Which factor contributed to the growth of youth culture in United States during the 1950s?

Youth culture refers to the cultural practice of members of this age group by which they express their identities and demonstrate their sense of belonging to a particular group of young people. Early conceptions of juvenile cultural expressions advocated the idea that youth as a social group adheres to common values, goals, and behaviors distinct from those of the adult world. These were succeeded by models that paid greater attention to the internal differentiation of youth culture. Most prominent were approaches that linked the structure of inequality in modern society to juvenile cultural expressions, thus conceiving of them in terms of class-specific youth cultures. From the late twentieth century, the extension of the life stage ‘youth,’ the blurring of age boundaries between youth and adulthood, and the proliferation of youth cultures, due to structural and cultural changes in late modern society, have raised the issue of what constitutes authentic and autonomous cultural expressions of youth (as opposed to the mainstream adult cultural practice).

Abstract

The study of youth culture has a long history in sociology and the social sciences. The pioneering Chicago School of Sociology was especially concerned with young people as they engaged in delinquency and deviance. Youth culture was enabled by social changes like the extension of public schooling and the growth of consumer culture, and during the 1960s young people would become powerful agents of political and cultural change. The upheavals of the 1960s proved to be a pivotal turning point that transformed sociological approaches to youth culture. Subsequent studies have emphasized the symbolic acts of resistance perpetrated by an increasingly diverse range of subcultures.

Tribal Youth Subcultures and Resistance

Studies of youth cultures emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. In the UK context, research into youth cultures was a primary concern for the influential Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) at the University of Birmingham. Indeed, studies of youth cultures inspired the new cultural geographies both directly and indirectly. Early studies of youth gangs in the United States by scholars such as James Duncan and David Ley, along with the work of the CCCS, were key stimuli for the development of new cultural geographies. By contrast to earlier types of cultural geography, “new” visions, tied to the “cultural turn,” contend that places contain a multiplicity of cultures, which often conflict, rather than being defined by one “holistic” culture. Emphasis is also placed on individuals as agents of cultural reproduction, as opposed to structuralist superorganic views that conceptualize culture as preexisting individuals and specific social interactions. Geographers emphasize the conflicts and differentiations between mainstream and youth subcultures, thereby critiquing the causal association of an individual place with a particular, identifiable, culture. The centrality of studies of youth to the emergence of social and cultural geography has been somewhat overlooked and/or neglected in recent years.

Early research into youth cultures, conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, arguably unintentionally reproduced the idea that young people are a distinct social group who are troubling to society. These studies were self-consciously counterposed to the original studies of youth, which can be traced to post-World War II criminology and fears about public disorder. However, early youth culture studies, by taking as their departure point these early studies of troubling youth, inadvertently reproduced aspects of this earliest research. The new cultural studies of youth drew upon ethnographic methods to investigate the experiences of young people rather than objectifying young people from an external standpoint, as did the earlier criminological studies. However, these pioneering studies of youth cultures focused upon countercultural and subcultural practices as a form of resistance against the mainstream and reproduced the notion of youth cultures as “tribal,” distinct from mainstream cultures. As the name suggests, studies of “tribal” youth cultures imply that young people's social and cultural practices are a culture apart from the rest of the society. Research in this vein explored a variety of subcultural groups, including Mods, Punks, and violent gangs, and focused upon how their norms, values, and practices differed from the mainstream. Such studies therefore emphasized the distinctiveness of youth cultures. The role of subcultures as working-class forms of resistance was an important theme in this research, which often prioritized class-based power struggles.

The focus on alternative, rather than mainstream, youth cultures implicitly reproduces the perception of young people as distinct from, other to, and a potent threat to, broader society. Ultimately, such early studies could be viewed as essentialist, emphasizing the cohesiveness of youth subcultures, as opposed to reflecting upon the differentiations within them. It is easy to identify these limitations in retrospect. These critiques are tied to those of much radical scholarship of the 1970s. However, it should not be forgotten that these pioneering studies of youth culture have been influential, both forging new areas of research interest and contributing to the turn toward the cultural and social in the social sciences and geography.

The tradition of research about youth subcultural practices continues within geography and the social sciences more generally. Recent research has included ethnographies of distinct subcultural groups, such as Goths, clubbers, and students. These later studies are more sensitive to the interconnections between subcultures and broader societal social and cultural processes. However, they continue to focus upon the distinctiveness of the subcultural group vis-à-vis the mainstream. There is a danger of these studies tending toward essentialism by highlighting the difference between subcultures and the mainstream rather than fully reflecting upon the differentiations within these youth cultures. This danger can be overcome by careful consideration of differences “within” and between subcultural groups.

Studies of “tribal” youth cultures, which emphasize the distinctiveness of these subcultural groups, are contextualized within the greater attention paid to the powerfulness of cultures since the inception of the new cultural geographies. The idea of countercultures suggests that dominant cultures can be contested and possibly even transformed. In early studies, power was often expressed via the concepts of hegemony and counterhegemony. Although often tied to, and having its roots within, Marxist inspired understandings of culture as underpinned by the superstructure of the capitalist political economy, notions of hegemony and counterhegemony do not necessitate a Marxian, economically reductionist view of culture. In comparison to contemporary debates about power, however, hegemony and counterhegemony may appear somewhat simplistic and reliant upon an apparent dichotomy between the “oppressor” and the “oppressed.” Despite this critique, endeavors move beyond this dualism, which are tied to more complex ideas of power, and pose political problems of how to build resistive alliances. Ultimately, even the most poststructuralist of scholars are challenged by this impasse. The emphasis on power relations and the resistive potential of youth subcultural groupings has influenced research on new social movements (NSMs). Although diverse, NSMs are often associated with youth.

The tendency for research to portray youth subcultures as distinct from broader society is arguably associated with the dominance of ethnographic approaches. Indeed, ethnographic research may be more sensitive to the “life-worlds” of the research participants than broader contexts. If it is accepted that “structures” are reproduced by individuals through, among other things, unreflective everyday sociospatial practices, individuals may not fully perceive the structural constraints and opportunities within which their lives are contextualized. However, examples can be found, of, critical ethnographies of young people that examine how everyday practices reproduce broader social–spatial patterns and processes, with pivotal work by Willis and Katz notable in this tradition. The challenge remains of how to produce ethnographic research that explores the complex relationship between subcultures, and broader cultures and sociospatial relations, without being either structurally reductive or imposing the researchers' a priori perceptions of structural constraints.

Structure of the Educational System

The Minister of Education is responsible also for Culture, Youth and Sports. Her remit reflects the government's determination to transform the Islands' into a hi-tech servicing community with education as the foundation for future economic and social development. Figure 1 illustrates the responsibilities of the education directorates.

A major structural reorganization in the delivery and monitoring of the educational services occurred in 2007 when an Amendment to the Education Act transformed the Education Division into two new directorates. The Directorate for Educational Services includes schools as the service providers; it also acts as the resources provider supplying schools with their human and material requirements. The Directorate for Quality and Standards in Education monitors the delivery of educational services to ensure best practice. Each directorate is headed by a director general answerable to the permanent secretary and the minister. An important provision in the Amendment allows both Directorates much greater freedom of operation than the old Division enjoyed.

Youth Culture

Virtually all youth are heavily influenced by the development, rapid growth, and diffusion of youth culture. Peddled by media advertising, and augmented by large social and economic forces that fail to provide meaningful roles for young people but cater to their distinctive fads, appetites, and currency, youth culture and gang culture together underlie the excesses of consumption and violence perpetrated by gangs.

Youth culture developed rapidly during the 1960s, especially in the United States. Young people born during the baby boom following World War II shared in the general level of affluence in the country, thereby creating a youth market with great economic power. Moreover, the period of education prior to entering the labor market was extended; increasing numbers of women joined the workforce, further separating mothers from youth in the home and in the neighborhood; adults worked increasingly in large organizations away from young people; and the mass media greatly expanded and focused their attention on the youth market (see Coleman et al., 1974: pp. 114–119). These changes accelerated as the century wore on, expanding their influence throughout the world.

Field researchers document the pernicious seductions of media-advertised products among less-affluent young people, leading often to thefts and assaults. Anderson (1999) describes the “zero-sum quality” that pervades the “code of the streets,” in the search for respect – often associated with trivial items, such as shoes and jackets – among young African American men in the ghetto. Sullivan identifies “mutually valorizing cultural symbols” (clothing, drugs, alcohol, and recreational artifacts and activities, including graffiti and tattoos) that cut across racial and ethnic boundaries, often resulting in invidious comparison, confrontation, theft, and assault (Sullivan, 1989: pp. 248–249).

Adolescence is a period of especially intense identity formation, intense relationships, and shared feelings of friendship, acceptance, and respect. Conversely, feelings of rejection and disrespect also are especially intense and often the basis for group and subcultural formation. Observers of youth groups everywhere note that status differences within and between them are extremely variable and highly refined. Status criteria within a group, or between one group and another, may be based on race or ethnicity, relative economic affluence, skills in valued activities, public appearance, school performance or, perhaps most importantly, lifestyle differences. These bases of stratification typically also become criteria of inclusiveness and exclusiveness, which in turn create opportunities for both friendship and rejection.

Next to families, schools are perhaps the most important contexts for adolescent friendship, achievement, and recognition. Because of this, school contexts (including the journey to and from schools) are the settings for much adolescent behavior, including gang activities. On occasion, they also have been the setting for the most extreme forms of violence, including mass killings by students or others alienated from their fellows or from mainstream institutions in general. Although the specific causes of such extreme alienation are complex, it appears that schools have been targeted precisely because of their importance in the lives of adolescents, as symbols of rejection by both peers and an adult world that seems far removed from adolescent concerns. The ready availability of guns at times transforms normal adolescent turmoil and conflict into deadly confrontation (Moore et al., 2003).

More than ever before in history, young people, targeted for commercial exploitation and isolated from mainstream adult roles and institutions, confront economic conditions beyond their control. Not only are economic decline, severe unemployment, and the unavailability of ‘good jobs’ associated with the presence of street gangs, but with their transformation into ‘economic gangs’ (including drug gangs) and with ethnic, racial, and class-related identities and antagonisms that lead to other types of collective violence (Hagedorn, 2008; Pitts, 2000). These same forces alter both intergang relationships and relationships between gangs and their communities.

3 Youth Culture

Virtually all youth are heavily influenced by the development, rapid growth, and diffusion of youth culture. Peddled by media advertising, and augmented by large social and economic forces that fail to provide meaningful roles for young people but cater to their distinctive fads, appetites, and currency, youth culture and gang culture together underly the excesses of consumption and violence perpetrated by gangs.

Youth culture developed rapidly during the 1960s, especially in the USA. Young people born during the ‘baby boom’ following World War II shared in the general level of affluence in the country, thereby creating a youth market with great economic power; the period of education prior to entering the labor market was extended; increasing numbers of women joined the workforce, further separating mothers from youth in the home and in the neighborhood; increasingly, adults worked in large organizations away from young people; and the mass media greatly expanded and focused their attention on the youth market (see Coleman et al. 1974, pp. 114–19). These changes accelerated as the century wore on, expanding their influence throughout the world.

Field researchers document the pernicious seductions of media-advertised products among less affluent young people, leading often to thefts and assaults. Anderson (1999) describes the ‘zero-sum quality’ that pervades the ‘code of the streets,’ in the search for respect—often associated with items of clothing such as shoes and jackets—among young African-American men in the ghetto. Sullivan identifies ‘mutually valorizing cultural symbols’ (clothing, drugs, alcohol, and recreational artifacts and activities) that cut across racial and ethnic boundaries, often resulting in invidious comparison, confrontation, theft, and assault (Sullivan 1989, pp. 248–9).

Observers of youth groups everywhere note that status differences within and between them are extremely variable and highly refined. Status criteria within a group, or between one group and another, may be based on race or ethnicity, relative economic affluence, skills in valued activities, public appearance, school performance, or most importantly, on lifestyle differences. These bases of stratification typically also become criteria of inclusiveness and exclusiveness which, in turn, create opportunities for both friendship and rejection.

Adolescence is a period of especially intense identity formation, intense relationships, and shared feelings of friendship, acceptance, and respect. Conversely, feelings of rejection and disrespect also are especially intense, and often the basis for group and subcultural formation.

Next to families, schools are perhaps the most important contexts for adolescent friendship, achievement, and recognition. Because of this, school contexts (including the journey to and from schools) are the settings for much adolescent behavior, including delinquent and criminal behavior. On occasion they have also been the setting for the most extreme forms of violence (e.g., mass killings by students or others alienated from their fellows or from mainstream institutions in general). Although the specific causes of such extreme alienation are complex, it seems clear that schools have been especially targeted precisely because of their importance in the lives of adolescents, as symbols of rejection by both peers and an adult world that seems far removed from adolescent concerns. The ready availability of guns at times transforms normal adolescent turmoil and conflict into deadly confrontation.

More than ever before in history, young people, targeted for commercial exploitation and isolated from mainstream adult roles and institutions, confront economic conditions beyond their control. Economic decline, severe unemployment, and the unavailability of ‘good jobs,’ are associated not only with street gangs, but with their transformation into ‘economic gangs’ (including drug gangs), and with ethnic, racial, and class-related identities and antagonisms that lead to other types of collective violence (Hagedorn 1998 Pitts 2000). These same forces alter both intergang relationships and relationships between gangs and their communities. Relationships between adults and young people, shaped by generational backgrounds and community cultures, ‘translate’ these and other macrolevel forces at the local community level.

Girls’ Organizations

American girls also learned about their bodies in extracurricular activities like scouting. Scouting played a unique role in youth culture – though organizations like Campfire and Girl Scouts helped to constitute and spoke to the true presence of a distinct youth culture, they were not primarily youth directed. And, it could perhaps be argued that they emerged in panic over the threat of a mass youth culture. As Miller describes, scouting organizations for girls in particular came into being when many members of the older generation sensed that the changes taking place in American girls’ lives could be dangerous. They wondered why girls and girlhood looked different than they had in the past; they wondered, “What was the matter with Jane?” Miller offers scouting’s answer to this cultural quandary: Jane was being made to navigate a quickly shifting cultural and moral landscape while simultaneously coming to grips with physical and emotional changes taking place in her own body, and all without “proper guidance” (p. 1). These organizations served to direct youth by imparting knowledge and teaching skills that would equip young people to be responsible citizens and make wise decisions as defined by the adult leadership. This is not meant to suggest that young people lacked agency within scouting organizations, but it is important to differentiate this iteration of the emerging youth culture from more youth-directed activities and practices such as dating, which over the course of the century became a site of social power struggle between adults and youth.

In some aspects, scouting organizations attempted to revert girls’ sense of self back to notions of internal ‘good works’ instead of external ‘good looks’. However, in other aspects, scouting reinforced the external. Girls were often assigned to take measurements of their bodies and to keep meticulous notes on changes and progress. Often, at camp, girls’ weights were carefully tracked as well. These body projects were tied up with rhetoric about individual health and strength for the betterment of the nation (and the White race). The ultimate message was that certain body types, measurements, and weights were acceptable, while others were not. The body projects assigned and encouraged by scouting organizations symbolized an attempt to redirect girls’ interest and concern with outward appearance. This is most obvious in the careful choosing of scouting outfits for girls. Miller discusses the painstaking effort organization leaders exerted in designing scouting outfits that were fashionable, wholesome, and invested with meaning. In doing so, they hoped to attract young women who they assumed were inherently interested in fashion and dress.

The Emergence of Youth Cultures

Of equal importance to the rise of the counterculture was the identification of the teenager as a precursor to 1960s youth culture. This previously unnamed stage (postchildhood, preadolescent), identified and discussed by sociologists and newspapers alike, was triggered by a new emphasis on attitude – attributable in part to the 1950s advent of rock ‘n’ roll, coffee bars, the jukebox, and such role models as Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly, and American movies cultivating images of adolescent life from Rebel Without A Cause (1955) to Rock Around The Clock (1956). Between 1946 and 1951, a record 22 million babies were born in the United States, giving rise to the phrase baby boomers. Born into an affluent economy, and a growing media technology, they were to be an important part of the emergent youth culture of the 1960s.

The United Kingdom, in the 1950s and 1960s was a society in transition and the emerging teenage culture was, in part, a response to this situation. While there was less spending power for British teenagers than their US counterparts, both experienced an overall rise in the standard of living, which was accompanied by a trend toward personal consumption – fashion, records and record players, cinema and other entertainment, including coffee bar culture. What is significant, in this context, are the specifics of consumption, not least lifestyle and leisure, and by the mid-1960s it seemed that the paralyzing grayness that had characterized British society during the postwar period was replaced, almost overnight, by Carnaby Street color, an underground youth culture, and the Beatles. The identification of underground/counterculture with British youth rests more on cultural politics – arts labs, local underground magazines, legalize pot rallies, free pop concerts, and psychedelic ‘head’ shops. UFO was headlined as London's answer to Haight Ashbury; the Electric Garden, later renamed Middle Earth, opened in Covent Garden. While there were student protests against the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square (1968) at which Mick Jagger was present, and which led to his personal response in ‘Street Fighting Man,’ sit-ins at various art colleges, and a continuing protest against war (CND, and such slogans as ‘Make Love Not War’), as my colleague, historian Steven Fielding observes, despite the visibility of Tariq Ali and the VSC, the motives of most student protesters were closer to the Beatles sentiments than those of Mick Jagger. Their 1968 song, ‘Revolution’ spelt it out: ‘we all want to change the world. But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out’.

1.6 Conclusion

Adolescents and young adults are a moving target when it comes to addictions, and as such, present a distinct problem. Youth culture and indeed the overall culture are constantly changing; nowhere is this change more evident than in the case of drugs and addictive behaviors. The drugs used in youth culture are constantly changing as, for example, fentanyl and MDMA waxing and waning in use. Cultural attitudes are also changing, resulting in the recent legalization of cannabis and an increased tolerance for drug use in general. In addition, youth culture is always changing with new fads, music, and technologies constantly evolving; as these changes are manifested, different drugs will be associated with them (e.g., ecstasy was associated with “rave” culture). All of this cultural change means that the study of youth addiction will remain an ongoing and fascinating challenge.

4 Gaps in the Anthropology of Youth Culture

In spite of nearly two decades of critiques, the influence of the pioneering work of the CCCS continues to be expressed in a predominant emphasis on leisure activities and peer relations within many youth culture studies. Ironically, given the CCCS interest in class, the focus on leisure has often been at the expense of systematic analyses of the political economy of youth. Problems of unemployment and the gulf between globalized media images of Western consumption practices and the limited economic resources of many youths are alluded to in a number of studies. However, the nature of the economic roles performed by youths, while still students or nominally minors, as workers in service or informal sectors has not received much sustained attention. We are still much more likely to see youths dancing, singing, clubbing, and consuming fashion and media than working. Yet the globalization of production and the growth of service industries has often relied on the availability of cheap, part or full time youth labor. We are also not very likely to see much of the interaction between youths and adults, particularly with their parents. In the concern to move away from adult-based socialization models of adolescence, researchers often appear to have created ethnographic landscapes remarkably devoid of the adult figures who nonetheless figure so largely in the lives of the youths being studied. Not only are such portraits ethnographically incomplete but, without including adults, it is difficult to see how these studies can adequately address issues of power and subordination, however sensitive they may be to the association between youth and social marginality. Finally, one has to wonder whether the marginality of their youthful subjects has been extended by proxy to this subfield of anthropology. If so, it would be a strange irony in a discipline that has prided itself on its particular attention to poor and marginalized peoples.