Boundaries and Identity: Understanding Online Punk Practices



This chapter analyses how digital technology can shape cultural practices of punks through and within online communities. It provides a different angle of approach for considering the spaces that punk-scene members construct for their gatherings. Members of online punk groups generate topics and invite discussion in the form of threads of conversation about punk in two online fora. While thus conversing and negotiating identity and norms in these spaces, they often have to employ special techniques to avoid or circumvent the censorship that is so commonplace. One of the most important dynamics is this: the forum members may have no physical contact with each other or specific intentions to engage in any. The text-oriented mode of communication leads to alternative means of establishing meaningful punk-related relationships, normally through following and commenting on the discussion threads in the fora.


  1. Bainbridge, W. S. (2000). Religious ethnography on the World Wide Web. In J. K. Hadden & D. E. Cowan (Eds.), Religion on the internet (pp. 55–80). New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Cerulo, K. A. (1997). Identity construction: New issues, new directions. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  4. Charmaz, K. (2001). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 675–694). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  5. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London, England: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Johnstone, B., & Bean, J. M. (1997). Self-expression and linguistic variation. Language in Society, 26(2), 221–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Major, R. C. (1992). Losing English as a first language. The Modern Language Journal, 76(2), 190–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McLaughlin, C., & Vitak, J. (2011). Norm evolution and violation on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14(2), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Meyrowitz, J. (1997). Shifting worlds of strangers: Medium theory and changes in ‘them’ versus ‘us’. Sociological Inquiry, 67(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Williams, J. P., & Copes, H. (2005). ‘How edge are you?’ Constructing authentic identities and subcultural boundaries in a straightedge Internet forum. Symbolic Interaction, 28(1), 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Witteborn, S. (2007). The situated expression of Arab collective identities in the United States. Journal of Communication, 57(3), 556–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zhang, W. Y., & Mao, C. T. (2013). Fan activism sustained and challenged: Participatory culture in Chinese online translation communities. Chinese Journal of Communication, 6(1), 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Communication and DesignSun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations