ABSTRACT
Subcultural approaches have been criticized on a number of counts. Chiefly, they seem unreflective of the complexities of social interaction. Some representations present a picture of cultural determinism, that is of individuals being shaped by cultures. But individuals do not slavishly follow subcultural norms. They do not always and in every respect, for example, imprint masculinity or femininity upon themselves without reflection. They do have choices. These certainly vary according to one’s position within the social structure, but most people have some degree of choice. Not all boys in the same structural location behave like Willis’ ‘lads’. Not all girls aspire mainly toward motherhood and the kitchen sink. Not all Afro-Caribbean boys take the line of action pursued by Mac an Ghaill’s ‘Rasta Heads’. One might argue that this kind of group is a local adaptation to a general issue, and that it has both local and general properties. But here there is another problem, which is to do with the concept of subculture itself. Subcultures are both part of, and different from, more general cultures, that stand distinct from them in terms of values and behaviour patterns. As Phillipson (1971) notes, the problem is to identify where one ends and the other begins. Subcultural theorists tend to draw a very firm demarcation line. This, after all, is almost an inevitable corollary of differentiation-polarization theory, as it is of resistance theory. It can be a consequence of studying pupil groups in terms of how they are distinguished by such factors as social class, gender and ‘race’.
