American Gangs and British Subcultures: A Comparison
| Published date | 01 January 1982 |
| Date | 01 January 1982 |
| Author | John Galea,Steven Munce,Anne Campbell |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306624X8202600112 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
76
American
Gangs
and
British
Subcultures:
A
Comparison
Anne
Campbell,
Steven
Munce
and
John
Galea
THIS
paper
will
attempt
to
examine
the
social,
cultural
and
economic
forces
in
Great
Britain
and
the
United
States
which
gave
rise
to
youth
subcultures
and
gangs
respectively.
Although
the
two
terms
have
sometimes
been
used
interchangeably,
in
the
con-
text
of
this
paper
at
least
their
denotation
is
quite
distinct.
Short
(1968)
noted:
&dquo;It
is
important
to
distinguish
between
gangs
and
subcultures,
for
most
subcultures
are
not
carried
solely
by
a
particular
group...&dquo;.
Pfautz
(1961)
similarly
stressed
the
absence
of
organized
social
and
interpersonal
structure
which
characterizes
a
subculture:
&dquo;...
social
movements
exhibit
continuity
beyond
the
concrete
interacting
situation
because
they
develop
a
’culture’
in
the
sense
of
a
set
of
ideas,
theories,
doctrines,
values
and
strategic
and
tactical
principles ...
they
lack
a
fully
developed
and
func-
tionally
effective
social
structure&dquo;.
In
British
sociology,
youth
sub-
culture
has
come
to
denote
a
national
social
movement
of
teenagers
and
young
people
who
share
a
common
set
of
values,
interests,
and
tacit
ideology
but
not
necessarily
dependent
on
face-to-face
inter-
action
with
other
members
or
with
any
rigid
criteria
of
entry,
membership
or
obligation.
To
offer
a
definition
of
a
gang
is
no
easy
task.
As
a
starting
point,
we
can
take
the
definition
of
Thrasher
(1963)
who
described
it
thus:
&dquo;The
gang
is
an
interstitial
group
originally
formed
spon-
taneously,
and
then
integrated
through
conflict.
It
is
characterized
by
the
following
types
of
behavior:
meeting
face
to
face,
milling,
movement
through
space
as
a
unit,
conflict
and
planning.
The
result
of
this
collective
behavior
is
the
development
of
tradition,
unreflective
internal
structure,
esprit
de
corps,
solidarity,
morale,
group
awareness
and
attachment
to
a
local
territory.&dquo;
Such
a
view
of
gangs
has
not
gone
unchallenged.
Yablonsky
(1962)
has
queried
the
rigidity
and
stability
of
many
of
the
definitional
criteria.
He
argues
that
role
definition
and
membership
may
be
diffuse,
that
there
is
a
lack
of
cohesiveness
and
limited
consensus
on
gang
objectives
and
norms.
To
the
extent
that
this
may
be
true,
the
gang
becomes
no
more
than
a
loose
collectivity
of
individuals
and
becomes
more
akin
to
the
friendship
groupings
which
occur
within
English
subcultures.
However,
in
order
to
pursue
the
argument
offered
here,
we
will
assume
a
rigorous
definition
of the
gang
which
demands
that
it
meet
all
the
following
conditions:
To continue reading
Request your trial