by Ben Spatz
Is it true that punks have more integrity? No, but here is what is true: "Upstanding" citizens usually think that punks are less reliable people. This is the whole "rappers are dangerous" thing. Of course, punks are not actually less reliable. They are exactly as likely to be reliable as anyone else. So to counterbalance the stigma, there is this other archetype of the "reliable punk," who is punky about stupid laws but comes through for her friends in the end. On the surface, this sounds like a great struggle concept to have, but really it's just a reworking of the noble savage vision, in which punks are shown to be extra extra loyal in contrast to the disloyal (but upstanding) bourgois citizens. This is indeed a critique of superficial bourgois values, but it also dehumanizes the punks/savages. We are at a point in our politics (or at least my posse is, perhaps others are not) where we need more human punks, who are NOT romanticized, and maybe we need MORE justification (in terms of rock-music in the background and that kind of thing) for normal, law-abiding middle-class folk. Well, I don't know if that is quite true.
I do know that this is why I love _Six Degrees of Separation_. You start with two upstanding bourgois citizens. They run into a punk who turns out to be maybe-good and maybe-bad. The bourgois couple immediately begins to turn the punk into a noble punk, a perfect story, etc. It's not that he's noble in the story, just that he's tragic or else evil or whatever--in any case, not a real person. At the end, Ouisa stands up and leaves because she won't let Paul be romanticized. By doing that, she returns the humanity of both herself and Paul. She is then NOT the typical superficial bourgois, and he is NOT the confused but noble savage. Instead, they are just two people. Flan remains superficial bourgois.