youth subcultures - culture/identity-based explanations

Question 1

Youth and deviance - culture/identity-based explanations - introduction
- terms (15)
- general (7)
- socs - general (5)

Answer 1

Terms (15):
- ‘Delinquent subcultures’, ‘criminal subcultures’, ‘gangs’, ‘organised gangs’, ‘delinquency’, ‘hierarchy’, ‘anti-school’/’anti-education’ subcultures, ‘underclass’/’welfare dependency culture’ (Murray), ‘Left Realists’, ‘neo-Marxists’, self-fulfilling prophecy, internalisation, socially constructed, agents of social control, ‘theoretical’ approaches

General (7):
- Most subcultures, deviant or not emerge as a form of protection, structure and power against systemic racism, discrimination, marginalisation and inequality
- Deviant subcultures often used as the sole opportunity to improve living conditions and protect others in the community (e.g. drug dealing)
- A variety of responses to discrimination arise: those who rebel, those who strategise to escape by working with the system, those who keep their heads down, etc
- Labelling, self-fulfilling prophecies, socialisation and social control limits opportunities for disadvantaged from the start; most subcultures are not to blame, but merely a response to this foundational instability and disadvantage
- Males specifically seek out deviant subcultures to reclaim masculinity; masculinity often only provided to working class/non-white boys through deviant means; although this is debated by feminists (e.g. not bio, just media socialising and validating violence and aggression)
- Many deviant norms and values become normalised in subcultures; standards ‘opposite’/’upside down’ due to this, so many deviant behaviours actively encouraged in deviant/criminal subcultures – further widens the gap of exclusion between subculture and mainstream society
- Ethnic representation of deviant/criminal subcultures often exaggerated, likewise female rising crimes and gangs – often used by media as a social control tool

Socs (5):
1. Cohen: ‘blocked opportunities’
2. Young (2003, ‘bulimic society’, ‘intensity of exclusion’ creates deviance as an emotional response from underclass/working class)
3. Harding (2014, south london ethnographic, ‘street capital’ crucial to survival of gangs, casino analogy)
4. Decker and Winkle (1996, youth gangs ‘push and pull’, through fear of violence and desire for protection)
5. White (2002, gangs linked to underclass conditions, provide social inclusion)

Question 2

Youth and deviance - culture/identity-based explanations - social class:
- socs (7)

Answer 2

Socs (7):
1. Willis (1977, birmingham male pupils, self-view of failure, prioritised ‘havin’ a laff’, socialised by school through its neglect and ostracism to remain in the working class)
2. Brown (1987, 3 responses to education among working class: ‘getting in’, ‘getting out’, ‘getting on’)
3. Mac and Ghaill (1994, Parnell School, found: ‘ordinary lads’, ‘academic achievers’, ‘macho lads’)
4. O’Donnell and Sharpe (2000, predicted disappearance of ‘cocksure’ attitude of working class in contemporary society)
5. MacDonald and Marsh (2005, working class socialised through educational neglect to resign themselves to failure, manual work, deviance or unemployment)
6. Lacey (1970, rise in competitiveness of school structure demoralised and disenchanted working class pupils, actively dissuaded them from partaking)
7. Reay (2009, working class socialised to value themselves lowly, so less inclined to compete)

Question 3

Youth and deviance - culture/identity-based explanations - gender:
- socs (13)

Answer 3

Socs ():
1. Messerschmidt (1993, working class saw gang acts of violence and macho behaviour as ‘doing masculinity’, being ‘accomplished’)
2. Harding (2014, for working class, masculinity will be proven even in spite of exclusion and lack of advantages - just found through deviant means)
3. Campbell (1993, inequality and class discrimination has led working class youths to seek out most extreme forms of masculinity, whilst denying access to legitimate masculine status through socially accepted means)
4. Connell (2014, rejects psychological and biological reasoning for ‘macho’ hyper-aggressive behaviour; argues the **media and lack of positive role models worsens risk of violence against women)
5. Heidensohn (1989, girls subject to more social control, earlier - lower risk of deviance)
6. Lees (1983, women controlled in both public and private, domestic spheres - discouraged from delinquent activity)
7. Graham (1985, delinquency seen as a ‘double deviance’ for girls, as it is not socially desirable for girls to be ‘dominant, macho, laddish or hyper aggressive’)
8. Klein (1995, argues female gang members are equally as violent as their male counterparts, estimating 12,500 are involved in gangs)
9. Pitts (2014, girls have roles of ‘fixers’ with ‘street capital’; value through structural support, sexual value)
10. Mac and Ghaill (1994, ‘3 Fs’, ‘Macho Lads’, ‘hegemonic masculinity’)
11. Archer and Yamashita (2003, ‘hyper-heterosexuality’, working class boys saw masculinity as being outside of education; academics as ‘soft’; saw gangs as ‘backup**’ and a part of ‘doing masculinity’)
12. Jackson (2006, white working class girls and boys overemphasised disinterest and lack of effort in academics, viewed as boosting reputation and popularity)
13. Blackman (1998, anti-school v anti-education; ‘New Wave’ female subculture prioritising academic success, but being anti-school)

Question 4

Youth and deviance - culture/identity-based explanations - ethnicity:
- socs (11)

Answer 4

Socs (11):
1. Nightingale (1993, Philadelphia black youths, turned to illegitimate means to contribute socially due to racist barriers blocking legitimate methods)
2. Bourgois (1995, complex structured, highly ambitious deviance becomes the norm in poor areas; black and latino drug dealers socialised into normalised deviance to survive)
3. Nightingale (the ‘paradox of inclusion’ - in aims to achieve society’s expectations, within a structure not built for the disadvantaged, the disadvantaged turn to deviance)
4. Centre for Social Justice (2009, found gang members reflected their place of origin and relative number, as opposed to exaggerated ethnic proportion)
5. Alexander (2000, Asian gangs represented contradictory values - family, culture, geographic loyalties but also deviant behaviours. Also highly sensationalised due to Islamophobia)
6. Sewell (1997, black boys bullied in subcultures for striving for academic success - used Merton’s terms, found 18% boys ‘rebels’, but took all attention and created stereotype for black students)
7. Merton (1997, types of African-Caribbean male pupils: conformists (pro-academics), innovators (pro-edu but anti-school), retreatists (anti-school), rebels (those forming subcultures to rebel against educational expectations)
8. Mac and Ghaill (1988, black pupils created subcultures to resist racism and stereotyping in schools; some pro, some anti-school - e.g. Rasta Heads, Warriors, Black Sisters)
9. Mirza (2009, ‘strategic rationalisation’, black students supporting each other in spite of racist and systemically discriminatory school structure)
10. Archer (2003, islamophobia heightened need for protection within islamic groups and ethnic subcultures, widening ethnic and social divides)
11. Strand and Winston (2008, negative peer relationships major issue for underachieving black pupils; for white pupils, self-esteem)

Question 5

Youth and deviance - culture/identity-based explanations - media influence:
- terms (17)
- general (1)
- socs (6)

Answer 5

Terms (17):
- ‘Delinquent subcultures’, ‘criminal subcultures’, ‘gangs’, ‘organised gangs’, ‘delinquency’, ‘hierarchy’, ‘anti-school’/’anti-education’ subcultures, ‘underclass’/’welfare dependency culture’ (Murray), ‘Left Realists’, ‘neo-Marxists’, self-fulfilling prophecy, internalisation, socially constructed, agents of social control, ‘theoretical’ approaches, deviance amplification, moral panic

General (1):
- Media seen to exaggerate issues, worsen issues by validating and encouraging them (e.g. aggression, misogyny, racism, ableism, criminality, etc)

Socs (6):
1. Pearson (1983, working class branded ‘hooligans’ by media, dehumanised and ostracised - ‘alien’, ‘un-british’)
2. Cohen (1972, examined media coverage of mod subculture - found media created moral panic through over exaggerating instances, turning youths into ‘scapegoats’ and ‘folk devils’, using terms like ‘vermin’, ‘louts’)
3. Cohen (1973, found agents of social control actively ‘amplified’ deviance through exaggeration and ostracism)
4. Young (1971, pressure exerted by social control actively encourages subcultures to form stronger, more identifiable identity - Young found 3 stages of deviancy amplification: translation of fantasy (social control agents susceptible to accepting media conditioning), negotiation of reality (police negotiate ‘evidence’ of deviance from media), amplification (labelling subcultures may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy)
5. Brown (2012, UK media attention of raves led to deviance amplification, self-fulfilling prophecy)
6. Fawbert (2008, media coverage of hoodies as a stigmatising label led to ‘hood gangs’)