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.

Posted by zephoria at 6:26 PM | TrackBack (0)

May 7, 2005

Penelope Eckert - "Jocks & Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School"

Eckert, Penelope. 1989. Jocks & Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School. Teacher College Press: New York.

Overview (Introduction):

When i first picked up this book, i crinkled my nose at the terms "jocks" and "burnouts" and made a rash judgment that the author was clueless - those terms are so outdated, so binary, so limited. But as i dove into her Introduction, i actually got where she was going with this and began to really appreciate her structure. I still loathe the terms but i appreciate what she did with it.

Eckert offers two categories to frame all of American high school life (although her ethnography is based on one school in Michigan): jocks and burnouts. She makes it very clear that jocks don't just refer to the sporty kids but the embodiment of "an attitude - an acceptance of the school and its institutions as an all-encompassing social context, an unflagging enthusiasm and energy for working within those institutions" (3). In other words, these are the goodie-tooshoes, the popular kids, the hall monitors, the band geeks, and anyone who collects activities like baseball cards. Burnouts are, not surprisingly, not just the drug crowd, but all of those burnt-out of the system "from long years of frustration encountered in an institution that rejects and stigmatizes them as it fails to recognize and meet their needs" (4). This includes the art kids, the ones sleeping through all classes, the ones who are always tardy, the ones with their headphones on between classes, etc.

My next self-focused !but! concerns the binarism. I collected activities while dating the town's drug dealer and skipping over 1/3 of the school year; i had straight A's but my teachers preferred if i slept because i was less disruptive. What about me? is not the way to read a book but i can't help it. Luckily, Eckert addresses this by saying that many kids fit somewhere in-between but recognize the existence of these categories in the process of trying to place themselves in-between. While you can break down each category even more, the binarism still stands and the desire to move between them is significant in the social life of teens.

The significance of these two camps is that, together, they achieve "hegemony in the social structure of the school... It is not the categories themselves, but the opposition between them that is hegemonic" (5). The reason for this is startling - it helps replicate the class system that exists throughout adult society. You cannot have mainstream without having resistant; both create hegemony, not simply the mainstream.

With hegemony being constructed by oppositional forces, Eckert moves on to deconstruct an prevalent assumption - "Jocks become involved in school because their families have instilled in them confidence, ambition, and academic skills, while Burnouts become alienated from school because their families have failed them. Burnouts' rebelliousness is seen as resulting from problems at home and from frustration at their lack of academic ability" (a.k.a. "theory of cultural deprivation") (7). "In actuality, the years that lead up to secondary school withness a multifaceted process of separation of children on the basis of class and (in many schools) ethnicity, in which children's beliefs are built on adults' beliefs and in which individual beliefs are built into group beliefs" (7). In other words, by middle school, we replicate the adult values in our schools and children are positioned in relation to their parents' positions - "the perpetuation of class inequalities through the funneling of children into their parents' place in society, and the enculturation of children into hierarchical social forms through explicit and implicit educational practices" (7).

Eckert shares Shirley Brice Heath's definition of mainstream - "literate, school-oriented, aspiring to upward mobility through success in formal institutions and looking beyond the primary networks of family and community for behavioral models and value orientations" (8).

In elementary schools, there is no educational differentiation for kids - everyone is in the same class. By the time kids hit middle/high school, those who have been primed for leadership roles get to take their places. In middle/high schools, kids are split based on their "skills" which are usually marked by what mainstream parents/teachers think are generalizable values. Of course, this means that kids who come from non-mainstream communities are immediately placed in "lower" classes. Of course disdain for school will come out of this. "It is no wonder that those who stand to lose power in this new comprehensive school context react swiftly to reject the context itself" (13).

Talcott Parsons (1942) introduced the term "youth culture" but all of this early work concerned a classless, homogenous adolescent culture.

Eckert uses Michael Brake's (1985) definition of subculture: "meaning systems, modes of expression or life styles developed by groups in subordinate structural positions in response to dominant meaning systems, and which reflect their attempt to solve structural contradictions arising from the wider societal context" (14).

Jocks and Burnouts are very much overlapping subcultures which, to Eckert, "weakens the notion of culture intended in the term" (16). She talks about different approaches to subcultures, include a differentiation between 'fun' and 'delinquent' subcultures. She then introduces "progressive" subcultures (i.e. those who have access to social contexts outside of the school like the Punks, Beatniks and Freaks) - they "pose a treat to the Jock-Burnout hegemony, not only because of their 'unpredictable' style but because of their opposition to the category system itself" (18).

Posted by zephoria at 1:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

January 21, 2005

Sarah Thornton: "Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital"

Thornton, Sarah. 1996. Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Cover Description: This book is a highly innovative contribution to the study of popular culture. Focusing on youth cultures that revolve around dance clubs and raves, Sarah Thornton highlights the values of authenticity and hipness and explores the complex hierarchies that emerge within the domain of popular culture.

Using a rich combination of methods, Thornton paints a picture of club cultures as 'taste cultures' brought together by micro-media (like flyers and listings), transformed into self-conscious 'subcultures' by niche media (like the music and style press) and sometimes recast as 'movements' with the aid of mass media (like tabloid newspaper front pages). She also analyzes the changing status of the medium of recording, from a marginal second-class entertainment in the 1950's to the much celebrated, dominant form of clubs and raves in the 1990's. Drawing from the work of Pierre Bourdieu, Thornton coins the term 'subcultural capital' to make sense of the distinctions made by 'cool' youth, paying particular attention to their disparagement of the 'mainstream' against which they measure their alternative cultural worth.

Synopsis: The book is separated into four distinct chapters:

1. The Distinctions of Cultures Without Distinctions - Thornton sets up the arguments made above using Bourdieu as her primary theoretical foundation. This is the chapter that briefly describes her key arguments. Here is where she describes "taste cultures" - cultures based on shared tastes, usually in music.

She introduces some binaries that have been utilized in discussing subcultures - 'hip' vs. other (a.k.a. mainstream) inverts pop vs. other. She recognizes the "veiled elitism and separatism" (5) involved in this, revealing the similarities and differences between the artworld and subcultures. Both are anti-mass culture, but while the artworld fears 'trickle down', "the problem for underground subcultures is a popularization by a gushing up to the mainstream" (5).

Thornton posits that subcultures work in conjunction with media, not opposed to them, yet the goal is to have disapproval because approval is the kiss of death for a subculture. It is the media's approval that subcultures fear, not the cops. Subcultures aren't defined in anything other than "those taste cultures which are labeled by media as subcultures" (8).

Using Bourdieu, Thornton discusses subcultural capital as an alternative to cultural capital and economic capital. It is subcultural capital that is a marker of 'hipness' and being in the know (10-11). Subcultural capital fuels rebellion against parents and authorities and lives in the fantasy world of being classless (12).

Directly addressing club cultures, Thornton demystifies a few idealistic fantasies, noting that: 1) venues are 'won' when the scene is seen as economically viable; 2) "they tend to duplicate structures of exclusion and stratification seen elsewhere" most notably race, class, gender, sexuality (25-26).

2. Authenticities from Record Hop to Raves (and the History of Disc Culture). This chapter is devoted to the history of records, discotheques and contemporary music scenes. A great deal of attention is paid to the battles between live and recorded music. There is a great slice through about the role of the RIAA and radio in maintaining control over music and music's "aura." A lot of this concerns what makes music authentic.

The issue of classlessness comes up - "Tom Wolfe took a more critical view, suggesting that these youngsters seemed to be classless because they had dropped out of the conventional job system: 'It is the style of life that makes them unique, not money, power, position, talent, intelligence... The clothes have come to symbolize their independence from the idea of a life based on a success of jobs'" (55).

3. Exploring the Meaning of the Mainstream (or why Sharon and Tracy Dance around their Handbags). Here, Thornton deals with the dichotomy between mainstream and subcultures head on.

Club cultures are fundamentally about fantasy, where play and work do not intersect. "It is rude to puncture the bubble of an institution where fantasies of identity are a key pleasure" (91).

"Hebdige's multiple opposition of avant-garde-versus-bourgeois, subordinate-versus-dominant, subculture-versus-mainstream is an orderly ideal which crumbles when applied to historically specific groups of youth" (93). She argus that there are three main dichotomies in academia that constitute the mainstreams versus the alternatives: 1) Dominant culture, bourgeois ideology vs. subculture, deviant guard; 2) Mass culture & commercial ideology vs. student culture, educated vanguard; 3) Dominant culture, bourgeois ideology vs. student culture, educated vanguard. She continues on to argue that these binaries are flawed from the getgo and do not reveal the nuances of subcultural participation.

From here, she talks about the "social logic of subcultural capital." Class and Bourdieu are essential to this. "'Bourgeois adolescents,' he writes, 'who are economically privileged and (temporarily) excluded from the reality of economic power, sometimes express their distance from the bourgeois world which they cannot really appropriate by a refusal of complicity whose most refined expression is a propensity towards aesthetics and aestheticism'" (102). Youth culture is appealing because "it acts as a buffer against social aging - not against the dread of getting older, but of resigning oneself to one's position in a highly stratified society" (102).

While mainstream is only identified through quantifiable measures, subcultures are always measured in qualitative terms (107).

4. The Media Development of 'Subcultures' (or the Sensational Story of 'Acid House'). Thornton follows the popularization of acid house in Britain - how it became cool and uncool, showing the role of the media in this process. In this chapter, she shows the complex relationship between media and subcultures, revealing how subcultures are not at all removed from media or commercialization, although they purport to be. A great deal of attention is paid to the importance of perceived 'moral panic' in solidifying a subculture - "'Every sub-culture breeds its own moral panic, every moral panic is stereotyped by its own devil drug'" (134).

"While subcultural studies have tended to argue that youth subcultures are subversive until the very moment they are represented by the mass media (Hebdige 1979 and 1987), here it is argued that these kinds of taste cultures (not to be confused with activist organizations) become politically relevant only when they are framed as such. In other words, derogatory media coverage is not the verdict but the essence of their resistance" (137).

"Contrary to the ideologies of both the underground and many subcultural studies, culture industries do not just co-opt and incorporate; they generate ideas and incite culture" (157).

....

I should note that Thornton's entire book is wrapped around her ethnographic study of British club cultures 1988-1992, piecing together extensive interviews with promoters and participants, media bits, and critiquing Hebdige through Bourdieu. She focuses mostly on what was considered 'rave' culture, stemming out of 'acid house.' As such, she followed mostly white, middle class (or middle-class presenting), straight groups from 14-22. The culture she is concerned with is heavily ecstasy dominated even with an 18 drinking age in Britain.

Towards the end, Thornton notes that the Internet has come about just after her research and while she does not know the effects it will play on club cultures, Brian Behlendorf's hyperreal is already suggesting that it will be important.

Contribution: The most significant contribution of this book is complicating the Birmingham's fantastical approach of subcultures that rests solely on a class argument and a divisive binary between us and them. Using Bourdieu to challenge Hebdige allows the emergence of subcultural capital even if subculture and its capital cannot be fully bounded. This book is also a great historical overview to the kinds of cultures that took us from the 60s, through the conservative 80s.

Other notes on the same book:

Posted by zephoria at 12:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

November 7, 2004

Lauraine Leblanc: "Pretty in Punk"

Leblanc, Lauraine. Pretty in Punk: Girls' Gender Resistance in a Boys' Subculture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1999. xii + 286 pp. ISBN 0813526515, $21.95 pbk.

Review:

Analyses of subcultural participation have consistently highlighted masculine resistances, often through accounts of male participation in and formation of subcultures. Media coverage of subcultures perpetuates the impression that the only narrative of subculture identity is that of the males. Furthermore, male domination within the subculture is notable. Subculturally identified females are faced with oppression by both the normative mainstream as well as the male-dominated subculture. As such, their resistances provide an alternate narrative that is critical to understanding the position of subcultures in society.

What attracts girls to male-dominated youth subcultures like the punk movement? What role does the subculture play in their perceptions of themselves, and in their self-esteem? How do girls reconcile a subcultural identity that is deliberately coded "masculine" with the demands of "femininity"? (Leblanc: backcover)

These are the some of the questions that frame Lauraine Leblanc's quest to understand the positioning of females in the punk movement. Pretty in Punk: Girls' Gender Resistance in a Boys' Subculture serves as an ethnographic account of her observations and findings in late-1990's punk culture in Atlanta, Montreal, New Orleans and San Francisco. Using judgmental and snowball sampling, Leblanc interviews and captures the stories of 40 female punks ranging in age from 14 to 37 (ibid: 27). Her approach is a phenomenological one, whereby she approaches the girls from a respectful manner. Her own participation in the punk scene is a valuable asset in interviewing the girls she approaches; many are willing to speak with her because they trust her punk signals.

The primary value of Pretty in Punk is as a feminist ethnographic account of a subculture, documenting the methodological, theoretical and ethical tensions that arrive while working with marginalized populations whose trust of authority is limited. This work serves to challenge and complement earlier depictions of subcultures and resistance while working within the framework that they offer. In particular, Leblanc challenges the Birmingham cultural studies tradition, specifically Stuart Hall who suggests that the only valuable theoretical tool for analyzing subcultures is marxism and class struggle (Hall: 198). Hall's theories on 'culturalism' can "not account for the way in which factors other than class (gender, race and subculture, for example) entered into what looked like far more complex relations of dominance and subordination" (Slack: 116). Leblanc does not disregard the class struggle, but she mixes feminist theory and cultural theory to highlight the complexities brought forward by a gendered and class-driven form of resistance. Siding with feminists, she quietly critiques early researchers by suggesting that the male-dominated analysis of subcultures is rooted in their romanticization and glorification of masculinity as seen through rebellion (Leblanc: 67).

As a native to punk culture, Leblanc uses her privileged position to craft an insider's view of punk's history, offering both the media narrative as well as the undercurrents involved. She is able to situate her contemporary observations within the larger history of punk and the public perspectives articulated by other women in punk. Her historical account of punk is exceptionally vibrant, revealing the complicated relationship between consumption, production and identity for punks of different political persuasions. For example, much of the punk DIY (do it yourself) aesthetic stems from turning mainstream consumer culture into some absurd, using the present fashion against itself. Yet, this inversion was immediately commoditized by Sex, a British store that produced the Sex Pistols to promote its merchandise (ibid: 37).

The punk value system is grounded in rejecting a society that had already rejected them by challenging the rules through mockery, irony and parody (ibid: 41). What emerged from this was a subculture that simultaneously challenged and magnified particular aspects of mainstream culture, such as violence and misogyny. Frequently, the punk philosophy does not coincide with punk actions. It is within these conflicts that Leblanc reveals the complexities of female roles, as both a victim and a perpetuator of the hyper-masculinized punk scene. In doing so, she weaves a story of abuse, resistance and self-realization amongst female punks.

Leblanc is aware that she is challenging all conceptions of punk and subcultures by cultural theorists, sociologists, feminists and parents. In her final chapter entitled "Nonacademic Conclusions," she addresses each of these communities from her framework.

The greatest weakness of this work stems from Leblanc's focus on the most noticeable of female punks. She sought girls who both identify as and are perceived as punks. While these women are arguably the most embedded in the subculture, their perception of the subculture is through this radical participation. Leblanc never addresses the girls who sit in the margins of participation, the girls that some of her informants call "safety girls" (ibid: 111). While her informants speak of girls who are ostracized from the scene for not being masculine enough, Leblanc never interviews these girls either. Thus, the stories of resistance she conveys are from the most public and consistently resistant girls.

Leblanc's familiarity with the punk scene is sometimes a hindrance to the writing because she sometimes fails to describe the significance of certain people and particular details. An example would be when she relies on the significance of Sid Vicious and Nancy Spungen's relationship to discuss abusive relationships (ibid: 125). Without knowing that Vicious killed Spungen (thanks to Wikipedia), the argument makes no sense.

Pretty in Punk is a critical supplement to current texts on subcultures. Leblanc gives a voice to the struggle of female punks by capturing their complicated, and sometimes disturbing relationship to their families, authorities and fellow punks. She reveals the significance of these girls' resistance to mainstreams culture in order to find identity and meaning, in spite of their second-class citizenship in punk culture. In doing so, Leblanc opens up subcultural studies, paving the way to move beyond Marxism to analyze subcultures. Her work also serves to convey the importance of a feminist reading of earlier (sub)cultural texts.

Further work in subcultural studies must address the overlooked populations and narratives, particularly those who are marginalized within those communities. Although Leblanc makes a passing reference to race and sexuality issues within subcultures, a proper treatment of their marginalized positions is necessary. Leblanc's passing reference to queercore makes it clear that there are other punk narratives. Future research should also consider the interrelationships between different subcultures and how individuals move between them. While Leblanc addresses how some punks came from the skater scene, she does not address how individual identity formation is affected by these changes and what prompts the move. It would also be beneficial to consider the transition between mainstream identity and subcultural identity for those individuals who do not become radical in their involvement and for those who leave the subcultural identity behind. Finally, as digital technology pervades youth culture, it would be interesting to consider how technologies such as mobile phones, instant messaging and blogging get used in the production and maintenance of subcultural identities.

Hall, Stuart. 2002. Notes on Deconstructing the 'Popular'. In Cultural Resistance Reader, 442-53. New York: Verso.

Slack, Jennifer Daryl. 1996. The theory and method of articulation in cultural studies. In Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies, 112-127. New York: Routledge.

Posted by zephoria at 11:23 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)