Dutch Punk Lives: Contesting Subcultural Boundaries

Part of the Palgrave Studies in the History of Subcultures and Popular Music book series (PSHSPM)


This chapter draws together the themes and arguments of the book as a whole. It charts the changing meanings of punk over the last 40 years in The Netherlands, and how punk has operated politically and geographically. Most notably, this chapter stresses the importance of understanding the messiness and connectedness of social world; dismantling the boundaries of subculture and its practice, destabilising geographical and spatial boundaries, and disrupting narrow definitions of political engagement. It challenges future researchers to always question the boundaries and limitations created both by society and by research conventions.


Dutch punk Messiness in social research Connectedness Challenging boundaries 


  1. Bennett, A. 2011. The Post-subcultural Turn: Some Reflections 10 years on. Journal of Youth Studies 14 (5): 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collins, P.H. [1991] 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Corrigan, P., and S. Frith. [1975] 2006. The Politics of Youth Culture. In Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-war Britain, 2nd ed, ed. S. Hall and T. Jefferson, 231–242. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. [1987] 2003. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  5. Giddens, A. 1994. Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hannerz, U. 1992. Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hebdige, D. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Phillipov, M. 2006. Haunted by the Spirit of ’77: Punk Studies and the Persistence of Politics. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 20 (3): 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pilkington, H., and E. Omel’chenko. 2013. Regrounding Youth Cultural Theory (In Post Socialist Youth Cultural Practice). Sociology Compass 7 (3): 208–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rimbaud, P. 2011. Rottenbeat: Academic and Musical Dialogue With New Russian Punk Workshop, London, 4 May. Quoted in H Pilkington, Punk—But Not As We Know It: Punk in Post-Socialist Space. Punk & Post-Punk, 1 (3): 253–266.Google Scholar
  11. Shields, R. 1991. Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Thompson, E.P. [1963] 1980. The Making of the English Working Class. London: Gollancz.Google Scholar
  13. Tsitsos, W. 1999. Rules of Rebellion: Slamdancing, Moshing, and the American Alternative Scene. Popular Music 18 (3): 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Widdicombe, S., and R. Wooffitt. 1990. “Being” Versus “Doing” Punk: On Achieving Authenticity as a Member. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9 (4): 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations