Journal of Youth Studies

ISSN: 1367-6261 (Print) 1469-9680 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjys20

Towards a neo-Birminghamian conception of

subculture? History, challenges, and future
potentials

Sune Qvotrup Jensen

To cite this article: Sune Qvotrup Jensen (2017): Towards a neo-Birminghamian conception
of subculture? History, challenges, and future potentials, Journal of Youth Studies, DOI:
10.1080/13676261.2017.1382684

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2017.1382684

Published online: 06 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 18

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjys20

Download by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] Date: 13 October 2017, At: 03:41
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2017.1382684

Towards a neo-Birminghamian conception of subculture?

History, challenges, and future potentials
Sune Qvotrup Jensen
Department of Sociology and Social Work, Aalborg University, Aalborg East, Denmark
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article discusses the theoretical development of subcultural Received 1 July 2016
theory. It first provides a brief history of subcultural theory. It then Accepted 12 September 2017
attempts to outline the central requirements which should be
KEYWORDS
fulfilled by a neo-Birminghamian conception of subculture that Subculture; intersectionality;
takes valid critiques of the CCCS into account, while maintaining social structure; Bourdieu;
the theoretical richness and analytical qualities of the concept. class
This includes putting social structures, including class in
intersection with gender and ethnicity, back into subcultural
theory, in a way that allows for grasping complexity. The article
moves on to argue that the development of such a conception of
subculture could potentially be realized by entering a theoretical
dialogue with Bourdieu’s sociology and feminist accounts of
intersectionality. Furthermore, it suggests that such a theoretical
conception may be highly relevant to current research areas such
as gangs/street culture and Jihadism.

1. Introduction
The concept of subculture is shared by a number of interrelated and overlapping disci-
plines, including sociology, youth studies, criminology and cultural studies. As noted by
Hodkinson, the past two decades have seen a debate ‘on the continuing usefulness, or
not, of the concept’ (2016, 629). This includes a sometimes heated discussion around
the specific strand of subcultural theory coined by the Birmingham School/CCCS. Some
authors have characterized this strand as the ‘crown jewels of British youth research’
(Roberts 2000; cited in Shildrick and Macdonald 2006, 133) or the ‘high point of the
relationship between the sociology of youth and the sociology of popular music’ (Hes-
mondhalgh 2005, 22), while others have attempted to deconstruct or discard the work
of CCCS and/or the very concept of subculture (see Bennett 2011; Hodkinson 2016 for
overviews). Paraphrasing Jensen (2006), we might say, however, that the baby proved
too strong – or too cherished – to be thrown out with the bathwater.
This article offers a contribution to the debate about the concept of subculture and the
continued usefulness of a CCCS-inspired version of subcultural theory. It attempts to
answer the invitation by Bennett (2011) and Hodkinson (2016) to produce a conception
of subculture that combines elements from – or finds some middle ground between –
opponents and adherents of the CCCS. It takes a very different theoretical route than

CONTACT Sune Qvotrup Jensen Qvotrup@socsci.aau.dk

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 S. Q. JENSEN

both, however, as it attempts to meet Hollingworth’s request to put ‘structure back in to

youth subcultural studies’ (2015). I suggest that the aim of producing a conception of sub-
cultures that is sensitive to social structures and their complexity can be met by entering a
theoretical dialogue with Bourdieusian theoretical perspectives and feminist accounts of
intersectionality. The contribution offered here is therefore closer to the CCCS than to
many of its opponents. I consequently speak of a neo-Birminghamian conception of sub-
culture, although not without hesitation.1
The first section offers a brief history of subcultural theory in an attempt to clarify what
was lost and gained when the CCCS took over, but also broke with, some of the basic ideas
of early US subcultural theory – as well as what was lost and gained in contemporary
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

alternatives to the work of CCCS. On the basis of this account, the second section attempts
to outline the requirements for a neo-Birminghamian conception of subculture; i.e. a con-
ception that takes social structures seriously, but also takes critiques of the CCCS into
account. In continuation of this, the third section attempts to outline a possible venue
of further development of subcultural theory by engagement with Bourdieu’s sociology
and feminist accounts of intersectionality. The analytical potentials are then illustrated
by pointing to the relevance for studies of gangs/street culture and jihadism. The final
section concludes the article and discusses future uses of such a conception.

2. A brief history of subcultural theory

The first generation of subcultural studies emerged from early American criminology and
urban sociology within the Chicago School of Sociology. The Chicago School produced
rich ethnographies of criminal subcultures in the turbulent urban areas of Chicago, with
a keen eye to ethnic diversity and social disorganization (Shaw and McKay 1942). The after-
math of the Chicago School saw the rise of a number of theoretical contributions to sub-
cultural theory, often with a considerable intellectual debt to functionalism: Cohen argued
that to some extent, working class boys shared middle class cultural values and were
ashamed of not living up to them. Subcultures of Delinquent boys could therefore be
understood as a solution to this shared status problem (Cohen 1955). Bloch, & Niederhoffer
pointed to the importance of youth as a transitional phase in life and argued that deviant
behaviour in subcultures is a way for young people to demonstrate what they consider
adult behaviour (1958). Miller maintained that deviant youth subcultures exaggerated
traits from the adult working class culture; a culture developed as a reaction to harsh
social conditions (1958). He furthermore offered an early analysis of masculinity, arguing
that delinquent subcultures made up a way for young men to produce a masculine iden-
tity in a woman-centered family system (Miller 1959). Cloward & Ohlin drew on the work of
Merton, who had argued that crime may be considered a way of pursuing legitimate, i.e.
commonly shared, ends by illegitimate, i.e. illegal, means (Merton 1938). However, they
pointed out that participation in criminal subcultures presumes both blockage of conven-
tional opportunity structure and social and geographical access to alternative opportunity
structure because deviance must be learned (Cloward and Ohlin 1960).
The second wave of subcultural theory was coined in the 1970s at the Centre of Con-
temporary Cultural Studies, Birmingham University, and is often referred to as CCCS or The
Birmingham School (Cohen [1972] 2002; Hall and Jefferson [1975] 1991; Mungham and
Pearson 1978; Willis 1978; Hebdige 1979; for overviews, see Brake 1985; Muggleton
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 3

2005; Williams 2011). Phil Cohen’s work on subcultural conflict in working class areas
marked a starting point. Herein Cohen interpreted the emergence of working class
youth subcultures as a reaction to the demise of working class communities in
London’s East End, caused by structural developments on the labour and housing
markets (1972). The subsequent body of work developed by the CCCS was quite hetero-
geneous (Griffin 2011). It is, however, possible to outline some common denominators:
The basic theoretical perspective of the CCCS was thus Marxist, although the theory pro-
duced is best described as a ‘complex marxism’ (Hall 1980, 25). What was presented was a
creative combination of different theoretical traditions including not only earlier subcul-
tural theory, and key concepts from Marxist thinkers such as Althusser and Gramsci, but
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

also Roland Barthes’ semiological analysis, and Levi Strauss’ ideas of bricolage and hom-
ology. The theoretical perspective offered was thus far from Marxist orthodoxy or materi-
alist reductionism (Hall and Jefferson 2006). On the contrary it was coined to grasp the
situated agency and the stylistic and cultural practices of young people who participated
in subcultures. The young people were seen as trying to solve or answer social contradic-
tions through collective cultural creativity. This represented a break away from seeing the
young people as pathological, criminal or deviant. At the same time the collective cultural
practices of the young people was seen as meaningful in terms of resistance and dissent
with the existing social order. In the words of Blackman the CCCS theory moved ‘beyond
deviance and style to address the symbolic politics of subculture’ (2014, 504).
It can be argued that the CCCS both built on and broke with some of the basic ideas of
the first phase of subcultural theory (Hall and Jefferson 2006). The CCCS thus adopted but
also rethought the basic idea that working class subcultures could be understood as crea-
tive cultural ‘answers’, ‘responses’ or ‘attempts at solutions’ to problems shared by young
people; problems that were specific to both generation and class position. However, as
metioned, the CCCS shared a reliance on Marxist analysis of British post war capitalist
society. This led the CCCS to reject the idea of a normative class consensus prevalent in
much early criminological theory, such as Cohen’s idea that working class boys
somehow shared middle class cultural values and were ashamed of not living up to
them. Similarly, the CCCS discarded the idea that experienced lack of social status was
the main motivation of participation in subcultures. On the contrary, the CCCS focused
on commonly shared more concrete or material problems such as youth unemployment,
harsh working conditions, low payment and a lack of facilities for young people in working
class areas. As mentioned the CCCS also added an analysis of the politics of subculture
which was absent in the earlier US tradition, i.e. that subcultures were, at the same time,
answers or attempted solutions to shared problems and manifestations of resistance
against class dominance. The political or resistant dimension of working class subcultures
was said to take a mostly stylistic or symbolic form, as opposed to explicitly political middle
class counter cultures. Nevertheless this made up a form of, at least partially conscious,
political agency. In the resistant process, the young people were said to draw upon a
wide range of resources, including, but not limited to, the classed culture of their
parents. This specific perspective on power, class and politics was a central part of the
complexity or creativity of the CCCS version of Marxism. It was a rather unorthodox theor-
etical move to interpret youth subcultures as political, at a time where contemporary
Marxist scholars tended to locate class politics in ‘traditional forms of union activism’
(Griffin 2011, 246).
 4 S. Q. JENSEN

The idea that subcultures could be understood as attempts at a solution, answer or

response to a shared situation, did not necessarily imply an optimistic prognosis for
such solutions. As the theoretical introduction to Resistance to Rituals explained, the ‘pro-
blematic of a subordinate class experience’ can be ‘lived through, negotiated or resisted’ but
not resolved on a subcultural level (Hall and Jefferson [1975] 1991, 47). Sometimes resist-
ance may be practiced in a way that actually strengthens the reproduction of class society.
Such mechanisms were the main motif of Paul Willis’ seminal Learning to labour (1978).
Although Willis distanced himself from the term subculture he is considered a central
CCCS scholar, and as such central to the discussion of subcultural theoryhere.2 In Learning
to labour Willis presented a rich ethnography of a group of working class boys, the lads, in
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

an English school. He demonstrated that their resistance against class dominance in school
– a practice he termed counter school culture – in fact facilitated the reproduction of the
overall class system, and was part of what doomed the lads to traditional, dreary sweat
shop jobs. Regardless hereof they, throughout the process, considered themselves as
being on top of the informal school hierarchy, not least for reasons having to do with mas-
culinity (Willis 1978). The fact that resistance may facilitate reproduction does not mean,
however, that the CCCS ruled out that subcultures can win cultural and actual space for
young people, a point which was also central to Willis’ analysis. As Brake points out, sub-
cultures were seen to offer meaningful leisure activities and a viable identity on the indi-
vidual as well the collective level (1985, 24). In a sense, youth subcultures were seen as
both a solution and not a solution to the problems shared by working class youth, in
that they provide a contemporary youth cultural space, but have little chance of altering
class society.
Another aspect of the theoretical creativity of the CCCS was, as mentioned, the addition
of a semiological dimension to subcultural theory, most often articulated as a way to
understand resistance and dissent. The semiological perspective was particularly prevalent
in the work of Hebdige (1979). In continuation of the semiological perspective, the CCCS
devoted analytical attention to the analysis of style. This included a focus on the ways in
which subcultures appropriated already existing symbols and gave them new meaning
through processes conceptualized as bricolage, a term borrowed from the classic French
structuralist anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss. The CCCS then argued that class based
resistance was often expressed on the stylistic level.
Taken as a whole, the CCCS continued to understand subcultures as a meeting point
between the cultural and the structural. It might be argued that the very definitional
core of the CCCS understanding is that subcultures were theorized as an answer to a
shared situation, an idea already present in the first wave of subcultural theory, but
instead of relying on functionalism this was rethought in terms of agency and youth cul-
tural creativity. To the idea of subcultures as collective and creative answers the CCCS fur-
thermore added the elements of structural class conflict, proto-political resistance and
semiotic analysis of style.
The work of the CCCS has been criticized from numerous positions: Feminist scholars
who were themselves a part of the CCCS argued that the theoretical work was male
biased (McRobbie and Garber 1975; McRobbie 1980, 1990), and that it did not pay
enough critical attention to misogyny and masculinism in subcultures (Frosh, Phoenix,
and Pattman 2002, 53). The CCCS theorists were also criticized for inadequate theoretiza-
tion of race and ethnicity, and for legitimizing racism among white working class youth
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 5

(Gilroy 1993; Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman 2002). Consequently, Bjurström has criticized
the CCCS for neglecting how the forms of resistance of working class subcultures are inter-
twined in ‘complex chains’ of resistance and dominance which can only be comprehended
through a sensitive analysis of the relation between class, gender, ethnicity and ‘race’
(1997, 108). This critique is noteworthy because, as noted above, earlier theoretical
accounts of subcultures did entail at least a provisional grasp of ethnicity (the Chicago
School), gender (Miller), age (Bloch & Niederhoffer), and locality (the Chicago School,
Cloward & Ohlin). Although the CCCS theory was never a reductionist or simple
Marxism it may be valid to argue that other analytical categories were made secondary
to class, due to the reliance on Marxist theory. A number of authors involved in what
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

gradually emerged as Post-Subcultural Studies have thus argued that the CCCS overesti-
mated the explanatory importance of class and romanticized participants in youth subcul-
tures as working class rebels (Cohen [1972] 2002; Muggleton 2000; Muggleton and
Weinzierl 2003; Bennett and Kahn-Harris 2004a).
Post-Subcultural Studies (itself a broad and diverse strand of theory) offered a number
of theoretical alternatives to the CCCS framework, which was said to be over preoccupied
with structuralist concerns and to have never considered that young people might play
with subcultural roles for fun (Bennett and Kahn-Harris 2004b). The collected volume
After Subculture discussed whether the concept of subculture was useful at all in a
social world characterized by increasing cultural fragmentation and ‘increasing fluidity
of youth cultural memberships’ (Bennett and Kahn-Harris 2004b, 12). Young people
today were said to live their lives under social conditions of postmodern or late modern
fluidity and choice, and to draw on ‘the increasingly complex mix of global and local cul-
tural influences’ when constructing identities (Bennett 2011, 502). As the concept of sub-
culture was considered problematic, Post-Subcultral Studies offered a number of
conceptual alternatives which were said to better reflect the reality of contemporary
youth cultural terrains. These conceptual alternatives, such as scene, lifestyle and neo-
tribe, accentuated agency, choice, reflexivity and individuality (Bennett and Kahn-Harris
2004a). In his earlier work, Bennett had thus suggested that subcultural theory was
rethought in conjunction with Maffesoli’s (1996) concept of neo-tribalism (Bennett 1999,
2000). This implies that subcultures are conceived as loosely defined collectivities, neo-
tribes in which individuals can choose to participate for a period of time in order to
display individuality. Muggleton made a somewhat similar point when he interpreted par-
ticipation in subcultures as self-chosen manifestations of individual autonomy in a post-
modern world, rather than collective or resistant answers to class-based shared problems
(2000). The theoretical framework offered by Post-Subcultural Studies triggered debate.
Shildrick & MacDonald for instance, in a critique central to the argument forwarded in
this paper, pointed out that Post-Subcultural Studies scholars had focused their attention
towards taste cultures of privileged youth, and therefore had no empirical basis for asses-
sing whether structural inequality plays a role for contemporary youth subcultures in
general (2006; see also Blackman 2014).

3. Towards a neo-Birminghamian conception of subculture

As noted above the critique directed at the CCCS by Post-Subcultural Studies and the turn
towards post-modernity, individuality and fluidity as the overall theoretical frame did not
 6 S. Q. JENSEN

go unnoticed. On the contrary, a critique of Post-Subcultural Studies soon emerged. This

paper may indeed be read as part of this critique as it attempts to put social structure back
into subcultural theory. I believe such a ‘restructuring’ of subcultural theory is necessary in
order to maintain the theoretical richness and analytical depth of subcultural theory.
However, this presumes an assessment of the debates summarized above:
One central discussion relates to the politics of subculture and the notion of resistance.
These are indeed problematic and slippery ideas, and it is debatable exactly what should
qualify as resistance (Raby 2005; Williams 2009; Johansson and Lalander 2012). However,
as Raby has argued, young people often tend to react primarily from partly conscious and
unarticulated feelings of injustice (2005). Excluding such reactions as not qualifying as
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

resistance may result in producing too thin an analytical grasp of the politics of youth sub-
cultures. Furthermore, some contemporary youth subcultures are explicitly political
(Williams 2009). One solution may be to develop a more finely calibrated terminology
focusing on different dimensions of resistance (Williams 2009 suggests passive–active;
micro–macro and overt–covert) and/or using concepts which can grasp antagonistic prac-
tices without terming them resistance, such as disidentification (Skeggs 1997), oppositional
agency (McLaren 1994), refusal (Jensen 2011), defiance (Ilan 2015) and friction (Rubin 2015).
To add further complexity to the debate, an adequate analysis of the politics of subculture
must be able to grasp that specific subcultures may express resistance towards some
social hierarchies, and at the same time reproduce or strengthen other existing hierarchies.
As I will return to below, the masculinism of some male black counter cultures may illus-
trate this point.
A related debate addresses the tendency in Post-Subcultural Studies to decouple struc-
tural conditions from the understanding of subculture. Carrington & Wilson raised skepti-
cism towards the de-politization of subcultures and criticized the postmodern
understanding inherent in Post-Subcultural Studies for decoupling power and structural
inequality from the analysis (2004). Other authors such as Blackman (2005) and Hesmond-
halgh (2005) have argued against the voluntaristic individualism, which they considered
central to Bennett’s application of neo-tribalism to subcultural theory (see also Hodkinson
2016 for a discussion of collectivity). Blackman thus suggested that Bennett’s thinking
came dangerously close to neoliberalism (2005), and later assessed that ‘post-subcultural
theory is unable to provide depth and relevance at a structural and cultural level of analy-
sis’ (2014, 508; see also Blackmann and Kempson 2016). Generally, this strand of critique
has argued for the continued relevance of social structures for the study of subcultures,
since young people and their cultures are to some extent conditioned by social hierarchies
and inequalities. Some authors have argued strongly for the continued relevance of class
(Shildrick and Macdonald 2006; Hollingworth 2015). One argument is that not all young
people have access to the consumerism which is central to some subcultures. Another
argument has been that youth cultures develop in local settings which are classed due
to class segregation of cities; hence, one of the strongest ways in which contemporary
class work may be through locality (Shildrick 2006; Shildrick and Macdonald 2006; Shil-
drick, Blackman, and MacDonald 2009).
Discussions of contemporary class formations are complex. Many sociologists engaged
in the subject point out that transformations in current capitalism towards neoliberaliza-
tion and postindustraliazation have led to the development of highly differentiated and
complex class structures (Lazzarato 2009; Wacquant 2012). This has complicated and
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 7

reduced what Marx termed Klasse für sich – the consciousness of belonging to a class with
specific interests. Therefore, a clear class consciousness is rarely available for young people
to draw upon. This does not mean, however, that the relevance of objective socioeco-
nomic inequality, what Marx referred to as klasse an sich, has been reduced, nor that socio-
economic inequality does not play a role for participation in or formation of subcultures. It
also does not mean that subjective or cultural dimensions of class are irrelevant to the
study of subcultures. Hence, class may still be central to the analysis of subcultures,
although class works and should be theorized differently now, compared to Britain in
the 1970s.
Class is thus important, and it is discussed in detail in this paper, because the relevance
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

of class has been so hotly debated. It should however be emphasized that this detailed
treatment should not be taken to imply that class is the only, primary or most central
social structure for understanding youth subcultures. As mentioned above, several
authors have pointed to the relevance of an adequate grasp of ethnicity, race The feminist
critique points to the relevance of gender. One way to meet this critique may be to
conduct empirical research on young women’s subcultures (see for instance chapters
on young women in Skelton and Valentine 1998); another to include ‘a properly gendered
look at men and masculinities’ (Hall and Jefferson 2006, XVI). The fundamental point is,
however, that neither class, gender nor ethnicity can be understood in insolation. On
the contrary these forms of social differentiation shape and constitute each other. In
other words, an adequate theoretical conception of subculture should be able to grasp
the complexity of social differentiation – i.e. be able to grasp the importance of different
social structures and the intersections and interactions between them (Hollingworth
2015). At the same time, it must be able to grasp the creativity involved in subcultures.
This implies analytical weight on both the complexity of social structure and on the collec-
tive, creative agency of subcultural participants.
The requirements for a conception of subculture that takes valid critique of the CCCS
into account while maintaining the theoretical richness and analytical depth of the
concept of subculture can then be summarized as: a rethinking of the collective agency
of subcultures; a reconceptualization of class; an adequate theoretization of the complex-
ity of social structures and an analytical openness towards the complexity of the politics of
subculture.
I believe that at least in part, these requirements can be met by entering a theoretical
dialogue with Bourdieusian theoretical perspectives and feminist accounts of intersection-
ality. In the following, I outline the potential analytical gains of such a dialogue.

4. Theoretical dialogues with Bourdieu and intersectionality

The section above outlined the requirements for a renewed and rethought conception of
subculture. This section explores how a dialogue with Bourdieu and intersectionality may
stimulate the further development and sophistication of subcultural theory.
Following Prieur (2017) we can read Bourdieu’s concepts as interlinked tools for under-
standing specific societal issues or problems, allowing for pragmatic combination with
other theoretical traditions (including subcultural theory). Most importantly, Bourdieu
offers a hierarchical and power-sensitive vision of the social world, yet flexible enough
to grasp complexity, creativity, and the relative autonomy of subcultures.
 8 S. Q. JENSEN

As mentioned above, one requirement of a rethought conception of subculture is that it

should be able to handle the continued relevance of class to youth subcultural formation,
and at the same time include an understanding of class which is flexible enough to grasp
contemporary class structure. Here Bourdieu offers ways of theorizing class that can serve
as tools for understanding changing class structures. Bourdieu thus understands class
through the metaphor of society as a social space (1984). The social space is multidimen-
sional as it is stretched out by compositions and volumes of different forms of capital.
More importantly, this objective social space – the space of positions – is homologous or
paralleled by a space of positionings. The latter describes the subjective or cultural
elements of class: Taste, distaste, (life)style preferences, ideas of morality, political opinions
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

etc. In other words, according to Bourdieu, a strong link exists between objective class pos-
ition and cultural preferences. Furthermore, he argues that mechanisms of distinction are
central to understanding class – this includes both the articulation of good taste and the
distancing from manifestations of vulgar or popular taste. Importantly, such distinctions do
not only reflect preexisting class structure. On the contrary, they actively produce and
reproduce class (Bourdieu 1984). In other words, Bourdieu offers a multidimensional
and cultural understanding of class. Stretching the argument a bit, we might even say
that ‘class works through culture’ (Hollingworth 2015, 1239, emphasis in original). This
idea has given rise to a wide range of theoretical and empirical works on the cultural
aspects of class, often referred to as cultural class analysis (for instance Devine et al.
2004). Class also shapes and conditions social agents, in that class (both in a materiel
and a cultural sense) is embodied as habitus; Bourdieu’s concept for the embodiment of
social dispositions including both practical competences and cognitive dispositions
such as (life)style preferences, taste and distaste (1977, 1984). This theoretical point is
central to understanding how class as culture plays a role for subcultural formation:
When young people enter subcultures, they do so with their habitus already conditioned
by class position. Class dispositions, or classed habitusses, do not therefore determine sub-
cultural affiliation, but they are likely to play a role for the (socially structured) ‘choice’ of
subculture, for the differentiation between subcultures, and for hierarchies and differences
within subcultures (Hollingshead 2015; Tolonen 2013).
Another and interrelated concept is field. In most of his works, Bourdieu envisions
society as made up of a number of fields, positioned in relation to each other in the
overall social space. A field can be defined as a semi-autonomous social space – a social
space within social space – that works according to its own logic, structures the practice
of participants in the field, and has its own criteria of recognition and prestige. In fields,
social agents struggle for recognition, i.e. they struggle to obtain field specific capital as
well as over the definition of what should be considered capital in the field. This implies
that strictly speaking, capital cannot exist without the existence of a field, but also that
fields are spaces of struggle, hierarchy and dominance (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992).
Drawing on the work of Jensen (2006), Shammas and Sandberg (2016) and Prieur
(2017), it is possible to rethink subcultures as fields. Such a theoretical move makes it poss-
ible to think about subcultures as social formations that have their own forms of capital, i.e.
subcultural capital. The concept of subcultural capital was suggested by Thornton (1995)
in her work on English club-cultures revolving around electronic musical styles such as
house and techno. Here Thornton analyzed how participants of the clubcultures produced
value through positioning themselves as authentic as opposed to the unsophisticated
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 9

main stream youth. Thornton’s work has been thoroughly criticized for being flawed by a
reluctance to take hierarchy, social structure and class seriously, despite a point of depar-
ture in Bourdieu’s sociology. For instance Thornton took the denial of class within subcul-
ture, which is part of the clubcultural ideology, to mean that class position has no actual
relevance to the analysis of the clubculture, even though there is evidence that clubcultr-
ual distinction is constructed through mocking working class femininity in the data she
presented (Skeggs 2004; Jensen 2005; Griffin 2011). Shammas and Sandberg (2016)
suggest that the reason for this inconsistency was that Thornton’s analysis was not prop-
erly anchored in field theory (2016). However if we rethink subcultural capital in a way that
takes proper account of field theory it becomes possible to grasp that subcultures both
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

have relative autonomy (they are spaces of collective creative agency and define their
own capital, which sometimes has little or even negative value outside the field) and
are positioned in an overall social space (in which they often take up dominated positions).
In other words, field theory allows us to understand subcultures as part of a hierarchical
society, without losing the idea of relative autonomy. Furthermore, the position of the
field/subculture as well as the social position of the agents that participate in the field/sub-
culture are likely to have an impact on what becomes recognized as subcultural capital,
since agents enter and form subcultures with different resources. We can thus speak of
the position of the field as well as positions in the field.
A further advantage of theorizing subcultures as fields is that this renders subcultural
practice intelligible. Subcultural practices may often seem problematic or negative and dif-
ficult to understand. However, if we think of participants of subcultures as agents that are
invested in, a field – and struggle for recognition in that field – it becomes understandable
why participants in subcultures ‘make choices that are difficult to understand outside the
field, but seem perfectly rational, logical and natural for the peers within’ (2017, 11).
Forming and participating in subcultures may thus be thought of as collective and creative
agency aiming at obtaining social recognition in the face of social dominance. In other
words rethinking subcultures as fields offers a new way of thinking about participation
in, as well as formation of, subcultures as collective, creative and open-ended answers
to a shared social situation.
The potentials of thinking subcultures as fields may be illustrated by the ethnographic
works by Jensen (2006) and Sandberg and Pedersen (2006; Sandberg 2007), who analyzed
criteria of recognition among groups of marginalized and criminalized young ethnic min-
ority men. Both Jensen and Sandberg & Petersen argued that street cultures could be con-
sidered fields with their own form of capital. Jensen (2006) showed that, as an answer to a
shared situation of low social status, the young men constructed a distinct subcultural style
related to the physical appearance of the body. He termed this style ‘expressive masculi-
nity’. In this subculture, status and social recognition were gained from displaying, in
appropriate situations, a specific, strength-related and concrete form of physical behav-
iour. While Jensen focused on expressive masculinity and bodily capital, Sandberg & Peter-
sen focused on street culture participants’ ability to construct an image as dangerous
through, mostly, discursive means. (Sandberg and Pedersen 2006). Across the two ethno-
graphies, it can be argued that the young men’s lack of status was a shared problem, and
that the construction of – and participation in – a field/subculture with alternative but col-
lectively shared criteria of status constituted a practically rational and creative answer to
this situation. These examples also alerts us to the fact that hierarchical struggles and
 10 S. Q. JENSEN

subcultural status achieved through the production of subcultural capital may be of para-
mount importance for those who have little capital in general and therefore little to offer in
society’s conventional fields. For that reason subcultural status is perhaps oftentimes more
important for those at the margins, than for more privileged youth groups.

4.1. Intersectionality
Feminist accounts of intersectionality make up a quite diverse theoretical tradition, unified
in an analytical interest in social complexity and issues of power and dominance. The
notion ‘intersectionality’ was coined by US black feminists who attempted to conceptual-
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

ize the specific situation of black working class women (Crenshaw 1989, 1991; Collins 1993,
1998). Hence, from the very beginning, the concept stressed the interplay between social
categories such as gender, class, race/ethnicity and sexuality. Subsequent debates have
added further social categories, the two most important for this paper being age and
locality (Valentine 2007; Pini and Leach 2011).
The original US accounts of intersectionality emphasized social structures woven
together into what Collins (1989) referred to as a matrix of domination. Some later devel-
opments have tended to focus more on an identity or micro level. This led Prins to suggest
a distinction between a systemic approach to intersectionality that stresses the structural
level, and a constructionist approach that stresses the construction of complex identities in
lived life (2006). While such a separation is problematic (Pringle 2008), it is possible think of
Prins’ account as a description of different levels in intersectional analysis. Intersectional
theorists have thus argued that intersectional analysis should be multilevel and strive to
grasp the interplay between different levels of the social (Hancock 2007a, 2007b; Choo
and Ferree 2010).
Despite differences and variations, the common theoretical assertion of feminist
accounts of intersectionality is then that different social categories mutually constitute
each other as overall social structures as well as in creating complex identities. Gender,
class, and ethnicity and ‘race’ are not parallel; they constitute and construct each other
and therefore cannot be analyzed separately. Furthermore, this mutual constitution
takes place as an interplay both between different categories and between different
levels of the social – and this may often take paradoxical or contradictory forms.
Translating this assertion into subcultural theory allows us to think of the complexity of
the shared social situation of subcultural participants as well as the complexity of their col-
lective answers to their situation. In other words, we can distinguish between a structural
level and a level that pertains to agency and processes of stylization, the constructions of
subcultural capitals, and the construction of identities. Returning to the ethnographies of
Jensen and Sandberg & Petersen summarized above, we might say that the shared struc-
tural situation of these young men was related not only to their class situation, but also to
their ethnicity and gender. Being not only ethnic minorities, but also representing the
‘wrong’ kind of masculinity – black and working class – relegated them to the margins.
Their marginality was more than the sum of the effects of class, gender and ethnicity,
respectively. More importantly, however, the answer – the subcultural capital and the
identities the young men were able to construct – was also related to this intersction.
The public stereotype of the dangerous, young, black, working class man can thus be
thought of as a resource – an element in the ‘pool of styles, meanings and possibilities’
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 11

(Willis 1978, 59) at hand for producing styles and capitals – allowing the young men to
grasp, appropriate and capitalize on this image (Jensen 2011). Both their shared situation
and their answer to it were therefore intersectional. Stretching the argument, we might say
that ‘subcultural capital is always already classed, raced and gendered’ (Hollingworth 2015,
1244). Drawing on feminist theory Jensen (2010) furthermore asserted that the masculine
subcultural capital was constructed by the young men at the symbolic and sometimes real
expense of women (both young women and female welfare state professionals were sex-
ualized), sexual minorities (such as homosexual men) and ethnic Danish young men (who
were feminized in the process).
Some early subcultural studies, in particular Willis (1978), did admittedly contain a soph-
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

isticated analysis of such interplays. Willis argued that ‘the lads’ gained status from – and
were able to consider themselves at the top of the informal school hierarchy because of –
the construction of a tough and sexist masculinity in a situation where they were other-
wise disadvantaged due to their class position (Willis 1978, 148). Thus, Willis’ analysis
may be considered an example of an intersectional analysis without the concept.
However, the moment we think about subcultures in an intersectional perspective it
becomes a requirement (as opposed to an option) to consider the complex interplay
between social categories within and around subcultures. This includes asking about
the possible relevance of categories that do not present themselves as obviously relevant;
what Davis refers to as ‘asking the other question’ (2008, 70).
A further advantage of feminist accounts of intersectionality is that they can help us
grasp the complex and contradictory politics of subculture. A multidimensional, intersec-
tional analysis thus allows an analysis of how subcultures that articulate resistance or
opposition against some forms of structural domination – typically classed and raced –
can, at the same time, reproduce or strengthen gendered or sexual hierarchies, through
masculinism, sexism or homophobia. Sometimes, the picture is even more contradictory:
In a discussion of the gendered aspects of his ethnography, Jensen pointed out that not
only did the young men produce a masuclinist style at the expense of women (and some
men) – they also performatively reproduced the stereotype of the dangerous black man;
racism was thus simultaneously resisted and reproduced (Jensen 2010).
How then, does drawing on Bourdieu and intersectionality add to the development of a
neo-birminghamian conception of subculture? Bourdieu may help us reconceptualise
class, and provide tools for grasping the collective creative agency involved in construct-
ing subcultures (as fields) with their own (subcultural) capital, positioned in an overall
social space; the intersectional perspective helps us grasp the complexities involved in
both collectively shared problems and their answers, and provides analytical openness
towards the politics involved in youth subcultural resistance. Taken together these pos-
itions thus add theoretical sophistication to the idea of subcultures as collective and crea-
tive answers to a shared situation, contextualized structurally and with political
dimensions.
The proposed dialogue with Bourdieu and intersectionality furthermore raises the ques-
tion of the internal compatibility between these two theoretical traditions – and with sub-
cultural theory. As should be clear from the above, I consider both traditions not only
compatible with subcultural theory, but as containing the potential to move subcultural
theory forward. I believe they are also mutually compatible: As a starting point they
share a deep analytical interest in power. Although primarily known as a theorist of
 12 S. Q. JENSEN

class, Bourdieu clearly acknowledged the sociological relevance and hierarchical nature of
gender (2001) and ethnicity (1999). In fact, he considered such dimensions to be insepar-
able, arguing that, ‘Sexual properties are as inseparable from class properties as the yellow-
ness of a lemon is from its acidity’ (2001, 106). In some of his less well known works
Bourdieu thus analyzed how conceptions of masculinity vary according to class. According
to Bourdieu working class men and upper class men tend to consider different traits and
characteristics masculine, and construct their masculinity differently. Working class men
for instance often base masculinity on the characteristics and capacities of the body.
The meaning of gender thus depends on class, rendering a simultaneous analysis of
gender and class indispensable (Prieur 1998). Also in a broader sense intersectionality
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

may be compatible with Bourdieu’s sociology, in particular his view on the body and
his idea of the habitus as socially conditioned embodiment. Habitusses are thus both
classed, gendered, ethnicitized and racialized. Thinking of the habitus as multidimensional
and complex (that is, as simultaneously conditioned by different social structures) but also
as the basis for practical agency seems fully compatible with intersectionality (Elg and
Jensen 2010).

5. Some research perspectives

But what are the further perspectives of the neo-Birminghamian conception of subculture
proposed here? I suggest that such a conception of subculture is useful for analyzing not
only what we conventionally think of as subcultural groups, but also a number of pressing
contemporary social issues, in what Blackman has described as an early twenty-first
century characterized by ‘increased levels of social disturbance by young people and
young adults’ (2014, 507). Here I will discuss two:
The first is the vexed issue of gangs/street cultures. Gangs/street cultures constituted by
young working class men, a disproportionate percentage of whom have ethnic minority
backgrounds, have become a stable part of the picture of many Western cities. Given
that the first phase of subcultural theory was conceived to understand precisely such
groups, it is ironic to observe that mainstream gang research seems to have forgotten sub-
cultural theory; or at best, uses the term ‘subculture’ with some frequency, albeit without
much theoretical depth or insight into recent discussions about subcultural theory.3 Using
a neo-Birminghamian conception of subculture could potentially strengthen such
research by allowing researchers to analyze (so-called) gangs as street (sub)cultures and
therefore as an answer to a shared situation. A subcultural perspective may serve as a fruit-
ful alternative to theories that reduces street culture to utilitarian, organized crime or
focuses entirely on individual psychological pathology. This would open up the complexity
of class, gender, ethnicity, ‘race’, and geography which, on the one hand, shapes a com-
monly shared structural problem, while, on the other hand, offers a style that can be
appropriated and turned into subcultural capital through the collective agency of street
culture participants. This might provide researchers with a deeper understanding of the
social mechanisms behind the formation of gangs/street cultures as well as a grasp of
the complex politics of street culture.
The second issue is Jihadism. Recent years have seen the emergence of jihadist groups
of considerable size in many Western cities, mostly consisting of young males with ethnic
minority background. Admittedly, a limited number of attempts to analyze such groups as
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 13

subcultures do exist (for instance Cottee 2011; Hemmingsen 2015; Pisoiu 2015). The
insights produced by these attempts should not be disregarded; however, they rarely
rely on a very sophisticated or updated conception of subculture. In brief, research on
Jihadism could be enriched by utilizing a neo-Birminghamian conception of subculture
because this would enable researchers to analyze the development of jihadist youth
culture, and its increasing convergence with general street culture, as a collective and
oppositional answer to a shared situation of experienced othering. It may furthermore
provide a grasp of the social gains related to joining such groups and at the same time
enable an analysis of the role of class, gender, ethnicity and ‘race’ in group formation.
In other words a subcultural, preferable neo-birminghamian, perspective may be a
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

viable alternative to a problematic discourse of ‘radicalization’ that either focuses on indi-

vidual psychological pathologies or overstates the role of religious beliefs (Kundnani
2012).
As these two examples illustrate the neo-birminghamian conception of subcultures
suggested here is likely to aid the production of sophisticated knowledge of some quite
pressing contemporary social issues.

6. Conclusion
Above, I have offered a brief history of subcultural theory, discussed a number of central
debates, and argued that it is possible to reconstruct a concept of subculture that takes
valid critiques of the CCCS into account while maintaining the theoretical richness and
analytical qualities of a CCCS inspired concept of subculture, i.e. a neo-Birminghamian con-
ception of subculture. The core of this understanding is that insights can be gained from
analyzing subcultures as creative and open-ended collective ‘answers’ to shared situations;
answers that make up a form of agency and have their own rationality. This conception
maintains a theoretical openness towards the complex politics of subculture. It also
insists that the analysis of subcultures should be contextualized in social structures. Fur-
thermore, this understanding breaks with the class reductionism inherent in the CCCS
theory in favour of both new understandings of class and of analyses of the interplay of
categories such as class, gender, ethnicity, ‘race’, age and locality. Admittedly this theoreti-
cal framework is perhaps most relevant for studying subcultures that are somehow posi-
tioned at the social margins – but then again empirically subcultures most often emerge at
the margins. Not all youth cultures are in this sense subcultures, although this does not
exempt studies of more privileged youth from engagement with delicate issues of
classed, gendered or ethnic privilege.
Entering a theoretical dialogue with Bourdieu’s sociology as well as with feminist
accounts of intersectionality may be fruitful for the purposes outlined: Bourdieu offers con-
ceptual tools such as social space, field, habitus and capital as well as an alternative way to
think about subcultural answers as collective agency. He also offers a theoretization of
class which is flexible enough to grasp contemporary class structure. Feminist accounts
of intersectionality offer tools for thinking about the complex interplay of social categories,
both on the structural level and on the level of subcultural answers. They also offer ways of
thinking about the complex politics of subculture.
Taken together the theoretical framework outlined above has, I believe, the potential to
move studies of youth subcultures in a fruitful direction not only with regards to the most
 14 S. Q. JENSEN

difficult fields (such as jihadism and street culture) but also with regards to less spectacular
youth subcultures. It is sufficiently flexible and open-ended to actually engage empirically
and analytically with the complex empirical realities of young people and their subcul-
tures, yet power sensitive enough to provide critical edge and relevance to the research
field.

Notes
1. I hesitate since Birmingham is a place, not a theoretical tradition as such. It is however not
uncommon to name traditions in social theory after places (Chicago School, Frankfurt
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

School etc.). The term is intended to signal that I attempt to renew, rethink and reconstruct
the contribution of the Birmingham School/CCCS rather than discard its way of thinking
about subcultures.
2. Without disregarding theoretical and terminological debates within the CCCS Learning to
labour may be read as an analysis of a working class anti-school subculture, preoccupied
with resisting school authority and employing subtle elements of style in this resistance
(although this took the form of for instance ‘improper’ wearing of school uniforms rather
than the development of more spectacular youth cultural styles).
3. As an example The Eurogang Network, an international network connecting gang researchers
across the Atlantic, have published a number of collected volumes (for instance Decker and
Weerman 2006; Esbensen and Maxson 2012, 2016). None of the work included in these go
into contemporary discussions about subcultural theory; perhaps because the researchers
are positioned within administrative criminology and therefore more interested in preventing
than understanding the phenomenon they engage with.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Bennett, A. 1999. “Subcultures or Neo-Tribes? Rethinking the Relationship between Youth, Style and
Musical Taste.” Sociology 33 (3): 599–617.
Bennett, A. 2000. Popular Music and Youth Culture: Music, Identity and Place. London: Macmillian.
Bennett, A. 2011. “The Post-Subcultural Turn: Some Reflections 10 Years On.” Journal of Youth Studies
14 (5): 493–506.
Bennett, A., and K. Kahn-Harris, eds. 2004a. After Subculture – Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth
Culture. New York: Palgrave.
Bennett, A., and K. Kahn-Harris. 2004b. “Introduction.” In After Subculture – Critical Studies in
Contemporary Youth Culture, edited by A. Bennett and K. Kahn-Harris, 1–18. New York: Palgrave.
Bjurström, E. 1997. Högt & lågt: Smak och stil i ungdomskulturen. Umeå: Boréa.
Blackman, S. 2005. “Youth Subcultural Theory: A Critical Engagement with the Concept, its Origins
and Politics, from the Chicago School to Postmodernism.” Journal of Youth Studies 8 (1): 1–20.
Blackman, S. 2014. “Subculture Theory: An Historical and Contemporary Assessment of the Concept
for Understanding Deviance.” Deviant Behavior 35: 496–512.
Blackmann, S., and M. Kempson. 2016. The Subcultural Imagination: Theory, Research and Reflexitivity
in Contemporary Youth Cultures. London: Routledge.
Bloch, H., and A. Niederhoffer. 1958. The Gang: A Study in Adolescent Behavior. New York:
Philosophical Library.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 15

Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 2001. Masculine Domination. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., A Sayad, R Christin, P Champagne, G Balazs, L. J. D Wacquant, P Bourgois, et al. 1999. The
Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., and L. J. D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Brake, M. 1985. Comparative Youth Culture. London: Routledge.
Carrington, B., and B. Wilson. 2004. “Dance Nations: Rethinking Youth Subcultural Theory.” In After
Subculture – Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture, edited by A. Bennett and K. Kahn-
Harris, 65–78. New York: Palgrave.
Choo, H. Y., and M. M. Ferree. 2010. “Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequalities.” Sociological

Theory 28 (2): 129–149.
Cloward, R. A., and L. E. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity – A Theory of Delinquent Gangs.
New York: The Free Press.
Cohen, A. K. 1955. Delinquent Boys – The Culture of the Gang. New York: The Free Press.
Cohen, P. 1972. “Subcultural Conflict and Working Class Community.” Working Papers in Cultural
Studies, Vol. 2.
Cohen, S. (1972) 2002. Folk Devils and Moral Panics. 3rd ed., xlvii–lxxiv. London: Routledge.
Collins, P. H. 1989. “The Social Construction of Black Feminist Thought.” Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture and Society 14 (4): 745–773.
Collins, P. H. 1993. “Toward a New Vision: Race, Class and Gender as Categories of Analysis and
Connection.” Race, Sex and Class 1 (1): 25–46.
Collins, P. H. 1998. “It’s all in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race and Nation.” Hypatia 13 (3): 62–
82.
Cottee, S. 2011. “Jihadism as a Subcultural Response to Social Strain: Extending Marc Sageman’s
“Bunch of Guys” Thesis.” Terrorism and Political Violence 23 (5): 730–751.
Crenshaw, K. W. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of
Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” The University of Chicago
Legal Forum 43 (6): 139–167.
Crenshaw, K. W. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against
Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43: 1241–1299.
Davis, K. 2008. “Intersectionality as Buzzord: A Sociology of Science Perspective on What Makes a
Feminist Theory Successful.” Feminist Theory 9 (1): 67–85.
Decker, S., and F. Weerman, eds. 2006. European Street Gangs and Troublesome Youth Groups.
Lanham: Alta Mira Press.
Devine, F., M. Savage, J. Scott, and R. Crompton. 2004. Rethinking Class: Cultures, Identities and
Lifestyles. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Elg, C., and S. Q. Jensen. 2010. “Intersectionality as Embodiment.” Kvinder, Køn og Forskning 3-4: 30–
39.
Esbensen, F., and C. L. Maxson, eds. 2012. Youth Gangs in International Perspective: Results from the
Eurogang Program of Research. New York: Springer.
Esbensen, F., and C. L. Maxson, eds. 2016. Gang Transitions and Transformations in an International
Context. New York: Springer.
Frosh, S., A. Phoenix, and R. Pattman. 2002. Young Masculinities. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Gilroy, P. 1993. “Between Afro-Centrism and Euro-Centrism: Youth Culture and the Problem of
Hybridity.” Young 1 (2): 2–12.
Griffin, C. E. 2011. “The Trouble with Class: Researching Youth, Class and Culture Beyond the
‘Birmingham School’.” Journal of Youth Studies 14 (3): 245–259.
Hall, S. 1980. “Cultural Studies and the Centre: Some Problematics and Problems.” In Culture, Media
and Language, edited by S. Hall, P. Hobson, A. Lowe, and P. Willis, 15–48. London: Hutchinson.
Hall, S., and T. Jefferson, eds. (1975) 1991. Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-War
Britain. London: Routledge.
 16 S. Q. JENSEN

Hall, S., and T. Jefferson. 2006. “Once More Around Reistance Through Rituals.” In Resistance Through
Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-War Britain, edited by S. Hall and T. Jefferson, 2nd ed., vii–xxxii.
London: Routledge.
Hancock, A. 2007a. “Intersectionality as a Normative and Empirical Paradigm.” Politics & Gender 3 (2):
248–254.
Hancock, A. 2007b. “When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition: Examining Intersectionality
as a Research Paradigm.” Perspectives on Politics 5 (1): 68–79.
Hebdige, D. 1979. Subculture. The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen.
Hemmingsen, A. 2015. “Viewing Jihadism as a Counterculture: Potential and Limitations.” Behavioral
Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression 7 (1): 3–17.
Hesmondhalgh, D. 2005. “Subculutres, Scenes or Tribes? None of the Above.” Journal of Youth Studies
8 (1): 21–40.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

Hodkinson, P. 2016. “Youth Cultures and the Rest of Life: Subcultures, Post-Subcultures and Beyond.”
Journal of Youth Studies 19 (5): 629–645.
Hollingworth, S. 2015. “Performances of Social Class, Race and Gender Through Youth Subculture:
Putting Structure Back in to Youth Subcultural Studies.” Journal of Youth Studies 18 (10): 1237–
1256.
Ilan, J. 2015. Understanding Street Culture: Poverty, Crime, Youth and Cool. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Jensen, S. Q. 2006. “Rethinking Subcultural Capital.” Young, Nordic Journal of Youth Research 3 (14):
257–276.
Jensen, S. Q. 2010. “Masculinity at the Margins – Othering, Marginality and Resistance among Young
Marginalized Ethnic Minority Men.” NORMA 5 (1): 7–26.
Jensen, S. Q. 2011. “Othering, Identity Formation and Agency.” Qualitative Studies 2 (2): 63–78.
Johansson, T., and P. Lalander. 2012. “Doing Resistance – Youth and Changing Theories of
Resistance.” Journal of Youth Studies 15 (8): 1078–1088.
Kundnani, A. 2012. “Radicalisation: The Journey of a Concept.” Race & Class 54 (2): 3–25.
Lazzarato, M. 2009. “Neoliberalism in Action: Inequality, Insecurity and the Reconstitution of the
Social.” Theory, Culture and Society 26 (6): 109–133.
Maffesoli, M. 1996. The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society. London: Sage.
McLaren, P. 1994. “White Terror and Oppositional Agency.” In Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader,
edited by D. T. Goldberg, 45–74. Oxford: Blackwell.
McRobbie, A. 1980. “Settling Accounts with Subcultures: A Feminist Critique.” Screen Education 34:
37–49.
McRobbie, A. 1990. Feminsim and Youth Culture. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
McRobbie, A., and J. Garber. 1975. “Girls and Subcultures.” In Resistance Through Rituals: Youth
Subcultures in Post-War Britain, edited by S. Hall, and T. Jefferson, 209–222. London: Routledge.
Merton, R. K. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3 (5): 672–682.
Miller, W. B. 1958. “Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency.” Journal of Social
Issues 14 (3): 5–19.
Miller, W. B. 1959. “Implications of Urban Lower-Class Culture for Social Work.” Social Service Review 33
(3): 219–236.
Muggleton, D. 2000. Inside Subculture – The Postmodern Meaning of Style. Oxford: Berg.
Muggleton, D. 2005. “From Classlessness to Clubculture – A Genealogy of Post-War British Youth
Cultural Analysis.” Young, Nordic Journal of Youth Research 13 (2): 205–319.
Muggleton, D., and R. Weinzierl. 2003. “What is ‘Post-Subcultural Studies’ Anyway?” In The Post-
Subcultures Reader, edited by D. Muggleton, and R. Weinzierl, 3–23. Oxford: Berg.
Mungham, G., and G. Pearson, eds. 1978. Working-Class Youth Culture. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Pini, B., and B. Leach. 2011. “Transformations of Class and Gender in the Globalized Countryside.” In
Reshaping Gender & Class in Rural Spaces, edited by B. Pini and B. Leach, 1–23. Farnham: Ashgate.
Pisoiu, D. 2015. “Subcultural Theory Applied to Jihadi and Right-Wing Radicalization in Germany.”
Terrorism and Political Violence 27 (1): 9–28.
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 17

Prieur, A. 1998. “Forholdet mellem kjønn og klasse med utgangspunkt i Borudieus sosiologi.”
Sosiologisk tidsskrift 6 (1-2): 131–147.
Prieur, A. 2017. “Connecting Structure and Emotions, Connecting Bourdieu’s Field Theory and
Emotional Perspectives from Cultural Criminology.” European Journal of Criminology. Advance
online publication.
Pringle, K. 2008. “Intersektionalitet og det sociale arbejdes praksis.” In At forstå det sociale – sociologi
og socialt arbejde, edited by M. H. Jacobsen and K. Pringle, 108–124. København: Akademisk
Forlag.
Prins, B. 2006. “Narrative Accounts of Origins.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 13 (2): 277–290.
Raby, R. 2005. “What is Resistance?” Journal of Youth Studies 8 (2): 151–171.
Roberts, K. 2000. The Sociology of Youth: Problems, Priorities and Methods , Paper presented at the
British Sociological Association Youth Research Group Conference.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 03:41 13 October 2017

Rubin, A. T. 2015. “Resistance or Friction: Understanding the Significance of Prisoner’s Secondary

Adjustments.” Theoretical Criminology 19 (1): 23–42.
Sandberg, S. 2007. “Street Capital- Ethnicity and Violence on the Streets of Oslo.” Theoretical
Criminology 12 (2): 153–171.
Sandberg, S., and W. Pedersen. 2006. Gatekapital. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Shammas, V. L., and S. Sandberg. 2016. “Habitus, Capital and Conflict: Bringing Bourdieusian Field
Theory to Criminology.” Criminology and Criminal Justice 16 (2): 195–213.
Shaw, C. R., and H. D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Shildrick, T. 2006. “Youth Culture, Subculture and the Importance of Neighbourhood.” Young, Nordic
Journal of Youth Research 14 (1): 61–74.
Shildrick, T., S. Blackman, and R. MacDonald. 2009. “Young People, Class and Place.” Journal of Youth
Studies 12 (5): 457–465.
Shildrick, T., and R. Macdonald. 2006. “In Defence of Subculture: Young People, Leisure and Social
Divisions.” Journal of Youth Studies 9 (2): 125–140.
Skeggs, B. 1997. Formations of Class and Gender. London: Sage.
Skeggs, B. 2004. Class, Self, Culture. London: Routledge.
Skelton, T., and G. Valentine. 1998. Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Culture. London: Routledge.
Thornton, S. 1995. Club Cultures. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tolonen, T. 2013. “Youth Cultures, Lifestyles and Social Class in Finnish Contexts.” Young Nordic
Journal of Youth Research 21 (1): 55–75.
Valentine, G. 2007. “Theorizing and Researching Intersectionality: A Challenge for Feminist
Geography.” The Professional Geographer 59 (1): 10–21.
Wacquant, L. J. D. 2012. “Three Steps to a Historical Anthropology of Actually Existing Neoliberalism.”
Social Anthropology 20 (1): 66–79.
Williams, P. 2009. “The Multidimensionality of Resistance in Youth-Subcultural Studies.” The
Resistance Studies Magazine 1: 20–32.
Williams, P. 2011. Subcultural Theory: Traditions and Concepts. London: Polity Press.
Willis, P. 1978. Learning to Labour. Aldershot: Ashgate.