As a student of media, I have been taught not to accept what I see and hear at face value. The media plays a large role in determining our perspective of subcultures. Since we may not encounter many distinct subcultures in our day-to-day lives, we must rely on various media to give us accurate and objective depictions. However, in many cases, we see exaggerations of subcultures, either glorifying them, or criticizing them. In his article “The Subterranean World of Play”, Jock Young writes:
The juvenile delinquent then… takes up the subterranean values of society: hedonism, disdain for work, aggressive and violent notions of masculinity, and accentuates them to the exclusion of formal or official values. Moreover, he is encouraged in this process by the fictional portrayal in the mass media (for example, Westerns, crime stories, war adventures) of heroes who epitomize these values.
(Young 148)
Image courtesy of: newspaper.li/clint-eastwood/
In other words, a troubled individual sees a deviant subculture glorified on the television, and as a result, longs to adopt the lifestyle for his or herself, regardless of its consequences in reality. Due to the influential powers of media, we must keep in mind that “advertising [as a function of the media] stimulates and creates desires in order to ensure a secure market for future production” (Young 153). The mass media is a very money-driven business: nearly everything that we see or hear is meant to sell us something. So, of course certain profitable subcultures are going to be promoted in a positive, sometimes deceptive, light in order for us to buy into the trends.
This deception, however, can work both ways. Although, in the media, “things are not what they seem… what is going on in the streets and terraces is not always what it appears to be [either]” (Cohen 163).
The use of symbols plays a significant role in the deception of subcultures. Just because a person wears a symbol of a particular subculture, does not mean that they belong to that subculture. Perhaps said person has taken an interest in a certain aspect of a subculture on his or her own terms, or perhaps said person is unaware of the symbol’s appropriated meaning. According to Stanley Cohen in his essay “Symbols of Trouble”, “for many of the kids walking around with swastikas on their jackets, the dominant context is simple conformity, blind ignorance or knee jerk racism” (166).
Image courtesy of: dailyhitler.blogspot.com
Cohen also notes that perhaps society takes subcultural symbolism too literally: “the symbolic baggage the kids are being asked to carry is just too heavy, that the interrogations are just a little forced. This is especially so when appearances are, to say the least, ambiguous or (alternatively) when they are simple, but taken to point to just their opposite” (165). Individuals who bear symbols associated with subcultures are expected to be a part of some kid of radical resistance, whether or not they simply bear the symbol because they think it is aesthetically pleasing.
An example of this assumption can be found in the graphic novel and film Persepolis. Persepolis tells the autobiographical coming-of-age story of Iranian animator, Marjane Sartori. As Sartori grows up in an era of political and religious revolution, we witness how the symbolism of subcultures can be deceptive to outsiders. In the scene depicted below, Sartori is confronted about her “punk” clothing.
This young girl is not a member of punk subculture; she merely enjoys the music and the style, hence why she incorporates them into her own life, without fully adopting the ideologies the subculture suggests. Therefore, it can be said, “these lives, selves and identities do not always coincide with what they are supposed to stand for” (Cohen 167).
I find that I can personally relate to this example. From the time I was eleven until I was about fourteen, I incorporated a mixture of subcultural symbols into my everyday attire: skulls (as a result of my fascinating with pirates), chains (because they made me look “cool”), blue hair (in an effort to stand out), the works. I certainly did not consider myself to be a member of any subculture: I did not even know anyone who was. In fact, most of my friends were as mainstream as they come. As for my behaviour, I certainly did not fit the subcultural bill. I never exuded any rebellious attitudes; in fact, I was elected Valedictorian of my eighth-grade class. However, when confronted by strangers, I was often asked if I was “punk” or “goth”, and, of course, my answer was “no”. Cohen clearly explains the assumptions that outsiders make when he mentions that there is a “constant impulse to decode the style in terms only of opposition and resistance” (163).
Despite all the manipulation, deception and confusion, Cohen says: “symbols are necessary… but the danger is of getting lost in a ‘forest of symbols’” (165). Be that as it may, we can use what we have learned about not taking what the media tells us at face value and apply it to the analysis of subcultural symbols. Just because we see something on television does not mean that it is true. Consequently, just because we see someone wearing studded leather does not mean that person is a biker.
[Note: I would be willing to bet the model pictured below is not a real biker...]
Image courtesy of: highsnobeity.com
References:
Cohen, Stanley. “Symbols of Trouble.” The Subcultures Reader. 2nd ed. Ken
Gelder. London: Routledge, 2005. 157-168. Print.
Young, Jock. “The Subterranean World of Play.” The Subcultures Reader.
2nd ed. Ken Gelder. London: Routledge, 2005. 147-156. Print.
