Beginning of a Mod culture and its influence on British society
From the beginning of research of subcultures, the biggest problem for the researches was to put it into a proper definition. Defining the culture itself was a hard work, and specifying a group of young people that seemed to deny certain social stereotypes without any precise pattern could seem impossible at first. However, the researchers work ended up with a success and there came out several parallel definitions and theories about the core of subcultures.
Until the 60’s, the subculture was identified with poverty, primitivism, ill-adjustment, inability to function in normal, “healthy” society and the whole other palette ...view middle of the document...
They may be “the form of symbolic resistance in range of social institutions, being the mirroring of some of the aspects of the whole society, for example in schools or prisons”.
In Ken Gelder’s opinion, the subculture should be identified with six occurrences: usually the negative working approach, ambivalent approach or denying the social position, class separation and material position, showing more attachment to the certain territory and environment than to the owns, activity placed outside the house and family with negative approach to the family at the same time, tendency to making things up and exaggeration, denying the mass society’s culture and way of everyday being. [K. Gelder, 2007, en.wikipedia.org, 11.05.2013].
Generally, the subcultures are the kind of rebellion against the society and its norms usually caused by young people who need the sense of membership and seeking for the new authorities outside the house and family. The subcultures defines its own norms based on its ideology and beliefs of its members. Usually the norms are the reject of the standards appreciated in society. In fact, the subcultures don’t create the quality pyramid themselves, they just modify the one that is already existing, changing and modifying it in dependence of their needs and beliefs. Also, most of the subcultures are not causing their members to be faithful, most of the subcultures are the object of temporary fascination and don’t tie the members for period of time longer than the attraction lasts (this doesn’t count for the religious or drug-based subcultures, membership in which, in fact, may cause a lot of long-term, serious consequences) and the usual member of the subculture may also belong to other subculture at the same time. There has been countless examples of people, who agreed with ideological preferences of one group, however, appreciating the look and music taste of other one.
In 50’s and 60’s in United Kingdom’s working society such subcultures had been created, mostly by young people. In post-war England filled with young people, who oppositely to their parents (growing up during the war) actually had time and money to spare, new moves of teenagers began to develop. Even, if actually they were in very comfortable situation – there was no need to help family with the finances, as most of the English working-class families could easily afford peaceful life, the teenagers could spend themselves their money gained from working after school. This way, during the searching for new ideals and authorities, looking for their identity, young people could effortlessly have the funds for new, stylish clothes to express themselves, concerts to go and music cassettes to listen to. However, even if this kind of situation seemed comfortable, it was not for a young mind, which wants to develop – the society was stuck in the cage of tradition and old morality, the conveyances were strict and so was the school, parenting and the whole raising...