Is the term still relevant to current youth culture?
The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS or the Birmingham school) was the forefront of British cultural studies; the 1970’s saw the culmination of first major research into youth subcultures in post war Britain. The combination of the work by such cultural theorist as Stuart Hall, Dick Hebdige, Phil Cohen And Paul Willis resulted in the British cultural studies definition of subcultures the main features of which worked on three levels. The historical level, the structural level and the ethnographic or biographic level. This definition of subcultures was created in the 1970’s therefore is the term subcultures, under this definition still relevant to current youth cultures?
Britain saw the crumbling of three social myths in the 1960’s, the age of affluence, embourgeoisemont and political consensus. After this the CCCS began to examine youth subcultures as symbolic of the problems in society (particularly in working class society). Therefore through historical analysis “which isolates the specific problematic of a particular class fraction – in this case, the respectable working class” (Cohen 1997:95) the CCCS made significant advances in subcultural theory. Youth subcultures were examined “as attempts to solve certain problems in the social structures, which are created by contradictions in the larger society” (Brake quoted in Hall et al 1976:29). The working class basis was clearly a main feature in the definition of subcultures. To further understand the idea that subcultures largely came from working class culture we must examine the problems, which existed in working class society. After failing to rehouse families in new towns in the 1950’s, local authorities brought in high-rise high-density schemes in the slum sites of London. These “lacked any of the informal social controls generated by the neighbourhood” (Cohen 1997:90).
On a superficial level a contributing factor to the creation of subcultures brought about by redevelopment was the sacrifices in ‘non-essential’ services “ones that don’t pay, such as play space, community centres, youth clubs and recreational facilities” (Cohen 1997:92). However more significantly redevelopment also involved the separation of ‘kinship networks’, with social acts of communication and control being restricted to the new nucleated families the “working class family was thus not only isolated from the outside but also undermined from within” (Cohen 1997:91). These new and unusual strains placed on the working class family continued to increase, and what was a traditional form of support began to collapse. This increase in conflicts and detraditionalisation led the youth of the time to seek support outside of the family network, which therefore led to the “emergence of specific youth subcultures in opposition to the parent culture [working class culture]” (Cohen 1997:94). Another main feature of subcultures is that at the same time as opposing the parent culture, youth subcultures were acting on behalf of the parent culture, “the latent function of subcultures is this: to express and resolve, albeit ‘magically’, the contradictions which remain hidden or unresolved in the parent culture” (Cohen 1997:94). So for the CCCS a main feature in the definition of subcultures is in their ability for problem solving, “they solve, but in an imaginary way, problems which at the concrete material level remain unresolved” (Hall et al 1976:47).
Other main features of subcultures can be examined at the structural level “of the subsystems, the way in which they are articulated and the actual transformations which those subsystems undergo” (Cohen 1997: 95). The idea of examining the semiotics of sub cultural style and fashion had not been used in the cultural field before Dick Hebdiges book ‘Subculture: the meaning of style’. We have already discussed how a main feature of subcultures is their need to resolve disputes within/for their parent culture “and style is the area in which the opposing definitions clash with most dramatic effect” (Hebdige 1987:3). This approach of semiotic readings of style was not based on truth, but rather offered an idiosyncratic reading of subcultures, which therefore asks for a response. Each subculture creates its own style, for example Punks with their ripped T-shirts, Mohican haircuts and Teddy boys who adapted the style of an Edwardian gentleman. A common practice of sub cultural style is bricolage, changing the intended meaning of an object by altering its purpose (e.g. using a bin liner as clothing). Subcultures also change the connotations of other styles, this practice is also known as “semiotic guerrilla warfare” (Eco quoted in Hebdige 1997:136). This is clearly seen in the ‘Mod’ style and how they transformed the connotations of the business suit “efficiency, ambition, compliance with authority [into] ’empty’ fetishes, objects to be desired, fondled and valued in their own right” (Hebdige 1997:136). The result of which is “the construction of a style, in a gesture of defiance or contempt” (Hebdige 1987:3). Therefore a main feature of subcultures is their style; it can be easily regarded as a form intentional communication. Sub cultural style always makes a statement and purposefully attracts attention. An idea in obvious opposition to the conventional style of an average person, whose style is most commonly decided by “constraints of finance, ‘taste’, preference” (Hebdige 1997:133) and the apparent need to blend into ‘normality’. However sub cultural style portrays their political orientation. “They display their own codes or at least demonstrate that codes are there to be used and abused (e.g. they have been thought about rather than thrown together)” (Hebdige 1997:133).
What a structural analysis of sub cultural style also shows is that a major feature of subcultures is consumerism; subcultures “operate exclusively in the leisure sphere…it communicates through commodities even if the meanings attached to those commodities are purposefully distorted or overthrown” (Hebdige 1997:132). It is through the use of leisure that we can see that subcultures are not just ‘ideological’ constructions. They always attempt to physically achieve the ideals they hold rather than just making statement about them. “They, too, win space for the young: cultural space in the neighbourhood and institutions, real time for leisure and recreation” (Hall et al 1976:45). Therefore through the rituals of leisure and consumerism subcultures act out there resistance towards the dominant culture.
When looking at the main features of subcultures we must also examine the ethnographical/biographical or “phenomenological [level, which is] the way the subculture is actually ‘lived out’ by those who are the bearers and supports of the subculture” (Cohen 1997:95). The ethnographic level of sub cultural features is quite underdeveloped in the work of the CCCS. However the ideas about how membership of a subordinate class subculture affects the life of the member is discussed. It is claimed that there is “no sub cultural career for the working class lad” (Hall et al 1976:47). Implying that sub cultures do not solve the problems within society, that there is no sub cultural solution to problems involving unemployment, poor education, mis-education, “dead end jobs, routinisation and specialisation of labour, low pay and the lose of skills” (Hall et al 1976:47). Therefore it is implied that sub cultures are self-defeating, although they believe they are making their making a statement it could also be considered a form of self-entrapment. This antagonism towards authority (a main feature of sub cultures) in the educational environment has been termed “counter-school culture” (Willis 1997:121). It is in education that youth culture begins to arise and resist authority, and the school culture. It is from this environment that sub cultures can be created as “even the few who come to the school with a developed eye for the social landscape behave in a conformist way because of the lack of any visible support group” (Willis 1997:122). However once a general consensus of resistance is discovered, a support group is created and within this lies the origins and (one of the main features, resistance) of sub cultures.
Taking this definition of subcultures into account, we must discuss whether the term is still relevant to the youth cultures of today. The main aspects of this definition are, working class, problem solving, and style as a statement, consumerism, and the prospect of a deprived future. Currently youth sub cultures are still dominated by the working class, we should also mention the bohemian sub culture, however it would probably be true to say that this particular sub culture is a derivative of the middle class hippies of the 60’s and 70’s and today is still dominated by middle class idealist. Problem solving is still a relevant aspect of youth subcultures; they still attempt to resist authority in their own individual ways. Style as a statement is very relevant to today’s youth sub culture, and is clearly visible on the street with ‘Goths’ in sweeping black clothes, pale faces and predominately silver jewellery, listening to ‘Marilyn Manson’; ‘Grungers’ wearing huge jeans, dog collars, music band T-shirts such as ‘Linkin Park’ and ‘Slip Knot’ and also the ‘rude boy/girl’ in expensive designer sports wear, boys with tracksuit bottoms tucked into socks, baseball caps at unusual angles on gelled hair and girls in peddle pushers with loafers, with both sexes adorned in gold jewellery, frequenting garage and house music clubs. It is through these style statements that consumerism has become an even larger part of sub cultures. However the prospect of a deprived future plays a much lesser role in the lives of current youth cultures. In the case of education, there is far more encouragement and incentive to do well at school and perhaps enter higher education. Although it would not be true to say that all sub culture member did well in education, as there are still high numbers of unruly school children that have not realised that they are only defeating themselves.
Currently there are also new features of today’s sub cultures, for example the principle of the “sub cultural entrepreneurs” (McRobbie 1997:196), members of sub cultures who set up there own shops such as ‘vintage’ (second hand) clothes, or market stalls selling music, or hand made items like jewellery or art. The idea that “subcultures offered the prospect of a career through the magical exchange of the commodity [has] warranted little attention” (McRobbie 1997:197). Another new aspect of current youth culture is “sub cultural capital” (Thornton 1997:202). This idea has arisen from the growing club culture from the late 80’s to present. Club culture is an amalgamation of various sub cultures; they generally meet on a basis of taste (e.g. music, fashion, dance), “club cultures are taste cultures” (Thornton 1997:200). It is within this club culture that sub cultural capital originates it is “objectified in the form of fashionable haircuts [and is] embodied in the form of being ‘in the know’ using (but not over using) current slang and looking as if you were born perform the latest dance styles” (Thornton 1997: 203). Although commonly traded in for reputation sake sub cultural capital also holds the possibility of financial gains with employment. Common careers are club DJs, organizers, fashion designers, various music careers and “style journalists and various record industry professionals all make a living from their sub cultural capital” (Thornton 1997:203). The idea of ‘sub cultural entrepreneurs’ and ‘sub cultural capital’ adds a new dimension as well as new feature to the CCCS’s definition
In conclusion the CCCS’s definition of sub cultures concentrates on the history or origins, especially class origins of the subcultures, mainly being the subordinate working class. Coming from the working class another aspect the CCCS made a main feature of their definition was the sub cultures ability for problem solving within society. Style as a statement and therefore consumerism and leisure time were also main feature along with what affect being part of a sub culture would have on the members future. However these newly researched features of entrepreneurial tendencies should be added to the definition of sub cultures in order to make it more accurate and more relevant to current youth cultures.
Bibliography
- Stuart Hall, John Clarke, Tony Jefferson, Brian Robertson ‘Subcultures- cultures and class: a theoretical overview’ in Stuart Hall & Tony Jefferson (eds) Resistance through rituals: Youth subcultures in post war Britain 1976 Hutchinson & Co Publishers, London
- Phil Cohen ‘Subcultural conflict and working class community’ [1972] in Ken Gelder & Sarah Thorton (eds) The Subcultures Reader 1997 Routledge London
- Paul E Willis ‘Culture, Institution, Differentiation’ [1977] in Ken Gelder & Sarah Thorton (eds) The Subcultures Reader 1997 Routledge London
- Dick Hebdige ‘Subculture: The meaning of style’ [1979] in Ken Gelder & Sarah Thorton (eds) The Subcultures Reader 1997 Routledge London
- Sarah Thorton‘The social logic of subcultural capital’ [1995] in Ken Gelder & Sarah Thorton (eds) The Subcultures Reader 1997 Routledge London
- Angela McRobbie ‘Second hand dresses and the role of the rag market’ [1989] in Ken Gelder & Sarah Thorton (eds) The Subcultures Reader 1997 Routledge London
- Gary Clarke ‘Defending ski jumpers a critique of theories of youth subcultures’ [1981] in Ken Gelder & Sarah Thornton (eds) The Subcultures Reader 1997 Routledge London
- Dick Hebdige Subcultures: the meaning of style 1987 Routledge London