| Abstract | Tema ove doktorske disertacije su supkulturne prakse mladih u Zagrebu. Kroz četiri studije slučaja istražuju se različiti aspekti supkulturnih grupa mladih te se testiraju do sada postojeći teorijski koncepti unutar sociologije supkultura. Promatraju se četiri grupe mladih ljudi koji svoj identitet grade na temelju različitih elemenata (glazba, sport, aktivizam). Ishodište supkulturnog stila za prve dvije grupe je glazba. Jednu grupu čine pripadnici punk-supkulture, tipičnog supkulturnog stila koji je dio scene od kraja 1970-ih godina. Za razliku od pankera, koji dio svog identiteta baziraju na dugovječnosti i elementima stila koje su dobili u nasljeđe, druga istraživana grupa su mladi okupljeni oko kolektiva Jeboton. Svojim djelovanjem, sviranjem na javnim mjestima u gradu, u klubovima i na festivalima ovi mladi ljudi putem dekonstrukcije ustaljenih glazbenih stilova kreiraju zaseban stil. U trećoj studiji slučaja bavili smo se mladima za koje je sport, preciznije ekstremni sport ishodište supkulture. Riječ je o zagrebačkima skejterima i in-line rolerima. Posljednja studija slučaja odnosi se na istraživanje skvotera okupljenih oko skvota BEK. U teorijskom okviru rada podijeli smo supkulturnu teoriju na autore koje određujemo kao supkulturaliste i postsupkulturaliste. Korištenjem kvalitativne metodologije istraživanju smo pristupili etnografski. Primijenili smo metodu promatranje sa sudjelovanjem i intervjue kao metodološke alate koji omogućavaju najpotpuniji uvid u svijet ovakvih grupa mladih. U poglavljima Diskusija i Zaključak odgovorili smo na istraživačka pitanja konstruirana oko tri temeljna pojma koji čine razdjelnicu na supkulturaliste i postsupkulturaliste, a to su: društvena klasa, otpor i stil. |
| Abstract (english) | The topic of this doctoral dissertation is the subcultural practices of young people in Zagreb. Different aspects are investigated through four case studies and we test the existing theoretical concepts within the sociology of subculture. Sociological approach to research of youthful subcultural styles occurs in parallel with their emergence in the 1950s in the UK. To understand the origin of this new sociological subdiscipline, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of the works of key authors of the Chicago School of the 1920s and 1930s who research interests and the methodology used are in fact the starting point for the study of urban phenomena based around the idea of ’human ecology”, spatial-social relations and the theory of ‘social disorganization” (Čaldarović, 2012). Albert Cohen (1955) considers the phenomenon of ‘delinquent subculture’ and thus begins the development of this subdiscipline in sociology. We emphasize the delinquent theory subculture because it rejects the presumption of the delinquent as an individual marked by some psychological or physical characteristic. Cohen talks about exposure to a delinquent pattern, delinquent tradition, and attaching importance to the context in which an individual is exposed to delinquent patterns of behavior (Cohen, 1955). Also, Cohen (1955) makes another theoretical assumption important for the future development of subdiscipline, and thus our research, and that is the existence of a reference framework and a reference group in the analysis of youth groups. Howard Becker (1963) with his book Outsiders puts empirical research into the youth subculture within the framework of interactionist theoretical paradigms. Theories emerged in the context of the interactionist approach, relying on the authors of the Chicago School, change the perspective of observing the phenomenon of subculture, ‘approaching” actors and shifting the focus from ‘deviant” to the system and institutions. Change of focus is best seen in the work of Stanley Cohen (1972) who describes the conflict between two subcultural groups of young people ‘mods’ and ‘Rocker’) in Britain constructs the concept of moral panic as an extremely important theoretical approach to the analysis of the relationship between subculture and dominant culture. As we stated at the beginning, the first subcultural groups appeared in the 1950s, and the real ‘explosion of styles’ happened through 1960s and 1970s. In those years, a group of authors known as the Birmingham School were ‘in action’. Through research of different subcultural styles, researchers from the University of Birmingham create a corpus of concepts, definitions and typologies that represent, to this day, a reference point in the study of this phenomenon. Phil Cohen (1980) talks about four subsystems that make up the lifestyle of young people (dressing, music, sleng, ritual). In his work, describing subcultural youth in London's East End, he talks about the latent function of subcultures according to which young people through belonging to a subcultural group want to resolve contradictions that remain hidden or unresolved in parental culture. Paul Willis (1978) exploring ‘bikers” and ‘hippies” and comparing their lifestyles, image, and musical preferences points to homology between the lifestyle and values of the actors. John Clark (1976) and Dick Hebdige (1980) use the term ‘bricolage” to describe taking over and appropriating or completely transforming the meaning of objects and symbols important in certain subcultural groups. Analyzing empirical research and theoretical aspects of dealing with youth subcultures in sociology up to the 1990s, it is possible to abstract three most important theoretical-methodological concept. The first of these refers to class as the source term in subculture research, often used by the author of the Birmingham School. For example, Cohen (1980) argues that the evolution of subcultural styles is not only related to the relationship with parental culture but also the attitude towards other subcultural styles of different class factions. A notion that greatly marked the work of numerous researchers is resistance and the frequently used phrase 'resistance through ritual', implicit and explicit resistance of young people, represents the second constitutive element of ‘subculturalists’. The last prominent element of subcultural theories combines in itself several previously mentioned concepts, primarily homology, ‘bricolage” and style. In the context of our research, the common denominator of this concept will style, using the previously mentioned concepts with the addition elements such as music, visual expression and slang. The last stage in the chronological review of the most important concepts of subculture research is often referred to as postsubcultural theory. Authors who find their place in post- subculturalism after Birmingham often start from the critique of earlier research and questioning the sufficiency of the notion of subcultures in the modern world. Steve Redhead (1990) criticizes earlier research believing that for them subcultures are only the objects of theoretical construction. He also speaks of the 1980s as a period of disintegration and restructuring of previous youth cultural groups. The emergence of the entire electronic music scene has strongly influenced many authors since the late 1980s up to today. They emphasize the need to replace the notion of ‘resistance through rituals” with a more appropriate concept, arguing that subculture does not possess the characteristics attributed to it by Cohen but it is in fact the turn of young people towards hedonism. David Muggleton (2000) believes that there is no longer authenticity, no ideological engagement but only a stylistic game that young people play. Leading the basic theoretical determinants of postmodern society post-subculturalists emphasize the fluidity of identity and style. Andy Bennett (1999) speaks of the loss of the primary role of the group as a space of firm identification rather it becomes one of the possible spaces in which youth expresses a temporary identity. David Chaney (2004) argues that phenomena that were once labeled as subcultural in the contemporary cultures have become generalized to the point that they are simply part of everyday life. This type of interpretation of contemporary styles and identities of young people questioned the sufficiency of the notion of subcultures, so Michel Maffesoli (1996) spoke about the term ‘new tribe’. Postculturalists, in their critique of subculturalism, turn to the notion of ‘cross-class’ and omission of class origin as an important element in the formation of youth subcultural identity. Youths' turn to hedonism postsubculturalists see as evidence of the disappearance of ‘resistance through rituals’. Speaking of style in the context of postsubcultural theory we have already mentioned discussion of the impossibility of exploring style, as the Birmingham School authors did, primarily conditioned by broader postmodern as a form of understanding the fluidity of the reality in which people live and thus the styles and identities themselves. Research aims and questions As we have shown earlier in the text, the key elements of the dispute between subculturalists and postsubculturalists relates to disagreement over fundamental concepts in researching youth subcultures. On the one hand, the constitutive elements of subcultural theory are class, resistance and style, while on the other hand, postculturalists in their critique of earlier theoretical and methodological concepts emphasize concepts such as cross-class, hedonism, fluidity of style and stylistic imitation of former subcultural styles today. The aim of this paper is to explore subcultural practices youth in Zagreb, through four case studies, testing the theoretical perspectives of subculturalists and postsubculturalists and exploring the applicability concepts derived from previous research. Research questions: 1) Is the social class the origin of the subcultural style today? 2) Can we label contemporary youth subcultural practices as resistance through rituals? 3) Are there coherent subcultural styles among young people in Zagreb today? 4) Do the researched youth practices have subcultural or postsubcultural features? 5) What is the explanatory function / power of the concept of subculture in contemporary Croatian society? Approaches, methods, sample and research materials The research will be conducted on four different case studies. These are four groups of young people who build their identity through different elements (music, sports, activism). The first group refers to the phenomenon of ‘squatting’ in Zagreb, researched through young people gathered around the squat ‘BEK’. Another research group is a collective of young street musicians collectively called ‘Jeboton collective’. In the third case study, we will investigate members of ‘punk’ subculture, and in the latest case study we will deal with young people participating in ‘skate” activities. BEK field research was conducted between January and October 2019. Jeboton field research was conducted between December 2018 and July 2019. Punk and skate subculture were researched through autumn od 2019 and through 2020. Through our research we approached the observed phenomenon ethnographically, using participatory observation and individual in-depth interviews as research methods. Participatory observation was conducted using densely descriptions of filed research through a research diary. We recorded every contact with the research group in the research diary as well as their activities. Observation will also take place through informal contacts with the group members. As these are different groups of young people, it is necessary to create specific criteria for recording data for each group, but it is equally important to use the same coding model of the collected data in the later analysis of diary entries. With coding diary notes, the processing of analyzing of empirical material collected through interviews will be performed using NVIVO software for qualitative analysis. Because the researched groups can be considered quite closed we are aware of the necessity of long-term observation with participation within individual groups due to gaining the trust of respondents and noticing different intra-group dynamics and processes. Already during the preparations for the research the initial contacts were made with the members of the researched groups and their role as gatekeepers enabled further entry of researcher in the group itself. The anonymization of the transcribed material was consistently carried out and all participants in the research were guaranteed anonymity. |
