According to Hebdige, (1988) ‘…sub-cultural and sub-cultural style does not represent commercial exploitation or genuine revolt but the creation of an independent, insubordinate identity, if only as an ephemeral phase.’
On the one hand, the subculture of Punk was seen to be a mixture of communities in which the style of the working class was adopted, with long coats, Doc Martin boots, smart Ben Sherman T-shirts and short hair cuts in response to the wider economical issues at the time, the declining industrial professions and other marginalised groups. These young adults were responding to the work situation of their parents and the country and in their own demeanours promoted it through an expression of style and attitudes.
It could be said that in actual fact subcultures are both a sign of revolt and an expression of style. For example, by using shocking imagery and symbols of such horrific figures as Adolph Hitler, ‘punks’ were not only generating coverage of their rebellious spirit but questioning society and its downfalls.
However, it could then be questioned that subcultures do not necessary concentrate on style but rather content. Therefore it could be said that subcultures revolted against the status quo in society through music and a peculiar lifestyle in order to ‘…construct identities within a social order dominated by class, generational difference and work.’ (S. During: The cultural studies reader.) Therefore, subcultures are a sign of revolt towards society demonstrated through the expression of style.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The elements of Bricolage that you describe as being typically punk are actually that of the skinheads. However the intelligent construction of the rest of this post would suggest that this was just a slip on your part rather than a genuine lack of understanding. I am very pleased to see you referring to theory and doing so in a manner that supports your arguments well.
Post a Comment