Despite the criticisms of subcultural theory as a framework for the sociological study of the relationship between youth, music, style and identity, the term ‘subculture’ continues to be widely used in such work. It is a central contention of this article that, as with subcultural theory, the concept of ‘subculture’ is unworkable as an objective analytical tool in sociological work on youth, music and style – that the musical tastes and stylistic preferences of youth, rather than being tied to issues of social class, as subculture maintains, are in fact examples of the late modern lifestyles in which notions of identity are ‘constructed’ rather than ‘given’, and ‘fluid’ rather than ‘fixed’. Such fluidity, I maintain, is also a characteristic of the forms of collective association which are built around musical and stylistic preference. Using Maffesoli’s concept of tribus (tribes) and applying this to an empirical study of the contemporary dance music in Britain, I argue that the musical and stylistic sensibilities exhibited by the young people involved in the dance music scene are clear examples of a form of late modern ‘sociality’ rather than a fixed subcultural group.
Key words: lifestyle, neo-tribalism, style, subculture, urban dance music, youth.
..........
During the 1970s and early 1980s, sociological explanations of the relationship between youth, style and musical taste relied heavily upon the subcultural theory developed by the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS). In more recent years there has been increasing criticism of the CCCS approach from theorists who have argued, among other things, that the Centre’s use of structuralist accounts to explain what are in effect examples of consumer autonomy and creativity results in a number of problems.
Interestingly, however, the term subculture survives in such counteranalytical discourse. Indeed, such is the variety of analytical perspectives in which subculture is now used as a theoretical underpinning, that it has arguably become little more than a convenient ‘catch-all’ term for any aspect of social life in which young people, style and music intersect. In this article I want to examine some of the problems which can be identified with the concept of ‘subculture’ and to argue that an alternative theoretical framework needs to be developed which allows for the pluralistic and shifting sensibilities of style that have increasingly characterised youth ‘culture’ since the post-Second World War period.
Drawing upon Maffesoli’s (1996) concept of tribus (tribes), I will argue that those groupings which have traditionally been theorised as coherent subcultures are better understood as a series of temporal gatherings characterised by fluid boundaries and floating memberships. This argument will be supported with empirical evidence drawn from an ethnographic study of the urban dance music scene in Newcastle upon Tyne in north-east England. The term urban dance music refers to contemporary forms of DJ (disc-jockey) orientated music, such as house and techno (see Redhead 1993a), which, since the late 1980s have broadened the sphere of dance music culture considerably, removing its ‘disco’ and ‘mainstream’ connotations and elevating it to the status of a ‘serious’ music in which debates concerning issues of authenticity (Thornton 1995) are comparable with those which characterised the progressive rock and punk scenes of the 1970s (see Frith 1983; Laing 1985). It will be my contention that the musical and visual style mixing observed at urban dance music events exemplifies the essential eclecticism of post-war
youth culture and thus forces a revision of our understanding of the way in which young people have characteristically perceived the relationship between style, musical taste and collective association.
The Birmingham CCCS
As in the United States, early British studies of youth focused on the connection between the ‘deviant’ sensibilities of youth ‘gangs’ and the localities from which such gangs emerged. Thus, for example, in a study of juvenile delinquency in Liverpool, Mays (1954) echoed Whyte’s (1943) synopsis of the Cornerville gangs in Chicago by suggesting that such delinquency was part of a local tradition as young males received and put into practice the deviant norms which were a part of everyday life in many underprivileged neighbourhoods of Liverpool. With the publication of the CCCS research, British studies of youth culture began to change in two significant ways. First, emphasis moved away from the study of youth gangs and towards style-based youth cultures, such as Teddy boys, mods, rockers and skinheads, which from the 1950s onwards rapidly became an integral feature of everyday British social life. Secondly, in keeping with the central hypothesis of the CCCS, the ‘local’ focus of earlier youth studies was abandoned in favour of a subcultural model of explanation. Using the original Chicago School premise that subcultures provide the key to an understanding of deviance as normal behaviour in the face of particular social circumstances, Resistance Through Rituals (1976), the centrepiece of the CCCS research, re-worked this idea as a way of accounting for the style-centred youth cultures of post-war Britain. According to the CCCS, the deviant behaviour of such youth cultures or ‘subcultures’ had to be understood as the collective reaction of youth themselves, or rather working-class youth, to structural changes taking place in British post-war society.
The notion of subcultures as a response to structural changes was adopted from an earlier CCCS working paper, Cohen’s ‘Subcultural Conflict and Working Class Community’ (1972). According to Cohen, youth subcultures were to be understood in terms of their facilitating a collective response to the break up of traditional working-class communities as a result of urban
redevelopment during the 1950s and the re-location of families to ‘new towns’ and modern housing estates. Thus argues Cohen (1972:23): ‘the latent function of subculture is this – to express and resolve, albeit “magically”, the contradictions which remain hidden and unresolved in the parent culture [by attempting] to retrieve some of the socially cohesive elements destroyed in [the] parent culture’. Cohen’s concept of ‘magical recovery’ is developed in Resistance Through Rituals but is posited as purely one of a number of themes around which subcultural responses are constructed. Subcultures are seen to form part of an on-going working-class struggle against the socio-economic circumstances of their existence and, as such, subcultural resistance is conceptualised in a number of different ways. John Clarke’s study of skinhead culture echoes Cohen’s view in arguing that the skinhead style represents ‘an attempt to re-create through the “mob” the traditional working class community as a substitution for the real decline of the latter’ (Clarke 1976:99). Jefferson’s examination of the Teddy boy style argues that the latter reflected the Ted’s ‘“all-dressed-up-and-nowhere-to-go” experience of Saturday evening’ (Jefferson: 1976:48). The relative affluence of the Teddy boys allowed them to
‘buy into’ a middle-class image – the Edwardian suit revived by Saville Row
tailors in 1950 and originally intended for a middle-class market. Jefferson
argues, that the Teddy boys’ ‘dress represented a symbolic way of expressing
and negotiating with their symbolic reality; of giving cultural meaning to their
social plight’ (Jefferson 1976:86). Similarly, Hebdige claims that the mod style
was a reaction to the mundane predictability of the working week and that the
mod attempted to compensate for this ‘by exercising complete domination
over his private estate – his appearance and choice of leisure pursuits’
(Hebdige 1976:91).
