Is there something Rotten happening in punk?

I’m clearly a glutton for punishment- just as the Twitter kerfuffle around my John Lydon tweet settles down, I’m reopening the wound by writing something even longer about this phenomenon of a so-called anarchist’s (albeit in his youth) metamorphosis into a grumpy old man rehashing ignorant racist tropes. The way people- and particularly people who would claim to have an interest in, or be ‘punk’- respond to Johnny Rotten says a lot about the genre as a whole. So, I’m wading in.

Firstly, for brevity’s sake, I’ll summarise what he said during a recent LBC interview with Andrew Marr. Interviewed ahead of his spoken word tour that starts later this Spring, Lydon was asked about how modern Britain compares with the country of his youth and he said that it is shocking how run down Britain has become (I agree) and that visiting seaside towns as a child was a positive experience particularly for working class people but not now….so far, I think pretty much everyone would agree that things are pretty shit right now. He then went on to say that these seaside towns are full of ‘prospective immigrants’ which are really ‘illegals’ and allowing a high level of immigration- particularly if those entering the UK have a different point of view- is creating animosity. They are ‘not going to adapt’ and will bring the problems ‘they are allegedly escaping from’ with them.  Oh, and then he said he has no problem with the royal family (I thought they weren’t even human beings according to his lyrics) and then something about the EU destroying Sunderland (I didn’t follow that bit). That’s it in a nutshell.

The reason I find this worth writing about is I think John Lydon- and people’s reaction to him- is indicative of a lot of phenomena that I have noticed when writing about punk/being part of a punk ‘scene’. It encapsulates themes like uncritically idolising individuals, the intense nostalgia that permeates punk (and in my opinion holds it back), the inaccurate assumption that all punk is left wing and progressive, the generation divide and what punk actually is (or isn’t). Oh, and also my personal pet peeve of people who have moved away from a town/area/country and expect it to freeze in time and still be the place they view through rose-tinted glasses when they deign to visit it at their whim.  But I digress.

I’m going to start with explaining why I (and many other people) find what he says ignorant in the first place. Essentially his argument- and the argument of those who say similar things- is that the country is ‘going to the dogs’ and there’s a reason for it. And the reason is not apparently any of the following: political choices made by the government; underfunding of every major public service; systemic corruption and diverting funds to keep them in the hands of an already extremely rich minority; unbridled capitalism and labour exploitation; systems of patriarchal and racist oppression; the cost of living crisis; a class system… it’s none of these things. It is apparently people coming from overseas. People with very little materially and politically- they are somehow the reason that Margate’s Ferris Wheel is no longer in operation and the sea is full of turds. It is an unspecific and ill-informed view that when repeated ad nauseum has tangible impacts on how we as a country behave and vote and this in turn has real life consequences for people who are wanting to make the UK their home. This argument provides no analysis of which people and which institutions really hold power in the UK and therefore, even if you give Lydon the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t intentionally being racist, he’s hardly a political sophisticate.

But perhaps for some who disagree with what Lydon has said, it has even more of a sting as he was (at least at a certain point in time) considered to be a ‘truth to power’ type, a punk icon definitely and a hero to many. The courage and fortitude to say the things he said in the 1970s about the State, and to be so consistently provocative and unapologetic is something to be admired….but that doesn’t mean that he is beyond any critique now. 1977 was 47 years ago.

Cards on the table, I am not a Sex Pistols fan and never have been. So, he was never a hero of mine. But there is a quote from him that I love that was from when he was talking about why he wrote God Save The Queen:

“You don’t write a song like that because you hate the British people- you write a song like that because you love the British people and you’re tired of seeing them mistreated”.

It’s a great quote. But….Mistreated by who? Who was he referring to? Not immigrants- THE STATE. The state institutions- particularly in that song, the monarchy. And now he’s done a u-turn and decided he doesn’t really mind the monarchy after all, but he DOES mind some of the more vulnerable citizens of the world who are seeking refuge, safety and a future on our shores. Shores he doesn’t live on himself as far as I’m aware.

The most infuriating part of the fallout from and response to Lydon’s Marr interview is the tossing around of the term ‘punk’ with very little meaning or significance attached to it- “He’s more punk than you”, “he’s an original punk/punk legend/started punk” tweets in direct opposition to “he’s not a real punk”, “he’s no longer punk”, “punk isn’t racist” etc. So which is it? Is he punk or not? Am I punk? Are you punk? This is something I have written about a lot. I don’t really agree with either position because there is no agreed upon definition of what punk is really, particularly when it comes to its ethos and granular aspects of its ideology. We can’t all really agree on what punk music is- otherwise in the year of our lord 2024 I wouldn’t still be arguing with strangers on the internet about whether punk is dead (it isn’t- it didn’t die just because you stopped liking it. Put down The Damned record and listen to something new).

I would say the following:

**John Lydon is undoubtedly punk- I absolutely acknowledge his critical role in the punk movement as we understand it in the 1970s. The Sex Pistols were a punk band. Churlish to say otherwise.

**Not all punk is progressive and left wing. And I’m not just talking about far right/Nazi punk (which is a thing) I mean even mainstream run-of-the-mill punk over the years hasn’t all had the same political message or any political message at all. As I write about in my upcoming book on feminism and punk- there are a lot of assumptions about what punk stands for when in reality, it’s a mixed bag. It doesn’t always walk the walk, a lot of it is just talking the talk.

**People can write songs we like, and be culturally significant in our lives, but we should still be open to other people taking issue with them or something they’ve said. And we can respond like measured adults.

**Lydon is not infallible. His politics have changed (and not for the better in my view) and is not the political heavyweight he would like to portray himself as.

**You can listen to punk music and not really engage with its message at all – I mean, I don’t know why you would do that as the message is surely intrinsic to understanding much of the movement but you COULD just listen to the music….the idea that every punk fan is interested in politics or shares a similar view to you just because you both listen to The Clash is not borne out in reality. And the amount of ‘punk’ groups on Facebook or pages on Instagram I have left because of the amount of casual sexism, racism, homophobia and just downright reactionary views on ‘woke’ are too much to bear. Punk is not above this nonsense it seems.

**Saying that someone with problematic views or behaviour is ‘not punk’ as otherwise they wouldn’t act like that is, in my view, too lazy a response. It’s a ‘god of gaps’ approach- this movement is all the good things and none of the bad things. It provides no analysis and no accountability. We also see this response when women try to raise concerns about predatory behaviour from people in the punk scene- the response is often a platitude like “they’re not really punks if they are behaving like that”- YES THEY ARE- they are in the scene so we need to acknowledge that. Although it may be well meaning, it doesn’t require any labour to disown someone and won’t in fact make the punk scene any more of a utopia of like-minded individuals and just perpetuates the myth that all punks are united by common causes. Lydon is a punk and he’s saying things I don’t like and don’t agree with and are not compatible with my punk ideals- that is something to process, not ignore.

For what it is worth, my politics has been hugely shaped by punk and figures like Henry Rollins, Ian Mackaye, Joe Strummer, Kathleen Hanna, Jello Biafra, Viv Albertine. That is why I associate punk with anti racism, with protecting rights, with elevating and standing beside those who are marginalised or oppressed, with looking at systems and institutions and the roles they play in exploitation and harm, with extending friendship and solidarity to those who need it. And so Lydon’s recent comments do not fit with my politics and I don’t care how venerated he is.

I always infinitely preferred The Clash anyway.