of sociology (and the social
sciences). Clearly, in this instance the resources have been very specific.
I have attempted to use such an approach to develop a punk sociology.
We need not stop here. Punk sociology is a strong contender for a re-
imagined sociology, at least in my view, but there are many others.

Id like to conclude with some closing thoughts on punk sociology
and by providing a small glimpse into its potential futures. The chapters
themselves have mapped this out in a bit more detail, but let me offer
two things in this conclusion. First, I will reflect on some of the features
of punk sociology (perhaps we can call it Punk Soc) and provide some
closing tangents on where this might lead. Then, second, Id like to pro-
vide some thoughts on the potential pathology of the punk ethos and the
possible pitfalls and dangers that we might want to take into consider-
ation should the reader wish to be a punk sociologist.
Punk sociology and its possible futures
In some ways it is not really appropriate to imagine what the future of

punk sociology might be. The idea is that it requires an active and lively
sociologist who finds ways of making the most of the opportunities
provided by the context and environment in which they are working.
As such, and in keeping with the punk ethos, it was always the inten-
tion to leave the future of punk sociology open to the reader. Again, Im
returned to the tensions that are created as I try to balance the punks
discomfort with labels and the need for some clarity over the project.
Hopefully the chapters in the second half of this book provide enough
guidance to instigate the beginnings of a punk sociology, but I hope that
they are not restrictive in their suggestions. In imagining the future of
sociology, as the author of a book who is trying to endorse the approach,
Im inevitably going to envision a set of utopian outcomes. I think
though that the core issue pertains, sociology needs to avoid playing it
safe, even if it is being encouraged to do so by the structures in which it
is working. The way forward is not to quietly wither on the vine, but to
resist this temptation and to adopt the kind of sensibility of the punk.
This will seem like a risk, but will actually prove to be a step towards a
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0010

64 Punk Sociology
vibrant future for sociology. If we try to play it safe and we try to adhere
to systems of measurement and the like, we will actually be undermin-
ing our own position. It will feel like we are doing the right thing, but
it will actually cause sociology to slowly ebb away. Playing it safe will
be counter-productive. We need a bold response that belies our sense of
uncertainty. A sense of self-awareness is a good thing, and is necessary if
the punk sociologist aims to question the constraining norms within the
discipline, but it is important that it does not become inhibitive. As The

Smiths once sang, shyness and coyness are good, but they can stop you
from doing the things you want to.
In thinking about developing the future of punk sociology, and think-
ing about how it might fit into the discipline more broadly, we can reflect
back upon the key features raised in the previous chapters. I dont really
want to spend too much time reiterating these points in this conclusion;
Im hoping they are laid out concisely enough in the previous chapters
for this not to be necessary. The previous chapters provided some
thoughts on how sociologys knowledge, communication, and terrain
may be re-worked in order to align it with a punk ethos. Of course, the
punk ethos itself is based around a contested set of characteristics, yet
the core features tend to repeat themselves. It was these core features
that we focused on; I suspect though that there is likely to be further
value in mining some of the nuances of punk and using some of the
more obscure and contested features of the movement, but we can leave
that for future consideration.
In reframing sociological knowledge, communication, and terrain, we
found a series of issues that might provide the hooks for such a project.
Underpinning these lurks the sense that punk is about playing with
and questioning received and established versions and accounts of the
world, that it likes to challenge and transcend barriers and boundaries,
and that it relishes a critical engagement with any fixed and intransi-
gent ideological or material obstacles. Alongside this we saw the need
to undermine and subvert hierarchies and cultural orderings and an
attempt to find ways of contravening norms and conventions. This was
not necessarily just for the fun that comes with iconoclasm and being
awkward, the suggestion was that this approach also allowed new types
of questions and new ideas to emerge, once such constraints and barri-
ers had been removed. The chapters attempted to show how this works
across a range of registers, which in turn aimed to show that the punk
sociology project is about not just the topics we explore, but also how
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0010

Conclusion 65
we go about researching, writing, disseminating, and sharing our ideas.

The idea of punk sociology is that it seeps into all aspects of the practice
of sociology. As I have described in this book, the punk sociologist is
relativistic, open, and eclectic in their formation and use of knowledge
and resources. The way the punk sociologist communicates their ideas
is raw, stripped back, and fearless. The punk sociologist is keen to find
new avenues of communication and to use them to experiment and
try out new ideas. And, finally, the punk sociologist is keen to expand

and adapt the terrain that they study. The punk sociologist is bold and
inventive in thinking of the terrain they cover and they deploy a Do-It-
Yourself ethic to tear open the possibilities and potentials in that ter-
rain. Together these provide some structure for punk sociology without
limiting, constraining, or restricting its future. This book is intended as
an ethos or sensibility of punk sociology rather than a schema or set of
rules (which would go against the objectives of the project itself). The
way that the features of a punk sociology will play out in the coming
years is, of course, up to the reader.
The pathology of the punk ethos...a warning to

potential punk sociologists
If you have read this far you may have spotted something of an irony at
the heart of this book. Given that the original punk movement was so
short-lived and so self-destructive, the suggestion here that a punk ethos
might lead to a vibrant and sustainable future for sociology might be
seen to be a bit of a strange claim. Indeed, it is. Yet, the point this book
makes is not about the punk movement itself but about its ethos. It is rea-
sonable to conclude that the punk ethos has had much greater cultural
reach that the original music scene. The original scene expanded rapidly
and died quite quickly. As has been shown by Nick Crossley (2009),
the social network that represented the punk movement was originally
very dense, with lots of social connections. As such it was coherent and
the ideas central to the emergent punk ethos could easily pass between
a small group of defining actors. As the network expanded, it became
more unwieldy and the coherence lagged. We could easily disregard this
as being a problem of ego, the usurping of cultural trends, or maybe
even the classic catch-all complaint of musical differences. Nevertheless,
this apparent ephemerality is a problem that needs some consideration.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0010

66 Punk Sociology
Indeed, in considering the problems that punk has faced, we might be

able to refine its ethos so as to enable punk sociology to avoid some of
these pitfalls.
In some ways the punk ethos might be seen to be pathological. The
presence of iconoclasm raises one such set of concerns. Iconoclasm is
usually pointed outwards, towards dominant voices and people. However,
it rests as a benign presence waiting to turn inwards. As the profile of
certain punks increases, so they are opened up to the iconoclasm of the

punk ethos. In some ways this is healthy, but it is a pathological tendency
within the punk ethos that the punk sociologist may wish to consider.
Similarly the eclecticism of punk can become a problem. How can the
punk ethos be coherent if those living by it are drawing from so many
different cultural resources? The problem here is that punk can mean so
many different things as a direct product of its desire to avoid labels and
to be unpredictable in its reference points. Can we really have a coherent
punk sociology movement? Do we really want one? The punk sociologist
will celebrate diversity in the discipline diversity allows different ques-
tions and different answers and so the aim is not to create a coherent
unified discipline. Punk sociologists might use the punk ethos but take it
in almost unrecognizable directions. If we go back to the music, then we
might say that although the punk movement or scene itself only lasted
for months, the splintering of the ethos into post-punk and beyond has
lasted for decades. As such, punk sociology is not tied to the pathology
of the early punk scene, but is free to use the punk ethos to re-invent
and re-imagine itself continually. Whilst writing this Im imagining
some readers may already be moving on with thoughts of a post-punk
sociology, a new-wave sociology, a pop-punk sociology, a grunge soci-
ology, a cyberpunk sociology, and so on. The derivations are likely to be
innumerable.
Finally, perhaps the key pathological aspect of the punk ethos that
sociologists may be most concerned about relates to the vulnerability it
exposes in the protagonist. Being bold and fearless can come at a cost.
Reacting to the world and being mobile in the forms of analysis we offer,
as I have suggested in this book, comes with many difficulties. It might
expose the shortcomings of sociology, it might put on display the things
that we as individuals and as a group of researchers may not know very
much about. A punk sociology would not shy away from such questions
simply because it feels a little exposed. The problem is that this might
actually generate questions about our value, worth, and credibility. Risk
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0010

Conclusion 67
taking is a key component of the more pathological aspects of the punk

ethos. Again though, as I have outlined at the beginning of this chapter,
it is important for sociology to take some risks and to be provocative.
The fear of taking risks leads us back to the impulse to play it safe, which
I have already suggested is actually counter-productive. The desire to
stay safe actually has the potential to undermine the discipline in the
long run. In the large part our audiences will appreciate us taking a risk
in order to keep up with the social world, to remain relevant, and to be

responsive. The authenticity and credibility of sociology should be a
concern, but if these come to inhibit the research we do then it might
again have the opposite effect. Clearly though, this is a feature of the
punk ethos that we might want to be wary of. The objective of punk
sociology is not to undermine sociology itself, or to erode is legitimacy
or credibility. Its aims need not clash with a desire to be credible, its just
that it doesnt foreground or give much thought to such concerns. Again
though, the punk sociologist will need to consider this possibility with-
out letting it dominate their creative edge.
A final note relating to this is that punk sociology should not be read
as a need to simply speed up and be more responsive. In some cases
this may be necessary, but we also need to protect long-term, careful,
and meticulous work (such as editing, translation, longitudinal studies,
reflective pieces of synthesis, retrospective books, historical and docu-
mentary studies, secondary analysis, contextual readings of conceptual
ideas, reviewing, and the like). In fact, this type of work is more likely
to be defended if we are to take on a more punk sensibility. This type
of work is increasingly likely to be tantamount to an act of resistance or
rebellion that goes against the grain of the systems of measurement of
academic worth or value. Punk sociologists, by not playing it safe and
by not being dominated by such systems, are likely to actually maintain
the diversity of approaches in the discipline and to add new avenues and
perspectives to supplement them.
Ive only just begun to touch the surface of the pathological aspects of
the punk ethos. We might only begin to see these features play out as we
start to negotiate the punk sociology project. The punk ethos, in many
ways like punk itself, will need to be reflexive and self-aware. This book
is not an attempt to say that we should all become punk sociologists
without pausing for second thought. Rather the punk sociology project
sits in these pages as a resource for readers to call upon and respond to.
The suggestion here is that there are some aspects of punk that we need
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0010

68 Punk Sociology
to be wary of, and that punk sociology needs to be cautious in limiting

some of the more pathological aspects of the punk ethos.
Closing thoughts
This book should not really be read as a blueprint for a punk sociology.
It is not a how to guide for the punk sociologist. Rather, this book is an

attempt to respond to calls for a re-imagined and re-invigorated soci-
ology that faces up to its contemporary challenges. It is not about nostal-
gia for a punk era. This is a book about the future of sociology and what
that future might hold. If we want to be creative and imaginative then we
might need some help, we might need some resources that will suggest
to us how to be creative and imaginative. The vision of punk sociology
I have outlined here is intended to provide one account of a potential
sociology, a sociology that hopefully has some promise. I expect though
that this is a vision that the reader may not wish to wholly adopt. It may
be that the reader wishes to adopt only some aspects of the punk ethos.
It may be that the reader wishes to create an assemblage of different
resources to re-imagine sociology. Perhaps the reader even wishes to
react against the idea of a punk sociology or reject it altogether. As such
the book is not intended to be prescriptive. It is not a prescription for
an ailing sociologist. This book is something for the reader to bounce
against, to use as a resource. It is more of a provocation than a guide or
set of rules.
The real question this book is asking concerns what we want sociology
to be. What type of sociology do we want to do? Where can sociology
go and how might it develop? And, perhaps most crucially, how can
sociology respond to a changing world and the particular analytical and
structural challenges it brings? The intention was simply to offer a start-
ing point for addressing these questions through a reconsideration of the
ethos that drives the discipline. In the same way that I have used punk
music, this book is a resource to think with rather than a set of answers.
However, in keeping with my attempt to use this book to demonstrate as
well as describe a punk sociology, let me say that the route to a successful
future for sociology is in a fostering a vibrant and vital discipline that
opens up and illuminates the social world. Sociology is exciting. It needs
to make sure that it finds ways of cultivating and communicating its
vibrancy so that the value of the discipline is clear to everyone. Sociology
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0010

Conclusion 69
needs to capture peoples imaginations; punk sociology, I suggest, would

do just that.
Im sure that many readers will already be engaging in some of the
activities and approaches I have placed under the punk sociology
umbrella. I hope this book provides a focal point and a source of encour-
agement for the continuation and expansion of such activities. Perhaps
the book will offer some new perspectives on these existing approaches
maybe if this book speaks to the way you do sociology then you are

already a punk sociologist. I hope though that in the large part this book
will be provocative and will help us to collectively reflect on the future
of sociology and the possibilities we may uncover. My hope is that it
will spark some debate and disagreement. A punk sociologist would not
expect everyone to agree with their vision; they are more likely to try
to divide opinion. In fact, in many ways my attempt to describe punk
sociology goes against the very ethos of a punk sociologist. It was felt
that some solid foundation was needed for people to react against, to
reshape, to adopt, and to resist. I also suspect that readers will see new
ways to apply the punk ethos to sociology, many of which I may have
missed or overlooked in the second half of this book. My aim was to strip
back the discussion of punk sociology and, as such, Im sure that there
are additional applications and inspirations that a sociologist might take
from punk. This short book is an opening, a beginning for using this
particular cultural resource in re-imagining sociology, it is not meant to
be a definitive or all-encompassing statement on what punk sociology
might mean. In keeping with punk itself, there is plenty of scope for
individuals to develop their own interpretations and applications of the
punk sociology project.
Overall, my suggestion here has been that punk sociology might
answer the calls for a renewed engagement with Mills promise of soci-
ology. Punk sociology presents us with new opportunities for developing
a successful future for the discipline. Not all sociology should be punk,
instead we might aim for diversity in the discipline and we might con-
jure up a series of imagined futures. We might develop different types
of sociologies that work together, that contrast and that might feed into
one another in their competing visions of the social world. Perhaps the
key question this book suggests concerns what it will mean to pursue a
punk sociology within the context of neoliberalism and the other con-
temporary circumstances in which we find ourselves. My argument here
is that such a bold and positive move is needed to protect sociology, and
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0010

70 Punk Sociology
to maintain the discipline as a critical space for thinking about the social
world. It is crucial to cultivate the vibrancy of sociology and to make
its ideas and approaches attractive to future generations and to diverse
audiences. Punk sociology, it is suggested, provides one opportunity for
developing a response in a time of uncertainty.
A very short postscript...

During the writing of this book Ive been asked a few times for some
examples of sociologists who might be considered to be punk sociolo-
gists. Ive shied away from answering this question. I decided quite early
on in the writing process that I didnt want to provide a direct answer to
this question. I decided that the best thing to do, the most punk soci-
ology thing to do, is to leave it to the reader to decide on an answer.
As such, Ill leave it to the reader to think about who might already be
a punk sociologist. Ill also leave it to you to consider the possibility of
becoming one yourself.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0010

References

Abbott, A. (2001) The Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Abbott, A. (2006) Reconceptualizing knowledge
accumulation in the social sciences, The American
Sociologist 37(2): 5766.
Abbott, A. (2007) Against narrative: A preface to lyrical
sociology, Sociological Theory 25(1) 6799.
Adkins, L. and Lury, C. (eds) (2009) What is the
empirical?, European Journal of Social Theory 12(1):
5187.
Adkins, L. and Lury, C. (eds) (2012) Measure and Value.
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Alsayyad, N. (2006) Cinematic Urbanism: A History of the
Modern from Reel to Real. London: Routledge.
Back, L. (2012) Live sociology: Social research and its
futures, Sociological Review 60(S1): 1839.
Back, L. and Puwar, N. (eds) (2012) Live Methods. Oxford:
Wiley Blackwell.
Bauman, Z. (2011) Collateral Damage: Social Inequalities in
a Global Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Becker, H.S. (1986) Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start
and Finish your Thesis, Book or Article. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Becker, H.S. (2007) Telling about Society. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Beer, D. (2012) Open access and academic publishing:
Some lessons from music culture, Political Geography
31(8): 479480.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0011 71

72 References
Beer, D. (2013a) Popular Culture and New Media: The Politics of Circulation.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Beer, D. (2013b) Public geography and the politics of circulation,
Dialogues in Human Geography 3(1): 9295.
Beer, D. (2013c) Academic knowledge and the politics of circulation,
LSE Impact in the Social Sciences Blog, 29 July 2013, http://blogs.lse.
ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/07/29/academic-knowledge-and-
the-politics-of-circulation/ (accessed 11 September 2013).

Beer, D. (2014) Hip-hop as urban and regional research: Encountering
an insiders ethnography of city life, International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, forthcoming.
Beer, D. and Burrows, R. (2007) Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0:
Some initial considerations, Sociological Research Online 12(5): http://
www.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html
Beer, D. and Burrows, R. (2010) The sociological imagination as
popular culture, in, Burnett, J., Jeffers, S. and Thomas, G. (eds)
New Social Connections: Sociologys Subjects and Objects. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 233252.
Brenner, N., Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2010) Variegated
neoliberalization: Geographies, modalities, pathways, Global
Networks 10(2): 182222.
Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002) Cities and the geographies of
actually existing neoliberalism, in, Brenner, N. and Theodore, N.
(eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and
Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 232.
Brown, R.H. (1977) A Poetic for Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Burawoy, M. (2005) For public sociology, American Sociological Review
70(1): 428.
Burrows, R. (2012) Living with the h-index? Metric assemblage in the
contemporary academy, Sociological Review 60(2): 355372.
Burnett, J., Jeffers, S. and Thomas, G. (eds) (2010) New Social
Connections: Sociologys Subjects and Objects. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Carlin, A.P. (2010) The corpus status of literature in teaching sociology:
Novels as sociological reconstruction, American Sociologist 41(2):
21131.
Clawson, D., Zussman, R., Misra, J., Gerstel, N., Stokes, R., Anderton,
D.L. and Burawoy, M. (eds) (2007) Public Sociology: Fifteen Eminent
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0011

References 73
Sociologists Debate Politics and the Profession in the Twenty-First Century.

California: University of California Press.
Crampton, J. (2009) Cartography: Maps 2.0, Progress in Human
Geography 33(1): 91100.
Crossley, N. (2009) Pretty connected: The social network of the early
UK punk movement, Theory, Culture & Society 25(6): 89116.
Daniels, S., DeLyser, D., Entrikin, N. and Richardson, D. (eds) (2011)
Envisioning Landscape, Making Worlds: Geography and the Humanities.

London: Routledge.
Diken, B. (2005) City of God, City 9(3): 30720.
Dowling, R. (2008) Geographies of identity: Labouring in the
neoliberal university, Progress in Human Geography 32(6): 812820.
Fraser, M. (2009) Experiencing sociology, European Journal of Social
Theory 12(1): 6381.
Fuller, S. (2006) The New Sociological Imagination. London: Sage.
Fuller, S. (2009) The Sociology of Intellectual Life. London: Sage.
Gane, N. (2012a) Measure, value and the current crises of sociology,
Sociological Review 59(s2): 151173.
Gane, N. (2012b) The governmentalities of neoliberalism: Panopticism,
post-panopticism and beyond, Sociological Review 60(4): 611634.
Gane, N. and Back, L. (2012) C. Wright Mills 50 years on: The promise
and craft of sociology revisited, Theory, Culture & Society 29(78):
399421.
Gill, R. (2010) Breaking the silence: the hidden injuries of the neoliberal
university, in, Ryan-Flood, R. and Gill, R. (eds) Secrecy and Silence in
the Research Process: Feminist Reflections. London: Routledge.
pp. 228244.
Gregg, M. and Wilson, J. (2010) Underbelly, true crime and the cultural
economy of infamy, Continuum 24(3): 41127.
Gray, M. (2001) The Clash: Return of the Last Gang in Town. London:
Helter Skelter Publishing.
Halsey, J.H. (2004) A History of Sociology in Britain: Science, Literature,
and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hebdige, D. (1979) Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge.
Holmwood, J. (2010) Sociologys misfortune: Disciplines,
interdisciplinarity and the impact of audit culture, British Journal of
Sociology 61(4): 639658.
Holmwood, J. and Bhambra, G.K. (2012) The attack on education as a
social right, The South Atlantic Quarterly 111(2): 392401.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0011

74 References
Holmwood, J. and Scott, S. (eds) (2007) Sociology and its public

face(s), Sociology 41(5): 779975.
Kugelberg, J. (2012) On punk: An aesthetic, in Kugelberg, J. and Savage,
J. (eds) Punk: An Aesthetic. New York: Rizzoli. pp. 4346.
Kugelberg, J. and Savage, J. (2012) A punk etymology, in Kugelberg, J.
and Savage, J. (eds) Punk: An Aesthetic. New York: Rizzoli.
pp. 348351.
Law, J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York:

Routledge.
Lewis, D., Rodgers, D. and Woolcock, M. (2008) The fiction of
development: Literary representation as a source of authoritative
knowledge, Journal of Development Studies 44(2): 198216.
Lupton, D. (2012) Digital sociology: An introduction, Sydney:
University of Sydney. Available at http://ses.library.usyd.edu.
au/bitstream/2123/8621/2/Digital%20Sociology.pdf (accessed 10
September 2013).
Lury, C. and Wakeford, N. (eds) (2012a) Inventive Methods: The
Happening of the Social. London: Routledge.
Lury, C. and Wakeford, N. (2012b) Introduction: A perpetual inventory,
in, Lury, C. and Wakeford, N. (eds) (2012a) Inventive Methods: The
Happening of the Social. London: Routledge. pp. 124.
Maconie, S. (2013) The Peoples Songs: The Story of Modern Britain in 50
Records. London: Ebury Press.
Martin, D. (2010) A poetic urbanism, City 14(5): 587591.
Mills, C.W. (1959) The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mills, C.W. (2008a) IBM plus reality plus humanism = Sociology, in
Summers J.H. (ed) The Politics of Truth: Selected Writings of C. Wright
Mills. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 7986.
Mills, C.W. (2008b) Thorstein Veblen, in Summers, J.H. (ed) The
Politics of Truth: Selected Writings of C. Wright Mills. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. pp. 6378.
OHara, C. (1999) The Philosophy of Punk: More than Noise. London: AK
Press.
Orton-Johnson, K. and Prior, N. (eds) (2013) Digital Sociology: Critical
Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Osborne, T., Rose, N. and Savage, M. (2008) Reinscribing British
sociology: Some critical reflections, Sociological Review 56(4):
519534.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0011

References 75
Penfold-Mounce, R., Beer, D. and Burrows, R. (2011) The Wire as social

science-fiction?, Sociology 45(1): 152167.
Puwar, N. and Sharma, S. (2012) Curating sociology, Sociological Review
60(S1): 4063.
Renwick, C (2012) British Sociologys Lost Biological Roots: A History of
Futures Past. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Reynolds, S. (2011) Retromania: Pop Cultures Addiction to its Own Past.
London: Faber and Faber.

Robb, J. (2006) Punk Rock: An Oral History. London: Ebury Press.
Ruppert, E., Law, J. and Savage, M. (eds) (2013) The social life of
methods, Theory, Culture & Society 30(4): 3177.
Savage, J. (1991) Englands Dreaming: Sex Pistols and Punk Rock. London:
Faber and Faber.
Savage, J. (1996) Time Travel: Pop, Media and Sexuality 19761996. London:
Chatto & Windus.
Savage, J. (2012) A Punk Aesthetic, in Kugelberg, J. and Savage, J. (eds)
Punk: An Aesthetic. New York: Rizzoli. pp. 146149.
Savage, M. (2010) Identities and Social Change in Britain since 1940: The
Politics of Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Savage, M. and Burrows, R. (2007) The coming crisis of empirical
sociology, Sociology 41(5): 885899.
Sinha, S. and Back, L. (2013) Making methods sociable: Dialogue,
authorship and ethics in qualitative research, Qualitative Research,
online first (accessed 5 August 2013), DOI: 10.1177/1468794113490717.
Stinchcombe, A. (1994) Disintegrated disciplines and the future of
sociology, Sociological Forum 9(2): 279291.
Taylor, P. (2008) Literatures power and fury in the virtual age,
Information, Communication & Society 11(6): 741748.
Wernick, A. (2006) University, Theory, Culture & Society 23(23):
557563.
Whelan, A., Walker, R. and Moore, C. (eds) (2013) Zombies in the
Academy: Living Death in Higher Education. Bristol: Intellect.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0011

Index

Abbott, A., 3, 8, 32 discipline, viiix, 29, 11, 13,
academy, 2, 38, 47 1517, 3234, 37, 39, 41, 45,
Adkins, L., 78, 10 51, 5455, 5770
Alsayyad, N., 32 Dowling, R., 14
artists, 9, 2425, 27, 37
audit, 5, 1415, 57 empirical, 910, 44
empiricism, 44
Back, L., 810, 40
Bauman, Z., 44 fanzine, 20, 2325, 49, 57
Becker, H.S., 3, 3233, 3637, fashion, 23, 38
42, 4748 Fraser, M., 8
Bhambra, G., 15 Fuller, S., 3, 7, 59
Brenner, N., 1314 future, 210, 13, 1618, 27,
Brown, R.H., 32 5965, 6871, 75
Burawoy, M., 7
Burrows, R., 4, 7, 1415, 33, 37, Gane, N., 8, 13, 44
60, 62 Gill, R., 1415
graphic, 1920, 28, 3738, 40,
Carlin, A.P., 32 51, 57
concept, 8, 1314, 17, 20, 41, 42, Gray, M., 24, 27
63, 67 Gregg, M., 32
Clash, The, 24, 26, 47
craft, 5, 810, 12, 29, 3233, 62 Halsey, J.H., 7
Crampton, J., 32 Hebdige, D., 21, 2327
creative, 4, 69, 1213, 1617, Holmwood, J., 3, 7, 13, 15, 40,
26, 2829, 32, 47, 4950, 49
57, 62, 6768
crises, 5 imagination, ix, 39, 12, 1516,
crisis, 34, 78, 12, 17, 62 3233, 37, 39, 45, 62, 69
Crossley, N., 34, 65 inhibit, 34, 10, 28, 46, 64, 67
inventive, 2, 7, 1013, 28, 32, 34,
data, 5, 9, 1516, 38, 49, 5657, 5360, 62, 65
62
Diken, B., 32 Kugelberg, J., 21, 25
76 DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0012

Index 77
Law, J., 40, 49 risk, 11, 41, 4748, 5455, 58, 63, 6667
live sociology, 9 Robb, J., 21, 2327
Lupton, D., 56 Rotten, J., ix, 21
Lury, C., 78, 1012 Ruppert, E., 78
Lydon, J., ix, 21
safe, 4, 6, 15, 26, 28, 45, 48, 54, 6164, 67
Maconie, S., 20, 22 Savage, J., 2023, 25, 27
market, 1316, 62 Savage, M., 78, 11, 4041
Martin, D., 32 Scott, S., 40, 49

McLaren, M., viii, 48 Sex Pistols, 22, 24
measure, 8, 1216, 57, 62, 64, 67 Sinha, S., 40
method, 812, 42, 4445, 54, 5657, 63 social media, 9, 26, 3233, 37, 4849,
Mills, C.W., 3, 5, 78, 3233, 37, 4445, 5658
69 sociological imagination, ix, 3, 5, 89,
music, 9, 2027, 3233, 4647, 51, 56, 15, 32, 37, 39, 45
6566, 68 sound, 10, 20, 23, 25, 58
Stinchcombe, A., 3
OHara, C., 2123, 2627, 40 Styrene, P., 25
Orton-Johnson, K., 8, 56 Slits, The, 27, 46
Osborne, T., 33, 37
Theodore, N., 1314
Peck, J., 14 theory, 13, 44
practice, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 20, 2425,
27, 4144, 4950, 5657, 59, 65 uncertainty, ix, 24, 67, 12, 17, 64
Prior, N., 8, 56 university, 5, 1315, 5758, 62
promise, 3, 5, 8, 10, 1213, 17, 32, 62,
6869 value, 58, 1516, 22, 27, 33, 3637, 39,
public, 5, 14, 25, 40, 4750, 58, 62 4142, 46, 48, 59, 64, 6668
Puwar, N., 9
Wakeford, N., 1012
rebellion, 2023 Wilson, J., 32
resistance, 6, 23, 57, 67 writing, 8, 13, 4748, 5051, 5455,
Reynolds, S., 22, 24, 27 6566
DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0012

Beer, David - Punk Sociology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beer, David - Punk Sociology

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

Beer, David - Punk Sociology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about based on the information provided?

What is the book about based on the information provided?

What other books are mentioned in the document text?

What other books are mentioned in the document text?

Punk Sociology

Please respect intellectual property rights

10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-10-07

10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-10-07

10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-10-07

Preface and Playlist viii

Part I The Background

1 Introduction: Sociology, Uncertainty, and

2 The Punk Ethos 19

Part II Towards a Punk Sociology

3 From a Punk Ethos to a Punk Sociology 31

4 Relativistic, Open, and Eclectic:

5 Raw, Stripped Back, and Fearless:

6 Bold, Inventive, and the Do-It-Yourself

7 Conclusion: The Limits of Punk Sociology

10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-10-07

DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0002 vii

10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-10-07

viii DOI: 10.1057/9781137371218.0003

10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-10-07

10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

It would seem, if potentially only in jest, that Johnny Rotten is prepared

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-10-07

10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

A playlist to accompany Chapter 2 of this book:

I wanna be your dog The Stooges

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-10-07

10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

10.1057/9781137371218 - Punk Sociology, David Beer

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to McGill University - PalgraveConnect - 2014-10-07

Abstract: This chapter focuses upon the disciplinary and