Initial Aims

This report assesses the validity of Hebdige’s work on class and subcultures in the context of a distinctly international perspective: the Zephyr Boys Skateboarding team, founded in Dog Town, California, circa 1975.

Key Questions

• Can Hebdige’s Marxist-based, class-centred approach support the ethos of the Z-boys? Or does the Z-boys website reveal a more active dialogue between the subculture and processes of capitalism, rather than perpetuating a working-class incitement to overthrow the dominant? • The Z-boys website highlights the multicultural, multiethnic aesthetic of the 1975 skateboarding team. Does Hebdige’s citing of black culture’s role in the formation of punk help locate the inter-racial influences of the Dogtown skating scene? Or does Hebdige’s insistence on the metropolitan render the ‘ethnic’ experience a historically specific moment with essentialist characteristics? • In relation to the above, is Hebdige’s London-based study congruent with the California skating/surfing scene of the early-to-mid 1970s? Do the Z-boys conform to Hebdige’s notion of the ‘spectacular’? • McRobbie and Garber identify a patriarchal discourse within Hebdige’s work, in which they suggest ‘(girls) are absent from the classic subcultural ethnographic studies, the pop histories, the personal accounts…of the field’ (Gelder & Thornton (eds).1997, p112). Does this assertion coincide with the difficulties in applying a structuralist approach to the analysis of the sole female member of Z-boys?

Theoretical Framework • Hebdige- Subculture: The meaning of Style. Structuralist approach, • (BCCS)Marxist based. Utilises semiotics to locate working-class modes of consumption in reaction to dominant forms of production. • Stratton- On the importance of subcultural origins. Stresses subcultures are already engaged in active dialogue with dominant forms of production. • McRobbie- Girls and Subcultures- Retains semiotic approach (originating from BCCS) but calls for consideration of the feminine amidst patriarchal accounts of subcultural formation. Textual analysis of Z-boys.com/Discussion of findings There is an immediate geographical incompatibility between the work of Hebdige and the study of Z-boys.com. Hebdige’s work is almost entirely concerned with the formation of British, youth-orientated subcultural groups (i.e. Teddy Boys, Mods, Rockers, Punks). Therefore difficulties are encountered when applying Hebdige’s structuralist methodology to the Californian skateboarding scene, set against a backdrop of socio-cultural idiosyncrasies that, potentially, differed radically from those of 1970’s Britain. An example of such difficulty can be taken from Hebdige’s insistence on subcultures being essentially ‘spectacular’. Upon viewing the Z-boys homepage, spectacle appears in marked scarcity; romanticism and nostalgia instead dominate in the form of a photograph of ‘the original ZEPHYR skateboard team, circa 1975’. Three further images show original members of the skate team together in the present day, each signifying a degree of contentment and peace, stifling any suggestion of the spectacular. An image of a female skater deploying the two-fingered ‘peace’ symbol bolsters the notable serenity of Z-boys.com. This incongruence between Hebdige’s assertion and the stoicism of the Z-boys site can be related to Stratton’s remark that ‘the premise of this (the BCCCS’) argument is that all subcultures have the same form’ (Gelder & Thornton [eds] 1997 p181). Stratton points to the failure by classic subcultural theorists of not considering the multiplicity of socio-cultural circumstances in the origins of subcultural groups worldwide, circumstances that undermine any notion of a subculture formed from pre-given characteristics. An article from Z-boys.com includes an interview with a member of the original Z-boys team, in which he remarks, “we just wanted to emulate our favourite Australian surfers”. Hebdige is useful here in that American skateboarding’s emulation of Australian surfing resonates his recognition of subcultures forming from other groups, most notably Reggae’s contribution to the forming of Punk (1979). However, Hebdige’s advocacy of Punk and Reggae’s relationship appears to hold little relevance to the socio-cultural context of the skateboarder/surfer rapport. This is justified by Stratton’s identification of the two most prominent post-war US subcultures- ‘surfies’ and ‘bikers’.

‘…they assert two of the fundamentals of American capitalism, consumerism and individualism…Surfies present to the dominant culture their leisure myth in magnified form. Bikies appear to challenge the values of the dominant culture…because they, in the first place, like the surfies, accept them’. (Stratton, in Gelder & Thornton (eds) 1997 p184)

The above quote from Stratton is an important one, as his description of an American subculture as a ‘ bourgeois leisure myth’ is a far cry from Hebdige’s portrayal of ‘folk devils’ and deviancy in the UK. Hence the relevance of Hebdige in accordance with the Z-boys appears to further erode, as the website shows (in the quote from the Z-boy skater mentioned above) a clear link between the foundation of modern-day skateboarding and a middle-class, commodity-based lifestyle. Therefore Hebdige’s ‘predominantly working class’ (1979 p94) subcultures arguably have little to offer in studying groups in an American context. However, an in-depth analysis of Z-boys.com reveals evidence of a distinct shift away from the consensual acceptance of the dominant outlined above. Hebdige again proves useful, on this occasion, when his notions of semiotic guerrilla warfare, bricolage and homology are applied to the homepage. The Z-boys logo is comprised of a cross; the original signified, Christianity, appears to have been contested with the view to ‘disrupt and reorganize meaning’ (Hebdige 1979 p105). The cross comes to a sharp point at one end, metamorphosing into what would appear to be a stake. This signifies an incitement on behalf of the Z-boys for aggression and a collective urgency to change. Such an incitement is justified by the website’s proclamation that “Twenty-five years ago freestyle skating was a bunch of short little muscular dudes popping handstands on skateboards. THEN CAME THE VOLATILE, OBNOXIOUS, HARD-RIDING, HARD-LIVING DOGTOWN BOYS. AMERICA HASN’T BEEN THE SAME SINCE”. Perhaps more important than the Z-boys’ transformation of the skateboard genre is their transgression of the ‘American Dream’ made manifest by bourgeois surfies in the tranquil, exclusive surroundings of the ocean. This is a valid perception, as the Z-boys’ appropriation of surfing can be viewed as the deployment of bricolage in the transition of the surfboard from sea to skate park: from an area of politically- contained, non-threatening bourgeois recreation, to urban areas where dominant institutions (and their ideologies) could be confronted through the excorporation of public space. For example, Z-boys.com details in one article, “Truth or Consequences”, how being a Z-boys member entailed climbing into back gardens of Dog Town (California) residents and skating into their empty swimming pools. The notion of bricolage is key here; two seemingly incompatible items- a (described by Z-boys.com) wooden board attached to second-hand roller-skate wheels and a drought-ridden swimming pool- are juxtaposed to create an ‘explosive junction’ (Hebdige, citing Ernst, 1979 p105) in which skating became, as the website states, “the minor religion it is today”. Homology is utilised in Z-boys.com arguably to counter the core characteristics of the individualistic ethos of the American dream highlighted by Stratton. This is arguably achieved by the Z-boy bricoleur (Hebdige 1979) through appropriating the fearsome ‘gang’ component of the other post-war American identified by Stratton, the Hell’s Angel. Indeed, the Z-boys crucifix is flanked by two sets of ‘angel’ wings, and the website confirms, “we were like Hell’s Angel’s who weren’t old enough to ride a bike”. The “original Zephyr Skateboard Team” photograph, despite its obvious connotations of nostalgia, carries a much deeper signification of solidarity that subverts the individualistic narcissism of the post-war ‘all-American’. To be entirely sympathetic with Hebdige’s work on class and subcultures in the context of Z-boys.com, however, would arguably result in perpetuating an over-simplified account of the subterranean. This is perhaps the main fault of Hebdige’s work and is highlighted when analysing Z-boys.com. For example, Hebdige continually emphasises the inevitable incorporation of a once ‘authentic’ subculture into the mainstream:

‘Eventually, the mods, the punks, the glitter rockers can be incorporated, brought back into line…at the point where boys in lipstick are ‘just kids dressing up’, where girls in rubber dresses are ‘daughters just like yours’. (Hebdige, 1979, p)

Hebdige’s comment is persuasive in the light of much of the content of Z-boys.com. Most notably, the actual purpose of the website is to commemorate the original Zephyr skateboarding team of the mid-1970s. Almost nothing of the content of Z-boys.com articulates in a contemporary context; the webpage is entirely retrospective, aiming to preserve the purity and authenticity of a pre-corporate subculture (the Z-boys.com banner reads, “The One and Only Completely Original Unofficial Homegrown Always Corporate Free Z-boys webpage”). Both Hebdige and Z-boys.com make the claim of a primordial subculture, placed outside of the media, a claim made doubtful by the content of the Z-boys homepage. For example, two advertisements appear on Z-boys.com: “Peggy Oki has a new Barfoot Signature model skateboard. Click here to get more info on the deck”, and, “A co-authored book project by Glen E. Friedman is again available from book stores and to the general public”. But the main flaw of the mass/subculture binary is shown by an image on the webpage of the “Dogtown Skates’ first ad c.1977”, featuring the familiar Z-boys cross but with the sub-text: “TO GET YOUR CUSTOM BOARD SEND £23.50 (CHECK OR MONEY ORDER…”. This indicates that the mass cultural form of capitalism had an integral role in the early stages of the Z-boys’ formation. This has resonance with Gelder’s observation that from a more astute articulation of the relationship between sub and mass cultural forms

‘subcultural resistance is either rejected or considerably diluted in favour of a model which sees subcultural activity as much more dependent upon and co-operative with commerce and convention’. (Gelder, 1997, p148)

Issues of ethnicity and gender within Z-boys.com question the theoretical framework of Hebdige. For example, the Z-boys website stresses the racial diversity of the group (as the original 1975 Zephyr team photo shows), conveying an active inter-ethnic hybridity central to the function of the DogTown team. Although Hebdige’s work emphasises that ‘Reggae attracted those punks who wished to give tangible form to their alienation’ (1979, p63), this posits a polarity of the notions ‘black’ and ‘white’ culture. The structure of Hebdige’s analysis of Reggae’s influence on punk places black culture in the role of servitude; what an exotic ‘they’ had brought to a London-specific ‘us’. Sabin justifies this assertion by pointing to the multiplicity of punk histories (including Punk’s disavowal of Britain’s strong Asain population), in which he claims that ‘to under play it (racism) by ignoring punk’s historical context is … a failure of investigative rigour’ (Sabin 1999 p212). A more complex articulation of the inter-racial context of subcultures would have been more persuasive in the analysis of Z-boys. Although the multiethnic aesthetic of Z-boys is unquestionable, it is interesting that the two “greatest Dogtown legends” are described on the website as Tony Alva and Jay Adams, both of whom are white. Hence a deeper consideration of the hierarchies within a subculture would advance the grasp of the Z-boys’ formation and operation, rather than Hebdige’s trait of charting the elements that merely comprise a subculture. The notion of a hierarchy within a subculture is further revealed by the webpage’s representation of ‘Peggy Oki’, the only female skater to feature on Z-boys.com. McRobbie’s suggestion that ‘girls and women have always been located nearer to the points of consumerism than to ritual of resistance’ (in Gelder & Thornton [eds]1997 p116), citing Hebdige as merely assigning the feminine a role on the ‘back seat’ of a subcultural terrain of patriarchy, is made problematic by Oki’s inclusion on the webpage. For example, images of Oki show her unquestionably in control of her skateboard as she traverses an empty swimming pool. These images materialise the ‘fantasy’ of a girl in the ‘driver seat’. However, a post-structuralist approach, advocating a plurality of the notion of the feminine, would help question how Oki operates under the patriarchal Z-boys ‘coat of arms’ (it is worth noting that a possible precondition of Oki’s Z-boy status is to appear androgynous- she is markedly indistinguishable from her fellow ‘boy’ members).

Conclusion Hebdige’s work on class and subcultures provides a useful foundation in understanding the key issues raised by the textual analysis of Z-boys.com. However, his structuralist approach, in which singular modes of consumption by groups possessing homogenous characteristics, falls apart when considering the international perspective of subcultural groups, as highlighted by the Z-boys. Singular models of female consumption, working-class aggression and inter-racial influence are undermined in Z-boys.com by evidence of the plurality of these very notions, particularly when considering the potential inequalities and struggles taking place within any particular subcultural group.