|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
... Thompson, Richard Hoggart established the Centre For Contemporary Culture Studies at Birmingham University (CCCS) in 1964. These researchers turned their attentions on youth subcultures, especially the spectacular forms adopted by youth subcultures. According these youth subculture forms, researchers in CCCS try to decode the messages beneath their dresses, hairs and styles. They located their aim on the relations between youth subcultures and three broader culture structures, the tradition working class culture, dominant culture and mass culture. In this essay, I will try to explore the main features of youth subcultures in British culture studies. Also I will examine whether the current youth subculture still relevant to the beginning youth subculture.
As above mention, British youth subculture studies mainly focus on the relations between youth subcultures and three broader culture structures. From this viewpoint, we can see that British youth subcultures studies are labelled as working-class youth subcultures studies. The researchers believed that young working-class¡¯ subculture behaviours are the reactions of their class subordination. However, according their studies, they found the distinctions between youth subcultures and their ¡®parent¡¯ culture (tradition working-class culture) In the post war period, Britain began to recover from the effect of war. ... These experiences have huge effects to those working-class youth. ... One was get married and escape from the family; another way was put themselves in specific youth subcultures in opposition to their ¡®parent culture¡¯. On this point, Phil Cohen has seen the effect of the emergence of youth subcultures. ... It is, perhaps, not surprising that the parent culture of the respectable working class, already in crisis, was the most ¡® productive¡¯
vis-¨¤-vis subculture; the internal conflicts of the parent culture came to be worked out in terms of generational conflict. ... Leisure could be seen as the most important part of youth life area. The rise of consumerism in 50s and 60s provided a different life experiences to the youth. ... John Clarke et al stated that ¡®this widespread availability and high visibility of Youth Culture structured the leisure sphere crucially different ways for the young. ... Thus not only did youth encounter leisure in different characteristic institutions from their parents (caf¨¦s, discos, youth clubs, ¡®all nighters¡¯ etc. ... , 1975) Also these life changes have developed a ¡® generational consciousness¡¯ amongst working class youth. ... As Phil Cohen stated that ¡®subculture is¡ a compromise solution, between two contradictory needs: the need to create and express autonomy and difference form parents¡ and the need to maintain¡ the parental identifications which support them¡¯ (Cohen, 1972)
As above mention, youth working-class subcultures emphasis the differences from their parent culture, but they also adopted some principles from their ¡®parent¡¯ culture. ... In organising their response to these experiences, working-class youth subcultures take some things principally from the located ¡®parent¡¯ culture: but they apply and transform them to the situations their own distinctive group-like and generational experience. ... , 1975) So we can see that youth working-class subcultures intended to create some new images apart form their parents in order to resist the forces from other cultures. On the other hand, these working-class youth have taken something from their ¡®parent¡¯ culture.
Approximate Word count = 2583
Approximate Pages = 10.3
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|