Subculture relates to the distinctive activities and concerns of fringe groups. However, this type of cultural phenomena does not exist in a vacuum; rather, they can be seen as loosely distributed “ecosystems” within the larger culture. The term “youth subculture” only applies when age and generational factors are added to these “ecosystems.” Nowadays, the term “youth subculture” has already become a cliché; very few will ponder how a certain subculture came into existence. Like other cultural phenomena, subculture also forms within the contexts of society and cultural activities; therefore, it inherits many of the ideas of social class from the mainstream such as the oft-seen “culture of rebellion” in the young working class. Other subcultures only appear at certain times in history, when groups of people form movements to draw the attention of the mainstream. For example, the graffiti and street art movements of the 80s led by artists like Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat which gave voice to victims of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the struggles and demands of marginalized ethnic groups.
The core value of subculture is its negation of the symbols and rituals of the mainstream, as in Hall’s “resistance through rituals.” Paradoxically, anything — from art to literature, drama to film, living spaces to music — that carries the prefix “sub” now gains an instant cachet, and becomes sought-after by the masses. More importantly, most of the individuals who wrap themselves in the mantle of subculture are young, emerging professionals. Although subculture becoming mainstream is a logical progression, “subculture” and “the merging of subculture” are not the same, even if the latter is often seen as the inevitable destiny of the former. Once a subculture is subsumed into the mainstream, all symbols that once belonged to it become consumer products and objects to be gazed upon by the mainstream.
As Jonathan Schroeder says, “compared to looking, gazing implies more — it represents a type of power relation; the one gazing is greater to the one being viewed.” The gaze endows the viewer with voyeuristic possession of and power over the one being viewed. This type of power relation often exists in gender and class differences. [1] If subculture is an object to be gazed upon, it becomes consumable, and once it is consumable, the signifiers of identity can be purchased. When purchased, it is possible to reveal one’s “secret” identity as a skinhead or a punk, and convey hidden meanings.
Another concept that seems related to subculture is the avant-garde which, as a term, appears to be oft-used by the “subculture” to describe the state of young artists. In actuality, “avant-garde” was initially a term that implied exclusivity, whereas in Chinese “sub” (ya) implies being cast off or abandoned. The former was an active provocation of mainstream culture, whereas the impetus for the latter’s symbolic revolt through aesthetics was initiated by external forces.
[1] With regards to gender, the right to gaze is often viewed as the sole and natural prerogative of men. Historically, in male-dominated societies, women have always been gazed upon by men. John Berger believes that at least from the seventeenth century, paintings of female nudes reflected the woman’s submission to “the owner of both woman and painting.” He noted that “almost all post-Renaissance European sexual imagery is frontal — either literally or metaphorically — because the sexual protagonist is the spectator-owner looking at it.” Many oil paintings reflect the image of women in a patriarchal society, and the desire of men to possess them. There are countless paintings like “The Elders and Susanna,” “The Judgment of Paris,” numerous depictions of various rapes of helpless women, and equally abundant portrayals of women bathing which give strong evidence in favor of Berger’s theory. Females are illustrated as objects to be taken, possessed, and owned — fundamentally no different from the glimmering jewels and exotic beasts also depicted in the paintings.
