Here is a blog based on me painstakingly copying my Research Dissertation I wrote in 1988 about The Teddy Boys. There may be a few spelling and grammatical errors that were not in the original. Anyway, please read and feel free to comment and critique :)
Stu
THE TEDDY BOYS
THEIR REVIVAL, SURVIVAL AND RESISTANCE
BY
STUART PRINCE
( DISSERTATION BASED ON RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN 1988)
UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER AT COLERAINE
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION - SUBJECT, AIMS AND METHOD
Since the 1950s , the sociology of youth, in Britain, has involved many kinds of theories and explanations of youth sub-cultures. From the Teddy Boys of the 1950s through to the Punks of the late 70s, sociologists have tried to understand their nature, emergence and demise. When one reads some of the sociological accounts of such groups, one is often made aware of the differences between the theory and the experiences of the members of the youth group in question. This, I argue, is because sociologists, in general, have never been members of working class sub-cultures. In this dissertation, however, I hope to try and bridge the gap between theory and reality, as far as members of a particular youth group is concerned. The group I wish to discuss, is the revivalist Teddy Boys who emerged in the late 60s and early 70s as a visible entity again and, as I will show, have continued as an homogenous group ever since. I also feel that I am in a privileged position to give a picture of this group because I was a member of it from 1974 -84, and was able to do ethnographic research of this group in 1988 as a Sociology/ Social Anthropology undergraduate.
In order to understand the Teddy Boy revivalist movement, one must understand the group which they have revived. Chapter 2 gives an account of the original Teddy Boys and the birth of the “teenager” in Britain. I discuss the origin of Teddy Boy gear, music and image and suggest the reasons for the groups “apparent” demise. These reasons, I later apply to the successive youth sub-cultures such as Mods, Rockers, Skinheads and Punks. This involves a brief mention of other sociological accounts of the original Teddy Boys, as well as sociological concepts that I feel are useful.
After painting, I hope, a fairly accurate picture of the original Teddy Boys, I go on to discuss the revivalist Teds and their nature in chapter 3. Most of the data in this chapter is from interviews carried out informally in 1988, a few days of participant observation alongside some media accounts of the Teddy Boy revivalists. This chapter reveals some of the major inaccuracies concerning the group in question, when one looks at the very few accounts made by sociologists. I attempt to show that, although the revivalist Teddy Boys have been viewed as a youth sub-culture and treated accordingly, this is a crucial mistake. In fact I show that the Teddy Boy revivalists are best seen as a cult movement based on a “part” mythical image about the 1950s Teddy Boys and 50s youth culture in general. I also question some of the causes given by sociologists for the Ted Punk riots of 1976 -7 and sociological discussions of the relationship between revivalist Teddy Boys and “Rockabillies” who emerged in the late 70s (and whom I discuss). In fact, I explain the latter’s existence by reference to the revivalist Teddy Boys. The emergence of “Rockabillies” has, as far as I know, never been explained by Sociologists in an adequate way before. This was probably due to theoretical blinkering which only allows one to concentrate on groups involved in riots and other “deviant” activities.
Chapter 4 is the final chapter, and in it I discuss in more detail, other theoretical accounts of the revivalist Teddy Boys and because these accounts view this group as a youth sub-culture, I discuss other groups and make comparisons between them and the former. The theoretical blinkering becomes manifest in this chapter, especially when one looks at the most dominant theory of youth sub-cultures - the “ritualistic resistance theory stressed by Sociologists such as Hall, Jefferson and Hebdidge (1976). This theory and it’s weaknesses will be dealt with in detail in chapter 4, once my own research has been discussed. I finish this chapter by suggesting directions for further study and the possibility that other groups may revive in a way that the revivalist Teddy Boys did.
My approach may be a little different from previous ones. However, I believe it to be more accurate than many, due to the fairly unique position I am in to study the revivalist Teddy Boy movement. I have aimed for pure value neutrality, which is the most I can ever do, I believe and I hope this conscientious effort is revealed to the reader. Now, however, we must turn to the birth of the Teddy Boys and youth sub-cultures in general before looking at the former’s revival and the questions raised as regards theory and findings.
CHAPTER 2
The First Youth Sub-culture and It’s Death
Britain in the early 50s was a fast changing society. The damages of World War II were undergoing repair and old traditional communities were being dismantled. People at this time were relatively better off in terms of wages and consumer goods when compared to pre-war years. However, as Jefferson (1976) claimed, the old traditional working class slum areas were largely being uprooted along with many of the social networks that developed with them. Helping one’s neighbours out, sticking together and, for older members, gatherings at the local pub, were traditions under threat due to such uprooting.
For working class youths in the late forties and early fifties, a popular form of entertainment was “the pictures”. A popular type of film was the Western, for the reason, I would argue, that the “quick witted gunman” and “tough” cowboy reflected dominant working class values. In fact , toughness and quick wittedness were needed if one was to gain any sort of status in rough working class areas, I would maintain. Music, at this time, was not really separated along generational lines. The music scene was full of the ballad type music of people like Perry Como, Frank Sinatra and Johnny Ray, which appealed to all ages. Other popular artists such as George Formby and certain big bands drew fans raging from six to sixty. The young, however, probably brought more records , having more cash than ever before. Their relative affluence would have led also to more spending on clothes. Bearing in mind this very brief picture of the late 40s and early 50’s , we can now look at the emergence of the first youth sub-culture: The Teddy Boys.
Around 1950, a couple of London tailors produced a suit which was based on an old Edwardian fashion. The jacket was long with narrow lapels and waisted. It was worn with fairly narrow trousers. Suggested additions were steel toe capped shoes and fancy waistcoat. This suit was aimed at the “wealthy young man about town” (Rogers 1982). However, the story goes, the suit was purchased by a few working class lads from the East End of London with their “spare” cash. The purchase of this suit was, according to Jefferson (1976 pp85), “an attempt to gain status (since the clothes chosen were originally worn by upper class dandies)” . This I would agree with and add that a “gang” which the working class purchasers more than likely belonged to , found a means of expressing themselves and their territory through it. Youth gangs were not just emerging at that time but were fairly commonplace before. The adoption of an Edwardian style suit was the first use of a clothing symbol to give a feeling of status; not just because they lacked it in society in general but also because the initial gang wanted status over other gangs. Further modifications to the original suit were the wearing of drainpipe trousers, crepe sole shoes, bootlace tie and DA (duck’s arse) haircut. As far as I can gather from older informants, some of the adaptations were used also as an attempt by gangs to distinguish themselves from others when the basic style became popular.
“We are the Teds from….such and such an area”, was the feeling of some of the youth gangs in the early 50s. “We are tougher and harder than other Ted gangs”. These feelings were expressions of traditional working class values, such as toughness and group solidarity along with the “feuding” rivalry portrayed in the popular Western movies. The Teddy Boy style and manner grew in many major cities and towns thanks to the media and eventual recognition of a specific “youth market” and the development of the “teenager”. The process of this growth I will examine shortly. However, to understand the notion of “teenager” , one must look at the USA and discuss the style of music that, I would argue, much of the notion of” teenager” came wrapped up in ….Rock and Roll.
Rock and Roll( Rowdy, Riotous, Raunchy (and Profit Making)
In Britain, at the time the first Teddy Boys arrived, music was not really divide on generational lines, As I mentioned earlier on. However, the music industry was expanding due to the relative affluence of these post war years. As Frith (1988 pp20) shows in his book “Music For Pleasure”, “Decca’s turnover had increased 8 fold”. The industry was already fairly competitive. New sounds were always welcome if they meant profit. The USA exported a large number the popular music heard in Britain. It is there that I must now turn to, in order to find the first music that really had a generational meaning and emphasis.
The music scene in the USA was divided on racial lines in the early 50’s , as it had been for years before. There was “black music” and “white music”. Rhythm and Blues was part of the black music scene and Country Music was at it’s most popular in the South among the “whites”. These were at the root of what was to become known as Rock and Roll as Rogers (1982) shows. It was Bill Haley and The Saddlemen (later The Comets), that had started to give more “swing” to country by adopting a saxophone sound which fitted into a country rhythm to produce a new sound that appealed to record companies in the search for profit and a mass audience. This music was called Rock and Roll. It was a music which appealed to that group defined as “teenagers” who had been recognised by Lynd (an American Sociologist) as a distinct group with it’s own culture, as far back as the 1930s (ref Frith, “Sociology, New Directions pp 314). Rock and Roll was starting to be played by teenage musicians with the various regional preferences (also colour preferences) emphasised. It the black areas of New York and New Orleans, people like Fats Domino and Little Richard added a new “bluesy” flavour to Rock and Roll. Musicians like Buddy Holland Roy Orbison were giving a flavouring of country to this sound. Such innovations increasingly appealed to youngsters, regardless of race. It got to the point where one could not easily tell what colour the musicians were. Both Buddy Holly and Elvis were believed to have been black due to influence of blues artists.
TEENAGE DELINQUENTS, ROCK AND ROLL AND A MORAL PANIC
In the USA , Rock and Roll appealed to young working class youths, many were members of gangs. Such gangs had been viewed as a problem in the USA. There were often violent fights between rival gangs prior to the 1950s but such “deviant” behaviour started to be associated with Rock and Roll. The media reportage of perhaps trivial events , following Rock and Roll concerts possibly caused what Cohen (1973) would call a “moral panic”. A “moral panic” is a form of alarm by the public which involves the belief that society’s morals and values are under threat (we are all aware of such “panics”)..”Teenagers” and Rock and Roll were portrayed as the major threat to this moral order, in our case. They became the “folk devils”. The public were then in the act of putting pressure on the Police, Judiciary and Social Workers to do something about the teenage and “Rock and Roll” problem. This, I would argue, as Cohen would, would lead to a closer eye being kept on teenagers , especially at Rock and Roll concerts by the public as a whole and the Police and Judiciary. This had generated tension and as a result, caused further “deviant” behaviour being reported. I would also add that at the same time as this happened , Rock and Roll and teenagers became further inter-related.
ROCK AND ROLL ARRIVES IN BRITAIN
By the time Rock and Roll had arrived in Britain, it had a number of labels attached to it. It was labelled “devil’s” music, the music of teenage delinquents and of deviance in general. Yet it meant profit for the record companies. For the young, it represented their “generation”, excitement and fun. In Britain when Haley’s song, Rock Around The Clock” arrived, along with the movie of the same name, excitement was generated among the young., including Teddy Boys. Isolated incidents of seats being ripped up during the showing of the movie in the mid 50s were portrayed by the media as being linked with Teddy Boys. Whether they were referring to “Teddy Boys” meaning simply “bad youths” is unclear. However, the Teddy Boys association with Rock and Roll was amplified in the public mind, along with the deviant label.
The appeal of Rock and Roll to working class youths as a whole was not surprising. The toughness and hedonism often expressed in the lyrics and performance of Rock and Roll by Haley, Vincent and Presley (in his early work especially) was something they could relate to. They created links with an already labelled “deviant style” (i.e. Teddy Boys) and helped the Teddy Boy phenomenon expand further. The message of “teenage life” imported through the music and film industry, especially the former, helped desperation on generational lines develop further too. It can therefore be argued that the first Teddy Boys were gang members with a style of dress and the Teddy Boys that followed were also, but “teenagers” too.
The arrival of Rock and Roll and the notion of “teenager” along with the deviant “Teddy Boys” produced a feeling of “anomie”, to use Durkheim’s (ref to “Le Suicide”) term , among the older generation. “Teddy Boys”, loud music, moody youngsters shaking their hips in embarrassing ways and cinema seats being ripped up…”what was the world coming to?” This was the British “moral panic”.
BEING TEENAGERS
The founding Teds had now found their music, which portrayed the moodiness and toughness of “the cowboy” and coolness of James Dean. They developed a style of their own in terms of dress and were proud of it. The separation between young and old was sharper than in the past. On the other hand, traditional values of “sticking together” and “toughness” were maintained by young working class lads at a time when traditional working class communities were under threat. The peer group was a place of security and familiarity for these insecure youths. Loyalty to the gang, as Downes (1966) pointed out, was a “reaffirmation of traditional slum working class values and the strong sense of territory”. Teds of different areas often fought each other. Also working class gangs (Teddy Boys also) started to attack the immigrants who were coming from the West Indies to settle in the traditional working class areas during the 1950s (Jefferson 1976 pp83). These attacks were a further example of territoriality and expression of the insecurity suffered by such groups., Jefferson argues. Blacks were in fact portrayed as “folk devils” to use Cohen’s term again, as were Teddy Boys. The Notting Hill riots of 1958, thanks to media coverage, was one of those events of that period which helped both groups’ horns appear sharper.
By around 1958, however, as many gang members did in the pre-Teddy Boy era, the original founding Teddy Boys were married off. The ones who followed, thanks to the sensationalism of Rock and Roll and Teddy Boys, were following the dictates of the new teenage market. Further styles were becoming available as far as clothes were concerned. The “teenage look” and Teddy Boy look were increasingly intermingled. By “teenage look” I mean clothing that was imported from the USA, through Rock and Roll and movies. Leather jackets were made for “teenagers” influenced by people like Marlon Brando in “The Wild One”, James Dean in “Rebel Without a Cause” and some Rock and Roll stars. The Traditional Teddy Boy was fading out in the world of the “teenage consumer”. Nevertheless, the label “Teddy Boy” was still used to describe a “bad youth” and “bad youthful antics” well into the 60s , until “Mod” and “Rocker” became popular derogatory terms. However, Rock and Roll was becoming more “clean cut” by the end of the 50s in many instances. American artists like Elvis, were producing more ballad type music. British imitators of American Rock and Roll stars , such as Tommy Steele and Cliff Richard were turning to the life of “respectable performers”. The “clean cut” teenager was a counter to the rough working class teenagers such as Teddy Boys and leather clad youths.
Conclusion- Creative Capitalism and Commercial Killing
It has been argued by Marxists and Neo-Marxists, that youth sub-cultures are a product of the inherent contradictions in Capitalist society (Hall et al). I would , to a large extent, agree with agree as far as the 1950s Teddy Boys were concerned. The norms and values of the lower working class, such as toughness, family solidarity and territoriality are products of a mode of production based on exploitation by Capital of labour. With values such as these and poor material conditions, “gangs” would inevitably occur. Status would be gained in terms of such sub-cultural values. However , Capitalism needs consumers. Greater production of material goods needs an ideology of consumerism. The first Teddy Boys consumed when they bought the expensive Edwardian style suit. The meaning they gave to it represented the traditional sub-cultural values which were under threat through the uprooting of their traditional communities, as mentioned earlier. Deviant gangs became more visible through such appropriation of a style of dress . Media reportage of this identifiable youth group led to an amplification of this deviant style and image (Cohen), in that it gave it appeal. The appeal went further and further once it was associated with a music defined as being for teenagers. Once this occurred, the Teddy Boy style became a marketable product, as far as clothing and music were concerned. “Teenage Teddy Boys” were born. Teenage style from the USA was produced which was based on “teenage musicians” and “teenage screen idols”. The original meanings of Teddy Boy clothes (traditional working class values) were swamped by such commercial movements.
“Commercial teenagism” is how I wish to describe this ideology of a specific group, with particular tastes and demands for certain products which mobilise industry. This commercial teenagism becomes the killer of sub-cultural innovations by youth. Commercial teenagism helped popularise Teddy Boys but at the expense of the initial meanings of the style such as quick wittedness, toughness and status. It increasingly became just a “teenage style” worn by youths for that reason only. Commercial teenagism also helped “teenagers” recognise that they were distinct from children and adults and demanded “teenage goods”. It helped define more sharply the fact that over a certain age, one must settle down and become “grown up”. Growing up means, dressing like an adult, settling down and joining the world of children, labour and marriage.
------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER THREE
THE NEW TEDS -FROM CRAZE TO CULT
Chapter 2 dealt with the emergence of the Teddy Boys in the early 50s and the socio-economic conditions of this period. My claim was that the Teddy Boys came about due to a conflict between a consumerist ideology and the values adopted by the working class due to poor material conditions suffered because of Capitalisms inherent nature. These values were under threat because of the breakdown of traditional working class communities in the name of rebuilding and progress. I agreed with Jefferson (1976), that Teddy Boys, to an extent, developed to maintain, within the gang, the traditional values and security which were under threat. However, I made the claim that the appropriation of the Edwardian Style suit was a way of one gang gaining status over another and not just status in general societal terms. I also suggested that the idea of being teenager and the notion of teenagers being a special market led to the disintegration of the Teddy Boys. These ideas, which I called “commercial teenagism” , had led also to the demise of successive “youth sub-cultures” such as Mod, Skinhead and Punk. No matter how such groups came about, they are identified by others and identify themselves as teenagers with tastes that differ from children and adults. Once a particular youth sub-cultural style develops, it is adopted by the teenage market and further promoted. Of course, “moral panics “ (Cohen 1973) do occur but I would argue that although they may influence, also, the popularity of youth sub-cultures like Mods and Rockers (Cohen 1973), the groups lose significance due to commercial teenagism never being challenged by them ideologically.
However what if a group develops which as an ideology which defines commercial teenagism as “the enemy”? This what this chapter is about and the dissertation in general. The group is the Teddy Boys that re-emerged in the late 60s and early 70s.
The New Teds have been examined by sociologists including Cashmore (1984) and Hebdidge (1979). However, I will show that some of these examinations are deficient. I will show that, for example, the New Teds were not just “anachronistic imitators” who “transformed into Rockabilly Rebels and lost their their cutting edge once the initial opposition to Punk had gone” (Cashmore pp36 and 37). Nor, I will show, were they just a conservative response to Punk as Cashmore(1984) implies. I would agree with Hebdidge that the difference between New Teds and 50s Teds had something to do with the differences in the periods of which they developed (Hebdidge1979 pp80-84) . However, I will show that Hebdidge had got the time of the New Ted’ development wrong. This error will be examined more in chapter 4 along with other fundamental inaccuracies. But first, I must turn to my own ethnographic data on the New Teds.
Method of Study
My research on the New Teds consisted of 4 informal interviews with New Teds from a particular town in 1988. One interview was a duel-respondent interview, which was beneficial in that the like-mindedness of the two respondents became evident. My research also involved a few days participant observation and newspaper cuttings from the past 15 years.. My approach to the New Teds was relatively easy because I was a New Ted between 1974 and 1984.. This can, of course, be criticised , in that some may claim that I may look at the New Teds in a biased way. However, I was very much aware of this and was determined to just report my data as presented. Anyhow, data can be equally distorted if one was to accept information purely from newspaper cuttings from already labelled “deviant” groups as Frith (1985 pp349) points out. By doing this the sociologist would, as Frith maintains, tend to ignore the more mundane aspects of youth sub-cultures. These problems will be further looked at in chapter 4 also.
Now I can turn to the results of my ethnography of the New Teds. From this I hope to show that the New Teds have developed into more of a “cult” than a “youth sub-culture”. The cultish nature of the New Teds stems from certain events at the time they emerged. In fact, much of what will be said below about the New Teds’ development is compatible with the theory of cults and their developments by “relative Deprivation” theorists such as Aberle (1972). the new Teds like many cult movements among American Indians, stress a desire to retain a desirable past as opposed to an undesirable present (Aberle 1972). I will show that the New Teds are not a “youth sub-culture” and it may be a mistake to treat them as one.
Ethnographic Findings
“It does not take a year -it does not take two. It takes…well, it’s a second job really”
Nick , a Ted 1988
The above quote reflects a lot of what I am going to say about the New Teds. The quote suggests that one learns to be a Ted and one serves a sort of apprenticeship. It is what there is to learn and how they learn it , which is my topic. The date 1988, shows that the New Teds didn’t “die out” in the late 70s when Punk started to die out, as many writers seem to assume.. This one quotation and time it was collected may surprise Cashmore (1984) who, as mentioned earlier, saw the New Teds as turning into Rockabilly Rebels and disappearing following the Ted-Punk riots in 1977. I will show, however, that these “riots” were merely an episode in the history of the New Teds who preceded and, as a rigidly structured group, I would argue succeeded them.
Another thing that was made crystal clear during my research, was that the New Teds are not just Rock and Roll fanatics in 1950s clothing just worn during a weekend “do” (concert or disco). The New Teds wore the “gear” (referring to not just the Edwardian style jackets, bootlace tie i.e. stereotypical Teddy Boy clothes but also anything seen as youth dress in the 1950s) all the time. Even if one went to work, one would have gear perceived by New Teds as “authentic” 50s gear. Failure to do so would be perceived as “plastic”. “Plastic” is a central concept among New Teds. I believe that once one understands what is meant by this term , one can not only understand some of the other concepts used by the New Teds, one can understand the nature of the New Teds in general. So I make no excuse for firstly discussing the concept of “plastic” before anything else.
The Concept of Plastic
“Plastic” does not only refer to the breaking of the rules of dress but is a derogatory term used by the Teds, referring to music and behaviour as well as attitude.
1/ Dress - Not wearing anything perceived as 1950s youth dress (as mentioned in chapter 2) is perhaps inadequate a description of dress plasticity (if I may use the word). To wear a mix of such gear and gear from another era of youth, such as long hair (hippy style) or flared trousers , is defined as “plastic”. Dyeing ones hair any colour except black is defined as “plastic”. The rationale behind this is that Elvis dyed his hair black in the 1950s and therefore it is alright for a Ted to do so. This would have been viewed by the 1950s Teds (generally) as “effeminate”. However wearing the gear on a part time basis is seen as “extremely plastic” As Mick , one of the New Teds remarked when asked how he feels about those who do that: “they are taking the crap -they’re not Teds!” (1988)
2/ Music: If one buys or even likes music other than 1950s Rock and Roll, one would be defined as “plastic”. This idea goes even further and groups which claim to be Rock and Roll or Rockabilly (which will be described later) and use non 50s instruments and equipment will often be defined as plastic as well as their followers.
A good example of being “plastic” as far as music is concerned , is the group Showaddywaddy (this group was often identified with the Teds by others in the mid to late 70s). A “real Ted” would not have anything to do with them. Here is a point of dialogue between a New Ted (Nick) and myself on the subject…..
SP: “what about Showaddywaddy -the group?”
Nick (snigger..)
SP: “Well that’s it right - Some people would say that’s a Ted group -why aren’t they in your opinion?”
Nick: “One of theme’s the haircut (being long non-50s) and their songs are copied off original artists -they did nothing of their own”>
SP: “you know..alright…”
Nick (Butts in) “Have they got 2 drummers?”
SP: “I’m not sure”
Nick: “ I don’t like saying it but I did see them once -a few years ago -they had ‘tapes’ ( artificial musical effects) on stage - that was ‘plastic’ “.
SP: “That’s plastic?”
Nick : “year -they were not played originally” (meaning authentically)
The above was a typical response to this particular group. The group wore stereotypical Teddy Boy suits and played old Rock and Roll hits. But they were “plastic” for the main reason that they had artificial musical aids on stage and two drummers ,which was not what 50s Rock and Roll groups did.
3/ Behaviour: Any behaviour which is not stereotypically regarded as 50s ted behaviour would earn on e the “plastic” label. For example, causing trouble at football matches is often viewed as plastic by most New Teds> This behaviour is associated with Skinheads and “smoothies” (youths in ordinary youth dress, not identified with any youth sub-culture). The New Teds assume 1950s Teds did not cause trouble at football matches.
4/ Attitude: To wear “the gear” for a lark would be seen as plastic. Not to take “the cause” seriously is plastic. “The cause” means the total dedication to being as much like the 1950s Teds and youth cultures as possible. Groups who change their authentic style of Rock and Roll for commercial gain would earn the label “plastic” and “going against the cause”.
It should be quite clear, following the discussion of the concept of “plastic”, that one has to learn to be a Ted. One is inherently plastic when one joins the New Teds. For example, if one decides to join and decides to buy one Teddy Boy suit, it would be hard to avoid wearing clothes other than “Ted gear” on some occasions. One may like other music as well as Rock and Roll of the 50s era and style. However, after time, one usually obtains more gear and greater knowledge of what is “authentic” as opposed to “plastic”. Ribbing and teasing from older Teds either drives one away from the Teds or encourages them to acquire an “authentic” identity. Often , the young Teds are only aware of the more popular 1950s stars such as Buddy Holly Eddie Cochrane and Bill Haley. These are defined by the New Teds as sort of “gods” , yet a Ted aims to get the less well known artists from the 50s such as Marvin Rainwater, Charlie Feathers and Carl Mann. Some of these rarer artists played very regional American Rock and Roll which was never heard of outside these regions. It is the roots of the popular Rock and Roll which is pursued by the New Teds. It was this pursuit which led to the popularity of Rockabilly in the late 70s. “Rockabilly” is best described as Rock and Roll with a great American folk-country influence. It is highly influenced by “hillbilly” country artists of the late 40s and 50s such as : Buck Griffin, Charlie Feathers and Warren Smith, who became influenced by the Rock and Roll sound. An example of Rockabilly are the early Elvis records such as “Blue Moon of Kentucky” and “That’s Alright Mama”. It was the less popular Rockabilly that the New Teds brought to Britain. An example is “Jungle Rock” by Hank Mizell which was recorded in a garage in 50’s. This record actually found it’s way into a Teddy Boy club in Manchester and was later re-produced and made the charts. It was the New Ted pursuit of authenticity which brought the record to light in the mid 70s.
The knowledge of rare Rock and Roll and Rockabilly is a great way of gaining status among the New Teds. This is also true regards getting “authentic” 50s gear or rather gear perceived as “authentic”. To move to authenticity from being plastic is what ones life as a New Ted is all about. Both “plastic” and “authenticity” are terms used by New Teds. Another important concept my respondents refer to is “the code of The Teds”
The Code of The Teds
“The Code of The Teds” refers to what the New Teds define as proper behaviour. Not to be “plastic” would be abiding by this code. To pursue “authenticity” would also. Another aspect of this code of conduct would be to treat other Teds as “brothers” (their term). No matter where a Ted goes , other Teds will generally welcome him. Often he would travel miles to a concert and have no way home. However, another Ted would always “put one up”, if one was a Ted. It is expected. In fact , during my participant observation, I had a few offers to stop over , if I visited Teds from Derby, Stoke and London. This was during a Ted wedding, where some guests came from all over the country.
Anther aspect of the “code of the Teds” is “don’t knock the rock” , a phrase picked up from a Bill Haley record. This not only involves the obvious but also, it refers to the sacrificing of “authenticity” of the music for commercial gain as far as Ted bands are concerned.
Teds and Others -A Brief Look
I have, so far, discussed the central themes of New Ted ideology, i.e. “plasticity”, “authenticity” and “the code of The Teds”. These are interrelated . Now however, I can say something on how these ideas may have come about , and at the same time, look at the New Teds relationship with other so called “youth sub-cultures”.
As mentioned above, the major preoccupation of the New Teds is the search for “authenticity”. Great value is attached to authentic gear and music and knowledge of them. The 1950s and it’s teenage culture are given divine status. Every Ted interviewed wished to have been around in the 50s. This was a time where, it is believed, music was interfered with by “brainwashing” record producers slinging “any old rubbish” on gullible teenagers. This , as my second chapter shows is not exactly so. However, this “myth” has a profound effect on Ted ideology and behaviour.
The Ted revival has been marked with struggle. In the late 60s and early 70s, getting “the gear” was hard and expensive, let alone Rock and Roll originals. Hippies, Skinheads and “Smoothies” , seemed to be catered for by big clothing manufacturers and record shops. Discos were emerging, catering, it seemed, for everyone except the New Teds. Teds were told to “go away” (or stronger) when they asked for Rock and Roll to be played. The Teds were viewed as “living in the past”. To be “in fashion” was the dominant youth ideology. Trousers were getting wider, hair seemed to be longer and Teds stuck out like sore thumbs. Odds were stacked against Teds in the pre-punk era, where, commercial teenagism” (defined earlier) was strong. A couple of examples of the Teds struggle can be shown from these clips from a local newspaper:
“we get barred from some dance halls and pubs because of our dress” - explained construction worker Melvin Higson (this was due to reputation of the 50s Teds)
“the lads obtain most of their stuff from Birmingham (an hour’s train journey). A few drape coats (Ted jackets) with velvet collars and cuffs are sold ‘off the peg’ but mostly they are made to measure”.
“ It can cost up to £400 for the best Teddy Boy outfit”
(“Snags For The Teds” - The evening Sentinel, Aug 1975)
Five out of seven New Teds Featured in this article are still Teds now (in 1988 when written). However, life for New Teds was frustrating and expensive, as the above shows. Through these experiences, the early New Ted shave developed an anti -commercial ethos. Most youths just appeared to “follow the flow” produced by business constantly renewing and redefining styles. The other youth groups were seen to be mindless and easily manipulated kids by the New Teds. Most of the trouble between New Teds and others was due to mockery by other groups. Teds were defined as “freaks” or “clowns”, especially after Showaddywaddy appeared. They were a showpiece. One or two Teds, however, joined because of this band but soon learnt to hate them.
Teds were also left out of commercial radio. Very rarely would one hear “acceptable” Rock and Roll or New Ted bands like Crazy Cavan and The Rhythm Rockers, Flying Saucers, Shakin’ Stevens and The Sunsets and Matchbox, although the latter two became “commercially” successful in the late 70s. Their success, however, was due to them changing their “authentic” element. This made most Teds disassociate from them. The former bands are still around, style unchanged but not making a fortune. Nevertheless a concessionary hour of “pure” Rock and Roll came about on BBC Radio One, due to a Teddy Boy Rally in the mid 70s. In spite of challenges by some Djs, the programme “It’s Rock and Roll” was put on air at 5:30 on a Saturday evening during 1976 -77. This may have had a lot to do with an increase of Teds at that time.
To the Teds, there is a right way and context in which one should wear the gear. It is easy to understand then, why the Teds viewed Punks with hostility. Punks were wearing crepe sole shoes with “green hair”, drape jackets with pins and chains hanging from them and ripped drainpipe trousers. This was seen as trespassing and abusing Teds’ symbolic territory also “they stole ‘our gear’” , was a typical response. Hebdidge (1979 pp123) seems to agree with me on this point. However, he tends to assume that it was at the same time that punk styles appeared that Teds revived. This, as I have shown, is untrue. I’ll deal with this problem in the next chapter when looking at Hebdidges’ general ideas. Most of the Teds (Kev, Mick and Redneck for example) I had contacted in my research had been “in the gear” for between 10 and 20 years. The stress on being a lasting phenomenon has probably become a self fulfilling prophecy. A New Ted would learn that “Teds never die” and would never think of being anything else. Such is the rigidity of the rules of this group that to leave the cause may mean loss of mates and beliefs one had learnt to accept. Leaving the Teds was hard for me and so was so openly admitting that I liked other gear and music. I could be made to feel guilty and an hypocrite by the other Teds was the fear, when I left them. This fear I would argue , prevent one from leaving the Teds in some cases.
Feelings of guilt also overcame me when I put on “the gear” for my participant observation. However being an ex-Ted was an advantage in that I could show a familiarity with their code and a knowledge of the gear and music. Being aware of the strictness as regards wearing the gear part time, I asked for permission to do so. This was , in the end, granted but not until a great deal of ethical discussion took place. I felt honoured. I doubt that a middle class sociologist who just stuck on the gear and then approached the Teds, asking questions would have had much success. He would probably been seen as an ill-informed idiot and not taken seriously.
Teds and Rockabillies
As mentioned earlier, Teds were mainly responsible for bringing Rockabilly music into the limelight. I mentioned how, through the pursuit of authenticity, a certain preference for the rarer Rock and Roll came about. Along with this, some Teds often wore , initially for casual wear, the type of styles popular in the Southern states of the USA. Where Rockabilly as a variety of Rock and Roll was played. These clothes were checked shirts, braces and pointed toed boots or sometimes working boots. Casual denim jackets were worn, with the Southern Confederacy Flag on the back. Some wore the more British “Donkey Jackets” also sporting the “Rebel Flag”. The rebel flag was used by the New Teds as a symbol of “the cause”. Many “Ted Bands” played authentic Rockabilly. However, groups like Matchbox and The Meteors” adapted their style and “went commercial”. This bought a few fans who were just following “a fashion” as such. They were a different breed from the Teds and early Rockabillies. The dedication was not there. Many ardent Teds and pure Rockabillies , became very much aware of the lack of dedication. It did appear that they were “taking the piss” as many Teds would say. The new Rockabillies did not have the respect for authenticity of the music. This was shown when new groups developed a “punkified” version of Rockabilly called “Psychabilly”. The “fashionable” Rockabillies, I fear were the ones Cashmore (1984) interviewed , if he did interview them at all. An element of friction did develop between Rockabillies and Teds in the late 70s due to the “faddish” trespassing by some who called themselves Rockabillies However by 1984 the Rockabillies who had jumped on the bandwagon became more or less extinct leaving serious Rockabillies (who were just a variety of New Ted) and the New Teds very much as they were.
Attitudes To Women and Race
As far as women were concerned, the New Teds had very much the same attitude as the original Teds. They had the same traditional view of a woman’s place and role as most working class people have (and most middle class for that matter). As far as their place in the group was concerned, they are just seen as “hangers on”. Some girls do mix with the New Teds and wear the 50s style female wear. However, is a girl no longer goes out with a Ted, she usually starts to wear modern fashion clothing. In fact girls are not subject to any strict code of dress or manner.
As far as attitude towards racial minorities are concerned, from the outside Teds may be seen as a “racist” group.. This may have something to do with their use of the Rebel Flag and slogan “The South’s Gonna Rise Again!” However as far as my respondents were concerned , the flag and slogan symbolised Rock and Roll and authenticity. In fact , some of them were unaware of their racist connotations. This I know from personal experience. I do remember as an 18 year old Ted, chalking a Rebel Flag and “The South’s Gonna Rise Again” on a workbench. After doing so , I was confronted by an angry black friend. That was the first time I became aware that the flag and slogan meant anything more than just Rock and Roll, Rockabilly and The Teds. All my respondents made it clear that to be racist or not was an individual choice and not a major Ted trait. They may be too wrapped up in the struggle against “teenage commercialism”. The old Teds may have been more a racist sub-culture but it is hard to establish to what extent they were , given that any youth that was seen as deviant at that time might have been called “Teddy Boy” by the media.
Conclusion
This chapter is largely based on my research finding. I have made suggestions as to why the Ted -Punk “rioting” occurred in the 70s. Also, I have tried to explain relations between Teds and Rockabillies. My findings overall, tend to go against some sociological accounts of the New Teds and perhaps the nature of other youth groups. This will be discussed in the next chapter. Another claim, I feel I can make given what has been said, is that the New Teds are not the “youth sub-culture” the 50s Teds and successors were, for a number of reasons:
1/ The New Teds are not an ephemeral movement as 20 years of “revival” has shown.
2/ If we claim that “youth” in a chronological sense means people between the ages of 14 and 24, the New Teds do not fit this or any similar category as many are now over 30.
3/ To be a Ted now is not to be “a teenager”, it is rather to idolise the “teenage culture” of the 50s and to reach a goal of perfect representation of this era.
4? The Teds are very conscious of the manipulation of “commercial teenagism” on people and see themselves as defenders against it.
I could, given the above, describe the New Teds as not a “youth sub-culture” but an “authenticity movement” or “authenticity cult” given that the 50s youth scene has acquired for them a divine status. Paradoxically , the ideal era which they worshipped was partly a product of commercial manipulation of teenagers and “Teddy Boys”. This manipulation is now viewed as the enemy due to the period of which the New Teds developed. What they aspire to is a “mythical image” not a past social reality.
CHAPTER 4
FOLK DEVIL’S SOCIOLOGICAL PANICS AND THE NEW TEDS
The last chapter was largely based on what I found during my research in the summer of 1988. The fundamental concepts used by the New Teds, i.e., “plastic” , “authenticity” and “The Code of The Teds” were central to the movement in 1974 when I joined as a 15 year old youth and was still central to the movement in 1984 when I left. This fact alone questions certain sociological accounts of when and how the New Teds developed. It is these other sociological accounts I will examine in this chapter. The discussion of these theories with be based on my own ethnography.
The effects a particular point of history has on the development of youth sub-cultures has been examined by Marxists and Neo Marxists such as Hebdidge, Hall and Jefferson. Their ideas are based on the concept of “hegemony”.
“Hegenomy” was used by Gramsci to refer to a state of affairs where the ruling class maintains its authority not just because it imposes it’s rule by mere force , through the Police and Army or by imposing it’s ideas directly but because it negotiates consent as to what is “normal” and “natural”. The conflict between the classes includes the conflict of ideas and beliefs. Hegenomic power involves having to frame all conflicting ideas within a “naturalness” which is always on the move, challenged and reformed during the course of history.
Youth sub-cultures, according to Hall, Jefferson and Hebdidge, pose a threat to the “hegenomic order” because they resist the dominant ideas of “naturalness” and “normality” which the ruling class struggle to maintain. Youth sub-cultures are a ritualistic form of resistance. They are the response to the ideological contradictions between the working class sub-cultural ideas and the dominant ruling class ideas. For example, original Teds solved, at an ideological level, the contradiction between the dominant class’s ideas that on the one hand, one needs to consume and accept change and on the other hand, the need to stick together, be tough and maintain one’s territory which was stressed by their parent culture (the working class). The 50s Teds symbols (i.e. drape jacket, bootlace ties and such) were given new meaning other than commodity and, in the case of the original suit, another meaning apart from being a suit for “well to do” young men was attached to it (Jefferson 1976 pp81-6). These symbols were an expression of solidarity, the gang and toughness and at the same time, “status” which in reality Teds were denied.
Hebdidge in his book, “Subculture -The Meaning of Style” (1979 pp 84) compares New Teds with the original Teds using a sub-cultural resistance theory. Hebdidge had rightly shown that the New Teds were different than their original counterparts in many ways. He claims that the acquisition of the 50s Ted gear by the New Teds and their “machismo” and anti-consumerism were products of the hegenomic order of the mid 70s. He argues that the working class’s discontent with consumerism , experience of loss of community and industrial unrest created a nostalgia for the “optimistic” 50s. The New Teds emerged as a sort of return to the traditional 50s relative optimism and traditional beliefs in what man should be and behave like in general. The New Ted attacks on Punks were seen by Hebdidge as an attempt to defend the traditional as opposed to the new. The Punk response to the same period was to attack all aspects of dominant “normality” and traditional working classness. The Punks expressed overtly the “abnormal” and “perverse”. (Hebdidge 1979 pp 106-109). Punks and New Teds were seen as a different response to the same hegenomic order.
I do not dispute the fact that the hegenomic order of a particular time can influence a sub-cultural response. However , it is important that one identifies the right hegenomic climate in which a youth culture develops. The problem with Hebdidge is that he sees the mid 70s hegenomic order as the generator of the New Teds’ “response”. However as I have tried to show, the New Teds had already established a rigid ideology of anti-consumerism and had a strict set of rules governing dress and behaviour before the Ted -Punk conflict of 1977. The turn of the 70s saw a group of New Teds developing. As mentioned earlier, there was a general “teenage consumerist” ideology at that time. The New Teds struggled against other youth groups who emphasised being modern and keeping up with the times. This can be seen as a major factor in determining sensitivity among the New Teds as regards dress and their stress on authenticity. Also, the turn of the 70s was not as bleak as far as the working class was concerned in comparison to the mid 70s. In fact Hebdidge himself speaks of the late 60s and early 70s as follows:
“The black presence in traditionally working class areas was being used by Skinheads to re-establish continuity with a broken past to rehabilitate a damaged integrity, to resist other less tangible changes (embourgeoisement, the myth of classlessness, the breakdown of the extended family, the substitution of private for commercial space, gentrification etc) which threatened the structure of the traditional community at a far deeper level”.
The above suggested that in some way, the working class in general was accepting the idea of classlessness and embourgeoisement in the late 60s and early 70s and Skinheads resisted this. This is a different picture from the one Hebdidge paints of the mid 70s onwards (Hebdidge 1979 pp 82-3) when the working class had a sense of nostalgia for the relatively prosperous 50s. It is important to get the hegenomic time right.
The major problem with the writers of “Resistance Through Rituals” such as Hall, Hebdidge and Jefferson, is that much of their research is based on media accounts. I fear that Hebdidge “discovered” the New Teds around the time of the Ted-Punk conflict of 1976-7. The fact that the “moral panic” concerning the Ted-Punk riots started in the mid 70s does not mean that the New Teds (or Punks for that matter) did not exist as an homogenous group before. The media reportage of the Kings Road riots in July 1977, however, helped recruit New Teds and Punks, I would argue. My data does show that between 1976-9 there was an influx of New Teds. Many who joined at this period are still Teds today, although the period is often viewed by the New Teds as a period of “plastic revolution” (i.e. a period when some claimed to be Teds but were not committed to the cause). The New Teds photograph was hung in the gallery of “folk devils” as an opposition to Punk. However, the photographic negative of the New Teds’ picture preceded and proceeded the Ted-Punk riots. I will argue that if another group emerges in the future who wear “Ted Gear” in the “wrong” context, conflict will arise and a new photographic print will hang in the “folk devil” gallery; one which is made from the same negative (meaning New Teds ideology and rules) as in 1977. If another group does emerge, however, I fear that the New Teds will be given a different interpretation by sub-cultural resistance theories, depending on the hegenomic climate of that time. This would, of course, be a misleading picture because the New Teds have stayed the same , ideologically, since they developed out of the hegenomic order of 20 years ago (late 60s, early 70s).
Another criticism of sub-cultural resistance theories that Davies (1976 pp13-16) made, is that most of them have concentrated on the London area in their research. If say, the New Teds did come about due to loss of traditional working class community, how would they explain why people “up North” become Teds, where such communities were not breaking down during the late 60s up to the early 80s?
The New Teds today (1988) can be viewed as a challenge to Capitalist exploitation of workers and creation of false needs, though the New Teds themselves are not a political movement. The awareness of Capitalisms exploitative nature is based on a myth that, somehow, the 50s Teds were unique and not gullible kids following the dictates of “teenage consumerism” (it did become “the fashion“ at the time). This myth , one learns when joining the New Teds. Novices still trickle in and out of the New Teds in the eighties. I doubt if that has much to do with media representation of the group. The basis of recruitment may just be preference for 50s Rock and Roll. Once in, one learns to be a New Ted and what is forbidden and acceptable. As Nick said when interviewed:
“You‘re as green as grass when you start; you know nothing”(1988). Here Nick is referring to the fact that one knows nothing of the original Teds. Ones status is low and the only way up is through acquiring such knowledge. It appears that one learns to resist such commercialism.
The New Teds are resisting, all the time, the dominant ideology of “teenage consumerism”. The challenge, however, has not been normalised in the way Hall and Hebdidge see as happening. The process they claim normalises a youth sub-cultural challenge is as follows. Firstly, Hebdidge argues that when a sub-culture develops, it picks up consumer items from “normal” society and attaches new meanings to them by acts of “bricolage” as Levi-Strauss (1966) defines this. However the consumer market is quick to latch on to a new fashion such as Punk in the mid to late 70s. The original meaning created by the sub-cultural innovators gets lost. Punk for example , became fashionable and trendy. Secondly, another way in which sub-cultural challenge to the symbolic order leads to it’s demise, is the playing down and trivialising of it by the media. For example showing a “Ted wedding” or “Punk family” which demonstrates they are normal really. Or , according to Barthes (1972) “alternatively the other (youth sub-culture) can be transformed into meaningless exotics, a pure object, a clown”. For example, members of a sub-culture can be labelled “beasts”, “animals” or “weirdoes”. This is what happened to “football hooligans” , where they were portrayed as “un-natural” by the press. Defining a group as “un-natural” maintains the hegenomic boundaries which have been challenged by a youth sub-culture (or any sub-culture). The counter resistance, challenges the original aims of the group and reason for being.
It is hard , however, to see in what way the 1970s Ted was normalised in the manner mentioned . Teddy Boys, have, I know, featured on certain “respectable” TV advertisements and in a way ridiculed. Showaddywaddy made Teds a “showpiece” before the 70s “moral panic” and after. However, the New Teds ideological structure remained in tact after Punk. In no way has it broken down (at time of writing-1988). Punk did, for a while, make crepe sole shoes and drape jackets “fashionable”. The New Teds, in a way, were glad because “gear “ could be obtained more easily. However, contrary to what Hebdidge thinks when he talks about Punk being made fashionable , such normalisation did not “presage the subcultures imminent demise “ (Hebdidge 1979 pp96) as far as New Teds were concerned. In short, when the New Teds became more popular thanks to punk, they didn’t lose their reason for being. Only some who joined on the bandwagon of fashion moved on to another bandwagon or became “adults” as opposed to “teenagers”.
A major problem with many of the sociological theories mentioned above, is that they talk about “resistance” yet fail to adequately explain why people choose to be Skinheads instead of Teds, mods instead of Rockers and so forth. All are members of the same class and some youth sub-cultures emerge at around the same time. It can be argued that often “musical preferences” are a factor in determining which people join a particular group. Often such preferences are determined through the idea of “modernity” and “tanginess” but not in all cases (egg New Teds). Certain groups do seem to be linked to a type of music which often becomes part of its symbolic order. One has to like the music if one is to be part of the group in many cases. This factor and a groups politics may be the dominant routes of recruitment.
I did claim that New Teds and Skinheads came about at the same time. My research on the New Teds seems to show that in certain ways, they are very much like the Skinheads. Both have values of “hardness” and “toughness”. Both expressed traditional “machismo”. However, there are major differences between the two sub-cultures. The New Teds are “conservative” ideologically but not in the same way as Skinheads. Clarke (1976) argued that the Skinheads developed a style which was an attempt to recreate a traditional working class community where there was an obvious decline of the latter . The “us and them” attitude referred to the more traditional enemies of the working class i.e. bosses, those in authority and so forth. These enemies were, in a way, the same enemies of their parents and grandparents. They were “hard”, “tough” men in the same way. The Skinheads were territorial and protective regards their gangs and hostile towards outsiders, just like the old working class communities. This was Skinhead “conservatism”.
In contrast to Skinheads, the New Teds were in search of an “ideal” which never existed. The 50s that the New Teds wanted was the 50s depicted through films, folklore as well as music . Tough “hard” men they wanted to be , just like Skinheads. However, the traditional tones of the Skinhead movement were absent among the New Teds regards the “enemy”. The New Teds were aware of the exploitative nature of Capitalist enterprise and the gullibility of working class youths as regards their consumption of commodities (following the latest fashion etc). But what they wanted was a millenarian -like return of a half truth i.e. the myth of 50s youth culture and original Teds, not the magical return of a class and community solidarity. Territoriality for the New Teds was in regard to music, gear and their meanings. The misuse of such goods, the application of “new meanings” to them are seen as blasphemy and trespass by the New Teds. Blasphemy and trespass to Skinheads are bowing down to the bosses and the appearance of black and brown faces in their (physical) neighbourhood.
I wish to argue that those who subscribe to sub-cultural theories of youth can fall victim to theoretical blinkering as regards “revivalist” movements such as the New Teds. What I mean is that one cannot understand a “revival” of a youth subculture without looking at why that particular is chosen and whether the beliefs as regards that youth sub-culture are mythical or real. The hegenomic climate at the time of a revival is important but cannot be the sole source of explanation. The “myth” that , somehow , the original Teds didn’t fall victims to manipulating record producers and marketeers (they did) cannot be explained by such “sub-cultural resistance theory”. Neither that the New Teds lasted 20 years (at time of writing 1988) with the same set of beliefs and norms.
It is not unrealistic to suggest that a major reason for the New Teds continuity is their stress on authenticity. By the time one could easily get a drape jacket, bootlace tie and such (i.e. late 70s) a Ted anti-commercialism had been well developed.
“Commercial teenagism” as an ideology was against everything the New Teds stood for. “Authenticity” was the major New Ted emphasis. On the other hand, if a group develops a “new style”, the fashion market soon latches onto it. The style would be defined as “teenage wear” and the new groups music would be defined as “teenage music”. This would not find any difficulties in being accepted by some youngsters brought up on “commercial teenagism”. The new meanings attached to a sub-cultural innovation would be in terms of “young” as opposed to “old” and “fashion” as opposed to “authenticity”. The old initial meanings will be lost once connotations of youth is attached to a style by society and the members of the new sub-culture themselves. The idea that one “grows out of a youth sub-culture” is left unchallenged. The members of a youth sub-culture will then grow out of it. Also it would not be long before another youth sub-culture would develop and young people, often from previous youth sub-cultures, will move into it because it is “new” as opposed to “old” or “fashionable” as opposed to “authentic”.
The New Teds, however, never followed the above patterns. The popularity of items of “Ted gear” was due to Punk, as mentioned earlier. The fashionable context in which drape jackets and beetle-crushers were to be worn was with chains, green hair, safety pins and so on. Plastic chains were sold to hang on drainpipe trousers. Beetle crushers were made for Punks not Teds. The New Teds only benefited because Punk was served by the “teenage market”. The context in which the New Teds wore their gear was still “authentic” as opposed to modern. Ted ideology was not really challenged. However Punk became fashionable and a teenage phenomenon. The later Punks were not ideologically the same as the initial Punk innovators. There are still some people around today (1988) wearing Punk-like gear and hairstyles but one never seas anyone over 30 wearing such a style. It is a “teenage” phenomenon in the chronological sense. It is still subject to “fashionable” modifications. Gone is the spitting, the Pogo and fights with New Teds (punks don’t wear their precious items anymore).
The New Teds are a smaller group than they were in the late 70s but ideologically, they have remained unchanged from the very early70s. The age range of the New Teds is between 14 and 40 years old (as in 1988). They do still wear much the same gear as they did 20 years ago. In fact, my research shows that the gear is believed to be closer to the very first Edwardian style worn in 1952. My findings do challenge, then, the sub-cultural theorists such as Hall, Hebdidge and Jefferson. I would have liked to look at some sociological accounts of Rockabillies as a youth sub-culture but there does not appear to have been any. The lack of detailed study of “Rockabillies” was probably due to the fact that no “moral panic” was brought about by a distinguishable Rockabilly movement. One thing that is clear, is that the New Teds did not just transform into Rockabillies as Cashmore (1984) assumes. I fear that his study, which involved interviewing people in dole queues , led him to interviewing Rockabillies who jumped onto the “fashion” bandwagon and New Teds in “casual” wear, which in many cases is Rockabilly style.
The “ideology of authenticity” among the New Teds has given them a sort of “cult” status, I believe. If we look now in 1989,we can see “Heavy Rockers”(Heavy Metal followers) looking very much like they did in the late 60s and early 70s as Cashmore himself point out (1984 pp37). Though this is only an outside observation, it may be the case that they have started to develop or are developing an “ideology of authenticity”. They seem to have re-appeared in the late 70s and are here today listening to the same style music. To discover whether they are developing an “anti -commercial” ethos would mean more research. Maybe they’ll end up as the same kind of group that the New Teds are.
My criticisms have largely been aimed at the sub-cultural resistance theorists. This tradition is dominant in British sociology as regards youth. They borrow from ideas such as Cohen’s “moral panic”. This concept is useful, I would argue, in that it can
Explain to a degree, how a youth culture can become more popular and labelled as a threat. It cannot be seen as the determinant of the New Teds ideology. It probably , however, helped cause the “plastic revolution” of the late 70s, though ,of course, the “teenage market ”would be involved also.
The New Teds are not like Abrams’s “teenage consumer” (Abrams 1959). The original Teds were very much so, after Rock and Roll came about and the notion of “teenager” found its way from the USA . The New Teds struggled to consume what they wanted in 1988 and in 1975 as I have shown. The emphasis in the teenage market is still on “new”, to a great degree. Commercial teenagism has only helped the New Teds in one way. It is teenagers that join their ranks. However the New Teds say that there is no maximum age at which one can become a Ted. Most of the New Teds I interviewed had been “in the gear” for over 8 years. I did ,however, have knowledge of more recent New Teds.
“The Teds will never die , so long as I am alive anyway” , said Kev, a Ted for 20years (featured in picture above from 1975 with your’s truly). This is the message I got from all my respondents. I was not thoroughly convinced until New Years Eve 1988, when I saw Melv (also pictured) , a Ted of 20 years being followed by two young Teds no more than 18 years old.
However, if further studies were to be made of the New Teds in the future, it would only happen if there was a further “moral panic” concerning them, it appears. No doubt we would get a good picture of the hegenomic climate of the times of such a moral panic, from ideological resistance theorists like Hall et al. This would still not give an accurate picture of the New Teds, I argue. No doubt such sociologists will mislead us by not resisting the blinkering of their own pet theories. Unfortunately, what I have read on other youth sub-cultures is placed in doubt, in some ways, following my research on the New Teds. I have taken for granted that most youth sub-cultures are transitory, because as far as I know, they have not continued for a long period of time as homogenous groups, unchanged by the forces of modernity. We must examine whether it is correct for all youth groups by more ethnography. Maybe then we will get a clearer picture, hopefully, undistorted as well.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABERLE, D, (1972) “A note on Relative Deprivation Theory as Applied to Millenarian and Other Cult Movements” in Reader in Comparative Religion”, ed Vogt pp527-31
ABRAMS, M. (1959) “The Teenage Consumer”, London: London Press Exchange.
BARTHES, R. (1972). “”The Rhetoric of The Image”, WPCS I, University of Birmingham, re-translated in S Heath (ed) . “Image, Music, Text”. Fontana (1977)
CASHMORE, E.(1984). “No Future”, Heineman Educational Books.
CLARKE J. (1976). “The Skinheads and The Magical Recovery of Working Class Community”, in Hall et al (eds “Resistance Through Rituals”, Hutchinson Press.
COHEN S. (1973) “Folk Devils and Moral Panics” , MacGibbon and Kee.
DAVIES B. (1976) . “Youth Cultures, Myths and Political Realities” in “Youth and Society”, No 16 (1976)
DOWNES, D. (1966) . “The Delinquent Solution”, Routledge and Keegan Paul taken from Frith, “The Sociology of Youth” in “Sociology New Directions” (ed) M Haralambos (1985)
FRITH, S. (1988) . “music For Pleasure”, Polity Press.
FRITH, S. (1985) . “The Sociology of Youth” in “Sociology New Directions” (ed) M. Haralambos, Causeway Press.
GRAMSCI, A. ref A BATES, “Gramsci and The Theory of Hegenomy” in “Journal of The History of Ideas” (1975) pp 351-67.
HALL, S. (1976). Ed . “ Resistance Through Rituals”, Hutchinson Press.
HEBDIDGE, D. (1979). “Sub-culture -The Meaning of Style”, Methuen & Co.
JEFFERSON, T. (1973). “ Cultural Responses of The Teds” in “ Resistance Through Rituals”, (1976) ed. Hall , Hutchinson Press
LEVI-STRAUSS, C. (1966). “The Savage Mind” , Widened & Nicholson.
ROGERS, D. (1982) . “Rock and Roll”, London. Routledge and Keegan Paul.
THE EVEINING SENTINAL, (Aug 1975). “Snags For The Teds”.
-------------------------------------------------
