I feel like I have a library of books like this: detailed passionate defences of punk, sometimes written by participants in the scene who went to college and wrote about punk. Craig O'Hara's (Reference O'Hara1995) The Philosophy of Punk: More Than Noise is an early example of the genre (not included in the extensive bibliography) and Ensminger's writing on punk is very much in this tradition. Because it is, in its own terms, a useful book, similar in in its political stance to George Hurchalla, Going Underground: American Punk 1979–1992 (Reference Hurchalla2005; also missing from the bibliography), I want to use this review as an occasion to say what I think is wrong with this kind of academic work. This is not the way to write about punk scenes:

Written in a punk fanzine this would be fine. As an introduction to research on punk it will not do because it confuses the roles of participant and researcher. What exactly is being claimed in these sentences?

Ensminger starts by recognizing that punk includes many different political points of view. He mentions the right-wing views of John Holstrom editor of Punk fanzine, and the conservative libertarian views of Jeff Bale, long-time contributor to Maximumrocknroll. Yet from his own life and political commitments (which I share) he wants to depict punk as ‘a folk subculture of like-minded fans, musicians, writers, photographers and others’ (p. 2). Well you can't have it both ways. As a social scientist you recognize that punk is a relatively autonomous area in culture and society (Pierre Bourdieu calls this a field) in which there are many different styles, political intentions and personal commitments. Yet as a participant you want to argue that punk is (essentially) a subculture that exemplifies – your own political commitments. In arguing that the real punk subculture is (fill in the blank) you are using your position as a university-based researcher, writing an academic book, to continue the struggles that you fought as a member of the scene, for example, against Jeff Bale, and for Martín Sorrondeguy, who also for a time worked at Maximumrocknroll.

If we are to write seriously about punk these roles need to be separated. We need a methodology that allows us to seriously describe and research the field of punk in all its complexity, from Chumbawamba's anarchist playfulness to Earth Crisis's deadly serious Straight Edge position against abortion. It is all part of the field of punk. Energetic prose, a poetic disposition and thick description of punk scenes will not solve the problem. Punk is not a single folk culture with shared values: it is a complex area of musical and cultural creativity, changing historically and with significant differences from Belfast to Mexico City. Its serious study requires a methodology that can deal with this complexity, describe it and explain its workings.

We have too many ‘readings’ of punk, from Hebdidge's original semiotic interpretation of punk as a refusal of any stable meaning (similar to the avant-garde poets described by Kristeva's Revolution in Poetic Language, Reference Kristeva1985) to Ensminger's (Reference Ensminger2013) humanities-inspired and leftist reading of punk subculture. There are equally persuasive oral histories of punk in the USA as a cynical and meaningless youth culture. According to Steve Blush (Reference Blush2001) it is all about being outrageous and getting drunk. Those kids existed too. (This is probably one of the most-read books on American hardcore and again it is not in Ensminger's bibliography.) So we have to move beyond readings of punk subculture to actual research on who punk kids are, what kinds of families they come from (at Gilman Street outside of San Francisco I watched in amazement as a punk in a full purple mohawk stepped carefully from his parent's luxury sedan car), how they participate in the field of punk (as drummer or photographer or a kid who just goes to shows), what they do for a living, whether they go to college (like David Ensminger) and what careers they subsequently follow. This is not punk as a single folk culture. It is the complex workings of a social system: of family, class, race, gender, education, participation in the field of punk, and life after 30, when most punks seldom attend shows.

Many methodologies will be useful for this kind of work. Participation in the field of punk as a young person has obvious advantages. Research can be historical, involve the collection of records and fanzines (much of this is now online), and participant observation. However, it will almost certainly involve systematic and large-scale interviewing. The only way to find out a punk's social class is to ask them what exactly their parents do for a living. The only way to understand a punk's experience of school and college (most punks in the USA have some college education) is to ask them. The only way to find out the political beliefs of ordinary punks is to ask them. An interpretation of song lyrics, no matter how well done, is no substitute for this kind of social research. Ensminger previously published a book of interviews with ‘punk icons’ but what we need is interviews with many more ordinary participants in the scene.

Readers who know little about punk will learn a great deal from this book, but what it does is to create what Raymond Williams calls a ‘selective tradition’ of leftist and progressive punk musicians and organizers. Other more conservative participants are mentioned from time to time, but mostly brushed aside. As a reader who shares in the author's leftist perspective, I am quite sympathetic to his intentions. Yet as a social scientist I have to protest that this is not the way to do serious research on artistic and musical fields.