Week 4

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

1

______________________________________________

January, 2015, 7:1-16

______________________________________________

Rethinking Subculture and Subcultural Theory in the Study of Youth Crime – A Theoretical

Discourse

Chijioke J. Nwalozie, New College Stamford, UK.

______________________________________________

Abstract

Subcultural theory is an invention of the Anglo-American sociologists and criminologists

of the 1960s and 1970s. They chiefly refer to male urban working class youths whose

behaviours are contrary to the dominant society. These youths are usually culturally

identified with music, dress code, tattoo, and language. Whereas, it is assumed that

subculture refers to lower subordinate or dominant status of social group labelled as

such, yet, in societies where the Anglo/American cultural identities are wanting, it

becomes difficult to recognise such deviant group of youths as subculture.

This paper argues there should be a rethink about “subculture” and “subcultural theory”.

The rethink must ensure that youth subcultures are not benchmarked by those

Anglo/American cultural identities, but should in the main refer to youths whose

behaviours are oppositional to the mainstream culture, irrespective of the societies they

come from.

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

2

Meaning of subculture(s)

One of the assumptions about “subculture” is the lower, subordinate, or deviant

status of social groups labelled as such. These labelled groupings are distinguished by

their class, ethnicity, language, poor and working class situations (Cutler, 2006); age or

generation (Maira, 1999). These cultural and socio-structural variables make subcultures

relatively homogeneous (Epstein, 2002). That is to say, subcultures must bear specific

and similar cultural identities to qualify for the name, and they must also be particular to

certain societies that labelled them as such. In most cases reference must be made to

the Anglo/American youth subcultures, which dominated the whole idea of subculture

and subcultural theory for many decades.

Phil Cohen (1972:23), one of the most influential British subcultural scholars

describes subculture (s):

as so many variations on a central theme – the contradiction, at an

ideological level, between traditional working class Puritanism, and the new

hedonism of consumption; at an economic level, between the future as part

of the socially mobile elite, or as part of the new lumpen. Mods, Parkers,

Skinheads, Crombies, all represent, in their different ways, an attempt to

retrieve some of the socially cohesive elements destroyed in their parent

culture, and to combine these with elements selected from other class

fractions.

Cohen has clearly indicated that subculture has many varied ways of describing it, which

seem contradictory. Irrespective of all these different patterns, the overriding principle is

the struggle of the membership to aim at solving the problem created by the dominant

culture, which apparently has been considered the main object of subcultural formation.

As Newburn (2013) argues, the emergence of subculture is not just to respond to human

material conditions, but far beyond that, they also represent a symbolic appraisal of the

parent culture in which “style” was considered a form of resistance. Similarly, Jones

(2013) stresses that the subcultural activity of youths is a manifesatation of political

reaction to the dominant culture from which such youths consided themselves excluded.

Since the 1990s, the term subculture has been used in a much broader perspective

to explain any group of people who adjust to norms of behaviour, values, beliefs,

consumption patterns, and lifestyle choices that are distinct from those of the dominant

mainstream culture (Cutler, 2006). According to Gelder (2005: 1):

Subcultures are groups of people that are in some way represented as non-

normative and/or marginal through their particular interests and practices,

through what they are, what they do, and where they do it. They may

represent themselves in this way; since subcultures are usually aware of

their differences, bemoaning them, relishing them, exploiting them, and so

on. But they will also be represented like this by others, who in response can

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

3

bring an entire apparatus of social classification and regulation to bear upon

them.

Gelder’s definition takes into account the distinctiveness between the groups

themselves on the one hand; and mainstream society on the other. The groups feel

marginalized because of their life situation, hence they decide to exhibit negative

behaviour. Gelder also reveals how the entire society views these groups, and especially

the way they categorize and isolate them as “subcultures”. Yet subcultures share

elements of the main culture, while at the same time different from it (Brake, 1987: 6).

In the generic sense, the term subculture could be applied to any group of individuals

whose behaviour differs from the rest of society. For example, we hear about

occupational subculture (Trice, 1993; Downes, 1966; Brake, 1985); religious subculture

(Gay & Ellison, 1993); consumer subculture (Schouten & Mcalexander, 1995); drug

subculture (Cutler, 2006; Cohen & Sas, 1994), immigrant subculture (Brake, 1987);

internet or cybercrime subculture (Adeniran, 2008; Kahn & Kellner, 2006), police

subculture (Waddington, 1999; Blumenstein et al, 2012), and so on. This wider

description of subculture has come to the attention of some scholars (Weinzierl &

Muggleton, 2006; Cutler, 2006) who query its utility, hence their call for a

reconceptualisation or replacement of the term. This new conceptualisation, it is argued,

captures the changing sensibilities and practices of subcultural forms (Weinzierl &

Muggleton, 2006) in relation to youth groups who are now being referred to as “channels

or subchannels”; “temporary substream networks”; “neo-tribes” and “clubculture” (see

Weinzierl & Muggleton, 2006).

While this reconceptualisation project does not receive the outright approval of

scholars like Hodkinson (2002), it is apparent that some of these confusions can be

clarified once there is a recognition that different concepts are often used to abstract

varied aspects of social reality, and that they can be used interchangeably with

subculture to refer to a variety of youth cultural formations (see Weinzierl & Muggleton,

2006), that may have either a criminal or non-criminal connotation. A criminal group of

youths is indicative of criminal subculture, which bears on the dominant culture.

Therefore, a reconceptualised idea of subculture must have “relative distinctiveness”,

provide a sense of “identity”, a level of “commitment”, and the relative “autonomy” to

operate (see Hall & Jefferson, 2006; Hodkinson, 2002).

Evolution of subcultural theory and theorists

Subcultural theory and theorists have a unique Western origin. For more than half a

century, subcultural theory has increasingly influenced the study of youth crime (Young,

2010). In doing so, it has developed two waves on the two sides of the Atlantic - a liberal

or structural-functionalist American current of the 1950s and 1960s; and a Marxist

British version of the late 1970s (see Young, 2010; Newburn, 2007; Blackman, 2005).

The former started at the Chicago School, while the latter originated from the Birmingham

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham (CCCS) (see Young

,2010).

In 1892, the University of Chicago decided to establish a Department of Sociology,

with Albion Small as its founding head. Since then the School has had a great influence

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

4

on criminological thought (Newburn, 2013). By the 1930s, the Department was already

actively vibrant in ethnographic studies. Eminent scholars like Walter Recless, Fredrick

Trasher, Everett Hughes, Robert Park, Edwin Sutherland, Clifford Shaw, Henry Mckay,

Louis Wirth and Gerald Suttles engaged in the study of immigrant and minority

communities, the city’s entire population and their criminal behaviours (Newburn, 2013).

These scholars came to a conclusion that crime is necessarily a social problem rather

than an individual pathological issue (Lilly et al, 2011). As Short (2002) admits, the best

Chicago legacy to criminology which has evolved, is still evolving, and hopefully will

continue to evolve is the project on Human Development in Chicago Neighbourhoods,

which has led to the study of different aspects of crime and delinquency affecting the

area, not excluding the youth groups who may come together to form subculture (s).

The Chicago School first used the concept “subculture” in their explanation of

delinquency (see for example Cohen, 1955; Miller, 1958; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960). Cohen

(1955) went as far as developing Merton’s anomic propositions in his seminal work,

Delinquent Boys. He argued that a large group of male adolescents had developed a

culture, with its norms, values, and expectations contrary to the dominant culture. This

subculture emerged when youths from lower socio-economic status families struggled to

achieve success. When compared to youths from middle class society, those from the

lower class had disadvantaged academic backgrounds. Their inability to achieve success

brought about their involvement in a subculture where they could find success and status

enhancement. So, this subculture refused middle class values such as academic

achievement, courtesy and delayed gratification (see also Nihart et al, 2005). Cohen

concludes that this delinquent subculture is “non-utilitarian”, “malicious” and

“negativistic” (Cohen, 1955: 25) because it is used by status-frustrated youths as a hit-

back mechanism (Macdonald, 2001: 33). Therefore, from the point of view of the youths

themselves, their conduct is to be considered as meaningful (see Clubb, 2001).

Miller (1958) further developed the work of Cohen by identifying what he refers to as

“focal concerns” of the lower class culture. He uses “focal concerns” in preference to

“value”; and they include: trouble, toughness, smartness, excitement, fate and autonomy.

Apparently, the “focal concerns” are a reflection of working class traditions rather than

working class frustrations (see also Macdonald, 2001: 34). For Miller, middle-class

norms and values are not subculturally relevant. What is relevant, he argues, is that

members of the subculture conform to the distinctive value system of their own working

class culture (see also Macdonald, 2001: 33). This implies that people’s circumstances

in life may push them to adopt certain measures or patterns of behaviour, which may be

beneficial or not. Miller put this question: why is the commission of crimes a customary

feature of gangs? His answer is: street youths are motivated to commit crime by the

desire to achieve ends, status, or conditions which are valued, and to avoid those that

are disvalued within their most meaningful cultural milieu, through those culturally

available avenues which appear as the most feasible means of achieving those ends

(Miller, 1958: 17).

Cloward and Ohlin (1960) improved on the groundwork established by both Cohen

and Miller, namely the kind of environment that gave rise to delinquent youths (see also

Nihart et al, 2005). As Cloward and Ohlin (1960: 86) maintain, adolescents who form

delinquent subcultures, have internalized an emphasis upon conformist goals. Drawing

on Merton’s (1938) anomie-strain theory and Shaw and Mckay’s (1942) social

disorganisation theory, Cloward and Ohlin argued that lower class boys were faced with

inadequacies of lawful avenues of access to these goals and unable to revise their

ambitions downward, they experienced severe disappointments, hence their involvement

in higher levels of delinquency than middle and upper class youths (see also Nihart et al,

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

5

2005). Thus, unfavourable and disappointing expectation in life could determine

delinquent behaviour as a viable option. Finally, Cloward and Ohlin outlined three

typologies of deviant subculture namely: criminal, conflict, and retreatist.

British subcultural studies which flourished in the 1970s, was mostly pioneered by

the CCCS, which earlier started in 1964, with the appointment of Richard Hoggart as its

founding Director. Hoggart’s influential work, The Uses of Literacy (1957) and Raymond

William’s work, Culture and Society (1958) became the foundational texts for British

subcultural studies (Newburn, 2013). This year marks the 50th anniversary of the CCCS

1964-2014, and all this while, the CCCS has been fully involved in the study of popular

culture and its impact on society. Like the Chicago School, the early Birmingham School

focused on the link between the “deviant” sensibilities of youth “gangs” and the localities

from which such gangs emerged (Bennett, 1999). Ecological studies of various parts of

post-war Britain1 found poverty as the main cause of delinquency, especially when

combined with the absence of the father figure. In the 1950s, the absent or working

mother came in for criticism. Child-rearing practices were compared, and working class

life was seen as divided into “the rough” and “the respectable”. Delinquency was found

to have local traditions and values in underprivileged areas of Liverpool and London (see

Brake, 1987: 59). An extreme situation was such that the so called “respectable”

working class had no other option than to accept minor office jobs. This was because the

working class became polarised following the replacement of the traditional skilled work

with automation and machinery (Jones, 2013).

With the publication of the CCCS research, British studies of youth culture experienced

two fundamental changes. Firstly, emphasis shifted from the study of youth gangs to

style-based youth cultures, such as Teddy boys, Mods, Rockers and Skinheads, which

from the 1950s onwards rapidly became an essential feature of everyday British social

life. Secondly, in keeping with the central hypothesis of the CCCS, as noted above, the

“local” focus of earlier youth studies was given up completely in favour of a subcultural

model of explanation (Bennett, 1999). The initial Chicago School’s premise that

subcultures are critical to an understanding of deviance as normal behaviour in the face

of particular social circumstances was reworked by the Birmingham School in their most

influential work, Resistance Through Rituals (1976), to account for the style-centred

youth cultures of post-war Britain. According to the CCCS, the deviant behaviour of such

youth “subcultures” had to be understood as the collective reaction of youths

themselves, or rather working-class youths, to structural changes taking place in British

post-war society (Bennett, 1999).

In his assessment of the two subcultural waves mentioned above, Cohen (1980: vi)

said: “Both work with the same “problematic” ... growing up in a class society; both

identify the same vulnerable group: the urban male working-class late adolescents; both

see delinquency as a collective solution to a structurally imposed problem” in the polity.

These subcultures are known for their cultural identities (such as common language,

code of dressing, and music) shared by popular subcultural groups like Teddy boys,

Punks, and Hip hops. These cultural identities mark them out and distinguish them from

any other group or groups. Such identities present what their behaviours look like among

their memberships, which they exhibit with interest and at times frustrations. Their

behaviours may be criminal and noncriminal, but apparently criminal behaviours are

easily identifiable among youth subcultures. It is on this note that subcultural theorists

have always insisted that they are better placed to explain criminal behaviour (Blackman,

1 Thanks to scholars like Mays (1954); Morris (1957); Kerr (1958) for conducting such studies.

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

6

2005), and no study of youth delinquency can easily be undertaken without recourse to

many of their insights (Newburn, 2007). This is because subcultural theorists tend to

consider the general nature of delinquency with an emphasis on youth gangs and groups

instead of the individual deviant (Newburn, 2007). Thus, they place the group in the

context of the entire society (see Young, 2010).

Delinquency is not about something individualistic, but refers to “gangs of boys doing

things together, their actions deriving their meaning and flavour from the fact of

togetherness and governed by a set of common understanding, common sentiments and

common loyalties” (Cohen 1955: 178 cited in Gelder, 2005: 21). To be involved in group

delinquency also implies that the individual takes delight and relief in the protective and

sympathetic comfort of the group as he shares his experience of facing common tasks

with them (Walsh, 1986). It is usually the group’s decision to get involved in crime, and

acts in like manner. Even though the boundaries may not be well defined and the

membership not specified nor does the degree of commitment, yet the subculture

constitutes a definitive human association for those involved in it. It does not only involve

a group of people but also a network of symbols, meaning and knowledge, which are

linked with style that emerge in the day-to-day dynamics of criminal events and criminal

subcultures (Ferrell, 1995).

In subcultural theory, deviant subcultures are construed not as pathological

groupings of maladjusted people deficient of culture, instead they are understood as

meaningful attempts to resolve problems faced by the people concerned (Young, 2010;

see also Brake, 1985). As Cohen (1955) argues, all human action, not excluding

delinquency, is an ongoing process of problem solving. Such problems may be located in

the political, cultural, social and economic structures of mainstream society. Any attempt

not to solve these problems is normally resisted, even with impunity, by the subcultural

group involved.

Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) dealt with the issue of subculture in their seminal

work, Subculture of Violence. They argue that the subculture is secluded and opposed to

the dominant group due to the latter’s shared values which its members have learnt and

adopted overtime. Such values create total disintegration and at times open aggression

against the dominant group. It is also their view that violent crimes such as homicide,

rape, robbery, and aggravated assault emanate from the subculture overpopulated by

male youths (1967: 298).

Contemporary criminologists have invoked the principles of subcultural theorisation

in their various studies of youth offending, including armed robbery. For example, Jacobs

and Wright (1999) interviewed 86 active armed robbers in St Louis Missouri (USA), on the

impact of “street culture” on an offender’s decision to engage in armed robbery. They

conclude that “street culture subsumes a number of powerful conduct norms, including

but not limited to the hedonistic pursuit of sensory stimulation, disdain for conventional

living, lack of future orientation, and persistent eschewal of responsibility” (Jacobs &

Wright, 1999: 165).

Anderson’s (1994) most influential work, Code of the Street, reveals a somewhat

disparity existing between two opposing camps. First, there is the inner city poor black

American youths who get involved in criminal activities like mugging, robbery and so on,

through formation of street codes as their moral guide for agressive and violent criminal

behaviour. Although Anderson did not refer to them as “subculture” but it is implicit,

given their way of life. Reocurring variables in society such as social injustice, poverty and

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

7

inequality may have motivated these youths to create their own group independent of the

mainstream community. Anderson (1994) talks about another group known as “decent

family” who are middle class oriented, and aligned to mainstream society. He argues

that while families with a decency orientation are normally opposed to the values of the

street code; they often reluctantly encourage their children's familiarity with it to enable

them negotiate the inner-city environment. This largely helps to prevent violent clashes

between the two competing camps.

Anderson’s (1994) street youths have their code of dressing and manner of behaviour

which make them quite distinct from the rest of society. They see themselves as victims

of the larger society and so exhibit a differential attitude to law enforcement agencies

and mainstream culture because they feel nothing is being done to support them in

alleviatiating their social problems. It is this aversion to the norms of mainstream society

that makes them a deviant subculture. In essence, criminal behaviour is often predicated

on subcultural behaviour (Ferrell, 1995; 1999). However, not all subcultures are deviant

or criminal-oriented. For example, Cohen & Sas (1994) in their study of cocaine use in

Amsterdam identified a large pool of experienced community based cocaine users as

non-deviant, as opposed to treatment clients, prison inmates, or prostitutes.

Criticisms of subculture and subcultural theory

To begin with, the notion of subculture has never really been adequately defined. Even

when definitions are attempted, they are generically driven and without any connection

with youth delinquency, which the concept purports to be addressing. As Bennett (1999:

599) stresses, “the problems of using ‘subculture’ is that it has sometimes been applied

inexactly, becoming little more than a convenient ‘catch-all’ term for any aspect of social

life in which young people, style and music intersect”. It is little wonder that “subculture”

has been used as an ad hoc concept whenever a writer wishes to emphasize the

normative aspects of behaviour contrary to some general standard. The result has been a

blurring of the meaning of the term, confusion with other terms, and a failure frequently

to distinguish between two levels of social causation (see Yinger, 1960: 625-6 cited in

Jenks, 2005: 7). Arguably, though, the random use of the term “subculture” to apply to

those who live oppositional to the mainstream society as those who have no positive

ideals to pursue, makes them all the more isolated from the larger society. On this view,

their marginalization is simply intensified by their designation as a “subculture” (Jenks,

2005: 130), which becomes a sort of “label” on the group. Yet subcultural theory is

obviously different from labelling theory.

Subcultural theory fails to clearly distinguish between “subcultures” and “gangs”.

Every so often, it tries to merge the two together in the name of studying deviant criminal

groups. For example, Walsh (1986: 19) makes this merger by arguing that the concept of

“gang” and “subculture” are conventionally used to explain the cultural enclave in which

the apprenticeship process occurs, stressing group support, both physical and in the

sense of shared guilt or blame after events. In doing so, he begs the question about the

authenticity of the so-called “subcultures”. It is important to stress that both concepts

are different in every respect. Gangs are informally-structured “near groups” made up of

a closely connected core with a looser network of peripheral members; whereas

subcultures are the cluster of actions, values, style, imagery and lifestyles which through

media reportage, extend beyond a neighbourhood to form a complex relationship with

other larger cultures to form a symbolic pseudo-community (Brake, 1987). This

distinction is obviously important if we are to avoid the misrepresention of subculture as

almost anything any person may conjecture. Otherwise, looking at the formal and

substantive elements of “subculture”, if the term were to be introduced for the first time

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

8

now, it would be dismissed as inadequate (Clark 1974 cited in Brake, 1987) in the sense

that every group may be regarded as subculture.

The subcultural approach is notoriously “overly deterministic” in its emphasis on the

“peer group” or “gangs” or rather “group criminality”; but it tends to be silent about the

place of “personal choice” and “free will” in criminal behaviour (Clubb, 2001). Being in a

subculture or gang makes delinquent activity more likely by actively promoting it,

nevertheless, this does not make deviant behaviour obligatory. Crime can still be

committed for personal reasons rather that as a group requirement (Clubb, 2001;

Williams, 1997). Crime causation is a matter for the individual to deal with without much

concern for the group (Clubb, 2001). This also has been a favourable argument for

Merton’s anomie theory. However, according to Sutherland and Cressey’s differential

association theory (1978), the values which encourage peers to commit crime are learnt

alongside the techniques to commit crime. When peers behave contrary to the group,

they break away from the group’s solidarity. Group solidarity is a formidable and pivotal

force as far as the subculture is concerned. Therefore, being overly deterministic is a

subcultural “complacency” to perpetuate criminal behaviour among youths.

The claim of subcultural theorists to be better placed in the study of youth

delinquency is overexaggerated, and indeed a monopolistic way of denying other

theorists such as strain, control and labelling, their contribution to youth crime. Whereas

subcultural theorists have a stake in explaining group delinquency, they are deficient in

understanding individual criminality. Group criminality presupposes individual criminality,

which may degenerate into peer delinquency in the form of a subculture.

Subcultural theorists claim that deviance could be better comprehended in social and

political settings, but not as something drawn from biology or psychology (Newburn,

2007). In this connection, they visualise crime as something found around a people’s

culture; (see Ferrell, 1999), but at the same time dissociating themselves from the

classical theorisation of criminal behaviour as something “inborn” in people. Thus,

subcultural theorists seem to delve into argumentum petitio principii (argument in a

circle), and so lack the ability of a convincing hypothesis.

The issue of a group’s homogeneity makes subcultural formation utterly “selective”

and strictly pro-western. Whereas it is utterly unnecessary to look for a homogeneous

youth criminal population before grouping them into a subcultural form, but youths of

different age brackets and multi-ethnic or multi-tribal backgrounds can still coalesce as a

subculture to address what they perceive as youth problems in the polity. Considering

this line of thought as somewhat credible, subcultures can then cut across national and

continental frontiers so as to be better understood and defined appropriately.

There has been a consistent attack on subcultural theory for having only one

vulnerable group of people in mind, that is urban male working class late adolescents

(see for example Macdonald, 2001). This position of criminologists from both sides of the

Atlantic has overdominated subcultural studies with a stereotype of the youthful offender.

An all-important question is: why has a particular group of individuals remained the focus

of subcultural theorists as those that can be associated with delinquency? Subcultural

theorists should make a leap and extend their studies to various groups of youths in post-

modern societies so as to understand the dynamics of youth delinquency. Criminologists

from Africa, for example, must now rise to the challenge of creating their own school of

subcultural studies instead of depending on the sort of “benchmark” set by both the

Chicago and Birmingham Schools as a parameter for subcultural studies.

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

9

As part of that Western formulation, scholars (Redhead, 1990; Melechi, 1993; Miles,

1995; Malbond, 1998; Muggleton, 1997; Bennett, 2000) have argued that subcultures

were created by subcultural theorists, not vice versa. That is to say, subcultural theorists

determine what subcultures should necessarily represent. They label them with specific

nomenclatures for easy identification. For instance, American theorists would answer the

question about the delinquent by referring to the “delinquent subculture” involving coded

honours based on “Rep” and the mobilisation of violence (Young, 2010). British theorists

would talk about the Teds, Punks, Mods, and so on, by clearly defining their styles,

thereby ignoring the lack of clarity of the actors involved (Young, 2010). In this sense,

subcultural theory may be accused of being over-dominated by Western criminologists,

and indeed so, especially American and British scholars, to an extent that any study of

youth subcultures elsewhere must be influenced by studies from either or both countries.

The danger is that subcultural theorists from both sides of the Atlantic end up

glamorising delinquents by “popularising” them as Rep, Mods, Teds, Hip hops etc, with

the end result that the criminal behaviours of youth subcultures are downplayed and

accepted as part of the acclaimed “popular culture” where every behaviour is acceopted

as part of the societal norm.

Subcultures are male-dominated so much so that an emphasis on “maleness” is seen

as a panacea for an identity that has been weakened by structural features (Brake,

1987). Perhaps the invisibility of girls’ subculture is because the very term “subculture”

has right from the beginning, acquired such consistently masculine overtones (McRobbie

and Garber, 2005). In this connection, men are regarded as more criminally-minded than

women, hence the “absence of girls from the whole of literature in this area is quite

striking and demands explanation” (McRobbie & Garber, 1976: 209), and very little

seems to have been written about the involvement of girls in group delinquency

(McRobbie and Garber, 2005); but whenever they are acknowledged in the literature, the

focus tends to shift to their sexual attractiveness, thereby neglecting the holistic study of

female group delinquency, which supposedly is a crucial element of research that can

explore the gender divide in offending.

Subcultural theory has been accused of over-prediction with regard to delinquency.

For example, among the poorest working class communities, crime is not ever-present in

all individuals (see Newburn, 2007), yet subcultural theory makes a blanket assumption

of criminalising everybody. In addition to that, critics maintain that subcultural theory is

unnecessarily over-rational in an attempt to grant human actors a sense of making their

history in a determinate world. Consequent to that is an unreflective bouncing off the

conditions that beset such people (Young, 2010) hence the freedom to drift (Matza,

1964) into crime. For instance, the robber continues to rob, the alcoholic continues to

drink and get drunk (see Young, 2010), so much so that a culture of crime is developed

and animated.

The problem of subcultural theorisation is such that tends to split up a whole society

when it talks about “deviants”, perhaps suggesting there are also non-deviants. This

makes the deviants to claim a moral high ground for their actions, but at the same time

finding faults with the mainstream society. Arguably, for the deviant, the mainstream is

seen as deviant; whereas for the mainstream, the subculture is the deviant. This war of

words is aimed at criminalising either side which might end up breeding anger and

dissention between the mainstream and the subculture. In the end it is still the deviant

subculture that appears to bear the label “subculture”. According to Jenks (2005: 129)

“the idea of subculture can be employed to valorise the underdog, radicalize the

dispossesed, give voice to the inarticulate but equally to marginalize and contain the

deviant or non-mainstream”.

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

10

If by subculture we are referring to the well-known theory of the 1950s and 1970s,

then it might not be feasible to employ it in the explanation of youth crime in Africa where

age, state of origin, tribe, and geo-political zone do not fit with the homogeneous nature

of subculture. Although cultural identities may be crucial to any subcultural formation,

they seem to have been overemphasized by the theory, thereby overshadowing the study

of criminal behaviour of youth subcultures.

Even if subculture remains the best way to explain more unconventional aspects of

youth culture, it does not seem to offer much help for an understanding of the wide range

of youth groups in the post-modern world (Cutler, 2006). By that weakness, subcultural

theory has probably now, “run its course” (Jenks 2005: 145), become “superfluous” and

“no longer relevant” (Chaney 2004: 36) and fails to provide “a useful description of

young people’s social world or their experiences” (Karvonen et al, 2001: 393) in relation

to crime. Therefore the concept requires a rethink in relation to youth crime.

Rethinking subculture and subcultural theory: Is post-subculture the panacea?

Subculture has been considered a redundant conceptual framework (Bennett, 2011).

However opinions vary as to the reason(s) for this, but a somewhat generally held opinion

is that the cultural identities of youths had become more reflexive, fluid and fragmented

as a result of an ever increasing flow of cultural commodities, images and texts through

which more individualised identity projects and notions of self could be fashioned

(Bennett, 2011). Implicitly, cultural identities of youths have the tendency of emerging

from isolationism and specific grouping to an overarching youth groups who are not so

much concerned with specified cultural identities. In short, what might resultantly

happen is a subcultural transmigration, cutting across cultures and countries, thus

making subcultural groups less homogeneous.

Rethinking subculture brings about a rebranding of the concept, which Readhead

(1990) initiated in the post-subculture project; an idea that was later modernised by

Muggleton (2000). This post-modern perspective was expected to fill the gap created by

subcultural theory, and or even to make-up for its limitations. Accordingly, Weinzierl and

Muggleton (2006) attempted to get rid of the whole theoretical apparatus of the CCCS

and create a new framework for the analysis of contemporary subcultural phenomena.

Post-subcultural theory then came about as a more vehement rejection of the

“theoretical orthodoxies of the CCCS”. It wanted an outright annihilation of previous

conceptions of subculture, going so far as to argue that the term itself is no longer a

useful description of the complex relationships between “post-subcultural formations”

and the dominant culture with which they interact (Philpot, 2008).

Whereas post-subcultural theory seems to contribute much to the understanding of

the cultural dynamics, which inform youth’s everyday appropriation of music, style and

associated objects, images and texts (Bennett, 2011), it is loose to proffer a unified set

of alternative, analytical and empirical concepts for the study of youth culture. On its part,

subculture can be discredited for adopting a naive and essentially celebratory standpoint

concerning the role of the cultural industries in shaping the identities and lifestyle of

youths (Bennett, 2011). Since subculture is deemed unfit, postsubculture becomes a

mere transformation of subculture in name, which failed to transform an understanding

of youth cultural life. Some scholars (Shildrick and MacDonald, 2006: 4) argue that

empirically, post-subcultural studies tend to ignore the youth cultural lives and identities

of less advantaged young people and that, theoretically, they aim at under-playing the

potential significance of class and other social inequalities in contemporary youth culture.

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

11

Any neglect or total rejection of these variables is detrimental to the proper

understanding of the concepual framework – subculture.

Rethinking subculture and subcultural theory implies seeking alternative ways of using

the concept and theory to address youth criminal activity globally. Rather than employ

alternative terminologies such as post-subculture, which eventually became counter-

productive and indeed repetitious of the classic subculture, a persuasive suggestion is

that the useage of subculture and subcultural theory be widened to embrace a universal

explanation of youth criminal life. The notion of globalization or rather the world being a

“global village”, coupled with modern technology, may have a major role to play here, in

the sense that youths of nowadays are far more informed by the social media networks

to behave in similar ways. When in 1964, Marshall Mcluhan, a renowned American

Communications expert came up with the concept “global village”, he envisaged or rather

predicted the world’s culture would sooner or later shrink or even expand as a result of a

perverse technological savvy society, which may have exposed itself to instantaneous

sharing of culture (Dixon, 2009). Since the Internet is the fastest mechanism for culture

sharing, and of course, the Anglo-American societies also dominate the traffic; they also

possess an overpowering influence on cultural identities, and tend to influence other

societies aound the world. In his study of the Canadian youth culture, Brake (1985)

argued that many of their cultural forms were “borrowed” rather than “authentic”. For

instance, the use of hip-hop by black Canadian youths from the Afro-American culture, or

the borrowing of punk hairstyle from England by white youths. These identities are

expressed through the use of clothing or the consumption of particular commodities

rather than being substantively derived from aboriginal or class-based experiences. This

can technically be described as hybridity which “… denotes a wide register of multiple

identity, crossover, pick-'n'-mix, boundary-crossing experiences and styles', reflecting

increased migration, mobility and global multiculturalism” (Pieterse, 2001: 221).

Youths who are likely to engage in culture hybridization, may not necessarily be

affiliated to a specific or known subcultural group but have the proclivity making either a

good or bad impression in the environment they find themselves. A closer look at events

of the recent uprisings and revolutions that brought about regime changes in some parts

of the world, especially the Arab Spring, shows they were ochestrated by youths of those

countries, who though behaved deviantly and violently too, and could as well be regarded

as subcultures. They were simply motivated by what they saw other youths within the

region did to address their looming societal problems. This tends to affirm that the laten

function of a subculture is to express and resolve, albeit “magically” the contradictions

which appear in the parent culture (Cohen, 1972: 23). The summation is that youths in

various societies are not immuned from behaving alike for the reason that culture

contact or interaction may bring about culture influence and or change.

Admittedly, cultural differences still abound, but the concept and theory of subculture

should be open to address all deviant youths (male and female alike) of different cultures

and societies, for the reason that, as earlier mentioned, variables such as age, sex, and

peer group are universally invariant in predicting crime (see also LaFree, 1998; Warr,

2006) and other forms of deviant behaviours. Therefore then, when a group of youths in

any culture or nationality behave contrary to the conventional norms of that society, they

should qualify for the name “subculture”, whether or not they possess cultural identities.

Even so, considering the global nature of society, cultural identities are becoming far

more individualistic and seem to be loosing their specificity to a group; and may not say

much about them because anybody can develop any type of identity, which may not

necessarily infer that they belong to a subculture. For example, the “Mohican” hairstyle

was mainly associated with members of the warlike tribe of the North American Indians,

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

12

but later taken up by the “punk culture” in Britain, who were anti-establishment at the

time. These punks appeared to contradict all the codes their parents believed in and

grew up with.

Secondly, the “Skinheads” of the 1970s Britain, were associated with white

supremacy and racism, but later metamorphosed into different “political subcultures”

which tend to possess racist connotations, such as the National Front (NF) British

National Party (BNP) and the English Defence League (EDL). It is very striking that the

styles exhibited by the punks and skinheads have become common fashion to some

ordinary youths namely, Irish Travellers (Gypsies), Footballers, Artistes, children and

others, in many parts of the world, including Africa. The ideology is just people wishing to

have a hairstyle of their choice, and again the issue of individualism is underscored. The

solution to their problem is far more expressed via style rather than involvement in

criminal activity; hence the style of each subculture involves the creation of identities and

images built upon objects adopted or borrowed from other cultures and eras (Newburn,

2013). By identifying them as subculture helps to break barriers and broaden the

concept so as to allow for inclusivity of youths from different parts of the world.

Conclusion

The American and British understanding of subculture and subcultural theory has

weakened both the concept and theory in accounting for a wider youth criminal behaviour

because it refers to a selection of western youths with specific cultural identities such as

language, music and style. Moreover, the usefulness of subcultural theory in the

explanation of youth crime requires thorough scrutiny, in the sense that, rather than

place emphasis on the explanation of youth crime, theorists tend to be trapped in the

promotion of popular culture and glamorization of youth criminal activity. It has earlier

been noted that with little or no attention paid to female youth subculture, subcultural

theory tries to exhibit its unviability to fully offer explanation for the involvement of both

male and female youths in crime.

The selfish claim of subcultural dominance in the study of youth crime for most

part of the twentieth century, makes other criminological theories unimportant and

irrelevant. Its self-acclaimed position as a specialized theory for the explanation of

criminal behaviour of youths makes it ambitiously egoistic and monopolistic.

However, the employment of “post-subculture” for a change has failed to bring about

any improvement on subculture, rather it only established catch phrases which are not

far from what is already known about subculture. It was thought that an ascent to post-

subculture could solve the problem created by subculture but the difference that exists

between both concepts remains vague. What is found to be clear is the rebranding from

“subculture to post-subculture”. The propounders of postsubcultural theory being

disciples of the CCCS, still maintain the CCCS’ understanding of subculture, which is the

obvious “male urban working class youths of post-World War II Britain”.

With that in mind, it is apparently that both subcultural and post-subcultural studies

are in the same continuum, and as such, the obvious and inherent limitations of

subcultural and post-subcultural theories call for a rethink, which would among other

things champion the withdrawal from an over emphasis on specific cultural identies as

found in the Anglo/American subcultures and focus more on a broader or rather holistic

explanation of the criminal behaviour of both male and female youth subcultures in

virtually other societies. That is to say, any behaviour of youths that is anti-mainstream

society is to be regarded as subcultural behaviour.

Nevertheless, credit should be accorded both the Chicago School and the CCCS

for their interest in the study of youth criminality in both sides of the Atlantic. Yet, both

theories are seemingly unprepared to move further afield into the wider domain or rather

global explanation of youth cultural life. Although no one theory may account for the

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

13

global explanation of crime, but this paper makes the case that subcultural theory should

demonstrate a somewhat inclusivity of other youths from other backgrounds and

cultures. That is to say, with the globalization of youth culture, aided by the digital age,

youth subcultures can emerge in varied styles, from any mainstream society, as a deviant

or criminal group, who may not just be suffering from status fraustration as the Chicago

School would claim, but far beyond that, who are poised to seeking answers to address

their generational problems.

References

Adeniran, A. I. (2008) ‘The Internet and Emergence of Yahooboys Subculture in Nigeria’.

International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2, 2, 368-381.

Anderson, E. (1994) The Code of the Streets, The Atlantic Monthly, 273,(5), Research

Library, 80-94.

Bennett, A. (1999) ‘Subcultures or Neo-tribes? Rethinking the Relationship between

Youth, Style and Musical Taste’. Sociology, 33, 3, 599–617.

Bennett, A. ‘The Post-subcultural Turn: Some Reflections 10 Years On’. Journal of Youth

Studies, 14, 5, 493-506.

Bennett, A. (2000) Popular Music and Youth Culture: Music Identity and Place, London,

Macmillan.

Blackman, S. (2005) 'Youth Subcultural Theory: A Critical Engagement with the Concept,

its Origins and Politics, from the Chicago School to Postmodernism'. Journal of

Youth Studies, 8, 1-20.

Blumenstein, L., Fridell, L. & Jones, S. (2012) ‘The Link Between Traditional Police

Subculture and Police Intimate Partner Violence’, Policing: An International

Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 35, (1),147 - 164

Brake, M. (1985) Comparative Youth Culture: The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth

Subcultures in America, Britain and Canada, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Chaney, D. (2004) ‘Fragmented Culture and Subcultures’. In A. Bennett, & K. Khan-

Harris. (Eds.), After Subculture, London, Palgrave.

Cloward, R. A. & Ohlin, L. E. (1960) Delinquency and Opportunity, New York, Free Press.

Clubb, S. (2001) What Do You Think is the Principal and Principal Weakness of

Subcultural Theories? www.scottishlaw.org.uk.

Cohen, A. K. (1955) Delinquent Boys, New York, Free Press.

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

14

Cohen, P. (1972) “Subcultural Conflict and Working Class Community” in S. Hall, D.

Hobson, A Lowe, and P. Willis (Eds.) Culture, Media, Language, London,

Hutchinson.

Cohen, P. & Sas, A. (1994) ‘Cocaine Use in Amsterdam in Non-Deviant Subcultures’.

Addiction Reseaech, 2, 1, 71-79.

Cohen, S. (1980) Folk Devils and Moral Panics, London, Routledge.

Cutler, C. (2006) Subcultures and Counter Cultures, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook,

New York.

Dixon, V.K. (2009) Understanding the Implications of a Global Village, Student Pulse, The

Student International Journal, 1, 11, 1-2.

Downes, D. & Rock, P. E. (2007) Understanding Deviance, Oxford, Oxford University

Press.

Epstein, J. S. (2002) Youth Culture: Identity in a Postmodern World. Malden,

Massachussetts.

Gay, D. A. & Ellison, C. G. (1993) ‘Religious Subcultures and Political Tolerance: Do

Denominations Still Matter’. Review of Religious Research, 34, 4, 311-332.

Gelder, K. (2005) ‘Introduction to Part One’. In K. Gelder (Ed.), The Subcultures Reader.

Second Edition, London, Routledge.

Hall, S. & Jefferson, T. (2006) ‘Once More Around and Through Subcultures’ In S. Hall &

T. Jefferson (Eds.), Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-war

Britain. Oxford, Routledge.

Hodkinson, P. (2002) Goth: Identity, Style and Subculture. Oxford, Berg.

Jacobs, B. A. & Wright, R. (1999) 'Stick-up, Street Culture, and Offender Motivation'.

Criminology, 37, 149-174.

Jenks, C. (2005) Subcultures: The Fragmentation of the Social. London, Sage.

Jones, S. (2013) Criminology, 5th Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Kahn, R. & Kellner, D. (2006) ‘Internet Subcultures and Opposition Politics’, In D.

Muggleton & R. Weinzierl (Eds.), The Post-subcultural Reader. Oxford, Berg

Publishers.

Karvonen, S., West, P., Sweeting, H., Rahkonen, O. & Young, R. (2001) Lifestyle, Social

Class and Health-Related Behaviour: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of 15 Year Olds

in Glasgow and Helsinki’. Journal of Youth Studies, 4: 393- 413.

Lafree, G. (1998) Losing Legitimacy: Street Crime and the Decline of Social Institutions in

America, Colorado, Westview Press.

Lilly, R. J., Cullen, F. T. & Ball, R. A. (2011) Criminological Theory: Context and

Consequences, Thousand Oakes, Sage.

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

15

Macdonald, N. (2001) The Graffiti Subculture: Youth, Masculinity and Identity in London

and New York. Basingstoke, Palgrave.

Maira, S. (1999) ‘Identity Dub: The Paradoxes of an Indian American Youth Subculture

(New York Mix). Cultural Anthropology, 14, 1, 26-60.

Malbond, B. (1998) 'Clubbing: Consumption, Identity and the Spatial Practice of Every-

night Life'. In T. Skelton & G. Valentine (Eds.), Cool Places: Geographies of Youth

Culture. London, Routledge.

Marenin, O. (1987) ‘The Anini Saga: Armed Robbery and the Reproduction of Ideology in

Nigeria’. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 25, 259-281.

Matza, D. (1964) Delinquency and Drift, New York, Wiley.

McRobbie, A. & Garber, J. (1976) 'Girls and Subcultures: An Exploration'. In S. Hall & T.

Jefferson (Eds.), Resistance Through Rituals. London, Hutchinson.

McRobbie, A. & Garber, J. (2005) ‘Girls and Subcultures [1977]’. In K. Gelder (Ed.),

Second Edition, London, Routledge.

Melechi, A. (1993) 'The Ecstacy of Disappearance'. In S. Readhead (Ed.), Rave Off.

Avebury, Aldershot.

Merton, R. K. (1938) 'Social Structure and Anomie'. American Sociological Review, 3,

672-682.

Miles, S. (1995) 'Towards an Understanding of the Relationship between Youth Identities

and Consumer Culture'. Youth and Policy, 51, 35-45.

Miller, W. B. (1958) 'Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency'.

Journal of Social Issues, 14, 5-19.

Muggleton, D. (1997) 'The Post-subculturalists'. In S. Redhead (Ed.), The Club Culture

Reader. Oxford, Blackwell.

Muggleton, D., 2000. Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style. Oxford: Berg.

Newburn, T. (2007) Criminology, Cullompton, Devon, Willan Publishing.

Newburn, T. (2013) Criminology, Second Edition, Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge.

Newman, G. and Howard, G. J. (2001), ‘Varieties of Comparative Criminology,’

Comparative Sociology, Brill Academic Publishers.

Nihart, T., Lersch, K. M., Sellers, C. & Mieczkowski, T. (2005) 'Kids, Cops, Parents and

Teachers: Exploring Juvenile Attitudes Toward Authority Figures'. Western

Criminology Review, 6, 1-11.

Philpot, J. (2008) Reevaluating Subculture: Pro-Life Youth and the Rhetoric of Resistance,

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts, August

2008.

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology Rethinking Subculture & Subcultural Theory

January, 2015, Vol. 7(1): 1-16 Nwalozie

16

Pieterse, J. N. (2001) ‘Hybridity, So What? The Anti-Hybridity Backlash and the Riddles of

Recognition’, Theory, Culture and Society, 18, (2) 219-245.

Redhead, S. (1990) The End of the Century Party: Youth and Pop Towards 2000,

Manchester, University of Manchester Press.

Schouten, J. W. & Mcalexander, J. H. (1995) ‘Subculture of Consumption: An Ethnography

of the New Bikers’. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 43-61.

Shaw, C. R. & Mckay, H. D. (1942) Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas, Chicago,

University of Chicago Press.

Shildrick, T. A. and MacDonald, R. (2006) 'In Defence of Subculture: Young People,

Leisure and Social Divisions', Journal of Youth Studies, 9 (2), 125-140.

Short, J.F. (2002) Criminology, the Chicago School, and Sociological Theory, Crime Law

and Sociological Theory, 37, 107-115

Sutherland, E. & Cressey, D. (1978) Criminology, Philadelphia, Lippincott.

Trice, M. T. (1993) Occupational Subcultures in the Work Place. Ithaca, New York, ILR

Press.

Waddington, P. A. J. (1999) ‘Police (Canteen) Subculture: An Appreciation’, British Journal

of Criminology, 39 (2), 287-309.

Walsh, D. (1986) Heavy Business: Commercial Burglary and Robbery, London, Routledge

& Kegan Paul.

Warr, M. (2006) Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct,

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Weinzierl, R. & Muggleton, D. (2006) ‘What is Post-subcultural Studies’, Anyway? In D.

Muggleton & R. Weinzierl (Eds.), The Post-subcultural Reader. Oxford, Berg

Publishers.

Williams, K. (1997) Textbook on Criminology. Blackstone Press Ltd.

Wolfgang, M. E. & Ferracuti, F. (1967) The Subculture of Violence: Towards an Integrated

Theory in Criminology, London, Tavistock Publications.

Young, J. (2010) 'Subcultural Theories: Virtues and Vices'. In R. Agnew & J. Kaufman

(Eds.), Anomie, Strain and Subcultural Theories of Crime. Farnham, Ashgate.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.