Subcultures and Countercultures

Abstract

This paper primarily examines the meaning of subculture and counterculture as sociologists have used the terms since the mid-twentieth century. This exploration leads to some of the problems the field of sociology has experienced in clearly defining the meaning of subculture, in clearly setting the parameters between the terms subculture and counterculture, and in avoiding hidden assumptions about these two classifications. The paper uses a study of sociology textbooks to establish a clearer meaning for the two terms, and shows the contradictions, conflicts, and quandaries that various examples of subcultures and countercultures create. The paper attempts to resolve some of those conflicts by adding an additional criterion for evaluating subcultures and countercultures. Finally, the concept of subculture is broken down into subcategories so that "youth subcultures" can be examined from two basic viewpoints, that of the traditional and the postmodern views.

Overview

Defining Subculture & Counterculture. For more than half a century in sociology, sociologists have been using the terms subculture and counterculture, but during that time, some sociologists pointed out various problems with these two terms. First, the concept of a subculture must be framed quite broadly to include the various ways sociologists intend the term in their writings. As Honea (2004) observes, "subculture is a term used loosely in social science. At the broadest level, the prefix 'sub' simply implies that these groups are smaller and distinct from the larger culture in some way" (p. 3). This loose usage of the term subculture has subsequently caused critics to suggest that the concept has become greatly diminished in its power as an analytical tool (Honea, 2004, p. 3). A related problem is whether the field of sociology clearly demarcates the differences between what constitutes a subculture and what constitutes a counterculture, and whether there are any assumptions or attitudes hidden behind the ways sociologists use these terms.

Dowd and Dowd (2003) noted that, although these terms are commonly used among sociologists and are often found in basic sociology textbooks, there seems to be disagreement over the sociological method for categorizing a group as a subculture. Additionally, there seems to be disagreement in distinguishing what constitutes a subculture and what constitutes a counterculture. The authors state that, when many sociologists describe the concept of subculture, they tend to make an "implicit characterization of subcultures as either deviant, marginalized groups or heroic resisters against the hegemonic culture of global capitalism" (Dowd & Dowd, 2003, p. 20). If Dowd and Dowd are correct, there may, indeed, be hidden assumptions or attitudes behind some sociologists' usage of the term subculture, which calls into question how such characterizations of a subculture differ from a counterculture. As shall be seen, once the difference between subcultures and countercultures is established, "heroic resisters against the hegemonic culture of global capitalism" seem to describe members of a counterculture rather than a subculture—that is, if the premise that subcultures and countercultures are indeed valid classifications is initially accepted.

The Postmodern Perspective. Shankar (2006) observes that some sociologists have rejected the general concepts of subculture and counterculture altogether. These sociologists view the concept of subculture from a postmodern perspective and, therefore, questioned the validity of other sociologists' application of the concept of subculture. According to Shankar, sociologists who take a postmodern perspective argue that "subcultures have fragmented to the point where there is no longer an identifiable subgroup sharing a common interest" (2006, p. 3). Shankar argues that this perspective "shifts the focus to localized subject positions that have developed around fashion, lifestyle, and identity," and cites Maffesoli, who prefers to use the term neotribe or emotional community as a replacement for the traditional concept of subculture. Shankar notes that a postmodern sociological view "implies that the term 'subculture,' and the parent culture against which it is defined, are not coherent and homogenous formations that can be clearly demarcated" (Shankar, 2006, p. 81). Essentially, this makes the argument that complex postmodern society cannot be separated into an overall parent culture (which is most likely perceived as a monoculture) and various subcultures. Though what it means to take a postmodernist perspective in sociology should be more thoroughly understood, people should first have a clear understanding of what sociologists have traditionally meant when using the terms subculture and counterculture. A good way to arrive at clearer definitions is to survey the most popular sociology textbooks, correlate their explanations of the terms, and analyze their examples for each.

Surveying the Textbooks. Dowd and Dowd (2003) have carried out such a survey on fourteen of the historically most commonly used sociology course textbooks for the university level, and their survey is quite helpful in understanding subculture and counterculture. After considering the use of the term subculture in the chosen textbooks, Dowd and Dowd create a definition, though it seems quite similar to the broad definition that Honea offers above. They state, "a subculture is usually thought of as a group that is part of the dominant culture but which differs from it in some important respects" (2003, p. 22). Although this definition is quite general, particularly in its assertion that a subculture differs from a dominant culture, "in some important respects"—the definition proposes that a subculture is part of the dominant culture. This prompts consideration of whether a counterculture is also considered part of the dominant culture. If sociologists do not consider countercultures part of the dominant culture, then this is a basic distinction between the two concepts. However, for various reasons, such basic distinctions often become complicated.

Dowd and Dowd (2003) observe that many sociology textbooks, when presenting the concept of subculture, have used Chinese immigrants and their descendants living in San Francisco's Chinatown as a prototypical example. The authors note that Chinese immigrants are a good example of a subculture because of their continuing fluency in Mandarin Chinese or a similar dialect, so fluency in a language other than the language of the mainstream culture is apparently one of the common features of a subculture. However, the authors also observe that the Amish, "whose reclusiveness, clothing, and cultural practices set them apart from the dominant culture" is included in nearly all sociology textbook discussions of subcultures. This indicates that fluency in a second language (and therefore fluency in a second national or ethnic culture) is not necessary for a person to be categorized as belonging to a subculture. The authors note that, in all the textbooks, the most primary element of a subculture is the use of racial or ethnic groups as prototypical examples of subcultures. The authors state that this use of racial or ethnic groups as examples of subcultures is in fact, "the only example that is common to all of the texts," though the chosen racial or ethnic examples among the textbooks vary widely. In the fourteen textbooks that Dowd and Dowd analyzed, the specific examples given for racial or ethnic groups include African Americans, Anglo Americans, Chicanos, Chinese Americans, Italian Americans, Americans Indians, Norwegian Americans, Orthodox Jews, and Polish Americans (Dowd & Dowd, 2003, p. 22).

Many of the textbooks also assert that some occupations could be considered subcultures, and several even use sociologists as one example of an occupational subculture. In the textbooks Dowd and Dowd surveyed, other examples of subcultures were based on geographic regions of the country, religion, social class, and interest groups. Thus, the various divergent examples of subcultures from these textbooks create a problem in clearly defining the concept of a subculture—though it may help to break down the concept of subculture into further subcategories. Dowd and Dowd use the term occupational subculture when discussing occupation as criteria for a subculture, which inherently creates a subcategory, so it can be assumed that there may be more subcategories of subcultures based on region, religion, interest groups, etc. This also implies that an individual could belong to several subcultures. The authors note that it is common to read in sociology textbooks "descriptions of the subculture concept emphasizing the multiplicity of subcultures to which an individual group member might belong at any one time or at different times in his or her life'" (Dowd & Dowd, 2003, p. 21). Thus, a Chinese American computer programmer who has converted to Islam and lives in the Appalachian Mountains could belong to several subcultures. That example is probably what Honea (2004) means by saying that broad application of the term subculture has "greatly diminished the concept's power as an analytical tool."

The Dowd and Dowd textbook survey resulted in the authors proposing three basic criteria that indicate a subculture. They define the ideal subculture as a group whose members:

• Interact frequently with one another;
• Share a common worldview, or weltanschauung, that has at its center the attribute that defines the group most thoroughly;
• Remain unwilling or unable to assimilate into the larger, dominant culture; that is, to have one's identification with the subculture become normalized and unproblematic (Dowd & Dowd, 2003, p. 28).

Further Insights

Types of Subcultures. Dowd and Dowd also note that some subculture members are distinguishable from members of a dominant cultural group because of "physical appearance, style of clothing and adornment, and other cultural signifiers such as language or dialect" (2003, p. 11). From this definition, they develop an interesting method of categorization based on the likelihood that the subculture member will eventually assimilate into the dominant culture. Using this criterion, the authors propose three basic types of subcultures, ranging from quite likely to assimilate to quite unlikely to assimilate.

Youth Subcultures. The first type, made up of members who are most likely to assimilate when they are older, are youth subcultures. Greener and Hollands (2006) note that much of the research into youth subcultures began with the Birmingham School's Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) studies in British youth cultures in the 1970s. According to Greener and Hollands, the CCCS focused most of their studies on "local, marginal and working-class youth subcultures such as the Teddy boys and Skinheads, developing their neo-Marxist theory of class-based subcultures that were tightly bound around a homology of style, argot, territory, music and other focal concerns" (p. 396). Greener and Hollands observe that, when such "tightly defined groups are also distinguished by age and generation, we call them 'youth subcultures'" (Greener & Hollands, p. 396). Dowd and Dowd note that these youth subcultures are the most widely used textbook examples of what they suggest should be viewed as a temporary subculture (Dowd & Dowd, 2003, p. 28).

Ethnic Subcultures. The second type of subculture, which Dowd and Dowd assert have members who are less likely to assimilate compared to members of youth subcultures, are the above-mentioned ethnic minority groups. Dowd and Dowd note that members of ethnic subcultures who have recently immigrated to a different society—meaning they are yet quite distinct culturally and are not fully assimilated—may become somewhat adept in the language of the dominant culture, but in nearly all cases will nevertheless attempt to maintain their group's cultural boundaries by engaging in marital endogamy and by observing the cultural traditions that support their group's values, customs, and traditions. Dowd and Dowd state that "such ethnic subcultures constitute the most often studied case and ideal instance of the sociological concept of subculture" (2003, p. 29), and as previously noted, racial or ethnic groups as examples of subcultures is the only point that is common to all fourteen of the sociology textbooks that the authors analyzed. Thus, the authors distinguish between youth subcultures and ethnic subcultures, and note that the likelihood of assimilation is one of the most basic differences between these two types of subcultures.

Belief Subcultures. The last type of subculture, which Dowd and Dowd assert is the least likely subculture to assimilate into the dominant culture, contains all those groups that are not defined according to their ethnicity, but on characteristics of their choosing, such as a unique view of reality that is often based on political or religious beliefs, or on lifestyle preferences. They observe that "this third type of subculture is much more difficult to identify because its existence is signaled by neither language nor marriage patterns" (p. 29). They state that this third type of subculture, which they later refer to as a belief subculture, is similar yet distinct from, "voluntary associations, social networks, or other such loosely aggregated groups whose members share a particular pastime, avocation, interest, hobby, or other such commonality of focus or behavior" (p. 29). Though the authors do not explicitly state how these belief subcultures are distinct from voluntary associations, it seems by their examples that the strength of a particular belief is the central distinction. In other words, an aggregation based on butterfly collecting does not usually cause the members to essentially divorce themselves from the dominant culture, whereas the authors' examples, which are examples of religious and political beliefs, do cause the members to live, for the most part, separate from the dominant culture. The authors use, by way of example, the religious cult Heaven's Gate, and radical political groups such as the Weather Underground or the Earth Liberation Front and observe that these subcultures' activities bring members into direct confrontation with law enforcement agencies, and are good examples of belief subcultures. But there is a confusing overlap between considering these groups as subcultures and considering them as countercultures. The authors state that "such belief subcultures would also constitute excellent examples of what we could describe as countercultures" (Dowd & Dowd, 2003, p. 29), which leads to the question, "What is the difference between a subculture and a counterculture?"

Honea cites Crossett and Beal, who argue that "what distinguishes a subculture from a counterculture is the degree of opposition to dominant culture" (2004, p. 2). Honea also notes that most of the strongly oppositional groups (i.e., countercultures) do not exist for very long. According to Honea, "They either die out or begin to adopt some aspects of the dominant culture in order to retain the viability of the group." But Honea also observes that many subcultures reject certain aspects of dominant culture while adopting or adapting other aspects (Honea, 2004, p. 3–4), which indicates that countercultures may at some point become what many sociologists would consider a subculture, and perhaps the reverse occurs as well, i.e., subcultures can evolve into countercultures. Once again, making a clear distinction between the two becomes complicated.

What is a Counterculture? According to Shankar (2006), the concept of a counterculture can be applied to various lifestyle movements that resist mainstream consumption lifestyles. Shankar states, "These movements all embrace a negative critique in the sense that they are positioned against something" (p. 3). Shankar then observes that one problem with defining countercultures in this way is that "it does not draw attention to those movements that serve as a source of creativity and social change" (Shankar, 2006, p. 81), which demonstrates yet another hidden viewpoint. The implied message in the field of sociology seems to be, "subculture—not too bad; counterculture—bad." However, Shankar's as well as Honea's observations that countercultures resist a dominant culture, or are actively in opposition to it, seems to be the essential difference between what sociologists refer to as subcultures and countercultures. Similarly, Whieley described counterculture as a "sociopolitical term indicating a point of dissent between dominant or mainstream ideologies and alternative value systems, creating a collective voice that can be considered a significant minority” (Whiteley, 2015).

Dowd and Dowd note that most textbooks from their study make a distinction between the concept of a subculture and a counterculture. The authors observe that the most frequently used example of a counterculture is the youth movement of the 1960s. However, the authors point out that some groups, such as Hare Krishna, "are defined in some textbooks as subcultures and in other texts as examples of a counterculture" (2003, p. 27), which once again indicates a lack of clear demarcation between a subculture and a counterculture. It should be asked whether there is a difference between a youth movement and a youth subculture. It seems that there is a difference, and the difference appears to be how widespread the phenomenon is.

Historically, several examples of countercultures may be observed, including Socratic Philosophy (470-399 B.C.), and The Enlightenment Movement of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe. In the twenty-first century, other examples of countercultures exist, including hippies, punks, Sufism, Australian Surf culture, American Transcendentalism, Bohemianism, Free And Open-Source Software, and Cryptocurrency (Drew, 2023).

Movements. A movement most likely implies that the members are not from one locality, as the Birmingham School asserted with their studies on youth subcultures, but rather a social movement (and a counterculture) attracts members from across many regions or locations within a society. A movement gathers members from across class lines, racial lines, or other social lines, and the term movement also implies that there is some ideology with which members identify—usually a social or political ideology that in some way opposes the accepted notions of the dominant society. Thus, perhaps the most obvious distinction between a subculture and a counterculture is simply a matter of how widespread and large is the membership. When the membership crosses class, regional, racial, and other social lines, such as the Black Lives Matter movement that began in the 2010s in response to racial injustice, and becomes a relatively large group, perhaps what was considered a subculture becomes increasingly classified as a movement, which may cause sociologists and society in general to reclassify a subculture as a more threatening counterculture. Thus, aside from actively opposing the dominant culture, one important difference between a subculture and counterculture may be that countercultures are much larger in membership than subcultures.

Hippie Counterculture. Dowd and Dowd observe that, in the sociology textbooks, "more than any other group, hippies—who, during the political and social turmoil of the late 1960s, sought refuge and retreat in rural communes—are associated with the idea of counterculture" (p. 23). The authors then point out that the hippie counterculture, which promotes communal living in rural settings, does not seem fundamentally different than the "Old Order Amish of Pennsylvania or the Bruderhof of upstate New York who have also chosen to live apart from the world in rural, communal settlements" (p. 23). Yet, hippies are cited in many textbooks as examples of a counterculture, "while the Amish are perhaps the single most often cited instance of a subculture" (Dowd & Dowd, 2003, p. 22). Perhaps the fundamental difference is that the hippie movement gathered its members from across all strata of society and across all locations, from rural communities to big cities, and rapidly became a growing social phenomenon, whereas the Amish community, for the most part, consists of specific families from a steady population. Also, the Amish community seems content with establishing its own society without openly opposing the dominant culture and is desirous of peaceful coexistence. In any case, in the field of sociology, making a clear distinction between a subculture and a counterculture is apparently difficult.

Viewpoints

Postmodern Subcultures. Greener and Hollands note that "a productive and engaging debate has emerged in the area of youth cultural analyses over the explanatory power of subcultural versus post-subcultural perspectives" (Greener & Hollands, 2006, p. 393). The term post-subcultural comes from applying a postmodern viewpoint to the traditional notion of subculture. The authors describe various features that belong to a postmodernist view of subculture. As previously noted, part of that viewpoint is that society is too fragmented to clearly distinguish between a dominant culture and a subculture; this fragmentation, postmodernists argue, is a direct result of living in a globalized world in which the internet has, to a large extent, reformed individuals into virtual communities. Greener and Hollands observe that postmodernist sociologists have argued that these new types of global and virtual post-subcultures have lost some significant characteristics that the traditional youth subcultures possessed. Some of the features are that traditional subculture members show high levels of commitment and strong feelings of kinship, and membership in the subculture has an extensive impact on the member's sense of identity (Greener & Hollands, 2006, p. 399). They point out these features because a postmodernist perspective claims that these are the primary features that no longer apply to the virtual or global post-subcultures of the first decades of the twenty-first century. A postmodernist viewpoint argues that contemporary groups tend to be transitory and depthless, and they are not local aggregations like traditional subcultures. Also, they are not class-based like traditional youth subcultures. By the 2020s, the consistent addition of new social media sites like TikTok and other online forums further complicated the concept of subcultures and countercultures. As more and more subcultures seemed to exist and rapidly fluctuate on these platforms, and countercultures increasingly used them for widespread activism, it was often noted by social commentators that such groups had become even harder to identify and define.

Psytrancers. Greener and Hollands (2006) carried out a study of psytrancers, a youth subculture that sociologists from a postmodern viewpoint would consider characteristic of the new type of post-subculture. As Greener and Hollands observe, "Psytrance as a global form of dance music, then, would at first sight appear to fit well into the postmodern, post-subcultural paradigm. While it may have had local origins, it quickly spread around the globe and the culture is supported by a wide number of Internet websites, which young adults use to maintain their interest and identity as 'psytrancers'" (Greener & Hollands, 2006, p. 396).

Their research results show that the group possesses a curious mix of postmodern features and traditional subculture features. The authors argue that virtual psytrancers are a global, internet-based group, which fits the postmodern model, yet members also share temporary physical spaces by frequently attending psytrance events in one or more countries. Psytrancers are also characterized by "a strong attachment to a particular form of music, and a common set of values, practices and belief systems (i.e., aspects of what we think of as subculture)" (Greener & Hollands, 2006, p. 394).

The traditional theoretical sociological view and the postmodernist theoretical view are both necessary to describe the psytrance youth subculture. The authors demonstrate that "while elements of both traditional subcultures and postmodern approaches towards youth cultures can be found in virtual psytrance, neither perspective has been able to fully encapsulate and explain this phenomenon sufficiently." This is because psytrance is indeed global in nature and possesses a "virtual space" core of activity since these are global online communities, but the study also demonstrates that psytrancers do not display "intense postmodern fragmentation" (p. 413). Also, the group does not fit the postmodernist description of a "divided, temporally specific and depthless culture," but instead "appears to possess a rather common set of values and contains elements of a rather cohesive and homogeneous culture (particularly around the commitment towards the music and a common value system)" (p. 413). But, as the authors note, the psytrance community seems to have a global rather than local character. The authors conclude their study by asking, "How can elements of both be present? How can it have a global membership aided by Internet communication, yet retain some cohesive subcultural elements? " (Greener & Hollands, 2006, p. 413).

Most likely, the answer is that theoretical models in sociology are usually developed by extracting the basic features that the studied groups have in common, but this does not mean all groups will possess only those traits. By way of analogy, an artist can render a painting that clearly shows an influence of impressionism, but there can also be obvious elements of cubism in the painting as well. When analyzing groups from sociological schools of thought, a group can likewise demonstrate characteristics of more than one school of thought—and it is good that those schools of thought can contribute some of their fundamental observations to the analysis. A related point is that, just as the psytrance groups demonstrate an area of overlap between two schools of thought, we have already seen that many other groups demonstrate an overlap between the concepts of what constitutes a subculture and what constitutes a counterculture. Arriving at some objective viewpoint that unquestionably represents reality defies even the hard sciences, so that even the field of physics has not avoided duo-categorizations. If an electron demonstrates features of particles and waves, so that it is neither or both, we should not be too surprised to find that a social group demonstrates features of traditional and postmodern viewpoints, so that it is neither or both.

Terms & Concepts

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS): Also called the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies or the Birmingham School. The CCCS was a research center at the University of Birmingham, England. It was founded in 1964, and its object of study was the then-new field of cultural studies.

Counterculture: In sociology, a term attributed to Theodore Roszak and used to describe the values and norms of group behavior that opposes social mainstream culture and is sometimes considered the cultural equivalent of political opposition.

Ethnic Group: A group of people whose members identify with a common genealogy or ancestry. The group is recognized by others for its distinctiveness and common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral, or biological traits.

Neotribe: A social unit based on the concept of neotribalism, an ideology which holds that humans have evolved to live in a tribal society, and thus cannot become genuinely happy until a type of tribal lifestyle has been recreated or reembraced. Postmodern theory posits that as culture and institutions of modernism decline, societies look to the organizational principles of tribalism for guidance, and the postmodern era will be an era of neotribalism.

Postmodernism: An ideological reaction to modernism influenced by the Western European disillusionment occurring after World War II. Postmodernism tends to refer to a cultural state lacking a clear hierarchical structure or central organizing principle.

Post-Subculture: A subculture that is viewed from a postmodernist perspective.

Psytrance: Also called psychedelic trance. A form of electronic music comprised of hypnotic arrangements of synthetic and mesmerizing rhythms and melodies. It became more mainstream in 1995 Britain as the press reported on the bourgeoning trend of Goa trance.

Subculture: A group of people with a culture that differentiates them from the larger culture to which they belong.

Bibliography

Brauer, J. (2012). Clashes of emotions: Punk music, youth subculture, and authority in the GDR (1978–1983). Social Justice, 38, 53–70. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85311181&site=ehost-live

Dowd, J. & Dowd, L. (2003). The center holds: From subcultures to social worlds. Teaching Sociology, 31, 20–37. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9469145&site=ehost-live

Downes, J. (2012). The expansion of punk rock: Riot grrrl challenges to gender power relations in British indie music subcultures. Women's Studies, 41, 204–237. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=70248458&site=ehost-live

Drew, C. (2023, May 11). 13 great examples of countercultures. Helpful Professor. Retrieved June 10, 2023, from https://helpfulprofessor.com/counterculture-examples

Etzioni, A. (2004). The post affluent society. Review of Social Economy, 62, 407–420. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=14573060&site=ehost-live

Fichter, M. (2011). Rock 'n' roll nation: Counterculture and dissent in Romania, 1965–1975. Nationalities Papers, 39, 567–585. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=74669308&site=ehost-live

Greener, T. & Hollands, R. (2006). Beyond subculture and post-subculture? The case of virtual psytrance. Journal of Youth Studies, 9, 393–418. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31395109&site=ehost-live

Honea, J. (2004). Youth cultures and consumerism: Alternative sport and possibilities for resistance. Conference papers—American Sociological Association, 2004 Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 1–20. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15930280&site=ehost-live

Jennings, R. (2019, August 1). E-girls and e-boys, explained. Vox. Retrieved July 27, 2021, from https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/8/1/20748707/egirl-definition-what-is-an-eboy

Magnuson, E. (2011). Discourse, ethnography, and counterculture: The cultural dynamics of Burning Man. Conference Papers—American Sociological Association, 831. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85658359&site=ehost-live

Shankar, A. (2006). Special session summary sub-cultures of consumption: A critical reappraisal. Advances in Consumer Research–European Conference Proceedings. 7, 79–82. Retrieved June 23, 2007, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=26715455&site=ehost-live

Whiteley, S. (2015). Counterculture: the classical view in J.D. Wright (Ed.) In International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences. (2nd ed., pp. 84-86). Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.32032-3

Suggested Reading

Brown, B. & Brown, D. (2005). Beyond boganism. Journal of Popular Culture, 38, 632–649. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16889191&site=ehost-live

Buechele, T. (2006). DIY Masculinity: Masculine identity in DIY punk subculture Conference Papers—American Sociological Association. Annual Meeting, Montreal, p. 1–20. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=26642009&site=ehost-live

Creasap, K. (2012). Social movement scenes: Place-based politics and everyday resistance. Sociology Compass, 6, 182–191. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=70599985&site=ehost-live

D'Andrea, A. (2006). Neo-Nomadism: A theory of post-identitarian mobility in the global age. Mobilities, 1, 95–119. Retrieved June 23, 2007, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19761881&site=ehost-live

Langman, L. (2005). From virtual public spheres to global justice: A critical theory of internetworked social movements. Sociological Theory, 23, 42–74. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16073401&site=ehost-live

Rossinow, D. (1997). The new left in the counterculture: Hypotheses and evidence. Radical History Review, 67, 79–121. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9902453&site=ehost-live