Participant Makeup

For this project I conducted interviews with a broadly representative segment of the ‘Dutch punk population’. I interviewed thirty-three

individuals, including five women, and twenty-eight men. All participants could be read as white and all but four were born in the Netherlands. These other four participants were born in Portugal (1), Russia (1) and Serbia (2). Ages of interviewees ranged from twenty-one to c. sixty-one15_{. Participants}

will be introduced throughout the analytical chapters of this thesis.

Age No. Participants

Under 25 4

26-35 11

36-45 9

46-55 7

Over 55 2

Table 1:Age of participants.

Dates No. participants

Pre-1976 (Pre-history of punk) 2

1977-1980 (Early Dutch punk) 6

Early-mid 1980s 10

Mid-late 1980s 14

1990s 23

2000s 28

2010-2011 (Active at the time of fieldwork) 22

Table 2:Numbers of participants who were subculturally active in different ‘eras’ of Dutch punk (see Chapter 3)16_.

15_{Age is at time of interview. In some cases years of birth were given and thus actual}

age may be +/- 1 year.

16_{Data was based on when participants reported first being involved in punk and in}

In tables 1 and 2 I show the historical and generational spread of the participants. Chapter 3 will discuss the way in which an ageing punk

population affects the scene, especially contemporaneously. Whilst most participants reported first getting involved in punk as a teenager, there were not many teenagers active on the scene at the time of my fieldwork. This was due both to changing fashions – punk was out of favour at the time – and a ‘lull’ in punk, with forms of dance music more popular amongst alternative young people.

The largest group of participants were in their late twenties and were still active punks at the time of fieldwork. Most of these individuals had become involved during the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, there is representation in this research from individuals involved in all eras of Dutch punk, and some of these older punks considered themselves to be actively involved in the contemporaneous scene.

Forms of work No. participants

Student 7

Creative arts 13

Public sector 4

Private sector 2

Unstable, causal or multiple jobs 6

Manual labour 7

Self-employed 11

Unemployed 2

Table 3:The forms of employment of participants17_.

break’, others ‘left’ and yet more have continued activity in some form. As such individuals may be recorded as involved in multiple eras.

17_{I provide details on both the forms of participants’ employment, and the types of}

roles in which they work. As such a self-employed artist who also has a casual job to support themselves will appear on the table three times.

As discussed in Chapter 5, the British notion of class structure is not directly translatable to the Dutch context. However, a recognition of

socio/economic privilege, opportunity and the potential of disposable income remains a useful signifier in sociological analysis. Table 3 therefore shows the forms of employment of participants. It is worth nothing that an

overwhelming majority of participants had studied (or were studying) at a higher education level. As discussed in Chapter 6, access to university level study was supported by grants and was common amongst participants of all backgrounds, especially in the 1980s when unemployment was high.

However the link between access to education and (class) privilege means that higher education remains behind a barrier for individuals from low- income backgrounds (Rijken et al., 2007), and with recent changes to the funding of higher education was becoming even more problematic. The high level of participants who were studying at the time of the research therefore represents a group with a certain degree of privilege. At least ten

participants18_{have experienced periods of unemployment throughout their}

lives. This was most common amongst those in their thirties and forties.

‘Punk’ activity No. participants

Plays in a band 23

Organises gigs 16

Volunteers in squats 12

Tour manager or tour assistant 7

Writes zines or reviews 9

Photographer 3

Artist 6

Works in a punk related shop 3

Sound technician 2

Runs a record label 4

Helps in or runs a punk venue 6

Table 4:The ‘punk’ activities that various participants take part in, or have participated in19_.

In table 4 we see the sorts of punk activities in which participants engaged. There is a high number of participants who have or were playing in bands at the time of my research. This, coupled with the prevalence of

participants who have organised gigs, show how such ‘activity’ (see Chapter 5) is common within a subculture which puts such emphasis on DIY

practices. The ‘ease’ of playing punk (again discussed in Chapter 5) or writing zines, and the sharing of knowledge of how to go about setting up gigs allows a large number of punks to get involved in such a way. However, it is also worth bearing in mind how the method of ‘snowballing’ in locating interview participants affects this. Those who are ‘more’ involved become known by more people. They also hold a degree of ‘subcultural capital’ (Thornton, 1995) and are therefore held up as good examples of Dutch punk, and as founts of knowledge. Therefore such ‘active’ punks are more likely to be

19_{This is based only on activities which came up during interview and thus may not}

recommended to me as worth interviewing, to the neglect of punks whose involvement is less overt.

Location No. participants

living there Alkmaar 1 Amsterdam 13 Arnhem 1 Drachten 1 Groningen 10 Leeuwarden 2 Nijmegen 4 Utrecht 1

Table 5:Where participants live20_.

Table 5 shows the geographical spread of research participants. There is a dominance of participants from Amsterdam, where I was based and had easiest access to participants, and Groningen, an example of peripheral scene in which participants were more invested in ‘showing off’ their local scene and recommending friends to interview (see Chapter 4). The majority of participants had not lived in their current location for their entire lives, and thus I also heard about their punk experiences when living in, Rotterdam, Enschede, Amersfoort, Hoogeveen, Vlaardingen, Wageningen, Wormer, New York, Nottingham, Belgrade and Moscow, amongst others.

20_{Again, data is based on at the time of fieldwork. In some cases the participant lives}

2.8 Presentation of Data