Abstract
The process by which a subcultural organization becomes part of the dominant culture has been discussed by various critical studies scholars. Yet delving more deeply into the discussion, one finds various terms used for supposedly the same process. In addition, there is no agreement as to how or exactly what to study in order to understand this process of subcultural change. This essay examines the terms used to describe the process of change, demonstrates the limits of each term, and introduces a more exact term, “persistence” which presents a more complete understanding of the process. It is the intention of this paper, therefore, to introduce and encourage the use of the term “persistence,” when speaking of the extended process of subcultural change, to limit the use of certain terms to discuss specific components of the process, and to eliminate the use of other terms which, although popular in the critical literature, cloud more than clarify the process of subcultural change.