* Explain and briefly evaluate the view that youth subcultures are linked to ethnicity.
OCR
A Level
2021
👑Complete Model Essay
Free Essay Plan
Essay Outline: Youth Subcultures and Ethnicity
This essay explores the complex relationship between youth subcultures and ethnicity, examining whether the two are inherently linked. It will delve into sociological perspectives and studies that shed light on this relationship, considering both the arguments for and against a strong connection.
Introduction
- Define youth subcultures and their key characteristics.
- Introduce the concept of ethnicity and its relevance to social structures.
- Outline the essay's argument: exploring the proposition that youth subcultures are linked to ethnicity, but acknowledging the multifaceted nature of this connection.
Arguments for a Link between Youth Subcultures and Ethnicity
1. Social Exclusion and Resistance
- Discuss how social exclusion, marginalization, and institutional racism can lead ethnic minorities to form subcultures as a form of resistance (e.g., Hall's "Policing the Crisis," Sewell's "Anti-School Subcultures").
- Analyze the concept of "the myth of black criminality" and how it contributes to racialized labelling and scapegoating (e.g., Van Dijk's media analysis, Alexander's "The Myth of Asian Gang").
- Examine how subcultures can offer a sense of belonging and identity for marginalized groups, countering dominant cultural norms (e.g., Bourgois's study of Latino drug dealers).
2. Cultural Identity and Expression
- Explore how subcultures can be a space for ethnic minorities to express their cultural identity and heritage, potentially challenging dominant norms (e.g., Shain's "Faith Girls").
- Analyze the role of music, fashion, language, and other cultural elements in shaping ethnic subcultures (e.g., Nightingale's "Paradox of Inclusion").
- Discuss how subcultures can both reinforce and challenge ethnic stereotypes, creating a complex and nuanced picture (e.g., Sewell's "Hyper-Masculinity," Mirza's study of African-Caribbean girls).
Arguments Against a Direct Link
1. Oversimplification and Heterogeneity
- Critically evaluate the argument that ethnicity is a primary determinant of subcultural membership, noting the oversimplification of this view (e.g., Alexander's critique of the "myth of black criminality").
- Acknowledge the existence of hybrid subcultures that transcend ethnic boundaries, highlighting the fluidity and complexity of subcultural formation (e.g., Hall's "Policing the Crisis," postmodern perspectives).
2. Other Influencing Factors
- Discuss how factors other than ethnicity, such as class, gender, and social context, can significantly influence subcultural affiliation (e.g., Willis's study of working-class boys, Cohen's "Folk Devils and Moral Panics").
- Analyze how subcultures can emerge around shared interests, values, and experiences, potentially cutting across ethnic lines (e.g., Mac an Ghaill's work on masculinity).
Conclusion
- Recap the main arguments presented in the essay, highlighting the complexities of the relationship between youth subcultures and ethnicity.
- Acknowledge that while ethnicity can play a role in subcultural formation, it should not be seen as the sole or primary determinant.
- Conclude by emphasizing the need for nuanced understanding and a focus on intersectionality when analyzing youth subcultures.
Evaluation
Throughout the essay, critically evaluate the sociological perspectives and studies presented. Analyze their strengths and limitations, questioning assumptions and considering alternative explanations. For example:
- How do concepts like "moral panic" and "divide and rule" impact the understanding of youth subcultures and ethnicity?
- How can the role of media and stereotypes be considered in shaping public perceptions of ethnic subcultures?
- Are there limitations to the concept of "resistance" in explaining the formation of youth subcultures?
By engaging in critical analysis and evaluation, the essay will demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of the topic and demonstrate the ability to engage with sociological evidence.
Youth Subcultures and Ethnicity
This essay will explore the view that youth subcultures are linked to ethnicity. It will examine various sociological studies and concepts to understand the relationship between these two social categories.
Several sociologists argue for a strong link between ethnicity and subculture formation. Hall’s (1978) study on “Policing the Crisis” suggests that the emergence of the “mugging” crisis in the 1970s was a form of moral panic aimed at young, black males. This panic, fueled by media representations like those analyzed by Van Dijk (1991), who highlighted the negative connotations of the prefix “black” in news reporting, led to the over-policing and criminalization of young black men. This process, in turn, contributed to the development of subcultures that resisted such labelling. Similarly, Bourgois’ (1996) study of Latino drug dealers in New York demonstrates how social exclusion and marginalization based on ethnicity can lead to participation in deviant subcultures as a means of economic survival and identity formation.
Sewell (1996) furthers this argument, proposing that the experience of racism and discrimination can lead to the development of anti-school subcultures among black Caribbean boys. These subcultures, characterized by resistance to authority and academic underachievement, are a response to the limited opportunities and negative stereotypes they face within the education system. He also argues that the absence of positive male role models, coupled with media portrayals of black masculinity, contributes to the adoption of hyper-masculine identities and behaviors within these subcultures.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the link between ethnicity and subcultures is not always straightforward or deterministic. Alexander (1996) critiques the “myth of the Asian gang,” arguing that media representations exaggerate the involvement of young Asian men in criminal subcultures. He suggests that the focus on Asian gangs deflects attention from the social and economic inequalities faced by these communities.
Furthermore, focusing solely on ethnicity risks overlooking the influence of other factors in shaping subcultural affiliation. Gender plays a significant role, as seen in Cohen's (1972) work on working-class boys and their reaction to status frustration, which can manifest differently based on societal expectations of masculinity and femininity. Class, too, remains a powerful factor, as demonstrated by Willis (1977), who showed how working-class boys' subcultures often reproduce the inequalities they experience.
Moreover, postmodernist perspectives, like those of Maffesoli (1996) and Polemus (1997), emphasize the fluidity and hybridity of contemporary subcultures. They argue that young people today are less constrained by traditional social categories like ethnicity and are more likely to construct identities across multiple cultural influences, leading to the emergence of “neo-tribes” that are fluid and transient.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while there is evidence to suggest a link between ethnicity and youth subcultures, it is essential to avoid oversimplification. The experiences of racism, discrimination, and marginalization can contribute to the formation of certain subcultures, particularly as a form of resistance or coping mechanism. However, focusing solely on ethnicity risks overlooking the crucial role of gender, class, and the increasingly fluid nature of identity formation in a postmodern society. To fully understand youth subcultures, a nuanced approach is required, one that acknowledges the interplay of various social factors.
Free Mark Scheme Extracts
Possible Resources
Candidates may make reference to a variety of studies providing they relate to the question.
- Holdaway – Canteen Culture
- Hall – Policing the crisis
- Van Dijk – prefix ‘black’ in media reporting
- Sewell and Anti-school subcultures
- Bourgois and Latino drug dealers
- Nightingale – Paradox of inclusion
- Sewell – hyper-masculinity
- Alexander – the myth of Asian Gang
- Shain – the Faith Girls
- Sewell – the conformists
- Mirza – African- Caribbean girls
Concepts/issues such as social exclusion, opposition, resistance, the myth of black criminality, moral panic, marginalisation, labelling, institutional racism, discrimination, stereotypes, master status, scapegoating, divide and rule, role models, crisis in masculinity, over-representation.
Evaluation
The selected knowledge should be directly related to the specific question.
The following list is indicative of possible factors/evidence that candidates may refer to in evaluation but is not prescriptive or exhaustive:
- Link between subculture and ethnicity has been overstated – Alexander, Hall
- Hybrid subcultures
- Link to subcultures based around other factors e.g.
- Gender – Cohen, Messerschimidt, Blackman
- Class – Willis, Mac an Ghaill, A. Cohen
- Postmodern view – Maffesoli, Polemus
- Any other reasonable response
Marking Criteria
Knowledge and Understanding
- Excellent: The candidate demonstrates an excellent knowledge and understanding of a range of sociological material; the response is well developed and substantiated with sociological evidence. There is a well-developed line of reasoning which is clear and logically structured.
- Good: The candidate demonstrates a good knowledge and understanding of either a range of sociological material or some material in detail. There is some sociological material but it is likely to be underdeveloped for both ways or the response is likely to be uneven. There is a line of reasoning presented with some structure. The information presented is in the most-part relevant and supported by some evidence.
- Basic: The candidate demonstrates a basic knowledge and understanding of some sociological material. The response lacks range and detail. The response may lack clarity at times and contain some inaccuracies. The response may be partial and undeveloped and/or generalised. The information has some relevance and is presented with basic structure. The information is supported by basic evidence.
- Limited: The candidate demonstrates a limited knowledge and understanding of sociological material. Very little relevant sociological material is presented; the response contains considerable inaccuracy. The information is basic and communicated in an unstructured way. The information is supported by limited evidence and the relationship to the evidence may not be clear.
- No Relevant Knowledge: No relevant sociological knowledge or understanding.
Application
- Excellent: The candidate demonstrates an excellent ability to apply relevant sociological material. The material is consistently and frequently related to the question.
- Good: The candidate demonstrates a good ability to apply sociological material. The material is generally relevant but is explicitly related to the question only occasionally.
- Basic: The candidate demonstrates a basic ability to apply sociological material. The material is related to the question mainly implicitly and lacks focus on the question. The response may be generalised.
- Limited: The candidate demonstrates a limited ability to apply sociological material. The material is tangential to the question and of marginal relevance.
- No Relevant Application: No relevant application.
Analysis and Evaluation
- Excellent: The candidate demonstrates an excellent ability to analyse and evaluate sociological material. There will be at least one developed evaluation point, supported with sociological evidence. The candidate may reach a critical and reasoned conclusion.
- Good: The candidate demonstrates a good ability to analyse and evaluate sociological material. There is some analysis and evaluation points but these may be underdeveloped. There may be a tendency towards juxtaposition of other theories without specific links made to the question. The candidate may reach a critical but brief conclusion.
- Basic: The candidate demonstrates a basic ability to analyse and evaluate. Evaluation points are likely to be anecdotal, unsubstantiated and/or undeveloped or completely through juxtaposition. The evaluation may lack clarity and contain some inaccuracies / confusion. If present, the conclusion is likely to be summative.
- Limited: The candidate demonstrates a limited ability to analyse and evaluate. Only implicit or tangential analysis or evaluation is present. There is unlikely to be a conclusion.
- No Relevant Analysis or Evaluation: No relevant analysis or evaluation.