Independent Subcultures: Walter Miller

An example of an independent form of subculture is provided by Walter Miller in his article "Lower Class Cultures as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency", 1962. As the title suggests, Miller rejects the idea that subcultures necessarily arise as some kind of "reaction" to the pervasive, dominating, influence of "middle class value systems". In its place, Miller argues that we should see some forms of subcultural behaviour as an independent cultural phenomenon that develop as an extension of lower - or working class - culture (as an American, Miller tends to use the term "lower class" rather than "working class"). In this respect, Miller is basically saying two things:

Firstly, that it is possible to identify at least two distinct cultural groups; middle class and lower class. Each has its own distinctive set of basic values, beliefs, norms of behaviour and so forth, although it is evident that there must be some correspondence between the two (because they will both inhabit the same basic cultural milieu - although what this might be is not specified.

Secondly, that lower class culture has certain values which do not exist within middle class culture. These he identifies as a number of "focal concerns" and it is from these that Miller argues the distinctive behaviour of lower class boys can be explained.

In this respect, Miller identifies six "focal concerns" of lower class culture and by looking at each in turn it should be possible to see how they may be applied to the study of pupil subcultures and, of course, deviant behaviour.

1. TROUBLE

Lower class life tends, as a matter of course, to involve individual acts of violence. The lower class boy, therefore, quickly learns to identify "trouble" and how to handle it.

2. TOUGHNESS

The ability to handle "trouble" (perhaps to see violence as a means of resolving problems) clearly requires the need for toughness - the ability to "take care" of both yourself and your mates. Miller argues that the everyday experience of trouble and the need to exhibit toughness in your dealings with people is a basic characteristic of the lower class male experience.

3. SMARTNESS

The ability to "look good" (especially on a night out) is a significant component of self-identity - if you look good then you feel good. There are perhaps two further aspects to this meaning of smartness:

a. It represents a way of impressing people (especially women).

b. It can be used as an exaggerated form of mockery in relation to middle class cultural values. The "Teddy Boy" phenomenon in Britain in the late 1950's, for example, involved the adoption, by working class boys, of an exaggerated, deliberately distorted, code of dress that reflected middle class norms and, by so doing, mocked such norms.

"Smartness" does, however, have another meaning - that of being clever or witty - and the ability to tell a good joke, make a funny comment and so forth is a valuable asset (especially in relation to "larking around" with your mates as a means of undermining the authority of teachers). In this sense, "being smart" (or cheeky if you prefer) is a way of gaining social status at the expense of middle-class forms of authority.

4. EXCITEMENT

The idea of "having fun" is significant mainly because Miller argued that, through their school / working lives lower class males were effectively denied much sense of self-expression. Only through their leisure activities could life become pleasurable, hence the emphasis by lower class males on "having a good time". This idea does, of course, translate fairly easily into the school, whereby the ability to inject a bit of fun, excitement and meaning into an otherwise mundane and meaningless existence becomes a valuable status commodity.

5. FATE

Lower class males tend to be fatalistic about life in general and their education in particular - mainly because their lives tend, almost by definition, to lack any sense of power or the ability to influence what happens to them. In this respect, fatalistic acceptance of a relatively boring daily school / work routine (they feel unable to change the way things are) produces a form of hedonistic leisure activity, whereby whatever happens is the result of "chance" or fate.

6. AUTONOMY

Related to this fatalistic acceptance of their lot in life is the desire for personal respect within their immediate subcultural groups. A general resentment of (middle class) authority figures who dominate their school life (and about whom they are able to do little or nothing) leads into the desire to exercise some form of freedom in areas where some control / power is possible.

In the above way, Miller attempts to explain deviant subcultures as an extension of these lower class focal concerns by arguing that the social context within which young, lower class, males exist leads them to adopt an exaggerated form of such concerns. In this sense, if we combine youth with the search for excitement and respect through leisure (as opposed to work), we have a potentially explosive mixture which stands a high chance of attracting the attention - and disgust - of middle class authority.

The following quotation, from Moore and Hendrey ("Teach Yourself Sociology", 1982) provides a more modern example of independent subcultural theory through the work of Howard Parker ("A View From The Boys", 1974).

"Parker's study of the Liverpool gang provides a good illustration [of independent subcultural theory]. The 'Boys' (as they call themselves) go for a night out. They aren't looking for any 'trouble' (fights), but should anyone hint that they aren't tough, or can't take their drink 'like men', then a fight ensues. On these nights out, the Boys' ability to pick up girls often depends on their wit and repartee (smartness) and they are always on the look-out for fun (excitement). They work hard to maintain some freedom in their daily lives (autonomy), beyond the control of teachers or foremen. Finally they are fatalistic about their lives in general and especially the economic and political influences on them (fate), over which they believe they can have no control.".

If you apply these ideas to education, the basic idea is that there is a cultural mismatch between the values and norms that working class children bring into the education system and the values and norms they find there. In basic terms, a classic anomic situation develops, whereby working class children "don't speak the same cultural language" as their middle class peers. This can result in:

a. Their behaviour not being understood by middle-class teachers.
b. Their behaviour being interpreted and labelled as deviant.