Customer Reviews

Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style (Dress, Body, Culture)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Muggleton's biggest strength is that he tries to understand subjective experiences of subculturalists in their neverending conquest for differentiating themselves from the conventional. Unlike Birmingham scholars, Muggleton does not start with a pre given, dichotomous assumption about materially opressed subcultures against a totalizing dominant culture, but rather has a nominalist cultural orientation. So, if you are a materialist or structuralist, his perspective might put you off.

This book is indispensable if you are studying subcultures/youth cultures/microcultures/etc. However I suggest you read Hebdige before this, because Muggleton builds most of his arguments against his. Otherwise, it is hard to see where all this comes from.

Although it is a short text, it is quite dense and packed with references, so it might not be an enjoyable read if you are not very familiar with theories of culture.

Academic summarizing nonsense aside, this is a well-argued/written/researched work on contemporary subcultures. Argument-wise, it's hard to argue with Muggleton (given sophisticated/nuanced/qualified positions. As far as writing is concerned, each chapter is structured around a single hypothesis which Muggleton explicitly proves or refutes, and anybody with even the slightest experience reading academic/theoretical texts should have no problem understanding it (i.e. it is neither French nor German). And research? Yes, you should probably read Hebidge first (you should probably read it anyways--it's short, generally fun, well-presented, and has definitively influenced contemporary thought about subcultures). Thornton wouldn't hurt (Muggleton is less in conversation with her than in the same vein/field). But since Muggleton provides ample background and introduction (along with quotes--probably half the book is quotes), it's no thing either way, and you're only slightly worse off for it.

Academically? Since Muggleton (i) is arguing for a corrective to a dominant theoretical position and, thus, (ii) making a meta-critique of the field, it's really hard to argue with him. Sure, he doesn't talk about race (everybody's white). And maybe he could be more critical of his informants' views. But Muggleton, to his absolute credit is way too reflexive to do this. In fact, argues that this inevitable insider/outsider//informant/researcher dynamic, and the deployment of ideal-/sterotypes it encourages, is why cultural studies has been so confused in the first place (in identifying 'genuine' or 'authentic' subcultural members; in analyzing subculture's relationship with the media (though this is more Thornton's area than Muggleton's); in viewing subcultures as resisting dominant ideologies; and in analyzing the relationship between subcultures and class). All of which is to say good show Muggleton, good show.

Summarizing nonsense?

Here's the deal. The Birmingham Center for Cross Cultural Studies (CCCS) gets real big in the late sixties/early seventies by studying post-war British youth subculture (mods, teds, skinheads, punks, etc), essentially arguing that subcultures are determined by class (which comes from their being Marxist--which is where a lot of their problems come from). Classic texts here are Dick Hebidge's Style, Hall and Jefferson's Resistance through Rituals, ______ Cohen's Moral Panic, and something by Paul Willis (they're listed in Muggleton's text on like p. 4 or something similar). So, since subcultures are determined by class, and class is determined by larger economic structures and dialectics and whatnot, subcultures can be subjected to structural/semiotic analysis and read as texts. So mods, for example, represent an upwards tendency in the working class. They're a symbolic or 'imaginary' resolution to real, economic contradictions. Also, CCCS thinks that subcultures are primarily composed of the working class. Whatever the case, the important thing (I think) is that they read subcultures as resisting the dominant culture. (Which is, of course, totally Marxist).

This is the dominant tradition in cultural studies for a few decades before it takes a lot of heat for basically being wrong. Muggleton is certainly not the first to call them out on it (as he admits), but his book provides a really clear overview of the whole situation.

Basically, Muggleton thinks that the CCCS (excepting Willis) didn't do enough fieldwork and needed to talk to more people about what their style/subculture meant to them before they go about attributing resistance-this and resolution-that all willy-nilly. Muggleton takes a neo-Weberian approach (referring to famous sociology founder and all around scholar Max Weber, who did The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and other big works), meaning that he uses ideal types (abstract, pure figures which never really obtain in real life but help you analyze what you're interested in by highlighting the relevant traits--standard sociological fare). Ultimately, Muggleton argues that everybody uses ideal types, particularly when members of a subculture compare themselves to other people (since they can't know these people personally--ideal-/stereotypes become heuristic devices for snap judgments). Muggleton uses this argumentto deconstruct authenticity. I.e., he shows that people use stereotypes to give themselves credibility. E.g. "Those punks don't have mohawks or multiple piercings or Doc Martens, they're totally posers" or "Those punks have mohawks and multiple piercings and Doc Martens, they're totally stereotypes." The process, Muggleton argues, is totally subjective. So you can't say who's authentic and who's not, only that authenticity is constructed in such and such a way in comparison to such and such a group, and vice versa. (This obviously places Muggleton in dangerous territory regarding relativism, but I'm pretty sure Muggleton doesn't touch the issue and just leaves it alone. I don't think this is a criticism of his work so much as an issue raised somewhat external to the topic at hand.)

A few other things? Muggleton thinks that (contemporary) subcultures aren't pockets of resistance, since they subscribe to the same ethic of expressive, liberal individualism that, generally speaking, the West subscribes to as a whole. Subcultures are neither homogeneous nor clearly demarcated. People are members of multiple subcultures over the course of a life time (and even simultaneously), and they travel between them. They are at least partially created by media. And the whole subcultural thing is in some way related to Romantic-ish middle class values that have been rising since at least the 1960s.

Overall, definite recommendation for anybody interested in (or trying to get interested in) the field.

Well i don't have much to say on this one. I ordered it as a help for my media assignment. Found it useful but a little long-winded and a little too specialised in terms of examples.
I'd recommend Sarah Thornton's "Club Cluture" as a good partner to this book.