Scooterists: Social Identity in Subcultural Groups An Ethnographic Study

Philipp Starkloff Department of Psychology, University of Exeter (UK)

INDEX

INDEX

2

ABSTRACT

3

1

INTRODUCTION

4

2

METHOD

2.1 3

10

Interviewing schedule and procedure ANALYSIS

3.1

10 13

Group formation and dissolution

13

3.1.1

Joining the group

13

3.1.2

Acceptance as a group member

18

3.1.3

Leaving the group

21

3.2

Reasons for staying in the group

23

3.2.1

Fun (having a laugh)

23

3.2.2

Recognition

26

3.2.3

Distinctiveness

28

3.3

Meaning of group identity

30

4

CONCLUSION

36

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

39

6

REFERENCES

40

Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

2

ABSTRACT The present study examines how scooterists use language to explain their scooterist identity. In a number of interviews, certain important issues have been identified and addressed, such as those pertaining to joining a group, acceptance as a member, in- and out-group categorisation and meaning of group identity. Using discourse analysis as an approach to examine the data, reasons for members to stay in the group are identified (i.e. fun, recognition, distinctiveness and social support). The importance of group processes is demonstrated through reasons given for staying in the group and the meaning of group identity in the construction of scooterists' social identity. It is stressed that social identity can mean more than self-categorisation, although self-categorisation is the major principle in identity construction.

Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

3

1

INTRODUCTION

Social Identity Theory (SIT), as the name suggests, defines social identity as the key to people's social behaviour. Tajfel, who introduced SIT in the late 70's, stresses the importance of group memberships for the individual. Individual behaviour can be understood as occurring on the continuum of two extremes. On the one hand, there is interpersonal behaviour, and the other is inter-group behaviour. Depending on the extent of identification, which is itself dependent on social context, individual behaviour can become identical with that of groups. If one is aware (cognitive component) of belonging to a group, and one feels attached to that group (emotional component), and one agrees with the group's goals (evaluative component), individual behaviour will be identical to that of other group members. "To put it differently: in order for large numbers of individuals to be able to hate or dislike, or to discriminate against other individuals, seen as belonging to a common social category, they must first have acquired a sense of belonging to groups (or social categories) which are clearly distinct from, and stand in certain relations to, those they hate, dislike or discriminate against." (Tajfel, 1978, p. 50) Self-Categorisation Theory (SCT) has developed the cognitive components of SIT, which are used by individuals to make sense of their social environment. SCT understands all cognitions as in some way being social (Turner et al., 1994). Our understanding of the physical world is based on social conventions of how to interpret what we perceive. Consequently, the cognitive process of the perception of social groups and physical categories is the same. We use categories to structure our environment into sensible groupings, which facilitates our understanding of the numerous individuals and objects in that environment. This process is identical to that of prototypical categorisation (Rosch, 1978). Perceptual units (groups) are clearly defined when there are few Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

4

intra-category differences, in contrast to many inter-category differences. SCT calls this process of stereotyping the meta-contrast-ratio ('X' is a member of the group 'Y' because they are all like 'X', thus 'X' is not a member of group 'Z' because they are all very different from 'Y'). It is important to realise that categorisation is not static, but dependent on social dynamics. Firstly, one has to have cognitive access (perceiver readiness) to a category, for example being a member of a certain group. Secondly, to use categories they must make sense. That means that on the one hand, they have to match with the real world (comparative fit), and on the other hand they must be meaningful to the individual (normative fit). The dynamic of Self-Categorisation ('I know who I am in contrast to others') is conceptualised in the salience of categories. In different situations, different categories become more or less important (salient). Salience is therefore dependent on the interaction of the individual and the social environment. When salience is high, for example, when one is offended because of one's nationality, the self becomes depersonalised. Depersonalisation results in perception and behaviour that is typical for that group ('we would never have done what they are doing to us'). SIT/SCT is a very powerful approach that has already lead to a better understanding of many group processes. However, most of the studies, applying SCT, try to investigate stereotypical, dichotomous groups like male/female, black/white, conservative/progressive, demonstrators/police, and so forth. Identity, in terms of SCT, is a kind of latent identity that needs contextual triggers (internal and external) to result in behaviour. Identity has more aspects than these cognitive processes, as defined by SCT, would allow. The emphasis of SCT is on universal processes, whereas specific differences of the nature of identity are often ignored. "Self-categorization theory can be criticised for being overly cognitive. While it addresses the way in which self arises in particular social contexts Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

5

(Turner et al., 1987; Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994) it does not look at the way in which social identities are actively deployed and presented in specific sets of social relations." (Reicher et al., 1995a, p. 192) Billig (1995) criticises SCT for treating groups (and the related identities) as being interchangeable. Especially when group membership (i.e. nationality) means a change in the life of group members over a long period of time, identity can mean more than is included in SCT. "The problem with Social Identity Theory, especially in its 'selfcategorization' variety, is that it flattens out different ways of representing the world. Identity is understood as an inner response to a motivational need. . The significant factor may not be how individuals categorize themselves, but how the category is categorised." (Billig, 1995 in press, chapter 4, p. 8) SCT tends not to differentiate between the nature of groups and categories. Belonging to overall categories like gender or race is treated similarly to belonging to real groups like nations, clubs or political parties. Identity varies not only over different situations, in which certain categories become salient, but also in the way we identify with a meaningful group. In their unsympathetic critique of SIT, Bornewasser and Bober (1987) argue from a 'Gestalt' point of view, that SIT understands groups only as the sum of its parts. Groups have more properties than their members. Categories are constructed out of what individuals (members) have in common. Hence, the distinctive group properties are not included in categories. Consequently, self-categorisation is regarded as inappropriate for real groups, because group identity means more than being similar to a class of people. The danger of this kind of 'Gestalt'argumentation, about the nature of groups, is that it mystifies groups in a LeBonian sense and does not answer, what group properties are (or how to identify them).

Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

6

Greenwood (1994) argues similarly that SIT/SCT, for example, tries to understand identity as identification (with a category). He distinguishes theoretically between intrinsically social groups (social collectives) and derivately social groups (aggregate groups). He regards the latter as not sufficient for achieving an identity, because one can not make moral careers as in structured social collectives. A lecturer can make a moral career in a psychological department (define the self in relation with students, colleagues and professors), which an unemployed lecturer can not do (because being unemployed only makes oneself a member of the aggregate group of unemployed people). Practically, social collectives and aggregate groups are interrelated, for example through processes of stereotyping. That means that the ability of making moral careers in social collectives is often dependent on "cognitive labelling based upon our membership of aggregate groups sharing socially significant properties" (Greenwood, 1994). Thus, identity is dependent on identification, but the two are not identical. "To be sure, our identities are social constructions, at least in the following respect: the moral orders that ground them are a constitutive product of arrangements, conventions and agreements within social collectives. Moreover, identities are socio-linguistic constructions, in the following respect: they emerge and are forged in historical time and cultural place through the social actions of persons and their moral commentaries upon them, and are maintained and sustained by the reproduction of such actions and commentaries." (Greenwood, 1994, p. 40/41) In real groups, we are actually able to make contact with all members (or at least a representative number). Real groups are rarely in a state of permanent intergroup conflict. If they are, conflicts have a specific historic background, in which an individual was probably personally involved. These real social dynamics are not sufficiently represented in the concept of categories. That is not to say that SCT and real groups are not compatible, and that there should be an arbitrary distinction between different kinds of groups. SCT helps us Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

7

to

understand

how

people

make

sense

of

their

social

environment.

Correspondingly, we have to look at how real people in real social groups categorise themselves and others. In doing this, we have to take certain significant group processes into account. Firstly, we have to look at how people join groups. Our position in the group is a matter of how long we have been in the group and how big our investment in the group is (e.g. time, work and emotions). Also, how the group reacts to what we are and how we behave. Our position in a group (not necessarily status) and the way we identify with the group are interrelated. Secondly, we have to ask what makes group members stay in those groups. Tajfel states that we stay in a group, when we enjoy being a member. The group has to give back something that the individual requires. Identity is dependent on how satisfied we are as a group member. Thirdly, we need to ask the question of what the group means for its members. Every group has some qualities in which it is different from other groups and these different qualities have a certain meaning to its members (probably not all members share the opinion on the importance of specific group characteristics). The meaning of a group can of course include reasons for joining and remaining in the group. Again, identity is dependent on the meaning of a group for its members. It is important to stress that these questions are not in theoretical contrast to SCT. In fact, SCT was used to address these questions in this study. As indicated above, these questions about real groups necessitate asking real people. Hence, their use of language has to be analysed. The combination of an ethnographic approach and discourse analysis allows us to look at the process of self-categorization in real life group situations. Despite the relevance of doing this, there have been very few attempts to utilise this approach (Reicher et al., 1995c). The group, chosen for this study, is of particular interest for our purposes, because scooterists are different from the groups which are usually studied. Scooterists use motor scooters as cult objects. There is a scooter scene in most European and in some other countries. In England, there is a national Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

8

organisation, a monthly magazine and between six and eight national rallies per year. The turn-out to these rallies is on average 2 - 3 000 scooterists. In the mid 80's, there were some 7 000 people in attendance. Most scooterists called themselves scooterboys/girls and most of them started from being mods during the mod-revival of the late 70's, early 80's. The mods are a British youth subculture which started in the 60's, best known for their seaside battles with rockers. They used their scooters as an expression of their 'smart' style. In several interviews, we asked scooterists how they became involved in the scooter scene. A number of questions were asked about the nature of the scooterist group, and the activities in the group. These addressed theoretical issues about the reasons for continuing as a group member and the meaning of the group for each individual member. Scooterists are a group with a unique history. They are different from other people not only because they ride scooters, but also because they have a distinctive style. During the past few years, the group has changed. It has become heterogeneous and open to all kinds of people. Many of the interviewed scooterists have been into scootering since they were in school. The group's history is also the history of its members. Scootering is their way of life.

Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

9

2

METHOD

This study is the main project of a European exchange course in the psychological department of the University of Exeter. The author is a postgraduate psychology student from Heidelberg, Germany. The methodology used in this study is qualitative, and includes an ethnographic approach of participant observation (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983). The author, who himself rides a scooter, joined the local scooterclub. The ethnographic approach included field notes and informal interviews with scooterists from the South West of England. Participant observation took place at weekly club meetings and some dozen discos or concerts, from October 1994 until May 1995. From January until March 1995, nine interviews were held with scooterclub members. These interviews were examined using discourse analysis (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). The approach, used in this study, is in so far different from common discourse analysis, as the category construction is dependent on psychological theorising about the investigated group. This is preferred to a content dependent category construction, in so far, as it allows addressing questions that are of theoretical interest for social psychologists. There could be two main effects on the study caused by fact that the author is German and not a native speaker. Firstly, club members were interested in introducing the British scooter scene, thus access to the group was considerably easier. Secondly, especially in view of the discourse analysis (interviews), there are some problems related to the language limitations of the author.

2.1

Interviewing schedule and procedure

The interviewees were members of scooterclubs from Exeter (9), Exmouth (3) and Poole (1). Ten interviewees were male, three female; aged between 20 and 33. The location of the interviews was either at the interviewee's home (6), at the author's home (2) or at a club meeting (1). All scooterists, who were asked to Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

10

participate in this study, voluntarily agreed to be interviewed and gave the consent for these to be recorded on tape. They were also informed about the aims of this study and were shown the questionnaire outline on request. Preliminary results from the ethnographic background study were fed back into the design of the questionnaire outline. Questions were open and not preformulated. In other words, interviewees could expand questions at length and could introduce their own issues. The interviewer then took up this information to feed-back into the interview in the form of more probing. In consequence, the order of questions varied, contingent upon interviewees leading over to certain issues. From all interviews, eight interviews were recorded on audio-tape (the tape recorder failed to record in one of the interviews). The recorded interviews, which sum up to approximately five hours of tape, were fully transcribed. The transcripts were read several times and categories were constructed on the basis of recurrent themes that occurred in the interviews and theoretical issues in group psychology. After the first category construction, all transcripts were reread. While going through all the data again, if necessary, additional accounts from the interviews were copied into the existing categories. In some cases, it seemed necessary to revise initial categories, so that they matched the data better in theoretical terms. This, of course, included deleting unsatisfying accounts from these categories, and copying the accounts to categories according to their content. This procedure was repeated until the categories represented the data. Finally, there were three groups of analytic categories: 1) processes of group formation and dissolution (joining, leaving the group and acceptance as a group member); 2) reasons for group membership (fun, recognition, distinctiveness and social support) and 3) meaning of group identity (individuality/openness and difference from out-groups/distinctiveness). The analysis is divided according to these categories. Examples of accounts are presented to demonstrate for the reader how scooterists use language to define their identity. In the analysis of these accounts, we identify psychological principles Scooterists

(self-categorisation)

in

the

way

scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

discuss

specific 11

characteristics of their group. It is then looked at how the subjective meaning of the group influences scooterists’ sense of group identity.

Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

12

3

ANALYSIS

3.1

Group formation and dissolution

3.1.1 Joining the group The interviewees were asked how they became involved in the scooter scene. Many of them answered that they had been in a group of mods, before they actually owned a scooter. It is important to reflect that these accounts are retrospective and that the interviewees no longer identify themselves with mods. 1)

S7:

Hum - started all from - when I was at school: The mod revival, sort of tail end of the late 70's. To the beginning of the early 80's, I was at school and it was either you were a mod or a rocker. [mhmh] And I sort of got into the mod revival, Two-Tone, ska, it was all the bands at that time were all Two-Tone/ska coming out: Madness, Specials, Bad Manners, things like that.

The interviewee refers to the mod revival, which indicates that at the time he went to school, it was trendy to be a mod. He liked mod music and so he identified himself with mods. In general, there seems to be a choice of what style to identify with, but everyone is perceived as identifying with a particular style. For him, people who do not identify themselves with any group or style do not seem to exist. 2)

S8: Yeah. But uh - we called ourselves mod, but uh - I don't think, you'd sort of - in those days, anyone - you know - was a mod. If you caught on a pair of a - Doc Marten's or something - I dunno, it was just something - [mhmh] we were still young, then, you know. I:

So, it was a kind of a mod thing? But not really. =

S8: Yeah, we just thought of ourselves as mods. = I:

=More like parka and=

S8: Yeah, we was too young to really be [mhmh] - you know - seriously Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

13

into it. We never used to go on any rallies or anything like that, [mhmh] it was just like sort of running 'round the street, shouting: "We are the mods" and things like that, you know, just 'cos we've seen it on the film {Quadrophenia} and hahaha. I:

And how many were there?

S8: Hum - I sup- I had a group of friends, I suppose, when I was younger eight or nine, ten of us, somethin' like that. [mhmh] In this account, being a young mod is reflected in terms of what it means to be a scooterist, now. Obviously, the subjective meaning of mod changed. The reason for this change is based on understanding. When they identified themselves with mods, they thought of themselves as mods and they called themselves mods. What they did not do, was to understand what being a mod actually means. This lack of understanding is attributed to their young age. Real identity seems to be impossible without a deeper understanding. They only identified themselves with mods, but their personal identity was not mod (at least from the present perspective). They were "too young to really be seriously into it". Two things differentiated them from being seriously into it. On the one hand, they misinterpreted the mods, because they identified themselves with a wrong stereotype (i.e. wearing Doc Marten's and shouting "we are the mods"). On the other hand, they did not do, what is essential for the present identity as a scooterist (i.e. going to rallies). For all interviewees, the first rally was a significant experience which caused a change in identification. 3)

S7: (.) When I - let's say, after - after I'd done my first scooter rally. That was it - the thing, that you lost the parka, you started wearing moccasins or - or Doctor Marten shoes or boots or whatever [mhmh] and lightweight trousers, flight jacket, T-shirts, you know, you got your hair cut, [mhmh] you know and everyone, everyone just dropped the mod image and it was scooters, scooterists, skinheads - [mhmh] you know, more the= I:

=Do you know, why this happened?

Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

14

S7: I don't really know, but I think - why it happened for me, was 'cos - I outgrew mod, I thought was - it's childish. [mhmh] Sort of thing, I mean, I used to - I thought: "I'm gonna be a mod, I'm gonna be a mod, forever" - sort of thing, you know. I used to sit and strut 'round town in me parka - and all that. But this is - when I didn't have a scooter. [aha] And then, once you get on the road and you got a scooter and that and - you - you can't wear clean clothes and ride scooters and that 'cos you get dirty. No matter what the press says, like, you know, people ride scooters because they're clean and efficient. They're not. [mhmh, haha] Hum - you know - it's just the image. I mean, going back to it, it was - going back to it, you'd either a mod or a rocker, at school. [mhmh] And the rockers grew up and more became bikers and you are a mod, you get a scooter and so forth. But then, it progressed to scooterboys [mhmh] or scooterists, scootergirls. And the image was like a - hum - rocker image sort of thing, on a scooter, sort of thing, you know. [mhmh] The harder you gotta have looked: good. You know, on a scooter, [aha] you know, you gotta look good, you now. So, it was like, you - you've gone through a town, you - you've gotta look hard. [aha] You know, sort of thing. So, you dropped your parka and = I:

= Cool image? =

S7: = Chelsea boots and all this left in, for lightweights camouflage gear, Doctor Marten boots and that. So, [aha] you wanted people to be scared of you. I:

Ya?

S7: You know. [aha] So - I was - after the first scooter rally, I went on with all me clean - you know - stay-press trousers and me Fred Perry shirt and that and I - after the first scooter rally, came back dirty and smelly. I thought: "Why do I bother?" like, you know. Bought myself a pair of boots, got me hair cut, flight jacket, lightweights and that was it. [mhmh] Another scooterist born, sort of thing. And - you still like the music. In this account, the interviewee is reflecting the change of identification. "Losing Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

15

the parka" stands for dropping the mod image. Again, him being a mod is perceived as a form of identification (not identity). Similar to account 2), scooterist 7 describes himself having misunderstood the meaning of mod. He just copied an image (e.g. the parka) and a motto ("gonna be mod forever"). Together with other mods, he joined the group of scooterboys ("everyone just dropped the mod image"). The change from mod to scooterboy happened suddenly after the rally, but it was not a loss of identification. Being mod is regarded as childish. Consequently, dropping the mod image was a natural process of growing up ("I outgrew mod", "you are a mod, you get a scooter", "it progressed to scooterboys or scooterists, scootergirls"). He describes this progress in comparison to a parallel process in the out-group ("rockers grew up and more became bikers"). Thus, mods were the necessary first stage for becoming scooterists. Therefore, they are not excluded completely from the ingroup ("and you still like the music"). It is important to realise that he treats all group identifications as being stereotypical. Scooterboys and even scooterists are described in stereotypical terms (dress code, common image). The interviewee summarises ironically: "another scooterist born sort of thing". From his present point of view, he was a stereotypical scooterist. In this sense (fitting in a stereotype), mods and scooterists/scooterboys were not very different. The next account is in many ways different to the ones above. The interviewee is younger and he joined the group 'only' four years ago. 4a) I:

Was it more by chance, =

S6: = Yeah, more by chance, yeah. = I:

= that it was a scooter? It could have been anything else?

S6: There wasn't anything connected with scooterists [O.K.] or scootery people, you know. It was just having our scooters, having being sixteen, being allowed on the road and ha- being free. And of course, there was the - the fact - hum - 'why a scooter?' - well, because it was - it was different from all the other - hum - motorbikes [mhmh] - hum Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

16

yeah, it was really different, it was unique, not - [mhmh] I didn't see many of them around. I didn't actually know about the scene or anything like that. Hum - I knew a little bit about it, but I didn't know anyone in it - so - hum - anything like that. And uh - from then, hum - I got get involved with - I guess xxx and xxx. [mhmh] And then xxx pulled me up on my scooter. There was a club and uh - we - you know, I went started going to them and - hum - that was I think - me and my friend, yeah - and he - he died away and uh - lost interest or did his own thing, although he still likes scooters. [mhmh] But he's doing his own thing now and uh - I'm still scootering - haha - around. (.) b)

I:

Great. So, there was a scooter club, already, and you met these people.

S6: Yeah, that's right. I:

What did you think about them?

S6: What did I think about 'em? Uh, it was - hum - genuine people. xxx and xxx were great. xxx was always willing to help me. I mean, he was there when I first stripped down my first engine and helping me - telling me about - you know - hints and stuff like that. He was a real genuine help, real kind - uh - guy. Hum - and I thought that was great, you know. And the same with all the other people that was - that were in it. I mean, [mhmh] they're all - you know - willing as - as I am now. And everyone's eager for someone else. = (.) c)

I:

= Was it like - hum - different to - to any other people, you've met, so far?

S6: Hum = I:

= Or was it like a big surprise to see scooterists?

S6: Hum - I don't know, really. Yeah, I suppose at first, it was. It was a surprise, because I was - hum - very naive. I didn't know it was - you know - happening. [mhmh] But that initial shock - yeah - I suppose, you know, you think - uh - especially when you go to a do and you think, 'oh, these people', you know, 'skinheads', you know, and you you think, 'cor, bloody hell', but you know, that uh - you get to realise, Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

17

you go to a first rally or whatever, everyone's like that. And you just everyone's together. Unlike the others, scooterist 6 was not looking to join a group. In the beginning, riding a scooter did not mean to be part of the group. In fact, he chose the scooter because this was an expression of individualism ("it was unique"). For him, joining the group was less a categorisation, than mutual friendship with the people in the group ("everyone's eager for someone else"). It was not the group image (stereotype) he first identified with. He takes quite long to reply to the question about his first stereotype of scooterists. In doing this, he explains that the image ("skinheads, bloody hell") did not prevent him from joining the group ("initial shock"). He accepted the group and its style ("everyone's like that", "everyone's together"). What he no longer accepts, is the out-group categorisation (i.e. skinhead) of in-group members.

3.1.2 Acceptance as a group member The in-group perception of the scootering scene has changed. An important characteristic of the in-group is its openness to different people. 5)

I:

So, you've got your group, like your local club. {talking about a biker club} You go to the=

S11: =Yeah, but the (Baldoff?) or whatever you go - in Le Mans, we used to go down to France - but you don't - they don't never really mix. [O.K.] You go on a scooter rally, there's only about 2,000 people there. [aha] You go in the do or in a pub and you end up talking to everybody, don't you. I mean, well not everybody, but I mean, more people speak, whether they're skinheads, psychobillies, what's left of the mods and anybody, you know. It's a lot better, friendlier atmosphere, isn't it. S12: Yeah. I can't see whether - well, 'cos I've never really been to any bike do's, but [mhmh] what I can see is, you don't have to be - you don't have to dress up in a certain way, you don't have to have the scooter= I:

= You don't? =

S12: = in a certain way, you can do what you want to, really. And [mhmh] no one really gives a toss, as long as it's got two wheels and you're Scooterists ©1996 Philipp Starkloff 18

there. S11: It's a scooter, haha. S12: Yeah, it's a scooter. I:

Yeah.

S12: That's what I like about it, no one really gives a damn. The interviewee (S11) takes a question about what he did in a biker club, to explain the differences of the bike and scooter scene. In self-categorisation terms, the switch from an intra-group level to an inter-group level is striking ("but you don't - they don't never really mix"). The inclusive "you" is suddenly swapped for an exclusive "they". In the following sentence, the inclusive "you" is applied to the scooterist in-group. The shared in-group characteristic is openness ("you end up talking to everybody"). Scooterist 12 picks up the argumentation and reinforces it. He changes the level of categorisation ("I've never been to any bike do's"). The tolerance towards different members is noticeable, no matter what group the scooter scene is compared with. On the other hand, he explains what the precondition for group acceptance is: accepting the group ("as long as it's got two wheels and you're there"). Everyone who wants to be a member of the group can become a member. Basically, there are only two differentiations between an out-group and an in-group member. The first is the fact of riding a scooter, and the second is to join group action (being there). As shown in account 3), scooter rallies are very important for scooterists. To be accepted as a scooterist, one has to ride to these rallies. 6)

S9: That's the whole idea, isn't it. You drive all those miles, get pissed, stay in a tent and drive home, because it's good. Haha. I mean, who else would do that? Haha, on a little scooter. Ha.

The interviewee summarises the meaning of scooter rallies into the shortest possible form. This is what differentiates the in-group from anyone else. Anyone who cannot understand and accept this simple message is an out-group Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

19

member. This means, that anyone who can identify with what she is saying, is an in-group member. To be an accepted in-group member, one has to go to a rally by scooter. 7)

I:

Is it important that you go there by scooter?

S9: Yes! Yeah, it is important. Me - O.K. - I've been to a rally in a car, before. But then, I - I still had my PK 50 then - hum - so I wasn't really gonna drive to Brighton. Haha, on a PK 50, it'd take me all year. Haha - so, yeah, we did go in the car. [mhmh] But it did feel awful. I was so embarrassed, because there was people around and they could tell you're a scooterist, 'cos like from what you were wearing and like you're thinking: "Oh God, they're looking at me. They're looking at me. I don't like this". But - you know - O.K., I've done it once and if you'd have to do it again, you'd have to do it again. But - going on a scooter, that's the part of it. That's the buzz you get when you get into a town like, you're on a scooter and like it's 'yeah', you know [mhmh] 'we've made it'. In this account, we can see that identity and categorisation are differentiated. At this particular rally, other scooterists (who got there by scooter) categorised her as an in-group member ("they could tell you're a scooterist, 'cos like from what you were wearing") but they did not perceive her as someone with a real scooterist identity. Probably not very many people knew that she did not come by scooter. But she did not feel accepted, because she could not feel at one with the group (she did not 'make it'), although she still categorised herself as a scooterist. There is a general acceptance for anyone who rides scooters, but there is still a dominant style (music, dress and scooter). 8)

I:

And is it dependent like what kind of clothes you wear and your position in the scene?

S6: No, not to me. Not at all. No, if you = I:

= And - people - like other people, other scooterists?

Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

20

S6: Hum - hum I:

What I mean, is - is like, if you look like a real scooterist, yeah=

S6: = Mhmh .= I:

= are you more accepted than - than people - like - who look more normal? Or?

S6: Hum - I expect so, for hum - for first. If I went to a - say - a different hum - hum - town, [mhmh] and said: "Look, I'm a scooterist" - hum "from so and so, I've been around, I've been done here, done there" hum - fair enough, if I was - if I was dressed in all the - all the gear, you know, the Paddy jacket {Paddy Smith is the designer of the rally patches}, the DM's and all the lot, they bound to - hum - accept me slightly better. On a personal level, the interviewee rejects a correlation between group status and prototypicality. He did not make this experience himself and he would not judge other scooterists only because of their outfit. The following questions suggest a group level for this process of stereotyping. Although, he admits that being stereotyped is possible, he makes the important distinction that this would only occur on a superficial level of interaction ("for first"). Categorisation, on the basis of looks, does happen. But this process of categorisation only happens during initial interaction, and is then replaced by including people into the in-group who identify themselves with the in-group. For a scooterist identity, the style of dress, music and scooter are of minor importance.

3.1.3 Leaving the group Taking away the scooter from a scooterist means to take away his or her social identity. In addition, it is not easy for scooterists to understand why some scooterists suddenly give up their scooterist identity. 9)

I:

And you said, you can't imagine a life without scooters.

S5: No, not now. = S4: = No, not now. Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

21

S5: I couldn't imagine it. S4: I'd go to a scooter rally, if 100 people turned up. [mhmh] I'd still go. S5: There's been times at where I thought about giving it up. And then I thought, well I'd give it up, what else is there? = S4: =.what else is there? [mhmh] S5: There is nothing else going on - at all in Britain, that could be I:

Is this=

S5: =the same as it is on a scooter rally. It's just is= S4: =Yeah, because it affects your whole lifestyle: what you listen to, what holidays you have off, [mhmh] what you save up for and what keeps you going. [mhmh] Scooterist 5 compares scooterists (i.e. scooter rallies) with all other groups in Britain and she can not find any group that could be meaningful for her. At the moment, the scooterist group is the only group she wants to be a member of. When there was no scooter group, she would have to join another group. A life without any group membership is not even considered ("what else is there?"). A social life in form of a group member is a need for her, because without the group means action. There must be something "going on". As long as there is a scooter group ("if 100 members turned up"), scooterist 4 will be a member ("I'd still go"). He specifies what "going on" means for him: meaning of life. Without this group, his life would be meaningless. He would not know what to do and what for to do it. Without any group at all, there would be stagnation and there would not be a reason to do anything at all. Nevertheless, some scooterists have left the group. 10) S9: Well, friends have changed. Like some of them dropped out of the scene, got married and had kids. And more like - you move on, don't you. You're like into different gangs and stuff. 'Cause we used to go to all the rallies with all the Feniton lot. And we like sort of made our own little scooterclub, which were a load of rubbish, really. 'Cause there weren't proper scooterclubs like our scooterclub, ISCA scooter club. Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

22

[haha] Haha. And - ohm, I don't know, we just mess about. That was it. But it's better, now. It's better now, definitely. The usual way out of scootering is the shifting of responsibilities due to family life. People no longer have the time and the money to go to rallies. The family also provides a new meaning for life, a new identification ("you move on, don't you"). But she stresses that personal development does not necessarily qualify as a reason for leaving the group. The scooter scene has grown up with its members, and clubs are different today ("proper scooter clubs"). Another possibility for people to leave the in-group is that they become involved "into different gangs and stuff". The scooter scene is realistically perceived as not the only group which can provide an in-group identity. As analysed before, people seem to have a need for a social identity (family, different gangs). The option not to identify oneself with any group at all is not mentioned. Group identity and personal meaning of life seem to be identical.

3.2

Reasons for staying in the group

3.2.1 Fun (having a laugh) There are several reasons for people to stay in a group. We asked scooterists why they go to rallies to find out about what they personally get out of group activities. One of these reasons (and probably the most important one) is that they enjoy their time in the group. 11) I:

And - you - when you're at a rally, like - hum - so you met your friends from all over the country?

S7: Yeah. I:

And go from pub to pub?

S7: That's right. And get drunk. I:

Get drunk.

S7: Get drunk. I:

And go to the do?

S7: And get to the do and get even more drunk. Haha. Just to - just to Scooterists ©1996 Philipp Starkloff 23

enjoy yourself. [aha] Just to enjoy meself. I mean, you have a laugh. You talk about - I mean= I:

=What do you talk about?

S7: Old times. I:

Old times?

S7: Yeah, old times: "Do you remember so and so? And when his back wheel fell off? And going down the motorway and he sort of - you know, we got stopped by the police and we all got done and.", or whatever. Or do you remember, so and so broke down - or so and so did so and so at such a time - and just have a good laugh, like, you know. Just reminisce, really. [aha] Sort of - I mean, you don't know, what a rally is gonna be like, until you actually get there. I mean, but= I:

=So, every rally is a bit different?

S7: Every rally is different. But, the way, I look at it, it's what you make of a rally. [mhmh] I mean, I've always - I mean, there's some rallies, I've enjoyed more, than others. But it all depends on the people who you've been with, at the time. And, you know I:

So, it's not the rally itself? It's more you and your friends? How you get along? =

S7: =That's right, having a laugh. I go for myself - you know - I make a rally, what I want it to be. [aha] If - if I'm there, you know - I suppose, it's sort of - psychological - and I say to myself: "Right, I will enjoy myself, it will be a good rally!", you know, off I go and I will enjoy myself. You know, [mhmh] I'll do what I wanna do - you know - and to enjoy myself - [mhmh] and do what I wanna do. Scooterists enjoy enjoying themselves. This is not tautological, as there are other groups that enjoy behaviour that is not necessarily recognisable as enjoyment as such (e.g. trainspotters, chess clubs). The reason for going to a rally is fun. The quality of a rally depends on the fun a scooterist can have ("there's some rallies, I enjoyed more, than others"). An important condition to have fun is meeting friends ("it all depends on the people you've been with at the time"). Scooterist friends are those who share Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

24

experiences and who themselves try to have a good time ("just reminisce", "having a laugh"). He stresses that it is important to mentally prepare himself to have fun. Only when everyone has got this attitude, they will be able to have a laugh, no matter what happens ("got stopped by the police"). 12) I:

Do you also talk about work, about whatever problems?

S8: No, I don't think so. 'Cause I think= S9: = Work you leave at home. S8: Yeah, I think the rallies are = S9: = Yeah. = S8: = time for fun, isn't it. It's time for = S9: = Yeah, I always forget about that. When I go on a rally, it's a holiday. Well, I mean O.K., it lasts for a weekend, but it's a holiday and you can - [mhmh] not be someone different, but you can just forget about everything - and just totally enjoy yourself. Everyone who goes to a rally should only be there for enjoyment. In other words, everything, that is not fun, is excluded ("work you leave at home"). A rally is all what boring everyday life is not. What a scooterist does in his or her normal life is irrelevant ("forget about everything"). At a rally, the scooterist is independent ("do what you wanna do", account 11). Forgetting everyday life is necessary for this feeling of independence, which is itself necessary for enjoying oneself. 13) S6: (.) You're just - free. Ya? you - there's no tie downs, [aha] you have a tent. You can pitch over here, you can pitch over there. [aha] It doesn't matter. You know, it's just= I:

=No parents, who watch you.

S6: Hum - it's not so much the parents. That as well, I mean - of course, I you know - acting slightly differently, because your parents aren't there, you know. Hum - just - I know, letting yourself go, letting your hair down. The scooterist can have an experience which is simply impossible in his normal social environment ("letting yourself go, letting your hair down"). This is a Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

25

significant experience, which is repressed in scooterists' everyday social life. However, this experience has become part of them. It is not unnatural behaviour, unrelated to the self ("acting slightly different"; "not be someone different", account 12). Although, this behaviour (i.e. having a laugh) usually does not lead to collective behaviour against an out-group, it is comparable to what Reicher et al. (1995a) explain in the social identity model of deindividuation (SIDE): "crowd action should be the one place where groups can express their full understanding of the world without having to censor themselves for fear of others" (p. 192).

3.2.2 Recognition Group membership has consequences for self-esteem. Self-categorisation means to define oneself in terms of social groups. That also implies, that others categorise an individual as a member of a certain group. When other people feedback their categorisation to the individual, the individual feels recognised. First of all, the individual is recognised by other in-group members. That gives the individual a feeling of belonging to this group. 14) I:

Are these friends important? Or, well they are - of course, but=

S1: =Yeah. Friends are really important, really. Hum - I'm quite well known in the South-West. [mhmh] Ahh - well, in all the areas: Oxford, all along the South coast, down to Cornwall, up around here, hum most people call me by my nick-name, which is xxx [mhmh]. Hum - hum other people call me by my surname, which is xxx. On the one hand, there is friendship with other group members. On the other hand, there is recognition from the group as a whole. Even those scooterists who do not actually belong to his circle of friends know his name. The people from the local area gave him a nick-name. Having a nick-name relates him to the group. Other in-group members call him by his surname, because they have a different relation to him. He describes himself as being well known in the South-West. Being known means that he means something to other people. There is a relation between himself and other group members. These intra-group relations make him feel who he is. Social relations create his social identity. Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

26

The way to achieve a position in the group and to be recognised is through riding the scooter. 15) S1: (.) in our club, we've got a point system - [mhmh] - if you go to so many rallies a year, you'll get awarded a trophy, or [=oh, really] certificate with uh 'Doing' as many rallies as possible means gaining attention from other club members (i.e. trophy). At each rally, the scooterist can buy a run patch (usually designed by and called after Paddy Smith). These patches are usually sewn on a denim or flight jacket, which is called 'Paddy jacket'. Wearing a 'Paddy jacket' means being recognised as an in-group member. Scooterists are, of course, recognised by riding a scooter. 16) I:

Do you show your bike - your scooter?

S2: Yeah, I show it all the time, you know. I:

What do you mean, 'all the time'?

S2: Well, you - you - hum - you build a custom bike or whatever, just to show off, really. [mhmh] And you - if you ride it through the town, you're showing off then. [mhmh] I:

So, you've got a custom bike [yeah] - or kind of?

S2: Hum - in bits at the moment. [haha] Hum - it's just (??) - this one's with all the mirrors and chrome on it. But I like anything. A customised scooter attracts attention ("just to show off"). Customising the scooter is mostly an in-group style. The show effect is dependent on people who are able to notice a customised scooter. A scooter rally is a place to show off the scooter. Scooterists will notice even slight differences from a standard scooter. There are also a number of customshows every year, where a committee gives awards for the best scooters. A scooterist on a scooter is also recognised by normal people ("ride it through the town"). The problem for scooterists is that normal people do not recognise Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

27

scooterists as scooterists, because they do not have a category for scooterists. 17) I:

Hem - do other people, like non-scooterists, hum - do they recognise you as a scooterist, when you wear these clothes?

S2: Hum - - nobody would recognise you as a scooterist. If - I suppose if you dressed up, they might recognise you as a skinhead or recognise you as a mod, but I'm not so sure as a scooterist. Scooterists are only recognised as being not normal and are categorised into a stereotype

of

a

subculture

(i.e.

mods,

skinheads).

They

might

feel

misunderstood, but on the other hand, they use subcultural styles (dress, music and scooter) to be recognised by normal people. Recognition from in-group and out-group members is important for the individual to feel integrated in the in-group structure and to feel who they are in contrast to out-group members. Consequently, recognition is a significant reason for staying a group member.

3.2.3 Distinctiveness On the one hand, the individual is stereotyped by out-group members. But on the other hand, being an in-group member also means to categorise others in terms of their membership of certain out-groups. The scooterist perceives her/himself as a member of the in-group and achieves a distinctive identity through comparison with other groups. Distinctiveness is a major reason for staying in the in-group. Scooterists are often categorised as mods (account 17). 18) I:

So, they try to understand?

S6: Yeah, basically. And I always try to = I:

= Do you - yeah - you try to explain?

S6: Yeah, I try to explain: "Uh, don't be so stupid, it's nothing like that anymore", no, no, it's all changed. Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

28

I:

Nothing - nothing like what?

S6: Like - like mirrors and - mocks hum - mod and rockers and things like this. No more - hum - retaliation or - you know, no anger between them, really. [mhmh] In fact, there’s a great deal of respect. You know, you ride on to a rally and you have a lot of bikers waving and being very sort of - yeah. I:

Uh, O.K. And - why do you not want to be seen as a mod?

S6: Seen as a mod? Because that's - that's - uh - why? Because that's not what it's about, now. That was the past, this is the future. [mhmh] That's - you know, that's in the past. I had nothing to do with the - the mod generation or anything like that. Hum He rejects being categorised as a mod, because for him, the meaning of mod and scooterist is completely different. Mod does not mean anything for him, except that he is often labelled as a mod. Normal people do not understand the distinction between mods and scooterists. He always tries to explain the differences between mods and scooterists. Explaining to people what scootering means is his way of presenting his group (and his identity) as being distinctive from others. Most bikers can distinguish between scooterists and mods. The reason why most normal people can not reach an understanding is because they are themselves very different from scooterists (and bikers also). 19) I:

Other people can't understand? =

S12: = and they say - you say to them you're going somewhere. And they think you're mad. And yet they're - they're still in that same place. Then next Monday, and you're telling what you've done and I tell you what they've done. And they've done every thing the same. The last year, the year before that, they're doing exactly the same thing. I:

Aha, but you - but you like you go out of Exeter or out of Honiton?

S12: Yeah, that's part of it: you get away from it for a couple of hours, days, or whatever. The reason why normal people can not understand scooterists is, because that would mean that they would realise their normality. In the eyes of a scooterist, Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

29

normal people lack courage in changing their way of life. Scooterists are active, they travel to different places, they have fun and they have a distinctive identity. Normal people, on the other hand, are perceived as being passive, boring and not having a distinctive identity. They do not know who they are, because they have nothing (no group) to refer to, except all the countless other normal people. People, who do not have a distinctive social identity, can not understand what they are missing. Categorising oneself as distinctive creates positive self-esteem and is therefore a reason for staying in the group which provides this distinctive identity.

3.3

Meaning of group identity

Scooterists describe their group as unique; it is different from all other groups. No common stereotype can characterise the group and its members. Basically, if scooterists were not different from other groups, there would be no need for the group to exist. Being different from out-groups becomes a meaning for group identity. The differences from other groups are expressed in a unique style. One of the most important differences from other groups, who themselves are different from the main out-group of ordinary people, is the openness of the ingroup. Individuality within the group becomes a meaning for group identity. These two meanings of scootering, being distinctive and individual, are interdependent

(scooterists

are

different

because

they

are

open).

In

consequence, distinctiveness and individuality can not be analysed separately. 20) I:

When you're at work, do people know that you're a scooterist?

S7: Well no, they - this is it, people say: "Oh, you're mod, aren't you?" And I say: "No". Oh yeah, but then they go: "Oh I remember so-and-so used to have and buy these and he used to have a parka and that", no, I'm not mod. And you sort of educate them "I'm not a mod, I ride a scooter, yeah, but I'm not a mod. I'm someone who wants to ride these scooters". And you know, people - someone said to me the other day, Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

30

when I said that I was goin' to Belgium, "Oh, that's gonna take you a couple of days at least, isn't it?" [ha] And I said: "Well, not really, a day". "Yeah, but you can't go on the motorway on those things, can you?" [haha] You know, and this is someone who rides a motorbike. You know, people sort of think we sort of do 50 mph and that's it like. People don't realise - you know - that's why I like them. I like scooters because people think that scooters are - you know - I do it 'cos it annoys other people - sort of thing. You know, I just, it's my own thing, it's my rebellious sort of side. [mhmh] I mean if I didn't ride a scooter, I'd probably have a motorbike chop sort of thing. But - or if it wasn't a motorbike, it'd be a car. [mhmh] And I had a car all suped up and done that sort of thing. But scooters is my sort of thing and that's it. 'Cos it goes back to my teenager years, it's what I really - that's what I made as a teenager sort of 14 - I mean, I had about four or five scooters when I was 14. [mhmh] And this is it, you know. It's totally to do with scooters. And for me, music doesn't come into it - really - 'cos it's a scooter thing. You ride the scooter to the rally, it is a scooter rally. It's not a music rally, it's not a music festival, is it? [aha] So the music thing - I mean, I've got a very wide taste of music, now - from what I used to have. [mhmh] I used to - you know - it would be Two-Tone, Jam and that would be about it, soul. But I mean, since then, I mean, my records - I have got Led Zeppelin to - you know - The Carpenters sort of thing. You know, it's - I just - do what I wanna do, now. Hum you know, I want people to sort of see me as I am and not what - you know, I've gotta fit in. I:

So, you've got kind of freedom?

S7: That's right. I don't wanna - I don't wanna sort of fit in with - you know Joe Bloggs down the road sort of thing. I mean, [mhmh] we're saying that we all go on the scooters and we all ride Vespas and Lambrettas sort of thing. It's weird= I:

But there's still some kind of style, isn't there?

S7: Yeah, that's right. I mean, it's - your individuality. [mhmh] I mean, you do - you put on your scooter, what you wanna put on. [mhmh] You know, you can do your scooter how you want it, you can spray it how Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

31

you want it, you can - hum - customise it how you want it. [mhmh] It's up to you personally. If you think it looks good, you're gonna do it. You don't care what everyone else thinks, [ya] you know. Hum - and that's the way I look at it, if I'm happy with it - that's alright. I mean, that green cutdown P2, I rode it to work [mhmh] and it's for nothing special, it get's me to work [ya] and back, you know. But it's a scooter. If I had the money, I had it sprayed and everything the way I want it. [mhmh] But I have to accept that the money isn't= I:

=But you wouldn't take a motorbike, because it's more comfortable?

S7: No. I:

For work?

S7: No. I:

No?

S7: No. In this discourse, there are various out-groups identified. In line with former accounts, the main out-group are ordinary people. The fact that normal people can not understand scooterists, and that they confuse them with other stereotypes, is used to demonstrate the individuality of scooterists. Any stereotype, even that of scooterists, is inappropriate for explaining what scootering means ("I want people to sort of see me as I am and not what - you know, I've gotta fit in"). In the next sentence, the interdependence of the group meaning individuality and distinctiveness becomes clear ("I don't wanna sort of fit in with - you know - Joe Bloggs down the road"). Individuality is not meant to be individuality on a personal level, but on a group level. This is essential for an understanding of this particular group: having a scooterist identity means to have a common identity of being different from all other groups (ordinary people, mods, bikers, skinheads) and a common identity of being individual. It is exactly this not-fitting-into-any-category ("it annoys other people") that makes the group as a whole unique, individualistic. Within the group, scooterists are able to express their personal individuality ("if you think it looks good, you're gonna do it"). In inter-group situations, being a scooterist reinforces the meaning of individuality, because this is how all scooterists are. Normal people can only realise the difference of scooterists from themselves, but they can not Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

32

differentiate individuals or distinctive groups. In turn, this categorisation makes a scooterist aware of the differences between scooterists and out-group. A major difference is individuality, which the out-group is not able to perceive in scooterists. On the other hand, scooterists do not perceive normal people (those who do not have a distinctive group identity) as individuals, because for them, normal people, on this dimension, are all the same. Individuality and social identity goes hand in hand. Other groups, which are also different from ordinary people, do not allow individuality in themselves. For this reason, these groups are not an alternative to the scooterist group. 21) I:

Are there groups, say like mods and=

S3: =Well you've got the mod scenes. It's like - there's two - there's two sort of mod organisations, between - friction between themselves. But that's - they're just hangin' on to like the 60's thing. You know what I mean? They just want the originality of what - what mod was, not was it is today. Well, they do - I'm not really even sure because I'm not really into the mod scene as such, you know. But they wanted some somehow to keep the 60's thing, you know. Just the mod thing, the whole - point of what mod was. Where as the scooter scene, it basically started from mod, but it just - kept growing, kept moving with the times. And to me, I think, scootering, if it - you know - if it survives, like it has done, it's - you just gotta keep moving with the times, all the time. You now, different styles and music don't matter. You know what I mean. May be you bring in some of these other types of newer scooters, they're bringin' out, which aren't accepted for the scene at the moment, but you might have to make it acceptable - to keep the scene going. The mod scene is described as dogmatic. Mods have to be like the stereotype of mods of the 60's. This narrow mindedness leads to a split within the mods. The specific reasons for the friction between mod organisations are not mentioned. For the interviewee, these reasons are not worth to be taken into consideration, because he is "not really into the mod scene as such". One reason why he is not Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

33

into the mod thing is that they make up a stereotype of originality. Different people have different interpretations of this originality and therefore they split up. Mods

are

categorised

as

an

out-group,

only

on

the

dimension

of

originality/individuality. If mods were open to new influences, they would be part of the in-group. Actually, scooterists were mods but they were open to new influences. The mods, who he excludes from the in-group, are those who life in the past ("what mod was, not what it is today"). Mods could have a meaning for him, if they would interpret themselves as mods in 1995. In fact, scooterists can identify with the new mod revival at the moment, which they call 'new wave mod revival' (bands like 'Blur' and 'Oasis'). Another group from which scooterists are different are bikers. 22) S11: (.) The scooter scene is a total fusion of cults, isn't it? It's like [mhmh] hum - all the - all the sub cults - I mean like punk, psychobilly, skinhead, mod - it's like all moulded together for once, isn't it. [mhmh] But the bike scene is just uh S12: You've got to be a black leather rider to do anything. You can't - [aha] you've actually got to have to listen to their music, and that's it. [ya] You can't - well, it's probably changing, now. Because like - we can ride a scooter to a bike do and you won't get someone smashing it up, because it's a scooter. Scooterist 11 states that scootering is a fusion of many subcultures. This stresses again the difference from normal people and at the same time the openness to individual styles. Other subcultures are accepted in their difference from being ordinary, but they are rejected when they do not allow individuality. Scooterist 12 explains how bikers interpret their culture. Identification for them means identification with a stereotype (black leather, music). In the following sentence, he becomes aware that this statement is a stereotype itself and he admits that not all bikers fit into this category. Bikers who are open (who would not smash scooters) are accepted.

Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

34

To conclude, the meaning of group identity for scooterists is that they are different from ordinary people and other subcultures, because they can express individuality in the group and only in the group.

Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

35

4

CONCLUSION

SCT has proven to be a powerful approach in studying this particular group. Scooterists use self-categorisation to construct (parts of) their social identity and to differentiate themselves from others. They mainly categorise others (and themselves) on the dimension of individuality. Groups with an individualistic identity are theoretically interesting. Categorisation becomes more complex when there is no concrete group stereotype. The theoretical consequences for collective behaviour of groups with an individualistic identity have been rarely discussed. How can group members' behaviour become uniform, when the group has no shared stereotype of itself? What does uniform behaviour then mean? In the analysis, we have demonstrated how scooterists categorise themselves in relation to their group identity. The social identity as a scooterist is dependent on several group processes. Scooterists differentiate their present identity from their past identification. The way scooterists are accepted as group members is important for the self definition of the group. When scooterists discuss the issue of leaving the group, we can see their personal involvement in group life. We have identified a number of reasons why scooterists do not leave their group. These reasons have been proven valid for what the group means for its members. Evidence is given for the importance of the hedonistic principle of having a good time with other group members. Part of being a group member means to be recognised as a member. Group members are also recognised by ordinary people as belonging to a subculture. This leads to a distinctive social identity from the out-group of ordinary people. The meaning of being a scooterist is that one is different from ordinary people and that one can express one's own individuality as a group member. Individuality, for scooterists, is perceived as only possible on a group level. Relevant other groups to scooterists are perceived as not permitting individuality. The interdependence of group processes, reasons for group membership and meaning of group identity, demonstrates the complexity of social identity. What is more, this study shows the importance of a social identity, as such. Scooterists Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

36

seem to have an intrinsic need for group membership. The subjective importance of group membership could be a reason why they also need a specific group that does not restrict their personality. Widdicombe and Wooffitt (1990) identified a different meaning for members of subcultures. In their study "'Being' Versus 'Doing' Punk", they found that authenticity was a major dimension for comparison and self-categorisation. Their interviewees stressed that members of out-group subcultures, and shallow ingroup members, only behave in group terms, but they lack an authentic identity. Authenticity, in this sense, is defined by a (fixed) set of attributes and attitudes. Not being authentic means only joining group behaviour and not being resistant to different fashions/cults. Our study could be called "'Doing' Versus 'Being' Scooterist'". For scooterists, authenticity (style) is less important than actually 'doing' the rallies. The difference in the findings of the two studies could be the difference between these subcultures. Another possibility for the nature of Widdicombe and Wooffitt's results is the methodology they used. They interviewed members of four subcultures (punks, rockers, gothics and hippies). Ethnographic methods were not used to study the meaning of any of these groups. The reason why they chose these interviewees was their membership of subcultures in general. "Respondents were initially selected on the basis of their appearance" (Widdicombe & Wooffitt, 1990). Interviewees were chosen because they looked like stereotypical members of subcultures. Furthermore, the subcultures these members represented also fitted the stereotype of subcultures. The interviews were informal (cans of lager as payment) and the locations were selected, where members of subcultures were known to be found (i.e. certain streets in London, rock festivals). The methodology emphasises issues of original style and political motivation. In consequence, these issues might be over represented in their data. The analysis identifies self-categorisation as the principle for identity construction. Social identity in this study was basically understood as differentiation between subcultural groups. The dimension for differentiation was the (stereotypical) meaning of the group. When analysts focus on stereotypes, they very likely will find stereotypes. If social psychology cuts out the complexity of specific social identities, and Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

37

concentrates only on processes of stereotypical self-categorisation, the perception of social groups will be a stereotypical one. Questions addressing stereotypes will be answered on a stereotypical level. This can also be seen in the scooterist interviews. What is more, questions addressing the individual scooterist did not lead to answers that were unconnected to the social group. Individuality and group identity are not theoretical contradictions, and should therefore not be treated as if they were.

Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

38

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the scooterclubs of Exeter and Exmouth for their openness towards social psychology. In particular, I would like to thank Steve Reicher, and the department of psychology, for their openness towards scooterists. Special thanks are to Marc Gant, who corrected all the transcripts, and to Louise Brown who corrected the write-up.

Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

39

6

REFERENCES

Baacke Dieter (1987): Jugend und Jugendkulturen: Darstellung und Deutung. Weinheim, München. Barnes, Richard (1979). Mods. London: Eel Pie Publishing. Batton, Christian (1995). Rollerjungs (Scooterboys). Recklinghausen: MottorettaVerlag. Bhavnani, Kum-Kum (1991). Talking Politics: A Psychological Framing for Views from Youth in Britain. Cambridge: University Press. Billig, M. (1995, in press). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage. Bornewasser, M. & Bober, J. (1987). Individual, Social Group and Inter-group Behaviour: Some Conceptual Remarks on the Social Identity Theory. In: European Journal of Social Psychology 17, 267-276. Brake, Mike (1979). The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth Subcultures: Sex and Drugs and Rock'n'Roll. London: Routledge. Brinckmann-Goebel, R. & Reinhard, H.G. (1989). Subcultural Style in Adolescence. In: Acta-Paedopsychiatrica 52(3), 217-231. Brown, Gareth (1989). Scooter Boys. Altrincham: GB Publications. Brown, Rupert (1988). Group Processes: Dynamics Within and Between Groups. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Cohen, Stanley (1987). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Greenwood, John D. (1994). A Sense of Identity: Prolegomena to a Social Theory of Personal Identity. In: Journal for the Social Behaviour 24(1), 2546. Hall, S. & Jefferson, T. (1976; 1993).

Resistance through rituals: Youth

Subculture in Post-War Britain. London: Routledge. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge. Hebdidge, Dick (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen. Hogg, Michael A. (1992). The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Humphries, Steven (1981). Hooligans or Rebels?: An Oral History of WorkingScooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

40

Class Childhood and Youth 1889 - 1939. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage. Reicher, S.D. & Levine, M. (1994). Deindividuation, Power Relations Between Groups and the Expression of Social Identity: The Effects of Visibility to the Out-Group. In: British Journal of Social Psychology 33, 145-163. Reicher, S.D.; Spears, R. & Postmes, T. (1995a). A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena. In: W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (eds.). European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 6., Chichester and New York: John Wiley & Sons. Reicher, S.D. (1995b). Three Dimensions of the Social Self. In: R. Wicklund & A. Oostermegel (1995). The Self in European and North American Culture. Amsterdam: Klumer. Reicher, S.D. & Hopkins, N. (1995c, in press). Seeking Influence Through Characterising Self-Categories: An Analysis of Anti-Abortionist Rhethoric. In: British Journal of Social Psychology. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In: Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B.B. (eds.): Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 27-48. Smith, David M. (1976). The Concept of Youth Culture: A Reevaluation. In: Youth and society 4, 347 ff Tajfel, Henri (ed., 1978). Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Inter-group Relations. London: Academic Press. Tanner, Julian (1978). New Directions for Subcultural Theory: An Analysis of British Working Class Youth Culture. In: Youth and society 4, 343 ff. Turner, J.C. & Giles, H. (eds., 1981). Inter-group Behaviour.

Oxford: Basil

Blackwell. Turner, J.C.; Hogg, M.A.; Oakes, P.J.; Reicher, S.D. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Turner, J.C.; Oakes, P.J.; Haslam, S.A. & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and Collective: Cognition and Social Context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20, 454-463 Wagner, U. & Zick, A. (1990). Psychologie der Intergruppenbeziehungen: Der 'Social Identity Approach'. In: Gruppendynamik 3, 319-330 Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

41

Widdicombe, S. & Wooffitt, R. (1990). 'Being' Versus 'Doing' Punk: On Achieving Authenticity as a Member. In: Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9(4), 257-277. Willis, Paul (1977). Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. Farnborough: Saxon House.

Scooterists

©1996 Philipp Starkloff

42