Aural History: Punk Gatekeeping and the Perpetual Game of Find the Poser

Since its inception, punk has been the musical poster child for inaccessibility, gatekeeping, and pretentious finger-pointing. This phenomenon has posed a long-term problem for the political motivations within the genre and the music itself. 

Written by Kaileen Rooks

Photo courtesy of Coventry Telegraph

Picture yourself in a sweaty, heady crowd of flailing teenage bodies, all clad head-to-toe in black and covered in spikes and safety pins, with hair skyrocketing to the ceiling. The band on stage, the MC5, are the forerunners of the recent counter-cultural movement. Lead Vocalist Rob Tyner howls into the microphone and the crowd surges, bumping and sliding against each other in a frenzied haze. Suddenly, the churning crowd of punks swells up and onto the stage, screaming about “sell-outs” and “posers,” smashing speakers, and attempting to attack the band. Pandemonium ensues as the rioters take over the venue, leaving only destruction and echoes of their accusations behind.  

Such chaos ensued when the MC5, a proto-punk giant, performed its NYC debut show at the Fillmore East, a famous rock and punk venue. The band’s performance was stopped when a riot broke out, begun by the leftist militant group “Up Against the Wall Motherfucker!” or “the Motherfuckers” for short. The proto-punks, like the MC5, were the bands and solo acts that pioneered what would become the punk genre. Including the likes of The Velvet Underground, Patti Smith, Iggy Pop, the New York Dolls, and the Sex Pistols, these bands paved the way for the genre with their outlandish styles, vulgar and radical lyrics, and wild performance styles. However, even as punk was born, it began to eat itself alive. The aforementioned riot is just one example of a truth that would come to be known all too well — Punk came with its own self-destruct button.  

What does it mean to be punk? It’s a seemingly eternal question that’s floated around pop culture consciousness since the 1970s. Some argue that punk ideology comes from a socioeconomic perspective, claiming that “real” punks can’t be rich and must encompass a DIY aesthetic. Others would purport that being a real punk is about hating the government and doing everything in one’s power to reject institutions. Some would even take the abstract approach, vaguely professing that punk is about “doing your own thing.” Indeed, there are so many definitions of what it means to be a “real” punk that it’s hard to differentiate where the debate began. 

Because of its ambiguous identity, punk has been subject to countless schisms and offshoots. Typically, each offshoot, like biopunks, cyber punks, crust punks, and the like, claims itself as the “real deal” or the “original” punks. All those deemed “fake” or “part-time” punks are referred to as “poseurs,” and each offshoot uses the term against the others. This endless finger-pointing coalesces into a full-scale authenticity war in the genre — one that’s been raging since punk’s beginning and continues with the modern inventions of pop-punk and post-punk music. This struggle for authenticity contributes to the exclusionary aspect of the subculture, which is especially problematic considering these distinctions of “who is allowed in” are usually drawn to exclude certain races, ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations. Exclusion within the punk genre is exactly what allowed for certain unsavory offshoots of the subculture to develop, like white power-skinheads and neo-Nazi fascists. Furthermore, it contributes to the continued failure of punk’s original political incentives. 

Punk’s intention was to introduce a musical revolution, and the political motivations tied to the music were equally revolutionary in form. Though there are nuances to the demographic of political beliefs within the subculture, punk politics are often characterized by anti-authoritarianism, anti-corporatism, individual liberty, and — ironically — direct action. Punk began as a cultural and musical revival in the 1970s, embracing the musical style of garage rock and the ideological beliefs of authenticity and individual freedom. Punk’s ethos is about challenging the status quo, and in its time, that status quo (not far off from now, either) was inherently discriminatory and exclusionary. Punk was supposed to be about creating something new that diverged from modern bigoted ideologies. 

The music of the ‘70s and ‘80s reflected these political motivations. Some of the foremost bands of this genre have political messages peppered throughout their discography. The most notable of these was The Clash, often associated with the beginning of radical leftist politics because of its music and actions. In “Career Opportunities” from its eponymous debut album, the band tirades against the monotonous jobs characteristic of a capitalist society. Later songs like “Clampdown” reflect similar sentiments, claiming, “It’s the best years of your life / They want to steal.” “Know Your Rights,” braced by rippling guitar riffs, criticizes the British  government and the police, making the brash statement that, “Murder is a crime / Unless it was done / By a policeman or an aristocrat.” 

Where the Clash differs from others, however, is its rejection of nihilism. Nihilistic anarchism was the motivation for almost all other prominent punk bands. This ethos revolved around the slogan “No Future,” taken from the Sex Pistols’ famous song, “God Save The Queen.” Functioning like a punk anthem, the song still has revolutionary implications, stating, “We’re the poison in your human machine.” To fully understand why punk failed as a revolution, it’s essential to factor in nihilism. While it might have been effective in rallying people around sentiment and garnering sales for the Sex Pistols, nihilism is entirely counterintuitive to creating direct action or mobilization. So, while the authenticity battle was the primary source of punk’s failure, it certainly wasn’t the only ingredient. 

Image courtesy of Ikaroots

The core of the problem is that punk was originally conceived with powerful political intentions in mind but has yet to be entirely successful in creating any actual motion due to the genre’s members’s distraction with this authenticity battle. At the same time, this struggle is integral to creating punk. It’s impossible to create any sort of grassroots mobilization when everyone involved is fixated on proving themselves as “real punk” or proving others as fake ones. What’s more, it makes it difficult to settle on a definition of what “punk” is when everyone seems to have a different definition in mind. With no defined “punk” there can be no “punk” revolution. Thus, while the genre may remain and the music may stick around, the subculture often falls into disrepair and the political motivations fall flat. 

The way to move forward is to stop this practice of incessant finger-pointing and to come to some sort of consensus on what defines punk. What punk should be is a genre and subculture organized around revolutionary action, freedom from authoritarianism, and open acceptance. This definition entails a celebration of modern punk acts, especially those that bring underrepresented voices to the forefront of the genre. It also necessitates an end to the use of the term “poser” and “sell-out,” at least when used in reference to those who simply think of punk differently. Essentially, it requires a reorientation of the subculture and a retracing back to punk’s roots, along with an open-door policy of acceptance and radical change.