Subculture: Its Definition is an Obstacle to Problem-Solving

Subculture DEFINITIONS

A quick Google search reveals a misguided public perception of what subculture is. Such a search unearths topics including “the last true alternative outsider subculture,” “subculture parties,” and “subculture as the meaning of style.” It is an outside look in – as if one could enter a subculture with a secret code, word, gesture or dress. As if one consciously chooses their subculture. This perpetuates a cyclical misinterpretation of what subculture truly represents.

If we continue to misdefine and commercialize subcultures, we’ll never figure our way out of our complicated crises. Today’s issues are intricate and intertwined. 

Subcultures feed diversity

First, let’s start with the definition of subculture. It is not adversarial. Subcultures are simply social groupings within a larger societal system. They form as a response to tensions within society. Their divergence results in an organic social cohesion of subsets where people share similar codes of behavior and ideologies. It is the place where people begin to evolve a common language. 

In fact, some may never consider themselves a member of a subculture but they are “talking the talk” of a subculture and expanding its dialogue. This is why subculture cannot be looked at as a binary proposition. It is never as simple as subculture or not subculture.

Subculture is the multiplicity of unique patterns of linguistic threads crafting the future of our social order.

This is the essential process of being human. And it contributes to a healthy diversity in society. We shouldn’t all think alike – nor strive to. It’s not normal for everyone to strive for the same aspirational goal – no matter where we sit on the spectrum of ideology. Divergent thinking is the foundation for critical thinking and rational discourse. 

Recognizing shortcomings in common codes

In 1965, professor Gerald Zaltman discussed the value of researching subcultures because of their relative homogeneity when it came to norms, values and behaviors. His piece was titled “Marketing: Contributions from the Behavioral Sciences,” published by Harcourt, Brace & World.

His work demonstrated how subculture serves as a valid construct for research. This makes sense in that there is a consistency to the data culled from subculture.

When behaviors are consistent, patterns are more apparent and interpretation is simplified.

The human brain can quickly grasp what’s happening. This predictability makes it easier to anticipate future actions and outcomes.

However, it's important to note that while homogeneous behavior may be easier to read and understand in some contexts, homogeneity also has its limitations. Remember, we said subculture arises out of the tensions in society.

It is precisely those tensions that need to be seen, not the subculture as a standalone. Diverse perspectives need to be accounted for.

Cultivating objectivity in subculture analysis

To see diverse perspectives requires a structured method for analysis. These techniques provide a systematic approach to classifying and analyzing information. By structuring the analysis process, decision-makers can make more informed, objective and scalable decisions. In our case, Culture Mapping reveals the inherent biases in subculture analysis. Looking at a subculture in isolation does not.

Our matrix framework forces analysts to consider a wider range of possibilities and not be overly influenced by preconceived notions.

In the study of subcultures or any distinct social group, it's essential to examine not only the subculture itself but also the broader social and cultural landscape surrounding it.

One significant factor is the presence of other subcultures that may exist as a response or reaction to the focal subculture. This is not a novelty. It is a necessity.

Subcultures emerge in relation to or in contrast with other subcultures or mainstream culture. Contrasting subcultures can help provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the subculture in focus. The notness, as we sometimes say. This holistic perspective is crucial for a deeper comprehension of archetypes present within various subcultures. Even in their homogeneity, subcultures are not monolithic.

By studying how different subcultures interact and influence each other, we can identify and analyze their language more effectively. This, in turn, enables us to form more insightful questions and insights about their dynamics, values, and motivations. In the words of The Stranglers, to “better watch out for the skin deep.”

Empower the term, put the structure to work

In a 1996 discussion on the concept of "disaster subcultures" in Disaster Prevention and Management, it was concluded by Granot that associating disaster or emergency subculture with the broader sociological concept of subculture might not be appropriate (Granot, 1996).

However, when we contemplate the emergence of a disaster subculture, the term subculture becomes entirely fitting in the context of disaster management. As Granot aptly observes, this concept is acquired by society through collective and personal experiences. It embodies cultural heritage and undergoes role transformations in response to societal tensions.

The scrutiny of subculture terminology arises because, as of 1996, subculture was predominantly seen as an alternative to mainstream culture—a perspective that, as we can discern today, does not hold true.

Subculture is, in fact, an integral part of the societal fabric. The '80s and '90s were marked by the drive to conform and dominate culture, leading to the stigmatization of punk and goth cultures.

The commonly accepted interpretation of the term subculture is inherently flawed. By leveraging a structured approach to its analysis, we can fortify the foundation for a more meaningful definition of subculture.