To what extent does functionalism offer the best explanation of why individuals join youth sub-cultures?

Functionalism is a consensus theory that sees society as a system of interconnected parts that work together to maintain stability and order. Functionalists argue that social institutions, such as family, education, and religion, perform important functions that contribute to the smooth running of society.

Functionalists offer several explanations for why individuals join youth subcultures. Eisenstadt (1956) argues that young people need to find a way to distinguish themselves from their parents and that youth subcultures are a vehicle for this. As young people transition from childhood to adulthood, they experience a period of uncertainty and anxiety. Youth subcultures provide a sense of belonging and identity during this time.

Furthermore, Parsons (1962) argues that youth subcultures act as a ‘safety valve,’ providing a space for young people to experiment with different identities and behaviors without seriously threatening social order. This is because youth subcultures often have their own norms and values, which may be different from those of mainstream society. This allows young people to rebel against the norms of their parents' generation without fundamentally challenging the existing social order. For example, the punk subculture of the 1970s was characterized by its distinctive style of clothing, music, and anti-establishment views.

Another key functionalist argument is that youth subcultures offer an alternative opportunity structure where they can gain status and respect. This is particularly relevant for young people who find other routes to success (such as education) blocked. For example, Cloward and Ohlin (1960) argue that young people who are denied legitimate opportunities for success are more likely to join delinquent subcultures. These subcultures provide an alternative means of achieving status and success through illegal activities.

However, functionalism has been criticized for its overemphasis on the positive functions of youth subcultures. Critics argue that functionalism ignores the negative consequences of some subcultures, such as drug use, violence, and crime.

In contrast, Marxists view youth subcultures as a form of resistance against capitalism. For example, the skinhead subculture emerged in the 1960s as a reaction to the decline of working-class communities and the rise of consumerism. Skinheads rejected the values of mainstream society and instead embraced a working-class identity. Phil Cohen (1972) argued this was a symbolic reaction to the loss of working-class jobs and communities due to deindustrialisation.

Postmodernists, on the other hand, argue that youth subcultures are no longer as significant as they once were. They argue that in a postmodern society, there is no longer a clear distinction between mainstream culture and subcultures. Thornton (1995) argues that youth subcultures are now characterized by their fluidity and diversity, with young people picking and mixing from different styles and identities. This has led to the emergence of ‘neo-tribes’ which are more fluid and individualized forms of subculture. For instance, the rise of online gaming communities could be seen as an example of this, where individuals form temporary and fluid communities based on shared interests rather than shared social backgrounds.

In conclusion, while functionalism provides some useful insights into why individuals join youth subcultures, it is not a complete explanation. Other perspectives, such as Marxism and postmodernism, offer valuable alternative interpretations. Ultimately, understanding youth subcultures requires a multifaceted approach that considers the complex interplay of social, economic, and cultural factors.