Was the 1977 Punk Movement a typical youth subculture? To what degree did the
press play in creating a moral panic? The Punk Movement.  Where did it start? 
There are many differing opinions on this, but I believe the most accepted answer
is that it developed in London in 1976 from the American Rock`N`Roll Scene and
developed into the New Wave music of the 1980`s.  The businessman, Malcolm
McLaren, is widely credited with creating the movement.  He used his business
sense to promote a band he had put together; a band of four working-class youths
he called "The Sex Pistols".  The Sex Pistols started by playing in London clubs
where only "kids" were allowed in.  McLaren owned the shop "SEX" on King`s Road
in Chelsea, which sold bondage gear amongst other things.  The frontman of the
Sex Pistols, John Lydon, often wore these bondage clothes on stage which the fans
inevitably copied.  McLaren used to invite members of the press to these gigs,
and they were shocked at what went on.  The band could not keep in time with each
other and the fans were beating each other up.  Obviously, the press printed
this, exactly what McLaren wanted.  The Punk scene went nationwide, and then
worldwide.  McLaren claimed he had found "the politics of working-class boredom".
"I didn`t want fans of music, just kids who liked to dress up" McLaren In this
study, I want to try and establish two things: firstly, why the Punk scene become
so popular and was it ever a "subculture" in sociologocial terms?; secondly,
whether the punk scene was ever as bad as the mass media claimed and if there was
a moral panic. My expected results are that the punk movement fits the typical
model of a youth subculture; and that the mass media did, in fact, create a moral
panic. To aid me in my research, I have used many musical reference books and
interviewed 12 people who claim they were involved in the punk movement of 1977.

Methodology For this particular study, I think it is important that I keep
open-minded. I will use a interpretative methodology as I believe this best suits
my study.  Interpretative methodology uses qualitative data and rejects the
scientific approach.  Interactionalist theory relies on the belief that people
are social actors and have consciousness which allows them to experience the
world in terms of meanings.  Interactionalists believe that people do not react
passively to external stimuli.  Using Symbolic Interactionalist theory involves
observation, not rejecting causal relationships and not using statistical data. 
I have chosen this perspective beacuse is allows me to question the punks and get
their opinions which  I think are very important.  I don`t believe this study
could be done sufficiently using a positivist approach.  The methodology I have
chosen to use is widely accepted in the study of sociology although positivists
may question how reliable the data is with no statistics. This study will involve
a lot of objective and subjective (both are important to an Interactionalist)
observation.  It is not only important to study from a sociological point of
view, but from the position of the punks themselves.  This can be related to the
Weberian concept of "Verstehen" which means to understand and put yourself in the
social actors shoes. I will have to collect a lot of data for this study which
will come from two sources; firstly from musical reference books and secondly
from my interviews with the 1977 punks.  10 out of the 12 interviews were
conducted over the Internet. I posted a message onto the "Punk" newsgroup asking
for help with my study. 18 people responded of which 10 actually answered the
questions.  As more people in America have the Internet, it was only inevitable
that most of the respondents would be from the USA  This gave me an international
view for my study. The sociologist Herbert said in 1990 that respondents may not
be honest when answering questionnaires.  I found this criticism of
questionnaires applied directly to my study.  The answers from some respondents
were just "too good".  Some respondents gave me text books answers which I
couldn`t help feel that this wasn`t their opinion so much as something they had
read. Herbert also said that the data could be subject to researcher bias.  As
this is almost inevitable, I have tried my best not to interpret the data whilst
collecting it. The musical reference books are often written by people who have
very strong opinions on certain musical styles.  I have used this information but
realise that it may not be 100% accurate. I also watched "The Great Rock`N`Roll
Swindle" which is a film McLaren made to show the world how much money he made
from the Punk movement.  The film is largely a historical film about the birth
and the death of The Sex Pistols which seems to be mostly accurate and ties in
well with other references I have used.

Background to the study I am basing my study on Albert K. Cohen`s definition of a
subculture, and Stan Cohen`s "Folk Devils and Moral Panics".  I did not find a
study that directly concentrated on the punk movement of the 1970`s.  However, I
believe the two studies above can be directly linked to the movement. There are
many different stories about how the punk movement started.  This is what I
believe to be the most accepted. It started in 1976, when the British economy was
struggling and unemployment was high.  There was a sense of boredom with 70`s
supergroups such as The Who and Led Zeppelin as they only played in stadiums
which were expensive to attend.  McLaren declared it "a generation of boredom". 
McLaren described the punk movement as "controlled chaos against capitalism; the
godfather of fascism".  McLaren was a brilliant businessman.  Along with Vivenne
Westwood, he created the whole punk image; a demand for attention.  However,
after The Sex Pistols disbanded, Lydon claimed he had always had the "Do It
Yourself" attitude and that he had created the punk movement.  When the original
bassist, Glenn Matlock,  was thrown out of the group for "being middle-class and
liking The Beatles", he was replaced with Sid Vicious, the ultimate icon of the
punk movement.  He couldn`t even play bass when he joined.  I believe, as many
others do, that McLaren created Sid Vicious. McLaren encouraged Vicious to wear
the swastika because he knew it got attention and offended people.  The use of
the swastika was a mixture of innocence and shock value provocation.  McLaren
also gave Sid money to supply his heroin addiction, and encouraged him to cut
himself on stage. "That`s right Sidney, that`s how to be a Sex Pistol, that`s how
to be famous".  Lydon described Vicious in 1996 as a puppet.  Sid, real name John
Beverly, played most gigs whilst high on heroin.  He murdered his girlfriend,
Nancy, in a semiconscious state induced by a mixture of heroin and speed.  Lydon,
in his book ROTTEN says he renamed John Beverly because Sid was the most annoying
name he could think of (also the name of a pet rat) and Vicious because that is
exactly what Beverly wasn`t.  "He couldn`t fight his way out of a paper bag" said
Lydon.  However, Beverly became very vicious indeed.  In separate incidents, he
smashed beer glasses on people and beat people up with a bike chain, and he often
hit people with his bass guitar whilst on stage.  Sid was a gimmick, and was
nicknamed "Fucking Useless" by the rest of the band. Drummer Paul Cook and
guitarist Steve Jones claimed that they had stolen some equipment from Rolling
Stone Keith Richards house in order to play their first gig. McLaren created The
Sex Pistols to destroy mainstream music and large record companies and to create
a little bit of anarchy.  Ironic that so many mainstream record labels signed
them up.  Within 18 months, McLaren claims The Sex Pistols received £695,000 from
EMI, A&M, Virgin and Warners. One of the major events which occurred involving
The Sex Pistols was the infamous Bill Grundy TODAY show.  Many people think this
was just one of the many doings of McLaren.  The Sex Pistols came out with a
string of f-words on daytime TV.  The story was on the front of every national
newspaper the next day.  The Sex Pistols sold more papers on Fleet Street than
the armistice.  They were decidedly a media hit.  The Education Minister of the
time said "The Sex Pistols are a symptom of the way society is declining. There
was always idiots, but now there`s idiots with ideology".  For some people it was
all too much, Lydon and Cook were attacked in separate incidents on the street,
WHSmiths and Woolworths banned all Sex Pistols merchandise and Sir Cliff Richard
held a meeting of Christians in London to get rid of this "glorification of
evil". Two quite obvious publicity stunts on McLaren`s part are: the spoof
signing of the A&M contract outside Buckingham Palace and the infamous boat trip
on the River Thames past the Houses of Parliament where the Sex Pistols played
"God Save the Queen" and "Anarchy in the UK".  The press were invited to both,
and arrests were made at the latter including McLaren himself. The Sex Pistols
imploded.  Their last gig at Winterland in America was terrible.  Sid`s
girlfriend, Nancy who introduced Sid to heroin, kept Sid on drugs just to feed
her own habbit.  Sid became a skeleton; at over 6ft, he weighed only 8 stones. 
Lydon now hated McLaren intensely for a great many reasons, but mainly because he
could see what McLaren was doing to Sid.  He called him "the most evil man
alive".  McLaren fired Lydon who returned to London.  Cook and Jones went to
Brazil to meet Ronnie Biggs, the train robber in another obvious publicity stunt.
McLaren started on his next project "The Great Rock`N`Roll Swindle".  This was be
a film which told the story of the legend that was The Sex Pistols. He began by
shooting scenes with Cook and Jones in Brazil with Biggs.  He then filmed Sid
singing the classic Rock`N`Roll song "Something Else" on the back of a motorcycle
and him signing My Way in front of a bourgeois crowd which he shoots at the end;
Sid`s idea. Lydon appears in only two scenes which were filmed prior to his
departure. Sid spoke to a jouralist whilst filming "My Way" and told her that his
basic nature of lifestyle would kill him in six months.  On 2 February 1979 he
died from fluid on the lungs following a heavy amount of heroin. Lydon emerged
with a new band, Public Image Limited, and said in 1986 "Today the punk scene is
just made up of uniform-grabbing, watered-down kids who completely copy each
other and lust over legends who had a fuck-off attitude".

Context For this study, I will be focusing mostly on two sociological studies.
These are: 1.  Albert K. Cohen - the delinquent subculture  {1955} 
(Functionalist) 2.  Stan Cohen - Folk Devil`s and Moral Panics  {1972} 
(Interactionalist) A brief outline to work on delinquent and youth subcultures
Albert K. Cohen stated that delinquency is a collective rather than individual
response and this is why subcultures are formed.  Cohen suggested that
lower-working-class boys often create these subcultures because "they hold the
success goals of mainstream culture, but due largely to educational failure and
dead-end jobs, they have little opportunity to achieve this". Simon Frith said a
youth subculture has a set of shared norms and values and agreed with Cohen that
these subcultures consisted of mostly lower-working-class boys.  He suggested
that middle-class youth culture was more "self-consciously rebellious". In
Resistance Through Rituals (1975), it was said that youth culture was "adolescent
rebellion against middle-class authorities". The Marxists have never offered an
acceptable explanation for these subcultures.  They believe that the underlying
cause for these subcultures is class position, but then this has been questioned.
 Frith asked if this is so, then what is the significance of having green hair? 
Roland Barthes recognised the importance of the need to identify with one`s
peers.  He said the use of bondage clothes and the swastika in the punk movement
was very important.  The Marxist, Mike Brake, said "subcultures arise as attempts
to resolve collectively experienced problems arising from contradictions in the
social structure". It has been written that the sub-cultural theory rests on
limited empirical research and there are many flaws in the theory.  The
Functionalist Walter B. Miller believes that there is no lower-class  subculture.
 He believes that the way these individuals act is a way of life which is passed
down through generations.  An image of toughness, smartness to outsmart other
classes and the search for excitement. There have been three major musical youth
subcultures: the Teds in the 50`s, the Mods in the 60`s and the Punks in the
70`s.  Frith believes that these subcultures started because the school replaced
the home as centre of social activity and less responsibility was placed on the
teenager, ie. they no longer were seen as breadwinners. A brief outline to work
on the mass media The most simple and basic explanation of the media is the
hypodermic model which explains the media as an injection into the veins of the
audience. This model has been widely criticised. Katz and Lazarsfeld, who wrote
Personal Influence, said that there are active and passive recipients of the
media, we are not all affected in the same way.  Eysenck concluded that "most
research is inconclusive and does not allow us to compare similar individuals and
to tease out why some people seem to be susceptible while most are not.  Nias
described the area of mass media as "a sociological minefield" and found it near
impossible to control the conditions and variables. William Belson printed his
controversial study Television violence and the adolescent boy in 1978.  He
concluded that "high exposure to television violence increases the degree to
which boys engage in serious violence". This study came under very heavy
criticism, especially from Howitt who claimed there were serious methodological
problems and the study area was not that simple. Durkheim said in 1952 that
"essentially social life is made up of representations"  which makes the mass
media a very important sociological area.

Mass Media and the Moral Panic "Well, it was totally media-created. They were
responsible for smearing and trashing the scene, depicting it as violent and
immoral, etc. It threatened the status quo and the ruling elites, so the press
HAD to attack it. Unfortunately, many people thought this was what punk was
about, and were attracted to it for these (wrong) reasons. Eventually, these
people, who were fed the media image of punk, became the majority of the scene,
or at least the vocal minority. Thats why violence and drug abuse ruined it so
much. Its the media's fault, in many ways!"  Scott Beadle This is one of the
comments made by a respondent to my research. I believe the mass media have an
important role in developing the labels by which social problems are publicly
recognised.  They define for us, who are the "good" guys and who are the "bad"
guys.  Stan Cohen argues that the vocabulary used by the media wildly exaggerates
the events;  especially the tabloid press who rely heavily on shock headlines to
sell newspapers. Cohen stated that there are three types of over-reporting:
exaggeration, prediction and symbolisation. Exaggeration means over-estimating
features of the event.  Emotive language such as "riot" is used and crucial facts
are misrepresented.  Prediction is when the newspaper may suggest the event may
happen again leading to a feeling that the terror will continue.  Symbolisation
involves using words that immediately link the readers mind to a particular
person.  For example, mentioning Safety Pin would make an average person think of
a punk. Cohen described a Moral Panic as having two parts. "The sparks of the
initial deviant act behaviour are fanned into something far more serious by lurid
reporting which in turn generates an increase in deviance".  Cohen 1972 This is
what happened with the punk movement as many of the people I interviewed agreed. 
As the media reported stories of violence and lack of respect for everything,
this attracted the wrong type of people who saw the movement as a mechanism to
release their own frustration. People joined and called themselves punks just so
they could partake in the violence.  I think the media amplified the movement in
a very significant way. "The control culture (ie. police, courts) start to step
up their response. They become less tolerant of flamboyant styles of dress and
behaviour amongst young people and are sensitised to be constantly on the
look-out for hooliganism.  In the atmosphere of hysteria which is created, the
increased activity of the control culture is itself taken as showing the
seriousness of the problem"     Cohen 1972 A punk I interviewed, Grebo, gave an
answer that fitted Cohen`s definition perfectly "I was involved in many riots
brought on by the Los Angeles P.D. in the early 80's. I also went through the
hell of the old Led Zeppelin fans making sport out of hunting punks down to beat
them up. I was put on file with the Huntington Beach P.D. as a known punk,
followed and harrassed by them on a regular basis."  Grebo Foster Cohen says that
eventually, the control culture and the mass media amplification will aid each
other in creating an "amplification spiral". This spiral will work by the media
reporting events, the control culture responding, the media reporting on the
increased number of responses, the control culture thinking the situation is
worsening, and so on. When Cohen did a survey to find out societal reaction, he
found many people were "explicitly critical of the role of the media".  However,
he did use a very small sample of people to question and he questions the asked
were fairly limited. From his research, Cohen concluded that a moral panic occurs
"when people fear that the major values and institutions of society are under
attack. The young people are the "Folk Devils". They are easy to identify,
relatively powerless and it is fairly simple to exaggerate certain aspects of
their behaviour so as to make them appear as a threat to society.  They become
scapegoats, an easy target for the fear and hate of many people in the wider
society.  The media play an important role in whipping up moral panics,
identifying folk devils, amplifying their deviance, and providing targets for
popular anxieties".  Cohen 1972 Cohen was referring to The Mods of the 60`s in
his study, but the study is also directly applicable to the Punks of the 70`s. 
The Punks were the "Folk Devils".  They were easy to identify (bondage clothes,
spiky hair, piercings, etc...), relatively powerless (lower-working class) and
simple to exaggerate aspects of their behaviour (the Pogo dance). The control
culture definitely did respond to the punk movement.  Here are some of the other
responses from the people I interviewed. "I had a job in an office and the day
after the Bill Grundy interview with the Pistols no one actually spoke to me
until the afternoon as they were so disgusted!"      Dave Floyd "People called me
a Nazi because I wore boots, even though I am very anti-racist. Just because we
were viewed as trouble makers, everything we did was 'bad' and 'anti-social', we
had things pinned on us from the word go. The ultimate form of prejudice"    
Nino Eaton "We were who the cops looked to when there was a problem. It must of
been us, right?!  The press, ha, what wankers they are. You can play them like a
fiddle with all there morals and ethics. They brought on just about everything
they wanted to stop. Idiots."          PJ Punk: A deviant youth subculture?
"(Almost) every generation has their way of saying 'look at me, I am different to
spite what my parents want me to be'. But punks were different from the kids that
were rebelling. Other kinds of kids HAD to have some acceptance from thier peers.
Punks didn't. Punks were unacceptable, even to thier peers."     Shira Wild Did
punks have shared norms and values?  If they did, then this would make them part
of a subculture.  John Lydon, or Johnny Rotten as he was known to punks, said
punk was all about being oneself, being an individual and doing what you wanted. 
That is how he defined punk.  Perhaps inevitably, there soon became punk norms
which was totally what punk was supposed to be against.  I found quite varying
opinions on this from my interviews.  Some argued that the norms helped the
movement grow and become "a collective fuck-you statement".  Others said that is
what ruined the scene; it all became about looking cool. "Tourist punks spending
£50 on bondage gear and styling mohican hair-do`s totally got the wrong idea and
ended up being tourist attractions on King`s Road.  Very Sad."  C. Longmuir
"Their clothes were elaborately contrived to make the wearer appear as
terrifyingly repugnant as possible, alluding to anything that would induce
immediate outrage in the eye of the beholder . . . Hair shorn close to the skull
and dyed any colour so long as it didn't look natural, spiked up with Vaseline;
nose, ears, cheeks, lips, and other extremities pierced with a plethora of safety
pins, chains and dangling insignia; ripped and torn jumble sale shirts, strangled
with a thin tie and mangled with predicable graffiti of song titles, perversions
or Social Observations; black leather wrist bands and dog collars studded with
silver spikes sometimes with leashes attached." A description of punks at a punk
venue in 1977 by Julie Burchill and Tony Parsons in The Boy Looked at Johnny Some
described the move towards a punk norm as inevitable; as a way of identifying. 
One of the most memorable events on television was when punks marched into London
in 1980 to mark the anniversary of the death of Sid Vicious.  A punk told the
reporter that being a punk was all about being an individual with thousands of
punks in the background that looked exactly like him! Albert K. Cohen suggested
that subcultures were formed mainly by lower-working-class boys.  This seems true
for the "first" punks (the ones that hung around "SEX" in 1976 with nothing
better to do), but as the movement grew, people from all levels of the social
strata joined.  Simon Frith (1985) said that middle-class youth culture was more
"self-consciously rebellious".  When middle-class kids became punks, they tended
to lie desperately about their backgrounds, almost as if they were embarrassed by
it. The Chicago School in the 1930`s concluded that "subcultures are a result of
blocked access to social rewards" and because of this, are labelled deviant by
the control culture.  It did appear to many working-class boys across the country
that there were not many jobs around and unemployment was rising due to the rapid
decline of heavy industries.  This led to a situation called "fatalism" which is
the acceptance of a situation instead of trying to improve it.  The Sex Pistols
song "God Save the Queen" included the line "There`s no Future". "Forget music,
and concentrate on creating generation gaps" McLaren McLaren allowed only "kids"
into the early Sex Pistols gigs.  He claimed the kids didn`t buy the record for
the music, but for what it stood for.  In accordance with my interviews, most
people think that punk was more about attitude than music.  I too think that the
advent of punk required not virtuosity of music but of attitude.  Punk bands
claimed that anyone could be in a band, all that was needed was three chords and
the truth. "You just pick a chord, go twang, and you`ve got music" Sid Vicious
The music was just a way of getting a message across.  People became punks for a
number of reasons.  The music was one of the reasons, but dressing up was
another; being the centre of attention and having the same attitudes and opinions
of the punks was another still.

Questionnaire/Interview Results AGE IN 1977: Youngest 8, oldest 17, most 12 or 13
FATHER`S OCCUPATION IN 1977: Teacher, builder,  postal worker, lawyer, etc...
ETHNICITY: All white Qualifications (or at what age did you leave school): About
half left at 16, others to uni Have you ever attended an art school? A third of
the respondents had Do you have a criminal record (if so, for what)? A third of
the respondents had for: football hooliganism, violent behaviour, Breaking &
Entering, theft, driving offences 1. Describe the term "PUNK".  A music-based
form of social protest; escape from boredom; a youth movement linked by music and
fashion; a lifestyle in response to society 2. In your opinion, did punk focus
more on attitude than music? The music created the attitude; about half of the
responses said both, and a third said attitude. 3. In what year and why did you
become a punk & why do you think the whole culture grew up? 1977 mostly.  Young
people all over the country felt the same alienation; boredom; threat of violence
seen as attractive; release from gloom & doom 4. How far did you go to achieve
the "punk" image? 8 out of the 12 punks I interviewed claimed they went all the
way to achieve the image - hair, clothes, etc. The other 4 said that that wasn`t
what punk was about and never changed their appearance, the others were poseur 5.
Describe any effects of anti-social feelings towards the punk movement, which you
personally experienced? No trouble that wasn`t expected; beaten up; banned from
public places; general insults on the street; followed by police 6. Do you
believe that punk music started in America but the punk attitude started in
England? 10 of the punks agreed with this statement, other 2 said it all started
in US 7. To what extent do you believe Malcom McLaren to have had an effect on
punk and do you believe his business way of manipulating the media forced punk
into the mainstream? Malcolm`s vision of punk became the universal, popular,
media vision; he sold punk; he killed the scene; punk would have happened without
him; he was just a catalyst 8. Some say that punk died in 1977, along with the
icons. Why did this happen? Press lost interest; the attitude lives on; punk was
destined to implode; didn`t die, media hype died 9. Do you think 90`s bands such
as Green Day, The Offspring and 3 Colours Red can be defined as punk bands? Half
said no, half said yes or called them punk-influenced bands 10. Please name your
favourite three bands in 1977. Sex Pistols; Clash; Damned 11. What do you think
about the fact that punk was supposed to be about individuality, but there was
soon a "punk" norm - ie. dress, attitude, background, etc... Totally what punk
wasn`t about; disappointing; happened after punk became mainstream; all about
looking cool; became a collective fuck-you statement 12. Do you see punk as being
a youth movement; a part of youth culture? Everyone agreed with this but some
argued that they were still punks but by no means still youthful; one said yes
but only because young people are free and don`t have the responsibilities that
the system forces upon us 13. Do you see yourself as being a punk today? (dress,
attitude) 2 people described themselves as products of the punk movement; 3 said
yes in both dress and attitude; 5 said yes but attitude only; and the other 2
said "in a way" 14. What is your occupation now? artist; teacher; record label
owner; computer engineer 15. To what degree did the press play in the creating
the moral panic from the shock of the punk culture ? The press totally
misunderstood; the media destroyed the scene by introducing drugs and violence
16. Was drug use central to the punk culture, and which drugs? 5 said drugs had
nothing to do with the scene; 4 said beer, dope and glue; 3 said speed; narcotics
ruined the scene 17. If punk was a rebellion, what were the punks rebelling
against? Boredom; class system; mass produced culture; parents; government;
capitalism; middle-age values In summarising these results, I have used the most
popular answers and tried to include all answers which went against the grain of
all the other answers.  I feel this will give an overall impression of the kind
of feeling towards the subjects discussed.

Evaluation 1977 was an incredible year. I think how I interpret the results from
the interviews is very important indeed.  As I have already established, the
media publicised punk very early on.  It will be difficult to filter out what is
belief and what is knowledge.  Many of the respondents gave me very similar
answers which leads me to believe that this is what they have "learnt" punk is
supposed to be about.  However, if they agree with what they have learnt punk to
be about, then they can also believe it.  It appears from the answers I received
that there are some very interesting contradictions within the punk movement such
as punk standing for individuality but then having a "uniform".  There is also a
clear dividing line between the original punks and the "media-created" punks. 
John Clarke, who said he used to hang around "SEX" in 1976, could be seen as one
of these original punks.  I believe to have interviewed three of these original
punks and they were 2 out of 3 were against the violent side.  The other 9 I
interviewed were media-created. They joined the movement because they were
attracted to the violence and the excitement.

At the beginning of 1977, Punk could be called a "subculture" because all the
members had the same interests and background, but by the end of the year, with
the help of the media, everyone and anyone was becoming a punk. Punk was forced
into the mainstream by the media.  Middle-class kids were becoming punks, Soul
and Rude Boys got in on the scene - it became a totally diversified movement. 
Without the common links that Cohen defined, the movement cannot be called a
"subculture" in sociological terms although many would definitely see it as a
subculture.  As with the Britpop scene in the 1990`s, the "Oasis" haircut would
not have been as popular if the press hadn`t made such a fuss about it.  However,
the Britpop scene was never a subculture, it has always been mainstream. From my
research, I believe the mass media did create a Moral Panic in 1977. Stan Cohen`s
definition of how a Moral Panic starts agreed with my responses from the punks. 
I am confident that the movement did create an amplification spiral and this
would explain the police files on punks and the lack of tolerance.  The secondary
research I did with Cohen`s book, "Folk Devils & Moral Panics" (1972),  helped me
to define how a Moral Panic was started - the primary research, my interviews,
helped me to discover if a Moral Panic did, in fact, occur. I believe the
methodology I used was appropriate.  The data I collected was qualitative and I
didn`t use any quantitative data.  I didn`t set out to look for causal
relationships, but I may have made a few judgements along the way.  As I
processed the data, I did my best not to prejudice any of the statements.  When I
summarised the data from the interviews, I used the most frequent answers plus
any "unusual" answers which didn`t seem to agree with anyone else.  Even though I
tried to illiminate any prejudices, I am sure there will be some subconscious
errors. I feel the way the interviews were conducted over the Internet to have
both good and bad points.  The good points about it are how easy it is to use and
not at all time-consuming and the speed at which people were able to answer.
Without the use of the Internet, I would have only been able to question two
people which would have made my data very unreliable.  The down side of the use
of the Internet, is that not very many people in Britain have it yet. The
Americans have been On-line longer than us in Europe and many more of them have
the Internet.  From the three people I questioned in Britain over the Internet,
two of them were computer engineers.  This method of collecting data only gives
me access to those punks who have rejoined mainstream culture.  For a more
board-based study, I would wish to conduct studies with punks that hang around
King`s Road and Leicester Square in London. This would give me opportunity to
question those punks who never went mainstream and ask them why they continue to
be punks.  I think this would be a very interesting follow-up study.  Another
criticism of this methodology, is that I never actually met the people I
interviewed over the Internet.  The Internet has been given a bad name by people
lying about who and what they are.  However, I believe, as I went onto a
newsgroup for punks, why would anyone lie about their answers. I think in a
further study of the punk movement, many different things would have to be taken
into account.  Firstly, by no means is the punk movement straightforward.  People
are still arguing today about from where it originates; and secondly, what
particular area should be studied.  I have not even attempted to cover the drugs
side of the punk culture or even fully covered the deviance side.  With enough
time, and the right methodology, a fully comprehensive study of the 1977 punk
movement could be done. Overall, I am quite happy with the results this study
shows.

Conclusion The 1977 Punk Movement was very complex.  Depending on which way you
look at it, it can appear completely different.  It is difficult for me to
conclude on my hypothesis' because do I conclude as a sociology student, or as an
objective observer, or as a punk-music fan?  The answers will be completely
different depending on which I choose to use.  The Punk movement meant so many
different things to so many different people. The Punk movement according to
Albert K. Cohen`s definition of a subculture is not a subculture.  He said a
subculture shares norms.  The original punks were individuals and hated the
media-created punks who wore the bondage clothes because it was the thing to do. 
At the end of 1977, the movement was so diversified, it could not simply be
defined as a "subculture". However, that is a very objective approach to take. 
An Interactionalist may consider using a subjective approach to find out if the
individuals think they are part of a subculture.  From a social view, the punks
may be seen as a subculture but not from an academic perspective.  It would be
interseting to continue this part of the study further. The mass media did create
a moral panic in 1977.  Stan Cohen`s definition fits my interview answers
perfectly.  The Punk movement was a text-book example of a moral panic.

"It was never about studded leather jackets and black biker boots - so when I see
gangs of punks running around in studded leather jackets these days, it just
makes me sick.  They got it wrong."  Lydon in 1996