Nick Crossely - Social Network of The UK Punks

Theory,http://tcs.sagepub.
com/
Culture & Society
Pretty Connected : The Social Network of the Early UK Punk Movement

Nick Crossley
Theory Culture Society 2008 25: 89
DOI: 10.1177/0263276408095546
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/25/6/89
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
The TCS Centre, Nottingham Trent University
Additional services and information for Theory, Culture & Society can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://tcs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://tcs.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/25/6/89.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Oct 16, 2008
What is This?
Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 89
Pretty Connected
The Social Network of the Early UK
Punk Movement
Nick Crossley
Abstract
This article describes and analyses the social network of key actors involved
in the ‘inner circle’ of the early UK punk movement in London. It is argued
that the network and its structural properties are important if we wish to
explain both the emergence of the movement and certain key conflicts
within it. The article is empirically based and utilizes the methods of formal
social network analysis. A further argument of the paper is that the concept
of networks and these formal methods for analysing them are both import-
ant for a sociological analysis of culture and cultural movements in
particular.
Key words
music ■ social capital ■ social movements ■ social relations ■ social structure
I
N THIS article I analyse the social network of key actors involved in the
early UK punk movement. It is my contention that this network, which
in large part pre-existed the formation of the earliest UK punk bands
and certainly pre-dated the explosion of punk onto the British music scene,
played a key role in the formation and shaping of the movement. In addition,
I want to show that – and how – both the concept of ‘networks’ and the tools
of formal social network analysis can play an important role in the socio-
logical analysis of music scenes and subcultural movements.
Aspects of UK punk have been subject to sociological and cultural
analysis before (e.g. Dancis, 1978; Hebdige, 1979; Laing, 1985; Lentini,
2003; McKay, 1996; Marcus, 2006; Savage, 2005; Simonelli, 2002). The
key themes of this earlier work have been: the meaning of punk; its
■ Theory, Culture & Society 2008 (SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore),
Vol. 25(6): 89–116
DOI: 10.1177/0263276408095546

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 90
90 Theory, Culture & Society 25(6)
stylistic relationship to modernism/postmodernism, Situationism and Dada;

and its dialogues with US punk. Moreover, underlying many accounts is a
view that punk emerged in response to the crises and conflicts of UK society
in the mid-1970s. These issues are important, but by focusing upon the
networks of the movement I identify the mechanisms which made it possible
and shaped it. Whatever artistic influences and social strains are expressed
in punk, it only took off as a recognizable cultural movement in virtue of
the pattern of connections and interactions linking its key actors. Moreover,
we can make more sense of conflicts within the movement if we examine
the network positions of those involved. UK punk was the product of inter-
actions within a concrete social network. To understand the movement we
need to understand the network.
I take my lead from the work of Martin (1995, 2006) and Becker
(1982). Both argue that the key to a properly sociological understanding of
music (and, in Becker’s case, other art forms) lies in our viewing it as ‘collec-
tive action’, coordinated within a ‘network’. What they mean by this, in part,
is that the production and circulation of music requires interaction between
multiple actors who each make a different contribution. There is also a
sense, however, relevant in the case of punk, of musical movements whose
collective actions are akin to those of social movements, with participants
seeking to make a claim or bring about a change in the wider music ‘world’
(see also Baumann, 2007). This further suggests the importance of networks
because it has been demonstrated that networks play a central role in
supporting social movement mobilization (see Crossley, 2007, for a review
of the major studies). Neither Martin nor Becker follows up these claims
with a detailed examination of networks, their properties and effects. I do,
and I thereby both develop and further empirically operationalize their
claims.
I also build upon the concept of a music ‘scene’, and particularly a
local scene (Bennett, 2004; Bennett and Peterson, 2004; O’Connor, 2002).
Whatever else is involved in a scene, it entails a network of actors who
belong to and participate in it, as the musical ‘family trees’ common in
journalistic representations of scenes suggest. My analysis allows us to
develop this sense of networks and their importance, drawing upon a more
academic version of the musical ‘family tree’.
From a different angle, I am also attempting to bring cultural produc-
tion into the domain of network analysis. Networks, in the guise of ‘social
capital’, have been attributed considerable significance in recent social
science. They have been deemed beneficial for democracy, economic
performance, crime reduction and health, to name only a few (for overviews
see Field, 2003; Fine, 2001; Halpern, 2005). Much less has been said in
relation to their importance in processes of cultural production and innova-
tion. My analysis offers an outline of how this cultural dimension might be
opened up. It is my contention that a properly sociological understanding
of culture must focus upon its production by concrete social actors linked
and embedded in social networks.

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 91
Crossley – Pretty Connected 91
The concept of networks can be deployed in different ways. One

definition, consistent with Becker (1982) and also with ‘actor network’
(Latour, 2005) and other ‘rhizomatic’ approaches (Deleuze and Guattari,
2004), would encompass non-human ‘actors’, such as the equipment used
in music making, and would stretch back historically to include, for
example, the inventors of that equipment and of particular styles of playing.
I have no objection to such a definition in principle but in practice it is too
broad for my purposes. Similarly, I acknowledge but for present purposes
bracket out corporate actors, such as record companies and the established
music and wider press (my justification, elaborated further below, is that I
examine the period in punk’s history before either were significantly
involved). I am interested in the impact of connection within a critical mass
of human actors. Consequently I focus exclusively upon relations between
human actors who were contemporary with one another at a specific point
in time.
This focus accords with the ‘social network analysis’ literature and
allows me to use the concepts and techniques of this tradition. It also
accords with a definition of ‘social structure’ employed both within and
beyond this tradition, stretching back to Radcliffe-Brown (1952), if not
Durkheim (1964). Social structures, by some definitions, simply are
networks of either individual (human or corporate) actors or roles/positions
(e.g. Nadel, 1957; Wellman and Berkowitz, 1997). I prefer to see social
structures in broader terms, as ensembles of networks, resource distri-
butions and conventions. Nevertheless, even by this broader definition, an
examination of punk’s network will illuminate aspects of its social structure
and thereby demonstrate the importance of social structure in relation to
cultural life.
Reference to ‘structure’ does not imply determinism or erasure of the
actor. Network structures are (in this instance) structures of relations and
interactions between flesh and blood actors who act purposively and enjoy
a capacity for self-reflection, deliberation and choice. Such structures are
important because they contribute to the process whereby emergent prop-
erties arise from interactions which variously empower and constrain the
actors involved. Actors’ opportunities for action may be affected by their
position in a network, as by their stock of resources, the balance of power
in their relations and the conventions of their field of action. This affects
their liberty but does not alter their ontological status as actors. Relatively
powerless and constrained actors are still actors.
Data and Methods
The data for the analysis has been drawn from various authoritative histories
of punk (Coon, 1982; Gilbert, 2005; Gray, 2004; Marcus, 2006; Nolan,
2006; Paytress, 2003; Robb, 2006; Savage, 2005); biographies and auto-
biographies of key protagonists (Cornwell, 2005; Lydon, 2003; Salewicz,
2006); and many on-line archives.1 By trawling these accounts and cross-
checking between them it has been possible to derive a list of 46 agents

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 92
who were centrally involved in what I have identified as an ‘inner circle’ of

early British punk. Although some accounts cast their net more widely than
others, there is a high level of agreement regarding key players between
different accounts. In addition, again by means of trawling and cross-
checking, I have been able to derive a reliable picture of the relationships
between these protagonists in the early days of punk, and thus of the network
to which they belonged. The precise definition of relationships that I have
used is discussed below. Suffice it to say, however, that I have used a defi-
nition intended to capture ‘strong’ relationships rather than casual acquain-
tance.
These data have been analysed using formal social network analysis
(SNA). I will explain the relevant concepts of this approach as they arise
rather than offering a lengthy exposition here (see Scott, 2000; Wasserman
and Faust, 1994). Suffice it to say that SNA utilizes a variety of mathe-
matical techniques to derive sociologically significant ways of describing
and measuring the structure of networks – networks being defined as sets
of nodes (technically ‘vertices’), some or all of which are linked to one
another. In this case, as noted above, all vertices are human actors who
played a significant role in the history of UK punk. The (free-to-download)
Pajek software package has been used for all computations and diagrams.2
For the most part, I will refer to the actors in my network by their stage
names. This may involve anachronism in a small number of cases, invoking
names before they had been invented. It minimizes confusion for the reader
unacquainted with the actors involved, however, and allows me to be more
concise.
The article begins with a brief introduction to punk, which both
outlines its definitive features and asks why it emerged where and when it
did. I then offer a discursive description of some of the relations involved
in the first UK punk circle, followed by a formal, quantitative network
description and analysis. The various measures of the network that I discuss
point to its tight-knit nature and I invoke this in my account of the emer-
gence of punk. Having done this, however, I also consider issues of power
and conflict within the inner circle of punk, again invoking formal network
measures to make my case. The final section of the article considers how
the first punk network helped to generate further networks, which, in turn,
contributed to the growth of the movement. My example in this case focuses
briefly upon the early Manchester punk scene.
What Was British Punk?
In asking what punk was I do not mean to suggest that it no longer exists.
I am merely signalling my interest in its earliest manifestation. The easiest
way to answer the question would be to jump straight to the network: early
British punk was what a small cluster of self-labelled bands and audiences
were doing in London in 1976. Attempting to define punk in other ways, by
reference to its conventions and style, for example, is much more problem-
atic. There were variations in style and it is widely acknowledged that

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 93
British punk borrowed most of its conventions, including the terms ‘punk’
and ‘new wave’, from other cultural developments of the time.
To offer a picture, however: punk music was influenced by 1950s rock
‘n’ roll, glam rock, pub rock, reggae and the US ‘garage’ scene, as well as
an antagonism towards ‘prog rock’, with its lengthy compositions, complex-
ity and virtuoso solo performances. Punk songs were short, usually fast,
basic and to the point.
In fashion terms, clothes were often ripped and safety pins loomed
large, both holding clothes together and serving as jewellery. In addition,
the trappings of sexual fetishism, including bondage and dog collars, were
often involved. And provocative symbols, including the inverted cross of the
antichrist, the circled ‘A’ of the anarchist and the swastika, were widely
paraded. Hair was often dyed and spikey, and in a symbolic rejection of the
hippies, cut short. For the same reason, flared trousers were rejected and
replaced by either straight or tighter cuts. Perhaps more than any of this,
however, the emphasis was upon Do-It-Yourself. The idea was that individ-
ual punks should innovate and develop their own ‘look’.
In addition, there was an emphasis upon confrontation and
controversy. One manifestation of this was the anti-authoritarian and anti-
establishment protest embodied in much that punks did and said. At another
level, though media reports exaggerate, there was a tendency for bands to
taunt their audiences and for audiences to reply by spitting at the bands
and throwing missiles. This aggressive posturing was part of a wider ‘struc-
ture of feeling’ (Williams, 1977) articulated by punk, centred upon alien-
ation, boredom and dissatisfaction with a world perceived to be stagnant
and artificial.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there was a narrative of punk
which drew these conventions together, lending them a meaning and afford-
ing those who adhered to them a social identity. Punk involved both conven-
tions and collective definitions and interpretations of those conventions.
Some of these elements, particularly the narrative, were innovations
but many were borrowed. It is widely acknowledged, for example, that the
UK punks borrowed from US bands such as the Stooges, the Velvet Under-
ground, the New York Dolls, the Ramones, Patti Smith and Television, as
well as the Situationist art movement. In addition, bondage gear, which
Malcolm McLaren (manager of the pioneering UK punk band, the Sex
Pistols) and his business partner, Vivienne Westwood, designed and sold in
their shop, SEX, was inspired by the gay and fetish scenes. McLaren and
Westwood had aimed to turn this specialized underground clothing niche
into everyday wear long before the Sex Pistols emerged.
The conventions of punk constitute an important aspect of its social
structure. They generate a pattern within (inter)action. No less important,
however, is the structure of the network of actors involved in the early days.
We may think of this, in the first instance, as an ‘inner circle’ of punk bands,
the earliest and most central of whom were: the Sex Pistols, the Clash, the
Damned, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Subway Sect and Chelsea (later

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 94
renamed Generation X). There were bands closely identified with punk who
pre-existed the above (e.g. the Stranglers and the Jam). It is generally
accepted, however, that these bands didn’t belong to the originating ‘inner
circle’ of punk and only became associated with punk after it had taken
shape (and even then perhaps only in the eyes of certain fans and commen-
tators). Likewise, other bands, such as X-Ray-Spex and the Adverts, became
central to punk but only after it had begun to take off. Punk was shaped by
interactions within the inner circle but as its popularity grew it exerted an
influence well beyond, affecting established bands and inspiring new ones
to form.
To explain the emergence of British punk we need to focus upon its
inner circle. It was interaction within this circle that generated punk. There
may be a story to be told about the ‘structure of feeling’ articulated by punk
and its relationship to trends and conflicts in wider society. But feelings do
not suffice to make movements. As work on both protest and social capital
indicates, collective action and mobilization, which is what the birth of punk
is about, is far more likely in the context of dense social networks (Crossley,
2007). This point needs to be unpacked.
Collective action presupposes a collective and, arguably, a collective
which is large enough to both distribute the costs of action sufficiently to
make them bearable for the actors involved and to lend the action the legit-
imacy and authenticity that size often confers. There is no single, easily
definable size threshold at which it becomes legitimate to refer to punk as
a cultural movement or scene, but a small grouping is always vulnerable to
the charge that it is ‘just a few individuals’ and lacks significance.
Size is not everything, however. Collective action requires coordina-
tion and thus communication and cooperation. It requires the pooling of
resources and arguably also the trust between participants that allows each
to take the risks that it entails. This requires that actors interact, forming
a network. And it is much easier to achieve when at least some of the
actors involved are already connected and thus some part of the network
already exists, not least because networks between potential parties to a
collective action and the meaningful relations they involve can take time
to form and certainly do not form just because they are necessary for a
particular action.
These points have been discussed at some length in the social move-
ments literature. It has been noted, for example, that the black civil rights
movement in the USA took shape within the context of black churches and
colleges, drawing upon the existing networks involved therein and borrow-
ing the organization structure of those networks (McAdam, 1982; Morris,
1984). Likewise, there is very clear evidence of the role of pre-existing
neighbourhood networks in the mobilization that led to the Paris Commune
(Gould, 1991, 1995). Moreover, when movements have begun to take shape,
pre-existing networks can play an important role in recruitment, with those
involved drawing their further contacts into the movement (Snow et al.,
1980).

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 95
Networks have different structures, however. Not everybody within the

network is connected to everybody else (at least not always), and the pattern
of who connects to whom can be of significance too, both in relation to the
whole and to the actors involved. Different network configurations can have
different effects, and different positions in a network generate different
opportunities and constraints for the actor(s) involved. I elaborate further
upon these points below. For the moment, however, consider a comparison.
During late 1975 and the first two months of 1976, when the punk
scene was first emerging in London, two students at the Bolton Institute,
near Manchester, were whiling away their evenings listening to the same
music that inspired the London punks. Howard Trafford and Peter McNeish
had tried to put a band together, modelled on the Velvet Underground and
the Stooges, but they weren’t having much luck. By the end of 1976,
however, sparked into action by the Sex Pistols, Howard Devoto and Pete
Shelley, as they now called themselves, were one half of Buzzcocks, a highly
acclaimed and popular punk band on the national level and front runners
of a growing punk/post-punk scene in Manchester. This raises a question:
why did punk start in London and not Manchester, given that Devoto and
Shelley were drawn to the same musical influences as the London punks,
longed to do something different and were able to form one of the most highly
acclaimed punk bands within weeks of hearing about the Sex Pistols? They
evidently possessed both the will and the ‘talent’ or ‘human capital’.
Furthermore, there is clear evidence of the same dissatisfaction with the
mid-1970s music scene, in Manchester, that we find expressed in (London)
punk. The Manchester-based music fanzine, Hot Flash, complained in
1975, for example, of the commercial pressures destroying music, the
‘decaying aristocracy of management and gilded superstars’ and ‘self-
appointed experts jealously guarding their exclusivity’ (cited in Lee,
2002: 111).
It may be argued that geographical proximity to the headquarters of
the major record companies and music magazines, with the increased
chances of forging links with these important corporate actors that such
proximity affords, is all the explanation we need. Clearly this is important.
If the A&R scouts and journalists of supposedly national organizations never
venture outside of London, then a London base is a clear advantage.
However, even London punk took shape outside of this framework, to some
extent. A scene existed before the aforementioned corporate actors became
involved in it (though, of course, London punks would have had greater
reason than their Mancunian contemporaries to believe that it was worth the
effort because they may be spotted). In addition, cities outside of London,
particularly Manchester and Liverpool, have been an important source of
musical developments both before and after punk. And the punk scenes in
these cities, when they did develop, did so relatively independently of
major, London-based record companies. Indeed, punk was a rebellion
against the pop music establishment and its dominance, and it cannot be
wholly explained by reference to the influence and machinations of that

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 96
establishment. We must look beyond the concentration of resources in the

capital for a full explanation therefore. Ties to well-resourced corporate
actors are an important part of the story but not the whole story.
A further factor explaining London’s lead, I suggest, is that, in contrast
to the London punks, the Manchester punks lacked the network necessary
to turn aspiration into reality. I do not mean to suggest that there was no
local band scene in Manchester. There was and Shelley had been involved
in it, in a previous band (on the history of Manchester music see Haslam,
2000; Lee, 2002). The Manchester band scene had waned between the mid-
1960s and mid-1970s as a consequence of legislative changes which led to
the closure of many beat clubs (Haslam, 2000; Lee, 2002), not to mention
the rise of the disco, but there was still an active scene. Neither do I mean
that Manchester lacked a critical mass of would-be musical innovators,
inspired by the US ‘punks’ to do something different. The very rapid emer-
gence of a Manchester punk scene towards the end of 1976, and the personal
histories of its key players, gives the lie to that. The formative members of
highly acclaimed bands from Joy Division to Simply Red, the Fall to the
Smiths, were all, like Devoto and Shelley, primed for action (Haslam, 2000;
Lee, 2002; see also Nolan, 2006). And like Shelley and Devoto they were
tuned in to the same musical influences that shaped London punk and toying
with the idea of doing something similar. Many only turned up to see the Sex
Pistols, at a gig which is widely cited as the trigger for the launch of the
Manchester punk scene, because the small amount of publicity the Pistols
had attracted at that time indicated that they did cover versions of Stooges’
songs and were influenced by other such bands (Ford, 2003, 15; Lee, 2002:
126). In other words, the Pistols were doing what the Mancunians were
already interested in. However, Manchester’s key players were not linked in
early 1976 and, as a consequence, the scene they later co-created could not
yet emerge. I will explain how the Manchester punks became connected at
the end of this paper (see also Crossley, 2008b). First, however, I will focus
upon the rather more ‘connected’ starting point of London’s punk pioneers.
Early British Punk: Joining the Dots
As noted above, early British punk was centred upon a small number of
bands, most famously: the Sex Pistols, the Clash, Siouxsie and the Banshees
and the Damned. One might argue about who the first ‘real punks’ were
among these bands but what is more interesting is that they emerged as punk
bands in very close succession. They ushered in punk together. And to some
extent they had to. One band alone does not suffice to make a movement.
One cannot have punk nights/festivals or fanzines, such as the infamous
Sniffin’ Glue, without a critical mass of bands and actors to work on and
feature in them. But how did (more than) four distinct bands alight upon the
same idea at the same time? The answer is that each of the four emerged
out of a pre-existing, multilayered network which linked them. This network,
which I believe is more important to the story of punk than the bands and
actors enmeshed within it, must be described.

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 97
As I describe the network, moreover, I will identify the ‘foci’ which

contributed to its formation. ‘Focus’ is a concept introduced by Feld (1981,
1982) to account for network formation. Like-minded actors are more likely
to meet, he argues, because their interests draw them to the same sites of
interaction: the same foci. We see clear evidence of this in the network of
the early punks.
Members of each of the four bands cited above, and more besides,
belonged to other bands prior to their first punk band. And each of the four
was linked by the previous band memberships of their members. Mick Jones
of the Clash, for example, had earlier been in a band called London SS with
Tony James, later of Chelsea, and also with Brian James (not a relative),
later of the Damned. After leaving London SS Jones teamed up with Chrissie
Hynde, later of the Pretenders, in an unnamed band, before moving on to
the Clash.
Sid Vicious, who replaced Glen Matlock in the Sex Pistols, in addition
to playing in the first line-up of Siouxsie and the Banshees, was earlier in
a band called Flowers of Romance with Palmolive and Viv Albertine, later
of the Slits, as well as Keith Levine of both the Clash and Public Image Ltd.
Malcolm McLaren, before managing the Sex Pistols, managed a band
called Masters of the Backside, whose members involved both Chrissie
Hynde (the Pretenders) and the formative members of the Damned. He later
briefly managed both the Slits and Adam and the Ants.
The list could go on but Figure 1 provides a summary. Band names
are abbreviated in this map.3 Arrowheads indicate where band members
moved from and to. These exchanges indicate that many members of
different pioneering punk bands were drawn from a common network and
knew one another at the time punk took off because they had worked
together previously.
Bastard
Masters
London 101ers Strand
Flowers
Untitled Banshees
Clash Pistols
Damned Castrators
Chelsea
SSect
Slits
Pretenders
GenX PIL
Figure 1 Movement of personnel between key bands

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 98
Band membership was only one context of prior acquaintance,

however. McLaren’s shop, for example, drew together many people who
would become involved in the early punk scene. It was a key focus of the
punk network. Chrissie Hynde, later of the Pretenders, and Glen Matlock,
the original bassist of the Sex Pistols, worked there, for example, as did
Jordan, whose dominatrix image was integral to early punk iconography.
Among the customers were Siouxsie (of the Banshees), Steve Jones and Paul
Cook (Sex Pistols), and four friends (each) called John, one of whom would
become Johnny Rotten, one Sid Vicious and another Jah Wobble (who
played with Rotten in Public Image). Similarly, the Sex Pistols’ road
manager, Nils Stevenson, who was also the first manager of Siouxsie and the
Banshees, met the Pistols at SEX. It was his brother, Ray, a rock photog-
rapher, who took many of the well-known early photographs of the band.
In addition, McLaren was an old friend and associate of Bernie
Rhodes, who managed London SS, Subway Sect and, most famously, the
Clash. Indeed, when McLaren spent six months in the USA, working with
the New York Dolls, he asked Rhodes to ‘look after’ a band that he was
currently managing (The Strand). This band later became the Sex Pistols.
Moreover, it was Rhodes who spotted Rotten in SEX and suggested to
McLaren that he (Rotten) sing in the Sex Pistols.
Similarly, SEX’s accountant, Andy Czezowski, took over management
of Masters of the Backside from McLaren, overseeing their transition into
the Damned. He managed Chelsea/Generation X and ran the Roxy, a key
punk venue and thus focus for the punk network. Czezowski was also the
accountant of Don Letts, who at that time ran a shop (Acme) on the King’s
Road, close to SEX, which provided another focal hang out for the early
punk network. Letts became the DJ at the Roxy and manager of the Slits.
He was a key source of the reggae influence within punk and he became a
successful film maker, charting the rise of punk.
And there was romance and friendship. Joe Strummer of the Clash
dated and lived with Palmolive of Flowers of Romance and the Slits before
either were punks. Rotten dated (and married) Nora Forster, mother of the
14-year-old Slit, Ari Up. Viv Albertine, later of both Flowers of Romance
and the Slits, went to art college with Mick Jones (with whom she also had
a long-term romantic relationship) and Paul Simonon before the latter two
formed the Clash, and lived in a squat with Keith Levine, who was in the
first Clash line-up and also later in Public Image with Rotten. Finally, Steve
Jones and Paul Cook of the Sex Pistols were dating Jo Faull and Sarah Hall
of the Flowers of Romance.
As with the above-mentioned band links, many of these connections
pre-dated the formation of the first punk bands. However, in addition, the
gigging circuit provided an important focus in which already active musi-
cians came into contact with punk and were simultaneously converted and
recruited. Describing the time the Sex Pistols supported his (pub rock) band,
the 101ers, for example, Joe Strummer claimed that ‘5 seconds into their
first song, I knew we were like yesterday’s paper, we were over’.4 Shortly

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 99
afterwards, having been approached by Bernie Rhodes and Mick Jones, who
had seen the 101ers play several times, he became the front man of the
Clash. Stuart Goddard, who was to become Adam Ant, reports a similar
experience. Goddard’s band, Bazooka Joe, was supported by the Pistols on
what was the first-ever Pistols gig. The day after the gig he left Bazooka Joe
and looked to form a new band.5 That band, Adam and the Ants, were
originally managed by Goddard’s friend, Jordan, who worked in SEX for
McLaren and Westwood.
In addition, many members of the vanguard punk bands were regulars
in the audience at the early gigs. Each gig or punk night provided an oppor-
tunity for new members to connect with old and become part of the network.
It is significant, in this respect, that many of the early Pistols gigs were held
at art colleges rather than the usual venues of the pub rock circuit. Art
college bars attract customers more likely to appreciate the innovation and
artistic citations in punk, and less likely to be affronted by its moral and
aesthetic subversion. This was no doubt why McLaren chose these venues,
and it helped generate the early network. Gigs and venues draw music fans
together. They function as mechanisms of network formation: foci. But they
more effectively generate a network when audiences self-select according
to taste and outlook.
One cluster of Pistols’ fans, drawn from their early gigs, deserves
special mention. The ‘Bromley Contingent’, whose ‘members’ included
Siouxsie and Steve Severin, later of the Banshees, and Billy Idol of
Chelsea/Generation X, were very closely identified with the Pistols, some
even being involved in the famous Bill Grundy interview.6 The Bromley
Contingent were the first identifiable punk audience, serving both as role
models for other audience members and as an illustration of the ‘spread’
and threat of punk for journalists and photographers keen to document this.
Members of the Contingent, including Siouxsie, had shopped at SEX
prior to seeing the Pistols play. It was the gigs that hooked them in, however.
One member, Simon Barker, describes the first time he (unwittingly) turned
up at a gig where the Sex Pistols were playing (as a support act):
I got there and I saw Malcolm: I’d seen him in the shop and I thought ‘Wow,
what’s he doing here?’ Then the Sex Pistols came on and I was the only one
clapping. (quoted in Savage, 2005 [1991]: 145)
It was Barker who alerted Siouxsie and others to the Pistols and encouraged
them to go to the next gig. After Contingent member, Berlin, organized a
party for the band at his house, following one of the many gigs they subse-
quently attended, relations between the band and this cluster of their closest
fans were sealed.
The Bromley Contingent formed a large clique with the Sex Pistols, in
a technical sense; that is, a sub-group within the network, each of whose
members is bonded with every other. This clique had its own focus. The
Pistols and the Contingent tended to hang out together at Louise’s, a lesbian

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 100
bar. It was here that their relations were sealed. Many plans were hatched
at Louise’s and it became a nerve centre of the punk vanguard.
Constituting the Network
Figure 2 represents a snapshot of this evolving network of relations between
the 46 main punk protagonists. The snapshot represents documented
relationships for the period between January and November 1976; that is,
the period before the Bill Grundy interview, which catapulted the Pistols to
infamy, and before the ‘Anarchy Tour’, when a number of the key early bands
took to the road together and, in some cases, forged further relations.
Given the multiple contexts in which these individuals gathered, and
the extent to which each of the bands whose members are represented here
played together (on joint tours and at festivals), it is probable that each of
the 46 knew each of the others to some degree. They must have all met on
occasion and many others could be included in my network if I were to
define ties in terms of the casual acquaintance that comes from such
meetings. It is clear from his biography, for example, that Hugh Cornwell
(2005) of the Stranglers, who is not included in my network, knew members
of my 46, having met them at gigs. I only count them as linked, however,
where one or more of the following conditions are met: (1) they were
involved/had been involved in a band together; (2) worked together in
another context; (3) lived together; (4) were romantically linked or gener-
ally known to have been close friends in or before 1976. Given these criteria,
the ties mapped in Figure 2 are both strong and marked by a high frequency
of contact. In addition, as many of the 46 are linked by more than one of
my criteria, the ties are also largely multiplex.
I am constituting the network as one of human actors linked by
personal relations. Note, however, that there is a division of labour between
these actors and that they contribute different resources to the network. It
is equally a network of roles and resource exchanges. Among the band
members, for example, there is a division according to instruments played
and, in addition to musicians, there are managers, promoters and opinion-
leading audience members. In the analysis that follows I will be focusing
upon basic relational patterns within the network, irrespective of roles and
resources, but we should be mindful that a further reason for the import-
ance of the network was that it facilitated the mobilization, combination and
coordination of a diverse range of resources and contributions. Connection
between actors who possess and are willing to use the necessary resources
for particular forms of collective action is an important prerequisite of such
action.
Analysing the Network
The size of this network is important. There are 46 vertices (actors) in Figure
2. This just involves key players and therefore underestimates the actual
size of the early punk crowd. As we have seen, however, these 46 actors
constituted the critical mass necessary to generate the bands, managers,

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 101
Scabies
Myers Vanian
Auguste Godard Sensible
Czezowski October
Packham Wobble
Levine T James Andrews
Towe
Simonon Hynde Idol
B James Grey
M Jones
Chimes
Rhodes McLaren Matlock Berlin
Letts Rotten Ashby
Headon Strummer Jordan Severin
S Jones
Up Juvenile
Vicious
Siouxsie Catwoman
Palmolive Faull Stevenson
Cook
Albertine Hall
Pirroni Barker
Figure 2 The network figuration of punk’s ‘inner circle’
‘cheerleaders’, etc. who, in turn, formed the nucleus of both the first local
punk scene and, indeed, the wider national punk movement. This is not the
place to discuss the complexities of the theory of critical mass or my own
assessment of it (see Crossley, 2007, 2008a; Gould, 1993; Kim and
Bearman, 1997; Marwell et al., 1988; Oliver and Marwell, 1988; Oliver et
al., 1985 ). It must suffice to say that both scenes and movements are forms
of collective action which are more likely to emerge and be recognized as
such when the size of the collective involved increases (albeit perhaps up
to a point whereupon further growth is counter-productive). Size is import-
ant because collective action involves ‘costs’ (broadly defined) which may
prove prohibitive if they cannot be sufficiently distributed, and because the
required work may exceed that possible for a small group. Moreover, claims
to credibility and legitimacy often invoke size (would we be prepared to call
a single band with three fans a ‘scene’ or a ‘movement’?). It is not possible
to be precise about the population size threshold values at which a
scene/movement becomes feasible and recognizable as such, at least not
unless we accept some rather artificial simplifications. In the present case
it must suffice to say that a mass of 46 actors was big enough to generate
the bands, punk nights and festivals that formed the nucleus of punk.
Mass is only part of the picture, however. The 46 were able to generate
a scene, and ultimately a movement, because they were connected to one
another in a network. Cultural production and contestation requires a

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 102
pooling of resources and energy which can only occur when actors are
connected. Channels of communication and exchange between a critical
mass of protagonists are necessary if their actions are to be combined and
coordinated constructively, and if ideas, innovations, narratives and collec-
tive identities are to be disseminated. In addition, pioneers require channels
through which to recruit likely participants, and participants must be in a
position to influence one another if the conventions of a recognizable style
are to emerge. This is what the London pioneers had but was missing
(initially) in Manchester. Very early innovations took off because they were
taken up within a network of similarly attuned or perhaps, rather, mutually
attuning actors.
Punk was created by way of interactions within a network; interactions
in which dynamics of mutual stimulation and purposive response gave rise
to innovations, some of which became subcultural conventions, being both
reinforced and disseminated by way of further interactions in the network.
The network itself was not a passive container of this interactivity, however.
The configuration of the network, its emergent structure and properties,
made a difference.
Networks have a ‘diameter’, for example, defined as the shortest path
between their two most distant actors; ‘path’ and ‘distance’ both being
measured in terms of the number of intermediary relations (‘degree’)
between the two actors. Diameter is important because, all things being
equal, the smaller the distance that innovations have to travel, the quicker
they will travel and the less likely they are to be distorted by successive
iterations and interpretations. Subcultural conventions should spread more
quickly and maintain a higher degree of homogeneity where a network
diameter is small.
The diameter of the network represented in Figure 2 is three, meaning
that the two most distant actors in it are separated by only three relation-
ships (two intermediary agents). As with a number of measures in social
network analysis, our interpretation of this figure is hindered by a lack of
established norms against which we might compare it. However, I suggest
that this is low, given that we are dealing with a network involving 46 actors
and only counting strong relationships. Clearly the cultural innovations
emerging at different points of the network wouldn’t have far to travel to
touch its extremities. All members of the network are likely to have enjoyed
quick and reliable access to them.
Moreover, a shorter diameter increases the chance that actors within a
network will find others with both interests similar to their own and the
necessary resources to facilitate joint projects (assuming such others exist in
the network). A small diameter makes a network more searchable for its
members because the ‘feelers’ that they put out have less distance to travel.
Thus bands find the members, managers, promoters, etc. that they want, and
vice versa. We see this in punk in the various exchanges of personnel
between bands noted in Figure 1. Musicians and managers moved between
bands in the early days of punk, effectively trying out different combinations.

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 103
In some cases this created new network ties, but it also drew upon them
and, to this extent, benefited from the short path lengths (small diameter)
characteristic of the network. Had the diameter of the network been bigger,
many key players might never have been put into contact and many classic
group line-ups might never have emerged. Since the music is generated by
way of interaction between the players, this, in turn, would have impacted
upon the music.
Equally important is density; that is, the number of connections in the
network compared to the possible number. In our network we have 246
relationships out of a possible 1035, giving us a density score of 0.237. In
absolute terms, that is not particularly high, but it is generally recognized
that density varies in inverse proportion to group size, such that big groups
are never dense in absolute terms. Given a network of 46 people, and given
that we are focusing only upon strong ties (not mere acquaintance), I suggest
that this is quite high. Almost 25 percent of all possible relations are
present.
Density is important, in the first instance, because it tends to generate
social capital, which in turn increases actors’ possibilities for action (Burt,
2005; Coleman, 1990). In high-density networks reputation mechanisms are
more likely and more effective. Word gets around about an actor and this is
consequential for that actor, such that they have an incentive to play fair,
prove trustworthy and cooperate. Insofar as all actors are equally affected,
this tends to produce a context of trust and cooperation (social capital)
wherein actors are able to achieve more than they would in a ‘backstabbing’
environment (Burt, 2005; Coleman, 1990). And the benefits of this ‘circle
of trust’ constitute a further incentive to keep one’s place within it.
We see this in punk, notwithstanding the falling out, in the various
ways in which the bands helped one another out by, for example, using one
another as support acts. Pete Shelley of Buzzcocks, who I return to later, for
example, claims that ‘social obligation’ was key to early punk (cited in
Savage, 2005 [1991]: 487). Buzzcocks got their ‘break’ through their contact
with McLaren, who introduced them to the London scene and invited them
to tour the UK with the London punks. They reciprocated, and were
expected to do so, by generating support slots for others:
. . . we got our first gigs in London through Malcolm: the 100 Club festival,
and later the White Riot tour. We had the Slits and the Gang of Four for the
Another Music tour, Penetration for Entertaining Friends, and Subway Sect
for the Love Bites tour. (cited in Savage, 2005 [1991]: 487)
Shelley may have elected to support others for altruistic or solidaristic

reasons. He claims so and there is no reason to doubt him. Such solidarity
or esprit de corps does not emerge in the absence of a dense web of strong
ties, however, and others who were not motivated in this way would still
have had an incentive to offer support to fellow bands if not doing so risked
jeopardizing their own lines of support. In high-density networks, such as

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 104
that I have identified for the early punks, breaking ranks could have just
such an effect.
The social capital generated by high density may also have been an
important supportive mechanism for those who took to the stage for the first
time, particularly when they were musically inexperienced and inept. The
claim that punk bands couldn’t play their instruments is overstated. Many
could. But some couldn’t and some, such as the first line-up of Siouxsie and
the Banshees, took to the stage (at the celebrated 100 Club punk festival)
before they had bothered either to learn to play or do much rehearsing. That
the Banshees got to play in this festival at all, alongside the Sex Pistols and
other rising luminaries, is a reflection of their well-connected position within
the network:
‘There was a vacant space’, says Siouxsie, ‘and it was being discussed at
Louise’s. Malcolm was saying ‘We need another band’, and I volunteered,
‘We’ve got a band’. We hadn’t. (Savage, 2005 [1991]: 218)
But so too is the fact that they were able to survive on stage. It is only under
certain conditions that a band who can’t play can take to the stage and last
for the 20 minutes that it famously took the Banshees to perform their
version of the ‘The Lord’s Prayer’. Such a performance could only work with
an audience predisposed to be sympathetic and supportive. It is not clear
that just anybody would have got that support. But the Banshees weren’t
anybody. In addition to Marco Pirroni (later in Adam and the Ants and friend
of ‘Soo Catwoman’, who was a friend of Siouxsie and other members of the
Bromley Contingent), they were Siouxsie and Severin of the Bromley Contin-
gent, close friends of McLaren and the Sex Pistols, and also Johnny Rotten’s
close friend, Sid Vicious. It was safe for the Banshees to take to the stage
without much idea of what to do because they were connected within a
relatively dense network (present and strongly involved at the gig), and
could thus expect both a charitable interpretation and a supportive recep-
tion of their performance. This is a reflection of the Banshees’ position
within the network, but it is also a reflection of the network’s overall density.
Because ‘everybody knew everybody’, punk created safe spaces for cultural
experimentation.
High density can also be important because it has been shown to play
an important role in maintaining subcultural patterns. Bott (1957) has shown
that dense networks protect traditional conjugal role systems in an other-
wise changing environment, for example, while Milroy (1987) makes a
similar claim for traditional speech patterns (see also Boissevain, 1974;
Burt, 2005; Mitchell, 1969). In dense networks the same ideas, information
and prescriptions tend to reach actors via different contacts, reinforcing a
sense of their importance. And it is easier for shared criteria of interpret-
ation and judgement, as well as shared norms, to emerge, as there is an
overlap in the pool of actors involved in the various contexts where such
criteria and norms are mobilized, such that interpretations and judgements

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 105
are cross-checked and corrected. Finally, dense networks tend to exercise

more effective surveillance over their members, since each actor is observed
by several others. This increases the likelihood that norms are maintained.
When strong and multiplex ties are involved, moreover, the pressure to
conform is greater. Interdependence between actors, and particularly the
prospect that the goods supplied within a relationship might be withdrawn,
generates an incentive to obey emerging norms.
This is significant in relation to punk as punk involved an ethos and
style, of both music and fashion, that was distinctive and challenging. While
we should not overstate the homogeneity of punk style and culture, the
emergence of its distinct style was clearly facilitated by the density of the
network of its key protagonists. When particular innovations caught on, they
would have been able to spread quickly through the network, since most
actors knew most others and each actor would hear of that innovation from
several of their key contacts. Moreover, innovations adopted within the
network would be strongly reinforced. The density of the network would
allow a strong ‘line’ to develop and significant pressure to be applied.
Protection and insulation from ‘the outside’ might be important too, if,
as in punk, one’s appearance (e.g. clothing associated with Nazism and
sexual fetishism) is likely to induce negative reactions from outsiders. One
needs both a strong reference group to affirm one’s choices and perhaps also
the safety that comes in numbers. Punks were attacked on the streets in the
early days, for example, and subject to considerable criticism. Their
continued existence, as a group, required mutual support.
Also important in this respect is average degree; ‘degree’ referring here
to the number of connections enjoyed by any actor. A high average degree
indicates that a network is well integrated and that its members are vulner-
able to strong peer pressure. Our mean degree is 10.8, suggesting that each
actor is strongly tied to 11 others, on average, in the network. The standard
deviation is high (6.09), however, and the mode (5) suggests a need to revise
that figure downwards. The mean is elevated by a few well-connected actors
(see Figure 3). Nevertheless, even if each actor involved in the network
enjoys strong ties with five others (as the median is 9 most are above this),
this will exert a strong influence upon them, encouraging and reinforcing
continued involvement in and conformity to the growing punk subculture.
If five of your ‘strong ties’ are becoming punks then there is a pressure to
do the same, and if the six of you confer then you are likely to have a similar
definition of what ‘becoming a punk’ entails.
It is important not to overstate the cultural homogeneity of punk. Even
as we consider its stylistic variations, however, we can see evidence of
network influence. It is commonly noted, for example, that the ‘safety pins
and sexual fetishism’ look, while it became quite common among some fan
groups, particularly in London, was much more strongly associated with the
Sex Pistols, Siouxsie and the Banshees and the Bromley Contingent than,
for example, the Clash (Salewicz, 2006; Savage, 2005 [1991]). One reason
for this is undoubtedly the proximity of the Sex Pistols to McLaren, whose

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 106
20
15
10
Mean = 10.7826
Std. Dev. = 6.09157
0 N = 46
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Degree
Figure 3 Degree frequency distribution (raw figures)
shop, SEX, was the source of much of this clothing. Indeed, it has been
claimed that McLaren only became involved with the Sex Pistols because
he believed they were a vehicle through which to sell his clothes (Savage,
2005 [1991]). Likewise, it has been claimed that Vivienne Westwood sought
to cultivate certain members of the Bromley Contingent as possible models
for her clothing (Savage, 2005 [1991]). In themselves these observations
point to the significance of social networks: stylistic innovations were trans-
mitted by way of social ties. Those closest to the source were most affected.
In addition, however, note that the members of the Sex Pistols and the
Bromley Contingent (which included Siouxsie and Severin of the Banshees)
formed a clique within the network I have analysed; that is to say, each of
the 13 actors involved enjoyed ties to each of the (12) others. They formed
a maximally dense region of the network. Moreover, as noted above, they
enjoyed their own distinct network focus (Louise’s bar). Add to this that
members of the Clash were both strongly bonded among themselves but did
not enjoy strong direct relations with members of this clique, at least during
1976, and there is at least a plausible case for explaining the concentration
of the ‘fetish’ look by reference to networks. Members of the Clash simply
weren’t strongly tied in to the region of the network where this was import-
ant. They enjoyed sufficient distance, and thus autonomy, from the clique
in which the fetish look took hold, to develop their own look.
To pull this first part of the analysis together, what I hope that I have
shown here is that the emergence of a punk scene in London in 1976 was
both facilitated and shaped by the properties of the network linking its key

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 107
protagonists. Something called ‘punk’ was able to emerge because the actors
most closely associated with it, who brought it about, were connected to and
interacting with one another. Indeed, punk was not the product of their
individual actions but rather of their interactions with one another. This is
not just a matter of interaction, however. The interactions that generated
punk were concentrated in a dense network, with a small diameter, in which
all actors had a relatively high degree. I have tried to suggest that these
network properties were also important to the generation of punk.
Power and Conflict
The ‘connectedness’ of the early punks, and even the cooperation between
them, does not preclude the possibility of power imbalances and conflict
between them. And in the history of punk anecdotes abound which attest to
the presence of both. Networks are irregular structures which, even as they
confer general advantage (where they do), nevertheless position their
members differently and advantage them to differing degrees, generating a
possibility for resentment and conflict. Likewise, tightly knit regions can
border on and interfere with loose-knit regions, generating tension (see
Crossley, 2008c).
With respect to power imbalances, the resources of individual actors
and the specificities of their interdependence with particular others are
important. An actor who has access to the resources that others require, and
upon whom others are dependent to a greater extent than she is dependent
upon them, will enjoy power in those relations (Elias, 1978). They have the
levers necessary to manipulate others and, even if they are not explicit about
this, it may be a tacit premise in their negotiations.
It is no doubt partly for this reason that McLaren, Rhodes and, to a
lesser extent, Czezowski, as the three key band managers in the network,
are usually identified as powerful players within it. They had the money,
business know-how and influential contacts outside of the network necess-
ary to support and promote the bands and musicians within it.
Position in a network, and particularly centrality, which is understood
to afford agents leverage in at least some situations (Bonacich, 1987), are
important too, however. SNA offers a number of ways of measuring central-
ity. We can compare the number of connections each actor enjoys (degree
centrality). We can analyse their distance (by the shortest path) to every
other actor in the network (closeness). And we can analyse the extent to
which they fall in the (shortest) path connecting all pairs of others in the
network (betweenness). Alternatively, we can examine ‘structural holes’ or
‘aggregate constraint’. The concept of ‘structural holes’, first postulated by
Burt (1992, 2005), suggests that actors who connect otherwise unconnected
alters in a network (thereby bridging a ‘structural hole’) derive power from
doing so as they can broker between the various parties that they connect,
controlling the flow of resources between them and also the conditions under
which they interact. ‘Aggregate constraint’ is one operationalization of this
concept available in the Pajek software used here. It is a measure based

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 108
upon the degree of connection between the alters that each ego is connected
to. The more connected ego’s alters are, so the argument goes, the less room
for brokerage ego has and the more constrained by her connections she is.
We cannot afford to be too mechanical in reading ‘advantage’ or ‘power’ into
these positional measures. Centrality doesn’t always confer advantage
(Bonacich, 1987), brokers can find themselves attacked or subject to exten-
sive demands from each of the parties they connect (Crossley, 2008c), and
the advantage of any position is only ever a potential which must be actu-
alized by an agent capable of playing their hand to the full, and willing to
do so. These measures are important indicators of potential influence,
however.
It is possible for actors to score highly on any one of the centrality
measures but not the others. In the case of our network, however, the top
three positions are occupied by the same actors in each case. The Sex
Pistols’ manager, Malcolm McLaren, is top of all three scales, with a degree
(29) almost three times the mean (10.8) and almost six times the mode (5).
The Sex Pistols’ second bassist, Sid Vicious, comes second for degree (25)
and closeness, and third for betweenness. The Clash’s manager, Bernie
Rhodes, comes third for degree (24) and closeness, and second for between-
ness. There are no absolute structural holes in the network, in the sense
that all parties are linked by more than one intermediary (albeit sometimes
by a circuitous route), but in terms of aggregate constraint these same three
actors again occupy the most advantageous position (i.e. in this case, have
the lowest score), with McClaren in the most advantaged position, followed
by Rhodes and then Vicious.
In the case of Vicious, his centrality and aggregate constraint are not
significant except insofar as they confirm his überpunk image and reflect his
drift between various bands. His position could perhaps have conferred
advantage upon him but there is no evidence to suggest that he ever
exploited it or even realized that he was in such a position. The positions
of McLaren and Rhodes are more significant, however, because they
indicate that the power generated by their resources was further amplified
by their network positions. And in their case there is plenty of evidence to
suggest that they used their position, albeit sometimes generating resent-
ment against them which then disadvantaged them. They were well placed
to know what was going on in the network and to convey that information
to others, who in some cases might become dependent upon them for this.
They could get their own message out very quickly and put a ‘spin’ on
rumours and information. And in some cases they were the brokers between
smaller groupings within the network, a position which again generated
dependence upon and thus leverage for them. They could influence the
conditions under which other sets of actors met and exchanged resources.
It is important to reiterate, in this respect, that McLaren had other
contacts outside of this network, which also bestowed a brokerage role upon
him. His involvement with the New York Dolls and acquaintance with Tele-
vision, for example, made him a broker between the US proto-punk and UK

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 109
punk scenes. Likewise, he had contacts in the fashion world, by way of his
boutique (which was well known in London fashion circles), which he was
able to use to promote the Sex Pistols. He was an entry point for the punks
into ‘higher’ cultural circles than they would otherwise have mixed in.
Given their central position and the advantage this afforded them, or
rather their perceived abuse of that advantage, it should come as no surprise
that McLaren and Rhodes were controversial figures within the network and
were involved in some bitter disputes. They were in a position to exert an
influence that wasn’t always welcome. There were other areas of conflict too,
however. The Damned, for example, created controversy by breaking ranks
with other bands on the ‘Anarchy’ tour and playing venues where the Sex
Pistols were banned. They evidently did not feel the obligation that other
bands felt to remain solid and have been quoted as saying that they were
outsiders within punk and not part of its ‘inner circle’ (Savage, 2005 [1991]:
215).
This points to an interesting dynamic that I have explored in a
different context (Crossley, 2008c). The coexistence of an in-crowd and
outsiders to it, particularly if the latter are isolates, can generate a power
differential. The support which members of the in-crowd get from others
gives them an advantage and their collective actions can generate negative
externalities for those in their vicinity. This can generate resentment among
outsiders.
The Damned, by my definition, were part of the inner circle of punk.
They were not complete outsiders. There can be in-crowds within in-crowds,
however, and thus (relative) ‘outsiders’ too. Levels of connection, as we have
seen, vary. As indicated above, for example, the Sex Pistols and the Bromley
Contingent formed a clique within the network. They formed a sub-group
(of 13) within the network, focused upon Louise’s, each of whose members
knew every other. This created a block of solidarity which may have afforded
its members an advantage but for this reason also annoyed those excluded
from it. The clique may have been perceived as ‘cliquish’ (in a non-
technical sense) to those on the outside and perhaps also autocratic, given
that the clique made decisions which affected others. Although the Damned
weren’t the only network members excluded from this clique, their sense of
being outsiders may be partly explained by this. They were sufficiently
integrated in the inner circle to be aware of and affected by it, but not
sufficiently to exert influence or enjoy the perceived privileges of the clique.
In addition, their manager, Andy Czezowski, had a significantly lower
degree than the other key managers, McLaren or Rhodes (10 compared to
29 and 24), and the average degree of Damned members themselves was
relatively low too: 6.8, compared to 9.7 for Clash members and 19.8 for Sex
Pistols members. Moreover, with the exception of Brian James’ connection
to Mick Jones and Tony James, they had no direct ties to members of other
bands, unless we count McLaren, who briefly managed them as Masters of
the Backside. They were, at best, ‘friends of friends’ with members of other
bands. Though sometimes a source of influence, friends of friends can also

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 110
be a source of tension. Damned members would have known of other key

players and received frequent updates on ‘the competition’, but they lacked
the close contact that might have lessened the edge and anxiety this
invoked. It is easier to demonize and project fantasies onto those we do not
interact with directly because our projections are subject to less reality
testing. This might have amplified the feeling of being outsiders within the
Damned, although again there were very few direct lines of connection
between any of the bands in the early days.
We could explore other conflicts and the positions of other bands and
musicians. The example of the Damned suffices to make a general point,
however. Network structures, while shaped by conflicts, equally play a role
in shaping them. Network structures facilitated the emergence of early UK
punk but they also contributed to certain structures of conflict and power
within it. As with the formation of punk, a different configuration of relations
between actors might have led to a different pattern of conflict. It is arguable
that the presence of central brokers, who to some degree pulled the network
together and coordinated it, was an important factor, alongside the other
network properties discussed above, in enabling the early UK punk scene
to emerge. Indeed, I would suggest that this most certainly is the case.
However, it also generated conflict, as did the presence of clusters within
the network who were sufficiently well-connected to know what was going
on within it but not enough to exert any degree of strong influence.
Back to Buzzcocks
The dissemination of punk beyond its initial circle is too large a topic to
address here. However, a brief return to the Manchester scene, discussed
above, provides an interesting illustration of at least one trajectory of
development and allows us to see how the networks that Manchester needed
to kick start its own scene finally came together (see also Crossley, 2008b).
In February 1976 the Sex Pistols supported Eddie and the Hot Rods
at London’s Marquee. Their performance was reviewed in the New Musical
Express (NME). In Manchester, Howard Devoto and Pete Shelley read the
review and were excited by it. Having the loan of a car for the weekend,
and having rung the NME to find out more, they travelled to London looking
for what they thought was a sex shop on the King’s Road. They found the
shop, spoke to McLaren and discovered that the Pistols were playing both
that night and the following one.
Having seen the Pistols twice, they elected both to form their own band
(Buzzcocks) and to invite the Pistols to play in Manchester. In fact the
Pistols played twice in close succession at Manchester’s Lesser Free Trade
Hall: 4 June and 20 July (followed by two further gigs at the Electric Circus
in December). On the first occasion Buzzcocks were to have played support
but, following an earlier gig (their first), pulled out. They did find their bass
player at this first gig, however. At the second gig, Buzzcocks supported the
Pistols, along with a Manchester glam rock band who quickly converted to
punk: Slaughter and the Dogs.

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 111
There is a popular joke about the first gig, to the effect that if every-
body who claims to have been there actually was then it would have been
a stadium gig, when only 28 tickets were sold in advance (Nolan, 2007: 32)
and estimates of attendance range between 40 and 100 (Nolan, 2006).
Needless to say, there is a great deal of argument about who was there at
this foundational moment. What is less contested is the fact that both of the
Lesser Free Trade Hall gigs were extremely important.
For the Sex Pistols, this was their first foray outside of London and a
step towards national recognition. They were enthusiastically received and
their reputation in Manchester spread very quickly by word of mouth, such
that attendance at the second gig was much bigger than the first (of course,
the national reputation of the group was growing via the music press at this
time too). As a number of audience members from the first show note:
I’ve no idea of the time difference between the first and the second show but
I just get the feeling that we’d all run around and said ‘You’ve got to come,
you’ve got to come . . .’ (Paul Morley, cited in Nolan, 2006: 72)
I was evangelical about it, honestly. I told everybody about that band,
everybody I encountered, about the Sex Pistols. (Ian Moss, cited in Nolan,
2006: 72)
Maybe it’s only in a small city that you can have that kind of communication,
that can take you from thirty-five people on June 4th to several hundred on
July 20th. The word goes out, the word spreads. (Tony Wilson, cited in Nolan,
2006: 71)
Moreover, the audience included television presenter, Tony Wilson, who

immediately set about using his influence to secure the Sex Pistols their first
TV coverage: a rendition of ‘Anarchy in the UK’ on the Granada area TV
programme he hosted.
From the point of view of Manchester, the gig was important because
it triggered a wave of activity and, in effect, the birth of a new Manchester
music scene. Peter Hook (later of Joy Division and New Order), who
attended with his future band mate, Bernard Sumner, describes how he
bought a bass guitar the very next day. And Hook and Sumner weren’t the
only future stars in attendance. Others included: Mark E. Smith and his
fellow founder members of the Fall (who were gigging within a couple of
months); Morrissey, who played briefly with the Nosebleeds and Slaughter
and the Dogs (in both cases with Billy Duffy, later of both Theatre of Hate
and the Cult) before forming the Smiths; Paul Morley, who was to become
the NME’s ‘man in Manchester’; Tony Wilson, who co-founded Factory
Records and both the Factory and Hacienda clubs; Martin Hannett, who
also co-founded Factory and famously produced many of the Manchester
bands; and local punk celebrity, John the Postman, famed for taking to the
stage uninvited and giving impromptu a cappella renditions of ‘Louie Louie’
(among other songs).

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 112
Of equal importance, however, and no less inspired by the Free

Trade Hall gigs, was a network of venues and events which served to bring
these names and bands, along with many others, into association. In the
context of the Squat, Rafters, the Ranch, the Factory, the Electric Circus
and the Manchester Musicians Collective, among others, a network of
would-be musicians, promoters, producers and journalists began to hook
up, generating both a punk scene in Manchester and, perhaps more
importantly, the post-punk scene for which Manchester is more famous.
This network of venues and events, triggered by the excitement which the
Pistols gigs generated, served as a ‘focus’ which in turn generated a
network of actors with a shared interest in creating their own music. The
would-be punks of Manchester acquired a network and could now, like
their London contemporaries, combine their efforts/talents and make their
mark.
The emergence of the Manchester punk and post-punk scene, which
has been partially depicted in films such as 24 Hour Party People and
Control, and many documentaries, is a fascinating development which
deserves analysis in its own right (Crossley, 2008b). It is worth noting in
this context, however, that its existence as a distinct network from the
London network, albeit one bridged by Buzzcocks, allowed it to develop
along a distinct trajectory. Although there were stereotypical punk bands in
Manchester, a number of commentators note how typical punk clothing was
never as prominent in Manchester as in London (although, as I have said,
even in London typical punk clothing was typical to cliques within the
network rather than to the network as a whole) and how the musical style
of the main bands, most notably Joy Division and the Fall, constituted a
fresh departure (e.g. Haslam, 2000: 119–20). The Mancunian punk network,
because relatively autonomous from the London network, reworked
(London) punk in its own way, giving rise to early and important strains of
what is more commonly deemed ‘post-punk’. To risk stating the obvious, the
Manchester punks were not constrained by the emergent cultural consen-
sus in the London network and, as a consequence, their appropriation of
punk very quickly became something rather different, something shaped by
a Manchester network. Pete Shelley makes the point nicely: ‘It was a bit
like Australia, you know, the animals had a way to develop in their own
peculiar ways, untainted by what was happening in [London]’ (cited in Lee,
2002: 137).
Conclusion
In this article I have looked at the role of pre-existing but also evolving
social networks in the emergence of UK punk. Claims for the importance of
networks in relation to musical production have been made elsewhere
(Becker, 1982; Martin, 1995, 2006). I sought to develop this claim both
empirically, by way of the tools of social network analysis, and theoretically,
by applying ideas on collective action from within both the social capital
and the social movement literatures. New musical movements, like social

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 113
movements, require a critical mass of interested actors. The more densely

networked that mass is, the higher the degree of its members and the smaller
the diameter of the network as a whole, the more likely it is to transmogrify
into a coherent scene or movement.
Punk, I have shown, emerged out of a densely networked ‘inner circle’
of 46 key actors. The density and diameter of this network allowed for
effective communication, coordination and cultural formation. This did not
preclude conflict, however. The weave of relations constituting punk’s inner
circle was uneven. Some were better connected than others, markedly so,
and blocks of greater density existed within the broader structure. Along-
side other irritations, this generated frustration and falling out. While the
network was only one among a number of factors that shaped punk, there-
fore, it did so in different ways. Its effects were varied.
An analysis of networks, such as this, is structural. But the structure
in question is a structure of human interaction. In contrast to French struc-
turalism, there is no question of ‘dissolving’ agents. And in further contrast
the approach eschews excessive abstraction. This article has not been about
punk in general but rather about the interactions of 46 named punks. The
approach has more in common with epidemiology (which sometimes uses
network methods) than much cultural critique, tracing the punk ‘outbreak’
back to its earliest ‘cases’. I hope that I have at least offered a glimmer of
what might be possible by way of this approach.
Notes
Thank you to fellow members of the Manchester Social Networks Group for their
comments on an earlier draft of this article.
1. A large number of websites are devoted to early UK punk and its main bands
and stars. The main ones used here (downloaded 20 July 2007) were:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Pistols http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Damned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_the_Backside
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_SS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flowers_of_Romance_%28band%29
http://www.officialdamned.com/ODsingle/docs/news/2007jul.htm
http://www.vamp.org/Siouxsie/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siouxsie_and_the_Banshees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subway_Sect
http://www.punk77.co.uk/groups/subwaysect.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_James_%28musician%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Strummer http://www.punk77.co.uk/
http://theslits.co.uk/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slits
2. Pajek is a free to download software package (see: http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/
pub/networks/pajek/). For a user-friendly introduction to the software see De Nooy
et al. (2005).
3. The full band names are: London SS; Masters of the Backside; Flowers of
Romance; the 101ers; the Strand; the Castrators; Bastard; the Sex Pistols; the Clash;
the Damned; Siouxsie and the Banshees; the Slits; Public Image Ltd; Chelsea;

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 114
Generation X; the Pretenders; Untitled (collaboration of Mick Jones and Chrissie

Hynde); Subway Sect.
4. This quotation is taken from the Don Letts film, Westway to the World. See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_101ers.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_the_Ants
6. A famous interview on (London area) regional television (1 December, 1976).
The Sex Pistols were encouraged to ‘say something outrageous’. They did (‘dirty
bastard’, ‘dirty fucker’, ‘fucking rotter’) and were instantly catapulted into the
national limelight. Punk crossed a threshold at this point becoming, as ‘deviancy
amplification’ theories predict, much ‘bigger’.
References
Baumann, S. (2007) ‘A General Theory of Artistic Legitimation: How Art Worlds
Are Like Social Movements’, Poetics 35(1): 47–65.
Becker, H. (1982) Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bennett, A. (2004) ‘Consolidating the Music Scenes Perspective’, Poetics 32(3–4):
223–34.
Bennett, A. and R. Peterson (2004) Music Scenes. Nashville: Vanderbilt University
Press.
Boissevain, J. (1974) Friends of Friends. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bonacich, P. (1987) ‘Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures’, American
Journal of Sociology 92(5): 1170–82.
Bott, E. (1957) Family and Social Network. London: Tavistock.
Burt, R. 1992 Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. (2005) Brokerage and Closure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coleman, J. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press.
Coon, C. (1982) 1988: The New Wave Punk Rock Explosion. London: Omnibus.
Cornwell, H. (2005) A Multitude of Sins. London: HarperCollins.
Crossley, N. (2007) ‘Social Networks and Extra-parliamentary Politics’, Sociology
Compass 1(1): 222–36.
Crossley, N. (2008a) ‘Social Networks and Student Movements’, Sociological Review
56(1): 18–38.
Crossley, N. (2008b) ‘The Man Whose Web Expanded: Investigating the Network
Dynamics of Manchester’s Post/Punk Scene 1976–1980’, paper currently under
review.
Crossley, N. (2008c) ‘(Net)Working Out: Social Capital in a Private Health Club’,
British Journal of Sociology 59(3): 475–500.
Dancis, B. (1978) ‘Safety Pins and Class Struggle’, Socialist Review 8(3): 58–83.
Deleuze, G. and F. Guattari (2004) A Thousand Plateaus. London: Continuum.
De Nooy, W., A. Mrvar and V. Batagelj (2005) Exploratory Social Network Analysis
with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Durkheim, E. (1964) The Division of Labour in Society. New York: Free Press.
Elias, N. (1978) What is Sociology? London: Hutchinson.

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 115
Feld, S. (1981) ‘The Focused Organisation of Social Ties’, American Journal of

Sociology 86: 1015–35.
Feld, S. (1982) ‘Social Structural Determinants of Similarity Among Associates’,
American Sociological Review 47: 797–801.
Field, J. (2003) Social Capital. London: Routledge.
Fine, B. (2001) Social Capital Versus Social Theory. London: Routledge.
Ford, S. (2003) Hip Priest. London: Quartet.
Gilbert, P. (2005) Passion is a Fashion. London: Aurum.
Gould, R. (1991) ‘Multiple Networks and Mobilisation in the Paris Commune,
1871’, American Sociological Review 56: 716–29.
Gould, R. (1993) ‘Collective Action and Network Structure’, American Sociological
Review 58(2): 182–96.
Gould, R. (1995) Insurgent Identities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gray, M. (2004) The Clash. London: Hal Leonard.
Halpern, D. (2005) Social Capital. Cambridge: Polity.
Haslam, D. (2000) Manchester, England. London: Fourth Estate.
Hebdige, D. (1979) Subculture. London: Routledge.
Kim, H. and P. Bearman (1997) ‘The Structure and Dynamics of Movement Partici-
pation’, American Sociological Review 62(1): 70–93.
Laing, D. (1985) One Chord Wonders. Buckinghamshire: Open University Press.
Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, C.P. (2002) Shake, Rattle and Rain. Devon: Hardinge Simpole.
Lentini, P. (2003) ‘Punk’s Origins: Anglo-American Syncretism’, Journal of Inter-
cultural Studies 24(2): 153–74.
Lydon, J. (2003) Rotten. London: Plexus.
Marcus, G. (2006) Lipstick Traces. London: Faber and Faber.
Martin, P. (1995) Sounds and Society. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Martin, P. (2006) Music and the Sociological Gaze. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Marwell, G., P. Oliver and R. Prahl (1988) ‘Social Networks and Collective Action:
A Theory of Critical Mass III’, American Journal of Sociology 94: 502–34.
McAdam, D. (1982) Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McKay, G. (1996) Senseless Acts of Beauty. London: Verso.
Milroy, L. (1987) Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mitchell, C. (1969) Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Morris, A. (1984) The Origin of the Civil Rights Movement. New York: Free Press.
Nadel, S. (1957) The Theory of Social Structure. London: Routledge.
Nolan, D. (2006) I Swear I Was There. Shropshire: Independent Music Press.
Nolan, D. (2007) Bernard Sumner. Shropshire: Independent Music Press.
O’Connor, A. (2002) ‘Local Scenes and Dangerous Crossroads’, Popular Music
21(2): 225–36.

089-116 095546 Crossley (D) 6/10/08 09:55 Page 116
Oliver, P. and G. Marwell (1988) ‘The Paradox of Group Size in Collective Action:
A Theory of Critical Mass II’, American Sociological Review 53: 1–8.
Oliver, P., G. Marwell and R. Teixeira (1985) ‘A Theory of Critical Mass I: Inter-
dependence, Group Heterogeneity and the Production of Collective Goods’,
American Journal of Sociology 91: 522–56.
Paytress, M. (2003) Siouxsie and the Banshees. London: Sanctuary.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1952) ‘On Social Structure’, pp. 188–204 in Structure and
Function in Primitive Society. London: Cohen and West.
Robb, J. (2006) Punk Rock: An Oral History. London: Ebury.
Salewicz, C. (2006) Redemption Song. London: HarperCollins.
Savage, J. (2005 [1991]) England’s Dreaming. London: Faber and Faber.
Scott, J. (2000) Social Network Analysis. London: SAGE.
Simonelli, D. (2002) ‘Anarchy, Pop and Violence’, Contemporary British History
16(2): 121–44.
Snow, D., L. Zurcher and S. Ekland-Olson (1980) ‘Social Networks and Social
Movements: A Microstructural Approach to Differential Recruitment’, American
Sociological Review 45(5): 787–801.
Wasserman, S. and K. Faust (1994) Social Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wellman, B. and S. Berkowitz (1997) Social Structures: A Network Approach.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Williams, R. (1977) Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nick Crossley is a professor and currently head of Sociology in the School

of Social Sciences at the University of Manchester. He has published widely
on social movements, embodiment and social theory, and is currently explor-
ing the role of social networks in relation to collective action. He is taking
the UK punk and post-punk music scenes as key case study examples for
this current project.

Nick Crossely - Social Network of The UK Punks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nick Crossely - Social Network of The UK Punks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory,http://tcs.sagepub.

Pretty Connected : The Social Network of the Early UK Punk Movement

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://tcs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Oct 16, 2008

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

90 Theory, Culture & Society 25(6)

stylistic relationship to modernism/postmodernism, Situationism and Dada;

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

Crossley – Pretty Connected 91

The concept of networks can be deployed in different ways. One

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

92 Theory, Culture & Society 25(6)

who were centrally involved in what I have identified as an ‘inner circle’ of

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

Crossley – Pretty Connected 93

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

94 Theory, Culture & Society 25(6)

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

Crossley – Pretty Connected 95

Networks have different structures, however. Not everybody within the

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

96 Theory, Culture & Society 25(6)

establishment. We must look beyond the concentration of resources in the

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

Crossley – Pretty Connected 97

As I describe the network, moreover, I will identify the ‘foci’ which

Figure 1 Movement of personnel between key bands

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

98 Theory, Culture & Society 25(6)

Band membership was only one context of prior acquaintance,

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

Crossley – Pretty Connected 99

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

100 Theory, Culture & Society 25(6)

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

Crossley – Pretty Connected 101

Figure 2 The network figuration of punk’s ‘inner circle’

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

102 Theory, Culture & Society 25(6)

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

Crossley – Pretty Connected 103

Shelley may have elected to support others for altruistic or solidaristic

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

104 Theory, Culture & Society 25(6)

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

Crossley – Pretty Connected 105

are cross-checked and corrected. Finally, dense networks tend to exercise

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

106 Theory, Culture & Society 25(6)

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

Crossley – Pretty Connected 107

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

108 Theory, Culture & Society 25(6)

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

Crossley – Pretty Connected 109

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

110 Theory, Culture & Society 25(6)

be a source of tension. Damned members would have known of other key

Downloaded from tcs.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 4, 2012

Crossley – Pretty Connected 111

Moreover, the audience included television presenter, Tony Wilson, who