Youth subcultures have always attracted a lot of attention, both from the media and from academics. It is not surprising because members of youth subcultures tend to be highly visible and often are responsible for moral panics. Secondly, youth cultures have been considered to be “the product or epitome of social change, or a barometer of future changes”. That is why, in the twentieth century, in the time of social, economic and political changes, youth became an object of sociological, cultural, and psychological analyses. The concept of subculture has been an attractive model for explanation and analysis of youths’ individual and collective behaviours in sociology for a diversity of theoretical positions. It is noticeable that every successive paradigm has tried to criticize or to show its dominance and authority over previous understandings. The term subculture was initially used in 1950’s in the works of the Chicago School in the US to refer to the urban gangs. In British subcultural theory has begun with the studies of sociologists who sought to explain delinquent behaviour of young people and consistently relied on psychology and psychoanalysis. But the most influential body of work is New Subcultural Theory that was created during the 1970’s by the researchers from the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) at Birmingham University. It has been strongly criticized but is still considered to be the ground work on subcultures. However, according to Rupa Huq, the term subculture has in many ways come of age. There are a lot of academics that criticize the writings of the CCCS and have developed postmodern theories on subcultures. They suggest new definitions and explanations of subcultures or even claim that the notion of subculture cannot be applied anymore to describe the culture of today’s youth.
In this paper, I will introduce some different strands of the subculture theory about youth during the twentieth century. I will briefly introduce the theory of delinquency of American and British sociologists, and then I will give an overview of the Cultural Studies approach from the University of Birmingham in the 1970’s and briefly indicate its weaknesses. Then I will introduce the approach of the contemporary subcultural theory and explain the concepts of clubculture, neo-tribe and lifestyle which are considered to be alternative to the concept of subculture.
Contents
Introduction
1 The theories of delinquency
2 New Subcultural Theory
2.1 Phil Cohen
2.2 “Resistance through rituals”
2.3 Dick Hebdige “Subculture: the meaning of style”
2.4 Angela McRobie
2.5 The critique
3 Contemporary theories of subcultures
3.1 Clubcultures
3.2 The theory of ‘Neo-tribes’
3.3 The theory of lifestyle
Conclusion
References
Objectives and Thematic Focus
This paper aims to provide an overview of the development of subculture theory throughout the twentieth century, specifically examining the transition from early theories of delinquency to the Birmingham School's Cultural Studies approach and finally to contemporary, post-subcultural perspectives.
- Evolution of sociological perspectives on youth culture
- The influence and critique of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS)
- The emergence of post-subcultural theories in the 1990s
- Alternative concepts: Clubcultures, Neo-tribes, and Lifestyle
- Gender, class, and the role of consumerism in identity formation
Excerpt from the Book
2.3 Dick Hebdige “Subculture: the meaning of style”
The work of Dick Hebdige marked a watershed in subcultural analysis, shifting from a class-based sociology to a more complex understanding of social difference, particularly with regard to race and liberation of sign from social structure. As During claims, no cultural studies book has been more widely read than Dick Hebdige’s “Subculture: the meaning of style”. In “Subculture: the meaning of style”, Dick Hebdige used semiotics, literary criticism and structural anthropology to interpret the ambiguous meanings produced by the dress, music, language, gestures, postures and behavioural styles of publicly condemned youth sub-cultural groups such as Teddy Boys, Mods, Rockers, Rastafarians, Skinheads and Punks. Unlike Phil Cohen’s historical approach in which youth sub-cultural styles were related to the parent culture that produced them, Hebdige used a textual analysis, drawn from semiotics and the anthropologist Lévi-Strauss, and took the notion of symbolic forms of resistance of youth sub-cultures outlined in “Resistance through rituals” as his starting point.
In particular, Dick Hebdige focused on the different dimensions of the style of subcultural groups. The challenge to hegemony which subcultures represent is not issued directly by them. Rather it is expressed obliquely, in style which is pregnant with significance. For Hebdige, ‘style’ is an obviously fabricated display of codes of meaning. He argued that the styles expressed by different subcultures are a response to social conditions and experiences. Through the signification of difference, style constitutes a group identity. Furthermore, according to Hebdige, such styles often encode an opposition to the dominant or hegemonic forms of culture associated with dominant groups.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the historical interest in youth subcultures and sets the stage for comparing traditional Birmingham School theories with modern, postmodern alternatives.
1 The theories of delinquency: Examines early functionalist perspectives from American and British sociology that viewed youth behavior primarily through the lens of delinquency and class structure.
2 New Subcultural Theory: Analyzes the foundational work of the CCCS, focusing on concepts of hegemony, resistance, and the structural analysis of style.
2.1 Phil Cohen: Details Cohen’s historical and structural analysis of East London youth, introducing the concepts of ‘imaginary relations’ and ‘magical solutions’.
2.2 “Resistance through rituals”: Discusses the systematic approach of the CCCS in interpreting subcultural style as a form of symbolic politics within a class context.
2.3 Dick Hebdige “Subculture: the meaning of style”: Focuses on Hebdige’s semiotic approach to subcultural style as a means of encoding resistance and group identity.
2.4 Angela McRobie: Critiques the masculine bias in early subcultural studies and highlights the necessity of addressing gender roles and domesticity.
2.5 The critique: Addresses the limitations of the CCCS approach, including methodological issues, political bias, and the tendency to romanticize working-class resistance.
3 Contemporary theories of subcultures: Explores the shift toward post-subcultural studies in the 1990s as a reaction to the perceived limitations of earlier models.
3.1 Clubcultures: Introduces Steve Redhead’s and Sarah Thornton’s perspectives, emphasizing the role of commercial culture and subcultural capital.
3.2 The theory of ‘Neo-tribes’: Describes Maffesoli’s concept of the ‘neo-tribe’ as a way to understand fluid, consumer-based, and non-hierarchical youth identities.
3.3 The theory of lifestyle: Examines how the concept of lifestyle has replaced subculture as a tool to describe individualistic, hedonistic youth identities in a consumer-driven society.
Conclusion: Summarizes the legacy of subculture theory and evaluates the current shift toward postmodern definitions of identity and consumption.
References: Lists the academic works and sources used to build the theoretical arguments presented in the paper.
Keywords
Subculture, Cultural Studies, CCCS, Birmingham School, Delinquency, Resistance, Hebdige, Youth Culture, Post-subculture, Neo-tribe, Lifestyle, Consumerism, Hegemony, Style, Social Class
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines the historical development and theoretical evolution of "subculture" as a concept within sociology and Cultural Studies, specifically focusing on the shift from Birmingham School theory to postmodern alternatives.
What are the key thematic fields discussed?
The work covers the theory of delinquency, the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS), the critique of these early approaches regarding gender and class, and the emergence of contemporary concepts like clubcultures and neo-tribes.
What is the main research question or goal?
The goal is to analyze how the concept of subculture has transformed over the twentieth century and to explain why contemporary theorists suggest using alternative concepts like lifestyle or neo-tribe to describe today's youth.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The paper relies on a comprehensive literature review, synthesizing sociological theories and critical analyses from primary academic texts associated with the Birmingham School and contemporary post-subcultural studies.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section moves from early delinquency studies to the CCCS’s structuralist/Marxist approach, provides a critique of this approach, and concludes with an introduction to postmodern theories of consumption, clubbing, and lifestyle.
What characterize this work based on the provided keywords?
The work is characterized by its focus on the transition from class-based structural analysis to consumer-based individualistic identity studies, involving key theorists like Hebdige, McRobie, and Maffesoli.
How does Angela McRobie’s critique impact subcultural theory?
McRobie’s work highlighted that early subcultural theory suffered from an almost exclusive focus on boys, rendering girls 'invisible' and failing to account for the specific leisure spaces and domestic roles that shaped female experiences.
What does the term 'neo-tribe' signify in this context?
Derived from Maffesoli, 'neo-tribe' describes a shift away from static, class-defined subcultures toward fluid, temporary social groupings that are formed through shared interests, ambience, and lifestyles within a postmodern, consumer-driven society.
- Quote paper
- Ausra Dvarionaite (Author), 2007, ‘Subculture’ as a theoretical problem in Cultural Studies , Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/76956
