The term 'sub-culture' ...
is certainly now a feature of everyday language.As such it is difficult
to think critically about it, but I suspect that was it to be introduced
today as a new concept in sociology it would be rejected as worthless.
(Clarke, 1974:428)
The
scientific concept of culture has been abandoned by many social scientists
and replaced by a more simplistic and popular usage of the concept. Most
social scientists, as scientists, use some variation of Tylor's explication
of culture, i.e., "... that complex whole which includes knowledge,
belief, art, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired
by man as a member of society" (Tylor, 1871:10). Since this is a
very broad and encompassing concept, many use it to refer to some more
focused set of activities or segments of a population. This is signaled
by words such as "youth," "poverty," "violence,"
or by a general reference to "subculture".
The concept of subculture first appeared
in the mid-1940s. Gordon (1947) defined subculture as "... a sub-division
of a national culture, composed of a combination of factorable social
situations such as class status, ethnic background, regional and rural
or urban residence, and religious affiliation, but forming in their combination
a functioning unity which has an integrated impact on the participating
individual" (p.40, emphasis in original). Since Gordon’s suggested
definition, the concept has been used to describe and/or explain almost
any identifiable group, aggregate, or category, in spite of very serious
allegations of its analytic shortcomings. In this paper we reexamine some
of these problems, using the notion of “youth culture” or
“youth subculture” as an illustration and, finally, we propose
an alternative strategy for analyzing “youth.”
Conceptual
Confusion
Rarely is the concept “youth
subculture” considered separately from its application. Most users
simply postulate that it exists and proceed to describe characteristics
assumed to differentiate youth from THE CULTURE. Some have formally defined
the concept subculture as: "the cultural patterns of a sub society
which contains both sexes, all ages, and family groups, and which parallels
the larger society in that it provides for a network of groups and institutions
extending throughout the individual's entire life cycle" (Gordon,
1962:39). Yet, the differentiating characteristics he uses are restricted
to such things as fashion, music, use of leisure time, peer centered relationships
and challenging “adult” authority. Although such variation
attributes may be documented among adolescents, they constitute only a
small fraction of what his subculture definition implies (also see, Hunter,
1988).
Yinger (1960) notes that "subculture"
is frequently "... used as an ad hoc concept whenever a writer wished
to emphasize the normative aspects of behavior that differed from some
general standard" (p. 625). What is explained by attaching the label
"youth subculture" to the values and behaviors of youth? For
most writers, it is simply a another way of describing the same thing.
As such, it has the same analytic power as the concept “instinct.”
Explaining modal behaviors as instinctual or subcultural defies scientific
rules of explanation. Concepts can be used to explain some phenomena when
they are independent of what is explained. When the explanation is the
same as that explained the result is a tautology.
A primary function of any science is explanation. The
subculture concept suggests a permanency (Berger 1963), a stable structure
that has operating principles concerned with the orderly transmission
of practices over time. When cause has been suggested or implied in the
transmission process, it has often obscured by circular reasoning. For
example, the assertion that youth are hedonistic, or irresponsible, is
treated as both as the cause and the characteristics of the youth subculture
(cf., Coleman, 1961). But no one seems to examine or explain just how
these characteristics are passed on from one generation of youth to another
(cf., Lemert, 1964; Roach and Gursslin, 1967; Fine and Kleinman, 1979).
Another factor contributing to problems with
"youth subculture" is that the only determining variable is
age. When coupled with the application of subculture to other variations
in American society, the result is confusing. For example, when combined
with the culture of or subculture of poverty, it is possible to classify
a single respondent into two different “subcultures.” Add
more applications of this concept to other attributes, e.g. ethnicity,
gender, etc. and the result is chaos (McRobbie, 1980; Tait, 1993). Since
"youth" is not a separate and discrete category, how can it
constitute a "culture?"
The use of the "subculture" may produce
other definitional problems in terms of the relationship to the wider
culture. It has been argued, unless the "subculture" is limited
in its applicability, it makes nonsense of the wider culture. Berger (1963)
states that "... if one chooses to designate as a 'subculture' all
of the distinctive patterns of normative differentiation which the peculiar
location of social groups helps engender the ‘American culture’
dissolves as a concept before one's very eyes; it becomes an empty abstraction
hiding the countless number of more or less systematic varieties contained
in it" (p. 396). To distinguish the concept of subculture we must
search for "... styles of life which are to a great extent self-generated,
autonomous, having institutional and territorial resources capable of
sustaining it in crisis and insulating it from pressures from without"
(Berger, 1963, p. 396).
Values
and the Youth Subculture
Many who have written about youth focus
on "rebelliousness," or rejections of adult values (Coleman,
1961; England, 1960; Parsons, 1942; Bronfenbrenner, 1970). Nevertheless,
a great deal of the empirical research has failed to find support for
this notion. Elkin and Westley (1955) found no empirical support for the
claim that youth reject adult values. In fact they concluded that the
youth they studied had close family ties and a pattern of behavior that
was patterned and directed by adults. Similarly, Musgrove (1964), in his
study of British adolescents, rejected the notion of the existence of
a youth culture. He found no support among his respondents that youth
rejected or were hostile towards adults.
Rarely, if ever, are empirically established
adult values compared to youth values. When assertions are made suggesting
that adolescents hold values that differ from the general culture, the
attributes of general cultures are implied, not demonstrated. Youth values
tend to be contrasted with a hypothetical and non-empirical model of the
adult world. This practice is one of the major shortcoming of most youth
studies (Jensen, 1970). The results of the few comparative studies of
youth and adult values are rather consistent.
The differences between youth and adult values is either
weak or nonexistent (Eve, 1975). In response to Coleman's (1961) characterization
of youth as being anti-intellectual and seekers of popularity and status,
Berger argues that "the values and interests of adolescents ... seem
to be derived from and shared by the great majority of their parents"
(Berger, 1963:396). For a large proportion of youth, sports, social affairs
and extracurricular activities are supported, sponsored and, largely,
run by adults (teachers, coaches, parents, etc.). Brown notes that values
attributed to the "subculture of youth" include love, peace,
equality, democracy, freedom, and individuality. These values "are
as American as apple pie" (Brown, 1973:483).
Several studies report that when youth turn to
their friends for advice and support it is usually related to issues that
are superficial in terms of cultural prescriptions, e.g., style of dress,
how to act with other youth, what to wear to a party, what clubs to join
(cf., Remmers and Radler, 1957; Smith, 1976; Niles, 1981). In matters
related to larger societal issues, the primary sources of advice and guidance
are sought from parents (cf., Brittain, 1963; Turner, 1964; Larson, 1972).
Given the literature cited, one might be inclined to agree with Elkin
and Westley (1955) that the characterization of the "youth culture"
is largely a myth.
Bringing
Culture In: A Proposal
On both the empirical and analytic
levels, the use of subculture to explain anything is weak. We suggest
that an explanation of American youth can best be accomplished by an examination
of the U.S. culture. By culture is meant ”shared” sets of
rules and a framework, which serves as a guide for behavior. American
culture is thus those rules and perspectives that do not vary by age,
sex, ethnicity, religion, income, or any other set of categories of distinction.
In contrast, behavior is part of the society. Social activities are reflections
of how cultural rules get worked out in respect to specific adaptations
to immediate environmental forces. The U.S. culture is characterized by
as having a common language, a common world view that is hierarchically
arranged, individuals are responsible for their actions, and social institutions
are separate and distinct. That there are specialized vocabularies marking
differences in occupation or gender or education does not negate the linguistic
similarity among Americans. That Americans consider hierarchy “natural”
is not challenged by the fact that this kind of structure exists in the
work, religion, education, and gang settings. These variations are the
behavioral manifestations of a common culture, each of which is an adjustment
to specific environments and histories. In short, we expect to find differences
in behaviors within a common culture.
To understand youth it is necessary to
understand the U.S. culture. Contemporary U.S. culture is age-graded.
There are shared expectations about where one should be or what should
be accomplished according to chronological age. Thus, the death of a child
is treated differently than the death of a 90-year-old grandparent. A
ten-year old in the fourth grade viewed as “normal,” while
a 20-year-old in the fourth grade is viewed as pathological. What informs
us of these evaluative responses is a common cultural assumption about
age. S. N. Eisenstadt (1956) examined age-grading in different cultures
and noted that in cultures where the transmission of adult skills was
blocked, various social manifestations of age groups and age based social
movements carried out that function. In the U.S. culture the skills necessary
to assume adult activities cannot and are not passed on in the primary
agency of socialization, namely the family. The lack of specialized knowledge
within this unit results in the formation of many different groups that
carry out this function. The specific manifestations of these groups vary.
It can be the Boy Scouts or the Bloods or the German Club. Or it could
be a variety of informal groupings without specific names. These variations
are a reflection of the resources available to those within the age category
between childhood and adulthood. Regardless of their social manifestation,
the functions are the same. All of these units are organized by hierarchical
principles, although the criteria for positions of power may differ. All
are units that pass on information about adult behaviors, emphasize loyalty,
and have a system of rewards and punishments. Thus, the category “youth”
in the U.S. culture is a part of the wider culture, and not a separate
and distinct entity. The task of those interested in this age period is
to understand the varieties of adaptations that characterize it against
the background of the structure called culture.
The observation that youth often display behaviors
that are antithetical to adults makes sense when viewed against the larger
cultural template. Boy Scouts may camp out in the woods and get merit
badges for making Indian belts, or other youth may drink alcohol and take
drugs. Both are aberrant adult behaviors. That we applaud one and disparage
the other gets us no closer to understanding these behaviors than the
sentiments expressed by non-scientists. Why these different behaviors?
Our answer lies again in the age-grading system that characterizes the
U.S. culture. Although there is a shared perception of the distinction
between children and adults, and there are expectations for each, youth
and adolescence fits neither category.
Children are dependent; adults are independent. Youth
is neither and both. The category that youth find themselves in, in the
words of Victor Turner (1969), is “liminal” (transitional).
All cultures have liminal categories. In the U.S. culture, among others,
liminality is often expressed behaviorally as holidays. During these in-between
time periods one notes behaviors that are otherwise inappropriate. If
sobriety is the expectation, holidays may be periods when drunkenness
is appropriate. Drinking in the U.S. is most frequently found during periods
of liminality. Friday separates two time periods, work and home, and Friday
is the drinking night during the week. Drink is appropriate each day between
work and home. And drinking establishments are often located in liminal
space. Note the resistance of homeowners to having a bar in their neighborhood,
and drink is forbidden at work. In the chronology of the U.S. culture,
adolescence is liminal. When viewed this way, the bizarre behaviors of
adolescents can be understood as a reflection of this in-between state.
Clothing styles, music, and rebellion are as natural to this state of
development as the activities of Marti Gras are to the time of year that
separates winter-death from spring-life.
What this all gets back to is the issue of subculture.
Youth are neither a culture nor a subculture, but are a part of the larger
matrix we call U.S. culture. More importantly, the behaviors exhibited
during this period can only be understood against this backdrop. To separate
youth out, as a special “culture,” is to deny Taylor’s
insistence that culture is the complex whole, not some specific part.
Further, this approach suggest that sociologists of youth must go beyond
the narrow boundaries of age and look for the structural conditions that
give rise to a culture with age grading and age groups that are transitional.
References
Berger, B.M. (1963). Adolescence
and beyond .Social Problems 10 (Spring): 394-408.
Brittain, C.V. (1963). Adolescent choices: parent-peers cross choices.
American Sociological Review
28:385-391.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Two Worlds of Childhood. New York:
The Free Press.
Brown, J.W. (1973). The values and norms of the expressive student subculture.
Youth and Society 4:483-498.
Clarke, M. (1974). On the concept of 'subculture'. British Journal
of Sociology 25:428-41.
Coleman, J.S. (1961). The Adolescent Society. Glencoe, Ill.:
Free Press.
Elkin, F. and W.A. Westley (1955). The myth of adolescent culture. American
Sociological Review 20:680-684.
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1956). Generation to Generation: Age Groups and
Social Structure. Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.
England, R.W. (1960). A theory of middle class juvenile delinquency. Journal
of Criminal Law, Criminology, and
Police Science 50:535-40.
Eve, R.A. (1975). 'Adolescent culture,' convenient myth or reality. Sociology
of Education 48:152-67.
Fine, G.A., and S. Kleinman. (1979). Rethinking subculture: An interactionist
analysis. American Journal of
Sociology 85:1-20.
Gordon, M.M. (1947). The concept of the subculture and its application.
Social Forces 26:40-42.
Gordon, M.M. (1962). Assimilation in American Life. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Hunter, I. (1988). Setting limits to culture. New Formations
4:103-23.
Jensen, G.F. (1970). Methodological issues in the study of adolescent
society. University of Washington
Journal of Sociology 2:39-46.
Larson, L. (1972). The relative influence of parent-adolescent affect
in predicting the salience hierarchy
among youth. Pacific Sociological Review 15: 83-102.
Lemert, E.M. (1964). Social structure, social control, and deviation.
In M.B. Clinard (ed.), Anomie and Deviant
Behavior. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press (pp. 59-60).
McRobbie, A. (1980). Settling accounts with subcultures: A feminist critique.
Screen Education 34: 37-49. Musgrove,
F. (1964). Youth and the Social Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Niles, G. (1981). The youth culture controversy: An evaluation. Journal
of Early Adolescence 1:265-71.
Parsons, T. (1942). Age and sex in the social structure of the United
States. American Sociological
Review 7:604-616.
Remmers, H.H. and D.H. Radler (1957). The American Teenager.
New York:
Bobbs-Merrill.
Roach, J.L. and O.R. Gursslin. (1967). An evaluation of the concept 'culture
of poverty'. Social Forces
45:383-92.
Smith, D.M. (1976). The concept of youth culture: A reevaluation. Youth
and Society
7:347-66.
Tait, G. (1993). Re-assessing street kids: A critique of subculture theory.
Child and Youth Care Forum
22:83-93.
Turner, R.H. (1964). The Social Context of Ambition. San Francisco:
Chandler.
Turner, V. (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure.
Chicago: Aldine Press.
Tylor, E.B. (1871). Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development
of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion,
Art, and Custom. Gloucester, MA: Smith.
Yinger, J.M. (1960). Contraculture and subculture. American Sociological
Review
25:625-35.
