In "The Meaning of Style" Dick Hebdige portrays subcultures as natural responses to the prevailing ideas and attitudes of the era in which they are formed. He also writes that counter-cultures, that begin as genuine ideological rebellions, are soon factored into the logical framework of the prevailing hegemonic culture. Thereby removing their shock value, and ordering them as just another element within the modern set of attitudes which define a civilization.
Hebdige also makes the point that the Punk movement was unique among the counter cultural movements in that it did not have a set of identifying rules or a strict social ordering. I disagree, one can look at images of punk rock concerts and see the common styles that made up the punk counter culture. Punks were definitely (at least to my eyes) recognizable as punks, that is, they had their own set of loose social rules which made them "punks."
The question I have after reading this is, can a counter culture really view itself as being against the primary culture of the time? Any movement which achieves even a small amount of popularity should be considered as part of the mainstream culture of the time. Counter-culture groups, rather than resisting the popular culture of the time, are just another component of them. For example, Hippies were thought of as a counter culture group. But when people my age think of sixties culture, the hippie movement is usually one of the first images to come to mind. While Dick Hebdige writes that counter culture movements are adapted into the mainstream as a later element in their development, I feel that counter cultures are part of the mainstream once they become a movement in even the slightest sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I disagree with you that counter cultures become a part of mainstream culture as soon as they happen. Hebdige also talks about soccer hooligans, and how that is a subculture. I do not think that that is a part of mainstream culture. Of course we, (rather people our age) associate the 60's with hippies, but that was a large movement of that time, that became a part of popular and mainstream culture. Hebdige also talks about how part of the defining of a subculture comes form ideological groups such as the media, police, etc. How they define this subculture, leads a way for how other people are going to view it. For example, if the media puts out a news cast about how a bunch of punk kids rioted a corporation and had a rally that got out of control and they were acting like animals, people that view that news cast are going to watch it, and get their own opinion about it. This goes back to Hall's idea of encoding, and decoding. Different people are going to watch that news cast, and while some may think these "punk kids" are horrible animals that are a threat to society, others may think it's cool that they are so rebellious, and want to be like them.
I do definitely agree with Hebdige talking about how subcultures play a role in popular culture to some extent, especially n fashion. Many fashion trends are taken from subcultures, however it does not mean that now that subculture has become mainstream culture. Definitely not. Occasionally a subculture can become a part of mainstream culture, but not always. Hebdige talks about how a subculture is defined by their symbols (music, dress,etc). Just because parts of a subculture may be used as fashion inspiration, does not mean that that subculture is now a part of mainstream culture. People who wear those inspired clothes may not listen to the music of that subculture, or partake in the same activities. Just because they may look similar, does NOT mean they are a part of that subculture.
I think, although fashion and popularity may somewhat dilute a sub-culture, it also will force to subculture to evolve, creating new sects, new sub-sub-cultures. This will go in a cycle. There are always "punks" and there are always poseurs, either through fashion or mass media or what have you.
Post a Comment