Andes sets out to elaborate on the process of commitment, or
the bridge that has, “linked the macro level of social structure and culture to
the individual,” as it pertains to youth cultures (Andes, 213). First she
establishes that commitment has several dimensions in that it can vary across
time and between individuals. To examine this notion, she chooses to focus
specifically on “Punk” subculture as her case study. To do this, Andes carries
out an ethnographic detailing of
“Punk” with various affiliates, of the culture who while not wholly
emblematic, are in some ways demonstrative certain characteristics of it. By
interviewing a host of people at different points in their punk careers, Andes
is able to derive a generalized trajectory of the punk career, it’s different
stages, and each stages different version of subcultural commitment.
While detailing her research methodologies, Andes mentions
that she did not interview pre-adolescent punks. This maneuver she takes as
self-evidently ethical. I must say, that this limitation seems overly timid.
It seems that many ethnographers tow this line of extreme sensitivity to their
subjects. Is it possible that in this delicate approach the scholarship is
diminished?
No comments:
Post a Comment