Page 259 - Cultural Theory

Edwards-3516-Ch-12.qxd 5/9/2007 6:08 PM Page 248

••• Eamonn Carrabine •••

“mainstream”, and the “underground” versus the “media”’ (Thornton, 1995: 3–4). Her
arguments build on Bourdieu’s (1986) discussion of the relationships between taste and
social structure and she influentially argues that club cultures trade in ‘subcultural cap-
ital’ in which ‘hipness’ is the key commodity. In doing so she moves beyond a simple
division between mainstream incorporation and subcultural resistance. For while vague
opposition might be how many members of youth subcultures characterize their own
activities, she cautions against taking youthful discourses at face value as subcultural ide-
ologies are not innocent accounts of the way things really are. Instead they are ways of
imagining what their own and other social groups are like.
The performance of distinctions serves to mark out cultural hierarchies and can be
an alibi for subordination. It is no coincidence that the terms used by clubbers to
denigrate the mainstream are highly gendered, such as ‘Techno Tracy’ and ‘Handbag
House’. She further insists that these terms should not ‘be confused with actual
dance culture of working class girls’ as the ‘distinction reveals more about the cul-
tural values and social world of hardcore clubbers’ (Thornton, 1997: 205) and she
goes on to quote Bourdieu’s (1990: 132) point that ‘nothing classifies somebody
more than the way he or she classifies. These activities suggest that what is at stake
is a more conformist jockeying for status rather than any alternative gestures of defi-
ance and the continuing salience of class and gender in young people’s lives.
Another study of popular music audiences that marks a break with the CCCS
approach is Wendy Fonarow’s (1996; 1997) analysis of the spatial distribution of
indie gigs. Her work combines the Chicago School’s sociology through examining
the spatial zoning at well-attended concerts with Erving Goffman’s (1963) attentive-
ness to conduct in public places through revealing how social interactions and spa-
tial distribution are regulated by age. She identifies three zones that regularly appear.
Zone one is ‘the pit’. It is the area closest to the stage and is the most densely packed
where diving from the stage and other forms of immediately frantic action like
‘pogoing, slamming, moshing, and the shaking of heads’ take place (Fonarow, 1997:
361). In this zone are the youngest members of the audience – their ages ranging
from about 14 to 21. The second zone begins a quarter of the way back into the
venue and extends to the back of the floor area. It is the most static. Here fandom is
expressed through ‘aural connoisseurship and the undivided attention given to the
performers’ (1997: 366). The third zone is at the back of the venue and is normally
where the bar is. It is not only the place where participants move to if they do not
like the band but it is also the domain of music industry professionals (agents, man-
agers, journalists, promoters, musicians and record company staff).
Fonarow’s argument is that individuals in each zone claim that their own location
6
is the best and deride other zones. For instance, even though professionals are at the
furthest spatial distance, their social proximity means that they ‘privilege their spec-
tatorship over that of the “punters”, the paying customers, through their access to
the band’ (1997: 367) whereas the young fans in zone one would claim they have a
greater emotional connection while regarding the other areas as boring and lacking
atmosphere. Her work importantly demonstrates how music audiences are not
homogenous, in the subcultural sense, but are instead a ‘body of organized and
• 248 •