Subcultures of the Working Class

Although some youth subcultures seem to rebel against their parent culture, there are certain groups that seek to preserve and even better their parent culture. According to the article “Subcultures, Cultures and Class”, “some youth subcultures are regular and persistent features of the ‘parent’ class-culture” (Clarke et al. 94). Take, for instance, the Skinheads of nineteen-eighties England.

To gain a bit of background information, it may be helpful to view the trailer to Shane Meadow’s film about Skinhead culture, This is England:

It is evident that the whole basis of the subculture is formed upon its working class background. The youth culture is also suppressed by the hegemony of class struggle, fighting the same battle as their parents. However, it is how the Skinheads fight this battle that sets them apart from their parent culture.

First of all, the Skinheads demonstrate a stronger unity over their parent culture by the exaggeration of working class style:

The adoption by Skinheads of boots and short jeans and shaved heads was ‘meaningful’ in terms of the subculture only because these external manifestations resonated with and articulated Skinhead conceptions of masculinity, ‘hardness’ and ‘working-classness’. This meant overcoming or negotiating, or even, taking over in a positive way many of the negative meaning which, in the dominant cultural code, attached to these things: the ‘prison-crop’ image of the shaved head, the work-image, the so-called ‘outdated cloth-cap image’, and so on.

(Clarke et al. 103)

Image courtesy of: henamemishi.blogspot.com

Here we see that the working class style of Skinhead culture is not just a symbol of revolt against the dominant culture, but an act of homage toward their parent culture. Although Skinheads are seen to have great pride in their roots, they also seek an escape from the hegemony they face at work and at school. Rebellion is a common method of escape.

            In his article “Culture, Institution, Differentiation”, Paul Willis presents a testimonial from a young Skinhead. It reads:

We used to go out of nights, and carrying on from hitting each other with rulers we used to fucking chuck bottles at each other, so the major occupation was roaming around the streets, looking for bottles to lam at each other. And from that came a bit of vandalism here and there like…

(Willis 115)

These acts of rebellion help to shape the ideologies of the subculture as a whole. However, as presented in the film This is England, the rebellion of Skinhead culture goes a little deeper than just trivial violence.

 Image courtesy of: filmgrab.wordpress.com

            Historically, there was an undertone of racism behind the Skinhead subculture. Certain groups of Skinheads believed that, in lieu of the rising unemployment rate, immigrants were responsible for taking all of the jobs that were meant for Englishmen. This belief fuelled verbal and physical attacks on many individuals who appeared to be of foreign descent, whether they were direct immigrants or not.

            While becoming very territorial and protective of their culture, the Skinheads took matters into their own hands to solve their working class problems. However, their symbolic and operational attempts were merely false solutions to their problems. “When the post-war subcultures address the problematics of their class experience, they often do so in ways which reproduced the gaps and discrepancies between real negotiations and symbolically displaced ‘resolutions’” (Clarke et al. 98).

            Since Skinhead culture did not truly present the solutions to the working class problems in nineteen-eighties England, it is now among a collection of subcultures that “command the stage of public attention for a time: then they fade, disappear or are so widely diffused that they lose their distinctiveness” (Clarke et al. 94). Even so, there is no denying that the Skinhead subculture merits a major chapter in England’s history.

Image courtesy of: taxi11.blogspot.com

References:

Clarke, John, Stuart Hall, Tony Jefferson and Brian Roberts. “Subcultures,

     Cultures and Class.” The Subcultures Reader. 2nd ed. Ken Gelder. London: 

     Routledge, 2005. 94-104. Print.

Willis, Paul E. “Culture, Institution, Differentiation.” The Subcultures Reader. 2nd 

     ed. Ken Gelder. London: Routledge, 2005. 113-120. Print.

Subcultural Organization

The organization of subcultures begins with the division between culture and subculture. According to Milton M. Gordon in his article “The Concept of the Sub-culture and its Application”, we look at culture in too broad a context: “we have been content to stop the concept of culture at national boundaries, and engage in our intra-national analyses in terms of the discrete units of ethnic background, social class, regional residence, religious affiliation, and so on” (46). Gordon argues that the study of subculture helps us to create a greater sense of distinction between groups. We must narrow our focus in order to truly understand one another.

The study of subculture goes beyond the obvious categorization of nationality and class. Of course, these are both factors in defining some groups, but subcultures can be classified under a number of different forms. Dick Hebdige outlines two forms of classification in his essay “Subculture: The Meaning of Style”: the commodity form and the ideological form (122-125).

Image courtesy of: zippybites.com

Within the commodity form, “such a subculture is concerned first and foremost with consumption” (Hebdige 123). Subcultures that adhere to the commodity form are heavily defined by aesthetics and taste. Though some of these subcultures are against mainstream consumerism, they still adopt the ideology of “conspicuous consumption” (Hebdige 125), where they rely on consumption of goods to define who they are in society. An example of conspicuous consumption can be seen in the punk subculture of the seventies. Although punks have rebelled against mainstream fashion by wearing unconventional items like safety pins, garbage bags and duct tape, these items remain commodities, despite their new uses and meanings.

The ideological form primarily deals with the “deviant behaviour” (Hebdige 123) of subcultures. Hebdige looks at how subcultures are defined by the dominant culture. These subcultures “are seen to contain both dangerous aliens and boisterous kids, wild animals and wayward pets” (Hebdige 123). In Larry Clark’s Kids, a film about New York’s HIV epidemic in the mid-nineties, the youth street culture represents a highly ideological form. Although the subculture depicted in the film is closely associated with the intake of indulgent commodities like drugs and alcohol, the rebellious association is seen as more of a behavioural issue. These youths come together, not because they all have Mohawks and listen to the Sex Pistols, but because they all exhibit similar behaviours and motivations.

By classifying subcultures in this way, we can see that many groups may cross over between the commodity form and the ideological form at times. Regardless of the form in question, belonging to a subculture “can be used as a means of escape, of total detachment from the surrounding terrain, or as a way of fitting back in to it and settling down after a week-end or evening spent letting off steam” (Hebdige 131).

Gordon suggests that we can break down the organization of subcultures even further by looking at how individuals are divided within subcultures. He writes: “a distinction must, of course, be made between separate sub-cultures and separate units of the same sub-culture” (48). Both Gordon and Hebdige seem to agree that there is more organization that is needed to understand the structure and function of subcultures. Of course, members of a subculture could be divided in categories of leaders and followers, or the proactive and the passive.

          Hebdige observes that there is also a “[significant] distinction between originals and hangers-on” (131). He also notes that “different youths bring different degrees of commitment to a subculture” (131), meaning we can organize members based on differing levels of engagement. For example, in the film Kids, there are some members of the group who are more concerned in the sexual aspect of the street subculture, where others are further involved in the abuse of drugs and alcohol.

Image courtesy of tumblr.com

At this rate, it seems impossible to be able to classify every aspect of every subculture. However, this attempt at organization just goes to show the importance of the role each individual plays within a subculture and importance of the role each subculture plays in society.

References:

Gordon, Milton M. “The Concept of the Sub-Culture and Its Application.” The 

     Subcultures Reader. 2nd ed. Ken Gelder. London: Routledge, 2005. 46-49.

     Print.

Hebdige, Dick. “Subcultures: The Meaning of Style.” The Subcultures Reader. 

     2nd ed. Ken Gelder. London: Routledge, 2005. 121-131. Print.

Subcultural Concepts: Frame of Reference and Group Solidarity

At first, the study of subcultures seems to deal with conspicuous groups of people who look and act in “opposition to mass culture” (Gelder 6). But, as Ken Gelder notes in his article, “The Field of Sub-Cultural Studies”, “not every subculture is spectacular, or even ‘visible’. And not every subculture… is oppositional or transgressive” (11). Subcultures are, therefore, sometimes difficult to identify at first glance.

Image courtesy of: moviesatmidnight.blogspot.com

Of course, when attempting to identify particular subcultures, one must always take a relative approach: "subcultures are always seen in terms of their relationship to, and function within, the broader social system – society” (Gelder 2). After all, subcultures would not be regarded as abnormal if a comparable social norm did not exist.

In addition, a subculture within one society may be regarded as the standard in a different society. According to Albert Cohen’s essay, “A General Theory of Subcultures”: “each age, sex, racial and ethic category, each occupation, economic stratum and social class consists of people who have been equipped by their society with frames of reference ad confronted by their society with situations which are not equally characteristic of other roles” (52).

Cohen’s essay primarily focuses on the concept of “frame of reference” (50). Taking a very empathetic approach, he notes that situations and problems are “always relative to the actor. What the actor sees and how he feels about what he sees depend as much on his ‘point of view’ as on the situation which he encounters” (Cohen 51). In other words, each individual looks through his or her own lens of knowledge and experience to make judgments and decisions.

            Within the confines of a subculture, individuals connect with others who have similar knowledge and experience to make similar judgments and decisions together. Soon, these individuals develop a collective frame of reference, which then becomes the basis of the subculture itself. Cohen writes: “with people who think and feel as we do we are relaxed. We do not have to defend ourselves to them. We welcome them to our company and like to have them around” (Cohen 53). As the basis of many friendships and organizations, a similar frame of reference between people is a social necessity. If each person had a conflicting point of view from the next, we would have social chaos on our hands. Somehow, individuals who are like-minded gravitate toward each other, forming exclusive subcultures.

However, “no group, of course, can live entirely unto itself” (Cohen 57). Some subcultures become so alienated from the dominant culture that their members must rely heavily on one another for everyday “goods and services” (Cohen 57). This “group solidarity” (Cohen 57) leads to a disapproving reaction from the outside world. Gelder adopts a Marxist view of this relationship: “severed from the broader and more stable category of (the working) class and tangential to labour imperatives, subcultures can often therefore be seen negatively: as idle, self-absorbed and inwardly turned, their activities and interest usually played out while at leisure rather than work” (Gelder 3-4).

Looking at Jean Luc Godard’s 1960 film, Breathless, the thievery and deviance of the main character, Michel, would be regarded as a subcultural lifestyle choice. However, this lifestyle does not contribute to the productivity of labour. Furthermore, since the lifestyle is depicted as being glamourous and pleasurable, it would likely be considered leisure in the eyes of a Marxist.

Group solidarity continues to affect Michel as his status in society does not coincide with his status among his subculture. Michel’s “acquisition of status within [a subculture of criminals] is accompanied by a loss of status outside the group” (Cohen 57-58). Although members of his subculture admire Michel’s actions, lawful society frowns upon those very actions.

            From the Gelder and Cohen readings and the examples in the film, Breathless, it is evident that the formation of subcultures creates boundaries within society. These boundaries are the result of differing frames of reference. When studying subcultures, it is important to look through various frames in order to see the whole picture. Perspective is key.

Image courtesy of: puilaichan.qwriting.org

References:

Cohen, Albert K. “A General Theory of Subcultures.” The Subcultures Reader.         2nd ed. Ken Gelder. London: Routledge, 2005. 50-59. Print.

Gelder, Ken. “The Field of Subcultural Studies.” The Subcultures Reader. 2nd ed.        Ken Gelder. London: Routledge, 2005. 1-15. Print.

Subcultures and Mainstream Media

This blog will be host to an examination of the unorthodox, the deviant and the unconventional in society, based on existing theories and the modern medium of film.

Each week, it is my aim to analyze various concepts and theories presented in readings from The Subcultures Reader and the Web. In addition, I will be using examples from films based around specific subcultures to enhance my findings.