Emily Estrada

Paper #2  

The Counter Culture of the Lads

            Finding who you are as an individual and as a member of the larger construct known as society is never easily understood. After all each of us are a product of our ancestors, and our prior social standings, class, and access of opportunities tend to be the predetermine factors that create your future. The following quote stated by Robert Terwilliger, “Committing yourself is a way of finding out who you are. A man finds his identity by identifying. A man’s identity is not best thought of as the way in which he is separated from his fellows but the way in which he is united with them”, reminded me of the construct of identity both group and individual identity addressed by the Lad culture in Paul Willis’s book, Learning to Labor.

            Paul Willis’s book, Learning to Labor introduces readers with an ethnographical account of a youth working class culture known as the Lads. The main study focused on throughout the majority of the book came to be known as the Hammertown Case study, which included individual and group interviews between the author and twelve non-academic working class lads who attended the school Hammertown Boys.  The evaluations and experiences conducted between Paul Willis and the Lads also included three other selected boys, considered the conformist counterparts which were also a part of the ethnographical research.

These groups were selected to demonstrate a comparative dimension to the study along the parameters of class, ability, school regime, and orientation to the school. The location of the study was ideal because it proved how the rebellion of poor working class kids against school authority prepares them for working class jobs. The study took place in the centre of England, and came to be known as Hammertown, Hammertown was ideal because of its industrialized location and specific population, the population was about 60,000 residents with only eight percent of residents working in professional and managerial positions, the rest of the financial profits came from working class citizens, the remaining population accounted for less than two percent of middle class adults engaged in a full time education. (Willis, 1977) The ‘ear’ ‘oles’ or ‘lobes’, were the male students who choose to conform and listen to their authoritative figures and take part in the educational experience. They were branded with this label as a way to help distinguish their conforming behaviors as compared to the non-conforming behaviors of the Lads.

I have provided the following video to help highlight the image of an industrialized working class neighborhood and the key theme in Paul Willis Book, Learning to Labor.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gAUeZ7eUjM)

The ‘lads’ came to be known as what Paul Willis refers to as a counter culture and their greatest concern was focused on rebellion and opposition against the education system. Members of the group distinguished themselves as radicals by creating a subculture amongst them; they set themselves apart of the conformist group by their distinguishable style of dress and appearance. Unlike their fellow conformist the ‘ear’ ‘oles’, the ‘lads’ used their visible presentation as a tool to highlight their deviance, they wore longish well groomed hair, plat-form shoes, wide collared shirts turned over waisted coat or denim jerkin, and most importantly flared trousers but rarely wore a tie. The ‘lads’, choose to not wear uniform as a distinguishable physical trait that would help them standout amongst the rest. Besides their style of dress, the ‘lads’ have distinguished themselves as different by their actions and the lifestyles they lead. They engage in “adult behaviors” such as smoking, drinking alcohol in pubs, and engaging in sexual relations, the issue with these behaviors is that they’re forbidden by the education system and are perceived as “adult behaviors”. This is precisely why the ‘lads’ engage in such behaviors, they self-consciously understand the symbolic importance of drinking as an act of affiliation with adults and opposition to the school, and want to be perceived as adults rather than looked down upon as youth following orders. The ‘lads’ are focused as being seen as an equal, obtaining access to mature matters, being perceived as masculine, powerful, and independent, as opposed to studious and conforming.

Why had the ‘lads’ gone as far to create a disruption and an uproar against the education system? The ‘lads’ choose to form an identity by creating a subculture that they could identify with; because the education system they were exposed to did not foster a future they could connect with. The ‘lads’ were a group of young men who came from an industrialized, working class town, where the majority of employees worked in factories, manufacturing positions, and the other major sources of employment came from food, drink, tobacco industries, mechanical engineering, vehicles, bricks, pottery, and glass distribution. Today such positions would be considered blue collar positions, where little to no education is needed and are categorized as manual laboring fields. The ‘lads’ were tired of being trained and taught traditional academics, they felt they were being trained for positions they would never have an opportunity to posses because of their opportunities and the environments from which they arose.

This idea of the American dream, and this theory that education can open unlimited doors of success, is like a fantasy, it is instilled in our thinking from the time we are children all the way up into our early adulthood. The education system serves as one of the first enforcers to embed this nonrealistic belief in our thinking. In the article, Inequality in Social Capital, Nan Lin addresses this idea of capital, specifically social capital in relation to individual outcomes. Capital literally refers to assets used by an individual or company to generate income. This can include cash, property, equipment, and materials. However for sociological purposes the term refers to a variety of other constructions and social issues. The term capital was first conceptualized by the famous Karl Marx. Karl Marx, employed this idea of capital through his configuration of the study of Marxism, which focused on the belief that all of society progresses through class struggle. He was heavily critical of the current form of society, capitalism, which he called the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”, believing it to be run by the wealthy middle and upper classes purely for their own benefit. Marx predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, it would inevitably produce internal setbacks which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system, known as socialism. Karl Marx laid the foundation of sociology, and a strive for a superior culture which would hopefully lead to a society based on capitalism, however he only addressed economic capital, neglecting other forms of capital which must be incorporated in an analysis of any culture  especially when trying to tackle issues related to inequality. In the article, Inequality in Social Capital, Nan Lin addresses a few points that help emphasize Paul Willis theme in the book “Learning to Labor.” She makes relevance to the term social capital; an investment and use of embedded resources in social relations for expected returns. Social capital is conceptualized in two distinct parts, the first portion of the term is based on the resources embedded in social relations, or social resources, the second portion of the term incorporates locations in a network or network characteristics. In general when we make use of the term social capital, we are referring to the likelihood of instrumental returns, such as better jobs, earlier promotions, higher earnings, or bonuses, and expressive returns, such as better health. This idea of social capital has been tested in empirical research such as the study of the “lad” counter culture, these studies have strongly confirmed the proposal that social resources affect action outcomes and our accesses to higher means of education, an opportunity for a white collard position, and the overall achievement of the “American Dream”. Paul Willis, over all theme is that the members of the “lad” culture are unified through their lack of resources, they have developed this counter culture as a way to rebel against the education system. They come from a location where they are surrounded by working class role models, and little financial stability, they are not wealthy and do not have the opportunity to attend the finest private schools.

Each member shares a desire for a good laugh, an education that is geared to their personal future reality as working class citizens. They are tired of the traditional academics and they want to be trained in a field where they can use their hands and take part in the enrichment of physical labor, because after all that is what their environment offers.

With in any society lay a number of inequalities, because not all individuals or social groups uniformly receive social capital as expected. Consequently there is a tendency for groups to cluster together, in order to achieve a comfort level, and on some level an identity they can be content with. Inequality of social capital occurs when a certain group clusters together at relatively disadvantaged socioeconomic positions, and the general norm is for individuals to connect with those of a similar class level, or those in which they feel a socioeconomic connection with. The clustering of such groups exists because of one goal, the achievement of homophily. Like the “lad” culture the men are uniting because they feel a connection with one another, they can not connect with their teachers, or other authoritative figures for that matter. Members of a certain group like the one discussed in this paper, walk together interacting with others in similar social standings, not allowing themselves to be influenced by resource rich networks. Resource rich networks are at a higher advantage not only in means of quantity, but also in terms of an opportunity at information attainment. The “lad” culture are limiting themselves for development, and are sharing a network of limited access to a variety of information and influence, because they are of a different social class, which is clear defined in their “trusting” education system. The lads are constantly reminded of their misbehavior, they are not pushed to go beyond, but are punished rather than taught on a personal level. It for this very reason they have developed a culture of rebellion, where they are the leaders of their future whether it be destructive or not. Evidence has showed us one specific generational pattern; those embedded in resource rich networks or those who have more social capital are more likely than their counterparts to actively mobilize personal contacts in higher positions that offer more money (capital) and a better means of living.

Emily Estrada

Paper #1: Youth Subcultures

The human race is unlike any other species, because we are a combination of diverse forms that are dissimilar in terms of our ethnic demographics, political/religious views, and most importantly our access to opportunities. However we are constantly fed this synthetic idea that we are all equal. If that were so, and each of us held a place in society where we could openly express our views with out facing ridicule and biases because of our individual characteristics, then there would not exist, a division of labor, gender ideologies, a disproportion in our education system, and most importantly for the purpose of this paper “sub-cultures” would not be a present element in our civilization, because the indifferent ones would be considered apart of this “ideal culture”.

Before my analysis of a sub-culture was embarked, culture had to be defined, according to the book Resistance through Rituals, a culture can be defined as: the way the social relations of a group are structured and shaped: but is also the way those shapes are experienced, understood, and interpreted. (Hall and Jefferson 11) Unfortunately, not everyone fits neatly into this idea of culture and some of us deviate from the normative principles that govern culture, it for this reason the term sub-culture has been defined and become a universal aspect of the human race. “Sub-cultures are sub-sets- smaller, more localized and differentiated structures, within one or the other of the larger cultural networks.” (Hall and Jefferson 13) A subculture is distinguished from the majority culture because of its distinguishing characteristics that are stigmatized as abnormal, usually distinctive styles of dress, actions, and overall appearance make it evident that this group advocates a particular purpose or belief. The focus of this paper will be based on a specific youth sub-culture that developed in the early 1950’s, known as the “greasers”.

Greasers originated in the early 1950’s and grew increasingly popular toward the 1960’s. A working class youth sub-culture , Greasers were not only popular in American culture but progressed internationally and became a well established youth-subculture in the United-Kingdom. The greasers originated among young northeaster and southern United States street gangs and flourished unto other types of individuals rapidly. The physical appearance and images these juvenile boys depicted help to form this sub-cultures title, greased slick back hair, usually combed back with wax, gel, creams, tonics, or pomade became the reason they called themselves the Greasers. As I mentioned earlier, these young men generally arose from white working class families that didn’t have access to the greatest educational resources or life opportunities as their upper classmen counterparts. The greaser sub-culture like many other youth gangs, cliques, and clubs, formed under the hopes of making an inclusive group of young men that all valued common values. Such values included fast cars, motorcycles, rock music, and most importantly Greasers wanted to stand out as different rather than submitting themselves to society’s idea of correct ethical behavior during the 1950’s. A majority of society was still very intolerant of others who were deemed as different in terms of ethnicity or cultural values, Greasers however were more open to indifference and rebellion and therefore became an easy target for ridicule during their infamous era.  The term Greasers at first was used as a derogatory label to categorize such males of poorer classmen by upper class British mods. The British mods valued the same materialistic values as the American boy group but were respected more because of their wealth. In North America the label Greasers became a symbol of rebellion against popular American culture and became a prominent title for such youngsters.

            The sub-culture Greasers unfortunately were stereotyped and categorized as reckless, dangerous, and rebellious juveniles, when in fact the purpose of their formation was for pure teenage fun. Our youth is often told they should know their place. According to the text Generations of youth, Joe Austin states, the place of youth has been maintained at a low status within the social hierarchy marked by adult distrust of the “younger generation” increasing surveillance of youth, and the expansion of economic and social dependency on adults. I then question how can we expect mature behavior from our youth when we constantly remind them of their “place”? Youth sub-cultures are developed because it allows our youth to have a place of their own. The term place, goes beyond physical location when discussing youth, but symbolically place is used as a representation as to where the adolescent belongs in this imbalanced social hierarchy. The greaser sub-culture was similar to the graffiti wave that took action along urban cities in New York around the early 1960’s and 1970’s. In the same way that written works were produced with spray paint and ink markers as a way of self expressions for adolescents during this era, the Greasers bonded together in the 1950’s as a weapon of unity and as a resisting force against cultural norms.

            Like many other sub-cultures following the post-war era the construction of the Greasers, had a great deal to do with social class, financial standing, and upbringing. Members of the Greaser sub-culture tended to be working class men who attended public school, materialist, and were raised in 1 parent homes, or raised in a home where both parents worked and there was a lack of adult supervision. Could this be considered coincidental or could this be a contributing factor that pushed these young men together and helped them create a “place” of their own. Sub-cultures, working class sub-cultures particularly, take shape on the level of the social and cultural class relations of the subordinate classes. (Jefferson and Hall 45) In themselves, sub-cultures are not simply ideological structures but are created in relation to the parent-culture. (Jefferson, 1976) The difference between sub-cultural experiences and the experiences of those outside of the sub-culture are extremely different. As stated in the text, Resistance through Rituals, there is no “sub-cultural solution” to working class youth unemployment, education disadvantages, compulsory miseducation, dead end jobs, the routinisation and specialization of labour, low pay and the loss of skills. (Jefferson and Hall 47) With that said, it is clear for us to see why it is such a struggle to move beyond your social/economical class, if are born with little to nothing how can our youth progress, with a lack of opportunities. The Greasers fell into this restrictive category because of past generations, and in their struggle to move up in society they often fell into criminal activity, such as theft. Though this was not the case for all Greasers, this negative affiliation soon evolved into a mass generalization and placed such members at a disadvantage in the eyes of the public.

            The greasers being known as a youth sub-culture gained automatic negative attention. Part of the reason being, is that young people are approached with the assumption that they are “problems”. (Jefferson, 1976) Often neglected and misunderstood youths become a bother for the older generation and seem to be left in the dark. The greasers internalized such reactions to their age group and formed a band of brotherhood, allowing them to expand and cultivate a localized street gang into a sub-culture that is now legendary. I realized after research that members of the Greaser subculture were at a disadvantage because of their class. Class broadly structures the young individual’s life chances. It determines, in terms of statistical class possibilities, the distribution of ‘achievement’ and ‘failure’. (austin, 1998) In conclusion, my objective of this paper was to introduce the Greaser sub-culture, a sub-culture formed as a reaction to societies “principal structures of normal behavior”, the Greasers were anything but “normal”

Bibliography

austin, j. (1998). generations of youth . New York and London : New York University press.

Jefferson, S. H. (1976). Resistance Through Rituals. Great Britian : Hutchinson .

Marcus, D. (2004). Happy Days and Wonder Years:The fifties and the Sixties in contemporary social politics. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!