4 ‘Speaking of ’: A Critical Analysis of Contemporary Youth Andy Bennett

Introduction

For a number of years, theorists have suggested that the term ‘youth culture’ corresponds with particularized forms of youth cultural practice clustered around the more spectacular manifestation of the consump- tion of music, style, and associated objects, images, and texts. However, such a focus serves to close off any discussion of ‘ordinary’ youth, that is, those young people who are not obvious, card-carrying members of style-based youth . With the increasing turn in academic research to issues of youth leisure and lifestyle in more mundane con- texts, combined with a growing body of work focusing on youth’s online practices, questions now need to be asked about the , and validity, of focusing on ‘youth culture’ as this term has hitherto been defined and applied in sociology, cultural/media studies, and other academic disci- plines interested in the cultural practices of youth. Aligned with this is the blurring now evident between youth culture as an age-specific practice and as a series of discourses through which individuals who are far beyond any categorization as ‘youth’ based on age continue to invest in ‘youth cultural’ identities. For example, many adults identify as punks, hard-core, or dance music fans, while simultaneously engag- ing with adult responsibilities and leading adult lives. This chapter will examine these and other challenges to our understanding of the term ‘youth culture’ and consider whether the latter continues to be a valid conceptual and analytical category. Key to the argument presented in

42 D. Woodman et al. (eds.), Youth Cultures, Transitions, and © The Editor(s) 2015 Andy Bennett 43 the chapter will be that youth needs to become more aware that elements of both the spectacular ‘and’ mundane combine in the cultural practices of youth. A further dimension of the argument presented here is that such cultural practices increasingly form part of the biography and identity of individuals across the life course rather than merely being limited to youth and early adulthood.

Youth cultural studies in context

Although the phenomenon of youth culture has attracted the most widespread attention, academically and otherwise, during the period of contemporary history beginning with the end of the Second World War and the emergence of the leisure and consumer industries, the historical legacy of youth culture spans a much longer period of time. For exam- ple, Pearson (1994) documents a style-based gang comprising young apprentices in London during the 17th and 18th centuries who became notorious for their drinking habits and various forms of riotous behavior in city streets. Similarly, both Roberts (1971) and Fowler (1992) refer to stylistically distinct youth groups, such as the Salford Scuttlers, in north- ern England during the late 19th century and also during the interwar years. In Germany, Peukert (1983) identifies similar historical trends in stylistically spectacular youth cultures during the early 20th century. Youth culture is then not merely, as is often mooted, a product of the post-Second World War consumer boom, although there is little doubt that socioeconomic changes and technological developments occurring in the West during that period had a significant impact on the nature of youth culture from that period onward. The years following the Second World War saw a period of affluence buoyed up by near-full employment as postwar reconstruction and the rollout of new mass production industries got under way. Given the sheer number of adult males killed during wartime hostilities, there were significant gaps in the postwar labor market and these were often filled by young people between the ages of 15 and 25. The resulting affluence among this section of society created an increased demand for youth-targeted leisure and the emergence of consumer products – music, fashion, literature, and film, for example – targeted primarily at a youth audience (see Chambers 1985, Bennett 2000). Music in particular became a primary driver for new youth sensibilities as a new genre of pop icons, beginning with Elvis Presley in the 1950s and expanding in the 1960s with groups such as the Beatles and the Beach Boys, culturally connected with youth audiences who were typically of a similar age and 44 Analysis of Contemporary Youth Cultural Practice shared a similar outlook on life (Shumway 1992). This ‘’, as Leech (1973) has referred to it, also gave rise to a steadily increasing number of stylistically distinctive youth gangs or, as they came to be termed, ‘’ (Clarke et al. 1976). Early postwar examples of this included the Teddy Boys, the mods and the rockers. Newspaper reports of clashes between the mods and rockers at seaside towns on England’s southeast coast during the mid-1960s placed these youth cul- tures at the center of a nationwide moral panic (Cohen 1987), a trend that continued into the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s as subsequent youth cultures/musical genres such as punk, heavy metal, and dance were sim- ilarly targeted by the media (see Laing 1985, Thornton 1994, Bennett 2001). In terms of its representation as an academic object of interest, youth culture has also been considered primarily in terms of its significance in a postwar context. Hall and Jefferson’s (1976) Resistance through Rituals is something of a landmark study in this respect due to its highly sophis- ticated, and much emulated, theorization of postwar British youth cultures as articulating forms of collective resistance based on their expe- riences of class and class relations in late capitalist society. This position is developed and refined by Hebdige (1979) in his reading of punk as a stylistic response to the chaos and malaise present in Britain at the end of 1970s as the country plunged into a period of economic depres- sion. The subcultural studies tradition initiated by Hall and Jefferson and other researchers based at Birmingham University’s Centre for Con- temporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) also acquired transnational currency, for example, in Brake’s (1985) comparative study of youth cultures in Britain, the United States, and Canada, and in Weinstein’s (1991) study of heavy metal’s appeal for blue-collar youth in North America. As noted elsewhere (see, for example, Bennett 2002), the CCCS subcultural theory has been criticized on a number of accounts. These include the CCCS’s lack of attention to gender and the role of girls in youth (sub)cultures (McRobbie 1989), the metropolitan centeredness of its approach (Clarke 1990), and its overreliance on textual analysis at the expense of conducting ethnographic studies of youth (Cohen 1987). In the early 2000s, a new critique of subcultural studies emerged in the shape of what came to be known as ‘post-subcultural’ theory. Taking its inspiration from both postmodern theory and the ‘’, a movement in sociological and cultural theory that argued for the reconceptualization of individuals as reflexive agents engaged in the coproduction of culture, post-subcultural theorists such as Bennett (1999), Miles (2000), and Muggleton (2000) argued that subcultural Andy Bennett 45 theory was too rigid in its interpretation of youth cultures as merely a product of class circumstances. Rather, it was suggested, youth cul- tures were better positioned as key examples of the way that media and consumerism gave rise to new, reflexive forms of based around affective associations grounded in taste, aesthetics, and lifestyle.

Where are the ‘ordinary’ youth?

Conceptually speaking, post-subcultural theory represented something of a radical departure from subcultural studies (Bennett 2011), as evidenced by the rapid publication of two edited collections dedi- cated to evaluating the importance of post-subcultural perspectives (see Muggleton and Weinzierl 2003, Bennett and Kahn-Harris 2004). While debates as to the advantages and disadvantages of applying subcultural and post-subcultural perspectives continue (see Bennett 2005, Blackman 2005, Hesmondhalgh 2005, Shildrick and MacDonald 2006), what is clear is that in both subcultural and post-subcultural approaches the emphasis is still largely upon what has been referred to in this chapter and elsewhere as spectacular youth. However, while the terms ‘subcul- ture’ and ‘post-’ have essentially become conceptual code for addressing more visually marked renderings of youth cultural identity, for example, punk, hardcore, metal, rap, and so forth, the term ‘youth culture’ is now also being increasingly applied to more ‘mundane’ prac- tices such as texting, drinking, online social networking, and so forth (see, for example, Green 2003, Griffin et al. 2009, Robards 2014). In previous work on youth culture, such examples of more ‘mainstream’ youth activity, particularly when engaged in by youth who appeared to have no obvious stylistic affiliation, tended to be left in the amorphous and quite problematic category of ‘ordinary’ youth. However, even during a time when it was largely taken for granted that the study of youth culture amounted to something more than the study of ‘ordinary’ youth, a number of theorists pointed out that the distinctions between ordinary and spectacular youth were not as clear-cut as some might want to believe. Thus, as Frith observed:

The problem is to reconcile and subculture. Most working-class teenagers pass through groups, change identities, play their leisure roles for fun; other differences between them – sex, occu- pation, family – are much more significant than distinctions of style. For every youth ‘stylist’ committed to a cult as a full-time creative task, there are hundreds of working-class kids who grow up in a loose 46 Analysis of Contemporary Youth Cultural Practice

membership of several groups and run with a variety of gangs. There’s a distinction here between a vanguard and a mass, between uses of leisure within subcultures. (1983: 219–220, emphasis in original)

A parallel observation was raised by Clarke (1990), who also queried the focus of subcultural studies on what he termed ‘card-carrying’ and fully paid-up members of youth subcultures. For Clarke, the essentialism inherent in this approach was further exacerbated by subcultural stud- ies’ almost exclusive reliance on textual readings of youth culture. This approach, argued Clarke, prevented subcultural theorists from uncov- ering the different layers of investment in youth cultural style and belonging. When considered in this way, it is possible to see another problem inherent in the subcultural studies project. Thus, through its fail- ure to engage in any form of sustained empirical analysis of youth (sub)cultures, subcultural theory could be accused of having invented a highly romanticized notion of subculture as a space inhabited by pure ‘subcultural beings’. Indeed, it is very often the case that in much of the formative work on youth culture, so-called youth subculturalists appear to have no life outside the one that is created for them in theoretical accounts. This is exemplified in the latter part of Hebdige’s (1979) highly influential study Subculture: The Meaning of Style, where he openly admits that the picture he has created of the youth subculturalist might well be unrecognizable for youth subculturalists themselves. An early indica- tion of such a disjuncture in subcultural theory – and of the fact that subculturalists were perhaps being created according to the theoretical whims of theorists, rather than as real people with real lives – is seen in McRobbie’s observation that ‘few writers seemed interested in what happened when a mod went home after a weekend on speed. Only what happened out there on the streets mattered’ (1989: 113). In certain respects, and notwithstanding the comments offered above regarding its similar focus on ‘spectacular youth culture’, the emergence of post-subcultural theory has offered something of a challenge to the ‘ideal’ subcultural type that is often seen to characterize the pages of the youth subcultures literature. Thus, through introducing into the frame a more nuanced understanding of youth style as something ‘worked on’ by individuals who bring their own specific understandings to their chosen visual image, post-subcultural theory begins to break down the idea of youth style as reflecting cultural homogeneity while at the same time allowing for differing degrees of investment and commitment, in a Andy Bennett 47 way that chimes with Frith’s (1983) and Clarke’s (1990) previously cited observations. The other critical contribution made by post-subcultural theory in this space is its breaking down of the idea that ‘subculture’ is some reified subset of society. Instead, through utilizing the work of theorists such as Giddens (1991), Chaney (1996), and Maffesoli (1996), post-subcultural theorists have recontextualized youth (sub)cultures as more fluid and characterized by shifting associations (Bennett 1999). Aligned with this reorientation in thinking is the notion that young peo- ple may simultaneously express allegiance with several different youth cultural affiliations as these extend, for example, across music, sport, and digital media. In essence then, and perhaps with differing degrees of emphasis, what post-subcultural theorists are essentially pointing to is a need to embrace a more complex and diverse range of youth cultural prac- tices under a broader and more nuanced heading of ‘youth culture’. Certainly, there has been a marked show of resistance to this in some quarters of what one might refer to as critical youth studies. Blackman (2005), for example, has argued that, in its ‘celebration’ of the young person as a consumer exemplar, youth research influenced by post- subcultural studies and the post-modern turn has effectively abandoned any consideration of the political capacity of youth culture. Looking at this from a different angle, Shildrick and MacDonald (2006) argue that consumerism is itself an exclusionary concept as not all young people have the necessary economic resources to engage in the consumption of cultural commodities. Again, however, there seems in such observations to be an element of essentialism that works to conspire against mean- ingful engagement with youth culture as a diverse landscape in which participation may not be contingent on an overtly politicized sensibility or discourse, nor on the availability of economic resources.

Recontextualizing youth culture

During the last 20 years, there has been an increasing interest in the role of cultural consumerism and digital media in young people’s lives (see, for example, Buckingham 1993, Miles 2000). Neither of these foci are unprecedented; indeed, as the foregoing account illustrates, youth have been seen as key agents of cultural and media consumption since the early 1950s. What has changed, however, is the proliferation of cultural and media resources available to youth. Youth research on cultural consumption and the use of digital media has been signifi- cant in a number of regards, throwing new light on aspects of youth 48 Analysis of Contemporary Youth Cultural Practice lifestyle, issues of inclusion and exclusion, and notions of participa- tion and citizenship (Buckingham 2007). Within this, however, one question that has not been addressed and yet begs critical inquiry is what these more recent trends in youth research tell us about the inter- face between the spectacular and the mundane in contemporary youth cultural practice? Bennett (2004) has suggested that with the emergence of the Inter- net, the way that youth cultures can be identified, and indeed identify themselves, has undergone a significant shift. In addition to a blurring of the public and the private (Lincoln 2012) and a melding of online and offline interaction (Robards 2012), the Internet has also thrown an inter- esting new light on the ways through which youth understand them- selves as ‘culturally’ connected. While music and/or style may play some part here (see, for example, Hodkinson 2003), these may not be the most critical barometers of collective cultural identification among youth. Equally important may be things such as sexual preference, nightlife activities, culinary taste, and so on. Indeed, as Robards and Bennett’s (2011) study of youth and social networking sites on Australia’s Gold Coast has revealed, an emphasis on these and other preferences and tastes is very much at the forefront in the ways that young people now represent themselves as cultural beings to others in both online and offline contexts. Equally interesting here is that when the young people interviewed for this study referred to issues of ‘subcultural’ belonging, this was done in a highly reflexive way and one that saw ‘subcul- tures’ as merely part of the way that young people culturally construct their identities. Equally important here were things such as friendship groups, sporting activities, and attitudes toward health and well-being. This connection between more ‘classically’ understood notions of youth cultural identity and the more mundane, everyday ways that youth sit- uate themselves as cultural beings is also evident in Lincoln’s (2012) study of teenage bedroom culture. Although this topic was famously first explored in McRobbie and Garber’s (1976) study of early 1970s female teenyboppers (a compelling critique of the then male-dominated sphere of youth cultural research), that study remained something of a rarity for a number of years. With the emergence of digital media, however, the bedroom has taken on new dimensions of importance for youth, being a portal to the wider world while at the same time becoming a space for an expression of identity that must be even more carefully negotiated in regard to the specter of parental ‘intrusion’ and potential censorship of media-based activities. Lincoln’s work is, thus, a further indication that the cultural lives of youth are not lives located outside other aspects of Andy Bennett 49 their everyday lives. Rather, they exist simultaneously with, and are to some extent a product of, those broader everyday circumstances that shape and often constrain youth lives and lifestyles. A further development in youth research over the last 20 years that prompts us to question our understanding of how ‘youth culture’ should be conceptualized is the focus on young people’s engagement with the urban nighttime economy. Certainly, pubs and clubs have been an important aspect of youth cultural lives for many years, and it is arguably a significant disadvantage for youth research that this rich vein of youth leisure and entertainment was neglected for such a long period of time. With the onset of post-industrialization and the emer- gence of leisure economies, however, increasing attention has been given to this aspect of young people’s lives. In the mid-1990s, Hollands’s (1996) groundbreaking work on youth and the nighttime economy in the northern English city of Newcastle upon Tyne offered an important new insight into how young people recreated their sense of local iden- tity through their engagement with the local pub and club life of the city. This is vividly captured in Hollands’ description of young working- class males participating in what he refers to as the Geordie1 working man’s weekend, where Friday night is used for drinking with male friends while Saturday night is reserved for taking out one’s girlfriend or partner for a meal in a more ‘civilized’ setting. In subsequent work, Chatterton and Hollands (2002) develop this focus on youth’s engage- ment with the nighttime economy, recasting city bars, clubs, and music venues as a series of ‘urban playscapes’ within which young people con- gregate. A critically salient component of Chatterton and Hollands’s argument is the way that the hyper-commodification of urban leisure spaces by urban developers in partnership with the local state produces both a more regulated and segmented nighttime economy. Within this fragmented urban space, the cultural practice of youth becomes equally fragmented as different patterns of taste, often linked to other factors of youth lives, play out. Bennett and Rogers (forthcoming) have considered this segregation in relation to the DIY creation of alternative music venues in the Australian cities of Sydney, Brisbane, and Adelaide. As Bennett and Rogers observe, although ostensibly focused around music and musi- cal taste, such DIY activity is actually underpinned by a broader range of issues. These include a mode of informed resistance to the perceived ‘encroachment’ of big business on city spaces and the restrictions this imposes upon freedom of leisure choice, and the desire to (re-)create spaces that are aesthetically pleasing for those who, for a mixture of 50 Analysis of Contemporary Youth Cultural Practice reasons – including sexual politics and preference, educational back- ground, profession, and attitudes toward alcohol and alcohol-fueled aggression – wish to self-exclude themselves from the more mainstream bars and clubs. Importantly, however, such differentiated patterns of cultural engagement with the contemporary urban nighttime economy cannot be neatly theorized along lines of class, education, and pro- fession. Brown and Gregg’s (2012) study of young women’s drinking patterns and their documentation on Facebook is a telling illustration of the fact that the mainstream bar and clubbing landscape is one fre- quented by youth from across the social strata. Similarly, Griffin and colleagues’ (2009) study of young people’s attitudes to intoxication and related behavior reveals that young people from a range of backgrounds, including a high percentage of higher education students, regularly engage in such behavior in the context of the urban nighttime economy. Moreover, such practices are not reported by young people in exclu- sively negative terms as examples of reckless and embarrassing behavior. Rather, it is frequently suggested by youth that such practices form part of a ritual practice in which drinking adventures are designed to evoke self-mockery and laughter among peer groups (see also Goodwin et al. 2014). The example of alcohol consumption in the nighttime economy serves as a further indication that the ‘cultural’ practices of youth, that is to say the ways they collectively identify in relation to a series of culturally inscribed activities and beliefs, extend well beyond the more conventionally ascribed examples of music and style. Moreover, it is also clear that such extended terrains of youth cultural practice are quite complex. Thus, while youth assume different aesthetic positions in rela- tion to the hyper-commodified and regulated space of the mainstream nighttime economy, their motivations for doing so cannot be uniformly related to issues of social structure but suggest that more reflexive and self-elected forms of participation and behavior are at play. A further way in which conventional notions of youth culture are now problematic relates to the aging demographic of ‘youth’. An early reference to this matter is seen in the work of Thornton (1995) on electronic dance music clubs. As Thornton observes, although stereo- typed by the media as unregulated spaces that put ‘young’ people at risk, these clubs were also frequented by a wider demographic, including people in their thirties and forties. Thornton suggested that this trend could be attributed to an increasing tendency of older people to resist the social aging expectations imposed on them by the dominant soci- ety. This point is supported by du Bois-Reymond’s (1998) study of the Andy Bennett 51 stretched transitions now frequently experienced by young adults. Thus, observes du Bois-Reymond, while it was once regarded as the stage of life in which to settle down, raise a family, and establish a career, the period of adult life from the mid-twenties to mid-thirties is now increasingly considered an extension of one’s youth. In a subsequent study of my own, however, I contest such ‘resistance to social aging’ arguments, sug- gesting instead that it is more productive to see these and other aging examples of ‘youth cultural’ activity as part of a process of biograph- ical development. Referring to the research participants in this study, I observe that, ‘although their identities as hippies, rockers, punks and so on may have initially taken form in their youth, these identities have continued to develop over the years’ (Bennett 2013: 35). The study then goes on to examine the cultural terrain of ‘aging’ youth in more detail, highlighting a variety of strategies used by individuals to reconcile their aging selves with their youth cultural identities as these relate to phys- ical aging, work, parenthood, and peer groups (see also Bennett and Hodkinson 2012). What this work fundamentally reveals is that those aging individuals who continue to define themselves as punks, hippies, dance music fans, and so on are not resisting social aging. Rather, they are evolving strategies through which to continue practicing and artic- ulating such identities within the context of the other social roles they are required to perform, and openly accept, as part of their adult lives.

Conclusion

This chapter has examined the concept of youth culture and how it might continue to be used as a meaningful term of reference in an era when research is revealing the increasingly complex interplay of practices engaged in by young people. The critical problem with the concept of youth culture as applied in contemporary youth research, it is argued, is the continuing distinction between studies that pursue an interest in spectacular modes of cultural practice and those that repre- sent the culture of youth in relation to more mundane activities. On the one hand, the use of the term ‘youth culture’ in the latter context represents a positive move in that it demonstrates that some aspects of youth research are developing a broader understanding of the range of practices that youth engage in and though which they understand and represent themselves as cultural beings. Nevertheless, the contin- uing distinction between such work and that with a focus on more spectacular aspects of youth culture remains problematic for a number of reasons. First, it reinforces a notion that spectacular and mundane 52 Analysis of Contemporary Youth Cultural Practice youth cultural practices are still essentially discrete categories, a per- spective which, as this chapter has argued, has always been somewhat mythically constructed. Second, and leading on from the first point, it is increasingly clear that the production of terms such as ‘subcultural’ and ‘ordinary’ youth may serve as neat academic constructs for the formu- lation of specific arguments but do not accurately reflect the everyday lives and lived experiences of young people themselves. In effect then, for youth culture to continue having critical currency as an analytical tool in youth research, its conceptual parameters will need to be broad- ened. This will entail a wholesale acknowledgment of the fact that youth cultures and youth cultural lives are complex and embrace a broad range of practices ranging from the spectacular to the mundane to varying degrees. Attempting to bracket out certain activities of youth as more or less relevant to the study of their cultural lives than others will only serve to perpetuate a problem that has hampered the academic study of youth for many years – that is, the representation of youth as largely or purely an analytical construct. The need to move on from this highly problematic position was forcibly demonstrated in the latter part of the chapter, where it was suggested that the increasing incidence of aging ‘youth’ cultural identities forces new questions as to how (post-)youth cultural lives are maintained and refashioned within a range of everyday constraints experienced by adult individuals.

Note

1. The recognized term for a native of Newcastle, UK.

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: Macmillan. Bennett A (2001) Cultures of Popular Music, Buckingham: Open University Press. Bennett A (2002) Researching youth culture and popular music: A methodologi- cal critique, British Journal of Sociology, 53 (3): 451–466. Bennett A (2004) Virtual subculture? Youth, identity and the Internet, In A Bennett & K Kahn-Harris (eds), After Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture, Basingstoke: Palgrave (162–172). Bennett A (2005) In defence of neo-tribes: A response to Blackman and Hesmondhalgh, Journal of Youth Studies, 8 (2): 255–259. Bennett A (2011) The post-subcultural turn: Some reflections ten years on, Journal of Youth Studies, 14 (5): 493–506. Andy Bennett 53

Bennett A (2013) Music, Style and Aging: Growing Old Disgracefully?, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Bennett A & Hodkinson P (eds) (2012) Ageing and Youth Cultures: Music, Style and Identity, Oxford: Berg. Bennett A & Kahn-Harris K (eds) (2004) After Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Bennett A & Rogers I (forthcoming) Popular Music Scenes and , Basingstoke: Palgrave. 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. Brake M (1985) Comparative Youth Culture: The Sociology of Youth Cultures and Youth Subcultures in America, Britain and Canada, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Brown R & Gregg M (2012) The pedagogy of regret: Facebook, binge drinking and young women, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies,26(3): 357–369. Buckingham D (ed.) (1993) Reading Audiences: Young People and the Media, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Buckingham, D (ed.) (2007) Youth, Identity and Digital Media, Boston, MA: MIT Press. Chambers I (1985) Urban Rhythms: Pop Music and , London: Macmillan. Chaney D (1996) Lifestyles, London: Routledge. Chatterton P & Hollands RG (2002) Theorising urban playscapes: Producing, regulating and consuming youthful nightlife city paces, Urban Studies,39(1): 153–173. Clarke G (1990) Defending ski-jumpers: A critique of theories of youth subcul- tures,InSFrith&AGoodwin (eds), On Record: Rock, Pop and the Written Word, London: Routledge (68–80). Clarke J, Hall S, Jefferson T, & Roberts B (1976) Subcultures, cultures and class: A theoretical overview, In S Hall & T Jefferson (eds), Resistance through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-War Britain, London: Hutchinson (9– 74). Cohen S (1987) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers (3rd edition), Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Du Bois-Reymond M (1998) I don’t want to commit myself yet: Young people’s life concepts, Journal of Youth Studies, 1 (1): 63–79. Fowler D (1992) Teenage consumers? Young wage-earners and leisure in Manchester, 1919–1939, In A Davies&SFielding (eds), Workers’ Worlds: Cultures and Communities in Manchester and Salford, 1880–1939, Manchester: Manchester University Press (133–155). Frith S (1983) Sound Effects: Youth, Leisure and the Politics of Rock, London: Constable. Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity. Goodwin I, Lyons A, Griffin C, & McCreanor T (2014) Ending up online: Interrogating mediated drinking cultures, In A Bennett & B Robards (eds), Mediated Youth Cultures: The Internet, Belonging and New Cultural Configurations, Basingstoke: Palgrave (59–76). 54 Analysis of Contemporary Youth Cultural Practice

Green N (2003) Outwardly mobile: Young people and mobile technologies, In EK James (ed.), Machine That Become Us: The Social Context of Personal Communica- tion Technology, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers (201–217). Griffin C, Bengry-Howell A, Hackley C, Mistral W, & Szmigin I (2009) ‘Every time I do it I absolutely annihilate myself’: Loss of (elf) consciousness and loss of memory in young people’s drinking narratives, Sociology, 43 (3): 457–476. Hall S & Jefferson T (eds) (1976) Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-War Britain, London: Hutchinson. Hebdige D (1979) Subculture: The Meaning of Style, London: Routledge. Hesmondhalgh D (2005) Subcultures, scenes or tribes? None of the above, Journal of Youth Studies, 8 (1): 21–40. Hodkinson P (2003) Net. Goth: Internet communication and (sub)cultural boundaries, In D Muggleton & R Weinzierl (eds), The Post-Subcultures Reader, Oxford: Berg (285–298). Hollands RG (1996) From shipyards to nightclubs: Restructuring young adults’ employment, household and consumption identities in the north-east of England, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 41 (1): 41–66. Laing D (1985) One Chord Wonders: Power and Meaning in Punk Rock, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Leech, K. (1973) Youthquake: The Growth of a Counter-Culture through Two Decades, London: Sheldon Press. Lincoln S (2012) Youth Culture and Private Space, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Maffesoli M (1996) The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society (trans D Smith), London: Sage. McRobbie A (1989) Settling accounts with subcultures: A feminist critique, In T Bennett, T Martin, C Mercer, & J Woollacott (eds), Culture, Ideology and Social Process: A Reader, Milton Keynes: Open University Press (111–124). McRobbie A & Garber J (1976) Girls and subcultures: An exploration, In S Hall & T Jefferson (eds), Resistance through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-War Britain, London: Hutchinson (209–222). Miles S (2000) Youth Lifestyles in a Changing World, Buckingham: Open University Press. Muggleton D & Weinzierl R (eds) (2003) The Post-Subcultures Reader, Oxford: Berg. Muggleton David (2000) Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style, Oxford: Berg. Pearson G (1994) Youth crime and society, In M Maguire, R Morgan, & R Reiser (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford: Clarendon Press (1161– 1206). Peukert D (1983) Die ‘Wilden Cliquen’ in den zwanziger Jahren, In W Breyvogel (ed.), Autonomie und Widerstand: Zur Theorie und Geschichte des Jugendprotestes, Essen: Rigodon (98–105). Robards B (2012) Leaving MySpace, joining Facebook: ‘Growing up’ on social network sites, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 26 (3): 385–398. Robards B (2014) Mediating experiences of ‘growing up’ on Facebook’s time- line: Privacy, ephemerality and the reflexive project of the self, In A Bennett & B Robards (eds), Mediated Youth Cultures: The Internet, Belonging and New Cultural Configurations, Basingstoke: Palgrave (26–41). Robards B & Bennett A (2011) My tribe: Postsubcultural manifestations of belonging on social network sites, Sociology, 45 (2): 303–317. Andy Bennett 55

Roberts R (1971) The Classic Slum, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Shildrick T & MacDonald R (2006) In defence of subculture: Young people, leisure and social divisions, Journal of Youth Studies, 9 (2): 125–140. Shumway D. (1992) Rock and roll as a cultural practice, In A DeCurtis (ed.), Present Tense: Rock and Roll and Culture, Durham, NC: Duke University Press (117–133). Thornton S (1994) Moral panic, the media and British rave culture, In A Ross & T Rose (eds), Microphone Fiends: Youth Music and Youth Culture, London: Routledge (176–192). Thornton S (1995) Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital, Cambridge, UK: Polity. Weinstein D (1991) Heavy Metal: A Cultural Sociology, New York: Lexington.