Youth Subcultural Theory: A Critical Engagement with the Concept, its Origins and Politics, from the Chicago School to Postmodernism

Abstract

Initially, I will suggest that the postmodernist understanding of youth subculture relies on a determinist interpretation of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) position, which denies the immense diversity in the CCCS theorization that draws on Barthes, Gramsci, Althusser, Levi-Strauss and Lacan. I shall critically examine the development of postmodern subcultural theory, which is premised on the work of three key social theorists: Max Weber, Jean Baudrillard and Michel Maffesoli. Postmodernists have extracted ideas from these thinkers and combined them to argue against what is described as CCCS’ ‘theoretical orthodoxy’ and also to construct new terms such as ‘neo-tribe’ and ‘lifestyle’ to replace the concept of subculture. I suggest that postmodernism's reluctance to focus on social structure promotes an individualistic understanding of the social. The work of the Chicago School and the CCCS gave priority to the collective, whereas postmodern subcultural writing is preoccupied with the individual resulting in a weak understanding of the group context of youth cultural practices. The postmodern interventions offer some useful critical insights, but their new theorization lacks substance and critical application to young people's social, economic and cultural realities. Furthermore, I will argue that under postmodern analysis, subculture returns to a conservative Mertonian interpretation of individual adaptation that corresponds to recent political neo-liberal economic and social policies. I will demonstrate that a contradiction is apparent between the postmodern dismissal of the CCCS’ model of resistance and their own argument that youth are engaged in creative and emancipatory activities.

Acknowledgments

Parts of this paper were first delivered at the Scenes, Subcultures and Tribes: Youth Cultures in the 21st Century Conference, Northampton University College, 2003. Some of the ideas in this paper are further developed in Blackman, S. (2004) Chilling Out: The Cultural Politics of Youth and Drug Policy, Open University Press. I would like to give special thanks to Debbie Cox. I also thank David Hesmondhalgh, Paul Hodkinson, Jonathan Wadman and staff at the British Board of Film Classification.

Notes

‘Social structure and anomie’ (1938) and ‘Social continuities in the theory of social structure and anomie’ (1957) in Social Theory and Social Structure; both papers are in this text.

Merton used the concept of subculture in a substantial revision of the paper for Social Theory and Social Structure (1957).

The 1938 paper has passing reference to Nels Anderson's study on The Hobo (1923).

Wood Report, Parliamentary document.

Hall (1980).

He contributed a chapter to Resistance Through Ritual but did not write the section containing the CCCS theory of subculture.

Thornton (1995, p. 107) states her ‘method was more one of ethnographic survey rather than the more common ethnographic case study’. This could account for the criticism that her data while useful seems to lack depth

Muggleton (2000, p. 73).

Clarke (1982, p. a).

Clarke (1982, p. 8).

Miles (1995, p. 36).

Malbon (1998, p. 279).

Muggleton (1997, p. 210).

Bennett (2000, p. 24).

Redhead (1995, pp. 11–12).

Redhead (1993, p. 17).

Blackman (1995, pp. 25–26, see theory of cultural ransacker).

Bennett (1999, p. 607).

Miles (2000, p. 10).

Miles (2000, p. 5).

Miles (2000, p. 9).

Miles (1995, p. 42).

Scruton (1998).

Eagleton (1995, p. 68).

Eagleton (2000, p. 82).

Fyvel (1961, pp. 18–21) talks about the Teddy Boy subculture as an international phenomena.

See The Face (1990s), on rave as an international subculture, linked to drug tourism, new age culture and hedonism.

Eagleton (1995, p. 66).