In this essay, I will be examining the notion of what subculture means today as a contemporary cultural practice and theory. I endeavour to question in what ways and why subcultural practices have evolved and been reconceptualized in the last forty years, since the concept was first investigated in literature. British subcultural styles emanating from the pop and rock music scene will be at the heart of my enquiry. In the first half of this essay I will refer to the study of post-war youth subcultures seen in Dick Hebdige’s pioneering work, ‘Subculture: The Meaning of Style’ [1979], using this as a fundamental approach against which to plot forms of change. Some criticisms of Hebdige’s doctrine will also be acknowledged and analyzed. I will then focus on the retheorization of subculture as part of the post-modern world we live in today. By questioning the ways in which aspects of post-modern culture operate, such as the dissemination of music, we can examine how these notions of change within the theory have been affected. I will refer to David Muggleton and Rupert Weinzierl’s ‘The Post-Subcultures Reader’ [2003] as a more contemporary example with which to draw comparisons. Through the depiction of ‘emo’ style and culture, I will discuss the ways that this particular subcultural group manifests itself today and the ways in which it represents some of the developments that have occurred within subcultural theory since Hebdige’s inquiry. I will also examine how some of the core driving forces behind the emergence of subcultural groups have shifted; do political or anarchical beliefs still induce the urge to actively resist against a parent culture? Through the discussion of these changes in subcultural behaviour, I will pose the question: do we now live in a post-subcultural world? I will first summarize some of the features of subcultural theory outlined in the mid 1970s by those at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) in Birmingham. The hypotheses presented by the CCCS became the new orthodoxy on sociological youth culture in Britain. However, despite its acclaim, several have voiced criticisms of aspects of the theory since its publication. Arguably the most influential piece of literature on the subject was ‘Subculture: The Meaning of Style’, by Dick Hebdige, in which the focus lies on distinguished, specific and ‘authentic’ working-class subcultural youth identities such as punks, teddy boys and mods. Hebdige’s priorities lie in studying the moment of creativity when subcultures are formed and the aesthetics and style which symbolise their existence. He argues that the appropriation of subversive styles and visual symbols acts as a form of resistance against the mainstream or parent culture or as a means to problem solve; that these symbols are to be read as a text for interpretation. In the case of punks for instance, Hebdige suggests that the emergence of the insubordinate style within working-class youth was an attempt to regenerate a sense of community when their physical one (the re-development of the East End of London) was deconstructed [Clarke, 1997, p.175]. Although Hebdige offers a coherent elucidation of post-war youth subcultures in Britain, I agree with critics who argue that the focused nature of his theory constitutes a deficient study on the subject. His concentration on the spectacle of visual style within subculture results in a distinct lack of information regarding what individuals belonging to a subculture actually do; what do their lifestyles consist of? How loyal are their commitments? Another criticism of Hebdige’s inquiry is that the entity of the ‘mainstream’, the general public that subcultural groups resist against, is never truly dissected. We are presented with two seemingly divergent and detached parties; the subculture and the parent culture. Here, Hebdige portrays the distinct difference of the two in terms of style: “Ultimately, if nothing else, they [the ‘average man and woman in the street’] are expressive of ‘normality’ as opposed to ‘deviance’ (i.e. their relative invisibility, their appropriateness). However, the intentional communication is of a different order. It stands apart – a visible construction, a loade