MÉTODOS PARA CALCULAR EL RIESGO CARDIOVASCULAR 51

A number of writers have criticised the post-subcultural theorists work on youth culture and its music. However, these writers do not advocate a wholesale return to CCCS theory and methodology.

52 Beginning with theoretical criticism of post-subculturalists' criticism of post-subculturalists’ theoretical basis, Blackman, writing in 2005, argued that post-subculturalist writers adopted a deterministic (i.e. Marxist) interpretation of CCCS researchers’ position that was unjustified and that, in fact, CCCS researchers drew from a wide variety of theorists. Blackman (2005: 5) pointed out that Cohen (1972), for example, drew upon Lacan’s concept of the ‘imaginary’ and on Claude Levi-Strauss’s concept of ‘myth’. Blackman (2005) argued that the post- subculturalists reacted to what they saw as CCCS researchers’ prioritising of the collective by focusing on personal emancipation and self-fulfilment of the individual. However, Blackman (2005) argued that the post-subculturalists’ development of new concepts, such as tribe and lifestyle, lacked theoretical coherence as they ignored explanatory power at the collective social level.

Shildrick and McDonald (2006: 136) also argued that post-subculturalists:

downplayed and sometimes ignored the significance of social divisions and inequalities of power in

young people’s cultural lives.

Shildrick and McDonald (2006) made, however, a different point from Blackman. These authors argued that, by focusing on the most obvious stylistic forms of contemporary youth culture (whose adherents might be argued to be predominantly drawn from more advantaged social positions), the post-subculturalists were less likely to uncover evidence of how class, and other social divisions, delimit youth cultural possibilities. Thus, Shildrick and McDonald (2006) accused post-subculturalists of over-emphasising those researchers who adopt the ‘spectacular’ for music, dance and style of contemporary youth culture: these authors pointed out that goths, for example, tend to be disproportionately from the middle class (see

53 Hodkinson’s study of goths, 2002). These authors argued that this over-emphasis on the spectacular leads post-subculturalists to ignore the youth cultural identities and practices of working-class youth, especially those in the most marginalised and disadvantaged sections. They argued that majority of young people in Britain did not come near the sort of post- subcultures described in most prominent youth culture research: for some young people at least, social divisions still shaped youth cultural identities,

Shildrick and McDonald (2006: 126) urged researchers to accept:

that, for some young people at least, social divisions still shape youth cultural identities, the postmodern

tendency to celebrate the fragmented, fleeting and free-floating nature of contemporary youth culture

becomes difficult to sustain.

Shildrick and McDonald (2006) pointed to a number of examples of recent youth research that, although not directly or wholly concerned with youth culture, nevertheless, do throw light on the ways in which young people’s cultural identities continued to be ‘closely intertwined with family histories, gender, place, class, region and locality’ (Nayak 2003: 320). Shildrick and McDonald (2006) referred, amongst others, to studies by MacDonald et al. (2001), Chatterton and Hollands (2002), Bosé (2003), Nayak (2003) and Pilkington (2004).

I take Bosé’s (2003) study as an example. In a study in Manchester, Bosé (2003) focused directly on the experiences of excluded young black people; many of them described themselves as part of an underclass and pointed out the difficulties of living in deprived and disadvantaged communities. Her subjects were excluded economically from the city’s

54 nightlife; this was further exacerbated by their experiences of racism. Bosé (2203) argued that it was essential to analyse properly the substructure of young people’s lives.

Whilst the studies above that Shildrick and MacDonald (2006) referred to are not principally cultural studies of youth, these studies recognised that not all young people share equally in a new postmodern youth culture. Unlike post-subcultural theorists, these writers purposely have at least attempted to include economically disadvantaged young people in their research empirically, and/or theoretically, and have found – consistently – that contemporary youth culture remains deeply divided. Shildrick and McDonald (2006: 133) state that:

The overriding conclusion of these studies of less flamboyant, less stylistically spectacular youth is that

the sorts of free cultural choice described by more postmodern, post-subcultural perspectives tend to be

reserved for the more privileged sections of dominant cultural groups.

Hesmondhalgh (2005) strongly criticised the concept of neo-tribe put forward by subculturalists to replace subculture, particularly those put forward by Bennett (1999). Hesmondhalgh (2005) argued that Bennett (1999) had an uncritical view of consumerism: that Bennett (1999) neglected factors that might constrain consumers’ choices, such as poverty, addiction, mental illness, marginalisation, disempowerment, unequal access to education, childcare and healthcare. Hesmondhalgh (2005) argued that Bennett (1999) appears to consign such states and processes to the category of ‘structural issues’ that are negotiable by ‘self-creating subjects’. Hesmondhalgh (2005) considered that Bennett’s (1999) concept of ‘the cultural relationship between youth, music and style’ appeared to be arguing that youth can do whatever they wanted with music and style.

55 Hesmondhalgh (2005) also argued that post-subcultural researchers such as Willis (1978) misused the term homology (a term originally developed in the natural sciences to refer to a correspondence between origins and development). While Marxist sociologist used the term to refer to correspondence between art and society, Willis (1978) used it to refer to correspondence between collectivities of people (for example, a youth motor bike gang) and cultural forms (for example, early rock music). Hesmondhalgh sets out how Willis’ use of homology has been criticised by Middleton (1990) in his in his important and influential book Studying Popular Music. Middleton (1990) argued that Willis (1978) failed in his study to demonstrate clear connections between liking for particular kinds of music and particular groups. Middleton (1990) argued that it is difficult to link liking Buddy Holy records − popular with the biker boys − with aggression. He points out that other non-biker groups also liked Buddy Holly.

Turning to methodological criticism of post-subcultural research, some early post- subculturalists did not conduct any systematic research into youth culture to support their theory. Redhead (1990) merely mentions casually at the end of his book The end of the end- of-the century party to his alternative perspective to pop culture being based on ‘interviews with disc jockeys, record label owners, musicians, producers, writers and fans’ (2000:88). Melechi (1993) and Rietveld (1993, 1998), who do not refer to any methods they used to support their views. Other post-subculturalists undertook ethnographic research. Both Bennett (2002) (in his methodological critique of youth culture research) and Hodkinson (2005) criticised the tendency for post-subculturalists to undertake ethnographic research on groups where they were ‘insiders’: where researchers drew upon their insider knowledge of urban spaces and their familiarity with the patterns of everyday life that occur there. Some

56 post-subculturalists, see for example, Thornton (1995), did not conduct any specific fieldwork of their own but drew on a variety of published sources.

Bennett (2002) referred to a number of contemporary ethnographers who had used their familiarity and knowledge to assist substantially in gaining access to particular social groups and settings and to decide what roles to play once they have achieved access. Bennett (2002) cited, as examples, Armstrong’s (1993) study of the ‘Blades’ (supporters of Sheffield United). However, Bennett (2002: 461) criticised these ethnographers for displaying ‘an uncritical acceptance of insider knowledge as an ends in itself’. For example, Bennett (2002) criticises Malbon (1999) who conducted a study of dance club culture. Bennett (2002) pointed out that, although Malbon (1999) stated that he believed that his background as a clubber was crucial in establishing his credentials as someone who was genuinely interested in and could emphasise with clubbers, Malbon failed to evaluate his insider knowledge: in other words Malbon did not reflect on his role in his research.− he needed to add critical reflexivity to his study.

Hodkinson (2005) pointed, as did Bennett (2002) to the advantages of the insider role in research on youth cultures – helping in practical matters of securing access and developing rapport (see Chapter 4 for discussion of rapport) as well as providing understanding of the findings once they have been produced. However, Hodkinson (2005: 146) also referred (as did Bennett 2002) to the crucial need for those who have a dual identity in a study − both researcher and youth culture participant − to utilise a:

careful, reflexive research approach to ensure that any potential benefits of their initial proximity are

57 Thus, Hodkinson (2005) argued that insider researchers should, when writing up their findings, discuss their position and the way in which this may have affected their research.

MacRae (2007) made similar points to Bennett (2002) and Hodkinson (2005), emphasising the need for critical reflexivity.

I make the additional point in this discussion of post-subculturalists’ methodology that, despite post-subculturalists criticising the subculturalists for ignoring the cultural and musical taste of girls and young women, they did little to rectify this omission. As we saw above, there were only a limited number of post-subcultural studies of girls and young women. As late as 2008, Tanner et al. (2008: 123) stated:

the musical interests of female adolescents have rarely been a focus of attention, even though they are

known to be significant consumers of music.