In Defence of Subculture: Young People, Leisure and Social Divisions

Abstract

We argue that this critique of subculture is premised on a partial interpretation of the theoretical objectives of CCCS and that, in fact, some of the theoretical and methodological propositions of the latter remain relevant. This argument is supported by a brief review of some other, very recent youth research that demonstrates the continuing role of social divisions in the making and shaping of young people"s leisure lives and youth cultural identities and practises. In conclusion, we suggest that the ambition of the CCCS to understand, not only the relationship between culture and social structure, but also the ways in which individual youth biographies evolve out of this relationship, remains a valuable one for the sociology of youth.3

Exploring young people's and youth workers' experiences of spaces for ‘youth development’: creating cultures of participation

“…Central to these critiques is the fact that PYD fails 'to recognize adequately the broader nature of youth stereotyping in society' and the 'doubling' of youth as a social category onto which society's hopes and fears are projected (Sukarieh & Tannock 2011, p.688). Instead, PYD promotes a decontextualized approach to youth, youth leisure spaces, and young people's developmental trajectories, ignores the socioeconomic landscapes that impact on young people's leisure practices (Shildrick & MacDonald 2006), and continues to universalise and individualize personal change.…”

La gramática de la juventud: Un nuevo concepto en construcción

“…Al interior de un campo de estudios consolidado, las investigaciones de juventud se fueron desplegando sobre principios de siglo veintiuno en base a dos tradiciones: la perspectiva de la transición juvenil y los estudios culturales (sub-culturales), con orientaciones metodológicos y teóricas divergentes, muchas veces con poco contacto (Shildrick, 2006). El acceso a la producción que facilitan las redes virtuales dio lugar a un intercambio significativo tanto en términos teóricos, como metodológicos.…”

From the Chicago School to Post-sub Cultural Carriage: A Review and Analysis of Contemporary Trends in Youth Culture Research

“…Rather, as Shildrick and MacDonald argue, there are clear social demarcations evident in the cultural lives of young people that arise from both wider social divisions and lifestyle segmentations. There is insinuation that the current ascendancy of post-subcultural studies margins the significance of sociological research to broader youth queries and does little to extend the case that youth studies should be more sociologically relevant and important (Shildrick and MacDonald, 2006). They therefore, propose the 'CCCS approach' to grasp, not merely the links between culture and social structure and the ways in which young people's biographies evolve out of this relationship, instead Shildrick and MacDonald are contended that this approach still is a valuable one for the sociology of youth.…”

“…However, in view of the current ascendency of 'transition approach' certain reformulations in 'CCCS approach' such as combining cultural and structural analysis would not only facilitate to widen and thrive the significance of contemporary youth culture studies, rather may help in theoretical sophistication, empirical renovation and a more holistic sociology of youth. As Shildrick and MacDonald (2006) argue that youth cultural studies, particularly the 'post-subcultural studies' may prove to be more inclusive and holistic if a closer attention is paid to questions of transition and of social divisions. Specifically, examination of culture based identities and activities within the preview of youth transition studies may help bridge the analytical divide between the tradition of youth 'transition approach,' which largely skips issues of culture, leisure, identity etc.…”

“…In this perspective, Jensen (2006) and Shildrick and MacDonald (2006) are the prominent readings, which bring forth that it is not all young people-who have the possibility of engaging in the consumerism, central to some sub-cultures. Rather, as Shildrick and MacDonald argue, there are clear social demarcations evident in the cultural lives of young people that arise from both wider social divisions and lifestyle segmentations.…”