Talk:Subculture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Youth movements[edit]

I've added the 'rave-scene' and 'demoscene' under 'Youth movements', even through the scenes are very much alive, and includes many adults already (we're all just getting old arn't we?), should they be categorised as such? But if 'HipHop' is categorised as such, why shouldn't they? It's would be great if somebody with some background could expand the entry with some meaningful POVs on <subj> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.16.12 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 29 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definition was a bit too broad, if it includes manga artists, furry artists, gamers, fans, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasper Hviid (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbies[edit]

The article states that a sub-culture "is a culture or set of people with distinct behavior and beliefs within a larger culture. The essence of a subculture, that distinguishes it from other social groupings, is awareness of style and differences in style, in clothing, music or other interests".

Does manga artist dress different than other? No. Does they have any disinct behavior or belief? Not really. They have a hobby, like everyone else. But a hobby is not the same as a culture. The list is more about "what is cool" than "what is subcultures".

For this reason, I have cut away a lot of the examples. The following has been removed:

--Kasper Hviid 18:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I moved the list to List of subcultures - I've answered you there - David Gerard 19:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of - About problem[edit]

I would like to see more of this article about subculture rather than about the study of subculture. -Acjelen 21:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There's already an article called List of subcultures - it might be difficult to write about 'subculture as there aren't many experiences common to all subcultures. If you can be more specific, I'll try and add some stuff in. Do you mean different types of subculture (musical, political, social etc.)? Or do you mean material needs to be added on subcultural experiences?illWill 22:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both. It would also be nice to have information on how subcultures affect the larger culture, the criminization of some subcultures, etc. These would need to be examples, of course. In the article Cell (biology) only a few sentences and a brief timeline are spent on the discovery of the cell. This article spends much too much space on the "discovery" and study of subculture. -Acjelen 21:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and add some stuff in over the next few days. The reason that there is so much material on the study and discovery of subculture is that it originated as an academic term - it was years before it appeared aoutside academia, and the use of the word in mass media often misses this academic context (in a similar way to Deconstruction). Also, a lot of people now argue that catgeorising cultures in terms of 'sub' and 'dominant' is incorrect. Maybe I will try and work that in too.illWill 03:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cult has a long, extensive discussion of cults generally, though cults vary as much as subcultures do. Moreover, hardly any room is given to treatment on the sociological study of cults or "cult theorists". In terms of the use of 'sub' or 'dominant' as prefixes or adjectives, there is Low German, Subcompact car, Low Countries, Dominant (Music), and Dominant gene. -Acjelen 14:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and will attempt to add more material. There is plenty that could be added on the incorporation of subcultures into the dominant culture. There is a difference between 'subculture' and 'cult' as terms though - 'subculture' became prominent via Hebdige an academic term to represent a specific way of theorsing culture, and was only used inside academia for some time, entering the mainstream in part due to Hebdige's work on Punk. In contrast, 'cult' was a concept that existed in popular vernacular long before anybody thought to call themselves a 'cult theorist'. On the other hand, you could probably say that my writing on the subject is biased, as subcultures are an area in which I do my academic research.
Also, what I meant by the use of the prefixes 'sub' and 'dominant' in terms of subculture is that it's a formulation which is being used less often within academia - theorists are now less likely to create an opposition between a 'dominant' culture and 'subcultures' simply because the two cannot be so easily separated. Anyway, material relating to this idea would have to go into a subsection to do with new academic theory, whcih I will be happy to write. Sorry if I'm being less helpful with the actual editing, I'm a little busy working on a paper today. I will try and dig out some references soon. illWill 17:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

simpler definition[edit]

I wrote a stripped-down definition of what a subculture is and added it to the intro to this article.--Andymussell 23:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As behaviours and beliefs are dispositional attitudes assumed by a culture, I have further narrowed the definition of what a subculture is. Praetocultural systems are beyond the scope of this article.--Ottre (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

post-subcultural studies[edit]

I think there needs to be more input from the post-subcultural studies perspective on this. For example, subcultures as constructs of, not simply targets of, media and economic appropriation. Although, I don't think there's any need to go into the modernity/post-modernity debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.60.225 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that statement you made about them being constructs of the media is without facts to base them up. They exist as they are percieved to exist. The media only makes people more aware of these perceived groups. Still, I would like to see some research on this matter. Corrupt one 02:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a big part of Sarah Thornton's thinking on subculture that it is constructed by the media as much as (perhaps more than) it is documented by it. David Muggleton does a lot of work in this area, and it is definitely worth being acknowledged. A link to a new article about post-subculture would be preferable to placing it within this article, however. I will try to start the article, but would appreciate a lot of help since I am not an expert on the topic. YouMustBeLion (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readded[edit]

I readded some lost information that cites the references. Hyacinth 11:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best argument on this is Mafessoli's concept of Neo-Tribes and Andy Bennet's adaptation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.129.34 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed[edit]

  • "More simply, subcultures are groups of individuals who, through a variety of methods (conspicuously clothing and behavior), present themselves in opposition to the mainstream trends of their culture. Their specifics vary immensely, and in fact many would find it appropriate to include groups as diverse as ravers, Nazi-Skinheads, BDSM fetishists, and fundamentalist Christians under the category 'subculture'."

I removed the above as it repeats information already in the article and I'm not sure how it is more simple. Hyacinth 11:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "More simply, subcultures are groups of individuals who, through a variety of methods (conspicuous clothing and ostentatious behavior), present themselves in opposition to the mainstream trends of the mainstream culture that they are a part of."
I removed this as it was focusing on COUNTER CULTURES, and presenting them as what sub-culture are. It is misleading and wring to present them so.
Corrupt one 03:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between subculture and community[edit]

Any thoughts? I found two interesting readings realted to that: [1], [2]. It would be nice if we can have a para explaining that difference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A subculture may be wide spread, and not closly linked to other parts of itself. Bikers in Germany can be considered to be in the same subculture as bikers in Japan, America, Australia, or whereever you want. They act the same, dress the same, and have the same attitudes, but they are not likly to interact with each as as required for a community.
You may be thinking of a community of interest, but those communities are based on one interest. Subcultures are based on a way of life, how the people think, act and all the rest. Corrupt one 02:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

resistant nature of subcultures[edit]

This article, particualr the definition given in the intro seems to say that all subcultures are resistant/rebellious in relation to the main culture. Can a subculture not also be a culture that is not shared by all people the culture but does not actively resist main culture? JenLouise 05:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What type of people "mentally" tend to join subcultures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwmealine (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 01:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was some confusion over subculter and a type of subculture, countercultures. The errors were fixed. Corrupt one 02:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skater[edit]

As it occurs to me one particular group of people have always been included in the whole genre of subculture, but it seems to me that their is no particular belief that defines this group of people. I'm speaking, of coarse, of the skater clique. I doubt that there is any vast expanse of knowledge of the skaters online at all, but it seems that they have been included with other subcultures, for example; the other day I was online and I saw a quiz (on quizfarm.com I believe) in which the title thereof read "which group are, goth, emo, or skater?" now goth and emo are both subcultures, but skater? Skateboarding is a sport and the participants thereof wouldn't be expected to have any subcultural beliefs, however they may fall into the category of subcultures that rely on commercialization. I haven't read all of the article but of what I have, I haven't found anything on skater. Perhaps skaters should be mentioned here (or perhaps if it is it shouldn't). Other opinions? Randy6767 14:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skater is a subculture that has grown around skateboarding. This has happened in other places to other sports and methods of doing things. Examples include surfers, soccor fans (expressly in England), bikers, dragsters (a subculture that grew up around drag racing), Rev heads (grew up based around cars and motors) and others. There is even a cheerleader subculture based around being cheerleaders. Just look around to see where people gather in groups that act similar, and often you shall see a small part of a subculture. Corrupt one 02:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counterculture[edit]

This article is about countercultures, not subcultures. Subcultures aren't formed from rejection of norms, they're formed by assimilation. This entire article should be scrapped, and parts of it should go under counterculture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Almighty Trickshot Jackelope Of Doom (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I totally agree with you. Musicaindustrial 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition[edit]

Someone needs to clean this up. The second section repeats much of the first. This is slop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.25.20 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does anyone else think that "Scene" should be included as a subculture? It's how most "indie" kids self identify (rather than the now pejoritive "emo".) Appearantly "Scene" doesn't even have it's own article at this point, so if anyone has the time and the inclination... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.25.20 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "Scene" is different from a subculture. First of there is a clear definition of a subculture, but none for Scene, which makes it hard to make an article for it. Trust me, I tried, but it got put in the articles for deletion area, and removed.
Secondly, a subculture is a small part of a scene. For example, the motorbike scene includes Bikers, machanics, makers, hobbists, collectors, and everyone else who deals with motorbikes. A scene is not limited to a subculture. The main difference being that a scene is by its nature, inclusive (it looks at what is held in common), where the definition for a subculture is exclusive (it looks at what seperates a group from the rest of the culture).
Unfortuantly I have found NO research for Scenes. If you have found some, please tell me where so I can look at it and use it for an article. I have even tried communities of interest.
Corrupt one 23:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Readded 07/15[edit]

I readded some information. Some of this goes into describing subcultures rather than their study. Keep in mind that the placing of appropriate citations and attributions may make the article seem more about the study of the topic than the article actually is. The removal of definitions or descriptions preferrably would be preceded by a discussion on this talk page. If the issue is NPOV, we can NPOV the content rather than remove it. Hyacinth 01:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States[edit]

In a country that lacks a defining culture, the term "subculture" becomes irrelevant. I think the word we're looking for, instead, is "neo-tribalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.84.29 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. --BDD (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Urban tribe into subculture[edit]

It seems that the Urban tribe article merely defines the term as a subculture based in an urban environment. There isn't really any substance to the article beyond that. I suggest that it be merged into the subculture article.Spylab 02:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spylab, I disagree. Michel Maffesoli, the french sociologist who coined the term, had a very specific idea in his mind about his creation - an idea that's not wholly interchangeable with "subculture" [3].
I also think the "subculture" term has been thoroughly abused here in Wikipedia. It is being used as an umbrella for anything related to Youth culture - which, by the way, is a far broader and more neutral ("Sub" implies "submission") than "subculture". But it has also been wrongly tagged as a "subculture", so... Musicaindustrial 17:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An urban tribe is a subculture that originates and develops within urban environments (see urban culture). Urban tribes are groups of people in urban areas who have some kind of close association based upon similar lifestyles or activities. Subcultures, such as urban tribes, are more common in larger cities where the enormous size and complexity of the society create a sense of alienation or isolation on the level of the individual.

According to that, an urban tribe just a type of subculture, therefore it should be moved to its own section of the subculture article. Most of the Urban culture article is original research anyway.Spylab 19:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spylab, the introduction of the Urban tribe article is based solely upon Ethan Watters's book [4]. Watters claims he coined the term in 2001, which is not entirely factual, because Maffesoli was already using it in his 1988 book, Le Temps des tribus [5]. There's a thirteen-year lag right there. Seven years later Maffesoli's book was translated to english [6]. Musicaindustrial 14:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then why doesn't the Urban tribe article mention anything about Maffesoli? It doesn't do much good to mention it here on the subculture talk page, but not in the Urban tribe article.Spylab 19:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spylab, I mentioned Maffesoli almost a month ago in the Urban Tribe talk page, but nobody answered my comment yet. I waiting for that to change the main page.

Is there a time constraint for merging process? Because I can alter the page and add further citations, so to differentiate it from "subculture". Musicaindustrial 21:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no time constraint for merge messages. If you want to improve the Urban tribe article with new content and references, go ahead.Spylab 21:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As the page stands now, I think it should be merged. If more detail could be provided, which explains how Maffesoli meant the term "Urban Tribe" (in a way that is different from a subculture), the article could stay. Is Musicaindustrial still planning to improve the article? It's been over a month. As the article is now, I vote merge.Lex Kitten 07:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with the merge, because it has been a few months, and the Urban Tribe article was still basicly a stub. Also, as the Urban Tribe article says, an urban tribe is a type of subculture. Spylab (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if if the original "Urban Tribe" article said it was a "subculture"?
a) Using information on Wikipedia articles on an argument on other articles is a fallacy (self-reference). Go see Wikipedia protocols.
b) Stating that the concept of "urban tribes" is part of the "subculture" concept is something based on wrong information, and I had already had explained that.
c) That merger was made without concensus.
Musicaindustrial (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the reliable references proving your point of view or stop complaining.Spylab (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a reliable source that states that "urban tribes" and "subcultures" are synonyms - and Ethan Watters is not a reliable source - and I'll stop "complaining". Like I said before, you merged the article based on wrong information. Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subculture Portal[edit]

Should there be a Portal:Subculture page? I think its a good idea. What do you think? --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We already have a sociology portal, don't we? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. The sociology portal covers all kinds of subcultures. I thought a subcultures portal would go more indepth about subcultures and the many different kinds of subcultures. --Grrrlriot (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that sounds like an invitation for even more original research on the subject of subcultures, particularly these "many different kinds of subcultures" (ie the ones that are not studied and aren't honestly subcultures). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your right. I do think there should be more research and more of an indepth subculture article. I will see if I can do some research on subcultures and add to the page. --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merging List of subcultures here[edit]

See several arguments for merge on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_subcultures --Enric Naval (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merging the list into the subculture article would clutter up the page too much. The list was probably created for that reason in the first place.Spylab (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, the list has fallen out of the radar and degenerated a lot, and should be merged back here, where more editors will keep an eye on it. What do you think? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or do what has happened with a few lists is that all entries are removed and readded if they can be sourced. --neonwhite user page talk 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing your comment and Spylab's comment, it looks that this is the way to go --Enric Naval (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The old version of the list is difficult to read because it's not organized alphabetically and there is no table of contents. The classification system in the old version is based on personal opinion, AKA original research.Spylab (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the organisation is a minor problem compared to the unsourced nature of most of the entries. --neon white talk 02:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Against merge. I like the list separate. I found it because I was actually looking for a list of subcultures. Plus is is long enough to justify its own page. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions[edit]

a) Which are the differences between subculture and urban tribe? b) Could anyone provide a reference for these statements?:

  1. Some subcultures reject or modify the importance of style, stressing membership through the adoption of an ideology which may be much more resistant to commercial exploitation.
  2. The punk subculture's distinctive (and initially shocking) style of clothing was adopted by mass-market fashion companies once the subculture became a media interest.

Thanks. Pabletex (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punk[edit]

Why does punk get its own section? Is it somehow more important than other subcultures? I suggest this be removed. Zazaban (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inline Citations[edit]

This article is missing inline citations, not to mention makes pretty sweeping claims on the basis of only a single source, not the least of which is this: 

 5. through their stylistic ties to excess and exaggeration (with some exceptions);
 6. through their refusal of the banalities of ordinary life and massification.

Which sounds utterly colored by personal bias, not appropriate for encyclopedic content.

There are other dubious claims, not backed up by the appropriate citations,

"Businesses often seek to capitalize on the subversive allure of subcultures in search of cool, which remains valuable in the selling of any product."

This article is in need of an expert on the subject. Celareon (talk)

  • This article clearly has several inline citatations, (aka footnotes). Those two claims are the opinion of Ken Gelder, and are referenced as such with an inline citation at the end of that list. Other than that, I agree that the article needs more references, which is why there is a Refimprove tag at the top.Spylab (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the citation for Fine and Kleinman http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/226971 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A16:6600:9123:46B1:BFA:FA51 (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge proposal (co-Culture)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the recent Afd on "Co-culture" at least some editors, myself included experssed a preference for seeing the discussions of the two articles condensed into a single presentation. In my case, this reflects an understanding (correct or no) that the terms are roughly discussing the same idea, but with different connotations and framings. But I'm hardly an expert on this subject, perhaps other folks here can add some evidence and light to the question. --joe deckertalk to me 16:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be added to this article if it is condensed to one or two sentences. The Co-culture article only offers one reference proving that the term exists, and the reference is only a book, with no mention of specific quotes or page numbers.Spylab (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--co-culture is not at all widely used as a term. glenntwo (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support "Co-culture" seems to be a neologism. It would probably be easier to just make it a section here. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a sentence in the lede will do. "Co-culture" seems to have no real different meaning, apart from seeking to avoid perceived connotations of the "sub-" prefix. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incomplete Example[edit]

When reading about subculture, there was a comment in the article that seems incomplete. For instance, more information is needed after this statement:

"In some cases, subcultures have been legislated against, and their activities regulated or curtailed." (located in: Identifying subcultures)

What cases do these include? Naming a few, or mentioning other events in history related to subculture and this reference, would be stimulating to read more about and further analyze historical and political events relating to subculture.

Laurenleaf (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)laurenleaf[reply]

Formatting[edit]

Not a big issue, but it appears the indentation formatting for this article has gone awry towards the end of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.67.76 (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Subculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

definitional clash[edit]

Per the opening sentence of Counterculture,

A counterculture (also written counter-culture) is a subculture

Per the last sentence in the lede of Subculture,

Subcultures differ from countercultures.

The only support for the latter sweeping claim is

In 2007, Ken Gelder proposed to distinguish subcultures from countercultures based on the level of immersion in society.

with no explanation of that final term.

Is it possible to get both articles on the same metaphoric page?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)$[reply]

What would be a subcutulture? I mean does it have to have a "parent culture"? It looks like it's far from it. The given cultural examples are all international.

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fuffu1128 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zariagibson (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subculture&oldid=1201113611"