From Local Cliques to Subcultures and Late Modern Youth

Transkriptio

1 From Local Cliques to Subcultures and Late Modern Youth Interpretations of Young People s Group Behavior in Finnish Youth Research Mikko Salasuo & Janne Poikolainen * Previously unpublished. Translation from Finnish: Sheryl Hinkkanen, language check: Meri Karjalainen. This article examines the ways of interpreting young people s group activities in academic research and, above all, in social scientific youth research. The focus of the article is not young people s empirical reality but instead the various approaches utilized in youth research and the changes that have occurred over time in these paradigms. The article focuses especially on the different stages of development that have occurred in subcultures research perspectives. Furthermore it explores the concept of subculture which has been used to describe youth culture movements and group formation in Finland since the 1980s. The concept has remained relevant in both academic discourse and general use for more than 30 years despite the fact that the term has not always managed to describe the complexity of young people s reality over the years (e.g. Hoikkala 1989; see also Williams 2011). Most of the data for this article has come from Finnish research on youth and young people (cf. Hoikkala & Suurpää 2005; Puuronen 2006). Recently, the number of studies has increased substantially, so the examination of these studies is limited to doctoral dissertations, books and articles which have been cited a great deal, and to studies considered relevant in the field of youth research (see Salasuo & Poikolainen 2012). All in all, the article consults extensively the most significant re- Finnish Youth Research Anthology

2 search conducted on group activities by youngsters in Finland (cf. Hoikkala & Suurpää 2005). The article begins with a brief overview of how young people and youth have been defined and understood in the public discussion at different times. This helps in understanding the nature of the social context and the historical basis from which Finnish youth research has been conducted, what types of contemporary questions researchers have attempted to answer, and what has been seen as young people s place in society at a given time. Young people s groups have attracted wider social interest and public discussion especially when a group of young people has been left outside institutional socialization in one way or another, has broken from the prevailing ways for understanding youth, or has otherwise been detached from the social system (e.g. Hoikkala 1989, 88 92; Puuronen 2006, 22 24). These types of problem constructions associated with young people in Finland and around the world have typically been reflections of a change in youth: new forms of group activities brought about by changing social conditions have given rise to concern and moral panic among educators and authorities (see Cohen 1972; Keskinen 2005). Most of last century s Finnish youth problems stemmed from the collapse of the agrarian society s traditions and the emergence of a new kind of urban culture and youth culture (e.g. Koskela 2002; Kaarninen 2003). Development brought about a new social rhythm and new generational experiences for the young people that were different from their parents experiences, and up until the 1970s these were interpreted as a socialization problem, and as a disturbance in cultural regeneration or as behavior deviant from the norms (e.g. Woods 1977, 19 27; Eisenstadt 1956, 28). From the end of the 1970s, increasingly accelerated modernization influenced the way problem constructions and concerns associated with youth groups were perceived (Hoikkala 1989, 88 92; Salasuo & Hoikkala 2012). This change manifested as the strong individualization of youth among other things. During the last decades of the 20th century, globalization, commercialization, popular culture and the breakthrough of the information society created the base for a type of youth where individual choices and lifestyles played a role that was clearly greater than that previously experienced (e.g. Hoikkala 1989; Hoikkala & Paju 2008). An approach focusing on young people s problems and the breakdown of norms of youth has colored the public discussion on young people s spontaneous group activities ever since the 1800s. In Finland, the early problem groups included for example university students. In their case, the problem was especially considered to be that these young men, who moved to the cities from the late 1800s onwards, did not outgrow their boyish ways (Koskenniemi 1937). This group was quite small in numbers, but drinking, fighting and other activities arousing disapproval was cause for concern at the time (op. cit. 59). University students were also a common sight in the brothels of Helsinki but since they came from the upper class, the problem was swept under the rug in the press. (Häkkinen 1995, 78 83) In the early 1900s, concern arose also over another youth group in Finland: hooligans. The term hooligan referred to urban youths mostly 566 Tommi Hoikkala & Meri Karjalainen (eds.)

3 groups of boys who were seen as committing acts of vandalism and crime. As Kari Koskela (2004) elaborates on the term hooliganism of young boys: It was not only a question of the erosion of the agrarian society, and of paid work and factory work, but also that in the city, different social groups were inevitably in closer contact than in the countryside. In the countryside, leisure was incorporated into the working life. The formal and informal grip of the community in the countryside differed from that in the city. In the city, leisure and work were separated from each other. 1 Hooliganism was presented as a serious youth problem that was considered to be the result of the zeitgeist, poor education and idleness in the public discussion. Hooliganism was perceived as particularly problematic by educators and the authorities. (Koskela, 2002; Kaarninen 2003) The discussion surrounding hooliganism was also linked to the class struggle. In the media, that promoted the interests of the bourgeoisie and the elite, the blame for the phenomenon was placed on workers class hatred. Työmies, the voice of the working class, wrote in turn that alcohol was at the root of hooliganism and disorderly conduct (Koskela 2002, 30 31). According to Tuija Hietaniemi (1992, ), at the end of the 1920s the concept of hooliganism provided an intersection for the increase in crime, political disorder and differences in political viewpoints. Thus, activity that began as young boys misbehavior was politicized into a wider social issue. The discussion on hooliganism ended at the latest during the Second World War. The public discussion on young people s groups began to focus on youth cliques (sakki) (Helanko 1953). The emerging field of Finnish youth research also took an interest in these cliques. The concept youth clique referred to a spontaneous group of boys living in normal conditions, and as such described groups of Finnish youths and their activities after the war better than the internationally used concept gang. It is noteworthy that in this context contrary to the international discussion of gangs (e.g. Thrasher 1927) the youth clique phenomenon was not associated with juvenile delinquency or the margins of society. (Helanko 1953, ) Youth cliques, however, were sidelined in the early 1960s, when urbanization and other changes in society brought to the surface moral panics and a debate on youth gangs. The transition from an agrarian society to a modern society had reached its peak and was connected to a deep concern about young people s moral degradation in the public discussion (e.g. Salasuo & Tigerstedt 2007; Salasuo & Suurpää 2014). However, from the late 1960s up until the early 1980s, the academic discussion surrounding young people s groups and the terminology used to describe the phenomenon was varied, and no single concept stood out. This period was colored by such great waves of social changes that Finnish youth research of the time was unable to keep up with the changes and their consequences. However, the foundation for the future was laid by the break in the agrarian youth traditions, emergence of a new kind of popular culture, increased leisure time, urbanization and economic prosper- Finnish Youth Research Anthology

4 ity. In the 1980s, the new forms of youth culture adhered to the concept of subculture in research among social sciences. (Helanko 1969; Vuori 1971; Heiskanen & Mitchell, 1985; 140; Hoikkala 1987; Puuronen 2003) At the same time, problem constructions were moved slightly to the sidelines, and both the public discussion and academic research found a new kind of sensitivity in interpreting youth groups and behavior. However, the more nuanced discussion and more sensitive interpretations have not completely replaced the problem-oriented approach; youth problems and the discussion raised by violations of norms have retained their position as one departure point for interpretations concerning youth up to the present day. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY OF SUBCULTURES It has been a common strategy to guide the reader to the study of subcultures by going through various research disciplines, their methodologies and paradigms from the 1920s onwards (e.g. Heiskanen & Mitchell, 1985; Puuronen 1997, 2006; Hoikkala & Suurpää 2005; Williams, 2011). These historically extensive reviews suggest that research on young people s social groups and urban cultures started at the Department of Sociology of the University of Chicago. The so-called Chicago School studied mainly the by-products of youth that surfaced in urban culture, above all youth gangs (Puuronen 1997). The research method mainly applied in this context was participant observation (see Thrasher 1927; Hollingshead 1949). However, many recent studies (e.g. Muggleton 2000; Lähteenmaa 2001; Bennett 2000; 2005; Muggleton & Weinzierl 2003) have taken the 1960s and 1970s and the so-called Birmingham School as the starting point for modern research of subcultures. The connection between the Chicago School and the Birmingham School is considered to be the book Delinquent Boys The Culture of the Gang by Albert Cohen, published in 1955 (Heiskanen & Mitchell, 1985). The research approach developed at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) of the University of Birmingham is still (at least indirectly) considered to be the solid core of the study of subcultures. The Birmingham School s main theoretical aim was to conceptualize the renewal process of cultural relations and hegemony (e.g. McRobbie & Garber, 1976; Willis 1977; Hebdige 1979). By observing the mentality and logic of young people s subcultures, researchers strove to reach a broader understanding of social processes (Puuronen 1997, 104). The trend has since been criticized, e.g. in the Nordic countries for the rigid class-bound nature of its explanations, the generalizations based on individual observations, and for leaving girls almost completely outside the study of subcultures. Moreover, at least regarding Finnish young people, the explanatory potential of the interpretations made by Birmingham School members concerning phenomena of popular culture and consumption culture has been considered slight and in part unusable. (e.g. Hoikkala 1989; Lähteenmaa 1989, 2001; Tolonen 2010.) However, at the end of the 1970s, the Birmingham School 568 Tommi Hoikkala & Meri Karjalainen (eds.)

5 provided the final push for the study of subcultures to become mainstream in Finnish sociology and it also had a substantial impact on national youth research (e.g. Heiskanen & Mitchell, 1985; Ehrnrooth 1988; Hoikkala 1989; Lähteenmaa 2001). The Birmingham School has since brought about a variety of applications, of which the best known today is the so-called post-subcultural studies, post-subculturalism (e.g. Redhead 1993; Thornton 1996; Bennett, 1999; see also Salasuo 2004). Postsubcultural research is almost synonymous with Sarah Thornton s (1996) study Club Cultures: Music, Media, and Subcultural Capital (also Redhead 1993). The study represented a return to participant observation and is above all an attempt to understand the world through the eyes of young clubbers. Following in the footsteps of Thornton (op. cit.) are, among others, Steve Redhead (1997a; 1997b) and Andy Bennett (e.g. 1999; 2000). The aim of post-subcultural research was to reform the entire discussion surrounding subcultures and replace its concepts with new ones. The research paradigm became clearly more heterogeneous than those of its predecessors. Rupert Weinzierl and David Muggleton (2003, 3-6) propose that all post-subcultural research share a respectful but either explicit or implicit dissociation from the tradition of the Birmingham School. According to post-subcultural research, current subcultures do not stem from young people s political, cultural and economic conditions or situations, contrary to the interpretations of the Birmingham School. (Williams 2011) In the postmodern era, it is rather a question of hybrid subcultures produced by global mainstream culture and local circumstances (Puuronen 2006, 121). Post-subcultural research has been criticized for having a too general point-of-view. The research orientation does not seek explanations from people s social backgrounds, but sticks instead to macro-level observation. In other words, the criticism has been almost the exact opposite to the criticism regarding the Birmingham School, presented previously. While the Birmingham School has been criticized for excessive generalizations based on individual observations, the criticism for post-subcultural theory has been for overlooking the individual dimension. (e.g. Hoikkala & Suurpää 2005; Caicedo, 2011.) Despite numerous attempts subsequent to the Birmingham School, research on subcultures has not been able to reinvent itself successfully. Postsubcultural research is far from providing a single clear message or offering more structured approaches. A slew of new concepts has sprung up among the existing concepts, but none have managed to replace the old ones. In the international literature, the late 1990s and early 2000s can be seen as a certain kind of time of crisis regarding subcultural theories from which it has not fully recovered to this day (e.g. Hoikkala & Suurpää 2005; Caicedo 2011; Williams 2011). Sociologist Patrick Williams (op. Cit., 188) concludes the summary of his book Subcultural Theory Traditions and Concepts, by stating that the attempt to create a new holistic theory and fresh concepts for subcultures should not be ever engaged in. Instead, researchers should focus on examining subcultures from different perspectives using a variety of methods and they should stride Finnish Youth Research Anthology

6 to understand the meaning of subcultures to their members. In their studies, researchers should also specify what the concept of subculture refers to in a given research context (see also Tolonen 2010). Today, one could describe the multitude of applications for the concept of subculture and the attempts international studies on subcultures have made in order to break free from the Birmingham School concepts by using an overstretched rubber band as a metaphor. The concept of subculture has been stretched in so many directions over the last 30 years so that it is at a point of being almost unusably loose, and the way it is presented in various studies is even more challenging and more complex than before. British sociologist Sarah Thornton (1997, 1) aptly writes that the concept of subculture can nowadays be viewed as referring mainly to groups of people that have something in common with each other which distinguishes them in a significant way from the members of other social groups. Sociologists Andy Bennett and Keith Kahn-Harris (2004) go one step further in the book After Subculture edited by them. The title of the book refers to a time when subcultures would no longer exist. This idea is also built on the observation made by Thornton (1997, 1) that the term subculture no longer harks back to social reality; rather it anchors the process of assigning meaning to people to a historical, highly incomplete and unspecific cultural construct. In recent years, many researchers have disengaged from the concept of subculture and introduced alongside it other concepts defining young people s group formation in alternative ways. Among others, they include tribe, indicating the postmodern era s loose communities based on free choice, as seen in Michel Maffesoli s (1995) writings; and scene, used by musicologists, which is more dynamic than the concept of subculture and refers to a more global community (see Cohen 1999; Bennett, 2000; Leppänen 2007; Käpylä 2012). Furthermore, the concept of social network has been used instead of subculture to describe the group activities of today s young people (e.g. Robards & Bennett 2011). However, no widely adopted alternative concept has been found yet, despite the criticism and the difficulties associated with defining the phenomenon (see Qvotrup Jensen 2006; see also Williams 2011). For this reason, the concept of subculture is still vibrantly alive in everyday situations, in media discourses and also in the language of researchers. DEPARTING FROM YOUTH CLIQUES EARLY STAGES OF RESEARCH ON SUBCULTURES IN FINLAND In examining the Anglo-American history of research on subcultures, it is seldom pointed out that its relationship with Finnish youth research has been anything but congruous (e.g. Hoikkala & Suurpää 2005; Puuronen 2006; Salasuo 2007). The prevailing paradigms of Finnish research have intersected with international research on subcultures from time to time, but they have by no means gone together hand in hand often quite the opposite. The first study on Finnish youth groups was the study by Rafael Helanko (1953), Turun poikasakit sosiologinen tutkimus 9 16-vuotiaitten poikien spontaanisista ry- 570 Tommi Hoikkala & Meri Karjalainen (eds.)

7 hmistä vv ( The boys gangs of Turku during the years ), published in Its approach was drawn from the tradition of the Chicago School: Helanko (1953, 17) received inspiration for his doctoral dissertation from the study by the American Frederic Thrasher (1927). Thrasher (ibid.) examined a total of 1,313 spontaneously formed youth gangs and their internal structures gangland, as he himself called the object of his study. Helanko (op. cit.), in turn, examined the structures of youth cliques that arose spontaneously in Turku in the years , and the environments of their activities. The study particularly dealt with the organization of small local groups into youth cliques that could be distinguished from other cliques on the basis of their way of speaking and dressing. The study was an innovative application of prior international work conducted at that time (see also Salasuo & Suurpää 2014). Helanko (1960a) also utilized his analysis of young people s groups in the book Vapaan nuorisotyön peruskysymyksiä ( Basic questions on youth work ), published in However, the latter research did not focus on studying youth groups; rather, its focus was specifically on youth work. In the end, Turun poikasakit (1953) remained the only Finnish study that drew its inspiration directly from the tradition of the Chicago School. Helanko s work Vapaan nuorisotyön peruskysymyksiä launched a period in Finnish youth research that could research-wise be called the socialization period (see Hoikkala & Suurpää 2005; Salasuo 2007). Consequently for the next 20 years Finnish youth research concentrated almost entirely on socialization and youth work. Studies naturally touched on social and cultural factors as well, but they represented a very small minority (e.g. Allardt et al. 1958). During the socialization period, Ritva Aalto made an extensive and respected contribution between 1965 and 1971 by publishing eight studies on youth work. In her studies, however, young people s own culture was hardly considered at all. (see Salasuo 2007) On the other hand, the period extending from the late 1950s until the early 1980s was also strongly marked by a positivist, quantitative approach introduced to the mainstream in 1958 by the study Nuorison harrastukset ja yhteisön rakenne ( Youth hobbies and the structure of society ) by Erik Allardt and colleagues (Puuronen 1997, 175). The study On the Small Groups of School-Age Girls in Turku by Helanko (op. cit. 1960b) published in 1960 also represents the positivist-quantitative period of Finnish youth research. From the viewpoint of the development curve of research on subcultures, this study is particularly interesting because it focused on girls. Prior to this and long afterwards girls remained largely outside the scope of research dealing with young people s groups, both in Finland and internationally as well. While academic research on youth groups took its initial steps rather slowly, the media actively reported on the rise and development of gangs and subcultures. However, it was not uncommon for the media to exaggerate the problems caused by these types of groups. For instance, the media relentlessly portrayed youth groups drinking as a problem as early as in the 1950s, at a time when alcohol con- Finnish Youth Research Anthology

8 sumption among young people in Finland was still very low (Salasuo & Tigerstedt 2007). Kettil Bruun and Ragnar Hauge (1963) responded to the media s problem-based perspective by investigating young people s drinking in the Nordic countries (see also Bruun 1961). The results showed that young people s drinking was moderate and that the problem construction created by the media was falce. In the 1960s, raggare, hippies, the so-called underground movement, and many other youth culture groups also received more visibility in the press (inter alia, Heiskanen & Mitchell 1985; Ala-Ketola 1985; Salasuo 2002). According to Ilkka Heiskanen and Ritva Mitchell (1985, 73), analyzing subcultural groups and their international influences in the magazines had reached an almost scientific level by the middle of the decade. Although this is not quite true, the magazines approached the topic with vigor, to say the least. Jyrki Hämäläinen, for example, dedicated twelve pages describing youth groups and group behavior in the November 1965 issue of Suosikki, a youth magazine. The stagnant phase of research in the 1960s came to an end in 1969, when Rafael Helanko (1969) published the study Eräistä varttuneen nuorison käyttäytymismuodoista Turussa 1960-luvulla ( On some behav ioural forms of adolescents in Turku in 1960 ). This work can in fact be considered the only exploration of youth groups during that decade. At the same time, the focal point of research began gradually to shift from small-scale local youth cliques to more complex and broader youth cultures. Helanko (1969) divided the youth groups that he explored in Turku into two groups according to their international idols: the ones exhibiting hard rocker style and others representing the soft mod style. Although Helanko s (ibid.) study can be considered a commendable milestone in the history of Finnish research on subcultures, Heiskanen and Mitchell (1985, 73-74) criticized its derogatory and judgmental approach towards subcultures. They used the following interpretation as an example of Helanko s (1969) attitudes towards the new youth phenomena of the 1960s and, in particular, the mod-like subculture: In my opinion, pop should not be likened to the intellectual-social aspects of culture, which are central in the present universal student youth movement. Pop is fundamentally culture for the puberty-aged youth which commercial interests and the mass media have inflated and exploited. Pop culture can arise amidst urban pubertyaged gatherings and crowds in the atmosphere of cafés, leisure clubs and school parties. It is the disjointed cultural product of an immature person (...). (Helanko 1969, 26) 2 While a certain negative attitude and reflections of the problem-centered approach of the earlier research tradition could still be seen in Helanko s (1969) study, signs of change were already visible in the anthology Nuoret tänään ( Youth today ) published in It is particularly noteworthy that the book s chapter on youth clique behavior (in practice, these were subcultural groups) written by Lea Vuori (1971) called for breaking free from the mindset that approached the youth culture movement as a 572 Tommi Hoikkala & Meri Karjalainen (eds.)

9 deviant phenomenon. She also brought attention to the need to examine youth groups specifically from the perspective of young people: Previous literature has been marked by the idea that joining a clique is deviant behavior. Thus, poor conditions at home or the individual s personal difficulties were deemed to be the reasons for joining a clique. There was perhaps some justification for this early notion, because at that time the cliques were gangs that were more or less clearly linked with juvenile delinquency. Nowadays it is not appropriate to consider joining a youth clique as being deviant behavior, at least not from young people s own perspective. (Vuori 1971, ) 3 Although Vuori in part admitted the justification for the problem-oriented approach of the early research in its own historical context, her perspective can be seen as a detachment to many other interpretations made at the turn of the The quote above, for example, is virtually a direct counterpart to the description of popsters (i.e. representatives of the mod style) given in the book Popmusiikin vuosisata ( A century of pop music ) by Pekka Gronow and Seppo Bruun (1968), which Helanko (1969, 26) also cited in his study. According to Gronow and Bruun (op cit. 79), the youth group in question included many real problem youths who have had poor conditions at home or other difficulties. The ideas presented by Vuori (1971) are very interesting in comparison to the subculture theory of the Birmingham School that was being formed at the same time. While the British subculture theory stressed the importance of a working-class background to the emergence of subcultures and subcultural behavior, Vuori (1971, 97) stated for example that parents social status, based on the father s occupation, had no connection to the foundation of cliques among young people. In this respect, Vuori s remark can be considered an early manifestation of the difficulties that interpretations of subcultures focusing on the role of class in the Finnish context encountered later (see Hoikkala & Suurpää 2005). On the other hand, Vuori s (1971) thinking that class played only a small role was not absolutely new in Finland, as, for example, Erik Allardt (1958, 30) and his research group stated already in 1958 that there were no significant differences between social classes with regard to membership of youth cliques. However, while discussing class, it is worth noting that Vuori s (1971) notion on young people s background being irrelevant to belonging to cliques did not mean that socioeconomic status was not a factor in the dynamics between individual youth cliques. Vuori (ibid.) stated for example that differences between Finnish popsters and greasers (i.e. representatives of the rocker style) were noticeable in educational background: greasers were rarely secondary school students. The same observation was also made a bit earlier by Helanko (1969, 25), who stated that the majority of mod youths in Turku were secondary school students while the local representatives of the rocker style were mostly youths from lower social groups who attended civic or vocational school or who worked. Vuori s (1971, 98) analysis is also made note- Finnish Youth Research Anthology

10 worthy by the fact that she rejected the idea of the urbanity of subcultural phenomena: With regard to the place of residence, the long prevailing conception has been that rural youth differs clearly from urban youth. There is no detectable difference between rural and urban youth with regard to the extent of forming youth cliques. Perhaps contrary to what might be expected, congregating in youth cliques is slightly greater in the countryside than in the cities and towns. 4 Until then, research had examined subculture movements typically as a phenomenon of urban culture a feature that is still strongly present among the discussion on subcultures. BREAKTHROUGH OF SUBCULTURE RESEARCH AND OTHER PARADIGMS IN FINLAND Towards the end of the 1970s, the positivist paradigm of the prevailing research approach and the overly simplistic conception of socialization began attracting criticism to an increasing degree. They were seen as describing the everyday life of young people too narrowly and at a too general level. (Hoikkala & Suurpää 2005) At the turn of the decade, researchers began to seek suitable applications from the research of the Birmingham School (e.g. Paldan 1980; Mitchell 1982; Hoikkala 1983; Heiskanen & Mitchell 1985; see also Ala-Ketola 1985). The subculture theory of the Birmingham School made its breakthrough in Finland during the 1980s. Although it did not lead to the same wave of cultural studies in here as in Sweden and Denmark, it nevertheless became the most important approach to the sociology of youth in the mid 1980s at the latest. The peak of enthusiasm focused specifically on the approach that emphasized observational research, not on the School s Marxist ideological landscape. (Puuronen 1997; Hoikkala & Suurpää 2005; Salasuo 2007.) The theory of the Birmingham School superseded the socialization theory that had been prevalent in Finnish research and was experienced as deterministic. At the same time, young people s creativity and the meanings of subcultures opened up to researchers in a new way. The youth culture of the early 1980s created an impressive vantage point for applying the theory of subculture, as it was the golden era of disco glitters, punk and teddies, as well as giving rise to neighborhood gangs, the environment movement and squatting. However, similarly to the other Nordic countries, the Birmingham theory was quickly given an original frame of interpretation in Finland (however, see Heiskanen & Mitchell 1985). Finnish researchers found utilization of the theory that leaned on the British class society as such to be very awkward, since the local subcultures were by no means limited to being an activity for working-class young men. (Hoikkala 1989; Puuronen 2006.) In addition, the rebellious element of subcultural theory was considered to be exaggerated. It was influenced by the Birmingham School s belief in the resistance potential of young people, which drew on Marxism (e.g. Lähteenmaa 1991). 574 Tommi Hoikkala & Meri Karjalainen (eds.)

11 The Birmingham School way of thinking was applied in a variety of ways in Finland, and especially its terminology was used extensively (see Hoikkala 1989). The most loyal followers of the British culturalism were Ilkka Heiskanen and Ritva Mitchell (1985) in their examination of the historical arc of Finnish youth cultures. Marja Ala-Ketola (1985) also explored the concept of subculture in her research, Hippejä, jippejä, beatnikkejä: Amerikkalaisen vastakulttuurin historiaa ( Hippies, yippies and beatniks: History of American counter culture movements ). Jari Ehrnrooth (1988) applied the theory of subculture when studying heavy metal fans, as did Jaana Lähteenmaa for instance in her research on rocker girls (1989), hip-hoppers, punk rockers and skinheads (1991). Tommi Hoikkala (1989), in turn, took a critical view of the problematic nature and usability of the concept of subculture in his licentiate thesis. He produced a paradigm for Finnish youth research that continues to be relevant today, and that can be described as cultural sensitivity. In his approach, which he called cultural youth, Hoikkala (ibid.) dissociated himself from politically, socially and linguistically charged concepts. He called for a case-specific and material-oriented research approach where youth groups are approached without overly strict preconceived hypotheses and where concepts are created in dialogue with the observations made during the research process. In their article published in 2005, Hoikkala and Suurpää summarize that the British theory of subculture as such failed to gain ground in Finland because its group ethos did not pay attention adequately to the importance of the individual at a time becoming more individualistic. The article, in an interesting way, brings to the fore the similarities between the criticism of the Birmingham School presented in Finland in the 1980s and 1990s and the criticism of the post-subcultural research that has arisen in the 2000s. According to Hoikkala and Suurpää (2005), the critical observations on the Birmingham School way of thinking made by Finns have been raised elsewhere in the world some years later, when the paradigm of post-subculture research has been discussed for being too generalizing, and neglecting the individual (ibid.). The post-subculture discussion of the 2000s has been experienced as a type of déjá-vu by them. All in all, the period from the 1980s to the 2000s can be called the period of applied and critical culturalism. The study of subcultures in the Birmingham School tradition settled to become a part of Finnish research in the social sciences, especially sociology, at that time and encountered many types of criticism and sprouted a wide assortment of applications. In the early 2000s, the approach that drew on the Birmingham School and its applications became marginal in both Finnish youth research and sociology. However, according to Hoikkala and Suurpää (2005) individual studies were published at the time that were influenced by the legacy of the Birmingham School. British culturalism was strongly present for instance in Jaana Lähteemaa s (2001) doctoral dissertation on late-modern youth culture and Ritva Raippa s (2002) doctoral dissertation on punk rockers (see also Perho 2000; Tolonen 2001; Harinen et al., 2006). Additionally, in the beginning of the millennium, studies were published which represent a type of applied continuum of Finnish Youth Research Anthology

12 Finnish research on subcultures despite their media framework. For example, Titus Hjelm (2005), dealt with Satan worship and the media in his research. Atte Oksanen (2006a) discussed in the articles of his doctoral dissertation, among other things, the fear of technology in films and rock music; reality TV as a moral brand; and tattoos as identity politics (Oksanen 2006b). Social historian Jukka Kortti (2007), in turn, investigated such things as television watching patterns of the digital-era among students living in Helsinki. However, the influence of post-subculture research has remained very slight in Finland. In his book Nuorisotutkimus ( Youth research ), published in 2006, Vesa Puuronen considered Mikko Salasuo s (2004) doctoral dissertation on the recreational use of drugs to be the only Finnish study drawing from post-subculturalism. Salasuo s Atomisoitunut sukupolvi ( Atomised generation )(2006), which represents extreme post-subcultural research from the Finnish perspective is situated along the same continuum. The collection of articles on the Nordic drug culture, Drugs & Youth Culture Global and Local Expressions (Lalander & Salasuo 2005), can also be considered a derivative of post-subculturalism. The middle of the first decade of the 2000s produced a novel trend in the field of youth research that was of interest vis-à-vis cultural studies. This novel trend can be called the new ethnographic turn. As a result, participant observation in a form that draws from the tradition of the Chicago School in an applied way began to regain a foothold. At the same time, various subcultures, countercultures and other cultural phenomena became the objects of several studies. Mari Käyhkö s (2006) Siivoojaksi oppimassa Etnografinen tutkimus työläistytöistä puhdistuspalvelualan koulutuksessa ( Learning to become a cleaner ) was among the first studies part of this new trend. It was followed by, among others, the study on conscripts culture by Tommi Hoikkala et al. (2009; see also Ojajärvi 2015); the doctoral dissertation of Sini Perho (2010) which studied young people who defined themselves as racists or intolerant; the pioneering work of Jussi Perälä (2011) on Helsinki s drug market in the 2000s; Anne-Mari Souto s (2011) study on the group relationships of Finnish and immigrant youths; Karoliina Ojanen s (2012) study on girls culture at riding stables; the doctoral dissertation of Riitta Hänninen (2012) on snowboard culture; Petri Paju s (2011) school ethnography; and the school ethnography of Hoikkala and Paju (2013). In addition, several other ethnographic studies are now in progress. The return to a research approach favoring participant observation can be interpreted in many different ways. The need to understand and obtain information about the life and mental landscapes of Finns born from the 1980s onwards, as well as information about new youth groups, can be considered one explanation. These generations, who have grown up under the influence of the information technology upheaval, a flood of stimuli from consumption cultures and the ethos of market liberalism, have been socialized into society in conditions differing from those of previous generations (see, e.g. Hoikkala & Paju 2008). In both the public and academic discussion, heightened individualism, continuous identity work, the disintegration of a sense 576 Tommi Hoikkala & Meri Karjalainen (eds.)

13 of community, polarization, being underprivileged, immigrants, temporary workers, externality and many other phenomena are seen as features of the present day. All of these features are relatively foreign to the welfare state tradition and simultaneously to a great many older citizens in other words, to the time of the old Finland. These cultural and social processes at the end of the 1980s rocked Finnish culture so completely that today s researchers seek inspiration for understanding the group behavior of the new Finland s young people from participant observation, similarly to cultural anthropologists in past decades. Although the place of youth and subcultural communities in the mainstream of research has varied in recent years, the subject matter has been a popular topic for Master s degree theses since the 1990s (see, e.g. Poikolainen 2008). However, theses have remained mostly buried in the (virtual) libraries of faculties to gather dust, and have been otherwise very absent in the works of professional researchers. One purpose of Katukulttuuri - Nuorisoesiintymiä 2000-luvun Suomessa ( Street culture Young people in Finland in the 21st century ), a collection of articles published by Salasuo et al. in 2012, was to make this type of research, offering fresh perspectives on subcultural phenomena, more visible. Thus was born the collection, written by young researchers, on subcultural phenomena in Finland in the 2000s. No similar anthology dealing specifically with subcultures had previously been compiled in Finland. The book is intended to show that research on subcultures continues to produce interesting and relevant information. It can be considered that the most important contribution made by the collection of articles is the solid possibility it raised of making innovative use of earlier theoretical applications and making them correspond better to present-day social reality. At least for a while, the work made research on subcultures a topic of interest both publicly and academically. IN CONCLUSION When something strange happens among youth, it is turned into a catchy and journalistically interesting issue, Tommi Hoikkala (Hoikkala, Yle 1990), stated during a TV interview on the Oulu youth riots in Then as now sweeping explanations for young people s behavior were sought from subcultures. Particularly for the media, the culture-based explanation model offers an exotic, nostalgic, and best-selling way to explain groups activities, way of dressing and lifestyle choices. Using concepts linked to subcultures, people also aim to understand the mentality and meaning of young people s group behavior (see Puuronen 1997). However, making cultural generalizations, can easily lead one astray. In 1991, Jaana Lähteenmaa wrote that young people s identification with subcultures had diminished. In her view, personal identity work had replaced the collective, subculturally shared way of dealing with socio-cultural changes (Lähteenmaa 1991). The idea of uniformly dressed large youth groups distinct from one another thinking and behaving the same is today mainly a fallacy perpetuated by the media and history. For example, festivals representing a Finnish Youth Research Anthology

14 particular music style and other large events continue to gather together young people decked out in similar uniforms, but wider generalizations beyond a similar taste in music and style cannot be made about the participants. (e.g. Salasuo 2006.) Anyone observing young people s lives should have sufficient sensitivity interpreting youth groups and subcultures (e.g. Paumo 2012). There is reason to distinguish whether one is talking about a subculture or a group and even then, it is necessary to recognize differences in how binding the individual subculture or group is (Hoikkala 1989). Three distinctively dressed youths who abide by skinhead ideals, hanging out in the local park does not yet constitute a subculture, nor do they confirm the existence of one. Then again, few people associate the gathering of thousands of computer enthusiasts at a game event with the gathering of a subculture even though in form and shared meanings this may well be the case (see Kojo 2012). In an article in the journal Nuorisotutkimus ( Youth research ), Tarja Tolonen (2010) examines young people s groupings, leisure activities and styles as well as their interconnectedness. According to her, it is above all a question of local styles in relation to other local styles (see also Vaattovaara 2012). The article s main observation is that, at a general level, the lifestyle choice and individually free stylization represented by young people are not class-bound (cf. Willis 1977). However, it is not completely disassociated from class, locality or cultural traditions (see also Westinen 2012). At the end of her article, Tolonen (2010) presents an interesting question pertaining to youth styles: who are brought together by them nowadays (does social class matter), what style is possible for each individual (can a dark-skinned boy be a heavy metal fan) and what kind of style is respected among each circle? The current discussion on subcultures should also note the social groupings of young people who are the losers in the qualification struggle of the modern competitive society (see Hoikkala 2011). Society s indifference towards the marginalized may in the near future give rise to social spaces where excluded young people create their lifestyle as a very unified group and in a class-based manner in other words, they may form subcultures in the original sense of the word, as delinquent communities (e.g. Cohen 1955; see Perälä et al. 2012; cf. Bauman 2011). As a summarizing contemporary observation, it can be said that young people s large and uniform subcultural collectives remained in the 1980s, insofar if they ever even occurred in Finland as such (see Hoikkala 1989). They have been replaced by numerous heterogeneous groups of young people, groups that nonetheless occasionally have many of the features typical to subcultures. In some of them, the informal social norms positively require extreme individualism while in others, group norms are regulated more strictly (see Tolonen 2010). However, it is clear that the visibility of different youth styles has increased exponentially in the last 30 years (Salasuo 2006). It is telling, for instance, that in the Youth Barometer 2009 (Myllyniemi 2009), as many as 13 per cent of year-olds reported having a tattoo and 20 per cent had body piercings (excluding earrings). Similarly, for example, green hair is nowadays a common sight rather than an 578 Tommi Hoikkala & Meri Karjalainen (eds.)

15 anomaly in cities (see Voltti 2012). Media s relentless use of a nonspecific concept subculture is largely associated with the visualization of youth accelerated by commercialism and the carnevalization of self caused by information technology and the media industry as well as the resistance associated with these: subculture fascinates both as a term and a symbol of the mythical youth group (see Komonen 2012; Piispa 2012; Valaskivi 2012). Scrutiny of these sorts of changes in young people at the level of styles, activity and social meanings has been and still is the central content of youth research. However, one function of this article has been to underscore the possibility of obtaining interesting information about youth and its cultural position also by examining concepts and discourses describing young people s group activities and the historical transformation thereof. The spectrum of youth descriptions illustrates the societal ways in which youth, on the one hand, has been understood and, on the other hand, has been managed and controlled at different times. NOTES 1 Original in Finnish 2 Original in Finnish 3 Original in Finnish 4 Original in Finnish REFERENCES Aalto, Ritva (1975) Nuorten sosiaalistuminen ja nuorisotyö [Youth socializing and youth work]. Sosiologian laitoksen julkaisusarja no Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Allardt, Erik & Penttilä, Jartti & Jyrkilä, Taina & Littunen, Yrjö (1958) Nuorison harrastukset ja yhteisön rakenne [Youth hobbies and the structure of society]. Helsinki: WSOY. Ala-Ketola, Marja (1985) Hippejä, jippejä ja beatnikkejä: Amerikan vastakulttuuriliikkeiden historiaa [Hippies, yippies and beatniks: History of American counter culture movements]. Oulu: Pohjoinen. Bauman, Zygmunt (2011) Collateral damage. Social inequalities in a global age. Cambridge: Polity. Bennett, Andy (1999) Subcultures or neo-tribes? Rethinking the relationship between youth, style and musical taste. Sociology 33:3, Bennett, Andy (2000) Popular Music and Youth Culture. Music, identity and place. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. Bennett, Andy (2005) In defence of neo-tribes: a response to Blackman & Hesmondhalgh. Journal of Youth Studies 8:2, Bennett, Andy & Kahn-Harris, Keith (eds) (2004) After subculture: critical studies in contemporary youth culture. New York: Palgrave. Bruun, Kettil (1961) Helsinkiläispoikien alkoholin käyttötavat [The alcohol use among boys from Helsinki]. Tilastollisia kuukausitietoja Helsingistä N:o 4, April. Helsinki: Helsingin kaupungin tilastotoimisto, Bruun, Kettil & Hauge, Ragnar (1963) Drinking habits among Northern youth. A cross-national study of male teenage drinking in the Northern capitals. Helsinki: The Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies, Vol. 1 Caicedo, Martha (2011) Subcultures. In Nancy Lesco & Susan Talburn (eds) Keywords in youth studies. Tracing affects, movements, knowledge. New York: Routledge. Cohen, Albert (1955) Delinquent boys. The culture of the gang. New York: Free Press. Cohen, Stanley (1972) Folk devils and moral panics. The creation of mods and rockers. London: MacGibbon & Kee. Finnish Youth Research Anthology

16 Cohen, Sara (1999) Scenes. In Bruce Horner & Thomas Swiss (eds.) Key Terms in Popular Music and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Pulishers, Ehrnrooth, Jari (1988) Hevirock ja hevarit. Myytit, tyyli, alakulttuuri. Tapaustutkimus hevareista Joensuun nuorisotaloyhteisöissä [Heavy rock and headbangers. Subculture, style, myths. A case study of headbangers in the youth club communities of Joensuu]. Joensuu: Joensuun yliopiston julkaisuja. Eisenstadt, Shmuel (1956) From Generation to Generation. Age Groups and Social Structure. New York: Free Press. Gronow, Pekka & Bruun, Seppo (1968) Popmusiikin vuosisata [A century of pop music]. Helsinki: Tammi. Harinen, Päivi & Itkonen, Hannu & Rautopuro, Juhani (2006) Asfalttiprinssit. Tutkimus skeittareista [Asphalt princes. A study on skaters]. Helsinki: Suomen Liikuntatieteellinen seura. Hebdige, Dick (1979) Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen. Heiskanen, Ilkka & Mitchell, Ritva (1985) Lättähatuista punkkareihin [From flat hats to the punk subculture]. Helsinki: Otava. Helanko, Rafael (1953) Turun poikasakit. Sosiologinen tutkimus 9 16-vuotiaiden poikien spontaanisista ryhmistä vv [The boys gangs of Turku during the years ]. Turku: Turun yliopiston julkaisuja, Ser. B, Vol 46. Helanko, Rafael (1960a) Vapaan nuorisotyön peruskysymyksiä [Basic questions on youth work]. Helsinki: WSOY. Helanko, Rafael (1960b) On the small groups of school-age girls in Turku. Turku: Turun yliopisto. Helanko, Rafael (1969) Eräistä varttuneen nuorison käyttäytymismuodoista Turussa 1960 [On some behavioural forms of adolescents in Turku in 1960]. Turku: Turun ylipisto, sosiologian laitos, monisteita 26. Hietaniemi, Tuija (1992) Lain vartiossa. Poliisi Suomen politiikassa [On law patrol. Police in Finnish politics, ] Helsinki: SHS, tutkimuksia 166. Hjelm, Titus (2005) Saatananpalvonta, media ja suomalainen yhteiskunta [Satanism, the media, and Finnish society]. Nuorisotutkimusseuran/Nuorisotutkimusverkoston julkaisuja 55 & Yliopistopaino. Helsinki: Nuorisotutkimusseura. Hoikkala, Tommi (1983) Brittiläinen kulturalismi ja nuorten alakulttuurien tutkiminen [British culturalism and researching youth subcultures]. Tiede & edistys 8:1, Hoikkala, Tommi (1989) Nuorisokulttuurista kulttuuriseen nuoruuteen [From youth culture to cultural youth]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Hoikkala, Tommi (1990) Yle: Oulun nuorisomellakat. Näkökulma: nuoret aikuisuuden peilinä [Yle: The youth riots of Oulu. A perspective: young people as a mirror of adulthood]. Yle Areena. elavaarkisto/artikkelit/oulun_nuorisomellakat_ html#media=38690 (Accessed ) Hoikkala, Tommi & Suurpää, Leena (2005) Finnish youth cultural research and its relevance to youth policy. Young 13:3, Hoikkala, Tommi (2011) Yksinäisyys ja nuorten sosiaaliset maailmat tänään [Loneliness and young people s social worlds today]. A Lecture at the National Development Day at Paasitorni: Pupil and Student Welfare Services, 1st of December, Opetushallitus, Helsinki. Hoikkala, Tommi & Paju, Petri (2008) Entä nuoremmat sukupolvet? Sukupolvitutkimus ja nuorisopolitiikka [What about the younger generations? Generational research and youth policy]. In Semi Purhonen & Tommi Hoikkala & J.P. Roos (eds) Kenen sukupolveen kuulut? Suurten ikäluokkien tarina. Helsinki: Gaudea mus, Hoikkala, Tommi & Salasuo, Mikko & Ojajärvi, Anni (2009) Tunnetut sotilaat. Varusmiehen kokemus ja terveystaju [Known soldiers. The experience and health conscience of a conscript]. Nuorisotutkimusverkoston/Nuorisotutkimusseuran julkaisuja 94. Helsinki: Nuorisotutkimusseura. Hoikkala, Tommi & Paju Petri (2013) Apina pulpetissa. Ysiluokan yhteisöllisyys [A monkey at the desk. Ninegraders sense of community]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus 580 Tommi Hoikkala & Meri Karjalainen (eds.)