Gender, Race and Ethnicity in the Ducktail Subculture

160 Chapter Four Negotiating Individual Identities: Gender, Race and Ethnicity 1 in the Ducktail Subculture Introduction Despite subcultural analysts’ contribution to a better understanding of the way in which individuals engage with and create culture, identity, as an analytical tool, rarely features in the literature. Unravelling the processes that contribute to the formation of identity reveals the way in which both individual and group identities are constantly negotiated and renegotiated over time and in space. As Stuart Hall succinctly puts it: Identity becomes a ‘moveable feast’: formed and transformed continuously in relation to the ways we are represented or addressed in the cultural systems which surround us…The subject assumes different identities at different times, identities which are not unified around a coherent ‘self’. Within us are contradictory identities, pulling in different directions, so that our 2 identifications are continuously being shifted about. The processes by which these multiple and contradictory identities are negotiated is the central focus of this chapter. It builds on the previous chapter which documented the group and collective identities which made the Ducktail subculture visible. In the context of the Ducktail subculture there was no single, monolithic and hegemonic identity, rather there existed multiple identities - of class, racial, ethnic and gendered kinds – which were constructed by subjects through their interaction with historical, economic, social and cultural circumstances and contexts. Here the focus shifts from the general to the specific and traces the gendered, racial and ethnic identities that youths embraced. Sheilas, Cherries and Chicks: Marginality and Visibility As outlined earlier, one of the major strengths of subcultural studies is the way in which gendered (both masculine and feminine) identities have been plotted. However, very little can be learnt from these studies about the actual process through and in which these identities are constructed.3 In this section of the 161 chapter, the formulation of feminine, masculine and sexual identities will be discussed respectively with a view to highlighting the fluidity of power relations between male and female members of the subculture. Although gender features in subcultural studies, these studies give more attention to masculinity, creating the impression that subcultures are terrains for boys and young men to experiment with their identities. Scholars such as Brake, Glaser, McRobbie and Garber have noted these shortcomings. None offer entirely convincing solutions. McRobbie and Garber make the boldest claims when they suggest that Girls negotiate a different leisure space and different personal spaces from those inhabited by boys. These in turn offer them different possibilities for ‘resistance’, if indeed that is the right word to use4. Brake however adopts a different perspective to the others narrowing down the subcultural space available to girls. He contends that: Girls are present in male subcultures, but are contained within them, rather than using them to explore actively forms of female identity.5 In the case of ducktail femininity it is possible to identify three features of involvement with the subculture. Firstly, girls were peripheral in some areas and central in others. Secondly they carved out niches of autonomy for themselves to experiment with their identity and thirdly there were degrees of variability. Glaser’s insights into the role of girls in subcultures rings true for the Ducktail case when he argues that there is ‘a very genuine element of female marginality in youth subcultures’.6 However, these notions of female marginality require qualification. Female marginality, in the argument of this chapter, was not uniform or fixed; it shifted depending on the context. Girls certainly featured in the ducktail subculture but more often than not they played a marginal role especially compared to boys. Mike Malony remembers: 162 On the whole, it was an oke [guy] thing, we rode with guys and a few woes cherries [aggressive girls]…equality wasn’t considered, women drove ambulances in the war but this reverted back to traditionalism.7 Similarly, Isa noted with a tone of disappointment Girls were not really independent, boys were chauvinistic, we tried but the boys were the main thing…It was important to have a boyfriend – you had to have a boyfriend.8 Women were central and independent in some areas of subcultural life and peripheral in others. For example, racing was an exclusively male pastime whereas dancing was an activity in which boys and girls participated. However, the extent of Sheila autonomy varied. For example, those Sheilas who were affiliated to the ‘mobile group’ (those who had access to transport), in particular, the motorbike element occupied a subordinate position compared to their male counterparts. Their membership of the group was dependent on their relationship with their boyfriends. If their relations were terminated so was the girl’s presence within the group. In some Ducktail gangs there was a ‘tradition’ that a female member could only have an intimate relationship with a male member of the group if she had sexual intercourse with every member of the gang.9 This affirms that the ‘cultural subordination’ of girls ‘is retained and reproduced’ by youths.10 A powerful dimension of the Ducktail subculture, as with the Teddy Boys and the ‘street corner’ culture in the USA, was escape into the street. The Sheilas’ presence on the street was not as marked as their male counterparts. Within the new teenage consumer patterns, initiated after World War Two, many activities confined girls to the home. For example, the experimentation with make-up, keeping up with fashion and listening to music were all activities that were pursued at home, although this was not necessarily one’s own.11 Female members carved niches for themselves in the subculture. This gave them a vehicle with which to experiment and explore their feminine identities. Although girls often occupied a subordinate position in relation to boys among the ducktails, they were not passive players in the subculture. They went out together in all girl groups to the bioscope, cafés, roadhouses and sessions. In this sense they 163 were quite independent. Some of the girls were even responsible for drawing boys into the group. As Isa recalls, ‘initially my present husband was not really involved, I changed him, I had to.’12 A further dimension of the variability within the female ducktail subculture related to aggression and violence. It seems that female members fell into one of two categories: the more passive and feminine on the one hand and the aggressive and more street wise on the other. It was this antagonistic and truculent streak in them which differentiated the ‘bad girls’ (the Sheilas) from the ‘good girls’ (those who looked like Sheilas in appearance only). Jane, a Sheila from the Southern Suburbs, remembers that, ‘if you were walking down the street and a group of Sheilas were approaching, you would have to cross the road to avoid being attacked.’13 Some girls occupied a central position within gangs, Els recollects: I was always leader of the girls I beat half the guys as well…We didn’t use flick-knives, because there was a law against knives most of it was bicycle chains and knuckle-dusters.14 At times, girls were also involved in fights usually over their boyfriends. As Prop pointed out: If another girl was to approach me, my chick [girlfriend] would sort her out for sure; sometimes the women were worse when fighting. Hey, they protected their property.15 More commonly, however, they supported and egged on their male counterparts in their excursions. Malony told the story of one fight where: One of the cherries [girls] had taken off her shoe and started to hack at Eddie’s back with the stiletto heel. 16 Physical support was uncommon; verbal support was more usual. For example P.C.A. Galbraith of the South African Police [SAP] – who was investigating ‘delinquency and the ducktails in Johannesburg’ claimed that he heard a girl say, ‘Don’t hit them on the legs, play softball with their heads’.17 164 Some Sheilas were also allegedly involved in petty crime ranging from prostitution to begging. According to Engelbrecht and his assistant researchers, older men used to try and pick up ‘or start something’ with the Sheilas.18 Whether or not Sheilas were drawn into full-scale prostitution is unknown and will remain so until further research is carried out. When begging, the girls used to ask passers-by for money for a bus fare. Once they received the money from one person they moved onto the next.19 Statistically the percentage increase in crime between 1945 and 1954, was almost fifty per cent higher amongst white girls than boys. Table 11: Percentage increase in crime according to sex, 1945-195420 Crime by Age Group Girls Boys per cent of all crime: 8.7 per cent 4.7 per cent 7-16 years 1945 per cent for serious crime: 17.1 per cent 8.1 per cent 7-16 years 1954 per cent of all crime: 5.5 per cent 7.4 per cent 17-20 years 1945 per cent for serious crime: 11.8 per cent 7.4 per cent 17-20 years 1954 Although the percentage increases are substantial, the actual incidence of crime was still low. For example in 1945, girls (7-16 years) convicted of serious crime only comprised 0.3 per 10 000 of the population. In 1952 this rose to a still relatively small 1.3 per 10 000.21 It is difficult to establish whether or not these figures represent crimes committed by members of the subculture. It nevertheless seems quite probable that they do. Female members were thus not marginalised and subordinated into a kind of non-identity; they actively created and experimented with their own identity within the space of the subculture.

Load more