Punks are never complacent. Once they grow into complacency they cease to be punks. Hence, some of the best rock bands of all times turned into nothing more than shadows of their earlier selves in their later years. Examples would be Morrissey from The Smiths, REM, The Smashing Pumpkins, U2. It happened to them all.
Beatnics were the earliest incarnations of punks. Patti Smith, Jim Carroll(The Basketball Diaries), Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg and William Boroughs are probably the most recognizable names within this category. I feel as though soon will be the day that no remaining soul will know what they stood for. On the Road, the famous book by Kerouac written in the 50's, refers to an era of boundless freedom in the history of the US that will probably never be repeated.
Beatnics, in turn, were influenced by the ideals and philosophy of the Romantics. Romanticism was a revolutionary movement in art and music in Europe around 1800-1900, during which individualized emotion was cherished and complete personal expression was the highest goal. The musical pieces of that era were characterized by drama, creepiness, and highly sensual sounds, such as Beethoven's Symphony no.5, The Erlkonig by Schubert, and my favourite, Chopin's mesmerizing piano pieces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuUJ3rhevNk

my religion

It seems everyone knows what hippie culture was all about, but only few know about something known as "punk". Punk is an attitude, although it also defines a genre in the history of music that is associated with certain types of beats, rhythm, lyrics and singing style. But it really is all about the attitude, and bands that weren't typically "punk" in their musical style would still be considered punk if they stood for punk ideals. On the other hand, a lot of bands that mimicked the musical style to be associated with the punk movements had no idea what it really stood for.
1. We are NOT hippies! Punk shared some characteristics with hippie culture but was also fundamentally different from it.
2. We are shameless in the face of the fact that we are outsiders.
3. We are different and embrace our weirdness.
4. We defy...
5. Passion is our middle name.
6. We're honest.
7. We do fight, but not because we're told to.
9. We keep this saying in mind -"I don't regret the things I've done but those I haven't done."

panopticism

Panopticism relates to everything. And so, I'd like to share with my readers a short essay that I wrote explaining what it is all about by referring to the essay Panopticism by Foucault (Dane, this is especially for you):

Panopticism begins with a description of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, a nineteenth century structural design for a prison. The principle behind the design is explained, the mechanism analyzed, and throughout the chapter Foucault shows how it provided the model in which a self-disciplined modern society has been able to develop. Foucault gradually leads us to the realization that “We are neither in the amphitheater, nor on the stage, but in the Panoptic machine”(Foucault 301).            

          Bentham’s Panopticon is composed of a tower annularly surrounded by cells. The tower has wide windows that open into the inner side of the ring. Each cells extends the whole width of the building and has two parallel windows, the inner one facing the tower’s window, and the other outwards. This parallel setting allows the light to cross the cell from one end to another; hence the supervisor can easily observe the individual in the cell from the tower. With the Panopticon’s structural elements, Bentham creates a scenario where the inmates in the cells cannot see the guardian in the tower, and therefore cannot verify, at any given moment, whether or not they are being observed.  Thus, this is a very efficient mechanism of control over great quantities of people as it exerts a constant sense of surveillance and produces self-imposed discipline. An additional element is that each inmate is isolated as the sidewalls of the cells prevent him from seeing or coming into contact with his peers.  

          By close and constant observation of isolated bodies, each of the imprisoned entities is vulnerable to specific measurement, classification and even experimentation. This gathered information, Foucault argues, is used to increase the efficiency of control, a principle that works similarly in modern times. Patients in hospitals are observed separately, their symptoms documented, and the effects of the medicines they were given monitored. Among schoolchildren, Panopticism makes it possible to asses character and aptitudes. Amongst workers, to compare the time it takes each to complete a task and calculate their wages accordingly, to teach different techniques simultaneously and decide which works best.

          Over the last few centuries, the role of disciplinary institutions has transformed from dealing with “problematic populations” or situations and preventing destruction, to productivity, increasing the possible utility of individuals. For example, Christian elementary schools in the seventeenth century were founded to prevent drunkenness, theft and general disorder. At the beginning of the Revolution their role has transformed into preparing the children for work and strengthening their skills.

          Foucault describes a process in which the disciplinary establishments increase, but at the same time morph from defined, enclosed institutions (such as workshops, armies, schools) into external surveillance spread throughout the modern “disciplinary society.” The police force, along with informers, is an example for a state apparatus that exercises constant unseen surveillance over society, providing a permanent account of citizens' behavior, thus creating a disciplinary network between the defined institutions.

          Foucault sees “discipline” as the form which power takes or in which it is exercised. He also thinks of it as a technique that increases each multiplicity’s usefulness to the power which controls it, while decreasing the cost of regulation per entity.  It is not one place or institution but a set of relations and mechanisms. With the inclusion of the public and non-institutional members in observation, the disciplinary mechanism is decentered, which has the effect of increasing the efficacy of the disciplinary mechanism as there no longer remains the point of having an active agent in order to keep the same power using the threat of violence.

          An important point is that in the modern society discipline works in an unidentified, unconscious mechanism of Panopticism, not replacing other mechanisms but connecting and extending them, exerting control over the smallest details. Thus, Foucault attempts to unveil the Panopticism that penetrates every tiny aspect of modern human life. It is the unspoken laws that govern our lives and subconsciously become part of our nature. Therefore, even though we seem to have the freedom to become the kind of individuals we wish to become, our freedom is constantly compromised by the fact that our personalities come into shape in the shadow of the unspoken social rules of behavior. Foucault insinuates that whether in prisons, schools, or factories, we are all prisoners.

For pictures of the Panopticon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

I'd like to take a short pause from my poetic narratives to talk about something that has affected us all as college students and citizens of the free world. Why don't you people ever speak up? And you call yourselves "New Yorkers"??
 Take out creative writing course for example. I would like to make an important distinction. Nobody seems too happy with the fact they have to comment on approximately 150 pieces by their peers, nor can most of us make it.The interesting phenomenon is that this is wrongly justified by self-accusations of laziness, which, if your thinking doesn't go deep enough to separate effectiveness from pure practice, probably wouldn't take you too far down the road of logic.
There is a difference between being lazy - refraining from doing simply because one doesn't feel inclined to put any effort into something productive, into a transformation of some sort - and not taking part in something one just isn't naturally meant to do. Of course, we are raised to act against our urges and not follow our desires. That is how societies are kept in order, and have been for hundreds or thousands of years (at least).
I agree with the idea that the best way, and maybe the only way, to improve one's writing is to read, read read. However, if one doesn't have the choice over what they read, the reading could feel forced, and thereby oppress one's sense of creativity, as any forced activity does. Each and every one of us has their own little world of emotions and associations, and naturally we are interested in different styles and subjects. I'm sure I wouldn't be alone to say, I really couldn't relate to and/or enjoy a lot of the pieces that I had to comment on in this class. I enjoyed some of them, some made me think. But I would have learned so much more if I was given the choice of reading from different sources as well, or focusing on works from fewer chosen people. In writing as in art (the two are entwined to me), it is more about quality, not quantity. Although I would have been happy reading just as much if I was given the choice, or at least a long list of names and pieces to choose from. Unlike many others, our teacher seemed like someone open-minded and approachable that you can talk to. And so my question to you, why did you remain silent?  I'm pretty sure the idea was giving everyone an equal treatment, which is a very nice way to go, but the world outside it cruel and we better get used to it, the sooner the better.