Notes on Hebdige’s “The Function of Subculture”

Hebdige, D. (1979). The function of subculture. In Subculture: The meaning of style (pp. 73-89). Routledge.

            Dick Hebdige's Subculture: The Meaning of Style (1979) is widely considered a classic in cultural studies in general and in the study of subculture in particular. Divided into two parts, each containing a few sections, the book, as its title suggests, analyzes the significance or meaning of style in the experiences of the different youth subcultures that emerged in postwar Britain, drawing on Marxism, Gramscian theory, and Barthesian semiotics. This article focuses on the fifth section of the book entitled “The Function of Subculture.” The thesis of the section is that the function of subculture, mainly that of post-war English working-class youth, lies in its resistance, through style, to the hegemony of the dominant culture. In discussing this idea, the author sheds light also on some issues relevant to the study of subculture.

            Hebdige starts the section by showing how it differs from the previous sections. While the previous sections concern the relation between immigrant black subcultures and white working-class subcultures, the section in question analyzes the relation between the latter and the dominant culture. Embarking on this analysis, Hebdige posits that what makes his study different from traditional studies of subculture is its focus on the historical context of, or the factors behind, the rise of subcultures, which other studies overlooked. He maintains that the emergence of these youth subcultures is part and parcel of the economic, social and cultural changes that postwar Britain was undergoing at the time. One very relevant factor is the 1944 Butler Act, which made education free for all pupils. This resulted in what is referred to as a ‘generational consciousness’ among youth, which encouraged the rise of youth subcultures. Another shortcoming of traditional studies of youth subcultures, according to Hebdige, is their idea of the class-neutral youth culture. Such studies are based on the assumption that youth culture is not governed by class, an assumption that later studies proved naive.

            Having discussed the historical context of the rise of these subcultures, Hebdige moves on to survey the approaches adopted in previous studies on youth and subculture, comparing them in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. For Hebdige, the first studies on subculture in Britain took place in the nineteenth century, but such studies are insignificant given the approach they adopted, some loose form of urban ethnography. In the 1920s, more significant studies were conducted, mostly on juvenile delinquency, using participant observation. However, such studies did not gain attention because, first, they were qualitative when quantitative studies were the norm, and, second, they lacked the necessary analytical framework and thus neglected the variables of class and power. It was only in the 1950s that such framework was used and such variables were taken into consideration, mainly in the studies of Albert Cohen, Walter Miller, and Matza and Sykes. Yet, for Hebdige, Cohen’s work remains the most outstanding. It was Cohen who first took into account the ideological, economic and cultural factors, coming to the conclusion that the proliferation of youth subcultures is a direct consequence of the contradictions inherent in society, that their style is but a reaction against, and manifestation of, such contradictions. Despite that, Hebdige criticizes Cohen for overemphasizing the interest of youth subcultures in the parent culture, which is not the case with the mods and skinheads. Apart from that, the importance of Cohen’s work manifests in its influence on the seminal work of Hall et al.'s Resistance Through Rituals (1976). What makes Hall et al.’s work distinct and of great relevance to Hebdige’s work is its use of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony. Hebdige, therefore, draws heavily on it in analyzing other issues, namely the notions of specificity and conjuncture as well as the sources of style.

            The general idea behind the notions of specificity and conjecture is that the basis of a subculture, that is its raw material, is imaginary and ideological, and that each subculture is driven by certain historical factors that make it distinct from other subcultures. To clarify these notions, Hebdige took the example of the Teddy boy subculture. The example of this subculture is of relevance because it appeared in two versions, the first in the 1950s and the second in the 1970s. While the two share similarities and differences, the latter outweigh the former. The major difference lies in the relationship between each of the two versions of the subculture with the parent and dominant culture. While the Teddy boy subculture of the 1950s was negatively perceived, the version of the 1970s was perceived positively. This is so mainly because the latter was favorably compared to the more radical punk subculture, and was seen by parents as a source of nostalgia for the days of the first Teddy boy subculture. As such, the notions of specificity and conjuncture are valuable to the study of subculture because they explain how a subculture emerges in relation to its historical context.

            In the last part of the section, Hebdige attempts to uncover the sources of style drawing on the examples of the punks and the Bowieites. He maintains that style emerges from both the economic, ideological and cultural situation surrounding the subculture, and from the media that manipulates such situation to advance its agenda. Such situation manifests in the binaries of home vs school, school vs work, home vs work, private vs public, etc. In other words, in constructing their style, youth subcultures are influenced by their social experience as well as the media’s handling of such experience.

            To conclude, Hebdige’s study differs from traditional studies in that it underscores the historical context of the subculture. The study is informed by two major works that adopted a similar approach, that of Cohen (1972) and that of Hall et al. (1976). After surveying previous studies, the author concluded that the notions of specificity and conjuncture are invaluable to the study of subculture. Having done so, he maintains that the sources of subculture are the historical factors and the media’s handling of them. As to the function of subculture, Hebdige argues that it lies in the subculture's ability to resist, through style, the hegemony of the dominant culture.

Image Source