Rave Culture: Individual And Collective Identity Theories

In this chapter we will look at theories of collective identity as opposed to individual identity, as this highlights similarity rather than difference (Jenkins, 1996, p.19). We will establish how various types of people fall into certain social groups and why these people want to be part of a social group, drawing on some theories outlined in chapter one alongside subcultural and post-subcultural theory. Similarly to how Husserl explained how the self cannot be experienced or seen, collective identity too is extremely abstract. This concept is essential when discussing identity as it refers to "an individual's cognitive, moral and emotional connection with a broader community" (Polletta and Jasper, 2001, p.285) and "Without social identity, there is, in fact, no society" (Jenkins, 1996, p.6). Modern sociology has produced a number of complex theories such as subculture, and the ongoing postmodern debate of post-subculture, and it is these two branches of sociology that this chapter will focus on.

The definition of subculture today is much more complex than its definition at the turn of the 20th century as described by The Chicago School of Sociology. According to this branch of ethnographic researchers, subculture referred to (almost exclusively) delinquent social groups within urban society. At this time, sociology was predominantly focused on urban civilisation, analysing the social structure of cities (Gelder, 2005, p.19), and how those that inhabited them interacted. Chicago theorist, Robert Park explained the emergence of subcultures through the restrictions cities put in place, which led to people having 'wilder urges'. These urges led people to deviate and create their own groups where "a divergent moral code prevails" (Park, 1925). However, despite the interchangeable use of the words delinquency and deviance, the Chicago School did not believe deviance was abnormal or bad behaviour, but rather a way of constructing different values (Gelder, 2005, p.22). However, research and findings within criminology found that there were strong correlations between subcultures and delinquency (ibid., p.21), which suggested that subcultural identities and groups may be a contributing factor to deviant behaviour. Albert Cohen, who was heavily influenced by the work of the Chicago School, researched into delinquent subcultures, which became entitled Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang (1955). This paper theorised the rebellious nature of young, working-class boys through the constructs of 'social frustration' and 'reaction formation'. Cohen suggested that "lower-class delinquent subcultures are products of so-called 'social frustration'", which stemmed from the realisation that, compared to their middle-class peers, they cannot "measure up" to middle-class standards (Bryant, 2011, p.234). This causes them to form "deviant subcultures characterised by working-class membership. aggressive masculinity, and a lust for transgressive hedonism" (Matza and Sykes, 1961) to express their class-based suppression. Cohen's theory therefore explained delinquency in a collective framework, as he saw it "not as something individualistic but in terms of 'gangs of boys doing things together'. deriving their meanings and flavour [through] togetherness. governed by a set of common understandings, common sentiments, and common loyalties" (Cohen, 1955, p.178). This reflects William James`s theory of self-feeling, whereby the self is characterised by how we feel about ourselves. The self, to James, "was not an expression of some unitary inner being, but rather, it was the effect of caring about the opinions of distinct groups of people" (Pascale, 2011, p.79). This theory explains that the working-class boys who are submitted to `social frustration` by their middle-class peers are made to feel diffident due to the effect of caring about what they think, and the lack of control they have over their class and, in turn, what these higher classes think about them, makes them feel helpless and trapped. This vicious circle of self-dissatisfaction, as James terms it, is determined by the roles that the boys play in society, which exemplifies Kuhn and McPartland`s 1954 study on self-attitude. This individual self-feeling of not feeling good enough causes persons to seek others who share this self-dissatisfaction in order to find their place in society and they display this self-dissatisfaction through collective, deviant behaviour. This explains why individuals want to be part of a collective.

A weakness of the Chicago School theorists was that by the 1960s, subcultures had stretched across all parts of society (including middle-class), as nomadic cultural groups such as bikers and hippies took to the road (Gelder, 2004, p.23). This meant that the class-specific, urban-based work of The Chicago School could not account for these other developing subcultures and it could not be generalised either due to the Chicago theorist`s deeply qualitative and observational nature. Due to this restriction to urban life, Milton Gordon, along with many other theorists, suggested that subculture be used less rigidly. Gordon proposed the idea of 'worlds within a world', drawing on Park's 'cities within cities', in order to leave the door open on the whereabouts of subcultural emergence. Alongside this, further books such as David Arnold's 1970 Subcultures were published in order to account for all parts of the social spectrum.

In 1964, the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) at Birmingham University developed, which focused on working-class youth post-World War II. In 1975 the CCCS published Resistance Through Rituals, which drew on Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony, whereby opposing classes struggled for power. Due to the 'post-war consumer boom', the working-class's spending habits became affluent as they took interest in more expensive clothing and activities in order to appear more middle-class (Zweig, 1961), which can be seen in the teddy boys and mods. However, this symbolic interactionist perspective on the use of material assets to increase status only created the illusion of middle-class, as their roots of working-class struggle still remained - "There is no 'subcultural solution' to working-class youth unemployment, educational disadvantage. dead end jobs. low pay and the loss of skill" (Clarke, et al., 1976, p.47). But the use of commodities were not always used as a means to appear more middle-class. Punks did not attempt to veil their working-class status; instead they used commodities to express their angst towards the 'system'. We can apply Mead`s theory of significant gestures and symbols here, as many subcultures in this period used the symbolism of style as a kind of language. He proposed that "A gesture foreshadows action" (Pascale, 2011, p.81), so the threatening appearance of goths or punks becomes a gesture foreboding negative action by the person fashioning that look. Their style becomes offensive in itself and causes a negative reaction in the people who see them. It is this underlining theory of symbolic interactionism that created many subcultures and subsequent moral panics post-1960s.

From this trail of thought, many CCCS theorists also undertook research into the symbolic meanings of working-class subcultural styles within this era, such as punks, teddy boys, mods and rockers. Dick Hebdige in his 1979 book Subculture: The meaning of style, suggested that 'spectacular subcultures' consciously dress in a certain way as a means of "intentional communication", in order to stand-out from the mainstream culture and enforce their subcultural identity - "They are obviously fabricated. They display their own codes" (Hebdige, 1979, p.125). He addressed the term 'bricolage', which is the conscious act of using physical objects and assigning a new meaning to them to represent themselves with; it is a "science of the concrete" (Hawkes, 1977). The Punk subculture exemplifies this act through their use of safely pins, studded/spiked accessories and bin liners etc. They "fashioned their own look, pulled together from clothes discarded by the mainstream" (Webb, 2013) and used these accessories as a means of disobedient expression. Their use of bold objects were "the sartorial equivalent of swear words, and they swore as they dressed" (Hebdige, 1979, p.121). The teddy boys used Savile Row suits in the same way as these suits were previously associated with wealthy, middle-class, law-abiding men, until the teddy boys altered their symbolic meaning by integrating the expensive fashion into their rebellious subculture. The purpose of these styles was to "reflect, express and resonate. aspects of group life" (Clarke et al., 1993), so members could use these homologous styles to signify their collective subcultural place in society. This relates back to the work of Cohen's 'deviant subculture', but alongside their delinquent behaviour they created a "culture of conspicuous consumption" (Hebdige, 1979, p.125). This was used to represent their deviance, making a clear statement to anybody who sees them that they are separate from mainstream culture.

The Chicago School and the CCCS produced insightful studies and theories into collective identity and subculture in the modern era. However, both focused on a very specific part of the social spectrum - working-class, white males, which meant that their work could not be accountable for subcultures in other classes, regions or ethnicities. As society has progressed into the era of postmodernism, the flaws of subcultural theory have become more apparent and are at the centre of post-subcultural debate. Steve Redhead argued that "popular music and `deviant` youth styles never fitted together as harmoniously as some subcultural theory proclaimed" (Redhead, 1990), implying that youth culture is far more complicated than simply being either mainstream or subculture. They also did not acknowledge subcultural members who were 'part-timers' or 'weekenders' - "All such gangs and subcultures suggested too much commitment" (Irwin, 1977, p.18). Were punks rebellious and defiant during their 9-5 office job, during their visits to relatives or during family celebrations on Christmas day? It seems that subcultural member's need for everyday activities such as work and family life is heavily undermined. These issues are drawn upon and the cause for further theoretical speculation within post-subcultural theory.

Post-subculture proposes that subculture is far more complicated than previously acknowledged and the concept may be outdated. This approach emerged alongside the postmodern era, which "is often associated with pluralism and an abandonment of conventional ideas" (Palmer, 2014). Postmodernism disregards the stable and coherent notions of modernist thinkers and introduces complex ideas of fragmentation and fluidity (shiftingthinking.org). In relation to identity and social theory it repudiates the beliefs of having one identity or clear, linear social structures and instead initiates an ever-changing culture and society, which is constantly moving direction, complicating all attempts at devising a 'fit-for-all' theory. Cultural boundaries today have disintegrated due to the development of technology and the internet, which has created a "global interconnectedness" whereby "ideas, styles, music and technology. collide in complex ways" (ibid., p.7). Globalisation is a central component to the shifting nature of today's youth culture as it has "altered the relations and connections between peoples and communities" creating "a new era of regional and global movement of people, goods, information and microbes" (Held, 2000, p.1-2). These new ideological establishments shed some light on why youth culture has become extremely transient, fragmented and geographically dispersed. Post-subcultural theory's prime focus is on reconceptualising previous subcultural frameworks and attempting to capture and explain the fragmentation of today's postmodern youth culture.

David Muggleton, a leading post-subcultural theorist, has published a number of books in order to "establish a new framework for the analysis of contemporary subcultural phenomena", which "can no longer be explained with a framework that imputes to these forms a linear temporal logic" (Muggleton and Weinzierl, 2004, p.6). In his book Inside Subculture he addresses the term `post-subculturalists` to refer to subcultures today. He proposes that post-subculturalists "no longer have any sense of subcultural `authenticity`" and they "revel in the availability of subcultural choice [leading to] a glut of revivals, hybrids... and the co-existence of myriad styles" (Muggleton, 2000, p.47). An explanation behind this, he proposes, is the crumbling of a hegemonic culture, meaning there is no longer a dominant mainstream for a subculture to resist. Subcultural styles are now revolved around consumption rather than structural determinants such as class and ethnicity, and this breakdown of linear structure that characterised 20th century subculture has "left behind a rich coffer for eventual retro fashions, ironic revisiting... and irreverent revivals" (Chambers, 1990, p.69). The big question within post-subcultural debate is, has the postmodern era rendered the whole concept of subculture useless? Subculture came into existence due to the resistance of a mainstream, but if this no longer exists then subculture may not have a place to fill within society anymore (Muggleton, 2000, p.48), and if it does, then it certainly does not possess the seriousness it had in the 20th century. Subculture`s existence today has been reduced to merely "a costume party... a hedonistic escape into a Blitz Culture fantasy characterized by political indifference" (ibid., p.49), and it is this casual attitude that plays a part in the fluid and fragmented nature of subculture today.

French sociologist Michel Maffesoli has shifted the focus of subculture away from class, gender and ethnicity and towards music, lifestyle and consumption. His postmodern perspective characterises "contemporary society... [as] voluntary, unstable and sensuous micro-cultures" (Muggleton and Weinzierl, 2004, p.65). Maffesoli introduced the concept of neo-tribes, explaining that the tribe "refers more to a certain ambience, a state of mind, and it is preferably to be expressed through lifestyles that favour appearance and form" (Maffesoli 1996). He proposed that neo-tribes are "less disposed to master the world, nature and society than collectively to achieve societies founded above all on quality of life" (ibid), their development dictated by the "imperious need to be... bound together" (Maffesoli, 1997, p.32). What Maffesoli is implying here is that postmodernism`s deterioration of class certainty and emphasis on individualisation creates anxiety, causing people to create neo-tribes based on other factors, such as music and lifestyle. However, this individualisation Maffesoli rejects, his argument aiming to show that "social configurations... go beyond individualism" and that the concept "deserves abandonment" (Maffesoli, 1996, p.10). His ultimate thesis stands that people "can only find fulfilment in [their] relations with others" (ibid.) and as the modernist development of subcultures has become obsolete, people have found an alternative way of founding groups, cultures and allegiances, predominantly within music, lifestyle and consumption.