Question

thesis statement for an argumentative, thesis-driven essay. 

Answer 1

A contrast between the how the People's Songsters Movement of the 1930s and 1940s and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s used American folk music illustrates how variation in these dimensions affects the effects that cultural production had on social movement outcomes.

What do social movements do? They protest, plea, organize, recruit, petition, demonstrate, meet, debate, strike, and express. As collective agents of expression, like other collectivities, they do art, literature, music, drama, and other creative endeavors.

The most common question about the cultural activities of social movements probes meaning: How are cultural expressions motivated by activists and interpreted by audiences? Insofar as social movements are defined in terms of their goals and demands, cultural objects are critical to fathom movements' mindsets, ideologies, and cultural resonances. But, content is only one dimension of how social movements do culture. Thus, the central issue of this paper is how sociologists studying social movements study culture. The argument is simple: As important as content of cultural forms is, the effects of art, music, drama, literature, etc. achieved by social movements depend at least as much on the social relations within which culture is embedded. We need to move beyond attending to the content of art, music, drama, literature, etc. to examine how people relate to each other while doingmusic, drama, literature, etc. We need to recognize that the social relationship by which one person or group has a monopoly on creativity, which they disperse to audiences, is only one kind of social relationship for culture. The claim here is that many people doing art, doingmusic, doing drama, doing literature, not just consuming it, is an extraordinarily powerful mode for both solidifying commitment to social movements and for helping them achieve their goals.

I will illustrate the argument with a comparison of two social movements that self-consciously used American folk music but with very different results. In contrast to Europe, where the genre of folk music was invented as part of the nationalizing projects of the late nineteenth centuryfolk music in the US was used by left-wing groups. Like recent social movements in France , social movements in America have used music and other cultural forms to simultaneously express distinctive identity and cultural commonality. The communist-led movement of the 1930s and 1940s developed the most extensive and elaborate cultural infrastructure of any movement in American history, with influence in every aesthetic realm from fine literature to Hollywood . They successfully catapulted American folk music from an esoteric interest of academics and antiquarians into a genre of popular music. But, they failed to reach their target audience—the working class. One major reason is that they never transcended the conventional social relationship that prevails in western culture, that of performer and audience, even though they were to create a culture of participatory performance. In contrast, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s is well known as one of the most musical movements in American history. For a brief period at least, music fortified the movement, wielding solidarity among the participants, and, with music that had strikingly thin political content, stirred the public imagination. The more powerful role that music played in the Civil Rights Movement is explained less by the music itself, much of which was inherited from the Old Left, than by the social relationship within which it was done. For the Civil Rights Movement, music was less a matter of a performer singing for an audience than part of the collective action itself. At the lunch counter, on the picket line, on the bus rides, and in jail, they made music collectively. Unless we attend to the social relations in which people are doing culture, we will be unable to explain the different effects that music had for these two movements.

The root of youth subcultures can be traced back to Afro-Caribbean immigrants in England during 1950s
and ‘teddy boys’ emerging from the proletarian class. In 1960s, on the other hand, another youth subculture reject-
ing ownership, work life and traditional clothing style and called ‘beats’ emerged in America. The advancement
and success of the ‘beat’ movement is a visible sign of a fundamental social change that has started to occur a long
time ago and is perceived in various types basically. At this point, Storey (2000) has pointed out to a fundamental
change experienced in the consumption structure: “There was wealth sufficient for working people to consume
based on their wishes rather than their needs during this period for the first time: Moreover, the working class,
who used consumption patterns, started to express their own identity during this period.”
This culture has started to become visible since the second half of 1960s and in addition to reminding of the
bohemian culture that emerged after the First World War, it evokes the previously experienced avant-garde high
culture in terms of the components including comfortable clothing, free and easy attitude, rejection of conven-
tional art styles and other high culture products like in Dada example, drug use, quoting black culture and public
culture and defending radical values. However, popularization of these high culture styles in lower admiration
cultures, the extent of its public and the variation contained by the cultural array that it supports is novel.
The common ground of the youth subcultures of this period was that they opposed the various aspects
of the existing society, especially war tendency, economic inequality within the society, the distinction between
generations and hypocrisy created by a visible gap between the policies implemented on social values. These
youngsters deal with social problems rather than individuality and react to the fact that they are torn in between
(Gans and Incirlioglu 2007). Hence, it is possible to remark that the youth cultures of 1960s emerged in the con-
text of ‘counter cultures’ and were shaped in the framework of this equality.During 1960s when the youth subcultures emerged, Wicke (2006) emphasized that the youth, unlike the
old generations, should not be hasty about growing up fast and benefiting from the opportunities of the adults as
soon as possible in regard to the fundamental social change, and stated that the change aided the consumption
industry basically (Wicke 2006). Therefore, it is wise to invest on this field. Shaping the purchasing habits of
the youth during this period will also illustrate its influence in the future absolutely. Market strategists invest and
break into market on the fashion, cosmetics, recreation, media and media-related music fields for deriving a profit.
Discovery of the youth’s own needs and consumption habits has led “rock ’n roll” to transform to a musical and
cultural movement responding to artistic and socio-political expectations and to be turned into a novel shape for
everyone to listen to it over time by creating ‘clear and harmless’ alternative symbols (Wicke 2006).
In 1970s, timbre gained independence by disintegrating from conservative relationships of music made by
focusing on personal expression and turned into a material to be processed based on its own sensual value. Hence,
philosophy of musical production moved to ‘how it is made rather than what is made’. Music became the quality
of an experience based on corporeality, sensuality and imagination. The target is to control culture that is gradually
moved to an interest-driven direction by creativity and to have a voice again for defining the content of cultural
process. Especially, the characteristics of rock music are formed with the collaboration of the persons who make
this music and their fans and these characteristics make up the essence of rock experience. Moreover, the youth
has gathered in an endless feast owing to culture, music and politics and dropped the mask of ‘consumption’ and
declared war against the system in a large battle-front. In this context, rock has kept its characteristic to be a hope
justifying the persons who want to change the world (Wicke 2006).
The group order of the subculture youth of this period attempts to keep the traditional opinions of working
class together and at the same time, tries to benefit from the opportunities and means presented by a wealthy
society with a symbolic reaction to the collapse of the traditional culture of working class. For instance, despite
the jobs where ‘modes’ work is generally low wage jobs promising a low career, an attempt to be visible can be
observed in the image and style of a ‘mode’. This visibility appears as an imaginative connection to the existent
conditions of the class positioned in the upper section of social structure. Similarly, the music the wealthy con-
sumers listen to and their clothing styles reflect their hedonist image although they share many traditional values
of the parent culture including their speech style or rituals. Hence, their reconciliatory attitude against this paradox
gives a clue about the structure of subcultures as well.
Subcultures create meaningful identities by means of their consumption rituals. Studies have been con-
ducted to define the suitability of the goods that are prepared by the current market for the persons who select
them and to define the differences between these groups. Hall and Jefferson assessed this process in their book
titled ‘Resistance through Rituals’ (Clarke 1993): “During this process, there are group members harmonizing
with certain objects and these objects may resemble to focused interest areas, activities, group structure and col-
lective image objects that reflect fundamental values of group members.” The most significant of these objects is
music. Listening to subcultural music is perhaps the most active music consumption type. Music consumption is
one of the tools for a subculture to separate itself from other society members and develop an identity and renew
itself culturally. This is not a rejection process carried out to recognize economic and cultural power of music
industry and it is an allegation that pop music field is full of dilemma like all commercial popular culture fields.
As Chambers (1985) asserted: “Only after the commercial power of cassette companies was recognized, convinc-
ing attraction of radio was accepted and music medias suggestions were started to be observed, a population has
emerged purchasing cassettes, dancing to music rhythm and living to music beats that show the great potential of
pop.”
Being a part of a youth subculture expresses especially a certain music taste and a common creation act
around this music consumption. According to Riesman (1950), creation of a group sensation by music is crucial
rather than a group being real or imaginative. This group is formed by a consumption act and an imaginative
connection has been generated among them in the context of consumed music even if there is no one present
as the listener listening to music (Riesman 1950). As Hebdige (2004) described the gloomy and economically
problematic atmosphere of 1970s, he discussed how ‘punk’ movement emerged by means of a grasping eclecti-
cism that synthesizes different yet innovative trends. Punk music contains rebellion distinctly and this sabotagesthe audience supervision efforts of music industry.

Post Subcultural Theory and Its Key Concepts
Despite the deterministic influence of Hebdige (2004) and CCCS on subculture studies, especially the
studies conducted in England during the recent years have shaped a sociology convention attempting to demar-
cate from CCCS approaches. These novel approaches, shaped by a series of concepts including ‘post-subculture’
(Muggleton 2002), ‘post-culture’ (Bennett and Kahn-Harris 2007), ‘beyond subculture’ (Huq 2007), started to
address the subculture concept especially at a level that is generally ignored by CCCS.
The studies of social theoreticians such as Max Weber, Jean Baudrillard and Michel Maffesoli should be
scrutinized critically in order to better understand the progress of post subcultural theory. Postmodernists base
the discussion-ground against ‘theoretical orthodoxy’ of CCCS on these theoreticians and starting from this point
of view, instead of subculture concept, they produce new terms including ‘neo-tribe’, ‘lifestyle’ and ‘scene’. Re-
luctance of postmodernism about focusing on social structure leads to a personal social grasp (Blackman 2005).
Post-cultural thought, in addition to establishing a basis for different anthologies, produces numerous novel ana-
lytical tools and conceptual approaches and forms a significant critical approach for many studies conducted on
the youth during the past ten years especially. Post-subcultural theory also plays a major role for understanding
the function of culture industry to shape the identities and lifestyles of the youth (Bennett 2011).
The emphasis made to subcultural difference is one of the major criticisms of post-subculture theoreticians
about Hebdige (2004) and CCCS; hence a critical perspective started to be shaped claiming that CCCS researchers
ignore the routine sights of daily life this way. For instance, according to Clarke (1993), since Hebdige (2004) and
other CCCS researchers focus on extraordinary sights of subcultures especially in the context of symbols, styles
and signs, they actually turn their back to daily life. Whilst Hebdige (2004) upholds that cultures and subcultures
should defend themselves against the rough attacks of mass culture, Clarke (1993) suggests that styles of mass
culture are intertwined rather than having an antagonist relationship (Gelder 2007).
Angela McRobbie emphasized that despite a line is drawn between pop culture and youth culture in CCCS’s
studies on subcultures, and youth culture is described as a form of a symbolic class reality, and pop culture is con-
sidered as a sign of consumption culture, in reality, these two cultures have integrated by a relationship always
progressing (Storey 2000).
Muggleton (2002), on the other hand, thinks that despite subcultural styles that intersect with postmod-
ernist thoughts generally are unstable and multipartite, he thinks that they consist of individual identities withingroups containing people from various classes. In other words, postmodernism contributes to the formation of
subcultural identities which are less partial and less collective (Laughey 2006).