The paper analyzes sociology textbooks to redefine the definitions of subcultures and countercultures, as well as explores conflicting aspects and dilemmas depicted in various examples of these cultural phenomena. To resolve these conflicts, an extra criterion is suggested for evaluating subcultures and countercultures. Additionally, the concept of subculture is further dissected into subcategories to thoroughly examine “youth subcultures” from both traditional and postmodern standpoints.
Keywords: Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CSS); Counterculture; Ethnic Groups; Notable; Postmodernism; Post-subcultures; Stance; Subculture
An Overview of Subcultures: Defining the Concept
For over fifty years, sociologists have employed the terms subculture and counterculture. However, during this time, some sociologists have raised concerns about their usage.
Various interpretations exist among sociologists regarding the definition of a subculture, resulting in a broad understanding. Hone (2004) suggests that the term “subculture” is used loosely within social science to describe smaller groups distinct from the larger culture (p. 3). However, critics argue that this loose usage has diminished the concept’s analytical power (Hone, 2004, p. ). Additionally, sociology debates the clear distinctions between subcultures and countercultures and questions the assumptions and attitudes underlying their use. Dodd and Dodd (2003) acknowledge that sociologists commonly employ both terms but hold conflicting views on how to categorize a group as a subculture.
There is a dispute regarding the definition of subculture and counterculture. Sociologists view subcultures in two contrasting manners: as deviant or marginalized groups, or as bold rebels who challenge the prevailing global capitalist culture (Dodd & Dodd, 2003, p. 20).
If Dodd and Dodd’s argument is correct, it suggests that sociologists may have hidden assumptions or attitudes when using the term “subculture”, and this raises questions about how these concentrations relate to countercultures. As we can see, once we distinguish between subcultures and countercultures, the phrase “heroic sisters against the hegemonic culture of global capitalism” appears to describe members of a counterculture rather than a subculture. This is assuming that we accept the idea that subcultures and countercultures are valid classifications.
According to Shank (2006), some sociologists have completely rejected the concepts of subculture and counterculture, taking a postmodern perspective on the matter. This perspective questions the validity of how other sociologists apply the concept of subculture. The sociologists who adopt a postmodern perspective argue that subcultures have become so fragmented that there is no longer a distinct subgroup sharing common interests. Shank asserts that this perspective shifts the focus to localized subject positions related to fashion, lifestyle, and identity. In fact, Manifesto proposes using terms like “neutrino” or “emotional community” instead of the traditional concept of subculture. Shank further notes that a postmodern sociological view suggests that the term “subculture” and the culture it defines are not coherent or homogeneous enough to be clearly distinguished. Consequently, it argues against separating our complex postmodern society into an overarching parent culture (typically perceived as a monoculture) and various subcultures.Before delving into the understanding of postmodernist perspective in sociology, it is important to grasp the conventional meaning of subculture and counterculture as used by sociologists. Although we will revisit the postmodernist viewpoint later on, establishing a clear comprehension of these terms takes precedence.
A useful method for achieving more precise definitions is to examine the most widely used sociology textbooks, compare their explanations of the terms, and assess the examples provided for each term. Dodd and Dodd (2003) conducted a survey on 14 commonly utilized sociology textbooks at the university level, and their findings greatly contribute to a better comprehension of the concepts of subculture and counterculture. After studying the usage of the term subculture in these selected textbooks, Dodd and Dodd propose a definition that closely resembles Hone’s inclusive definition.
According to their definition in 2003 (p. 22), a subculture is a group that, although part of the dominant culture, possesses distinct characteristics. This implies that a subculture is connected to the dominant culture. It raises questions about whether countercultures are similarly classified within this culture.
The distinction between countercultures and the dominant culture is a fundamental one that sociologists must consider. However, this differentiation can become complex for various reasons. Dodd and Dodd (2003) argue in their research that many sociology textbooks use Chinese immigrants and their descendants in San Francisco’s Chinatown as a prime example to illustrate the concept of subculture. The authors emphasize that Chinese immigrants exemplify how a culture can persist and endure within the dominant society.
Fluency in a language other than the mainstream culture’s language is commonly seen as a characteristic of a subculture, such as Chinese or a similar dialect. However, the Amiss group, known for their distinctive clothing and practices that differentiate them from the dominant culture, is included in discussions of subcultures in sociology textbooks. This suggests that membership in a subculture does not necessarily require fluency in a second language or culture.
The authors found that all of the textbooks agree on one primary element of a subculture: the use of racial or ethnic groups as prototypical examples. This is the only example that is consistent across all the texts, although the specific racial or ethnic groups chosen vary greatly among the 14 textbooks analyzed by Dodd and Dodd. The examples range from African Americans and Anglo Americans to Chicanes and Chinese.
According to Dodd & Dodd (2003, p. 22), various ethnic and cultural groups in America are considered subcultures. These include Americans, Italian Americans, Native Americans, Norwegian Americans, Orthodox Jews, and Polish Americans. Additionally, certain textbooks suggest that specific occupations like sociologists can be seen as subcultures. The surveyed textbooks by Dodd and Dodd also mentioned other examples of subcultures based on geographical regions, religion, social class, and interest groups (Dodd & Dodd,p. 25).
The definition of a subculture is challenging due to the various examples found in textbooks. Nonetheless, categorizing it into subcategories is beneficial. One proposed method by Dodd and Dodd involves utilizing occupational subculture as a means of defining a subculture. Thus, there may exist other subcategories determined by factors such as region, religion, interest groups, etc. Moreover, this implies that individuals can be part of multiple subcultures.
According to sociology textbooks, individuals can belong to multiple subcultures simultaneously or at different times in their lives (Dodd & Dodd, 2003, p. 21). For instance, a Chinese American computer programmer who converted to Islam and resides in the Appalachian Mountains could be part of several subcultures. Hone (2004) argues that the term subculture has lost its analytical usefulness due to overuse. Dodd and Dodd propose three criteria for identifying a subculture based on their survey findings. They define an ideal subculture as a group whose members regularly interact, share a common worldview or belief system that defines the group, and resist assimilation into the dominant culture (Dodd & Dodd, 2003, p. 28). These insights contribute to our understanding of various types of subcultures.
According to Dodd and Dodd (2006, p. 1 1), specific subcultures can be differentiated from the larger cultural group by their “Pensacola appearance, style of clothing and adornment, and other cultural signifiers such as language or dialect.” Using this definition, they create a classification system that evaluates how likely members of a subculture are to integrate into the dominant culture. Their criteria establish three categories of subcultures, ranging from those with a high chance of assimilation to those with a low chance.
