Critically analyse, with subcultural examples, the Birmingham School's theory of subcultures.

“the latent function of the subcultures is this: to express and resolve, albeit ‘magically’ the contradictions which remain hidden or unresolved in the parent culture”.

 For the Birmingham School a principle feature of subcultures is their ability to solve the problems inherent with the parent culture

“they solve, but in an imaginary way, problems which at the concrete material level remain unresolved”.

Other key features of subcultures can be seen at the structural level

“of the subsystems, the way in which they are articulated and the actual transformations which those subsystems undergo”. 

The idea of studying the semiotics of subcultural style and fashion had not been used before Dick Hebdige in 1987. As it has already been established a principle feature of subcultures is their need to resolve disputes within the working class or for the working class according to Hebdige

“style is the area in which opposing definitions clash with the most dramatic effect”. 

Each subculture creates its own style, for example Punks with their ripped T-shirts, Mohican haircuts and Teddy boys who adapted the style of an Edwardian gentleman. A common practice of sub cultural style is bricolage, changing the intended meaning of an object by altering its purpose (e.g. using a bin liner as clothing). Subcultures also change the connotations of other styles, this practice is also known as “semiotic guerrilla warfare”. This is clearly seen in the ‘Mod’ style and how they transformed the connotations of the business suit “efficiency, ambition, compliance with authority [into] ‘empty’ fetishes, objects to be desired, fondled and valued in their own right”. The result of which is “the construction of a style, in a gesture of defiance or contempt”. Therefore a main feature of subcultures is their style; it can be easily regarded as a form intentional communication. Sub cultural style always makes a statement and purposefully attracts attention. An idea in obvious opposition to the conventional style of an average person, whose style is most commonly decided by “constraints of finance, ‘taste’, preference”and the apparent need to blend into ‘normality’. However sub cultural style portrays their political orientation.

“They display their own codes or at least demonstrate that codes are there to be used and abused (e.g. they have been thought about rather than thrown together)”.

What a structural analysis of sub cultural style also shows is that a major feature of subcultures is consumerism; subcultures

“operate exclusively in the leisure sphere…it communicates through commodities even if the meanings attached to those commodities are purposefully distorted or overthrown”.

 It is through the use of leisure that we can see that subcultures are not just ‘ideological’ constructions. They always attempt to physically achieve the ideals they hold rather than just making statement about them.

“They, too, win space for the young: cultural space in the neighbourhood and institutions, real time for leisure and recreation”.

Therefore through the rituals of leisure and consumerism subcultures act out there resistance towards the dominant culture.                  

 When looking at the main features of subcultures we must also examine the ethnographical/biographical or

“phenomenological [level, which is] the way the subculture is actually ‘lived out’ by those who are the bearers and supports of the subculture”.

The ethnographic level of sub cultural features is quite underdeveloped in the work of the Birmingham School. However the ideas about how membership of a subordinate class subculture affects the life of the member is discussed. It is claimed that there is “no subcultural career for the working class lad”. Implying that sub cultures do not solve the problems within society, that there is no sub cultural solution to problems involving unemployment, poor education, mis-education,

 “dead end jobs, routinisation and specialisation of labour, low pay and the loss of skills”.

 Therefore it is implied that subcultures are self-defeating, although they believe they are making their making a statement it could also be considered a form of self-entrapment.

Although the Birmingham School’s theory of subcultures was innovative in the understanding of subcultures, there are apparent flaws in their findings and also their research of subcultures.

Firstly one of their most important points is that subcultures are predominantly drawn from or associated with the working class. Although this may be the case to a certain degree it is impossible to say that subcultures do not include other social classes. Youth subcultures can transcend class boundaries.

“elements of youth culture (music, dancing, clothes etc.) which are discussed are not only enjoyed by the fully paid-up members of subcultures.” 

An example of this would be the Rave subculture that emerged in the 1980’s and the 1990’s. Young people went to Raves at the weekends, danced all night and took illicit drugs; their social background was irrelevant. The emphasis was more on partying hard at the weekend and escaping the rat race of everyday social existence.

According to the Birmingham School subcultures solve the social class problems they face in an “imaginary” way. I would argue that the style used by the Teddy Boys was covered the social gap in more than just an imaginary way. They took symbols of middle class wealth and other influences to disguise their working class background.

The Birmingham School can also be criticised on the way and which it carried out its research. It is easy for mainly middle class academics to analysis subcultures, which derive from working class culture. Due to this it seems that they would automatically look down on subcultures as looking at them from a privileged position.

“there has always been a tendency for sociologists (who come from middle class, bookish background) to celebrate teenage deviancy, admire their loyalties and their excitement of ‘street life’, to forget the painful problems that cause street-life like that in the first place”

This implies that youth subcultures are over romanticised by sociologists, that they do not give a realistic impression of the subcultures that they analyse.

Another criticism of the Birmingham School is that they see the style of subcultures purely as opposition and resistance. This does not take in to consideration any other reasons why subcultures adopt a particular style.

“…to decode the style in terms only of opposition and resistance. This means that instances are missed when the style is conservative or supportive…”

There is also a tendency for the Birmingham School to see the historical development of style as something that happens wholly within a subculture and that the commercial aspect as something that takes place as a follow on.

It is also important to remember that although subcultures had many sociological aspects, the theories could not be applied to all young people of the time. In fact subcultures risk generalising the majority by applying the theories of minority to the majority.

“…concentrating on subcultural members tends to ignore respectable youth in the same class location.”

Finally taking this definition of subcultures into account, we must discuss whether the term is still relevant to the youth cultures of today. The main aspects of this definition are, working class, problem solving, and style as a statement, consumerism, and the prospect of a deprived future.

Problem solving is still a relevant aspect of youth subcultures; they still attempt to resist authority in their own individual ways.

I would argue that class has become less relevant to subcultures than it was when the Birmingham school was writing its theory. Since the 1960s and 1970s there has been a period of class de-alignment, there has been a decline in the traditional working class. Although it still may have some bearing on subcultures I would say that its importance has declined.

Style as a statement is very relevant to today’s youth sub culture, and is clearly visible on the street with ‘Goths’ in sweeping black clothes, pale faces and predominately silver jewellery, listening to ‘Marilyn Manson’; ‘Grungers’ wearing huge jeans, dog collars, music band T-shirts such as ‘Linkin Park’ and ‘Slip Knot’ and also the ‘rude boy/girl’ in expensive designer sports wear, boys with tracksuit bottoms tucked into socks, baseball caps at unusual angles on gelled hair and girls in peddle pushers with loafers, with both sexes adorned in gold jewellery, frequenting garage and house music clubs. It is through these style statements that consumerism has become an even larger part of sub cultures.

I would conclude that although the Birmingham School’s theory is a strong base at which to analysis subcultures, there are some problems in the theory, which I have highlighted above. I think that some areas for example their ideas on style are still very relevant when discussing subcultures, particularly the area of style. However other areas of their theory such as class need to be re-examined due to the change in society since the work was written.

 

Bibliography. 

Adorno, T. ‘‘Culture industry reconsidered.’ Pp.275-282 in Jeffery Alexander and Steven Seidman. (1990) ‘Culture and Society: contemporary debates’ Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Brake, M. “The sociology of youth culture and youth subcultures: Sex and drugs and rock n roll?” p.71 (1980) Routledge and Keagan: London.

Clarke, G. “Defending Ski-Jumpers: A Critique of Theories of Youth Subcultures” (1981). In Frith, S & Goodwin, A. (Eds) “On Record: Rock, Pop and the Written Word.”(1990) Routledge: London

Cohen, P. “Subcultural conflict and working class community”p.95 (1972) in Gelder, K. & Thorton, S. (Eds) “The Subcultures Reader” (1997)  Routledge: London

Cohen, S. “Symbols of Trouble” (1980)p.156  in Gelder, K & Thornton, S (Eds) “The Subculture Reader” (1997) Routledge: London

Frith, S. “Sound Effects: Youth leisure and the politics of rock and roll” 1983 p-45-46

Eco quoted in Hebdige, D. “Subculture: The meaning of style” p.136 (1979) in Gelder, K. & Thorton, S. (Eds) “The Subcultures Reader” (1997)  Routledge: London

Hall, S. et al. “Subcultures-cultures and class a theoretical overview” p47 in Hall,S. & Jefferson, T. (Eds) “Resistance through Rituals Youth subcultures in post-war Britain” (1976) Hutchinson & Co. Publishers: London.

---