Is a Society Without Subcultures, Even a Society At All? The plights that plague modern subcultures.
This is an Essay - Submitted by our own Elizabeth Guest, regarding the state of subculture in the 21st century and contemporary youth reactions to subculture as an idea
Are subcultures dead? Do the modern youth belong to subcultures anymore? Do they even know what that would mean? Such talk has peppered as many pub and dinner tables as they have academic papers, with the debate surrounding the ongoing existence of subcultures being a longstanding hot topic. Yet the existence of subcultures has never been more called into question than in today’s modern age. With ever-increasing globalisation, digital connectivity and the fact that you can order whatever you want, whenever you want, many have been quick to declare subcultures as dead. But is this the case? Or are people not looking hard enough?
For the ease of reading, frank pure enjoyment, and in a similar vein to Ferris Bueller’s profound statement of ‘isms are not good’, this article shall not be laden with jargon that all ends with that dastardly suffix. Yet saying that, it wouldn’t be a societal observation or critique without the mention of the interplay of politics, power and people, now would it? It is important to consider that power and resistance are inextricably linked, with it being observed that cultures exist in a hierarchical relationship with one another. The fight for the superior societal spot often only has one winner, with the culture of the elite group often coming up trumps. As a result, subordinate groups labour to carve out space from that of the dominant culture. They struggle to win ground for themselves, craft their own identities and cement their standing. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this situation breeds disillusionment with the mainstream culture, a rejection of the shared ideals and a bitter distaste towards the Hegemonic institutions which uphold it.
Throughout history, subcultures have emerged in retaliation to the above, and often been christened as a hallowed haven for many a disenfranchised and disconnected youth. Acting as both a safe place and a network of like-minded people, subcultures have long since been the galvanising glue that binds deviants and dissidents, like this writer and you, my rebellious reader, together. After all, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a subculture as being ‘an identifiable subgroup within a society, especially one characterised by beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger group’. It is this vivid, vulgar ‘variance’ that distinguishes a subculture from being branded solely as ‘culture’. Not only are subcultures a means of disrupting hegemony, the status quo and all those other repressive things, but they are an integral means of fostering an identity for the dejected, the disconnected and the disproving. Take punk for example: a ground-up creation born out of a frustration that only 1970s Britain could induce, punk was a direct departure from the mainstream, both musically, aesthetically and even ideologically. Fostered upon the cornerstone of ‘do it yourself, punk gave wings to the everyman- you could be an artist, a musician, a photographer, a writer and everything in between, because, well, why not? In conjunction with being a breeding ground for creativity, it bestowed its subcultural subjects with a new sense of self (as well as to the humble safety pin, which found itself with a newfound significance as a marker of group identity, now adorning noses, ears, jackets and mohair jumpers worldwide.) Influencing everything from your fashion, your friends and what you do in your free time, punk was, and arguably still is, a rousing, alternative source of ideas. Whilst the tiresome and tedious talk about the ongoing potency of punk shall not mar this article, it does prompt the broader question: Does today’s environment allow for the sustenance of Subcultures, or have they been rendered redundant?
1977 - Jordan Mooney (RIP) pictured by Kennedy
Subcultures often spawn from societal unrest, and with current global affairs being sullied by stories of such discontent, many have been quick to brand the subcultural scene as dead. Growing globalisation, social media consumption and consumerism have all been blamed for the mass homogenisation of society, with subcultures now existing in an increasingly liminal space. Many point to the phenomenon of‘micro-aesthetics as a case in point. ‘Micro-aesthetics’, which are commonly coined on TikTok, Instagram or Pinterest, prompt the adherence to an online persona- a persona which can be achieved through easily marketable, palatable looks. An example being 2020’s ‘E-Boy/Girl’ trend. Or cottagecore. Mob wife. Office Siren. Need I go on? Whilst it should be acknowledged that such trends are largely accessible to mass audiences, in turn broadening their appeal, it should also be noted that with increased accessibility comes increased consumerism. Credit where credit’s due, fast fashion brands are extraordinarily quick to catch on to such trends, with a subsequent rapid production and marketing of commodifiable, affiliated apparel. Yet the fleeting nature of such trends, exemplified by the sheer amount we’ve seen in this year alone, only increases their disposable disposition. This results in a recipe for an individual identity with low levels of personal commitment. The ‘do it yourself’ ethos has seemingly largely dissipated and diluted in favour of options of ease, with cultural trends being ever more chameleonic. But does this signal the end for subcultures? Instead, perhaps it is a case of the subcultures evolving, not dying. The definition of ‘subculture’ should maybe be broadened, much to the dismay of the Oxford English Dictionary.
In order for something to remain in use, it must change in order to fit the needs of its users, be that languages or ideologies or in this case, subcultures. There is still, and assumably always will be, a desire to subvert the status quo, as thankfully, dissidents aren’t going anywhere, and neither are alternative ideas. Whilst the status quo currently appears to be equally as dire as it was some fifty years ago at the time of punk’s birth, the global climate has indeed changed. This means that subcultures also have to adapt, to stay afloat. This begs the question: are micro-aesthetics the answer for the dejected, the disconnected and the disapproving? I don’t think so. But what we can take away is that they begin to offer the youth a taste of a collective identity. A customisable identity at that, due to the constant combination and recombination of trends, styles and creative outputs. They offer space for one to craft your own character, cement your standing, be that tentatively or wholeheartedly. The current makeup of subcultures can still offer a sense of ingroup belonging, even if it doesn't come with a soundtrack, an ideology and a way of life. Subcultures still exist, but they are now arguably less defined.
So to answer the questions I posed initially: are subcultures dead? No. Maybe the days of turf wars between Mods and Rockers, or Teddy Boys and Punks, are gone, for better or for worse, but subcultures have adapted to fit the needs of their users. Do the modern youth belong to subcultures anymore? Yes, but contemporary consumerism has transformed what it means to belong, with lifelong belonging now frequently being traded for aesthetics alone. And yes, the youth are aware of subcultures, as how you dress will always be so much more than just your clothes. Subcultures, and traditional ones at that, are still there for the taking, if you are willing to look hard enough.
