Amy Wilkins Three Subcultures

Fighting for Justice or Just for Attention?
The Many Ways Being Different Isn't Social Change
The problem with structuring subcultures in the context of resistance is that sometimes it’s really hard to figure out just what someone is resisting. The CCCS approach focuses on subcultures of the Working Class because its much easier to see their actions in terms of resisting larger social structures. In Amy Wilkin’s (2008) book she depicts three subcultures primarily consisting of middle class white youth. While there is still the possibility of resistance, the efforts of goths and Unity Christians are aimed achieving distinction, while the wannabe desires authenticity. Instead of wanting to change the actual hierarchy, they simply want to rig the game so that they can win. Often these ‘deviant’ actions serve to reinforce existing structure. Goths, Christians, and Puerto Rican Wannabes use the idea of the ‘other’ to form their own identities, often by using less privileged groups to define their own distinction. The use of sex is common among all three as a way of lending biological weight to what would otherwise be viewed as a ‘phase’. In a way, Wilkins’ subcultures are actually the opposite of resistant. As Thornton notes, “distinctions are never just assertions of equal difference; they usually entail some claim to authority and presume the inferiority of others” (Thornton 1995, p 201). However, Wilkins’ notes a number of contradictions and places of resistance in her

participants individual narratives, opening the possibility for more postmodern, individual pockets of resistance.
Amy Wilkins views her participants as constantly enacting a combination of race, class and gender.

The problem for her studying it is that “the goths and the Christians talked little about race. The wannabes talked little about gender. And almost nobody talked about class” (Wilkins, p. 3). However, just because we don’t speak about these things does not mean that they are not effecting our actions, rather Wilkins looks to see what lines were being drawn by what wasn’t being said as well as what

was.
The Goths are described as generally upper class white youth who are unaware of their own privileged positions, although one participant, Greg, whose mother is Puerto Rican admitted that “nonwhite people...may or may not have the money to buy the clothes” (p. 37). Wilkins notes “the difficulties of separating race and class in the goth scene since most goths occupy the privileged side of both axes” (p. 37). When Goths use others to define themselves, they aren’t just using any group, but rather separating themselves from disadvantaged groups. When Wren claims that goths “had to have a certain courage to put on costumes. [They] weren’t there to show off, like at hip-hop clubs” (p. 42) she intentionally separates herself from youth of color, though she admits to never having actually been to a hip hop club as they“disgust” her (p. 42). Wilkins describes a “tall, beautiful white woman... wearing a kimono with chopsticks in her hair”. Goths see these things as a costume to put on or take off rather than a form of cultural appropriation. Their privileged position allows them to use minority groups to define themselves with no risk of reprisal or awareness it's even happening.
As Wilkins notes, “[Goths] use upper-middle-class language and assumptions to validate their alternative style— and middle-class money to acquire it” (p. 43). They use youth of color as a foil to maintain their own distinctiveness, much as they use polyamory and bisexuality to achieve distinction while distancing themselves from the queer community— reaping the benefits of gay rights activism without any of the costs (p. 74). While their transgression of sexual norms could be seen as resistant to dominant culture, they cushion their actions in respectability politics. Their rhetoric regarding polyamory labels monogamous relationships as less “honest”, “open”, and “trustworthy” than their own (p. 85). In defending their own practice they in essence slutshame the ‘mainstream’, drawing a line that “separates the responsible from the irresponsible, the honest from the dishonest, the promiscuous from the polyamorous” (p. 85). Goths draw their identity in opposition to the mainstream, who in practice are seen as poor people of color— those who dance at hip-hop clubs, are promiscuous and irresponsible in sex, or are less enlightened in their gender relations (p. 86).
Christians are a particularly interesting group as they aren’t a subculture per se in most of the country. In this particular space, however, they form a small group with distinct boundaries separate from their peers— its just that those things that make them distinct are rewarded by the larger structure. Unity Christians in Wilkins’ work are similar to the goths in their sense of ‘color-blindness’. The position of their organization in informally reproducing racial segregation is invisible to them. As Wilkins’ notes, ”The presence of a few, highly visible nonwhite members creates the impression that campus Christianity isn’t segregated, even while separate campus organizations cater specifically to Black Christians and to foreign students” (p. 94). Their very performance of ‘goodness’ is one of middle class whiteness (p. 97) and their use of informal sponsorship serves to unknowingly reproduce the white middle class composition of the group (p. 95). While one may assume that Unity Christians would be more apparently hierarchical, given their connection to the Religious Right, their value of modesty and individualist take on religion serves to obfuscate the role of race and class. Interestingly, Wilkins’ describes their focus on abstinence— sexual and romantic-- as paradoxically allowing women to “[resist] expectations that they be other-directed and romance-oriented” (p. 143) while still “[binding] women’s confidence and independence to their ability to live up to gender conservative expectations” (p. 147). Unity Christians are resisting gender-norms in the short term, but as with Goths they are benefiting from the gains of feminism while still using the “economically and socially marginal ‘at-risk girl’” to form their own identities (p. 148).
Both Christians and Goths are struggling for what Thornton describes as distinction. While they place themselves in opposition to mainstream culture, they make no real efforts to change hierarchies. Even seemingly resistant actions are supported by mainstream values. For the goths this means supporting their non-traditional sexual habits with rhetoric of ‘safety’ and 'romance' and for Unity Christians this is opting out of an uneven romantic marketplace by calling on the raced and classed concept of ‘purity’ (p. 148). These groups do not see race and class, or even gender, in their actions, instead they see their choices and taste as ‘superior’-- Goths as seeing themselves as more progressive (p. 81), Christians by seeing themselves as more ‘happy’ (p. 111). What is clear is that both groups are unknowingly playing on hierarchies of race and class in order to assert that while they are distinct, they are still 'acceptable' by contrasting themselves to non-white stereotypes.
Puerto Rican wannabes are even more complicated than Unity Christians to see as a subculture, as they try their best to avoid any connections with each others and almost universally reject the label (p. 199). However, they are seen as a group— and subsequently labeled as deviant-- by both just about everyone. This strongly differentiates them in one way from goths and Unity Christians— wannabes are not seeking distinction, as a group. Instead wannabes are labeled as deviant for their racial transgressions. For some this is a class change, others it is actually a relatively small difference between white trash label and ‘wannabe’. Notable, however, is the caricature of the wannabe given by others. In the eyes of others wannabes are white and middle class. The reality is not this simple, but it belays the inherent linking of class and race. Wannabes unintentionally confirm this connection by solely enacting particular poor minority roles (p. 198).
Wilkins’ also turns her lens towards gender. She suggests that wannabes are not just people, but a “label [that] can be used as a threat, much like the slut label, tossed at anyone who violates behavioral expectations” (p. 193). In the post-modern concept of identity, the wannabe is the “Bad Subject” by which others position themselves as the “Good Subject” (Raby, p. 165). As Wilkins’ notes, the wannabe makes rules clear that others would rather remained unspoken. The indication that the wannabe is not acting ‘white’ draws attention to the fact whiteness requires enactment. While the wannabe may not claim her label, the very specter of her existence may be resistant in Butler’s conceptualization. By enacting the ‘wrong’ race, class, and gender performance she “challenges the clear alignment of assigned race with cultural performance” and allows for “elasticity” in racial categories (Wilkins, p. 195). However in continuing with Butler’s theories her acts may still be taken up by others in ways that realign race and class and that “fortify hierarchical gender categories” (p 195). No matter how they are taken up, it can be argued the wannabe is, in this instance, more resistant than the goths or Christians in that her actions violate norms in a way that draws attention to the arbitrariness and performativity of existing hierarchies.
While the Christians are performing to white middle-class adult expectations and the goths are violating norms in ways that are temporary, the wannabe causes upset because she is violating norms in a way that may become permanent— the birth of a mixed-race child. Both Christians and goths use sexuality to define themselves in a way that raises up the specter of the wannabe— a single mother who is not performing proper white-ness. For all three group, performances of sexuality are “inflexible” (p. 247). Wilkins suggests this is as sexuality appears to be something “intrinsic to a person...something that someone [can't] try on and take off” (p. 247). However, for Unity Christians and goths these performances secure their status as distinctive while ensuring their continued ability to move on to middle-class adulthood and its associated privileges. For wannabes the birth of mixed-race children does exactly the opposite-- children “solidify the race and class transgressions of their mothers” (p. 238).
Though their reasons for initial ‘racial transgression’ are more varied than the desires for distinction seen in the goths and Unity Christians, the wannabe’s conception of themselves is notable for the constant need to ‘prove’ legitimacy. Each woman interviews uses a different method, but there is no point where they may relax with certainty of in-group status. Rather, they are constantly in danger of the stigmatizing label of ‘wannabe’. In particular, Jaclyn attempts to claim “racial legitimacy by separating herself from the improper sexuality associated with white women” (p. 218). Rather than claiming her deviant label, Jaclyn is using her friend Kelli to define what she is not— in this case using the stigma of ‘loose sexuality’-- and in doing so position her own performance as authentic. Like the goths use of polyamory and the Christians use of abstinence, the wannabes interviewed at once break norms of sexuality and gender and reinforce them. However, the wannabe label is an external label of deviance rather than a group identification and as such members are notably more heterogeneous. While Jaclyn is concerned about being seen as ‘easy’, Laurie “negotiates her gender transgressions ambivalently” (p 228).
While none of the three groups can be seen as fully resistant, a postmodern view of resistance allows for more hope. Raby discusses ‘fissures’, moments where conflicts and contradictions allow us to “temporarily step outside of discourse and locate new ways of thinking and behaving” (Raby 2005, p. 167). These fissures allow a possibility of resistance in the moment where hypocrisies or contradictions become apparent. Wilkins’ work provides a number of these moments both noted by the Wilkins and by the subjects themselves, where “individuals... become aware of social norms as arbitrary and inconsistent” (Raby p. 167). While Laurie lacks the words to conceptualize it, she shows perhaps the most ability to resist norms. On one occasion, Laurie “reversed typical gendered scripts” by boasting about “[kissing] a man whose girlfriend has recently given birth” and shaming him as the “stigmatized slut” for his “insincerity toward his girlfriend” (Wilkins, p. 231). While not a lasting refusal of gender norms, in that moment Laurie made clear the arbitrariness of those roles. In reference to the goths nonmonogamy, egalitarian ideals, and queer play, Wilkins insists “Goth strategies push important sexual boundaries... These are gains that should not be overlooked” (p. 84). While these groups are not fully resisting norms, it is important to remember the places where they make apparent the performativity of race, class, and gender expectations. Unity Christians, however, make clear the dangerousness of viewing resistance solely moment by moment. While their identities “bend the rules of femininity in unexpected ways” (p. 141) they are doing so by “resuscitating ... historical patterns” that marginalize the poor and communities of color as well as linking women’s “moral worthiness to sexual patterns” (p. 148). Their progressive choices are meant to be only temporary and while they may allow for deviation from peers, little about their habits is resistant in a lasting manner.