Subculture Theory

June 2, 2009

If, as Ray­mond Williams sug­gested, a cul­ture is a “whole way of life,” then it fol­lows that a sub­cul­ture is a par­tial way of life. That is, sub­cul­tural par­tic­i­pa­tion implies a set of value ori­en­ta­tions and prac­tices that are nei­ther coter­mi­nous with the entirety of a given pop­u­la­tion nor exhaus­tive of any one individual’s activ­i­ties and iden­tity posi­tions. When con­sid­ered in iso­la­tion, such par­tic­i­pa­tion may seem a triv­ial thing, but subcultures—or niche audi­ences, taste cul­tures, con­sumer lifestyles, and “neo-tribes”—and the kind of social­ity that they embody make increas­ingly pow­er­ful claims on people’s alle­giance at the same time as tra­di­tional cat­e­gories of ascribed iden­tity and sta­tus (class, eth­nic­ity, gen­der, reli­gion, &c.) appear to be loos­en­ing their grip on them. The con­cept of sub­cul­ture is needed to the­o­rize ade­quately the uneven cir­cu­la­tion of mean­ing in con­tem­po­rary soci­eties. Fur­ther­more, it is par­tic­u­larly well suited to the analy­sis of cul­ture at the meso-social level, below macro-social struc­tures but above and beyond the indi­vid­ual actor in micro-social contexts.

This exam­i­na­tion area is intended to review three major strands of sub­cul­ture the­ory — the Marx­ian model of the Birm­ing­ham School, sub­se­quent post-subcultures frame­works, and Amer­i­can inter­ac­tion­ist approaches — and also to explore other ana­lyt­i­cal tra­di­tions in a vari­ety of fields that may pro­vide fruit­ful avenues for com­par­i­son and synthesis.

The study of sub­cul­tures was one of the foun­da­tional strands of British Cul­tural Stud­ies as for­mu­lated at the Uni­ver­sity of Birmingham’s Cen­tre for Con­tem­po­rary Cul­tural Stud­ies under Stu­art Hall’s direc­tor­ship. Through its research on working-class youth lifestyles, the CCCS sub­cul­tures work­ing group pro­duced a Marx­ian soci­ol­ogy of cul­ture that has not only achieved canon­i­cal sta­tus but also con­tin­ues to set the agenda for con­tem­po­rary schol­ars work­ing in this area. Rep­re­sen­ta­tive read­ings are drawn from both pro­gram­matic CCCS sub­cul­tural stud­ies (J. Clarke 2006a, 2006b; Clarke et al. 2006; Hall et al. 1981; Heb­dige 1979, 2006; Willis 1977, 1978) and their inter­locu­tors (G. Clarke 2005; P. Cohen 2005; Frith 1983; McRob­bie and Gar­ber, 2006; Mur­dock and McCron 2006). The Birm­ing­ham School’s inno­va­tion was its attempt to analyse (sub)cultural expres­sions in terms of power and class-based expe­ri­ence through semi­otic ‘read­ings’ of par­tic­u­lar youth lifestyles. At the same time, the Birm­ing­ham model is an incom­plete work, and even its most sub­stan­tial and provoca­tive state­ments point toward fur­ther research more than they resolve the ques­tions that they have raised.

The 1990s and early 2000s saw another fruit­ful period of research and the­o­riza­tion on subcultures—again, largely in Britain. This set of approaches (Chaney 2004; Het­her­ing­ton 1998; Hod­kin­son, 2002; Maffesoli 1996; Mar­chart 2003; Mug­gle­ton 2000; Straw 2005; Thorn­ton 1995) has sub­se­quently been termed ‘post-subculture’ the­ory. The pre­fix both sig­nals an attempt to over­come per­ceived inad­e­qua­cies in the CCCS model and alludes to an increas­ing engage­ment with post­mod­ernism. The idea of the post­mod­ern not only chal­lenged the the­o­ret­i­cal and epis­te­mo­log­i­cal foun­da­tions of ear­lier research but also seemed to sig­nify an impor­tant change in the object of study, as fluid, con­sumerist lifestyles were seen increas­ingly to dis­place the rel­a­tively sta­ble, class-based cul­tures of the imme­di­ate post-war period. These shifts in iden­tity and social sol­i­dar­ity (and the study of the same) may be fur­ther con­tex­tu­al­ized by Nestor Gar­cía Canclini’s (2001) analy­ses of cul­tural life in Latin Amer­i­can cities under con­di­tions of mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism and glob­al­iza­tion. While post­mod­ernism led to a use­ful recon­sid­er­a­tion of received wis­dom, it has also had a ten­dency to move the study of sub­cul­tures more and more into spe­cial­ist sub-disciplines such as youth, leisure, and pop­u­lar music stud­ies. In this way, sub­cul­ture theory’s broader impli­ca­tions for the analy­sis of soci­ety and cul­ture have been largely obscured.

This obscur­ing may be par­tially com­pen­sated for by a re-evaluation of an older tra­di­tion in sub­cul­tural research within Amer­i­can inter­ac­tion­ist soci­ol­ogy, par­tic­u­larly the urban soci­ol­ogy of the Chicago School. These schol­ars (Becker 1963; A.K. Cohen 2005; Cressey 2005; Fine and Klein­man 1979; Gor­don 2005; Park 2005) were pri­mar­ily con­cerned with immi­grant and deviant sub­cul­tures in Amer­i­can cities, only later (Irwin 1977, 2005) com­ing to be asso­ci­ated with the kinds of leisure lifestyles that have so pre­oc­cu­pied British researchers. Their focus on action and com­mu­ni­ca­tion in rel­a­tively local­ized sub­cul­tural con­texts is a nec­es­sary cor­rec­tive for the ten­dency towards abstrac­tion present in British (post)subcultural research. Fur­ther­more, the fre­quently less spec­tac­u­lar and more quo­tid­ian nature of the sub­cul­tures stud­ied by these Amer­i­can researchers help to de-essentialize some of the def­i­n­i­tions of sub­cul­ture (and par­tic­i­pa­tion therein) advanced by British theorists.

Finally, I want to indi­cate other fields and bod­ies of research that may enrich our under­stand­ing of con­tem­po­rary sub­cul­tures. In ‘cul­tur­al­ist’ strands of New Social Move­ment the­ory (McAdam 1997; Melucci 1997), fan­dom stud­ies (Jenk­ins 1992), the field the­ory of Pierre Bourdieu’s soci­ol­ogy (1983, 1985), and Michael Warner’s (2002) dis­cus­sion of the “publics” and “coun­ter­publics” con­sti­tuted by dis­course, we encounter phe­nom­ena that are rem­i­nis­cent of sub­cul­tures and struc­tured in sim­i­lar ways but have, for var­i­ous rea­sons, rarely been analysed in sub­cul­tural terms. These analy­ses call into ques­tion many of the assump­tions of tra­di­tional thought in sub­cul­ture the­ory and pro­vide ways of the­o­riz­ing some of its blind spots.

Bib­li­og­ra­phy

Becker, Howard S. 1963. Out­siders: Stud­ies in the Soci­ol­ogy of Deviance. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Bour­dieu, Pierre. 1983. “The Field of Cul­tural Pro­duc­tion, Or: The Eco­nomic World Reversed.” Poet­ics 12(4–5): 311–356.

——. 1985. “The Social Space and the Gen­e­sis of Groups.” The­ory and Soci­ety 14(6): 723–44.

Chaney, David. 2004. “Frag­mented Cul­ture and Sub­cul­tures.” Pp. 36–48 in After Sub­cul­ture: Crit­i­cal Stud­ies in Con­tem­po­rary Youth Cul­ture, edited by A. Ben­nett and K. Kahn-Harris. New York: Pal­grave Macmillan.

Clarke, Gary. 2005. “Defend­ing Ski-jumpers: A Cri­tique of The­o­ries of Youth Sub­cul­tures [1981].” Pp. 169–174 in The Sub­cul­tures Reader, 2nd ed., edited by K. Gelder. New York: Routledge.

Clarke, John. 2006a. “The Skin­heads and the Mag­i­cal Recov­ery of Com­mu­nity.” Pp. 80–83 in Resis­tance through Rit­u­als: Youth Sub­cul­tures in Post-War Britain, 2nd ed., edited by S. Hall and T. Jef­fer­son. New York: Routledge.

—–. 2006b. “Style.” Pp. 147–161 in Resis­tance through Rit­u­als: Youth Sub­cul­tures in Post-War Britain, 2nd ed., edited by S. Hall and T. Jef­fer­son. New York: Routledge.

Clarke, John, Stu­art Hall, Tony Jef­fer­son, and Brian Roberts. 2006. “Sub­cul­tures, Cul­tures and Class.” Pp. 3–59 in Resis­tance through Rit­u­als: Youth Sub­cul­tures in Post-War Britain, 2nd ed., edited by S. Hall and T. Jef­fer­son. New York: Routledge.

Cohen, Albert K. 2005. “A Gen­eral The­ory of Sub­cul­tures [1955].” Pp. 50–59 in The Sub­cul­tures Reader, 2nd ed., edited by K. Gelder. New York: Routledge.

Cohen, Phil. 2005. “Sub­cul­tural Con­flict and Working-class Com­mu­nity [1972].” Pp. 86–93 in The Sub­cul­tures Reader, 2nd ed., edited by K. Gelder. New York: Routledge.

Cressey, Paul G. 2005. “The Life-cycle of the Taxi-dancer [1932].” Pp. 35–45 in in The Sub­cul­tures Reader, 2nd ed., edited by K. Gelder. New York: Routledge.

Fine, Gary Alan and Sher­ryl Klein­man. 1979. “Rethink­ing Sub­cul­ture: An Inter­ac­tion­ist Analy­sis.” Amer­i­can Jour­nal of Soci­ol­ogy 85(1): 1–20.

Frith, Simon. 1983. Sound Effects: Youth, Leisure, and the Pol­i­tics of Rock. Lon­don: Con­sta­ble. Intro­duc­tion & Chap­ters 8–11.

Gar­cía Can­clini, Nestor. 2001. Con­sumers and Cit­i­zens: Glob­al­iza­tion and Mul­ti­cul­tural Con­flicts. Trans. G. Yúdice. Min­neapo­lis: Uni­ver­sity of Min­nesota Press.

Gor­don, Mil­ton M. 2005. “The Con­cept of the Sub-culture and its Appli­ca­tion [1947].” Pp. 46–49 in The Sub­cul­tures Reader, 2nd ed., edited by K. Gelder. New York: Routledge.

Hall, Stu­art. 1981. “Notes on Decon­struct­ing the Pop­u­lar.” Pp. 227–240 in People’s His­tory and Social­ist The­ory, edited by R. Samuel. Boston: Rout­ledge & Kegan Paul.

Hall, Stu­art, Chas Crichter, Tony Jef­fer­son, John Clarke, and Brian Roberts. 1978. Polic­ing the Cri­sis: Mug­ging, the State, and Law and Order. New York: Holmes & Meier.

Heb­dige, Dick. 1979. Sub­cul­ture: The Mean­ing of Style. New York: Routledge.

—–. 2006. “The Mean­ing of Mod.” Pp. 71–79 in Resis­tance through Rit­u­als: Youth Sub­cul­tures in Post-War Britain, 2nd ed., edited by S. Hall and T. Jef­fer­son. New York: Routledge.

Het­her­ing­ton, Kevin. 1998. Expres­sions of Iden­tity: Space, Per­for­mance, Pol­i­tics. Thou­sand Oaks, CA: Sage. Intro­duc­tion & Chap­ters 1–4.

Hod­kin­son, Paul. 2002. Goth: Iden­tity, Style and Sub­cul­ture. New York: Berg.

Irwin, John. 1977. Scenes. Bev­erly Hills: Sage.

—–. 2005. “Notes on the Sta­tus of the Con­cept Sub­cul­ture [1970].” Pp. 73–77 in The Sub­cul­tures Reader, 2nd ed., edited by K. Gelder. New York: Routledge.

Jenk­ins, Henry. 1992. Tex­tual Poach­ers: Tele­vi­sion Fans & Par­tic­i­pa­tory Cul­ture. New York, Routledge.

Maffesoli, Michel. 1996. The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Indi­vid­u­al­ism in Mass Soci­ety. Trans. D. Smith. Thou­sand Oaks: Sage.

Mar­chart, Oliver. 2003. “Bridg­ing the Micro-Macro Gap: Is There Such a Thing as a Post-subcultural Pol­i­tics?” Pp. 83–97 in The Post-subcultures Reader, edited by D. Mug­gle­ton and R. Weinzierl. New York: Berg.

McAdam, Doug. 1997. “Cul­ture and Social Move­ments.” Pp. 473–487 in Social Move­ments: Per­spec­tives and Issues, edited by S.M. Buech­ler and F.K. Cylke, Jr. Toronto: Mayfield.

McRob­bie, Angela and Jen­nie Gar­ber. 2006. “Girls and Sub­cul­tures.” Pp. 177–188 in Resis­tance through Rit­u­als: Youth Sub­cul­tures in Post-War Britain, 2nd ed., edited by S. Hall and T. Jef­fer­son. New York: Routledge.

Melucci, Alberto. 1997. “The Sym­bolic Chal­lenge of Con­tem­po­rary Move­ments.” Pp. 259–274 in Social Move­ments: Per­spec­tives and Issues, edited by S.M. Buech­ler and F.K. Cylke, Jr. Toronto: Mayfield.

Mug­gle­ton, David. 2000. Inside Sub­cul­ture: The Post­mod­ern Mean­ing of Style. New York: Berg.

Mur­dock, Gra­ham and Robin McCron. 2006. “Con­scious­ness of Class and Con­scious­ness of Gen­er­a­tion.” Pp. 162–176 in Resis­tance through Rit­u­als: Youth Sub­cul­tures in Post-War Britain, 2nd ed., edited by S. Hall and T. Jef­fer­son. New York: Routledge.

Park, Robert E. 2005. “The City: Sug­ges­tions for the Inves­ti­ga­tion of Human Behav­ior in the Urban Envi­ron­ment [1925].” Pp. 25–34 in The Sub­cul­tures Reader, 2nd ed., edited by K. Gelder. New York: Routledge.

Straw, Will. 2005. “Com­mu­ni­ties and Scenes in Pop­u­lar Music [1991].” Pp. 469–478 in The Sub­cul­tures Reader, 2nd ed., edited by K. Gelder. New York: Routledge.

Thorn­ton, Sarah. 1995. Club Cul­tures: Music, Media, and Sub­cul­tural Cap­i­tal. Cam­bridge: Polity Press.

Warner, Michael. 2002. “Publics and Coun­ter­publics.” Pub­lic Cul­ture 14(1): 49–90.

Willis, Paul E. 1977. Learn­ing to Labour: How Work­ing Class Kids get Work­ing Class Jobs. Alder­shot, UK: Gower.

—–. 1978. Pro­fane Cul­ture. Boston: Rout­ledge & Kegan Paul.

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*