Subculture Theory - Subculture Theory

Subcultural theory suggests that people living in urban settings are able to find ways to create a sense of community despite prevailing alienation and anonymity.

Early subculture theory involved various theorists associated with what became known as the Chicago School. Subcultural theory originated from the work of the Chicago School on gangs and developed through the School of Symbolic Interactionism into a set of theories stating that certain groups or subcultures in society have values ​​and attitudes that promote crime and violence. The work associated with the Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham (CCCS) has been most responsible for associating the subculture with groups based on showy styles (teds, mods, punks, skins, motorcyclists, and so on).

Subculture Theory: Chicago School of Sociology

The beginnings of subcultural theory involved various theorists associated with what became known as the Chicago School. Although the emphasis of theorists varies, the school is best known for the concept of subcultures as deviant groups whose emergence is associated with "the interaction of people's perception of themselves with the opinions of others about them." This is perhaps best summarized in Albert Cohen's theoretical introduction to Delinquent Boys (1955). For Cohen, subcultures consisted of people who collectively resolved issues of social status by developing new values ​​that made the characteristics they shared worthy of status.

Acquiring status within a subculture entailed labeling and therefore exclusion from the rest of society, to which the group reacted with its own hostility to outsiders, to the point where failure to conform to prevailing norms often became virtuous. As the subculture became more substantial, distinctive, and independent, its members became increasingly dependent on each other for social contact and validation of their beliefs and lifestyles.

Themes of labeling and subcultural dislike of "normal" society are also highlighted in the work of Howard Becker, which, among other things, is notable for its emphasis on the boundaries drawn by jazz musicians between themselves and their values ​​as "trendy" and their audiences as "squares". The notion of increasing polarization between the subculture and the rest of society as a result of external labeling was further developed in relation to drug addicts in Britain by Jock Young (1971) and in relation to the moral panic in the media around mods and rockers by Stan. Cohen. For Cohen, generalized negative images of subcultures in the media both reinforced dominant values ​​and constructed the future shape of such groupings.

Frederick M. Thrasher (1892–1962) was a sociologist at the University of Chicago.

He systematically studied gangs, analyzing the activities and behavior of gangs. He defined gangs by the process they go through to form a group.

E. Franklin Frazier — (1894–1962), American sociologist, first African-American chair at the University of Chicago.

In the earliest stages of the Chicago School and their studies of human ecology, one of the key devices was the concept of disorganization, which contributed to the emergence of an underclass.

Albert K. Cohen (1918– ) - prominent American criminologist.

He is known for his subcultural theory of criminal city gangs, including his influential book Delinquent Boys: Gang Culture. Cohen did not look at the economically oriented career criminal, but looked at the delinquency subculture, focusing on gang crime among working-class youth in slum areas who developed a particular culture in response to their perceived lack of economic and social opportunities in U.S. society.

Richard Cloward (1926–2001), American sociologist and philanthropist.

Lloyd Olin (1918–2008) was an American sociologist and criminologist who taught at Harvard Law School, Columbia University, and the University of Chicago.

Richard Cloward and Lloyd Olin referred to R.K. Merton, taking one step further in how the subculture was "parallel" in its capabilities: the criminal subculture had the same rules and level. From now on, it was the “Illegitimate Possibility Structure”, which is parallel, but still a legitimate polarization.

Walter Miller, David Matza, Phil Cohen.

Subculture Theory: University of Birmingham Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS)

The Birmingham School, from a neo-Marxist perspective, saw subcultures not as separate issues of status, but as a reflection of the situation of young people, mostly from the working class, in relation to the specific social conditions of Great Britain in the 1960s and 1970s. It is argued that impressive youth subcultures functioned to resolve the conflicting social position of working class young people between the traditional values ​​of working class "parent culture" and the modern hegemonic culture of mass consumption dominated by media and commerce.

Critics of the Chicago School and the Birmingham School of Subculture Theory

There are many well-stated criticisms of the Chicago School and Birmingham School approaches to subculture theory. First, through their theoretical emphasis on resolving status issues in one case and symbolic structural resistance in the other, both traditions represent an overly simplistic opposition between subculture and dominant culture. Features such as internal diversity, external overlap, individual movement between subcultures, the instability of the groups themselves, and a large number of relatively uninterested hangers-on are relatively ignored. Whereas Albert Cohen suggests that subcultures address the same status issues for all members, Birmingham theorists suggest the existence of singular, subversive meanings of subcultural styles that ultimately reflect the members' shared class position.

Moreover, there is a tendency to assume, without details or evidence, that subcultures somehow arose from a large number of disparate individuals simultaneously and spontaneously responding in the same way to attributed social conditions. Albert Cohen vaguely points out that the process of "mutual attraction" of discontented individuals and their "effective interaction with each other" led to the creation of subcultures.

Relationship of media and commerce with subculture and subculture theory

The tendency to place the media and commerce in opposition to subcultures is a particularly problematic element in most subculture theories. The notion of association suggests that the media and commerce are consciously involved in the marketing of subcultural styles only after they have been established for some time. According to Jock Young and Stan Cohen, their role is to unintentionally label and reinforce existing subcultures. Meanwhile, for Hebdige, everyday supplies simply provide the raw material for creative subcultural subversion. The notion of association suggests that the media and commerce only become consciously involved in the marketing of subcultural styles after they have been established for a while, and Hebdige emphasizes that this involvement actually spells the death of subcultures. In contrast, Thornton suggests that subcultures can include many positive and negative forms of direct media involvement from the outset.

Four indicators of subcultural substance

Four indicative subculture criteria: identity, commitment, consistent identity, and autonomy.

Subculture Theory: Persistent Identity

It would be an overgeneralization to seek to completely remove the concepts of symbolic resistance, homology, and the collective resolution of structural contradictions from the analysis of mass culture. However, none of these features should be considered as an essential defining characteristic of the term subculture. For the most part, the functions, meanings, and symbols of subcultural involvement can vary between participants and reflect complex processes of cultural choice and coincidence, rather than an automatic general response to circumstances. However, this does not mean that there is no identity or consistency in the styles and values ​​of modern groupings, or that, if they are present, such features are not socially significant. While accepting the inevitability of a certain degree of internal variation and change over time, the first measure of subcultural substance includes the presence of a set of shared tastes and values ​​that differs from those of other groups and is sufficiently consistent from one participant to another. next, one place to another and one year to the next.

Personality

The second indicator of subcultural substance aims to address this issue by focusing on the extent to which participants adhere to the perception that they are involved in a distinct cultural group and share a sense of identity with each other. Leaving aside the importance of evaluating coherent identity at a distance, a clear and enduring subjective sense of group identity by itself begins to establish the grouping as substantial rather than ephemeral.

Commitment

It is also suggested that subcultures can greatly influence the daily lives of participants in a practice, and that more often than not, this concentrated participation will last for years rather than months. Depending on the nature of the group in question, subcultures can make up a significant portion of leisure time, friendship patterns, trade routes, product collections, social media habits, and even Internet use.

Autonomy

The final indication of a subculture is that the group in question, although inevitably linked to the society and political-economic system of which it is a part, retains a relatively high level of autonomy. In particular, a significant part of the production or organizational activity underlying it can be carried out by and for enthusiasts. In addition, in some cases, profit-making operations will take place alongside extensive semi-commercial and voluntary activities, indicating a particularly high level of grassroots insider involvement in cultural production.

Birmingham University

Chicago School of Sociology