Hebdige Questions

Hebdige points out that Subcultures do not form nor exist in an ideological vacuum. Instead, each is a solution to a distinct set of circumstances in history. This affects not only how the subculture views itself, but also how those outside the subculture view it. As an example, Hebdige points out the differences between the first and second Ted movements. The mainstream vilified the first but acknowledged the second as an almost established part of British culture. Both were characterized by their racism, but the second movement was positioned closer to the parent/dominant culture. It reflected the spirit of revival, nostalgia, and a sense of “Britishness.” In what ways do time and media exposure help legitimize a subculture, as in the case of the Teds? Also, by aligning closer to the parent culture’s values, did the Teds lose some defining characteristics of a subculture?

Chapter six deals with forms of incorporation, the ways in which mainstream culture defines, positions, and eventually absorbs subcultures. One step in the eventual incorporation of a subcultural style is moral panic. This describes the tendency of the press to exaggerate the danger or problem something like a subculture might pose. How does moral panic help in the process of either trivializing or satirizing subcultures? Examples?

In Chapter seven, Hebdige deals with two questions. How does a subculture make sense to its members? How does it go about signifying or representing disorder? In what ways did the Punks and other subcultures achieve these two goals through their dress, language, or dance? How do you see the term Bricolage, the science of the concrete, play out in answering these questions (103)? For punks? For mods? Rastas? How does the phrase “semiotic warfare” fit in (105)?