May 17, 2005
Gary Alan Fine & Sherryl Kleinman: "Rethinking Subculture: An Interactionist Analysis"
Fine, Gary Alan and Sherryl Kleinman. "Rethinking Subculture: An Interactionist Analysis." The American Journal of Sociology, Vol 85, No 1 (July 1979), 1-20.
Abstract:
Subculture, despite the term's wide usage in sociology, has not proved to be a very satisfactory explanatory concept. Several problems in previous subculture research are discussed: (1) the confusion between subculture and subsociety, (2) the lack of a meaningful referent for subcultures, (3) the homogeneity and stasis associated with the concept, and (4) the emphasis on defining subcultures in terms of values and central themes. It is argued that for the subculture construct to be of maximal usefulness it needs to be linked to processes of interaction. Subculture is re-conceptualized in terms of cultural spread occurring through an interlocking group network characterized by multiple group membership, weak ties, structural roles conducive to information spread between groups, and media diffusion. Identification with the referent group serves to motivate the potential member to adopt the artifacts, behaviors, norms, and values characteristic of the subculture. Youth subcultures are presented as illustrations of these processes operate.
Meta-Notes:
This is a great essay looking at how sociology must reframe subcultural studies. It is even more relevant today because of the post-BCCCS work. There is an extensive bibliography in this article that is quite relevant to anyone interested in the history of these ides.
Notes:
Intro: Society is heterogeneous and culture is not spread out evenly. It is from here that ideas of subcultures/subsocieties emerge. Subcultures are linked to the deviance literature and some sociologists have focused on subsociety to avoid the culture issue altogether.
They go through each of the four problems referenced in the abstract.
1) Subculture has often been treated as synonymous with the population comprising the subsociety. 2) Subculture has been examined without sufficient concern for delineating the groups of individuals serving as its referent. 3) The subcultural system is pictured as homogeneous, static and closed. 4) Subculture is depicted as consisting in its entirety of values, norms and central themes. (2)
Issue #1.
Where subsociety should be used, not subculture:
- aggregate of persons or a collectivity (i.e. gang)
- membership category that is structural or network based rather than dependent on a system of beliefs and practices
"The confusion between these terms arises when it is assumed that a person can 'enter into' a subculture" (3).
- membership in subsociety is defined structurally, not culturally
Issue #2.
Studies in subcultures often assume that the population can be defined through demographic features. (community dependent)
no referent: "a clearly defined population which shares cultural knowledge" (4)... thus, vague and imprecise
- boundaries of the subsociety and thus subculture are usually assumed
- it's also assumed that group culture is derived from the subculture
"presence of a subculture cannot be inferred from relative agreement on a set of attitudes, behaviors, or values within a population" (5)
Issue #3.
ethnographic accounts only show a slice of things because subcultures are changing so quickly. "Cultural traditions ill spread across the targeted group at various rates, with the traditions of one segment of the referent population becoming part of the designated subculture, but only at a later time" (6).
- ongoing negotiation of meaning of symbols, socially constructed realities
- "culture of the group" is always in flux
"Sociologists should not allow themselves to be trapped into reifying subculture so that it seems like a material thing" (6).
Issue #4.
- subcultures are typically limited to: "basic value orientations, publicly proclaimed attitudes, or reports of stereotypical behavior" - becomes a caricature
- all subcultures have ranges
Re-conceptualization:
- interlocking group culture
- multiple group membership
- weak ties
- structural roles
- media diffusion
- identification
- community/outsiders' response
Becker (1961): shared definition of the situation
Spector (1973): effective interaction in a group
"culture is meaningful only when it is activated in interaction" (8).
"the social network serves as the referent of the subculture" (8).
Multiple group membership is fine - overlapping memberships allows spread of information (10).
Weak ties are maintained outside of any major group, thus nothing is ever bounded or finite (10).
Some people perform particular structural roles which affects how cultural info spreads (11).
media diffusion (when a speaker addresses multiple groups simultaneously) increases cultural flow (11-12)
Identification. "Selves are acquired through self-indication (Blumer 1969), whereby individuals can view themselves as members of a group, as marginal to a group, or as outsiders" (12)
"cultural usage consists of chosen behaviors" (12).
Identification can be analyzed using centrality ("member's degree of commitment to the population segment") and salience ("frequency of the identification").
Outsiders are involved the development of subcultures. Outsiders often label groups and then one can identify with that or not. Media portrayal helps solidify groups and the outsider is constantly a factor in the development of a subculture by affecting the centrality of identification.
Finally, they argue that research must take into account both identification and social networks and the evershifting elements.
Category: subcultures
Posted by zephoria at May 17, 2005 6:26 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.zephoria.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3216
