14

Chapter One

Broadening the Boundaries of

Youth Subcultural Theories Introduction ‘Youth’ as a social category has been the focus of attention of scholars from

markedly different intellectual backgrounds, disciplines and institutions. Over the

dawning of the new millennium the term ‘youth’ has become increasingly

difficult to conceptualise. Debates have arisen over whether ‘youth’ can be

viewed as simply a physical or biological category or if it is ‘socially

constructed’.1 The experience of being young is a decisive part of the life cycle

because it is at that moment that identities are formulated and expressed.

Definitions should however not be confined to generic brackets of age. As Wulff

points out ‘to be a younger teenager is hardly equivalent to being an older

teenager’. Moreover, in certain instances ‘youthfulness may extend upwards in

age.’2 Youth should rather be understood as a period characterised by few

responsibilities in which identities are constructed, reconstructed and negotiated.

As Hillegonda Rietveld contends ‘youth’

is not only a social category, a group that has simply been named because it has a certain age: it is a psychological category of people who are at a moment of change; a gap exists between two discourses, that of irresponsible subservient childhood and of initiative-taking adulthood. At such a moment of 'passage' unconventional ideas may be 'fore grounded', confusing established categories and offending the symbolic order.3

Being a ‘youth’ is a transitory condition and shifts depending upon the

historical context in which the process unfolds. The boundaries defining what it

means to be a youth have ‘varied between different societies and across different

historical periods.’4 Investigations into youth have taken different forms ranging

from a focus on education and work to one on politics and student activism.5 To

provide a review of studies that focus on youth generally is a mammoth task. In

recent time there has been an explosion of studies that focus on youth culture as

opposed to youth subcultures. Scholars and educators such as Epstein and

15

Kellner6 have made important contributions in this field. These works have two

emphases; firstly they unravel the way in which youths carve out cultural spaces

to explore and experiment with their identities; secondly they attempt to provide

models for the ‘older’ generation to understand youth behaviour. Although useful,

they tend to generalise and homogenise youth and their culture. The way in which

youth cultures branch off into distinctive and often unique subcultures is

underplayed if not totally neglected.

Subcultural Theories Subcultures have received attention since at least the eighteenth century, from the

practitioners of a spectrum of disciplines ranging from history, anthropology and

sociology to cultural and literary studies.7 Youth has been the major focus of

subcultural studies and as a rule, it has been those subcultures considered to be

‘deviant’, which have attracted the most attention.8 The history of a wide variety

of such subcultures including Victorian boys, street corner gangs, Zoot suits, taxi

dancers, Teddy Boys, Tsotsis, Mods and Rockers, Hippies, Punks, and football

hooligans has been extensively documented. In recent decades, controversy has

arisen over how precisely to define subcultures. Nevertheless, most scholars

would agree that subculture is a ‘nominalist abstraction’9 referring to relatively

small informal groups with a common set of interests which serve to unify their

members whilst simultaneously differentiating them from wider and usually more

‘mainstream’ social groups. A youth subculture is one in which both age and

generation play a definitive role in the membership and composition of the

subculture.

When compared with many other parts of the globe youth culture in South Africa

has been grossly under researched10 Glaser’s ‘Anti-Social Bandits: Juvenile

Delinquency and the Tsotsi Youth Gang Subculture on the Witwatersrand, 1935-

1960’ is the outstanding exception.11 White youth, which is the subject of the

present study, has been almost wholly ignored. A framework within which to

explore white youth can however be developed from successive schools of British

and American subcultural studies.

16

Three distinctive epistemological approaches for understanding subcultures are

identifiable. The first includes a collection of works produced by sociologists

from the Chicago School between the 1920s and late 1960s. Scholars based at the

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) at the University of

Birmingham in the 1970s have formulated the second perspective. The ‘post-

CCCS position’12 is the third view and is comprised of more recent contributions

(in the form of critiques of parts of the CCCS’s work and of the term subculture

itself) made by a diverse range of social scientists from different institutions and

disciplines.13

The Chicago School sociologists (R.E. Park, P.G. Cressey, M.M. Gordon, A.K.

Cohen, H. Becker, and J. Irwin) were the product of the Sociology Department at

the University of Chicago established in 189214 and embraced a structural

functionalist understanding of society. They gained a reputation for producing

studies of an ‘urban micro-sociology which gave particular attention to the

interaction of people’s perceptions of themselves with others “views of them”.15

Their major preoccupation was subcultures in general as opposed to youth

subcultures in particular. Early works, written by the likes of R.E. Park, set the

intellectual agenda for subsequent subcultural analysts. The Chicago School

stressed the importance of uncovering human behaviour in the context of the city.

Much later the Birmingham based CCCS school advanced the view that

subcultures emerge as a collective response to a series of social problems. The

best known of their scholars is Phil Cohen who perceives subcultures as symbolic

responses or solutions to frustrated class positions a view which later set the

agenda for the work of the CCCS.16

Since its inception in 1964, the CCCS17 has produced the most influential studies

on subcultures to date. They transformed the way in which subcultures have been

studied through their prioritisation of class, which at times is infused with

ethnicity and gender. For them, what is of primary importance in any theory of

subcultures is the ‘double articulation of youth subcultures’ to the parent culture and

17

to the dominant hegemonic order. They portray the cultural style of youths ‘as

symbolic forms of resistance; as spectacular symptoms of a wider and more

generally submerged dissent, which characterised the whole post second world

war period.’18 Resistance to hegemony was expressed through ritual and cultural

style, the two features that make subcultures identifiable. These elements of style are

analysed further in semiotic terms. In Subculture: The Meaning of Style, Hebdige

develops semiotics as an analytical tool, in which the major task is to ‘decode’ the

signs that make subcultures identifiable. For S. Hall et al., the referents of their

interpretation of signs are social class and the dominant socio-cultural system.

Despite being highly influential, the CCCS attracted a great deal of criticism

especially in the 1990s. Some of these criticisms have been internalised in the

revised work of CCCS scholars themselves (such as Stanley Cohen and Angela

McRobbie).19 This more recent research on contemporary youth subcultures or

‘post-subcultures’ (Gary Clarke, Sarah Thornton, Ken Gelder, Jonathan Epstein,

Andy Bennett and David Muggleton)20 contest CCCS work. Some scholars for

example Armadeep Singh, Rupert Weinzierl and Andy Bennet have called for the

dissolution of subculture as a category for contemporary social groupings and

have coined terms such as ‘channels’, ‘substream networks’ and ‘neo-tribes’ to

replace it.21 It is not the intention of this dissertation to engage in ‘post-modern

debates’ about the appropriateness of the term for contemporary (twenty-first

century) groupings or transnational youth cultures since this is an investigation

into an historical youth subculture. Nevertheless, viewed collectively, these

critiques provide an alternative perspective from which to understand historical

subcultures. This has resulted not only in paradigmatic shifts but also in

methodological and disciplinary changes where, as Gelder puts it, there is:

a return to sociology and an agreement about the importance of grounding subcultural analysis in the empirical world, valuing specific, localised studies over general, theoretical pronouncements. Crucially, the notion of subcultural 'resistance' is either rejected or considerably diluted in favour of a model which sees subcultural activity as much more dependent upon and co-operative with commerce and convention.22

18

These scholars identify two major problems in the work of the CCCS. The first

concerns their notion that subcultural activity and behaviour is simply a form of

resistance to frustrated class positions. It is now generally accepted that there is

more to subcultures than a narrow dichotomy between resistance and

conformity.23 Representing members of subcultures as entrapped in modes of

resistance creates the impression that resistance and rebellion are the only forces

pushing youths into subcultures and is now generally seen to be inadequate.

Although recent studies portray members of subcultures in opposition to certain

dimensions of the parent culture in which they are subjoined they are not always

in conflict with all as aspects of it. 'Cultural heterogeneity, similarities and

connections between different cultural forms that may not necessarily be in

opposition to a dominant culture'24 abound. As Bell contends:

Youth responding to its own specific generational situation borrows selectively from parental tradition adapting its form and content to forge new repertoires of social expression.25

This leads to the second major problem – especially in the South African situation

– namely the CCCS’s class analysis of consciousness, ideology, and identity. As

Gary Clarke points out the major weakness of the corpus of CCCS’s work is that

they create the impression that 'all those in a specific class location are members

of the corresponding subculture and that all members of a subculture are in the

same class location.'26 This creates the erroneous impression of homogeneity

between members.

Related to this another limitation of the CCCS’s work, as noted by Brake, Moore,

Waters and more recently Muggleton and Hutchinson, is their tendency to present

a romanticised picture of the working class where members of subcultures are

painted as “‘heroic figures’ resisting the threatened breakdown of an idealised and

idolised working-class culture.”27 Class alone is no longer adequate for a full

understanding of the complex dimensions of subcultures. Subcultural identities

are comprised of and shaped by interconnected elements such as class, race,

ethnicity, territoriality, gender, style and generation, the salience of which shift

according to circumstance.

19

Many would now agree that consciousness and identity are more multifaceted

than the CCCS scholars have allowed and are comprised of numerous different

features besides class. Fornas, cited in Muggleton, points out that ‘no identities

can be reduced only to homologies – they always include heterologies…’.28 Race,

gender, ethnicity, taste, social background, generation, occupational status

together with class not only set in place the individual’s ‘layers of

consciousness’29 but also lead to the construction of multiple identities. The

appropriation of identity as an analytical tool is important as,

… it is at the level of individual identity formation and reformation that the negotiation between different socio-cultural identities takes place. There is …no collective social identity birthright; rather, identities of gender, generation, sexuality, class, race, ethnicity and religion are constructed in time and space.30

In a similar vein Kearney argues that identity,

is constituted out of different elements of experience and subjective position [which] in their articulation…become something more than just the sum of their original elements.31

However, the way in which these different subjectivities intersect and intermesh

with one another to form a complex web of multiple identities is rarely explored. I

suggest here that human identities are not determined by a single hegemonic

factor (such as class) but are collectively shaped by these and other social

identities including race, ethnicity, gender and generation. A diffuse framework

for the investigation of identity can be formulated by drawing on these works as

well as a few seminal studies produced by American and British scholars.

Conceptualising a coherent, accurate and workable definition of identity is a

difficult and daunting task. As Harris - drawing on Herbert Spencer – contends,

Although the English language is rich in synonyms, there are some words that are islands of desperate poverty in this respect. ‘Identity’ is one of them. It stands for so many different concepts that to use it at all is a recipe for confusion.32

20

Disciplinary affiliation (be it rooted in philosophy, anthropology or history)

conjures very different perceptions and understandings of the term. Most would

agree that three types of identity (or subjects) have been identified by social

scientists namely the Enlightenment, sociological and ‘post-modern’ subject. The

former two are generally perceived to be centred and cohesive, whilst the latter is

not only decentred but is also fragmentary and transitory.

Despite traditionally laying the foundation for studies on the self, classical

philosophical and psychological accounts of identity (primarily based on

propositions and arithmetical equations)33 in the context of this research are

obfuscating, nebulous and ahistorical. Nevertheless, recent philosophical and

psychoanalytic work has contributed towards a move away from the perception of

the self [identity] as coherent, singular and unified towards a view that stresses the

multifarious and fragmentary nature of identities. Research today, as Nikolas Rose

points out, has lead to:

the image of the self being questioned both practically and conceptually. A whole variety of practices bearing upon the mundane difficulties of living a life have placed in question the unity, naturalness and coherence of the self.34

This has resulted in a dismantling of the perception of the self as a coherent unit to

one (influenced most notably by the increasing popularity of postmodernism in

academia) where the variegated, disconnected and fugacious nature of identities is

revealed, a view which considers the contradictory experiences of the quotidian

by stressing the importance of human agency. Or as Rose phrases it, a perspective

where the ‘psychocultural mechanisms through which the subject comes to take

itself as a self’35 is recognised.

Similarly, Anthropology talks about the importance of agency. Following the

tradition of symbolic interactionism (Mead and Goffman’s work for example)

personal identity in anthropological studies, is viewed as contingent. The

individual’s creative role in the construction of identity is stressed primarily by

using ethnography and/or oral testimonies.36 Inevitably, this positions the

researcher up against the ‘two bulwarks of ethnographic practice: generalisation

21

and cultural relativism’.37 However, there are ways to overcome this.

Anthropologist Anthony Cohen’s work - amongst others - is particularly useful in

this regard. He contends that in order to understand social formations and

movements, the individual’s awareness of themselves - their self consciousness –

needs to be unpacked. This not only provides a richer understanding of social

formations but also accounts for the ‘complexities of individuals’ and avoids

simply generalising ‘them into collectivities’.38

The most reliable way in which to embrace these complexities and to incorporate

the perceptions of the actors is through the use of oral testimonies - an endeavour

which most social scientists (including subcultural analysts) are hesitant to

embark upon.39 Oral testimony not only illuminates documentary evidence by

revealing the heterogeneous nature of membership within social groups (in this

case subcultures), but it also helps scholars avoid projecting meanings onto the

subculture or phenomenon under investigation. Kenneth Hudson stresses:

What really matters is not the framework, the apparatus and the terminology which allows an academic analyst to construct and formulate his [or her] theories about this or that group in society, but what the individual members of the group think about themselves, what models of behaviour they try to follow, what protective colouring they choose to adopt, why they accept the values and characteristics of one group and reject those of another.40

The abundant work on identity produced by post-modern and anthropological

scholars similarly has certain limitations. Firstly, a lack of attention is paid to the

historical processes in and through which identities are constructed, negotiated

and re-negotiated. Secondly, and generally, there is a tendency to equate identity

solely with conceptions of the self and notions of identification with community41.

Thirdly, it is usually argued that decentred and fragmentary identities exist due to

the intensification of globalisation and the emergence of trans-national and ‘post-

modern’ conditions. However, through the lenses of the ducktail subculture it is

clear that no singular identity existed prior to this; identities are and have always

been multiple due to the nature of life or the mendacity of life as opposed to a

post-modern condition that has suddenly engulfed society. This thesis then argues

that social scientists should rather focus on the numerous influences and,

22

processes that shape, construct, and negotiate identities. In doing so the

complexities, contradictions and multiple forces that shape the individual’s

identities are revealed. Identity or to quote Rose ‘subjectification’: is not to be understood by locating it in a universe of meaning or an interactional context of narratives, but in a complex of apparatuses, practices, machinations, and assemblages within which human being has been fabricated, and which presuppose and enjoin particular relations with ourselves.42

Fourthly despite their claims to the contrary, analysts of identity, create an

impression of overall homogeneity which underplays the diversity and internal

contradictions not only within individuals but also between members and the

social movement (for example subcultures), and the broader society within which

they are located. This thesis therefore follows Calhoun in believing that diversity,

difference and historical complexity should be accounted for to reveal the

‘problems of identity and social theory’43. As he notes,

“Difference” appears as importantly in the forms of violent nationalism, racism, and religious fundamentalism as in movements and personal choices about gender, sexual orientation, and ethnic pluralism.44

Identity as a conceptual tool in South African literature has only been utilised

explicitly by some scholars including Vivian Bickford-Smith, Robert Morrell,45

Clifton Crais, Paul La Hausse de Lalouvière, Alan Lester, Ran Greenstein, Harry

Dugmore, Karin Horwitz and Brynn Binnel.46 This shortcoming in South African

historiography has arisen, as Greenstein points out, because

...the various Marxist perspectives that have dominated South African Studies since the 1970s…take racial and ethnic identities for granted: while frequently recognising that these are the outcomes of prolonged historical processes, and that they have not sprung into existence in a full-fledged form from nowhere, they nonetheless assume that only the end result of processes of identity formation is of interest, not the processes in themselves. Alternatively in a more hostile vein, they dismiss the concern with identity as a deviation from and obstruction to the development of proper modes of identification, usually seen as nationalist and working class in form.’47

However these relatively recent studies, including Greenstein’s, tend to collapse

into discussions which elevate ethnic and nationalistic48 (politicised 49 identities)

over and above other equally important identities such as gender, race and

23

generation. What they do in a sense is add to the list and re-order the ranking of

identities.

Of equal importance is understanding how the construction of identities changes

over time. Greenstein and Dugmore have given this substantial attention. In his

analysis of the collective dimensions of identity, Greenstein highlights the

significance of historicism:

Identity is a process that unfolds over time, and its components are subject to change – rather than a repertoire of cultural elements that stand in fixed relation to each other. Although at any given point a specific identity may seem to its adherents and to those residing outside its boundaries as having always existed in essentially the same form, this is rarely if ever the case. The emergence, internal shift of terms, and modification of their relation to other identities are of the essence of all known identities, and the most suitable manner of examining them is thus historical.’50

In a similar vein, Dugmore believes that: individual identity is multi-causal, and multi-layered. Class, gender, race, and ethnicity (and prevailing ideologies about those issues), together with individual psychological circumstances, create the prisms through which people see themselves and interact with the world. Individual and group identity also changes over time, often profoundly.51

Besides stressing multiplicity, Dugmore is cognisant of the transitory nature of

identity. It is important to recognise the complexities and internal contradictions

within collective and individual identities so that a homogenous representation of

identity is avoided and so that individuality is accounted for. Calhoun argues that

Identities are constructed and reconstructed but this is not a static process rather it is a dynamic one in which identities ‘are internally contested…their boundaries are porous and overlapping, and…[where] people live in more than one at the same time.52

That said, the modes or points of commonality between individuals, which may

contribute to a group or collective identity also need to be accounted for. As

Cohen contends, within groups of people there will be a modicum of agreement; at the very least, there will be a feeling among the members that they do share a modicum of agreement. This sentiment may be regarded as a sine qua non of the group’s very existence, suggesting that however little the members may actually share

24

with each other, it must be more than they share with members of, what they recognise as, others groups.53

Dugmore alludes to this very important (if usually underplayed), dimension of

identities, namely that they exist in an individual and collective form. In

anthropological and historical studies, group and individual identities have been

researched more fully.54 The problem with studies such as these, is that even

though they pay attention to deeper psychological identities and the way they

relate to a broad sense of community belonging, very little can be learnt from

them about the formation of these identities and what propels individuals to

identify and conglomerate into groups. Dugmore once again, is useful in this

respect because of his conceptualisation of identity as ‘the interface between the

external and internal forces acting on individual and collective [my emphasis]

life.’55 These issues surrounding the complex process in which collective and

individual identities are constructed historically is a unifying theme in this

dissertation.

Race, Space, Gender and Sexuality Hebdige56 aside, another weakness of the CCCS and other subcultural analysts is

their neglect of race and the way in which racial consciousness influences youths

and the construction of their identities. This relates to these analysts’ idealisation

and romanticisation of the working class. This probably contributes to but does

not fully explain why surprisingly little has been written on white youth culture

and even less on white racial identities generally and in South Africa specifically.

Studies on race have become synonymous with explorations of black racial

identities, and identities based on race, as Cocco Fusco alerts ‘are not only Black,

Latino, Asian, Native American and so on; they are also white.’ To ignore white

ethnicity as Roediger insists, is to redouble its hegemony by naturalising it.57

Much can be learnt about race from recent work produced by US labour historians

and their exploration of the intersection between race and class. Wellman, for

example, makes an important point in his call to account for the process through

which whiteness gets invented’58 so that the ‘spaces in which alternative identities

to whiteness could be learned, where multidimensional and fluid self-conception

25

which challenged whiteness could be constructed’59 are revealed. He also stresses

the dynamic nature of the ‘construction of whiteness which has multiple meanings

being produced by interaction between groups and ideas.’60Racial identities are

therefore shaped by the social context in which they emerge. Roediger and Steyn

likewise emphasises the ‘invention of whiteness’ and the social construction of

race.

In contrast to most subcultural theorists, Moore, in his account of Perth skinheads

in the early 1980s, places an emphasis on ethnicity in ‘urban Australia and other

multicultural nations.’61 He contends that ‘ethnic identity informs categorical

relationships and comes to play a central role in personal identity.’62 On the same

terrain but in a different register to Moore, Desmond Bell explores the extent to

which youth cultural forms in Northern Ireland, transcend ethnic boundaries (and

sectarian beliefs) inherited from the elder generation and urges scholars to find out

‘more about the role of youth culture in the reproduction as well as the subversion

of ethnic identity as cultural tradition.’63 In the Ducktail subculture, ethnicity

played a similarly rather ambivalent role.

There has also been a tendency within subcultural studies to underplay the

importance of locality, territoriality and spatial affiliations and the way in which

these parameters inform and shape subcultural identity. William Foote Whyte's

1940 study on Italian youth gangs64 is one of the few studies that has uncovered

the 'politics of space'. This is surprising since most subcultural activities are

carried out within public spaces (such as dance halls and cinemas) which can

become contested spaces that are regulated not only by members of the subculture

but also by the authorities. Yet, scant attention has been paid to notions of

spatiality and in particular to the relationship between place, territoriality and

identity formations.65 Only comparatively recently has this neglect begun to be

remedied as for example in Calhoun’s work. Here, he argues that the

‘establishment of group territories is essential in the formation of specific group

identities and the enactment of some rituals or group behaviours.’66

26

Articles published in Gill Valentine's Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Culture

– explore the way in which space, place and the city are given meaning through

human experience, the relations of power influencing these meanings, their

transitory nature and the role of perceptions of spatiality ‘in building a social

identity’67. Elaborating on this theme, place and space not only refer to built forms

but also to the social relations that develop within these forms. Often places, ‘can

be imagined as articulated movements in networks of social relations and

understandings.’68 The individual’s experiences and interactions with the city and

the places and spaces therein inform their spatial identities. Through this process,

‘social subjects are created and create themselves in and through the social space

of the city.’69 Familiarity with places of entertainment as well as ‘“knowing

people” from a diverse range of backgrounds can facilitate feelings of safety and

movement across the invisible borders of youth territory.’70 Places therefore have

contradictory meanings for individuals and groups. This reveals the

‘hypercomplexity of social space …embracing as it does individual entities and

peculiarities, relatively fixed points, movements, and flows and waves – some

interpenetrating, others in conflict.’71 Again, such diverse and contradictory

meanings need to inform subcultural analysis.

One of the major strengths of the CCCS’s work, like other subcultural studies, is

the contribution that they have made towards incorporating gender as an

analytical tool. ‘Gender studies’ has had the tendency to focus exclusively on

women and their oppression. Recently masculinity72 has been addressed in studies

that explore gender.73 The bulk of work on masculinity emerged as a response - in

the form of men’s consciousness raising groups - to feminist writings and the

women’s movement, which challenged traditional notions of manhood.74

However, as stated above, masculinity has featured prominently as an analytical

category in subcultural studies. Most of the literature that deals with subcultures

can be criticised for the opposite reason, that is to say its tendency to exclude

girls75 and the role that they play on the subcultural terrain. Scholars such as

Brake, Glaser, McRobbie and Garber have noted these shortcomings. For Brake

this exclusion is justified by his belief that,

27

youth cultures and subcultures tend to be some form of exploration of masculinity. These are then masculinist, and I have tried to consider their effect on girls, and one distinct sign of the emancipation of young girls from the cult of romance, and marriage as their true vocation, will be the development of subcultures exploring a new form of femininity. Given the material place of women in society today, this is likely to take some time.76

Yet, in the Ducktail case and probably in most others, subcultures are not

exclusively the domain of masculinity, although the female role in subcultures

was different to that occupied by males.77 Explorations of femininity in

subcultural analysis have generally been neglected largely due to the ‘traditional’

practice in which subcultures have become the place to examine variations on

several themes concerning masculinity.78 The field of subcultures is dominated by

men and where girls do appear they are analysed in male terms. Subcultural

studies need to move beyond this type of ‘malestream’ analysis in order to

examine the ways in which girls explored new forms of feminine identities albeit

in a subordinated position in relation to boys. Also ‘gender as a relational concept -

of power relations between boys and girls’79 needs to be deployed in order to explore

the relationship between masculinity and femininity. This will ensure that steps are

taken towards performing the ‘dual task of deconstructing predominantly male

cultural paradigms and reconstructing a female perspective and experience in an

effort to change the tradition that has silenced and marginalized us

[women].’80Although girls often occupied a subordinate position in relation to

boys, they were not passive players in the subculture. On the contrary, they were

active in the creation of their own histories. Feminine identities were varied and

often contradictory depending on the context and circumstances in which they

were located. Despite this, points of commonality between female members are

visible in their collective style, rebelliousness and heterosexuality.81 Generally,

the sheilas involvement in the Ducktail subculture reveals the way in which they

created their own cultural practices within the subculture.

As pointed out earlier explorations into masculinity in subcultural studies has

opened the way for further studies on masculine forms. However, very little can

be learnt from these about the actual construction and practice of masculine

28

identities. Glaser’s work is the exception to this general trend within subcultural

analysis. His work is also a major contribution towards historicising subcultural

masculine identities. He alerts us that masculinity is not only historically specific

but it is also socially and culturally specific,

Masculinity is, of course, a shifting concept. Male prestige and status are defined in different ways from culture to culture and from era to era. In middle class culture, for instance, professional skills, intellect and earning capacity are emphasised, whereas physical skill and strength tend to be emphasised in working-class culture. Common to all versions of masculinity, however, is male assertiveness and fierce inter-male competitiveness alongside relatively passive, domestically oriented females. Most forms of masculinity also involve a need to control and be “in control”, whether intellectually or physically.82

Glaser aside, subcultural analysts need to extend their analysis beyond simply

mentioning that subcultures are vehicles for the expression of masculinity towards

unpacking how these masculine identities are formulated, sustained and practised

whilst revealing how they conflict and co-exist with other types of masculinity

which exist at the same historical conjuncture.

The importance of focusing on masculinity and femininity lies in the way the two

gender roles inform one another in this case in the context of heterosexuality.

Sexuality, and the relations which emerge between male and female subcultural

members, rarely receives attention in subcultural and other studies. A focus on

both gender roles will also contribute towards exploring the relations of power

which emerged between male and female members. The balance of power

between male and female members fluctuated between degrees of equality and

subordination. These shifts are most clear in the relations of power in the context

of their heterosexual identities.

Tracing the development of sexuality and its expressions is a complex process

because it is a highly personal and relatively hidden realm of behaviour.

Discussions on sexuality attempt to probe private and intimate areas of

experience’83 which cannot always be reached adequately through research

methods such as interviews and informal discussions. Although male and female

members of the Ducktails had a reputation for being ‘promiscuous’, this has been

29

hard to quantify empirically. Males and females alike had their own agendas for

exploring their masculine, feminine and sexual identities. Heterosexual

relationships have in the past been presented – most notably by psychoanalysts

and radical feminists – as patriarchal institutions that confine, dominate and entrap

women. In this case however, girls were not passive beings waiting to be

objectified by boys: they asserted a certain amount of independence. Gender

relations were not static but were rather contradictory and shifted between

relations of equality and subordination. What this points to is the fluidity of

patriarchy in the 1950s; how it granted a measure of autonomy to female members

whilst at the same time locking them into subservient positions within the

subculture and society generally. What is revealed is that there are multiple and

often contradictory sexual identities.

Imputed Social Homogeneity and Disputed Oral Testimony Besides little attention being paid to various forms of identity, subcultural theory has

had a propensity to create the impression of membership affiliations and

commitment to subcultures as homogenous. Hebdige notes,

different youths bring different degrees of commitment to a subculture. It can represent a major dimension in people’s lives – an axis erected in the face of the family around which a secret and immaculate identity can be made to cohere – or it can be a slight distraction, a bit of light relief from the monotonous but none the less paramount realities of school, home and work. It can be used as a means of escape, of total detachment from the surrounding terrain, or as a way of fitting back in to it and settling down after a week-end or evening spent letting off steam...84

In his contemporary study of the Gothic subculture in the United Kingdom,

Hodkinson found that

even the most substantive of subcultures will retain elements of diversity, that some individuals will adopt elements of their values without any particular commitment, and that even the most committed participants are not somehow isolated from other interests or priorities.85

The different levels of commitment in subcultures need to be accounted for.

Andes points out that:

30

Commitment can vary in two ways. First, it can vary across individuals at any given cross-section of time. When commitment is conceptualized in this manner, members of a subculture are usually categorized into two groups: those who are central and very committed versus those who are peripheral (or marginal) and not very committed…However, commitment can also vary within a single individual across different points in time.86

Drawing on Kanter, Andes argues further that commitment can ‘vary as a

deepening (or lessening) over time, but can also vary in the sense that this

deepening can occur along multiple dimensions or axes.’87 Numerous social

groups88 can therefore be identified within the subculture as a broader

phenomenon. These can be divided into the more organised quasi-criminal gang

and the more loosely based ‘group of friends.’89 The latter interact with one

another at specific intervals to form the subculture in its entirety. As Moore explains

the subcultural group,

…is made up of smaller groups interacting with one another through a large number of interlocking social connections…Culture content is modified and transformed through negotiation between the small groups in the network. Therefore “subculture” serves as a construct covering the community occurring within interlocking groups and the knowledge and behaviours shared by these groups.90

In the case of the quasi-criminal gang, there is a strong sense of cohesion, recognised

leadership, stratification, and a tendency for infringing upon the law. Friendship

groups on the other hand, are comprised of a loose grouping of friends in which

there is no identifiable leader or structure. These distinctions must be made in order

to encapsulate the diversity and heterogeneous nature of subcultures.

Part of the reason for subcultural analysts’ tendency to homogenise members of

subcultures lies in their methodological choices. CCCS scholars, in particular Phil

Cohen and John Clarke, Muggleton notes, did ‘aim to provide an understanding of

subcultures at the level of individual consciousness of the participants’.91

However, this goal was unfulfilled. Besides Paul Willis's Learning to Labour (and

more recently David Muggleton and Paul Hodkinson’s research into

contemporary subcultures or post-subcultures) the methodology and in particular

the failure to undertake empirical and ethnographic analyses is problematic.

31

Efforts to capture the voices of those involved in historical subcultures has been

neglected and has downplayed the heterogeneous nature of subcultural affiliation.

The documentation of ethnographies, oral testimonies and life histories sheds new

light on the diversity and differences not only within subcultures but also with

reference to the:

‘discursively produced subject’…whose contours consist of horizontal relations, multiple incursions, grey areas, incorporations and spaces, and disparate and diverse identities.92

In his neo-Weberian approach to subcultures Muggleton calls for scholars to ‘take

seriously the subjective meanings of subculturalists, for these provide the

motivation for their conduct. This makes the subjective dimension a central

component in any explanation of social phenomena.’93 He argues further that an

explanation of subcultures ‘should begin with an empirical investigation of the

subjective values of individual subculturalists.’94 The collection of ethnographies

and oral testimonies is a daunting task for all social scientists whose work is

historical. It is not however an impossibility. Oral testimonies provide valuable

supplements to written sources such as press cuttings and government reports.

Studies based exclusively on written sources and ‘media reports’ are problematic

because they,

fail to make a crucial distinction between what people say they do (representation) and what they actually do (presentation)…these studies contain little information about or discussion of the performative aspects of the respective study populations.95

In his seminal book Voices of the Past, Paul Thompson importantly notes that ‘Oral

history gives history back to the people in their own words.’96 Oral testimonies

encapsulate the perspective of the former members themselves and how they

perceive, understand and remember their past. Grele contends that:

Oral histories are cumulative in their effect. They give a heightened sense of the times under discussion, illuminating personalities and capturing the sense of what it was like to live through certain experiences or historical moments.’97

32

For researchers then oral testimonies provide richer and more detailed data which

assists in unravelling the process through which identities are constructed and

reconstructed. They are also of significance as they establish local specificity,

which is crucial if generalisations are to be avoided.

As alluded to in the introductory section, sharp criticisms have been directed at

South African social historians and their collection of oral testimonies. It has been

argued that the ‘complexities of memory’ have been ‘glossed over’ by ‘history

from below.’98 Minkley and Rassool contend that the historical narratives

produced by social historians rely on the notion that ‘lived experience’ can be

documented through oral history and as such memory is transparent. Minkley and

Rassool argue that:

memory remains treated as transparent, prior to history, and subject to tests of verification. Memory, in this view, continues to belong to the imprecise world of the emotional, the inaccurate, whose validity depends on the reliability of rememberance.’99

However, the reliability of all historical evidence is questionable. Thompson

warns that:

there are no absolute rules to indicate the reliability of oral evidence , any more than that of other historical sources. The basic tests of reliability….searching for internal consistency, cross-checking details from other sources, weighing evidence against a wider context – are just the same as for other sources. All are fallible and subject to bias, and each has varying strengths in different situations. In some contexts, oral evidence is the best; in others it is supplementary, or complementary, to that of other sources.’100

John Bodnar is similarly cognisant of this:

The issue of veracity remains important for anyone interested in analysing oral expressions of memory in historical research. Obviously, memories are limited, and a complete reconstruction of the past through memory (or any other means is) is not possible…Their work has yielded extremely valuable insights into particular historical questions but it has not eliminated the need to think carefully about what people actually remember about their past.’101

Minkley and Rassool believe that such studies are ‘markedly silent about memory

as either a theoretical or historical category.’ The implication is that oral

33

testimony collected by social historians is invalid. Despite raising the important

question of memory as an analytical tool, not only do Nuttall et al provide no

alternatives but also they say very little about how to conceptualise and

understand the processes of memory and remembering. Social historians are

directly engaged in exploring the process of remembering. By capturing the

voices of their subjects social historians reveal the diversity and multiplicity of

stories related to the phenomena they are investigating. Following social

historians, subcultural analysts should also engage in the collection of oral

testimonies in order to capture the heterogeneous dimensions of subcultural

identity.

If heterogeneity and differentiation (in group formations and commitment levels for

example) are not grasped subcultural analysts run the risk of not only homogenising

gangs in the face of a search for a unique subculture but also of stigmatising

members of entire subcultures as ‘gangsters’ and ‘delinquents’. In addition, as stated

earlier, not all members of subcultures are drawn into gangs. There were different

levels of belonging in the subculture, which took diffuse and distilled forms and

which could at times become conflated. For some, the Ducktail era was

characterised by knuckle-dusters and bicycle chains, quiffs and Brylcreem,

bioscopes and sessions, confrontations with the police and petty-crime, whilst for

others it represented weekend jolls, rock ‘n roll, jiving, ‘stove-pipe’ trousers and

‘fifty-yard’ petticoats. For the majority of Ducktails it was a fashion movement, a

fad similar to the Zoot Suits, Hippies, Beatniks, the Mods and Rockers,

Skinheads, Punks and the present day ‘Ravers’. The latter group of ducktails did

not present a real danger102 to ‘conventional’ society and engaged predominantly

in the stylistic elements of the subculture. The former group ignited very real

concerns and fears in public opinion due to their aggressive and violent behaviour,

which was attached to the subculture as a whole.103 They did not nevertheless

embrace it as a totality.

34

Homogeneity in Diversity: Subcultural Style Although membership is diverse, subcultures are unified and identifiable through

their style. The types of popular culture – music and film; image – clothing and

hair; and behavioural codes collectively create the subculture’s style making them

visible to outsiders. The adoption of subcultural style is the entry point into the

subculture and a means to exclude outsiders. Style then serves to solidify the

boundaries of inclusion and exclusion within the subculture whilst functioning as

‘an emblem of groupness, as a symbol, a rallying-point.’104 For Brake,

subcultural visibility is equated with style which he contends is comprised of three

components: a ‘Image’, appearance composed of costume, accessories such as hair-style, jewellery and artefacts b ‘Demeanour’ made up of expression, gait and posture. Roughly this is what the actors wear and how they wear it. c ‘Argot’ a special vocabulary and how it is delivered.105

Style, image and language are essential components of a subculture, however

what is missing from Brake’s definition is ritual. Routine rituals (such as

frequenting the same cinema every Friday evening) carried out collectively is a

central component of subcultural activity. In the ducktails’ case, ritual and social

activities were propelled by their pursuit of pleasure and entertainment. They

frequented the cinema, bioscope-cafes, roadhouses, ‘sessions’, dance halls,

billiard rooms, bars, public parks and experimented with dagga [marijuana] and

alcohol. Some of the ducktails - mostly the male members - were involved in

quasi-criminal and criminal activities such as those reported by flat dwellers in

Mooi Street, Johannesburg to a journalist from the Star. According to one female

resident:

The menace to the public of young men roaming the city streets by night and by day, selling liquor to natives, smoking dagga, and accosting and assaulting passers-by, had become completely out of hand. These young men were the White tsotsis of Johannesburg, the products of broken homes, the sons of mothers who thought only of having a good time. They were hardly out of school before they became members of liquor and dagga gangs operating in the heart of the city’. Another female flat dweller stated that, ‘Words cannot describe the things which go on in and around Plein Street. Liquor is sold to Natives almost openly by long-haired, smartly dressed youths.106

35

In general their ‘anti-social’ activities involved gate crashing, vandalism, the

temporary theft of cars for the purposes of joy-riding, the assault of innocent

bystanders, inter-gang street fighting, petty-crime, involvement in the illicit liquor

and dagga trade, the molesting of girls and women and assaulting African and

homosexual men. They were usually armed with knuckle-dusters, bicycle chains,

flick-knives and clubs when engaging in these violent and illicit dealings.

Besides engaging in ritual another badge of subcultural membership was

proficiency in slang. The way in which words take on new meanings is a well-

known phenomenon. However within South African historiography the semiotics

of South African English and in particular slang has received scant attention.

Language and social dialectics, in particular, are important to explore for the light

that they shed on collective behaviour. As Maurer explains:

Language is one of the most important of human developments, and research into the nature of social dialectics, including argots, is just one aspect of the large-scale investigation into the many different phases of language in general which involves ideas of human behaviour, social structure and that ever-mysterious phenomenon – human thought. That is social dialectology comprises just one phase of general linguistic research which may help us understand the nature of human interaction better.107

Argot and style were adopted from popular culture. The way in which youths

embrace and actively engage with (as opposed to resisting) popular culture has

been underplayed by some scholars. The pivotal role that music plays in

subcultures (and in the construction of identities) has been stressed by

musicologists such as Simon Frith, Charlie Gillet and Peter Wicke.108 Music

according to Wicke represents a ‘very complex form of cultural activity

(including, perhaps, dress and hair fashions, dance styles and poster

collecting).’109 Despite the central role that music plays in uniting and identifying

subcultures, its influence is still underplayed by many subcultural scholars.

Andrew Ross insists that, analysts need to:

take a closer look at the contractual nature of youth music, for the level of attention and meaning invested in music by youth is still unmatched by almost any other organized activity in society, including religion. As a daily

36

companion, social bible, commercial guide and spiritual source, youth music is still the place of faith, hope and refuge.110

Most if not all subcultural studies include a close investigation of subcultural

style. However there is a tendency to represent the adoption of style as a

symbolical form of resistance. This view underplays the creative dimension in

adopting style as a form of identity construction. Stylistic preferences are

informed by personal taste and are not simply about resisting conformity. As

Cohen asserts the equation of style with resistance is problematic because of:

the constant impulse to decode the style in terms only of opposition and resistance. This means that instances are sometimes missed when the style is conservative or supportive: in other words, not reworked or reassembled but taken over intact from dominant commercial culture111

Rather style – for members of a subculture – and the cultural symbols therein can

be understood as ‘concrete utopias’ (experiments with new experiential and life

forms, the creation of unique and changeable identities).112 Subcultural scholars

need to be wary about ascribing symbolical meanings to style which often do not

exist in the minds of the members. Gary Clarke makes the point when he

questions work (including the CCCS) written in this tradition where subcultures

are depicted as:

as a leisure-based career, and the 'culture' within 'youth subculture' s defined in terms of the possession of particular artefacts and styles rather than as a 'whole way of life' structured by the social relations based on class, gender, race and age. Consequently we are given little sense of what subcultures actually do, and we do not know whether their commitment is fulltime…We are given no sense of the age range, income (or source of income), and occupations of the members of a subculture, no explanation as to why some working class youths do not join. Individual subcultural stylists are reduced to the status of dumb, anonymous mannequins, incapable of producing their own meanings and awaiting the arrival of the code breaker'.113

Of equal importance, however, is to account for the way in which style is

interpreted by outsiders who more often than not ascribe imaginary meanings to

it. Attention has to be paid to the way in which members creatively produce their

own styles and how they interpret and ascribe meanings to them. In this instance

37

then style, is not simply the embodiment of a ‘subculture’s identity’ at the level of

appearances which demarcates the group’s boundaries but it is also used by

outsiders to comment on the subculture’s activities – which can have ‘particular

consequences for the group’s continued existence’114 The consequences of

adopting subcultural style is usually the generation of stereotypes that become

associated with members of the subculture (for example ducktails were demonised

as gangsters and ‘Ravers’ have been classified as drug abusers). As Hebdige

explains

Style in subculture is, then, pregnant with significance. Its transformations go “against nature”, interrupting the process of “normalisation”. As such, they are gestures, movements towards a speech which offends the “silent majority”, which challenges the principle of unity and cohesion, which contradicts the myth of consensus.115

Generation and generational conflict play a marginal role in accounts of

contemporary youth subcultures. This is particularly problematic because as John

Gillis urged in 1974, ‘if the history of youth is to be written, it must focus on that

interface where the expectations of the young and those of their elders interact in a

dynamic manner.’116 The CCCS have paid much attention to the role of inter

generational conflict and this part of their thesis should not be disregarded by more

recent scholars – whose overriding aim seems to be to discredit the CCCS. The

CCCS convincingly argue that the contradictions, which offend the ‘silent

majority’, can be understood within the ‘double articulation’ of youth subcultures

in relation to their parent culture and to the hegemonic order.

Generational Alarms and Moral Panics Youths do not have profoundly different values from the parent and hegemonic

culture but sharp divisions and conflicts over for example, leisure and behaviour

such as drinking, staying out all night and style emerge. Certain strands of

ducktail subcultural identities were drawn from both the hegemonic and parent

cultures within which they were subjoined (for example, their assertion of

dominance over women). Other features, such as their promiscuity and hedonism,

38

contrasted sharply with more mainstream identities that were founded on sobriety,

respectability, Christianity, upward social mobility and discipline.

Interrelated with these conflicts with the hegemonic and parent cultures,

subcultures have been represented as a wider ‘threat’ in society especially when

their actions and stylistic preferences are interpreted as a threat to morality.

Typically, the press, politicians, and government officials are responsible for this

representation. Stereotypes based on appearance and dress are utilised to label

groups and link them with certain types of behaviour. The role of the mass media

both in promoting sub-cultures and in shaping wider society’s opinions

concerning youths must be stressed, especially in the creation of moral panics

over subcultural activities.

Scholars have understated the paradoxical role of the media in creating support for

and for terminating subcultures. Media coverage of subcultures ‘can be seen as a

culmination and fulfilment of youth cultural agendas, insofar as negative news

coverage baptises transgression.’117 Sarah Thornton argues that by ‘turning youth

into news, the tabloids both frame subcultures as major events and disseminate

them. A tabloid front page, however distorted, is frequently a self-fulfilling

prophecy; it can turn the most ephemeral fad into a lasting development.’118

Although for youth the media encourages participation in subcultures it also plays

a role in creating opposition to subcultures in the form of moral panics.

Much research has been undertaken into the creation of moral panics.119 However

S. Cohen’s Folk Devils and Moral Panics,120 can be isolated as the major

authority on the subject and how it relates to members of subcultures specifically.

His study traces the development of the moral panic121 and social stereotyping

associated with the Mods and the Rockers phenomenon in England in the mid-

1960s, with particular focus on the nature and effect of ‘societal reaction’. In

doing so, he traces the interplay between ‘deviance’ and reaction and

convincingly shows how social control leads to further ‘deviance’, or rather, less

conformity. For Cohen, society’s reaction to ‘deviant’ activities and their style

39

formulate moral panics. To use his words a moral panic is best described as a

situation when

A condition, episode, person, or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylised and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible122

As Cohen stresses moral panics are not only directed by the mass media but they

are concretised and consciously exploited by what Howard Becker calls ‘moral

entrepreneurs’. Becker’s Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, made a

major contribution to ‘social deviation theory’ where it emphasised that

‘deviance’ must be perceived from the point of view of those who define certain

forms of behaviour as ‘deviant’. For him, ‘deviancy’ is the result of a process of

labelling by ‘moral entrepreneurs’.123 In addition, he believes that there are two

‘species’ of ‘moral entrepreneurs’ namely ‘rule creators’ and ‘rule enforcers’.124

The former group identifies and encourages intervention into actions which they

perceive as ‘deviant’ whilst the latter engage in the task of policy formulation and

the enforcement of new rules. Through this process ‘what started out as a drive to

convince the world of the moral necessity of a new rule finally becomes an

organisation devoted to the enforcement of the rule.’125 Press coverage therefore

not only enhances subcultural followings but it can also have severe consequences

for subcultures.

Similarly, in South Africa the press’s distorted portrayal of the Ducktails initiated

a moral panic about youth crime in which ‘Ducktailism’ was seen as the catalyst

not only for criminal acts but also for moral decay. Ducktails became synonymous

with juvenile delinquency and youth crime. The information disseminated by the

mass media and the press was usually distorted and exaggerated. Like other moral

panics, the press presented the Ducktail youth subculture as a monolithic entity

which, by the mid-1950s, was equated with criminal activities and ‘juvenile

delinquency’. In their distorted portrayal, a moral panic was initiated about youth

crime in which ‘Ducktailism’ was seen as the central component. Here the press

40

relied on distorted, exaggerated information which was cloaked in negative

symbolism. This warrants discussion, firstly on the role that the press126 played in

popularising and enhancing membership in the subculture and secondly an

investigation into the controlling forces of the press in South Africa. In doing so

the mass media’s role in defining and shaping social problems will be identified.

Conclusion The ambiguous role of the media, societal response as well as the way in which

subcultures have functioned as a platform from which identities can be

experimented with all require more attention in subcultural studies. To achieve

this, subcultural scholars must adopt ‘multi-dimensional’127 approaches which

will, as Fornas et al contend:

encourage cooperation among different disciplines in order to conceptualise several dimensions of youth culture, for it is only when blinkered reductionism is avoided that the important dynamic of youth culture appears. We need research on youth which keeps doors open instead of sealing itself hermetically around a limited approach.’128

Subcultures provide a space for the young to negotiate and construct their

identities. Subcultural participation ‘as a source of identity’ not only needs to be

‘understood as a flexible, open-ended process grounded in lived experience; but it

is also a process in the sense that it is constituted by people on the basis of action

and choice.’129 Finally in order to present a full and accurate account, analysts

need to broaden their intellectual boundaries and locate their understanding of the

formation of youth subcultures in the context of set of relations with other

practices (cultural, historical, social and political) within which they evolve.

These practices will be the central focus of the next chapter where the historical

roots of youth gangs and the evolution of the ducktail subculture will be

uncovered.

41

ENDNOTES 1 A ‘social construction’ in this case refers to the way in which social categories – such as youth – are the product of societal influences or forces in which they are located. 2 H. Wulff, 'Introducing youth culture in its own right: The state of the art and new possibilities' in V. Amit-talai and H. Wulff (eds.), Youth Cultures A Cross-Cultural Perspective (London, Routledge, 1995), p. 2. 3 H. Rietveld, ‘Living the Dream' in S. Redhead (ed), Rave Off: Politics and Deviance in Contemporary Youth Culture (England, Avebury, 1993), p. 53. 4 B. Osgerby, Youth in Britain since 1945 (Oxford, Blackwell, 1998), p. 17. 5 See for example: H. Hendrick, Images of Youth: Age, Class and the Male Youth Problem, 1880-1920 (London, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1990); G. Pearson: Hooligan A History of Respectable Fears, An early type of account is G. Watson’s Youth After Conflict (New York, Association Press, 1947). See Part I: Perspectives on American Student Activism which includes essays by P.G. Albach and P.M. Peterson; J.P. O’Brien; M. Mankoff and R. Flacks, S.M. Lipset and E.C. Ladd Jr; and R. Flacks in P.G. Altbach and R.S. Laufer The New Pilgrims: Youth Protest in Transition (New York, David McCay Company inc, 1972), pp. 13-101. 6 J.S. Epstein (eds.), Youth Culture: Identity in a Postmodern World (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1998) and D. Kellner, ‘Popular Culture and the Construction of Postmodern Identitites’ in S. Lash and J. Friedman (eds) Modernity and Identity (Oxford, Blackwell, 1992). 7 The major works published exclusively on youth subcultures include: M. Brake, Comparative Youth Culture: The Sociology of Youth Cultures and Subcultures in America, Britain and Canada (London, Routledge, 1985), P. Cohen’s Rethinking the Youth Question: Education, Labour and Cultural Studies (London, MacMillan Press, 1997), S. Cohen’s Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers (Oxford, Martin Robertson, 1973), C. Glaser, ‘Anti-Social Bandits: Juvenile Delinquency and the Tsotsi Youth Gang Subculture, 1935-1960’, MA dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 1990, S. Hall & T. Jefferson, Resistance through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in post-war Britain (London, Hutchingson & Co, 1980), D. Hebdige’s Subculture the Meaning of Style (USA, Methuen & Co, 1979), D. Muggleton, Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style (Oxford, Berg, 2000), D. Moore, The Lads in Action: Social Process in an Urban Youth Subculture (England, Arena, 1994), M. O’Donnel, Age and Generation (London, Tavistock Publications Ltd., 1985) S. Redhead (ed.), Rave Off: Politics and Deviance in Contemporary Youth Culture (Avebury, England, 1993) and S. Thornton and K. Gelder (eds.), The Subcultures Reader (London, Routledge, 1997). 8 Not all inquiries into youth culture focus on deviant subcultures – most notable is the work of Fornas et al Group of Swedish scholars inspired by Bourdieu, the CCCS, Habermas and Ziehe. In the late 1980s, they conducted an ethnographic enquiry into the relationship between youth culture and rock music. 9 Muggleton, Inside Subculture, p. 23. A nominalist approach according to Muggleton is one which believes that the empirical is all that can be understood about social reality. For a detailed explanation see pp. 17-18. 10 Investigations into youth specifically have received substantial attention in South African historiography but youth subcultures have generally been neglected. M. Cross, “Culture and Identity in South African Education, 1880-1990”, Ph.D. thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, 1994 and P. Everatt & E. Sisulu (eds.), Black Youth in Crisis: Facing the Future, (Johannesburg, Ravan Press, 1992). 11 Glaser, ‘Anti-Social Bandits’. There is also a new body of literature on West African youth culture. See for example P.N.N. Addo, ‘Politics, War and Youth Culture in Sierra

42

Leone’ in African Security Review, Vol. 11, No 3, 2002, E. Gable, “The Culture Development Club: Youth, Neo-Tradition, and the Construction of Society in Guinea-Bissau in Anthropological Quarterly, Volume 73, Number 4, October 2000, pp. 195-203, A. Honwana Makers & Breakers: children and Youth in Postcolonial Africa (Oxford, James Currey, 2005), D. Mamadou, ‘Engaging Postcolonial Cultures: African Youth and Public Space’ in African Studies Review, September 2003, and G. Tillim and O. Badsha, Amulets & Dreams: War, Youth and Change in Africa (Pretoria, SAHO, ISS and UNISA, 2002) 12 R. Weinzierl and D. Muggleton ‘What is ‘Post-subcultural studies’ anyway?’ in D. Muggleton and R. Weinzierl (eds.) The Post-Subcultures Reader (Oxford, Berg, 2003), p. 5. 13 For a comprehensive account and critique of the contributions of each of these perspectives see P. Hodkinson, Goth: Identity, Style and Subculture (New York, Berg, 2002), chapter 2: Reworking subculture, Muggleton, Inside Subculture, chapters 2-3, Thornton S. Thornton, ‘Introduction to part One’ in K. Gelder, and S. Thornton (eds), The Subcultures Reader, and Weinzierl and Muggleton ‘What is ‘Post-subcultural studies’ anyway? in D. Muggleton and R. Weinzierl (eds.) The Post-Subcultures Reader (Oxford, Berg, 2003) 14 As outlined by S. Thornton, ‘Introduction to part One’ in K. Gelder and S Thornton, The Subcultures Reader, p. 11. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 The CCCS was influenced by two bodies of theory – British Marxist critics (such as Raymond Williams, E.P. Thompson, and Richard Hoggart) and Continental theorists (including Louis Althusser, Antonio Gramsci and Roland Barthes), Ibid., pp. 83-84. 18 D. Hebdige, Subculture the Meaning of Style (London, Methuen, 1979), p. 80. 19 Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics and A. McRobbie, Feminism and Youth Culture: From ‘Jackie’ to ‘Just Seventeen’ (Houndmills, MacMillan, 1991). 20 Muggleton and Weinzierl (eds.) The Post-Subcultures Reader 21 The postmodern shift in academia is one element which has influenced these scholars. The work of scholars such as Pierre Bourdieu, Judith Butler and Michael Maffesoli was another. For a detailed account of the ‘post-CCCS’ approach, see the introduction and the contemporary case studies in Muggleton and Weinzierl (eds.) The Post-Subcultures Reader. 22 K. Gelder, 'Introduction to part three' in Gelder and Thornton, The Subcultures Reader, p. 148. 23 S. Redhead, 'The Politics of Ecstasy' in S. Redhead, 'The end-of-the-century party' in S. Redhead (ed.), Rave Off, p. 23. Today there are a number of theories on the so-called Rave culture of the late 1980s. Very little - except on the Internet - has been written about the South African case. 24 Cited in Wulff, p.4 25 D. Bell, Acts of Union: Youth Culture and Sectarianism in Northern Ireland (London, MacMillan Press, 1990), p. 12. 26 G. Clarke, 'Defending Ski-Jumpers: A Critique of Theories of Youth Subcultures’, in Gelder, and Thornton, The Subcultures Reader, p. 176. 27 Moore, The Lads in Action, p. 9. 28 Fornas cited in D. Muggleton, Inside Subcultures, p. 27. 29 Phrase borrowed from B. Bozzoli, Women of Phokeng, Consciousness, Life Strategy and Migrancy in South Africa, 1900-1993 (London, Heinneman, 1993), p. 303. 30 H. Pilkington, ‘Introduction’ in H. Pilkington (ed.), Gender, Generation and Identity in Contemporary Russia (London, Routledge, 1996), p. 1.

43

31 M.C. Kearney, ‘Don’t need you:’ Rethinking Identity Politics and Separatism from a Grrrl Perspective’ in J.S. Epstein (ed.), Youth Culture: Identity in a Postmodern World, (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1998), pp. 169-170. 32 H. Harris, Identity: Essays based on Herbert Spencer Lectures Given at the University of Oxford (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995), p. v. 33 See C. J. F. Williams, What is Identity? (Oxford, New York, Clarendon Press, 1989). For a systematic account of philosophical theories on identity see A. Brennan, Conditions of Identity and Survival (New York, Oxford University Press, 1988). 34 N. Rose, Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power and Personhood (Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 1998), p. 4. 35 This type of theorisation has been influenced most notably by Jaques Lacan and his interrogation of the self. Rose, Inventing Ourselves, pp. 7-8. 36 A. P. Cohen, Self Consciousness: An Alternative Anthropology of Identity (London, Routledge, 1994). 37 Ibid., p. 5. 38 Ibid., p. ix. 39 S. Widdicombe and R. Woofit take cognisance of this in their illuminating discourse analysis of oral accounts they collected from members of the Gothic, Punk and Rocker subcultures. S. Widdicombe and R. Woofit, The Language of Youth Subcultures: Social Identity in Action (Great Britain, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1995). 40 K. Huddson, The Language of the Teenage Revolution: The Dictionary Defeated (London, MacMillan, 1983), pp. 7-8. 41 A. P. Cohen, Self Consciousness’ for an explanation of the creation and transformation of the self. 42 Rose, Inventing Our Selves, p. 10. 43 C. Calhoun, Critical Social Theory: Culture, History and the Challenge of Difference (Oxford, Blackwell, 1995), p. xii. 44 Ibid., p. xiii. 45 The essays in R. Morrell’s edited collection Political Economy and Identities in Kwa-Zulu Natal: Historical and Social Perspectives (Durban, Indicator Press, 1996), provides a history of identities in the colonial period. It is particularly useful for the focus on ethnicity. 46 C. Crais, The Making of the Colonial Order: White Supremacy and Black Resistance in the Eastern Cape, 1770-1865 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992), P. la Hausse de Lalouvière, Restless Identities: Signatures of Nationalism, Zulu Ethnicity and History in the Lives of Petros Lamula (c. 1881-1948) and Lymon Maling (1889-c.1936, (Pietermaritzburg, University of Natal Press, 2000), A. Lester, Imperial Networks: Creating Identities in Nineteenth Century South Africa and Britain (New York, Routledge, 2001), H.L. Dugmore, “‘Becoming Coloured’: Class, Culture and Segregation in Johannesburg’s Malay Location, 1918-1939” PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 1993. Karen Horwitz’s MA dissertation, ‘White South African Kinship and Identity,’ MA dissertation, 1997 explores the notion of kinship and identity amongst a group of middle class English speaking South Africans in post-apartheid Johannesburg. Brynn Binnell’s MA dissertation explores racial identities in a group of Afrikaans speaking whites with a view to understanding the relationship between language and ideology. B. Binnell, ‘A Discourse Analysis of the Racial Talk and Identity Construction of a Group of Working Class Afrikaans Speakers’, MA dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, 1997. 47 R. Greenstein, Identity, Race, History: South Africa and the Pan-African Context, Institute for Advanced Social Research, 112/07/1996, p. 3. 48 A substantial amount of research has been conducted into national identities. See for example the work of Hobsbawm and Ranger and A.D. Smith, ‘The Formation of National

44

Identity’ in H.Harris (ed.), Identity: Essays Based on Herbert Spencer Lectures Given in the University of Oxford (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995). 49 For an account on the construction of political identities amongst youths specifically see D. B. Cruise O’Brien, ‘A Lost Generation? Youth identity and state decay in West Africa’ in R. Werbner & T. Ranger (eds.), Postcolonial Identities in Africa (London/New Jersey, Zed Books Ltd, 1996). 50 R. Greenstein, ‘Identity, Race, History: South Africa and the Pan-African context, Institute for Advanced Social Research, 12/07/1996, pp. 4-5. 51 Dugmore, “Becoming Coloured”, p. 8. 52 Calhoun, Critical Social Theory, p. 47. 53 Cohen, Self Consciousness, p. 17. 54 See for example, N. P. Gist and R.D. Wright’s study of Anglo-Indian minority group in India N.P. Gist & R.D. Wright, Marginality and Identity, Anglo-Indians as a Racially-Mixed Minority in India, (Netherlands, Leiden, 1973). Despite identity featuring in the title, unlike marginality, it is never conceptualised. Identity here is used in relation to identification with a community. Very little can be gleaned about identity and its definitive characteristics from the material in this study. 55 Dugmore, “‘Becoming Coloured’”, p. 336. 56 Hebdige, Subculture the Meaning of Style, p. 28. 57 Cited in D. Roediger, Towards the Abolition of Whiteness: Essays on Race, Politics and Working Class History, (New York, Verso, 1991), p. 12. 58 D. Wellman, “Red Baiters, Race Traitors, and Working Class Heroes: Whites, Contestation and Union Identity”, Paper 28, Racializing Class, Classifying Race – A Conference on Labour and Difference in Africa, USA and Britain, St. Anthony’s College, University of Oxford, 11-13th of July 1997, p. 2. 59 Ibid., p. 2. 60 Ibid., pp. 11-12. 61 His data was collected predominantly through fieldwork and participant observation. D. Moore, The Lads in Action, p. 2. 62 Ibid., p.10. 63 D. Bell, Acts of Union, p. 9. 64 W.F. Whyte, ‘The Problem of Cornerville’, in Gelder and Thornton (eds), The Subcultures Reader. 65 This is not true of the work of anthropologists, historical and human geographers. See for example J. Western, Outcast in Cape Town (London, George Allen and Unwin, 1981) and M. Wilson and A. Mafeje, Langa: A Study of Social Groups in an African Township (Cape Town, Oxford University Press, 1963). 66 T. C. Calhoun, J.A. Harms Cannon and Rhonda Fisher, ‘Explorations in Youth Culture. Amateur Stripping: What we know and what we don’t’ in J.S. Epstein (ed.), Youth Culture, p. 306. 67 D. Massey, ‘Spatial Construction’, in G. Valentine and T. Skelton, Cool Places, 128. 68 Cited in E. Carter, J. Donald, J. Squires (eds.), Space & Place: Theories of Identity and Location (London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1993), p. xii. 69 S. M. Ruddick, Young and Homeless in Hollywood: Mapping Social Identities (London, Routledge, 1995), pp. 3-4. 70 P. Watt and K. Stevenson, “The Street: ‘It’s a bit dodgy round there’ safety, danger, ethnicity and young people’s use of public space” in T. Skelton & G. Valentine (eds.) Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Cultures (London, Routledge, 1998), p. 249. 71 Cited in A. Merrifield, ‘Between Process and Individuation: Translating Metaphors and Narratives of Urban Space’ in Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography, vol. 29, No. 4, October 1997, p. 420.

45

72 The first colloquium devoted to Masculinities in Southern Africa was held in July 1997 at the University of Natal. 73 For an outline of recent studies on Masculinity see R. W. Connell, “The big picture: Masculinities in Recent World History”, Theory and Society, 22, 1993, pp. 597-619. 74For an outline of different socio-political perspectives on masculinity - Conservative, the Pro feminist, Men's Rights, Spiritual, Socialist, and Group Specific see K. Clatterbaugh, Contemporary Perspectives on Masculinity: Men, Woman, and Politics in Modern Society, (Colerado, Westview Press, 1990). The problem with the bulk of this work is firstly that it is current and secondly it focuses on older men and generally neglects the formation of masculine identities in relation to boys and younger men. 75 Paul Cressey’s work on Taxi dancers in the 1930s is an exception to a general rule in which subcultures were portrayed as inevitably male. Cressey, ‘The Life-Cycle of the Taxi-Dancer’ in Gelder and Thornton, The Subcultures Reader. 76 Brake, The Sociology of Youth Culture, p.vii. 77 It must be stressed that the study of masculinities has, until recently also been a relatively neglected area within ‘gender studies’ in South Africa, which has in the past tended to focus exclusively on women and their oppression. 78 A. McRobbie & J., Garber, ‘Girls and Subcultures’ in Gelder and Thornton (eds), The Subcultures Reader, p. 114. 79 M. Nava, Changing Cultures: Feminism, Youth and Consumerism (London, Sage, 1992), p. 80. 80 G. Greene & C. Kahn, ‘Feminist Scholarship and the Social Construction of Women’, in G. Greene and C. Kahn (eds.) Making a Difference: Feminist Literary Criticism, (London, Routledge, 1985), p.1. 81 For a more detailed discussion of these issues see K. Mooney, ‘Power, Sexuality and Identity’ – launch of the Graduate School for the Humanities and Social Sciences, July 1998. 82 C. Glaser, ‘The Mark of Zorro: Sexuality and Gender Relations in the Tsotsi Subculture on the Witwatersrand’, in African Studies, 51, 1, 1992, p. 51. 83A. Tolson, The Limits of Masculinity (Great Britain, Tavistok Publications, 1977), p.18. 84 Hebdige, Subculture the Meaning of Style, p. 122. 85 Hodkinson, Goth, p. 33. 86 L. Andes, ‘Growing up Punk: Meaning and Commitment Careers in a Contemporary Youth Subculture’ in J.S. Epstein (eds.), Youth Culture, p. 214. 87 Ibid., p. 214. 88 The formation, characteristics and dynamics of group identity is another neglected theme within subcultural studies. Most studies view group formation simply in terms of gangs, although there are a few exceptions such as, Yablonsky’s ‘near group’ and Downes’s work on the ‘Gang Myth’ in Britain. For a more detailed account of these works see Moore, The Lads in Action, pp. 23-25. 89 The term ‘group of friends’ is borrowed from Bertolini’s classification of Italian male youths in the 1960s. See S.P. Stella’s “’Rebels without a cause’: Male Youth in Italy around 1960” in History Workshop Journal, 38, 1994, pp. 168-169. 90 D. Moore, The Lads in Action, p. 18. 91 Muggleton, Inside Subcultures, p. 11. 92 H. Pilkington, “‘Youth Culture’ in Contemporary Russia: Gender, consumption and identity” in H. Pilkington (ed), Gender, Generation and Identity (London, Routledge, 1992), pp.189-215. 93 Muggleton, Inside Subculture, p. 10 94 Ibid. 95 Moore, The Lads in Action, p. 15.

46

96 P. Thompson, The Voice of the Past: Oral History (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 226. 97 R. J. Grele, ‘On Using Oral History Collections: An Introduction’ in Journal of American History, vol. 74, No 2, p. 570. 98 S. Nuttall and C. Coetzee (eds), Negotiating the Past: The Making of Memory in South Africa (Cape Town, Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 7. 99 G. Minkley and C. Rassool, ‘Orality, Memory, and social history in South Africa in Nuttall and Coetzee (eds.), Negotiating the Past, p. 97 100 Thompson, The Voice of the Past, p. 134. 101 J. Bodnar, ‘Power and Memory in Oral History: Workers and Managers at Studebaker’ in D. Thelen (ed.) Memory and American History (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1989), p. 72. 102Danger here refers to physical and verbal abuse, assault and crime. 103This is by no means a fixed division. Membership is probably viewed more accurately on a spectrum ranging from involvement on the periphery to direct participation in all aspects of the movement. The subculture itself was comprised of an aggregation of many different social groups. 104 Edwards, (1985,17) cited in A. James, 'Talking of children and youth: Language, socialization and culture' in Amit-talai & Wulff, Youth Cultures, p. 43. 105 M. Brake, The Sociology of Youth Cultures, p. 12. 106 The Star, 28/07/1954. 107 D.W. Maurer, The Language of the Underworld (Lexington, University Press of Kentucky, 1981), p. 381. 108 See P. Wicke, Rock Music: Culture, Aesthetics and Sociology (Translated by Rachel Fogg) (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991); C. Gillet and S. Frith, The Beat Goes on: The Rock File Reader (London, Pluto Press, 1972); Simon Frith, Sound Effects: Youth, Leisure and the Politics of Rock (London, Constable, 1978). A. Ross and T. Rose (eds.), Microphone Friends: Youth Music and Youth Culture, (London, Routledge, 1994); J. Fornas, U. Lindberg and O. Sernhede, In Garage Land: Rock, Youth and Modernity (London, Routledge, 1995). 109 Wicke, Rock Music. 110 Ross, Introduction, in Ross and Rose (eds.), Microphone Friends, p. 3. 111 S. Cohen, 'Symbols of Trouble' in Gelder and Thornton (eds), The Subcultures Reader, p. 156. 112 Fornas et al, In Garage Land, pp. 9-10. 113 G. Clarke, 'Defending Ski-Jumpers: A Critique of Theories of Youth Subcultures, in Gelder, and Thornton (eds), The Subcultures Reader. 178. 114 J. Clarke, ‘Style’ in Resistance through Rituals, p. 182. 115 Ibid., p. 18. 116 John R. Gillis, Youth and History: Tradition and Change in European Age Relations, 1770-Present (London, Academic Press, Inc, 1974), preface, p. x. 117 S. Thornton, ‘Moral Panic, the Media and British Rave Culture’ in Ross and Rose (eds.), Microphone Friends, p. 181. 118 Ibid., p. 183. 119 Moral panics have an enduring history and can be traced back to as early as late Victorian England with the ‘garroting panic’. G. Pearson’s work on hooligans from London briefly discusses this. See G. Pearson, ‘Victorian Boys We are Here’ in Gelder and Thornton, (eds.), The Subcultures Reader, pp. 289-290. 120 Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics 121 Although Cohen’s work stands out as the major authority on moral panics and “delinquency” there are two frameworks in which moral panics have received attention: the sociology of law and social behaviour (Becker & Gusfield) and the sociology of

47

collective behaviour and social typing (Blumer, Turner and Klapp). However the major contribution to the study of the social typing process merges from the interactions or transactional approach to deviance (Lemert). For more on the theoretical traditions of moral panics see Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics pp. 10-27. 122 Ibid., p. 9. 123 It must be stressed that this ‘social reaction’ perspective is not intended to be a causative theory (i.e. labelling as the cause of ‘deviance’); rather it is a perspective which insists on the role of social control in understanding ‘deviance’. Ibid., p. 146. 124 Ibid., p. 147. 125 Ibid., p157. 126 The press is another grossly under researched area in South African historiography. Only two works stand out as the major studies in the field, A. Hepple’s Censorship and Press Control in South Africa (Johannesburg, published by the author, 1960) and Potter’s The Press as Opposition: The Political Role of South African Newspapers (London, Chatto & Windus, 1975). The former is purely descriptive and outlines censorship legislation in the 1950s while the latter study focuses on the relationship between the government and the press. 127 Fornas et al., In Garage Land, p. 262. 128 Ibid., p. 260. 129 J. Flores, ‘Puerto Rican And Proud Boyee! Rap. Roots and Amnesia’, in Ross and Rose (eds.), Microphone Friends, pp.89-90.